I don't want a truly socialist healthcare system in the US, but I do think that we should realistically look into having a base level of socialized care. The way it is now, the only healthcare anyone receives on others dime is in emergency care, and is the most expensive sort of care to receive. I'm somewhat accident prone, big tree fall hard + more balls than brains = a few times in the ER for UCF08, and I've seen both sides of this issue enough to know that it would likely be in our benefit to not clog up expensive emergency room resources with those people who could be treated in an outpatient capacity.

Honestly, I don't know how we'd go about doing this, but I know that having an X-Ray and Doctor come see me to tell me that nothing was broken cost ~$2,000 whereas a broken wrist, complete with 2 follow-ups, multiple X-Rays, and cast cost under $500 at a local orthopedic clinic. We're paying the cost now, and anyone who says otherwise hasn't been to an emergency room.

(11-13-2012 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't want a truly socialist healthcare system in the US, but I do think that we should realistically look into having a base level of socialized care. The way it is now, the only healthcare anyone receives on others dime is in emergency care, and is the most expensive sort of care to receive. I'm somewhat accident prone, big tree fall hard + more balls than brains = a few times in the ER for UCF08, and I've seen both sides of this issue enough to know that it would likely be in our benefit to not clog up expensive emergency room resources with those people who could be treated in an outpatient capacity.
Honestly, I don't know how we'd go about doing this, but I know that having an X-Ray and Doctor come see me to tell me that nothing was broken cost ~$2,000 whereas a broken wrist, complete with 2 follow-ups, multiple X-Rays, and cast cost under $500 at a local orthopedic clinic. We're paying the cost now, and anyone who says otherwise hasn't been to an emergency room.

OK, first off, ER care is not really the most expensive care. In theory it ought to be the cheapest. You see a resident (or maybe even an intern or NP), there is no stand-alone facility, there is no dedicated equipment, you use hospital equipment that's often on down time. It makes no conceptual sense that ER care is that expensive. So why is it?

Simple. Insurance companies (and Medicare/Medicaid) are less likely to challenge something that is an "emergency," if enough ER bucks have to be written off then you get into a higher Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement category, and other artificial rules come into play. It becomes in the hospital's best economic interest to make ER care more expensive. So they allocate every form of overhead known to man to the ER. There are some truly amazing financial models out there for doing this.

I wouldn't mind having everything covered to an extent with people, who are able to, supplementing through private insurance. The basic coverage could cover most GP and Specialist visits, which hopefully will lead less people to the emergency rooms. For those who really can't afford private supplements, their coverage should be extended.

Quote:OK, first off, ER care is not really the most expensive care. In theory it ought to be the cheapest. You see a resident (or maybe even an intern or NP), there is no stand-alone facility, there is no dedicated equipment, you use hospital equipment that's often on down time. It makes no conceptual sense that ER care is that expensive. So why is it?

In theory it should absolutely not be the cheapest, having a 24 hour staffed massive building with the needed techs/diagnostic machines on the payroll that entire time is not efficient. They also have to have more specialists working, or at the very least on call, in case of true emergency situations. Not too mention, there is an increased cost to services when those are being taken up by non-emergency situations. In most outpatient cases one sees an NP or PA anyways, that's irrelevant, you just don't have to have the same amount of money spent on the overhead.

(11-13-2012 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't want a truly socialist healthcare system in the US, but I do think that we should realistically look into having a base level of socialized care.

This is how it works in Germany (I'm not from there, never been there, I'm sure I'll get some details wrong). Everyone gets a certain base level of free insurance from the government. If you have a high enough income, you are eligible to buy private insurance that is better than the public system. I'd be perfectly ok with this, provided that the public system provides enough basic coverage and also catastrophic coverage and also some assurances that the private system doesn't get run amok by profiteering. I am completely in favor of keeping the delivery system privatized.

(11-13-2012 09:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 09:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I look at it in a little different light. I do not believe that healthcare is a right or necessarily a role government must play. However, I do believe it is in a nation's interest to have a healthy populace to be a productive and innovative workforce. The question is how you balance those two viewpoints.

I'm not quite seeing how that differs from what I wrote. I balance the two by saying basic health care provided universally and paid for by government, with people free to supplement.

I was talking more about the right to access to healthcare comment in your post. I don't believe that anyone has a universal right to any service that another person provides. We get to the same conclusion; we just dont start at the same point.