I work in healthcare administration too. Honestly I think the only thing that will control costs is rationing the use of new technology, or eliminating the development of new technology.

Fifty years ago if you bumped your head you'd see the doc, have a family member observe you for a day. These days you'd go to the ER, be seen by several nurses and an ER specialist, then be sent for a scan at the cost of thousands and thousands of dollars.

What I'd love to see is diverting funds from some of the super-expensive care into health initiatives like making sure all children have access to vaccines and good primary care.

Another thing adding to the high cost of medical care,years ago I remember going to the Doctors for a chest xray and the nurse taking me down the Hall and they had their own machine and when it was over my cost for the xray was $10. Try getting an xray today and see how much it costs, here you have to get a doctor to get you an appointment at the hospital for the xray and they have a special technician to take the xray and then they send it off to get it read and then they send your doctor a report,total cost ??? I bet its more than 10 bucks.

Like numberlady, I worked in the healthcare industry...for a small medical clinic run by a group of physicians with a patient-first mentality. Eventually, the realities of managed care and consolidation forced them to make the difficult decision of negotiating a buyout by the big fish healthcare conglomerate. In the end, they wanted to preserve the patient and staff relationships which they valued.

From the perspective of the back office (insurance claim processing, billing, customer service), I observed how the industry changed. What used to be a fairly simple process evolved into a complex maze of rules and regulations. While managed care introduced some best practices, it did so at an expense. The healthcare dollar was getting tied into administrative functions. I, too, fought the good fight on behalf of honest and hard-working patients looking to reimburse their physician and, sometimes, hospital bills. They realized the value of the services rendered. Some were willing to pay out of pocket to maintain as a good will gesture to the physician.

To address the high cost of healthcare, the policymakers and deep thinkers on this subject should, first, analyze where that healthcare dollar is going. The value of competent administration is realized when it benefits the patient and allows the provider to offer the best possible options. Therein lies the heart of the matter. The solution may not be buried inside some monolithic system but in the actions that rational individuals make to serve their best interests.

More on this later...

Another Canadian weighing in.... I am self employed, and was recently given some idea of what my health care premiums for my family would cost in the USA , if i wanted my whole family covered. We figured it would be over $10 000 per year... While I pay income tax in Canada, I don't pay nearly that much for health care. moreover, I am guaranteed top notch care at any time from cradle to grave, regardless of my health history without having to sweat it.
It was also explained to me that if a member of your family had a known pre-existing condition, insurance companies might very well decide not to give them coverage! I believe this, because one canadian life insurance co. turned down my wife because of a childhood illness she had .

I will share with you all a story about my cousin who you can read about here. He learned he had cancer and went off to the 'Glades to "deal with it"When reading this article, what struck me immediately was the paragraph which said

"said his self-employed son couldn't afford insurance or a regular doctor. Instead, he visited walk-in clinics."

I have to ask myself how many peoole make this decision because they cannot afford insurance (or can't GET insurance) and don't want to burden their families.

Our health is the great equalizer. Sickness does not discriminate, and this is one of the few areas where, i believe, the citizenry has to band together and stand in solidarity. No insurance company would be prepared to cover the riskier people in society.
"But for the Grace of God go I"

Smok, the US system will cost more for the insurer because we make up profit margines not brought in by the Government insured, the uninsured, and illegal aliens.

I hate the costs as I would rather invest that money in retirement but I have little doubt that if the Government gets control of health care then US citizens will have to pay higher taxes and insurance premiums.

...

universal health care = higher taxes which the vast majority of Americans are not willing to pay. it also means that there is no real incentive for specialization and specialized care, which would have to be offset by increased expenditures to ensure medical research continues, which also means increased taxes

malpractice lawsuits definitely need to be capped

prescription drug costs, but in order to reduce the govt would have to subsidize pharm companies to offset R&D costs which also means higher taxes and i hate subsidies in the first place

someone has to pay it just a matter of the method of paying for it. until americans get over their hangup of reduced paychecks to fund socialized/universal medicine, then it will have to be directly paid or through higher insurance premiums.

...

really? let's offer one country that has socialized medicine that has the same or lower tax rates as the US, malpractice lawsuits and insurance premiums, etc as the US.

speaking about universal health coverage and refuting the points listed in the link you provided, let's just take the US govt's own form of universal coverage as an example, TRICARE. military medical coverage was actually decent before Ms. Clinton tried to test bed universal health care with the military. coverage decreased, choices decreased, and bureaucracy increased. this isn't bashing ms. clinton, it is simply a matter of fact.

i'm not sure what all is easily refutable from the link you provided, as it doesn't mention any real facts. the fact is, that in order to cover the costs as it stands today, either you pay higher insurance premiums, you get subsidies, or you pay higher taxes. if you cap lawsuits, you could reduce these costs by reducing malpractice insurance doctors and hospitals must pay, which is passed onto users. you could also start limiting the profiteering hospitals make on things like aspirin, etc.

subsidize big pharma?! LOL! don't we already do that thanks to the herds of lobbyists they have in washington? i mean, look at medicare part d... we could have driven down the prices but no! they let pharma name their price! no subsidizing going on there.

the billions they spend on commercials and nascar sponsorships? that can't be used for r&d instead of convincing people they need viagra?

i'm a bit past feeling sorry for drug companies in terms of needing r&d bucks.

i'd get into the venture capitalist story but that's depressing and i don't feel like talking about that right now.

LittleMissNoName and others will easily change their mind when it is too late.

Example: You need an operation that will help save your life. The Government does not approve the coverage and demands another procedure be completed first. You call your US Congressman on your own behalf and get his secretary. You HAVE to follow the Governments procedures or pay 100% out of pocket.

Now multiply that example by hundreds of thousands of people.

The fundamental question is: who would you rather control your health care; you or the Government?

Also, one last point: I am thoroughly convinced that nationalized health care WILL NOT be the end of insurance companies. Honest and decent wage earners will have to pay a substantial increase in taxes COUPLED WITH an insurance premium!!!! Why? This is America, If Government can get away with raking in trillions of dollars while excluding certain types of coverage THEN THEY WILL FOLLOW THROUGH! Don't believe me then ask senior citizens if they are happy with their SS benefits and their medicare coverage. Better yet, ask medical billers and those who call in prescriptions for patients if its easier to deal with a private insurance company or the Government.

One last question to ponder: Name the last piece of legislation that was passed by the US Congress that was in the best interests of the American public? You may have to go back years to name one.

...

As a person with a heart condition and having had heart surgery at age 16, I can say that I have never had a problem with my insurance company.

However, when insurance companies do screw up then they get sued. If the Federal Government screws up after we hand over our health care then do you honestly think you will be able to sue them?

This is a common misconception. Healthy living increases lifetime healthcare costs. Fat smokers die young - their healthcare costs nothing once they're dead. Healthy people live to a ripe old age, nickel & diming their way to higher lifetime healthcare costs. Healthy living is great, but it absolutely won't save money.


But there's a larger problem that nationalized healthcare will fail to solve, because it doesn't address it at all: the system is already running at maximum capacity, and increasing that capacity (if it's done) will be staggeringly expensive, with decade-plus lead times.

Every healthcare debate focuses on funding ... who's going to pay for what, should fees be capped, should insurance companies be taken out of the loop by a single-payer system, etc. This is all rearranging deck chairs on the demand side of the Titanic, while water pours in through a giant gaping hole on the supply side.

The fact is, there simply aren't enough hospitals, clinics, and doctors in the United States for everybody to get everything they need. To illustrate this with a concrete real-world example, the demand for joint replacement surgery is obviously going to skyrocket as the Boomers get older, but we're not training orthopedic surgeons at a rate fast enough to keep up with that demand. And whatever Hillarycare or Obamacare or McCaincare plan gets passed, it won't magically produce more orthopedic surgeons.

Perhaps we could build more medical schools and subsidize tuition? That's tough; it's a huge project to open a new medical school - they need facilities, faculty, and should have an affiliated teaching hospital. But wait, where will all those new med school graduates do their internships and residencies? The residency programs in the United States are already full, and you can't just train a surgeon or internist or other specialist at podunk community hospital ...

The elephant in the room is this: hospitals aren't empty because people can't pay for health care - they're FULL RIGHT NOW. My hospital is no exception - every day, every operating room is in use continuously from 7 AM to 5-6 PM, Monday through Friday, with elective cases being scheduled for Saturday and Sunday too.

Moving around bits of green paper with dead presidents printed on them in the name of insurance reform won't magically create additional capacity in the system. If "free" for everyone nationalized healthcare becomes a reality, get used to the idea of long waits for non-emergency services, and/or the reality of having your "health care provider" being a PA, nurse practitioner, or other midlevel instead of a doctor.

How exactly did that link disprove anything? It was just more opinion.

What I could see happening if universal health care was instituted is that people would end up paying higher taxes in addition to paying for private insurance to cover other needs as mentioned by another poster. Basically getting hit in the wallet twice.

But that isn't even my main issue. Just from a privacy perspective, I don't want the government knowing my health information. We have seen this time and time again in the United States where our civil liberties are slowly getting eroded. Why entrust a huge entity that essentially fears no one with such intimate information.

Heck, even the three presidential candidates had their passport information improperly accessed.

And let's take a look at some other federal programs. According to this article, Medicare and Social Security aren't looking to great in the next couple of decades.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 9007.story