http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.

htm

notes on pros of a united healthcare system pros: 1.Number of uninsured in US has grown to over 45 million 2.Health care has become unaffordable for businesses and individuals 3.Can develop a centralized national database which makes treatment and diagnosis easier for doctors 4.Professionals focus more on healing that insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. 5.People will not avoid preventive medicines or checkups because they will not cost outrageous prices 6.People will have an easier time starting a business or working part time with insurance being covered 7.Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get coverage Cons: 1.There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? 2."Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. 3.Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. 4.Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. 5.The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleaze that is already prevalent in other areas of government. 6.Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. 7.Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. 8.Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. 9.Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

10.In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment, nor pursue medical careers in general. 11.A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. 12.Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. 13.Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. 14.Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. 15.Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. 16.Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. 17.Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. 18.Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

About the Author Joe Messerli graduated from University of Wisconsin-Whitewater in '96 with degrees in Finance and Management Computer System. He has since accumulated over 240 college credits in various fields including psychology, history, law, medicine, economics, and accounting. He is the creator and author of almost all content on the balancedpolitics.org website, which has had over 10 million hits and has been online since 2003. He's worked as a technology consultant and database administrator for over 15 years and is certified in SQL Server, Visual Basic, Windows, Oracle, and other technologies. He currently works for National Audit, an auditor of major health insurance companies around the country including Humana, Cigna, United Health, Amerigroup, Horizon, and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/permissiontolive/2012/07/how-i-lost-my-fear-of-universal-healthcare.html How I lost my fear of Universal Health Care, July 9, 2012 By Melissa This article has a personal account of a woman, (Melissa) moving to Canada from America and experiencing the transition from private healthcare to universal health care. There is a lot of information about her concerns and feelings about going to universal healthcare. Her negative feelings soon turned to positive ones after living in Canada since 2008.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/universal-health-care-cost-trillion/

Universal Health Care May Cost $1.5 Trillion

The U.S. spends $2.4 trillion a year on health care, more than any other advanced country

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/101/16/2015.full Problem 1: Uninsured Principle 1: Universal Coverage Any viable plan for the future must be based on universal coverage, and the 2010 plan guarantees every American enrollment in a basic health plan of his or her choice (not necessarily a health maintenance organization). Like automobile insurance, healthcare coverage would be required. Family members could use different plans and change plans annually. Previously uninsured citizens would receive income-related payments (probably vouchers) to cover the cost of enrollment in a basic plan. Previous SectionNext Section Problem 2: Pure Government System not Acceptable Principle 2: Public-Private Partnership and Competition My proposal represents a public-private mix that Americans will prefer to a pure government system. Using the model of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, regional agencies would use quality and cost data to produce catalogs of approved plans. Private physicians, who could belong to multiple plans, would deliver care, and the private health plans would compete on quality and cost. National coverage guidelines, which would rely on public input and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, would be based on cost-effectiveness and other criteria. Most citizens health needs would be covered by the basic plan, but they could pay extra for supplemental coverage. Previous SectionNext Section Problem 3: Restriction in Choice of Health Care and Job Opportunities Principle 3: Alternative to Employer-Based Insurance: Individuals Can Choose Their own Health Insurance Todays employer-based insurance system restricts individuals choice of insurance, and many people are locked into jobs for fear of losing coverage. My proposal provides options for alternatives. (1) Employees could either accept job-based insurance or ask employers to send their portion of premiums to regional agencies that would provide an array of plans. Income-adjusted federal tax subsidies would cover the remainder of their premiums; families under 100% of the poverty line would receive full subsidies. Citizens would then arrange their own insurance the same way they arrange automobile insurance. (2) Employers with more than 10 employees could be required to either provide coverage or to pay the regional agency for each employee. (3) Employers would then get out of the healthcare business entirely, which would allow them to concentrate on business. They would pay the regional agencies the premiums. Previous SectionNext Section

Problem 4: Administrative Nightmares for Patients and Physicians Principle 4: Administrative Simplification: Access Past the Office, to the Doctor The 2010 plan simplifies the healthcare system. An electronic medical record with tight security would incorporate the physicians dictated (or written) notes into patients records. The software would also bill plans automatically using a fee-for-service system for physicians. This proposal also eliminates preapproval requirements. Using ACC/American Heart Association and other evidence-based guidelines as models (or even using the plans own best practice protocols), each plan would embed its own guidelines in patients electronic records. Instant feedback would be available. Payments to plans would also be simplified. Plans would receive from the regional agencies severityadjusted premiums representing the median costs for patients with specific conditions, as automatically downloaded from the electronic medical record. True-up adjustments would be made each quarter for new patients and patients no longer in the plan. Previous SectionNext Section Problem 5: Quality of Health Care Is not Consistently Measured, Reported, Understood, or Used in Decision-Making Principle 5: Quality Will Become Increasingly Important; Emphasis on Patient-Physician Relationship By 2010, patients will be able to create their own personalized report cards from the Internet; for those who cannot do it themselves, a new quality interpreter businesssimilar to H & R Blockwould flourish. In the next 10 years, outcomes for common conditions will be increasingly similar across plans. As a result, plans would compete on the basis of innovations in prevention and care. More important, they will compete on physician-patient relationships. Quality would be a 2-way street: healthy behavior could win patients lower co-payments or premiums. Previous Section

Problem 6: Financing Principle 6: New Expense for Uninsured Paid by Redirecting Current Revenue, New Revenue, and Increased Efficiency Guaranteeing basic health care for all will be expensive. Covering the uninsured would cost an estimated $88.6 billion in todays dollars.

Over the next 10 years, a number of possible ways of paying for the uninsured will become apparent. In the 2010 plan, 4 potential sources of revenue could more than cover the costs; some are more palatable than others. These include the following: 1. Federal and state governments already pay $23.5 billion for non-Medicaid services to the uninsured. 2. Even a two-thirds reduction in bad debt and charity care (currently spent on the uninsured) would save $17 billion. 3. Insurance premiums paid by employers with more than 10 employees that currently do not provide health care could fund $43.9 billion. 4. Automation, elimination of preapproval requirements, and other innovations could increase billing efficiency by 50% and could save insurers $27.2 billion, hospitals $17 billion, and physicians $6.9 billion. With the 2010 plan, patients would gain guaranteed coverage access, choice, and improved care; those with potential heart disease would particularly benefit from universal coverage because they would have access to preventive care. Businesses could concentrate on business, not benefits. Even those contributing toward employees coverage for the first time would benefit thanks to healthier employees. Insurers would benefit by receiving payments that are based on the severity of patients conditions. Physicians could spend time on patient care rather than administrative tasks. How do we get there? We can push for electronic medical records, severity-adjusted premiums, and the collection of data for evidence-based medicine; we can also help our patients recognize true quality. Most important, we can acknowledge the need for change in the system. Unless physicians get involved, we will have to live with the choices others make for us. We must do something. For more information, visit the ACC Web site at http://www.acc.org Copyright 2000 by American Heart Association http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/ government employees census information.