McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
Last post 03-30-2008, 11:06 AM by KGBMan. 23 replies.
-
 03-12-2008, 10:46 AM |
-
Egor
-
-
-
Joined on 08-24-2004
-
Atlanta (Georgia) USA
-
Posts 7,424
-
-
|
McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news/economy/tully_healthcare.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008031109
Why McCain has the best health-care plan
His is the only one of the candidate proposals that has a chance of getting medical costs under control. An argument for some free-market sanity.
By Shawn Tully, editor-at-large
(Fortune Magazine) -- Fellow Americans, choose your revolution. One way or another, we're getting a new health-care system. The old one is obviously broken. The U.S. now has 47 million uninsured, and costs are out of control. The Department of Health and Human Services predicts that if things continue as they are, health spending will almost double by 2017 to $4.3 trillion, or one-fifth of GDP, vs. 16% today.
The crisis has gotten so severe that fixing the system is no longer a partisan issue. Everyone understands that something has to change, and fast. In this presidential race, both sides are proposing radical fixes that would totally transform the way health care is delivered and paid for in America. Both the Democrats and the Republicans embrace the same goals: John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton are all putting forth ways of making health care affordable for every American and stopping a disastrous escalation in costs. Both sides also envision a world where employers play a much smaller role in medical benefits. The differences, of course, are in the way each candidate intends to reach those laudable goals. In essence, McCain wants to create a kind of national insurance market that shoves more decision-making power into the hands of consumers; the Democrats are aiming for a Medicare-like federal superprogram. (We'll stick with the "Democrat" label in this story. The nominee status was still unclear at presstime, and, intraparty sniping notwithstanding, the Clinton and Obama plans are extremely similar.)
So far, the press and public haven't paid much attention to the implications of these dueling visions. This stuff is complicated, and the most revolutionary provisions are buried deep in jargon-filled position papers. But parsing the plans is worth the work: This issue is crucial to America's economic future, and the differences between McCain and the Democrats are profound.
Who has the best plan? Both have huge flaws, but on balance McCain's is better.
McCain's main pillar is the elimination of a tax break that employees receive if their employer provides their health care. That may not sound like a shocker, but it is. The exclusion dates from World War II, when the federal government imposed controls on wages, but allowed companies to compete for workers by offering tax-free health benefits in lieu of pay. The law is largely responsible for the nightmarish patchwork of corporate-provided medical plans we enjoy so much today. Employees and their unions demanded richer and richer packages, and employers complied, since they could buy far more benefits for their employees than workers could buy with after-tax dollars on their own. Americans have paid a steep price, however, by sacrificing their raises as corporate insurance bills exploded, never more so than now.
McCain suggests that we junk all that. Say you're earning $100,000 a year and your company provides about $9,000 toward your $12,000 family premium, which is about average. Today you're taxed only on the $100,000. Under McCain's plan, you'd also pay on the $9,000. That could mean an extra $3,000 or so in federal taxes alone. To compensate for the extra levy, McCain would provide a $2,500 federal tax rebate for individuals and $5,000 per family, meaning a family would simply subtract $5,000 from its tax bill, the equivalent of a big cash payment.
Here's where it gets interesting. Employers would no longer be able to buy more health care with $9,000 of their employees' money than the workers could buy on their own. The raison d'être for corporate health benefits would vanish. Employers have another compelling reason to pass the ball to the employee: While wages are rising around 3% ayear, their health-care costs are growing at three times that rate. "I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years," says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers. Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.) So you'd have $6,000 after tax, plus the $5,000 family credit, to buy insurance. That's $11,000 in new cash that employees can set aside for health care.
So what types of policies would they buy? Employees (and their families) with corporate plans - about 150 million Americans - would probably rush toward high-deductible, low-premium insurance, and use what's left over to pay cash for routine procedures. They would couple those high-deductible policies with Health Savings Accounts, which allow families to put away up to $5,800 ayear, before taxes, for medical expenses. Those plans cost about $10,000. That's not a huge saving from the typical $12,000 corporate plan, but it's a start. More than four million Americans already have HSAs, and the McCain plan would make portable, high-deductible plans the product of choice for a new generation of healthcare consumers.
Besides eliminating the employer exclusion, McCain's plan boasts another nice feature. It would allow consumers to choose an insurance plan that suits their stage of life. If you're young and healthy, for example, you probably want the cheapest plan you can get. If you're 45 and have four dependents, maybe you want something a bit more expensive and generous. Nine states, including New York, California, and Texas already require that as many as 50 benefits be covered, a list that ranges from in vitro fertilization to mental health services to prescription drugs. These requirements increase the cost of insurance; they're a major reason young people have dropped their coverage. Under the McCain plan, insurers in any state would be free to offer the plans with a vast variety of deductibles, co-pays and benefits. UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans already provide a menu of packages tailored to groups as varied as Gen Xers and retirees.
The problem with McCain's approach - and it is a huge problem - is that McCain ventures so far toward total laissez-faire liberty that he risks leaving the poor and sick behind. Here's why. Perhaps his most drastic proposal is allowing the same insurance products to be sold across state lines. That seems to make sense, and maybe it does: Look what interstate banking has done for pricing and choice in financial services. But in health care, the upheaval would be so brutal that it scares even the most ardent free-marketer. Many states have some form of what policy wonks call "community rating." Under pure community rating, insurers must charge all customers the same premium no matter whether they're 20 or 55, or whether they have cancer or are models of good health. McCain is targeting community rating for good reason. It forces the young and healthy to pay far more than their actual cost by making them subsidize the elderly and sick. Like the mandated benefits, it's pushed millions of Americans in their 20s to drop their health insurance.
But under the McCain plan, states with no restrictions - Pennsylvania, for example - could sell policies for 25-year-olds that cost around $1,200 a year, one-third the price in New York. Young New Yorkers would drop their plans in favor of Pennsylvania providers, forcing New York insurers to jack up premiums for people in their 50s or early 60s, who need those rich, community-rated plans that cover as many procedures as possible - but who no longer benefit from the excessive premiums paid by the youngsters. It gets worse. Anyone with cancer, diabetes, or other pre-existing conditions will see their premiums multiply too.
To his credit, McCain does have a plan for relatively young, low-income Americans who can't afford insurance. "We would increase the tax credit according to income so that poor families could buy insurance," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's policy director. But McCain sorely lacks a plan for people in their 50s without corporate benefits, and Americans with pre-existing conditions, who would be brutally stripped of coverage if insurance crosses state lines. "For his plan to work, McCain has to tell us how he would deal with the old and sick," says Jon Gruber, an MIT economist. "If McCain doesn't tax the healthy to pay for pre-existing conditions, as happens under community rating, he has to tax the taxpayer. That means his plan will require huge subsidies he's not talking about."
NOW FOR THE DEMOCRATS. The core of their plan is a "pay or play" option for employers. Large companies would have the choice of either providing benefits for workers or dropping their coverage. If they chose the latter, they would pay a mandatory payroll tax to support a new government-administered system. That system would have two parts: a Medicare-like public program, and a menu of private options similar to the generous plans available to U.S. government employees today. Workers who are self-employed or lack insurance would go straight into one of these two options. Low-income Americans would receive federal subsidies to purchase the premiums.
In practice, the system would quickly swell the ranks of Americans with government-paid health care. Remember, health-care costs are rising far faster than wages, so companies have a strong incentive to pay the tax and erase that rapidly growing burden from the books. It's also likely that the government plan will offer better benefits than many, or perhaps most, corporate plans. In fact, the Democrats call for rich standard benefits packages based on the plan offered to federal employees. Those packages would have deductibles of just $300 and offer prescription drugs, mental health benefits, and "spinal manipulations" (i.e., chiropractic services), among a cornucopia of other benefits. As a result, the federal plan, potentially packed with new benefits pushed for by lobbyists for various medical specialties, will quickly cause an exodus from employer plans.
The standard benefits package isn't just a bad idea because it will substantially raise the cost to taxpayers. It will also make it virtually impossible for Americans to buy insurance tailored to their needs. Suppose you're one of those 25-year-olds. You probably don't want to spring for a full-blown plan that covers old-age diseases like Alzheimer's and would rather save some money and go with a low-premium, high-deductible plan. But the Democrat approach requires that any competing plans be "actuarily equivalent" (Clinton's term) to the federal employee plan - which translates as a generous minimum standard for health insurance. "With that mandate, you rule out high-deductible plans," says Gruber. "It would make it very difficult to design one that would qualify."
The Democrat proposals have some additional drawbacks. First, the Dems want to heavily regulate the insurance industry by limiting everything from profits to marketing expenses. If the earning power of insurers is determined by federal regulators, their pricing will be too, and thus they will evolve into the equivalent of public utilities. Would you rather have medical prices set by fiat or by nationwide market competition?
Second, the Democrat plan exacerbates the fundamental problem in the American health-care system, which is that no one has any incentive to care about price. (How much is that MRI center charging for your ankle scan? Who cares? Just hand over the $50 co-pay and never you mind.) Creating a huge new medical superstructure would shift far more spending to third-party providers, chiefly the federal government, giving consumers even less incentive to concern themselves with the price of an MRI - or any other service, from an elective wart-removal procedure to a life-saving heart bypass. "The Clinton and Obama plans would enormously increase total health-care spending, but disguise the extra costs by shifting them to taxpayers," says John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a research firm that does statistical modeling for health-care plans.
Despite all that, the Democrats' plan probably beats McCain's if you're scoring on political viability. Their program doesn't involve anything that smacks of a cut in benefits, and it's just easier to win with largesse.
But on economic merits, McCain wins. For all its problems, at least it puts the consumer in charge. Would that create a world where we're forced to dicker with heart surgeons? No. It will create a world where health care is treated as the precious resource that it is, rather than a costless entitlement; where nationwide competition pushes down the price of catastrophic care and consumers focus their attention and budgets on what's really crucial to their health. That's an important first step. The price of health care is never going to get under control until patients get what they deserve: the right to be customers too.
________________________________________ "Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский
|
|
-
-
| 03-13-2008, 3:16 AM |
-
gtSasha
-
-
-
Joined on 04-22-2002
-
USA
-
Posts 760
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
Say you're earning $100,000 a year and your company provides about $9,000 toward your $12,000 family premium, which is about average. Today you're taxed only on the $100,000. Under McCain's plan, you'd also pay on the $9,000. That could mean an extra $3,000 or so in federal taxes alone. To compensate for the extra levy, McCain would provide a $2,500 federal tax rebate for individuals and $5,000 per family, meaning a family would simply subtract $5,000 from its tax bill, the equivalent of a big cash payment.
Well, the 100K/year income is not very representative since the median income per family (as of 2006) is only 48,201/year. Furthermore, neither the article nor McCain's web site tell if this $5000 credit is refundable or non-refundable. Under the current tax rates a family earning 48K/year will owe about $8500 in federal income tax. Itemized deductions such as mortgage interest will easily push it down to below $5000. If the credit is non-refundable many families will actually get less.
"I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years," says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers. Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.)
Or they may decide to just drop prices. With the economy very likely in a recession labor market is not going to be very competitive while sales will be down.
So what types of policies would they buy? Employees (and their families) with corporate plans - about 150 million Americans - would probably rush toward high-deductible, low-premium insurance, and use what's left over to pay cash for routine procedures.
Rush toward high[$3000 to $10000]-deductable? When we have negative savings rate? When 40 to 60 percent of Americans carry a credit card balance? I will not be surprised if there is no rush.
The problem with McCain's approach - and it is a huge problem - is that McCain ventures so far toward total laissez-faire liberty that he risks leaving the poor and sick behind.
It's not just a huge problem, it's a dealbreaker.
But McCain sorely lacks a plan for people in their 50s without corporate benefits, and Americans with pre-existing conditions, who would be brutally stripped of coverage if insurance crosses state lines. "For his plan to work, McCain has to tell us how he would deal with the old and sick," says Jon Gruber, an MIT economist. "If McCain doesn't tax the healthy to pay for pre-existing conditions, as happens under community rating, he has to tax the taxpayer. That means his plan will require huge subsidies he's not talking about."
Actually he does talk about it.
Today some people work so they can get health insurance. Being group members they cannot be turned down, and because of their age and/or pre-existing conditions they cannot get coverage on their own. With employers no longer offering health insurance these people will require quite a bit "risk adjustment bonus" (read subsidy) from the state. Now guess where the state will get the money...
Unless my analysis are very flawed it appears that both the Republican and Democrat plans will cost a lot to the taxpayers. Arguably, the Republican plan will be cheaper to administer since it requires less government involvement.
Sasha ------------------- Work is a matter of taste. If you don't work you don't taste.
|
|
-
-
| 03-14-2008, 11:30 AM |
-
Egor
-
-
-
Joined on 08-24-2004
-
Atlanta (Georgia) USA
-
Posts 7,424
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
gtSasha -
I agree with most of your analysis, but like I said in the other topic, the system is flawed at its very foundation. Working within the framework we already have, there is really a very small number of options. I am leaning towards this one because it targets the problems in the foundation at least to an extent - costs must be controlled by free markets, otherwise they continue growing beyond what this country can afford regardless of methods of coverage. Naturally, this means people with lower incomes cannot get the same quality of care/coverage, but that is an evil that is not only necessary, but has always already been the case, and always will be to an extent. Even under universal, richer people will go to better hospitals, buy private coverage of better quality, etc. The size of this difference is ALWAYS going to come down to how much taxes we want to pay to take care of poor. What other source of money is there, if they can't pay for themselves?
At least in what McCain is suggesting targets costs. Thinking long-term, this makes covering the poor more affordable, and therefore - better coverage for the same money. Realistically we are never going to pay 50% income tax, and we can't always have budget deficits, so we want to get the best bang for the buck.
I am not inherently against universal coverage, this is a very difficult ethical issue for me. But its obvious - once the supply recognizes demand is not limited by customer affordability (as in medicare), they jack up costs, middlemen appear all over the place, money is wasted administratively at every step, and we keep covering it all regardless of circumstances? This just can't work in a universal sense, just look at the numbers even if the costs were eventually frozen by some sort of government regulation (the worst option of all). If 90% of the country can afford private coverage, what is the purpose of tax-funded universal coverage? We can barely take care of the 10% who can't, and should be focusing on solutions to that problem ONLY.
________________________________________ "Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский
|
|
-
| 03-14-2008, 2:46 PM |
-
Bagel Roll
-
-
-
Joined on 10-24-2007
-
Atlanta
-
Posts 487
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
McCain's plan definitely makes more sense to me, but OMG it's going to be soooo friggin chaotic. Can you imagine? I don't think I exaggerate if I say there are MILLIONS of private insurance companies out there already, and how many more will spring up to make a quick buck? I know that eventually the free market will put everything in its place as the companies compete with each other and the better ones will provide consumers with lower costs/better coverage, but getting there.... OMG! All the grime is going to surface, and until it's scooped up and out, a lot of people are going to get screwed. (Especially the ones who are naive and/or too lazy/ or simply unable to do any research).
Gou ni itte wa, gou ni shitagae.
|
|
-
| 03-14-2008, 7:14 PM |
-
maiscii
-
-
-
Joined on 02-20-2008
-
РОССИЯ
-
Posts 52
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
Ребята, Вы лучше подумайте над тем, что Венесуэла начала торговать чёрным золотом за евро, а не за доллары. Этот факт, как предзнаменование явного грядущего обвала доллара. Никакая конкуренция не поможет. Вам так не кажется?
Children, you think that Venezuela has started to trade in oil for euro, instead of for dollars is better. This fact, as an omen of an obvious future collapse of dollar. No competition will help. So it not seems to you?
Поэзия не терпит унижений Пусть это даже малая строка. Уж сотни лет нет в том сомнений. Поэта нет, а строчка на века!
|
|
-
| 03-25-2008, 3:48 PM |
-
Ribochka
-
-
-
Joined on 02-15-2008
-
Donetsk - Detroit - DC - FL - Marietta
-
Posts 24
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
OK! As an "industry insider" I can say that most health insurance carriers are already in the market place with the products outlined in this article. With Boomers aging and retiring early and many small businesses no longer able to afford group health insurance, the HSAs and HRAa are included in the long term plans for health insurance insutry.
Most people in this country think that medical costs are controlled by the health insurance companies; however, that is not the case. The following things drive the costs:
1 - Rapid improvements in medical technology. With so much new technology in healthcare, there are new emerging professions in bio-medicine and medical technology. All of these jobs are hard-to-fill. Hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are compeeting for the same group of people by constantly increasing compensation, which is translated to inclreased cost of care and drugs. The hospitals, doctors and drug companies need higher reimbursement from the insurance companies to cover these additional costs
2 - Insurance companies are constantly bombarded by requests from hospitals and drug companies to increase the companesation for services to insured population. Insurance companies have no choice. Because insurance companies pay more to doctors, hospitals and pharmacies for care and drugs, their profits are shrinking, and premiums are increasing
3- because premiums are increasing in double digit percentage points every year, smaller companies are no longer able o provide group health coverage to the employees as a benefit. This means that the amount of uninsured population is increasing exponentially every year
4-Hospitals are inclreasingly caring for larger numbers of uninsured patients, who are unable to pay for care. To cover this gap, hospitals approach insurance companies to re-negotiate their reimbursement rates. Insurance companies have little choice and evenrually reimbursement rates are inclreased. Insurance companies are passing the cost to consumers. As a result, more people loose insurance because their employer is not able to afford another premium increase.
5- Educated consumers (especiallt those in the $100,000+ income bracket) are demanding the latest drugs and procedures avialable. Hospitals have no choice but to purchase new technology and highly skilled work force. This brings us to point #1....
It is a vicious circle. There are significant holes in republican and democratic plans. In eother case it is more like putting band-aid on cancer... I am fully aware that in 5 years I will probably have to look for another job because my industry will probably sease to exist 
Остановите Землю!!! Я сойду!!!
|
|
-
| 03-25-2008, 5:12 PM |
-
KGBMan
-
-
-
Joined on 04-18-2002
-
Buford (Georgia) USA
-
Posts 12,993
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
 Ribochka:1 - Rapid improvements in medical technology. With so much new technology in healthcare, there are new emerging professions in bio-medicine and medical technology. All of these jobs are hard-to-fill. Hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are compeeting for the same group of people by constantly increasing compensation, which is translated to inclreased cost of care and drugs. The hospitals, doctors and drug companies need higher reimbursement from the insurance companies to cover these additional costs
That's a BS statement as technology get's cheaper when it's used more and more. Problem with personel is created by hospitals themselfs because they make it very hard for people from other industries to get a job there. You freaking have to have experience with their stupid systems...... This is partly due to same group of people being in charge and liking it, because they can constantly ask for more and more compensation ;) and being afraid of competion
Freaking bastards think it's so hard to learn their freaking toys, while most of them are old junk....
- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....
|
|
-
| 03-26-2008, 8:52 AM |
-
Ribochka
-
-
-
Joined on 02-15-2008
-
Donetsk - Detroit - DC - FL - Marietta
-
Posts 24
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
I appreciate your point; however, that is not always the case. Unlike computer technology, medical technology advances are NOT always cheaper and faster. The advances in medical technology usually target greater accruacy in test results, greater speed in getting the results and ability to diagnost health problems earlier.
Since you are obviousely not a clinical person, lets take an easy example... 5 years ago a woman could only find out that she is pregnant once her period was at least one week late. No tests were available to detect pregnancy prior to the 4th week. Currently there are multiple tests in the market place, which can detect pregnancy before a woman skips her period. The newer tests are focused on the early detection and greater accuracy. They are at least 1.5 times more costly than pregnancy tests, which detect after the 4th week. Just to check... you can do some research by visiting your local CVS/Walgreens 
To your point about jobs... Hospitals carry a HUGE amount of liability insurance because their normal business operations include dealing with people's health and lives. Of course they want people who have experience in THEIR systems!!! Would you want your parent/child/sibling to receive care in the hospital, which routinely hires people who are not familiar with heathcare protocols, systems and processes (not to mention state and federal regulations)? Unfotunately, in their business there is very little room for the "learning curve" of someone who comes from some other industry. There are lives at stake, and as a consumer, I WANT hospitals to hire ONLY expereiced people to work with complicated technologies and equipment... Additionally, they are bound by various healthcare legislative mandates and regulations, which REQUIRE for them to hire people with certain levels of experence in order to maintain their accreditations and licenses to proctice medicine...
Остановите Землю!!! Я сойду!!!
|
|
-
| 03-26-2008, 3:02 PM |
-
Bagel Roll
-
-
-
Joined on 10-24-2007
-
Atlanta
-
Posts 487
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
Ribochka, welcome to the forum. I am enjoying your comments, and in response to this particular thread, it's nice to have the "insider's" perspective.
I can attest to the statement about more expensive medical technology from a recent experience of getting corrective eye surgery. I could have gone with the regular "lasik" that they so heavily advertise (which did go down in price with increased usage) but I opted for a more expensive all laser procedure that was customed specifically to me, thereby decreasing recovery period and risk to virtually zero. I had 15/20 vision less than 24 hours later. 
Gou ni itte wa, gou ni shitagae.
|
|
-
| 03-26-2008, 8:59 PM |
-
Egor
-
-
-
Joined on 08-24-2004
-
Atlanta (Georgia) USA
-
Posts 7,424
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
I think when discussing medical costs, an insider perspective may be too close to see the big picture. I think the causes are strictly economic. Every service sold to the public is limited by how the costs influence demand. What happens internally, how much money is paid to the benefactors, spent on technologies, and otherwise thrown around internally, is the effect and not the cause. Medical care always had a historical competitive advantage in inflating its costs, because its demand is very stable - it is determined less by affordability and more by necessity. Obviously, required medical procedures are going to take place no matter what the cost, and everyone knows that. A number of overgrown, beurocratic, industries have cropped up around this fertile ground - there is enough money sucked up from the healthy population through insurance costs and taxes to keep them all thriving. Health Insurance industry among them. Basically money goes in, and less comes out. that's the business model. this, combined with removing the balance of supply/demand causes costs to skyrocket like crazy, until being without unsurance for a middle-class person is actually pretty stupid.. Maybe even about to become illegal 
We may think its bad now, but the real problem hasn't even unfolded yet. Whatever the method of funding these malignantly growing beurocracies is - tax-based if you are a democrat, or directly buying insurance if you are a republican, even employer contributions, no matter what the source - the numbers begin to actually cripple the economy.
________________________________________ "Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский
|
|
-
| 03-27-2008, 11:16 AM |
-
Ribochka
-
-
-
Joined on 02-15-2008
-
Donetsk - Detroit - DC - FL - Marietta
-
Posts 24
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
agree and agree  . The major issue is with the system in its core. The business model and funding structures have major flaws which cannot be fixed by any of the existing recommendations from either side of the political spectrum. Egor is correct, and unless the WHOLE THING is completely restructured, we are going to continue spinning out of control.
The other big factor o rapidly aging population. Just think: Even orking poor, who have lived their entie lives without access to health insurance and even basic healthcare will gain access upon turning 65 and becoming Medicare eligible. Boomers are aging and hospitals are feeling the strain. They do not have enough nurses and doctors to provide basic care. This is why nursing is one of the best occupations right now. Nursing programs in most colleges have waiting lists. Most hospitals hire RNs and LPNs with large sign-on bonuses and all kinds of extra perks...
Here is a real life example: I had a data processing clerk, who worked for me for several years. She is a single mom Hispanic woman raising three daughters working full time for $12/hr living in a not-so-nice neihborhood. Several years ago she decided to go back to school and get her nursing degree, which she did at a great sacrifice of her personal time. Since our company provides tuition reimburesment, she took full advantage of the benefit and graduated last year. She got a job offer within two weeks of graduation to work in a large MIAMI hospital making almost $60,000/yr. Her offer included a $5000 sign-on bonus. As someone mentioned in this topic, the median income for US families is somewhere in the 48,000/yr range - right? She is just a REGULAR NURSE and STRIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE!!! Can you imagine what a head nurse makes in the ICU?
Остановите Землю!!! Я сойду!!!
|
|
-
| 03-27-2008, 11:16 AM |
-
Ribochka
-
-
-
Joined on 02-15-2008
-
Donetsk - Detroit - DC - FL - Marietta
-
Posts 24
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
agree and agree . The major issue is with the system in its core. The business model and funding structures have major flaws which cannot be fixed by any of the existing recommendations from either side of the political spectrum. Egor is correct, and unless the WHOLE THING is completely restructured, we are going to continue spinning out of control.
The other big factor o rapidly aging population. Just think: Even orking poor, who have lived their entie lives without access to health insurance and even basic healthcare will gain access upon turning 65 and becoming Medicare eligible. Boomers are aging and hospitals are feeling the strain. They do not have enough nurses and doctors to provide basic care. This is why nursing is one of the best occupations right now. Nursing programs in most colleges have waiting lists. Most hospitals hire RNs and LPNs with large sign-on bonuses and all kinds of extra perks...
Here is a real life example: I had a data processing clerk, who worked for me for several years. She is a single mom Hispanic woman raising three daughters working full time for $12/hr living in a not-so-nice neihborhood. Several years ago she decided to go back to school and get her nursing degree, which she did at a great sacrifice of her personal time. Since our company provides tuition reimburesment, she took full advantage of the benefit and graduated last year. She got a job offer within two weeks of graduation to work in a large MIAMI hospital making almost $60,000/yr. Her offer included a $5000 sign-on bonus. As someone mentioned in this topic, the median income for US families is somewhere in the 48,000/yr range - right? She is just a REGULAR NURSE and STRIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE!!! Can you imagine what a head nurse makes in the ICU?
Остановите Землю!!! Я сойду!!!
|
|
-
| 03-27-2008, 11:42 AM |
-
mkgilstrap
-
-
-
Joined on 11-25-2006
-
(Georgia) USA
-
Posts 660
-
-
|
Re: McCain and Health Care - An argument for some free-market sanity
ribochka, I read your posts with great interest, Welcome.
I would like to point out that in the case of the more costly early detection of pregnancy test....
Why pay more to know 2-3 weeks earlier? What difference does it make to the woman? In the case of a healthy woman, the need to pay more for this test makes absolutely no sense to me in that the outcome of whether she is pregnant or not isn't changed one iota. Seems a waste of money to know something "earlier" that your gonna know soon enough.
IMHO
Make each day count to improve yourself and those around you
|
|
Page 1 of 2 (24 items)
1
|
