Hypnosis and National Health Care

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Laura E. Mirian on March 14, 2009 at 11:35pm

Hi Kathleen,

Thanks for your input into the discussion. I think it will take at least 3 years to get nationalized health care, if we get it. So I think alternative health care professionals should start investigatiing our future in the new paradigm. This is why I started this discussion to see what people are thinking and feeling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don on March 15, 2009 at 12:57am

Hi Laura,

Thanks for starting this discussion. There is so much misinformation out there that needs to be corrected if alternative healthcare providers are going to be included in a program of national health insurance. For example, only in England do the doctors work for the government. In the rest of the developed world, you keep your practice as it is, and simply submit your bills for reimbursement. And does anyone really believe that the present system in the United States actually meets people's needs ?

Here's what Bill Clinton had to say about national health care a few days ago when he was interviewed by Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Larry King Live:

*********
CNN Larry King Live
March 11, 2009
Bill Clinton on Health Care Reform

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN chief medical correspondent: Tonight, Bill Clinton exclusive on the nightmare that keeps 45 million Americans from seeing a doctor -- the health care disaster..

****

GUPTA: All right. Let's drill down specifically on something you said earlier. When it comes to sort of creating these silos of health care reform -- you have sort of single payers and more governmental involvement on one send -- one end, free market involvement solely on the other end. Single payer never has really caught traction politically. Is it politically unpalatable or is it a bad idea?

Bill CLINTON: Well, I think it's more politically unpalatable than it is a bad idea, because single payer is not socialized medicine. Canada has a single payer system and a private health care provider system. Our single payer systems are Medicare and Medicaid.

GUPTA: Sure.

CLINTON: And Medicare is quite popular.

The good thing about single payer is the administrative costs are quite low. We probably waste $200 billion a year between the insurance administrative costs, the doctors and other health care providers' administrative costs and employers' administrative costs in health care that we would not waste if we had any other country's system.

On the other hand, if you look at the experience of Germany, France, Japan -- that don't have pure single payer systems, they have more mixed systems -- their costs are actually slightly lower overall than Canada's. So there's something to be said for having a mixed system if you can get the administrative costs down, because then the systems have enough competition in them to try to restrain costs and it's not all up to the political bodies.

In Canada, because it's all financed through the government, it's more difficult sometimes for the politicians to say no than for just the regular management of the health care system to cut the costs.

So I think you can have a mixed system. If you look at the French system, which scores very high on every international measure...

GUPTA: Yes.

CLINTON: ....it's mostly publicly financed, but there's enough private in there that there's some tension that's creative and positive.

GUPTA: Do you think there is a degradation quality of care with a single payer system? Is that a concern? Should that be a concern?

CLINTON: Well there's no evidence of that in Canada that I'm aware of, except for excessive delays, which they always try to come to grips with. The British, you know, do have a completely government-run system, but they allow people who can afford it to get outside the system. And they've also started running hospitals almost like charter schools in America, that is, they have these trust hospitals that perform very well and therefore they're given more control over setting their priorities, specializing and cutting delays.

There are all kinds of different ways to do it. But first, you do have to cover everybody. And then you have to stop people from gaming the system. There's a lot of gaming going on now in the American system so that we spend more than anybody else and get loss for it.

I think that once you get the universal coverage, I think the health insurers then could play a more positive role than they do now, which is often involved in -- you know, they make a lot of money through saying no and sort of the inordinate paperwork burdens that are put on doctors and hospitals and other providers.

GUPTA: What is it about the insurance industry that you just brought up? They tried to scuttle the health care reform plan of '93. Now they're saying we also believe in universal health care. A politically tactile question, I guess, are you buying it? Do you think they're being honest?

CLINTON: I think some of them really do want it. Yes. If you look at their new organization, the person who heads it came out of a progressive background and favored, as a philosophical matter, coverage.

Secondly, I think they now understand that, in terms of the health of America and the well-being of our economy, we can't go on basically giving them more and more dollars every year -- the insurance industry -- and getting people sicker and sicker and leaving more and more people behind.

I mean look at all the healthcare problems. The child obesity problem, which is my obsession, is the most glaring manifestation of a system that treats sick people and doesn't keep people well. And that's one where, I think, by the way, we can get broad bipartisan support on trying to -- to do more on wellness. And that will save money.

I think the insurance industry realizes that they -- a lot of the smarter ones realize that they could kill the goose that laid the golden egg here, that America can no longer go on spending more money and getting less for it and having all this money go to them and that they can make a lot of money and do well by making us healthier at a more affordable price.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/11/lkl.01.html

Comment: Former President Bill Clinton makes two very important points here. (1) Single payer dramatically reduces administrative waste, and he implies that it would be popular, as is Medicare now. (2) The private insurers "make a lot of money through saying no," and "we can't go on basically giving them more and more dollars every year -- the insurance industry -- and getting people sicker and sicker and leaving more and more people behind." Single payer is good; private insurers are bad.

In contrast, his comments suggesting that private insurers could play a beneficial role in a system of universal coverage are not supported by the facts.

He says that private plans in other nations provide competition which helps to lower costs below that of Canada. Wrong. First, our experience with the Medicare Advantage plans demonstrates that competing private plans increase costs instead of decreasing them. Second, there are many factors that influence health care spending besides the structure of the financing system.

According to the OECD, "Whatever the role played in a health system, private health insurance has added to total health expenditure." According to the WHO, "Evidence shows that private sources of health care funding are often regressive and present financial barriers to access. They contribute little to efforts to contain costs and may actually encourage cost inflation." Spending in the nations cited by President Clinton would be even lower if they had a pure single payer system. (qotd 8/21/07)

As for his optimism for a beneficial role of private insurers in our future, he had to take that one from his wish list. It's been on all of our wish lists for decades. Isn't it time to quit wishing, accept the fact that they're incorrigible, and move on with our own single payer national health program?

Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pattie Freeman CH.t, MST on March 15, 2009 at 1:32am

Hopefully, we don't go nationalizing I think what is covered on regular insurance now would probably be the same and they would be picker on what is covered...just my thought!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henxy on March 15, 2009 at 2:27am

Eh?!
How does a government own 'your' labour if 'you' have a healthcare skill? (And all the other points you make after it about ownership). I think you have a very interesting interpretation of the facts!
The UK government doesn't own me: I can give 4 weeks' notice and I'm out. I decide when and where I work (it's called applying for the right job!) and if I don't like the conditions, I can leave and choose to work in many, many other places/disciplines.
I choose whether to use my medical knowledge outside the NHS, and it's given me an infinite amount of credibility as a hypnotherapist to know the physiology as well as the hypnotherapy angle.
It's not about ownership at all.
It costs between 4.5 and 6K (GBP) to keep one patient in our intensive care unit for 24 hours. Treatment decisions are made based on the patient's best interests, not the interest accruing in the hospital's coffers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Johnston on March 15, 2009 at 3:31am

I, too, hope we don't go to a nationalized system. All the other arguments aside, I don't trust the government to be frugal and efficient with handling money. I mean, look at the national debt, for example. Look at how the government has ballooned with all the programs and such.

And I'm not targeting any one particular administration or party, btw. Government expands under both parties, unfortunately.

And that's another reason I don't really want to see a nationalized system. Government should be as noninvasive as possible, and stay as small as it's able to be.

All that said, I agree that our current insurance system is not perfect and has a lot of room for improvement. I happen to believe it's still better than most other options in current use, but that's a matter of opinion. The main problem with insurance, imo (and this comes from having been trained as a life insurance agent, which includes health insurance training), is that insurance companies only make money if they DON'T PAY OUT.

You might think that that's a brilliant argument for nationalizing, but the problem will still be there; just "absorbed" by the government. And the government will also look to cut costs, in order to make the system pay for itself. That's when you get the long waiting lines and denial of new drugs, etc.

If there were an insurance paradigm that didn't require nonpayment of benefits for the companies to make money, things would be much better. What would that paradigm be? I have no idea.

Joshua

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com on March 15, 2009 at 9:55pm

Don, the mere mention of "it is going to mention outcomes research, but not in such a manner as to interfere in the freedom of the client-practitioner relationship." when specifically linked to a diagnosis, will surely be abused in the manor I suggested by payors (be they private of government). The outcome is a 100% chance that when outcomes are linked to a disorder, deviation form that modality will be met with denial of payment and I can say with 100% certainty, it will interfere with any client-therapist relationship with a third party payor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don on March 16, 2009 at 2:58am

Richard,

Even though the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association is largely a product of the Eastern liberal intelligentsia, there is no truth to the rumor that the DSM-V is going to contain a new diagnostic category entitled Delusional Disorder Conservative Type,. as a psychiatrist with whom I work humorously stated the other day. Whether or not its content will be abused, and by whom, is a separate battle which will have to be waged on its own terms, so back to the present discussion.

Would you give up your Medicare and your Social Security because the Government adopted these safety nets (which originally appeared as planks in the platform of the Socialist party) during the Depression? Americans are not concerned with "isms," but with what works. And in keeping with this pragmatic streak, we've had a mixed economy for generations now, so get over it. But there's still a lot going on that doesn't work.

This being the case, we need to return this discussion to the purpose for which it was originally begun. What would you actually DO about the current mess (besides denying it, that is)? And don't just say that that government is inherently evil, and that Obama is a bum, and that we're all a bunch of Socialists. Please tell us what you would DO to insure that alternative healthcare providers are included under the tent.

Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com on March 16, 2009 at 6:53am

I understood the joke, much like the Delisionally Dominating Persoanlity Disorder the feminists proposed in the DSM-4 workgroups to counder a geneder specific personality disorder.

You asked f I would give up Medicare and Scoial Security, and the answer is yes. Libertarian principles work better, www.lp.com But now we are into real issues, such as raising the SS age, will result in an entire class (black males) who do not have a life expectancy of that age paying into a system for the benefits of others. Believe it or not the system we had prior to 1930 worked well, a sense of personal responsibility, coupled with the suppor of family in tragic situations, and the reliegious and social community pulling up the rears. WHat are the churches doing now? Is anyone under age 45 collecting for St Judes, a joining Kiawanis, Knights of Columbus, etc???
WHen goverment assumed the role of the church and the community, non-goveremental community agencies died and the churches are morally bankrupt, and everyone looks to the goverment to provide a solution it is not prepared to do. But such as sytem as we have now, does insure to certain political parties lifelong constituncies, seeking a governmental village to do what real families did.

I will say no to universal health care, and gladly opt out of social security and medicare...
www.LP.org

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by the grumpy hypnotist on March 16, 2009 at 7:57am

I don't think there will be any impact at all. At least I hope not. I think practitioners who are currently unable to build successful practices are not going to be any more successful regardless of nationalization or eligibility for insurance or any other external factors. That is just wishful thinking that is driven by scarcity-based mentality ("If clients didn't have to pay out of pocket, then I'd be busier. People just can't afford it!").

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Johnston on March 16, 2009 at 8:11am

Would I give up Medicare and Social Security? I don't have a choice; the only choice I have is whether I claim the benefits or not. I can't choose whether to fund and support them or not. And it's been known for a long while that Social Security is bankrupt. By the time I get to retirement age, unless something drastic happens, I won't be *able* to claim my Social Security benefits because, well, they won't be there.

As for Medicare, again, I don't really have a choice on that. I'm not using it now and I don't plan on using it later, unless I really have no choice.

Would I give them up if I could? Yes. I'd much rather take the money that's gone into Social Security and invest it in the market. Especially now, when all the prices are so low! By the time I retire, the market will have recovered and my investments will be worth much more than Social Security would be, if it weren't bankrupt.

Oh, and the original discussion wasn't "What would you DO to ensure ... " It was "What do you think about the nationalizing of health insurance?" And that's what we've been discussing. ;)

Joshua

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathy Maxham on March 16, 2009 at 10:09am

I very much hope we revolutionize our health care system. The insurance companies have been practicing medicine for far too long. It's criminal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don on March 17, 2009 at 9:10am

Hi Joshua,

As far as Social Security and Medicare are concerned, I doubt if many people would join you in being willing to give them up. Social Security, for example, is commonly referred to as the "third rail" of American politics: touch it and you're dead. And does anyone really believe that this free-spending government will pull the rug out from under our fastest-growing demographic class by denying seniors their Social Security payments merely because the system is broke? If they can bail out General Motors and A.I.G., you can bet your beeper that they are going to bail out millions of angry, voting seniors when the time comes.

Regarding the course of the present discussion, we need to think about what we are going to do if we are going to influence the future direction of the brave new world which we find ourselves in, liberals and conservatives alike. I would like to start by asking our friends and colleagues from outside the U.S. who might happen to have been following this discussion, and any American readers who might be familiar with how things are handled in other nations, how are hypnosis practitioners (and perhaps other types of alternative healthcare providers) coping in other countries where national health programs are already in place?

Don

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page