Does anyone know how many people would be out of jobs if

[babylonsister]

the healthcare insurance industry was put out of business in favor of any other plan? And who would run any other plan?

Just asking, because these seem to be two issues no one has addressed, at all.

[Wapsie B]

1. What I would like to know is how the makeup of our hospitals compare to those in other countries?

What is the makeup of a hospital in Canada or France compared to a NYC hospital, comparing caregivers to white-collars? The hospitals I'm familiar with in the U.S. are protecting their administrative jobs at all costs to the detriment of those who actually see and care for patients. I know this isn't a direct answer. But this is one aspect of healthcare here that's not been touched on. Personally I think caregivers will be ok. There will be a place for MDs, Nurses, Technologists. But that's just my 2 cents. YMMV

[vaberella]

10. What do you mean the make up? I think I need a better explanation.

If it's things like nurses and doctors---they tend to be the same. However, the disparity occurs as to who offers the best money which causes problems. Doctors could go to school in Michigan but if Michigan is not meeting the demands or income that new doctors will need to pay off their student loans they'll go to larger states with larger incomes for health care. It's a major problem and a lot of the times it's the educational background. I think in France they have major rules and regs to being a doctor with rigorous studies.

[Wapsie B]

12. The size of the caregiving staff as opposed to the size of the administrative staff.

The latter being a source of rising costs in this country that seem to go ignored in many cases. Sure I've seen top-heavy facilities pare a select few middle managers but that has been the exception rather than the rule. I've talked to a number of physicians who've grown dismayed at the swelling of the administrative ranks in their hospitals. This is the elephant in the room the healthcare system seems determined to ignore.

[JamesA1102]

2. Why would anyone in the healthcare industry be put out of work

because there is a public option for healthcare? On what information is this premise based?

[babylonsister]

4. People have been yelling for single-payer. Who would be running

either new program if it's introduced?

Even public option. Who will oversee it?

I guess that's a dumb question given we don't know what the end result of this reform will be.

But I do think it's a question worth considering.

[JamesA1102]

6. But that's a question about administration not about

actual healthcare providers. You seem to be conflating the two.

[babylonsister]

9. They might just be intermingled if any kind of reform happens. nt

[JamesA1102]

13. Based on what? nt

[babylonsister]

15. If we get any kind of plan based on Medicare,

would that not involve gov't and insurance companies?

[JamesA1102]

17. But how would that cut back on Healthcare providers? nt

[kas125]

3. Don't you mean the insurance industry would be out of

business instead of the healthcare industry? Maybe I'm just not understanding your two questions...

[babylonsister]

5. Yes, thanks, and edited. nt

[vaberella]

7. I've addressed it in another post: No one would be out of work.

First off it would be a short run issue. The people who work in the private industry will be fired due to crowding out of the private insurance company and of course this would inadvertently affect Pharma's ---which will face their own unemployment issue.

However, those are short run. If there is a public option what will happen will be an increase in demand for workers in the public option field. This is to accommodate the amount of people who will be covered by health care. One of the major issues facing the health care industry is the fact that those in rural areas have no real access to health care. When everyone is covered facilities will be opening up everywhere. We'll be looking at health care centers and more hospitals opening up, this will also demand doctors such as surgeons, scientists, nurses, paramedics, and as far as more manual labor jobs. This would also force the government to have an R&D department---this would of course be flooded by those who used to work in the private insurance sector and Pharma sector.

In the long run out of work people from private insurance is very short lived by guaranteed pay and job security in the public sector through the public option. So all in all, what would happen is that there would just be more of a displacement of people from the private sector to the public sector to fit their job qualifications. Many private insurers and pharma's have administrative offices, the public option will as well. They have doctors---the public option will need more and seasoned doctors. They have scientists and they will be needed in the public option.

So rather than really unemployment it's displacement.

So it's not a big worry or should be.

The other plan, if it's the public option should be run by the government versus an external entity or one funded by the Government. The government should have a department sorted out just for this because it would ensure more oversight. I have problems with private entities or non-profit entities at times because they don't have to meet a lot of oversight or it's not regular enough.

[Aloha Spirit]

8. I don't know, but you know how airplanes board by rows? They should do that with the public option.

[fadedrose]

11. Why shouldn't the health insurance employees be affected?

Every other business in the US has been and I'm sure the health insurance employees didn't shed any tears over the unemployed from all other industries that have gone down.

Universal health care will create an immediate demand for more doctors, nurses, therapists, lab workers, aides, more computers, hospital equipment, more soft goods, more facilities, and more drugs will be needed.

People will have to be retrained from filling out insurance forms to taking blood pressure, temperatures, etc.

More jobs will come out of it than those lost by the health insurance people.

[leftstreet]

14. They can file for unemployment just like the autoworkers n/t

[Edith Ann]

16. staff

I work for a large national dialysis provider. The CEO made around 33 million last year (I was told). They are cutting the hands on staff to save labor costs, but no mention of any sacrifices for top management. That means that patients get less care and poorer outcomes while top management continues with business as usual. That is was usually happens in a recession, less care for the patients and no changes for top management.

With single payer, health insurance companies still sell a lot of insurance. If insurance companies took care of their clients and stopped their hugh profits they would still be rich. They tell you insurance premiums increase due to claims made and then you find out when the banking industry has problems, that they have been investing in Sub-prime mortgages. Where did they get that money? They got it through high premiums and denying care. My husband sells medicare supplements. They aren't paying this money out in high commissions. Agents are like medical staff, they are the line people who provide the service and they are the 1st to get cut.

I agree we need to solve this problem without putting large groups of people out of work.