Socialised Healthcare

[JEROME DA GNOME]

"Can't afford" and "chooses not to" are two different things where I come from.
[/B]

She should have saved that $66,000 that she did not pay for insurance over the last 11 years. She was given $66,000 worth of insurance and is now stating that she needs more.

$16 dollars a day saved and she could afford the insurance today.

Do we have a right to examine her spending as she has taken so much from the system?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The mother stated in the TV interview that she always knew that the day would come that she would have to pay for insurance and decided to do nothing about it. She could have been saving for 11 years for this day which she knew was coming.

 

[Fitter]

Why do you assume that all their money is spent on food & shelter? It is a rare family that has money only for food & shelter.

But since these are necessities (more so than roads, sewer and fire protection) why are you not arguing that food & shelter should also be covered by the government?

Why are you assuming they spent money on movie nights and dining out? They may well have but nothing in the article gives that impression.

If you read the second sentence of my quote you will see that I am assuming nothing, merely questioning JdG's assumption.Perhaps you were raised in an environment where everyone had the money to take care of life's necessities but not everyone was. Sometimes tough choices have to be made and if it comes down to health insurance I may not need and food I can assure you food will win every time.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Perhaps you were raised in an environment where everyone had the money to take care of life's necessities but not everyone was. Sometimes tough choices have to be made and if it comes down to health insurance I may not need and food I can assure you food will win every time.

Well in the TV interview you see that some of those hard choices were to buy a computer and pay for internet instead of health insurance.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

More from mom:

i am sick and tired of people like you who sterotype people like me just by what you and not all of what is said...i was married for ten yrs to her father who now does nothing and who til this day has nothing to do with her.....i have have raised a very bright young lady whom i i'm proud to call my daughter.i don't want a hand or any freebies as i stated before....i am a tax payer and i work very hard to give my daughter what she needs....when i had her i was married to a soldier in the army needeless to say the ary didn't teach him much because he's been MIA out of her life for about 10yrs...my daughter and myself have beed each others rock when times got rough and still will continue to be....i am i good parent maybe not a rich one as far as money go be rich in love i am that's why i wanted her story told and heard.As a matter of fact im at work right now checking out all the feed back that has been said.So here's to you"SOMEONE" because it's people like you who are so quick to judge and i am only stronger because of you negative words.have a great day.
signed Arielle's mom
columbia,sc

Maybe Dad should be paying the bill and not the tax payers.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not the rich person, the person who choose to fund their health-care to a larger extent.

The person who could afford to fund their health care to a larger extent. Rich and poor are relative to each other. If one person can afford insurance, by definition they are rich relative to someone who cannot.

Should the government also provide everyone with life insurance?

What does that have to do with health care?

Imagine two people who are injured in a car accident. Prior to the accident one choose to buy health insurance (the poor one) and the other choose to buy porn, cheeseburgers, and sports cars (the rich one).

Why should taxes taken from the poor man that acted with responsibility be used to fund the lifestyle of the rich irresponsible person?

How would (s)he be funding his lifestyle? If it is a tax, both of them will have paid into the system.

Are you trying to assert most of the 45 million people who do not have health insurance in the US can afford it, but choose to spend the money on other non-essential items?

That the people in the US who need medical treatment, but because they are not insured (for whatever reason) or rich enough to pay directly don't get it, are getting their ‘just deserts’?

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Abe_the_Man
Here is a prime example of a situation where universal healthcare is definitely prefered.

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=57496

You are using an example of government insurance gone wrong to champion government insurance?



Why was the child on Medicaid in the first place?

Did her parents not buy insurance prior to the birth of their daughter?

Were her parents expecting their neighbors to pay for the health-care of their child?

This story looks like parental neglect, not a problem with private health-care.

Universal healthcare isn't medicaid.

From the story, it looks to me as if this is a one-parent family. From the photo, I can't see any evidence of conspicuous consumption (I can see one low-end microwave*) that could be cut back to pay for health insurance.

Even if that was the case, do private companies pay for dependents all through their lifetime? Or once you are no longer a dependent (maybe at 25, from some examples in the UK) do you need to find your own insurance?

How do you do that if you have a chronic medical problem?

There are other cases where people have been unable to afford medical care that would be provided in many other OECD countries. Including at least one regular poster on these forums.

*I suppose both women are wearing ear-rings, so cutting back on those might have made all the difference.




Tangent

The US spent more on public health than the UK (44.7% of 14.7%=6.6%) was public, as opposed to the UK's (83.4% of 7.7%=6.3%) of GDP Source:

OECD Health Data 2007 - Frequently Requested Data

I think this is a strong argument against the US system of medical care.

futhermore: OECD briefing notes (PDF here)

Resources in the health sector (human, physical)
Despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the United States, there are fewer physicians per
capita than in most other OECD countries. In 2005, the United States had 2.4 practising physicians per
1 000 population, below the OECD average of 3.0.
There were 7.9 nurses per 1 000 population in the United States in 2002 (latest year available), which is
slightly lower than the average of 8.6 across OECD countries.

Health status and risk factors
Most OECD countries have enjoyed large gains in life expectancy over the past decades. In the United States, life expectancy at birth increased by 7.9 years between 1960 and 2004, which is less than the increase of over 14 years in Japan, or 8.9 years in Canada. In 2004/5, life expectancy in the United States stood at 77.8 years, almost one year below the OECD average of 78.6 years. Japan, Switzerland, Iceland, Australia and Spain were the 5 countries registering the highest life expectancy.

Infant mortality rates in the United States have fallen greatly over the past few decades, but not as much as in most other OECD countries. It stood at 6.8 deaths per 1 000 live births in 2004, above the OECD average of 5.4.1 Among OECD countries, infant mortality is the lowest in the Nordic countries (Iceland, Sweden, Finland and Norway), in Luxembourg and in Japan, with rates all below 3.2 deaths per 1 000 live births.

Again the US system doesn't seem too efficient.

 

[jimbob]

More from mom:




Maybe Dad should be paying the bill and not the tax payers.

There is/was similar system in the UK (the Child Support Agency)

Do you know how well it worked?

BBC news

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton said the CSA was not working, had a backlog of 300,000 cases and debts of £3bn with little prospect of recovery.

In his Commons statement, he said the "fundamental flaws" of the system would be addressed and that parents would be encouraged to reach their own maintenance agreements.

He told MPs the CSA had fallen short of expectations "despite the very best efforts of its staff".

"Only a minority of cases handled by the CSA actually receive any maintenance at all," he said.

Publicising prosecutions

He said the CSA cost taxpayers around £200m a year but had never delivered satisfactory levels of customer service.

Should the Government waste taxpayers money trying to get absent fathers to pay for something, when it is likely to cost a huge amount? Why should a 19-year old adult be penalised because of parents not paying for health insurance (whether they could afford it in this case or not)?

I consider it a mark of a civilised country that there is a system (however flawed) that attempts to provide treatment for chronic medical conditions as well as acute ones regardless of the circumstances of the patient.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Are you trying to assert most of the 45 million people who do not have health insurance in the US can afford it, but choose to spend the money on other non-essential items?

Yes, most of them. I made the choice not to pay for health insurance until I was married.

That the people in the US who need medical treatment, but because they are not insured (for whatever reason) or rich enough to pay directly don't get it, are getting their ‘just deserts’?

In the same manner that someone makes the choice to not purchase food to eat, yes.

 

[jimbob]

I think something similar has been posted but it still is worth asking JdG:

MarketWatch:Illness And Injury As Contributors To Bankruptcy

ABSTRACT:

In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9–2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

So 75% of the medical bancrupcies did initially have health insurance at the beginning of their illnesses. I suoppose they must have fecklessly decided to stop their insurance during treatment.

There is a better way, and it uses less public money than the US system, as well as the obviously nescessary private expenditure in the US system.

My overwhelming argument is moral, and luckily the UK population also vote for this, but there is also an argument from self-interest.

It is cheaper for me, and it is a public good. I haven't been robbed, but still pay for the police. I haven't caught SARS*, but still pay (more-or less willingly) taxes for the NHS. I haven't used social services, but again I pay taxes for them, as they protect the vulnerable.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I consider it a mark of a civilised country that there is a system (however flawed) that attempts to provide treatment for chronic medical conditions as well as acute ones regardless of the circumstances of the patient.

You are ignoring the fact that this child had health insurance while her father was in the military. Also, that the mother choose not to buy insurance after the divorce.

A "civilized society" which rewards poor decisions soon finds itself bankrupt.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think something similar has been posted but it still is worth asking JdG:

MarketWatch:Illness And Injury As Contributors To Bankruptcy



So 75% of the medical bancrupcies did initially have health insurance at the beginning of their illnesses. I suoppose they must have fecklessly decided to stop their insurance during treatment.

There is a better way, and it uses less public money than the US system, as well as the obviously nescessary private expenditure in the US system.

My overwhelming argument is moral, and luckily the UK population also vote for this, but there is also an argument from self-interest.

It is cheaper for me, and it is a public good. I haven't been robbed, but still pay for the police. I haven't caught SARS*, but still pay (more-or less willingly) taxes for the NHS. I haven't used social services, but again I pay taxes for them, as they protect the vulnerable.

Here the question is why is health-care expensive?

Does it have anything to do with government regulations which force you to buy insurance for things that you do not want or need?

Does it have anything to do with lawyers like John Edwards that sue doctors out of business to make them selfs rich thus increasing the cost for all?

Does it have anything to do with the government pushing employers into buying health insurance instead of pay for their employees creating monster insurance companies?



I am always amazed when the solution to a government created problem is more government.



How much more tax are you willing to pay for this system?

The taxpayer would have to spend on average about $6000 per person in their family at current rate of spending.

Are you willing to be taxed $6000 per person in your family for free health-care?

 

[jimbob]

But the UK spends less public money on medical care then the US.

And there is no reason why the extra private health care shouldn't be spent by those that wish to.

I am not arguing for more money for medicare, I am arguing for universal healthcare. As practiced with remarkable efficency in many other countries.

As a British "Subject*" I pay less tax towards the NHS than a US citizen does for medicare, and get a system that is far superior to that..

*Another issue, where I am happy to call myself a republican.

 

[Beerina]

Tangent

The US spent more on public health than the UK (44.7% of 14.7%=6.6%) was public, as opposed to the UK's (83.4% of 7.7%=6.3%) of GDP Source:

OECD Health Data 2007 - Frequently Requested Data

I think this is a strong argument against the US system of medical care.

futhermore: OECD briefing notes (PDF here)

Again the US system doesn't seem too efficient.

If the US system drives technological development faster, then the "more efficient" UK system is ultimately detrimental, isn't it? And is thus not actually more efficient.

Is it?

 

[Beerina]

To the religious: your god created people, knowing the vast majority would end up in Hell.

(Hemming and hawing. No, really, see, it's like this...!)


To the socialized medicine: Your efficiencies slow technological development, causing cumulatively more death and misery than it prevents.

(Hemming and hawing. No, really, see, it's like this...)

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But the UK spends less public money on medical care then the US.

And the US has better health-care. The UK also does not have lawyers making fortunes suing doctors.

And there is no reason why the extra private health care shouldn't be spent by those that wish to.

Sure. Then the rich could really afford to be in the second tier of the system.

I am not arguing for more money for medicare, I am arguing for universal healthcare. As practiced with remarkable efficency in many other countries.

Efficiently if you are not counting quality. I want my doctors well compensated!

As a British "Subject*" I pay less tax towards the NHS than a US citizen does for medicare, and get a system that is far superior to that..

*Another issue, where I am happy to call myself a republican.

In America we are free individuals and are not subjects. Different mentality on what a man is I presume.

 

[Dan O.]

To the socialized medicine: Your efficiencies slow technological development, causing cumulatively more death and misery than it prevents.

You keep making this claim so prove it. How does cutting out the insurance middle man and covering everyone under a universal health care plan slow technological development?

 

[jimbob]

JdG, technically I may be a British subject, but you might have noticed that is something I do not approve of.

British GPs and Consultants are not notoriously underpaid, especially as they often do private work too.

 

[brodski]

JdG, technically I may be a British subject,

Check your passport, you're not.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Can you specify what you are measuring and provide references, as many/most of the useful measures of quality do not place the US near the top?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr...hltsysdata2006_chartbook_972.pdf?section=4039





Disease-specific comparisons can be useful. Some conditions are sensitive to changes in health services (such as obstetrical care), while some are less-so (such as low-birth-weight which is more sensitive to social and other issues). Cancer outcomes are fairly heterogeneous when it comes to sensitivity to health care. Caution should be used in interpretation. For example, a large portion of the cancers (breast, prostate, melanoma) can show a lead-time and length bias due to screening programs. This can have the effect of artificially improving survival rates without changing outcomes.




The presence of pharmaceutical companies does not necessarily mean that new and useful drugs are developed. In "The Truth About the Drug Companies" by Marcia Angell (former editor of NEJM), a closer look at the source of innovative drugs shows that they are just as likely (if not more so) to come from government, non-profit or non-US-based pharmaceutical companies, as they are to come from US-based pharmaceutical companies. Most of the R & D goes to "me-too" drugs and patent-extending research instead.



The US is in the bottom half of the pack when it comes to doctors per capita.



You are grossly over-estimating the impact of new technologies on health care. The assumption that more medical care necessarily means better health is unsupported.


I'm not saying that any particular system is good or bad. It just makes sense to me to try to use accurate and relevant information.

Linda

Cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/75501895/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Neurosurgery
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/351

Also, your link has a problem lumping quality of service and access to service together. They are two different things, and skew results.

As for Pharmaceutical companies: Take Gilead Sciences (http://www.gilead.com/corporate_overview), sound very "me two"? The US employs more than half a million more employees in the area of prescription drugs than any other country. The only comparison is between the US and Europe as a whole, and Canada has no major manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs.

The US is in the bottom half of the pack when it comes to doctors per capita.

According to your link, the US is #5 in the world in doctors per person.

Canada has fewer doctors per capita than the United States. In the U.S, there were 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2005; in Canada, there were 2.2.[51] Some doctors leave Canada to pursue career goals or higher pay in the U.S. Many Canadian physicians and new medical graduates also go to the U.S. for post-graduate training in medical residencies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Grossly overstating? Tell that to Lindsay Mccreith
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cach...ith&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a