Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[Mitchell314]

But they flip-flop too much.

Despite a weakened economy and the other problems, I'd say the US is a place I would want to stay in as opposed to moving elsewhere. Now, being great is not excuse to not try to make better or look for new avenues to do so. What would make better is a different yet equally important question. U.H.? Maybe later when we are on the upswing.

 

[ParrotPirate]

I don't claim to know enough to argue details,but the profit driven system we have today which almost seems to have the insurance and health care industries in collusion is NOT working. Costs rise constantly,insurance itself costs more while covering things at lower rates or with higher deductables. No offense intended to anyone here (just in case) but this is what happens when you let accountants run the show. Everything turns into a numbers game. Patients (and employees in healthcare jobs) don't matter anywhere near as much as the almighty bottom line on the quartely earnings report.

 

[DC]

But they flip-flop too much.

Despite a weakened economy and the other problems, I'd say the US is a place I would want to stay in as opposed to moving elsewhere. Now, being great is not excuse to not try to make better or look for new avenues to do so. What would make better is a different yet equally important question. U.H.? Maybe later when we are on the upswing.

could be true we are traditionally flip-flop'ers

 

[Thunder]

from what I hear from my Canadian and British friends, national healthcare works pretty well. no long lines. no 6 month waits. its all Republican bs propaganda.

though, i also would not mind a system that reduces the costs of healthcare, helps folks afford it, and helps companies pay for it. if all americans can have healthcare without a government dominated program, then I am fine with that.

i just want all americans to have healthcare.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The argument I often make is that I would rather have the privatized system because under a government system, if there's a screw up on the federal level, I can't simply look for a better provider when the only root provider is the same one having problems. Money problems abound, I'd still rather have the opportunity to change to a better provider if the one I'm under doesn't provide for my needs properly.

Think about car insurance. If the provider doesn't provide to the minimum level they advertise do you stay with them? Or do you go for a better option. From my standpoint, as appeasing as universal health care sounds, I don't like the prospective of not having any alternative provider to choose from. I'm pretty sure most proponents would laugh at this... but I think it's a nevertheless valid concern. And I don't think people who reside in other countries are necessarily as familiar with the problem an equivalent program for the older population in this country is having already. Particularly given that medicare, the rough equivalent of what people want spread to the entire population, is already having major funding issues; the discussion of which has been ongoing for years now

 

[DC]

we still have competition between the health insurance funds

 

[quixotecoyote]

The argument I often make is that I would rather have the privatized system because under a government system, if there's a screw up on the federal level, I can't simply look for a better provider when the only root provider is the same one having problems. Money problems abound, I'd still rather have the opportunity to change to a better provider if the one I'm under doesn't provide for my needs properly.

Wow, you can do that? I can only afford to get insurance through employer provided programs. The individual non-job-related ones are so scammy you're better paying out of pocket (unless maybe you have a perfect health record, I wouldn't know). Will you be my friend? I always wanted a rich friend.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Will you be my friend? I always wanted a rich friend.

I said money issues abound if there's an affordable choice I could rely on when my current provider isn't giving me the coverage they promised then I'd rather have that choice available. In contrast if the system is government run and they screw up, then they are to sole primary provider for all of the insurance you prescribe to, regardless of their efficiency. There's plenty of better arguments that I can make but I'm not here to ask for the sarcastic responses...

My comment said nothing of my views on the realistic performance of them in this country or countries which already have it. Of course if you'd rather go there I will more than happily offer plenty of legitimate criticism or implementing that sort of health system here.

 

[Toke]

I might get you wrong here, but do you prefer 50,000+ unaffordable options to one taxpaid one with what addons you can afford?

You do know that taxpaid healthcare cowers everyone at signifikant lower cost than a privaticed system?

 

[Rolfe]

Huh? How many hospitals do you want? If your local hospital isn't doing a good job, how far are you prepared to travel to find a better one?

Oh wait. We can do that anyway. If we don't think our doctor is doing a good job for us, or we don't care for the standards at our local hospital, we can simply ask to go on a different doctor's list, or to go to a different hospital.

All on the NHS, all paid for out of our taxes.

Why would you think you could only do that if you were paying?

Rolfe.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I might get you wrong here, but do you prefer 50,000+ unaffordable options to one taxpaid one with what addons you can afford?

I don't think the way in which I conveyed my point was ... well... "good"
I was hoping people would see the context in which I was speaking but I doubt that's a realistic expectation. If it makes it simpler my point was that by doing so the healthcare system will in effect be monopolized. The efficiency of that kind of healthcare system would rely in part on the efficiency of the government in managing it.

You do know that tax-paid healthcare covers everyone at significant lower cost than a privatized system?

Of course that sounds plenty appealing... I just don't buy that our government has the capacity to fund the program for the entire populous. They can't seem to resolve the ongoing issues with the equivalent the country has with medicare for the older population. That's about 1/4 of the total populous. I haven't seen much progress made for the equivalent, now we have to have it for the entire population with at least no good solution to the smaller version? I hope quality isn't in high demand...

 

[Rolfe]

A page or two ago I revealed that I got to keep about 74% of my gross monthly salary. In spite of being in the "higher tax bracket".

I'd be really interested to know how US posters' pay slips compare. It's an easy sum. Just gross salary minus compulsory deductions of tax, divided by gross salary.

Any takers?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I just don't buy that our government has the capacity to fund the program for the entire populous.

Oh, here's another one. You and G'Kar both. In spite of a fairly conspicuous talent for enterprise and organisation, the USAian psyche is uniquely incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery a universal healthcare system. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's all the US population that's so incapable, or only the ones they choose to elect into government.

This, with respect, is a completely ridiculous argument. While it might be amusing to contemplate the proposition that the US government is so spectacularly less competent than that of pretty much all the other developed first world democracies, it's pretty preposterous.

Rolfe.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh, here's another one. You and G'Kar both. In spite of a fairly conspicuous talent for enterprise and organisation, the USAian psyche is uniquely incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery a universal healthcare system. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's all the US population that's so incapable, or only the ones they choose to elect into government.

This, with respect, is a completely ridiculous argument. While it might be amusing to contemplate the proposition that the US government is so spectacularly less competent than that of pretty much all the other developed first world democracies, it's pretty preposterous.

Rolfe.

This, with respect, is a completely ridiculous argument. While it might be amusing to contemplate the proposition that the US government is so spectacularly less competent than that of pretty much all the other developed first world democracies, it's pretty preposterous.
Rolfe.

Heh... you should advise that to those managing the system which offers this kind of coverage to the elderly here. Have you seen any solutions proposed for that matter? Although 46 million people in this country are uninsured the country spend more on health care than any other industrialized nation despite all the other ones offering their own variation of universal coverage... Medicare overspending stands as the 5th most wasteful spending as of a 2005 mock up...

Apparently something went wrong... I'm not inclined to offer any kind of support a nationalized system here unless our politicians show some results in their ability to manage that money. I don't look at any form of healthcare as "free" or "reduced cost"... whatever is implemented is funded through one avenue or another whether it's a new gas tax or a new property tax. If the politicians higher up can't spend tax payer dollars frugally then tax payers eventually pay for their mismanagement

In that context I don't think it's such a ridiculous contention to make

 

[Rolfe]

What is it about US politicians that makes them so uniquely incompetent? So incompetent indeed that you think it's better to carry on with your seriously broken system than to let them anywhere near the job of fixing it?

Rolfe.

 

[Toke]

I don't think the way in which I conveyed my point was ... well... "good"
I was hoping people would see the context in which I was speaking but I doubt that's a realistic expectation.

Ok, I know the feeling

I read of an interesting conflickt of mentality, but don´t recall the buzzwords.
You have people who just want a good hospital, school, etc. and you have the ones who want to examine the staticics to determine for themselfes what is best for them.

It seems the later play into the hands of privatication ripoff.
They can get 50,000+ different insurance policies.
Who cares that it cost a fortune and gives piss poor cover.


As for american public organication talent, see "the moon hoax"

 

[Toke]

So you maintain that a taxpaid healthcare system would not work in the us because you are completely incompetent at public jobs.

Why do you differ from europe in that regard?

Have you considered the role of insurance company propaganda in your belifs?

 

[Blue Mountain]

One thing that most everyone opposed to "socialized healthcare" misses is the fact the US will not implement such a scheme. Improving US healthcare is not a binary choice between keeping the current badly broken system and having the government run the whole show.

No way would the US socialize their healthcare system. Americans like choice, and they like having the private sector involved. Hospitals would continue to be private and either for-profit or not-for-profit as behooves the organizations running them. Doctors, nurses, and aides would not become government employees.

In fact, the US likely will not even nationalize healthcare insurance, and that's the part of the system most in need of repair. What the federal government is likely to do is choose a model where private insurers can still operate while at the same time ensuring every citizen is covered. That could include the following:

• Replace the four or five agencies currently supplying services to a portion of the population with one agency charged with supplying basic medical insurance to all comers
• Start up a new agency that fills the gap for the several million Americans who currently cannot get affordable coverage (probably the worst way to go about it--yet another government health agency that has to expend resources trying to figure out who it doesn't help)
• Pass legislation requiring all insurance companies to supply a basic, affordable plan to anyone who applies, regardless of income or medical history, and mandating what that plan will cover. The bill could include provisions for reimbursing companies for some or most of the cost of supplying that coverage.

 

[lomiller]

Does anyone have any economic arguments why a free market healthcare system should be less expensive and/or provide superior care to the average consumer (and voter) than a single payer/government run system?

In theory a true free market could be more efficient, but IMO health care don’t meet the minimum conditions for a functioning free market. Free markets don’t work when power or information is skewed in favor of one side, and both of these conditions exist in so called free market health care in the US. (Private delivery is alive and well and functions very nicely in countries that use it. This is where most of the “free market efficiencies would come from, but it breaks down in the US because or power imbalance between medical companies, insurance companies and the patients.

 

[Segnosaur]

Uh, so we understand. Nobody checks on ability to pay if you're rushed to hospital with a heart attack? Good.

Now, what about afterwards. Supposing said heart attack victim didn't have insurance, or had inadequate insurance. Who's going to pay? How is the hospital going to get its money?

I never claimed that there would not be financial hardships. I do rather suspect that most people would prefer getting treatment that saves their lives (and perhaps going bankrupt as a result) over NOT getting the treatment (because you're stuck on a waiting list) and dying.

The US health system is so truly awful it beggars belief.

Yet this 'truly awful' U.S. health care system was ranked #1 by the WHO in terms of responsiveness.

To set against the excellent care received by the privileged classes, there is a huge underclass served very badly if at all. How you have the gall...

Well, perhaps I have the 'gall' because I actually live in a country that has a 'socialized' health care system (Canada) which is not functioning as well as you seem to believe.

By the way, I AM referring specifically to Canada's system, where, in almost all cases, any sort of private care is forbidden. I am not referring to the situations in almost every other Western industrialized country, where they have found various ways to mix private and public health care in ways that are better than Canada's or the U.S.

...to criticise a universal system because some people wait a couple of months for non-emergency surgery, I can't imagine.

First of all, who are YOU to downplay the suffering that someone may feel if they have to wait a couple of months for non-emergency surgery? Do you think all such surgeries are done for fun? Many people have severe pain, many people have to greatly alter their lives because they can't get the treatment they want in a timely fashion. Are you really willing to tell someone who can't walk because they need a hip replacement and can't get one because they're on a waiting list that their suffering isn't a problem?

Secondly, we aren't just talking about problems just causing inconvenience/suffering... the fact that we have waiting lists can actually risk lives. For example:

- Delays in cancer treatment or delays in diagnosis may mean that in some cases the cancer is allowed to spread further than it should (I've already pointed out a reference which shows most hospitals are not meeting their targets for timely treatment of Cancer). Delays in Cardiac surgery can lead to either death, or situations where there is a strong risk to patients. (See: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/160/10/1469.pdf)

- In the past (not sure if this is still the case) there weren't enough MRIs and PET scanners, and doctors were relying on CT scans as a result (even if PET scans were providing superior diagnostics and the best chance at adequate patient care)

- If people are suffering from chronic pain for long periods of time (because they are on a waiting list for elective surgery), they may be unable to exercise properly, which will lead to further medical complications

- People unable to find a family doctor (Canada has the lowest doctor / population ratio in the G8) will not get the basic health care that they need to handle minor problems before they become life threatening.