Government run health care and government run schools

[elbe]

It's relevant when many an Obamacare proponent points to Sweden as a model of the wonders of socialized medicine.

I'll admit that I haven't fully been reading along to this thread, looking in when I happen on it and all that, but from previous threads it seemed that many proponents of single payer often look to the UK system as a model, and then acknowledge that the US should try to customize it to best fit its needs. Has there been someone who says we should be just like Sweden?

In a multi payer system, people really are allowed to choose the one they want. In a single payer system, they are not. The government chooses for them, irregardless of whether a large fraction of the population don't like it. One approach is freedom. The other is tyranny.

While it's true that a multi payer system offers choice, often the choice comes down to whether or not you even have health care. I have insurance through my work, a decent one I think, but I doubt I could afford it on my salary if it wasn't offered.

But once again, most proponent want a UK-like system, where you choose the doctor of your choice and the government (acting as a single insurance provider) foots the bill - often with less bureaucracy, from what I understand. You are free to buy secondary insurance or doctor shop.

And how is that going to work? Any better than Sweden's system?

Probably something like the UK system, which UK posters seem to enjoy the benefit of.

Sorry, but Obama's the one that is pushing this, regardless of what form it takes. It should be named after him.

I honestly don't recall any tradition of naming policies after presidents, except, I guess, when you don't like the president and want to make everything sound sinister.

 

[nescafe]

And yet you don't seem to support it.

It has its place. It is far from a universal solution, especially when death or paupership are things to be tolerated in its name.

And we have a system for righting such wrongs:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/18/business/fi-blue18

I am sure that a slap on the wrist will convince them to never to it again, and that it comes as a solace to those who found that they were without insurance, unable to get any due to a preexisting condition, and faced bankruptcy due to large medical bills they were suddenly faced with and could not pay.

Now what recourse will we have when the government ends up doing this sort of thing to people? None. You know that old expression. You can't fight city hall.

And generally, when insurance coverage is pulled, there is more to the story. Recission (retroactive denial of insurance coverage) generally only happens when it is found that the insured intentionally lied on their application for insurance about some health issue that they new about prior to filling out the application. And recission also generally only happens on temporary health plans. Except in 5 states, companies cannot rescind group coverage, even when it's found the insured lied in their disclosure of pre-existing conditions. And companies also can't legally deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition, just adjust the premium accordingly.

All of that is simply not an issue under a universal health care system. You pay your taxes, and are entitled to coverage. It cannot be pulled without your rights being infringed, and there is usually only one risk pool (and therefore cost): the population of the country as a whole. A win for UHC.

You seem to just want to make a claim and not get into the specifics when challenged. Your source bases it's claim that other countries have better outcomes by ONLY looking at life expectancy. But I cited numerous specific reasons (with backup data to support them) why life expectancy is not a very good parameter to make that comparison. Are you just going to ignore the reasons I cited like everyone else?

Yes. Your examples are cherry-picked and mostly consist of special pleading.

Let me add another to those reasons, since your source makes a direct comparison between the US and Cuba, implying Cuba's health system is so much better than ours. Do you really want us to emulate Cuba's health care system? Where they have no right to privacy, no right of informed consent, not right to sue for malpractice, no right to refuse treatment?

How about we pick the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Finland, or Switzerland instead?

I hear they have all those rights, and still have better macro-scale outcomes for lower overall cost.

 

[Rolfe]

Yup.

No maximum lifetime ceiling on coverage.
No co-pay apart from a small (£5) prescription tax.
No restrictions or exclusions due to pre-existing conditions.
Access to the highest-tech cutting-edge interventions if we need them irrespective of social class or income.
No need to consider healthcare coverage when changing jobs or leaving the workforce.
Freedom to choose and change your doctor at will (though if you do want to change your GP he might be a bit cross because he'll lose money as a result).
Freedom to choose any suitable NHS facility for hospital outpatient or inpatient treatment.
Contributions are at their maximum when we can most afford them (that is, when we have a high income) and taper off when we can't afford them, without loss of cover.
Specified entitlements as regards waiting times and availability of treatments.
No-cost participation in population-wide health screening programmes.

Just as an academic question, what would an insurance policy offering all that cost in the USA?

But if we're still not comfortable that we have as much coverage as we want, freedom to purchase as much private insurance as we want, or simply to pay for private treatment out of capital. The main advantage of which is that we don't have to rub shoulders with the Great Unwashed in NHS facilities.

Do you wonder that we like it, or that we'll kick any politician who tries to cut back on NHS cover out of office in a heartbeat, even if he's promising bread and circuses all round in other areas?

Rolfe.

 

[Cobalt]

Government run schools are hardly about educating children.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Government run schools are hardly about educating children.

Are they about indoctrinating them into homosexuality? 'Cause that's what my textbook tells me...

 

[Cobalt]

Are they about indoctrinating them into homosexuality? 'Cause that's what my textbook tells me...

Nah.

 

[BeAChooser]

Has there been someone who says we should be just like Sweden?

Oh ... so now you folks don't want us to be like Sweden?

While it's true that a multi payer system offers choice, often the choice comes down to whether or not you even have health care.

There is a difference between lacking health care and lacking health insurance. Even people without health insurance get health care in the US under the current system. It's the law. As opposed to the situation in many of those socialist *utopias* that have been mentioned.

I have insurance through my work, a decent one I think, but I doubt I could afford it on my salary if it wasn't offered.

If it wasn't offered, perhaps your salary would be higher. Funny how that works.

But once again, most proponent want a UK-like system, where you choose the doctor of your choice and the government (acting as a single insurance provider) foots the bill - often with less bureaucracy, from what I understand.

I can compare the US to the UK too (warning ... you folks are running out of countries to use as examples of socialized medicine utopias).

First, the WHO in 2000 ranked the healthcare of the UK, 15th in Europe. I'm curious why you'd pick the one that was ranked 15th and not 1st? I'm not suggesting the WHO did a very good job in it's rankings. It is based on 5 factors that mostly reward the uniformity of socialized health care, independent of the care actually delivered. One factor is life expectancy which I've already shown is problematic (in fact, http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/ indicates that when you adjust for fatal injury rates, "U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.") Another WHO factor is "financial fairness", which inherently assumes that everyone should pay the same percentage of their income on health care regardless of their income or use of the system. But I don't understand why you folks, champions of fairness, wouldn't accept the WHO ranking criteria. In which case, why pick 15th instead of 1st? Just curious.

Second, the per capita GDP of the US is 28-36% higher than the UK's. Is it really problematic if our per capita health care spending is also more than the UKs? Granted, a factor of 2 difference in per capita health care spending may not be explained by this but it reduces the disparity if wealth is allowed to buy health. Or is that not going to be permitted in utopia?

Third, the US has a large illegal immigrant problem (2.6-6.6% of its total population). In comparison, the UK's problem is tiny (0.8-1.2%) and again, the UK is a country that tries to prevent illegals from getting any health care (much less insurance). If the British had the same percentage of illegal aliens we do and gave the same measure of medical care to them as we do, that would narrow the spending gap between our countries even more.

Fourth, the British pay for their health cost savings in many ways.

Waiting times have already been mentioned. But let's mention them again because waiting times can kill.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html

The United Kingdom's National Health Service recently congratulated itself for reducing to 18 weeks the average time that a patient has to wait from referral to a specialist to treatment.

Patients are denied the latest technology and medicines. From the above source:

Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000.

In a Commonwealth Fund/Harvard/Harris 2000 survey of physicians in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom, physicians in all countries except the United States reported major shortages of resources important in providing quality care; only U.S. physicians did not see shortages as a significant problem. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Health Data (2008), there are 26.5 MRIs and 33.9 CT scanners per million people in the United States compared to ... snip ... 5.6 MRIs and 7.6 CT scanners in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom has a much lower use of new cancer drugs than the US with resulting lower cancer survival rates. From the above source:

The CONCORD study published in 2008 found that the five-year survival rate for cancer (adjusted for other causes of death) is much higher in the United States than in Europe (e.g., 91.9% vs. 57.1% for prostate cancer, 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 60.1% vs. 46.8% for men with colon cancer, and 60.1 vs. 48.4% for women with colon cancer). The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.

The percentage of people treated for end-stage renal disease in the UK is a third of that in the United States. Britain is rationing such care and that is killing people because such treatment is too expensive for most people to afford out of pocket.

As discussed previously by me, dental care has been deteriorating in the UK under socialized medicine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...3839/Bad-teeth---the-new-British-disease.html

31 December 2008
Bad teeth - - the new British disease

In Britain today ... snip ... You may be rolling on the bathroom floor in agony with an abscess, your gums may be riddled with disease, or people may recoil at the sight of your fangs as you walk down the street, but the NHS doesn't have to help you.

... snip ...

A survey by Mori for the Citizens Advice Bureau this week found that seven and a half million Britons have failed to gain access to an NHS dentist in the past two years. In one quarter of the country, no NHS dentists are allowing new patients to join their lists. And despite government targets that every child should have his teeth seen by an expert every year, more than one in three children never see an NHS dentist.

... snip ...

The situation for adults is even worse. One friend, Victoria, was told that a crown would cost her £700 privately, the price of her summer holiday. The queue for an NHS dentist was so long that her tooth broke before it was treated and she had to spend £350 having it pulled out. She should have followed the example of the Wiltshire toothache sufferer who told the Citizens Advice Bureau that he now takes out many of his teeth in his shed - with pliers. More than one in 20 have said they resort to DIY surgery.

There is, of course, the option to go private, but with more and more former NHS patients forced to pay, dentists' charges are now the most expensive in Europe.

... snip ...

But there are increasingly two dental nations in Britain and those who can't afford the fees have worse teeth than ever before. With bad teeth, you are less likely to find a good job or a successful relationship. The elderly, in particular, can find their lives racked by toothache and an inability to eat properly. Gum disease also increases the risk of mouth cancer, and pancreatic cancer in men.

Browse the internet and you find one problem after another with Britain's socialized medical system.

According to a August 2008 article from a UK media source,

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ws/doctor-warns-over-nhs-meltdown-908909.html

One of Britain's most senior doctors claimed today that thousands of hospital patients are "starving" because nurses are too busy to feed them.

Professor Paul Goddard, a former radiology section president of the Royal Society of Medicine, launched a scathing attack on the way the health service is being run ... snip ...

He said the NHS is in "meltdown" and claimed medics refused to speak up about the problems for fear of being sacked.

... snip ...

Superbugs were killing people by the "hundreds", he said, but "doctors don't dare speak out, the staff don't dare speak up because they will get sacked".

... snip ...

"You can't get dental care. Your elderly patients - what happens to them? You have to pay to have them looked after."

He said draft guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) to deny patients four kidney cancer drugs on the NHS was a "disgrace".

Sure, we can make our system look like Britain's. But at what cost?

And how big a change in our country will be needed to do it?

I discussed doctors salaries in my discussion of Sweden. What does the UK pay it's doctors and how many doctors do they have relative to the US?

Far less than US doctors:

http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_/_Doctors/Salary

So what are you going to do about that without totally changing the pay scale of all professions in the US or impacting the quality of the people going into medicine?

Quote:
Sorry, but Obama's the one that is pushing this, regardless of what form it takes. It should be named after him.

I honestly don't recall any tradition of naming policies after presidents, except, I guess, when you don't like the president and want to make everything sound sinister.

Come on, if this is so great, one would think Obama would love to have it named after him.

 

[elbe]

There is a difference between lacking health care and lacking health insurance. Even people without health insurance get health care in the US under the current system. It's the law. As opposed to the situation in many of those socialist *utopias* that have been mentioned.

What you are talking about is less "health care" and more "emergency care". I can't go to the emergency room for an annual checkup, now can I?

If it wasn't offered, perhaps your salary would be higher. Funny how that works.

Probably not, sorry. Most businesses would probably still pay the same base wages regardless of what benefits are being offered, unless unions got involved.

I can compare the US to the UK too (warning ... you folks are running out of countries to use as examples of socialized medicine utopias).

To be honest, I don't really care about your wall-o-links. I was just making a point that the UK system is the one most like what single payer proponents appear to want. They also say they'd have to modify it so it would work the best for the US. Modify was the key word there. No matter what we aren't just going to completely emulate another country's system.

I've never declared there to be a "socialized medicine utopia", and I kind of have a hard time believing someone else has, but I also don't think there is a capitalist medicine utopia. There are significant faults in our current system and we really should do something, but what that something is will have to be decided in the future. Hopefully without blind partisans, on either side, who refuse to even listen to the opposing side.

Come on, if this is so great, one would think Obama would love to have it named after him.

And yet, politicians don't seem to name policies after themselves. I wonder why... (rhetorical)

 

[BeAChooser]

It is far from a universal solution, especially when death or paupership are things to be tolerated in its name.

So I guess under the economic system you prefer, death and paupership will not be tolerated. Seems to me that's been promised a time a two ... by socialist and communist governments that either brutalized their citizens in countless ways because they became too powerful, or by governments that eventually collapsed due to totally unrealistic economic fantasies. Shall I start listing them?

I am sure that a slap on the wrist will convince them to never to it again, and that it comes as a solace to those who found that they were without insurance, unable to get any due to a preexisting condition, and faced bankruptcy due to large medical bills they were suddenly faced with and could not pay.

So you don't like our system of justice either. I see. So what will you replace it with? Something similar to that used in those many socialist and communist failures I alluded to above?

And don't you find it odd, folks, that given nescafe's feelings, that lawyers in this country by a large margin are supporters of the democrat party?

All of that is simply not an issue under a universal health care system.

Not an issue? If you don't like what the government does under universal health care, there is no recourse. You can't sue the government. Think of the way you are treated at the DMV and imagine that's your health care provider. Remember that folks.

Not an issue? The only reason you think lying to insurance companies and simple economics are not issues is that lying doesn't matter to liberals and universal health care will remove all economic sanity from the system. Note what liberals in government did to the economy of California. And imagine those folks are now running 1/7th of the US economy. TANSTAAFL. Ever hear that expression, nescafe?

You pay your taxes, and are entitled to coverage.

What if you don't pay any taxes. You still entitled to coverage?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You seem to just want to make a claim and not get into the specifics when challenged. Your source bases it's claim that other countries have better outcomes by ONLY looking at life expectancy. But I cited numerous specific reasons (with backup data to support them) why life expectancy is not a very good parameter to make that comparison. Are you just going to ignore the reasons I cited like everyone else?

Yes. Your examples are cherry-picked and mostly consist of special pleading.

Thank you for proving my point.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Let me add another to those reasons, since your source makes a direct comparison between the US and Cuba, implying Cuba's health system is so much better than ours. Do you really want us to emulate Cuba's health care system? Where they have no right to privacy, no right of informed consent, not right to sue for malpractice, no right to refuse treatment?

How about we pick the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Finland, or Switzerland instead?

I'm not the one that posted a source using Cuba as the example of good health care. That was YOU. Now all of a sudden you want to abandon it but you don't offer another source.

I hear they have all those rights, and still have better macro-scale outcomes for lower overall cost.

All unproven, especially if by macro-scale you mean life expectancy. And as I noted in the comparison with some of those countries, you are comparing apples and oranges.

I notice also that you AGAIN have nothing to say about my observation that the 40 million uninsured statistic is bogus. That's significant given that your side uses that statistic as the primary reason why we need wholesale reform. Aren't you willing to even try defending that reason? Or shall we just conclude that the reason given by liberals for this massive takeover and intrusion by the government is a LIE?

 

[BeAChooser]

I can't go to the emergency room for an annual checkup, now can I?

You wouldn't have to pay very much for a health plan that covered only annual checkups, now would you?

Most businesses would probably still pay the same base wages regardless of what benefits are being offered, unless unions got involved.

You really don't like (or understand) free market economics, do you? Is that why you believe in single payer systems?

Tell me, if single payer systems are so great for health care, do you think they'd be good for other types of services?

To be honest, I don't really care about your wall-o-links.

Maybe not, but that only shows you aren't very inquisitive or open minded. Fact is, I rather guessed I wouldn't change your mind about anything regardless of what facts I brought to the table. My post (actually most of the posts I make on this forum) was directed not at you but at other readers who *might* have more interest in the actual facts and more of an open mind.

I was just making a point that the UK system is the one most like what single payer proponents appear to want.

And yet you don't seem prepared to defend it.

They also say they'd have to modify it so it would work the best for the US. Modify was the key word there.

OK. How would they modify it? Specifics. Don't you think we should discuss that before we all jump on the single-payer bandwagon? For example, perhaps you can answer my question about doctor salaries and the number of doctors?

I've never declared there to be a "socialized medicine utopia", and I kind of have a hard time believing someone else has

Then you simply haven't noticed the Obama supporters in the media swooning over the wonders of socialized medicine.

Quote:
Come on, if this is so great, one would think Obama would love to have it named after him.

And yet, politicians don't seem to name policies after themselves. I wonder why... (rhetorical)

Could it be that very little of what governments do is something politicians want named after them? Could it be that those politicians know what common folk still haven't grasped?

 

[elbe]

A free moment from work and a little more calm.

You wouldn't have to pay very much for a health plan that covered only annual checkups, now would you?

Annual checkups can often lead to more expensive procedures being performed if problems are found. That's sort of the point to annual checkups. In the long run they should reduce overall pay.

You really don't like (or understand) free market economics, do you? Is that why you believe in single payer systems?

First off, where did I say that I "believe in single payer systems"? Second, I understand free market economics fine, thank you very much, and I know that companies aren't jumping at the bone to pay their employees more "if only they didn't have to pay for that pesky insurance". If you can show that they will, be my guest.

Tell me, if single payer systems are so great for health care, do you think they'd be good for other types of services?

It would, I imagine, depend on the service. The military appears to work while "socialized". Police and fire departments too. It seems, to me, that things that are for the general welfare of the country are paid for by the state. Whether health care is part of the "general welfare", I guess, is up for debate.

Maybe not, but that only shows you aren't very inquisitive or open minded. Fact is, I rather guessed I wouldn't change your mind about anything regardless of what facts I brought to the table. My post (actually most of the posts I make on this forum) was directed not at you but at other readers who *might* have more interest in the actual facts and more of an open mind.

You know nothing of my inquisitiveness or openmindedness, just that I find your posts to be dull and mean spirited. Why should I waste my time on such as those? I just have this tendancy to point out mistaken claims if I notice them, like when you claimed that single payer proponents wanted the government to take over the entire system. Or when you claim to know what I want when I have said nothing on the matter.

And yet you don't seem prepared to defend it.

Pointing out what others wants means I should be the one to defend it? Hmm, interesting world you live in.

OK. How would they modify it? Specifics. Don't you think we should discuss that before we all jump on the single-payer bandwagon? For example, perhaps you can answer my question about doctor salaries and the number of doctors?

Those would, of course, be perfectly valid questions to ask. I've not the professional level of knowledge needed to properly answer them. Somehow I question that you do either.

Then you simply haven't noticed the Obama supporters in the media swooning over the wonders of socialized medicine.

I've noticed, through your various threads, that you have a very odd view of Obama supporters that doesn't quite mesh with the majority of them. I don't support everything he's done, though I think we could do far worse. From what I've seen Obama supporters have, in general, been vocal in their dislike of policies they don't agree with (though, perhaps, still being apologetic about them). For what it's worth, the media does not speak for everyone no matter how much they "swoon".

Could it be that very little of what governments do is something politicians want named after them? Could it be that those politicians know what common folk still haven't grasped?

Politicians probably don't want things named after them in case they go south, but I have a hard time believing most politicians expect programs they support to go south. While politicians cannot be said to always be working in the best interests of their constituents, I don't think they are conspiring to actually harm them.

 

[nescafe]

So I guess under the economic system you prefer, death and paupership will not be tolerated.

Where they are preventable by non-heroic measures, yes. Universal health care seems to fall into that category

You may also note that there has never been a pure capitalist utopia either. I know you are categorically unable to consider things from any other viewpoint than the hardcore libertarian one, but please try to consider that others may more know more about this issue than you, despite your wall o' links Gish gallop debating style.

So you don't like our system of justice either. I see.

Well, the article you linked to was a few tens of millions of dollars worth of fines with no admission of guilt and no mention of recompense to those whose insurance (and insurability) vanished in a puff of profit.

Not an issue? If you don't like what the government does under universal health care, there is no recourse. You can't sue the government.

Sure you can. You can also vote the chiseling politicians out of power, run for office yourself, or suggest legislation to you local rep to change things -- that is what representative democracy is all about, after all.

Not an issue? The only reason you think lying to insurance companies and simple economics are not issues is that lying doesn't matter to liberals and universal health care will remove all economic sanity from the system. Note what liberals in government did to the economy of California. And imagine those folks are now running 1/7th of the US economy. TANSTAAFL. Ever hear that expression, nescafe?

Way to totally miss the point and retreat your ideology. You win 5 internets.

In a UHC as most Western democracies run it, lying about preexisting conditions is a total nonissue because you are covered, not because they are part of a society that encourages lying about your health.

There is also a great deal of evidence that a UHC is more economic than our system -- see the stats posted upthread about healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP and life expectancy. Bloviate about special circumstances and make excuses as to how it could never work for us all you want, those numbers drown your blather out.

What if you don't pay any taxes. You still entitled to coverage?

Oooh, trying to set me up for a "nescafe doesn't think children and the unemployed deserve healthcare despite everything else he has said!"

Most other UHC's cover you even if you don't pay taxes under certain circumstances, and being a child and/or unemployed are generally covered. I personally think that taking a play from Germany's book is the best thing here -- children are national treasures, and so all their healthcare is covered by the government as a matter of course.

Unlike you, I think UHC is a moral imperative, and that everyone should be covered -- to do otherwise would be inhumane. I am willing to make some compromises w.r.t citizenship and/or taxes paid as a necessary precondition to coverage, but the default should be that you are presumed entitled until proven otherwise.

I'm not the one that posted a source using Cuba as the example of good health care. That was YOU. Now all of a sudden you want to abandon it but you don't offer another source.

No, you simply want to magnify a small portion of one source I used all out of proportion because it mentioned that Cuba has a UHC.

I notice also that you AGAIN have nothing to say about my observation that the 40 million uninsured statistic is bogus.

Because you brought it up, and I do not care one way or another about that statistic.

That's significant given that your side uses that statistic as the primary reason why we need wholesale reform.

Yes, because this complex issue can simply be boiled down to a us vs. them black and white issue. Things must be so simple in your little world.

I am in favor of UHC because anything else is inhumane and causes unnecessary drag on our society by making the populace as a whole less healthy.

Or shall we just conclude that the reason given by liberals for this massive takeover and intrusion by the government is a LIE?

Yes, because the rest of the civilized world groans under the shackles of their universal health care systems. We Americans are blessed to live in a society where it is OK to lose your insurance because your insurance company decides it is no longer profitable to carry you, or you change jobs, or get diagnosed with pancreatic cancer while involuntarily unemployed.

Try to see past your ideology at least once.

 

[Rolfe]

I mentioned just a selection of the benefits we have with the NHS system of universal healthcare. I'm still curious to know what sort of premiums a US citizen would have to pay for the same level of benefits.

• No maximum lifetime ceiling on coverage.
• No co-pay apart from a small (£5) prescription tax.
• No restrictions or exclusions due to pre-existing conditions.
• Access to the highest-tech cutting-edge interventions if we need them irrespective of social class or income.
• No need to consider healthcare coverage when changing jobs or leaving the workforce.
• Freedom to choose and change your doctor at will (though if you do want to change your GP he might be a bit cross because he'll lose money as a result).
• Freedom to choose any suitable NHS facility for hospital outpatient or inpatient treatment.
• Contributions are at their maximum when we can most afford them (that is, when we have a high income) and taper off when we can't afford them, without loss of cover.
• Specified entitlements as regards waiting times and availability of treatments.
• No-cost participation in population-wide health screening programmes.

Rolfe.

 

[3point14]

Just a quick question:

Are we agreed then that if you take the 40 Million Americans without healthcare, subtract the 10 million illegal immigrants and the eight million who can afford insurance but don't buy it, then there are only 22 million Americans without access to healthcare outside of turning up at the local A&E and getting their treatment at the point of most cost. That's only a little over 7%. What's all the fuss about?

 

[leftysergeant]

Allowed? Do you think Obamacare is really about "allowing" them to look at other options? Do you think socialized medicine is about "allowing"? Sweden doesn't even "allow" it's citizens to get medicines outside the government system.

There is no proposal to prohibit private insurance in anything that I have seen put forth so far. There is a call for a public program that cannot exclude anyone, not for profit.

It would suck the life out of for-profit health care, but so what? You are not entitled to profit from the discomfiture of another person to begin with.

 

[Rolfe]

The main objection seems to be that the private insurance sector would shrink to a fraction of its current size. Fear of that is what's fuelling all the hype, propaganda and lobbying.

So, Henry Ford just invented the automobile. Oh noes, horse riding will become a leisure sport only, and the demand for saddles, harness and farriery will shrink to a fraction of its current size!

Progress marches on. If demand for your product declines, find a new and/or better product.

Rolfe.

 

[leftysergeant]

Let the for-profit companies do supplimentals for things like boob jobs and private rooms and consierge medical care.

Basic health care should be nonn-profit.

Insurance companies were set up so that doctors would get paid. They do not need to turn a profiot for investors in order to do this. By expanding the pool of persons copvered, they could have minimized the risk while still providing affordable coverage that actually paid the doctors and got their clients taken care of.

Basicly, they are insisting on a right to make a profit by not doing things they were created to do. Odd that they should think that they are supposed to matter to us.

 

[nescafe]

I mentioned just a selection of the benefits we have with the NHS system of universal healthcare. I'm still curious to know what sort of premiums a US citizen would have to pay for the same level of benefits.

• No maximum lifetime ceiling on coverage.
• No co-pay apart from a small (£5) prescription tax.
• No restrictions or exclusions due to pre-existing conditions.
• Access to the highest-tech cutting-edge interventions if we need them irrespective of social class or income.
• No need to consider healthcare coverage when changing jobs or leaving the workforce.
• Freedom to choose and change your doctor at will (though if you do want to change your GP he might be a bit cross because he'll lose money as a result).
• Freedom to choose any suitable NHS facility for hospital outpatient or inpatient treatment.
• Contributions are at their maximum when we can most afford them (that is, when we have a high income) and taper off when we can't afford them, without loss of cover.
• Specified entitlements as regards waiting times and availability of treatments.
• No-cost participation in population-wide health screening programmes.

Rolfe.

I have no idea. I would cheerfully exchange 10% of my gross income to be covered by such a plan, though. I understand that UK citizens manage to pay less than that -- amazing what a well-run bureaucracy can do, I suppose.

 

[3point14]

I have no idea. I would cheerfully exchange 10% of my gross income to be covered by such a plan, though. I understand that UK citizens manage to pay less than that -- amazing what a well-run bureaucracy can do, I suppose.

Think how effeicient it would be if there was no government intervention. By the laws of free market economics it would surely be better...

Of course, it would be challenging in the US due to the scale. You'd probably have to think up some method of splitting up the country into different administative regions, I'm not sure that it would be possible to come up with a fair and agreed upon basis to split up the country...

 

[Rolfe]

I have no idea. I would cheerfully exchange 10% of my gross income to be covered by such a plan, though. I understand that UK citizens manage to pay less than that -- amazing what a well-run bureaucracy can do, I suppose.

I think that's why it seems so painless. We do pay as a percentage of income, not as a flat rate or according to perceived risk. Thus, everybody can afford the necessary contributions quite easily and nobody is desperately scraping around to find an insurance premium.

This, of course, is anathema to right-wingers. Why should high-earners pay more? Well, from their own point of view, to ensure that the system is sufficiently funded. Remember, they are as entitled to access it as anybody else, and with sufficient funding, supported by high-earning contributors when they can afford it, it will be there for them even if they lose all their money on the stock market or some such disaster, or if they find themselves running out of capital and resources after retirement. And from the point of view of society, to prevent freeloading. And by freeloading, I mean in this context the rich person who decides to shirk his responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the less fortunate. In a tax-funded system, this duty is not all heaped on the charitable and the soft-hearted.

And in a word, it works.

Rolfe.