Health care - administrative incompetence

[Delscottio]

Can someone check post 669 or 696 (sorry on phone and takes ages to check) but was people(the poor i would imagine) selling their organs put forward as a way of increasing liver transplant numbers? Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

 

[xjx388]

Wow - you are willing to learn from a dictatorship but aren't willing to learn from a representative democracy (not only that it's one that you based most of your legal system on)? That just seems very strange to me - so much so that from my perspective you are only willing to "learn" from something if it it matches your preconceived perception as to what the answer should be.

Singapore isn't a dictatorship. But even if it was, I'm willing to learn from dictatorships as well as monarchies.

 

[Agatha]

It was put as "an incentive to donate", Delscottio.

No, but if we had a free market, doctors and hospitals would have to compete against each other to provide the service. Prices would have to come down. Let's find a free market solution to the organ donation problem. Why not offer me an incentive to donate my organs? It would vastly increase the number of organs available. Simple, simple solutions to the liver transplant cost problem.

 

[joobie]

i have quite excellent insurance which is paid by my employer here in the US. i still cannot afford the copays on care that i need. thus i remain partially disabled, and will for the forseeable future. quite a conundrum, really.

 

[jimbob]

Are they free? Or are they taxing the Hell out of you through your income and VAT?

Nothing is free.

Have you seen the figures in my signature?

Whatever our respective tax burdens, we spend less tax on our healthcare than the US.

 

[Agatha]

Stop confusing the issue with facts, jimbob!

Please, xjx, will you address Darat's and my questions. Or, if you would prefer not to address them, have the courtesy to say you are declining, rather than just ignoring us.

xjx388 - it's a fast moving thread so you probably missed some posts - but could you answer two questions that seem outstanding?

The first is mine:

xjx388 - do you believe that everyone in your country should have access to a good level of healthcare?

The second is this one:

xjx388, do you ever intend to address the issue of people with chronic illness?

...snip...

 

[tsig]

So the NHSs don't control the medical care market in the UK? I understood from this thread that private insurance was for things like better accommodations, etc. I also understood that doctors were employed by the NHS and that was the free care you were entitled to.

What is the extent of the private system in the UK?

Admitting you don't understand the NHS after pages of slamming it is just so .

 

[bookitty]

No, but if we had a free market, doctors and hospitals would have to compete against each other to provide the service. Prices would have to come down. Let's find a free market solution to the organ donation problem. Why not offer me an incentive to donate my organs? It would vastly increase the number of organs available. Simple, simple solutions to the liver transplant cost problem.

I live in Los Angeles, we've had two hospitals close in the last 10 years because they lost funding. We also have a shortage of both GP's and nurses. (But plenty of plastic surgeons!) If the only option for medical care was private hospitals, there would not be any competition. The price of general and preventative medical care would go through the roof.

That also doesn't address the reason why those hospitals closed. They were in poor neighborhoods. The cost of health care through insurance has sky-rocketed. It is now beyond the affordable point for a large number of the population. As the rates went up, more people started going to the emergency room for general care. This placed a burden on resources that closed the hospital.

The free market model does not address those who can not afford even basic care. Yet these people will still get sick. A free market could turn away anyone who could not afford their services. Where do they go?

 

[jimbob]

OK, here's one for Rolfe, though others might be able to help...

I think it was Rolfe who posted details of administrative overheads in the US healthcare system, with a link that broke down how much (for example) went on advertising... Unfortunately I have a new PC, so have lost the link for now.

Does anyone remember this thread?

 

[bookitty]

Singapore isn't a dictatorship. But even if it was, I'm willing to learn from dictatorships as well as monarchies.

The Uk isn't a monarchy. The monarch is a figurehead and the country is run by a democratic parliament, a system that works so well that they also use it in Singapore.

 

[bookitty]

Can someone check post 669 or 696 (sorry on phone and takes ages to check) but was people(the poor i would imagine) selling their organs put forward as a way of increasing liver transplant numbers? Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

See, that's the beauty of the system. If you're too poor to afford basic health care in a free market economy, you can just sell a kidney to afford it! Heck, if your kid gets sick and you're desperate, you can sell your corneas. Sure, you'll be blind but you should have thought of that before you got so poor in the first place.

 

[xjx388]

xjx388 - it's a fast moving thread so you probably missed some posts - but could you answer two questions that seem outstanding?

The first is mine: xjx388 - do you believe that everyone in your country should have access to a good level of healthcare?

Define "access" and "good level of healthcare."

For starters, I believe everyone in America should have (and therefore the government should provide):

• Clean water,sanitation, etc. - This is provided for by the state/city
• Immunizations - Everyone should be immunized in order to protect everyone.
• Equal opportunity to purchase health care (i.e., laws to assure that you can't discriminate based on race, color, creed, handicap, prior sickness etc.).

The second is this one:

xjx388, do you ever intend to address the issue of people with chronic illness?

No.

Just kidding. People with chronic illnesses shouldn't be denied coverage because of their chronic illness. I support the part of the new law that says insurers can't discriminate because of pre-existing conditions.

Does that cover it or did you have more specific questions about chronic illness? As Darat said, the thread has moved quickly so I may have missed the specific question.

 

[xjx388]

See, that's the beauty of the system. If you're too poor to afford basic health care in a free market economy, you can just sell a kidney to afford it! Heck, if your kid gets sick and you're desperate, you can sell your corneas. Sure, you'll be blind but you should have thought of that before you got so poor in the first place.

Calm down. I said we should create incentives to organ donation. I was thinking after-death donations for livers, corneas, etc.

But even so (and I'm not all for the following proposition, but it's worth discussing): What's wrong with allowing people to sell a kidney if they so choose? It would increase the supply and drive costs down. No one would be forced to do anything. We ask people to donate kidneys all the time, why not add an incentive?

ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20iht-edsatel.1.13856658.htmlHere's a nice opinion piece written by a British transplant surgeon and an American recipient of a kidney.

 

[Emet]

Calm down. I said we should create incentives to organ donation. I was thinking after-death donations for livers, corneas, etc.

But even so (and I'm not all for the following proposition, but it's worth discussing): What's wrong with allowing people to sell a kidney if they so choose? It would increase the supply and drive costs down. No one would be forced to do anything. We ask people to donate kidneys all the time, why not add an incentive?

Well, who exactly would be motivated to sell a kidney?

Who might be so desperate?

 

[jimbob]

Define "access" and "good level of healthcare."

For starters, I believe everyone in America should have (and therefore the government should provide):

• Clean water,sanitation, etc. - This is provided for by the state/city
• Immunizations - Everyone should be immunized in order to protect everyone.
• Equal opportunity to purchase health care (i.e., laws to assure that you can't discriminate based on race, color, creed, handicap, prior sickness etc.).

No.

Just kidding. People with chronic illnesses shouldn't be denied coverage because of their chronic illness. I support the part of the new law that says insurers can't discriminate because of pre-existing conditions.

Does that cover it or did you have more specific questions about chronic illness? As Darat said, the thread has moved quickly so I may have missed the specific question.

So you don't support the free market then?

Why should insurers be forced to take on unprofitable customers? Why should people find medical insurance prohibitive simply due to an accident of medical history?

The answer is universal healthcare.

I have posted some commentary on my estimates for the fundamental cost of medical care. (in post #715 here) where I specifically answer your assertions that the numbers are made up and that they are incorrect because they would change if the system changed.

Could you please tell me where my numbers are wrong? I think they are conservative, and underestimate the fundamental costs.

 

[bookitty]

Define "access" and "good level of healthcare."

For starters, I believe everyone in America should have (and therefore the government should provide):

• Clean water,sanitation, etc. - This is provided for by the state/city
• Immunizations - Everyone should be immunized in order to protect everyone.
• Equal opportunity to purchase health care (i.e., laws to assure that you can't discriminate based on race, color, creed, handicap, prior sickness etc.).

"Equal opportunity to purchase." So the option is there and if you can't afford it, tough luck. This says nothing about regulating health insurance companies, about forbidding denial of service for expensive conditions, or making basic care affordable. Actually, it's not much change from our current system.

Our current system isn't working.

 

[jimbob]

Well, who exactly would be motivated to sell a kidney?

Who might be so desperate?

Oh... I know this one.

Similar demographics to those people who are motivated to sell their blood.

 

[Agatha]

People with chronic illnesses shouldn't be denied coverage because of their chronic illness. I support the part of the new law that says insurers can't discriminate because of pre-existing conditions.

Does that cover it or did you have more specific questions about chronic illness? As Darat said, the thread has moved quickly so I may have missed the specific question.

Thank you.

I may have some misunderstandings about the current US system, so please do correct me where I go wrong.

I asked earlier if I could get insurance (if I were in the US) as a sufferer of Crohn's Disease (and RA, but leaving that aside) and was told I could, but it would specifically exclude anything I needed arising from the CD.

I spend a lot of time off work sick, and as far as I can see, most states mandate little or no employment protection and little or no sick pay, so it's unlikely I'd be able to keep a job for long, and I'd need to rely on my own insurance. As a further 'bonus', I am not usually well enough to cope with full time work so I only work part time, and receive commensurately less salary.

Under your current system, what would happen? How could I pay for all the drugs, surgeries, blood tests, and monitoring I need? Not to mention the aids I need to cope with living with the RA (oops, I was leaving that aside). If I became urgently sick, I understand I could go to the ER and be stabilised, but I'd rather manage my condition to avoid this wherever I can.

[Please don't derail this with the "overtaxed" route, as my effective tax rate is less than 10% of my income, and that includes VAT and property taxes]

Does the new law you mention mean that I have to be offered insurance at the same rate as a healthy person, or would the premiums be loaded?

 

[Emet]

Does the new law you mention mean that I have to be offered insurance at the same rate as a healthy person, or would the premiums be loaded?

Here's a quick summary of the health care reform bill. I think it will answer your questions:

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-hom...are-bill-may-affect-you?mod=family-love_money

But there is this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...hcare-repeal-effort-in-face-of-deficit-pledge

 

[xjx388]

Thank you.

I may have some misunderstandings about the current US system, so please do correct me where I go wrong.

I asked earlier if I could get insurance (if I were in the US) as a sufferer of Crohn's Disease (and RA, but leaving that aside) and was told I could, but it would specifically exclude anything I needed arising from the CD.

The new legislation sets up a high-risk pool for people in your situation.

I spend a lot of time off work sick, and as far as I can see, most states mandate little or no employment protection and little or no sick pay, so it's unlikely I'd be able to keep a job for long, and I'd need to rely on my own insurance. As a further 'bonus', I am not usually well enough to cope with full time work so I only work part time, and receive commensurately less salary.

If you have a disability, you would qualify for benefits from Social Security. This would supplement your income.

Under your current system, what would happen? How could I pay for all the drugs, surgeries, blood tests, and monitoring I need? Not to mention the aids I need to cope with living with the RA (oops, I was leaving that aside). If I became urgently sick, I understand I could go to the ER and be stabilised, but I'd rather manage my condition to avoid this wherever I can.

If you have a disability, you get Medicare as well. This covers most of this stuff.

[Please don't derail this with the "overtaxed" route, as my effective tax rate is less than 10% of my income, and that includes VAT and property taxes]

Does the new law you mention mean that I have to be offered insurance at the same rate as a healthy person, or would the premiums be loaded?

The premiums must be offered at the same rate as healthy people, with variations for age, region and family size. But doing this will result in premiums going up for all, theoretically.