The *Problem* with socialized healthcare. [Archive]

DrT

12-04-2008, 08:48 AM

Well as far as accomplishments, there is at least one big center for each European country (think London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid). But you can't really think like that, here's why:
-funding for researsh (which brings the accomplishments in questions, yes?) is different here: hospitals do get a say, but it mostly goes through a centralized government agency or two, which means that good researsh doesn't always mean good hospital.
So to be fair in comparing accomplishments, you ought not to check hospital centers but countries. Check the number of publications in journals like Nature or Science, normalized to the numer of inhabitants.
You'll find all western nations on par with the US, with leaders in specific areas being disseminated a lil everywhere

-quality of care: same, chekc the capitals. A European capital is about the size of a big city in the US, and you'll find quality of care that is equivalent. For treatment of rarer diseases (like organ replacement, some cancers), you'll find at least one excellent centers, with some other small centers who'll refer the hardest cases to the big center.

And for being myself in the health care world, and talking honestly with people in america or in Europe, there are only VERY few diseases that would make me leave this country for treatment, and that would be to go to England or Germany. Honestly, quality of care is just as good, and if you normalized to the people actually able to get that care, it's much better.

-cost: I make about 2400€/month, of which 300 are taken away by the state immediatly for taxes. I pay roughly 400€ a year for my complimentary health care (covering dental, eyes and the rest). If I go see the doctors, I pay nothing (and wait 30 min max), if I go the hospital, I pay nothing (for routine stuff, which does include MRI, scanners and the heavy stuff) and wait as long as I did in the US
Didn't have a graft yet, but I'd gather it wouldn't cost me a bunch.
Oh, and I get 300€ a month from the state to help me with the kids, plus 150€ for my rent because my wife is unemployed, 900€ was reimbursed to me for the cost of moving, and my youngest's daycare is costs me only about 80€ a month because the rest is reimbursed by the state.
Since my rent for a 4 Bedroom house of about 200 sq meters (dunno in feet) is only 800€, I can live comfortably with my three kids, and all the medical bills that we incurr. utilities run for about 150€ a month during winter.
Considering my situation, I except not to pay more than 400€ in taxes this year; if any at all with the numbers of kids I have and an unemployed wife. I don't pay property taxes because I don't own anything (for now, piece of advice: don't start looking for the prices of houses around here, you may get depressed)

So that should give you an idea of costs and the like.
Oh, before I go: my ex situation in the US:
I made 3500$ a month. nothing went away immediatly because of my type of contract. paid about 400$ in fed taxes, and 1400$ in state tax (Maryland) a year
rent for a 100 sq meter house, 4 Bedrooms, was 1600$ (in Rockville, which does not compare with my present location that is true). utilities in winter ran to about 600$ (crappy isolation of the house, that's what you get for a house made of panelled wood)
I didn't pay for health care coverage, my employer did (thanks the NIH), to the amount of 600$ a month. This didn't cover dental. my copay at the doc was about 10$ (BlueCross), copay at the hospital was in the 100's for small stuff like emergency care and Xrays. Was luky not to need extensive care treatments. I sure as hell cound't afford Hopkins.
Daycare for a 1.5 yrs old child was about 1000 a month, back when we had to pay for it (not lately, sine my wife didn't work and kept the child in school). For a schoolage child tis about 500 a month (for after school only).
Now I pay at most 100€ for that.

I hope this gives you enough data to think about the issue.

Oh, and before I forget: France is not the best country in Europe (we are in debt and have a bit of unemployment). Germany happens to be near zero unemployed, for instance, and is the first economy in Europe.

Slytovhand

12-05-2008, 02:17 PM

Scamper, I haven't noticed anyone from this part of the world respond, so I'll put in my 2 cents worth.

Firstly, I'm not fully aware of the hospitals you mentioned, though I have heard the Mayo name before.

But, in Australia, we do also have some exceptionally good hospitals, with some of the best health care in the world. It is very rare that someone actually needs to go overseas to get better care, and that is in extreme circumstances, for something either very rare, or to use a piece of equipment that, not only is used rarely, but also costs a small fortune (and thus, lack of usage means it's not worth it).

We've also invented a few procedures, and have some world ranking research.

And all that for a population of a mere 20 million.... :D

daleduke17

12-05-2008, 03:39 PM

Firstly, I'm not fully aware of the hospitals you mentioned, though I have heard the Mayo name before.

Mayo Clinic is one of the hospitals in Minnesota that a lot of prestigious people (actors, politicians, world leaders) choose to go to.

IDrinkaRum

12-05-2008, 04:32 PM

John Hopkins (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/) is a hospital in Baltimore, MD.

It's one of the best hospitals in the country.

Through my husband's job, we have Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I love the insurance. It's really good, and they cover just about everything (except vision & dental - which we get through separate companies).

DC Children's Hospital is great for pediatrics of all sorts (i.e., developmental, dentistry, neurology, etc. and that's where we take our daughter to see her developmental pediatrician). Fairfax Hospital for Women & Children is where #1. my daughter received excellent treatment for her RSV where she was in the PICU (Pediatric Intensive Care Unit) for almost a month and #2. Where my sister delivered her daughter after a difficult pregnancy.

INOVA Hospital is where I delivered my daughter. Again, excellent service (some of the nurses weren't the greatest), and an old friend of mine ended up having her son put in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) as soon as he was born. Again, their NICU is one of the best in the Northern VA/Washington DC area. If you can give birth there, do so. Fortunately, I didn't need the NICU when I was there.

The dentist I go to accepts any and all insurances, but he's also out-of-network. And he's an excellent dentist so I go to him for everything. We pay whatever the insurance company doesn't.

I might be considered an elitist, but I prefer the having insurance way of medicine. Hearing about one gentleman in England who died of cancer before he could see a cancer specialist to get his chemo treatments, really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Reading about how there is a lack of dentists who are willing to work in the socialized dental field are instead going into private practice in England ... show me that having insurance is where it is.

DrT

12-05-2008, 06:01 PM

I might be considered an elitist, but I prefer the having insurance way of medicine. Hearing about one gentleman in England who died of cancer before he could see a cancer specialist to get his chemo treatments, really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Reading about how there is a lack of dentists who are willing to work in the socialized dental field are instead going into private practice in England ... show me that having insurance is where it is.

Actually, if I follow your logic the insurance way is not the right one.

Indeed, you base your reflexion on reports about people not accessing care. Want to compare numbers between the US and the 'socialized' countries? Even without google, I would bet the rate of people not being able to access proper care is superior in the US than in any other western country (I'm talking percentage, not number)
Not everybody can afford a $1500 root canal, or a lifetime chemotherapy when your insurance decides to drop you (surprisingly soon after you got diagnosed too)

I mean sure, if you are fully covered in the US, you don't feel the need to go elsewhere. But as mentionned above: try to volunteer in free clinics, or simply in the emergency room or your local hospital

Scamper

12-11-2008, 08:33 PM

Huh, I guess Ya'll actually convinced me. A 2%-5% increase in income taxes on the one side, and "health insurance" for all on the other. Hmm. sounds good, let's do it.

daleduke17

12-12-2008, 03:55 AM

Huh, I guess Ya'll actually convinced me. A 2%-5% increase in income taxes on the one side, and "health insurance" for all on the other. Hmm. sounds good, let's do it.

Nah, let's not. Why should I help pay for insurance of someone who isn't putting forth their share?

anriana

12-12-2008, 03:58 AM

Nah, let's not. Why should I help pay for insurance of someone who isn't putting forth their share?

Children are so lazy.

daleduke17

12-12-2008, 04:00 AM

Children are so lazy.

Nope, not children. The adults (able bodied/minded) who don't work, yet want me to give money to support them.

Boozy

12-12-2008, 01:02 PM

This attitude towards socialized health care is a good example of Americans cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

There will always be lazy people in this world. These people comprise a small percentage of the population. That is the world we live in, and there is nothing we can do about it. Now stop shooting yourselves in the foot in a vain attempt to bring justice.

The real situation is this: Under the average socialized health care plan, the average American would pay far less in extra taxes than they currently do in insurance premiums. Some of those extra taxes will be subsidising health care those lazy people who don't work. But the average taxpayer will still be better off financially.

daleduke17

12-12-2008, 01:16 PM

I've always been a supporter of the "you don't work, you don't eat" mentality. If people want to voluntarily assist others, then they are more than welcome to.

Hell, right now the state (and/or federal government) pay people's rent, food, schooling, insurance (in some cases) and have told certain utilities they can't shut off power if people don't pay their bills (I know electric and water for sure, there may be another). Why should anyone work? Let the state foot the bill.

Also, Boozy, how do you know that the "average American" would pay less in taxes?

Pedersen

12-12-2008, 03:07 PM

I'll use me as an anecdotal data point: My average payment to pay for insurance for myself and my wife has been around $200/month. That translates to $2400/year.

For that $2400, I have to hope that my company gets a good health plan, versus a crappy one. If it's good, I'll pay extremely little for maintaining my health. If it's poor, I can find myself paying a lot to maintain it.

Compared with the numbers I've seen quoted of 2% to 5% increase in taxes, which translates to $1400 to $3600 additional (for me). Only now I'll have health care that will be accepted at over 90% of all medical facilities. It will be very hard to go out of network, and find myself dealing with higher costs.

I'll also compare that with one person I used to know who paid, for his family of four, about $12,000/year, and he makes less than me. Assume that both him and his wife wind up paying in the high end ($3600) each, and they will still have nearly $5000 extra every year that they didn't have before.

And all of that only covers people who are covered. What about who have just switched jobs? Have you looked at the costs of the cobra coverage? I did. When I just switched jobs last year, the cost was $700/month to maintain what I was paying $200/month for. This also means that my employer was paying out $700/month for two people. Assuming the ratios hold, that other guy I mentioned was costing his employer $24,000/yr for that insurance. I can absolutely guarantee that the employer will be making more money out of it.

Personally, I have no problem believing that the average American will make out like a bandit. It's not terribly difficult math. The hard part to figure out is how much it costs the employers to maintain the health insurance. Get those numbers figured out, and you'll see that it's quite easy for everybody to start saving some big dollars.

Assuming, of course, that the 2% to 5% increase is the actual number. If the taxes go over that, all bets are off.

Slytovhand

12-12-2008, 03:43 PM

Australia doesn't have the best health system in the world (I think that privilege goes to Sweden???)

But, we have free healthcare, free hospitals for everyone. Even visitors to the country! Unfortunately, we don't have free ambulance cover nation-wide (though, in my old state of Queensland, they covered it in the rates bill! Smart thinking!!). We also have medical insurance, and that brings a tax break. And you get better benefits using insurance, and often faster treatment for elective surgery and the like. (our Medicare doesn't cover dentistry though).

DaleDuke, Boozy didn't say the 'average American' would pay less in taxes, she said they'd be better off financially. Because, since not everyone has medical insurance, if everyone did start having to pay a couple of % extra on tax, then it would yield more $$$ than would be garnered through the insurance network, and thus buying in bulk means lest cost.

Though, I do agree, assistance does seem to be getting out of hand. Over here, you don't pay your power bill, you get cut off... simple! We have free basic schooling (ie to senior year) so that our standard of education is pretty good and no-one has a reason not to be educated. Food is one thing that doesn't get any government assistance, although rent can be (but that's part of a real stupid part of the system...grrr....... would you believe that if you are an adult student, you can't get rent assistance, but if you're under 25 and unemployed, you can????)

AFPheonix

12-12-2008, 07:16 PM

Though, I do agree, assistance does seem to be getting out of hand. Over here, you don't pay your power bill, you get cut off... simple! We have free basic schooling (ie to senior year) so that our standard of education is pretty good and no-one has a reason not to be educated. Food is one thing that doesn't get any government assistance, although rent can be (but that's part of a real stupid part of the system...grrr....... would you believe that if you are an adult student, you can't get rent assistance, but if you're under 25 and unemployed, you can????)

You don't necessarily have winter weather like we do here. Do you really want to be cutting power and/or gas off to people when the weather is at or below freezing just because they can't pay? There are small costs built into our power and gas payments that go into trust for elderly and the poor who need help paying for their utilities.
This also works as a public safety thing so people in apartments don't do something stupid like bring a kerosene heater into their unit and kill themselves with carbon monoxide gas or set the whole building on fire.

Slytovhand

12-14-2008, 12:51 PM

Yes, well, this is true. It does make one think about how our environment affects our policies...

One problem with private health (and, for that matter, socialised) in this country, is in Aboriginal territory. We have reserves for the tribal lands, and there's no way on earth they'd be able to afford private health care - for that matter, even our social system doesn't do enough, and they're in the middle of nowhere. I believe that some of your Native Americans may fall into a similar situation???

AFPheonix

12-15-2008, 06:07 AM

Most definitely so. The tribes are sovereign, but life on the reservations can be very bleak indeed.
Some tribes have started casinos in order to get money flowing into their hands again, which have worked in the short term. The Grand Rhonde Confederated tribes in my state are a good example of that, and they use that money for schools, healthcare, and many other things that benefit the people registered with the tribe who might otherwise be unemployed and impossibly poor, especially with the way the economy tends to run in our coastal areas.

I'm not sure how the downturn has been effecting them or some of the other tribes though. It would be interesting to look into.

ElMarko

12-16-2008, 02:32 AM

I was talking to someone the other day and he maintained that socialized medicine is a failure. He pointed out all the high quality medical centers in the U.S. like Johns Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic

Better for what? Teaching, research or patient care. What type of patient care? All those factors make a linear ranking impossible.

Seshat

01-27-2009, 01:16 PM

My question regarding socialised health care:

Does the person working 60 hours a week at two jobs, both sub-full-time, both very hard menial work, deserve less health care than a CEO working 30 hours a week and getting a massive salary?

If you say yes, please justify your answer in a way that will not upset the many members of this board who work as stockers, cashiers, and other tough, but low-paid jobs.

Thank you.

Boozy

01-27-2009, 02:27 PM

No. And that's one of the best reasons for some form of state-provided healthcare.

Although I do wonder where you're finding CEOs that work 30 hours a week. ;) Some may be greedy, corrupt, and incompetent, but I don't know of any who could get away without putting in at least 50 hours a week.

Giggle Goose

01-27-2009, 10:30 PM

John Hopkins (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/) is a hospital in Baltimore, MD.

INOVA Hospital is where I delivered my daughter. Again, excellent service (some of the nurses weren't the greatest), and an old friend of mine ended up having her son put in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) as soon as he was born. Again, their NICU is one of the best in the Northern VA/Washington DC area. If you can give birth there, do so. Fortunately, I didn't need the NICU when I was there.

I was born there, it damn well better be! :p You are, of course, talking about Fairfax (which is really Annandale but hey, who's keeping track)?

kamn

01-28-2009, 04:08 AM

You don't necessarily have winter weather like we do here. Do you really want to be cutting power and/or gas off to people when the weather is at or below freezing just because they can't pay? There are small costs built into our power and gas payments that go into trust for elderly and the poor who need help paying for their utilities.
This also works as a public safety thing so people in apartments don't do something stupid like bring a kerosene heater into their unit and kill themselves with carbon monoxide gas or set the whole building on fire.

We (most probably) do have your kind of weather (-10C for the past month or so). We still get our stuff shut off if we're 1-2 months behind and cant pay. And the prisons wont accept you for minor damage/petty theft (the hobos(forgot the polite term) did that for a while to get warm and get a meal in the winter months, get out in summer or sooner). Our shelters were full before, are way past their limit now. Most anyone who cant pay right now goes to their relatives if possible, unkown if not.

Socialised healthcare can be great. So great that I personally cant imagine being forced to pay coverage. I have had to visit the doctor 3 times in the past 5 years, would have cost me a pretty penny if an insurance plan was needed. We are too small to say that we are the best, but almost anything we need is here. Anything we cant do here you are flown on country expense (I think, will check) to the nearest place that can.

AFPheonix

01-28-2009, 07:53 AM

Heh. This has been a pretty interesting winter here in the pacific northwest. It snowed again today, we rarely get more than a dusting in the Willamette valley each winter, this year has been pretty epic. I am glad that our utilities do have those stopgap assistance plans, as well as the help from non-profits who will help with at least a month's worth of utilities if people are having a hard time.

I have noticed many more people uninsured this month coming through my pharmacy. Insurance companies are also raising their copays by quite a bit, and a lot of people are choosing high deductible plans that went into effect Jan 1st so they could have lower premiums.
Luckily we've had a few pretty expensive drugs like Imitrex go generic lately, and I expect shipment of generic Effexor XR in the next few months as well. That should be a big help to a lot of people.

Slytovhand

01-28-2009, 08:48 AM

Well now, let me just add this scenario for you.

Just recently, my arthritis/gout started acting up. So, I went to a new doctor (wanted someone closer, and more human). First time I went in, went through the normal stuff. Didn't pay a cent :)

Second time, came back to let her know how my meds were going (getting bad reactions...). Again, didn't pay a cent :)

Then, lastly, I went to get some more drugs. Unfortunately, my script was out of date. So, I went back to doc (about 50 meters away), and (fortunately it was empty), I basically walked straight into her office and got said scripts..again, didn't pay a cent :D

I like our health system!! :D (drugs set me back a little though, but then as I expect them to last 6 months, a year, maybe 2... I'm not that worried).

AFPheonix

01-29-2009, 12:12 AM

I had some poor little old lady with a copay on lovenox of close to $3,000. Lovenox is a fast-acting blood thinner.

We as a country HAVE to do better as far as our health care coverage goes.

IDrinkaRum

02-04-2009, 01:12 AM

I was born there, it damn well better be! :p You are, of course, talking about Fairfax (which is really Annandale but hey, who's keeping track)?

Annandale, Fairfax ... meh ... it's all Northern Virginia, yes? :p It's just too funny ... Someone told me some place was in Springfield, just down the road from Springfield Mall, yet all the information I've been able to find say they're in like Alexandria. See ... sometimes Northern VA is just crazy.

protege

02-09-2009, 04:45 PM

We as a country HAVE to do better as far as our health care coverage goes.

I agree with you. However, people want it, but nobody wants to pay for it. People bitch and moan about the high prices of healthcare...but the moment you start talking about raising taxes to pay for it...they bitch about that too. It's either raise taxes, or cut spending (and pink elephants will fly)...which also gets bitched about. Jeez, why can't people understand that funding is finite, while the country's needs aren't?

However, I don't think that socialized healthcare is the answer. You get the government involved in *anything* and they'll fuck it up. What we need to do, is try to find a way to bring the costs down on what we have.

guywithashovel

02-09-2009, 09:17 PM

This attitude towards socialized health care is a good example of Americans cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
[/I]

I'm still "on the fence" over whether or not a universal healthcare system would work well here in the US. But be that as it may, you have to take time to consider how the far right sees the world.

You see, shortly before the 2008 election that gave Barack Obama the presidency, and it became painfully obvious that a McCain/Palin presidency was not going to happen without a miracle, they decided that ANYONE who challenges them on ANYTHING is

1. A Socialist, Communist, or Marxist (or a combination of the 3), and/or
2. Lazy and willfully unemployed.

If you talk to them (not all of them, though), and you differ with them on any of their salient points, they will probably get in your face and accuse you of being the reincarnate of Lenin and/or tell you that you should "get off your ass and get a goddamn job" (and they'll say this without taking the time to learn ANYTHING about your present employment situation). In short, they think *they* are the only ones on this planet who work hard for what they have. Evidently, everyone else is lazy and has no motivation in life.

This is why they start talking about lazy people and socialism every time a universal healthcare system is being discussed. They don't think anyone save them and their ilk contributes anything of value to the world.

As for a universal healthcare system for the US, it might work, but it may not be the best thing for our country. Just because it works well in other countries doesn't mean it would work well for us. I certainly think we should consider it as an option, but I do wish people would stop acting as though such a system would solve all of our healthcare problems. We would still have problems under a universal system just as we do under the system we have now.

prb

02-11-2009, 05:12 AM

Princess Margaret Hospital - The hospital houses one of the largest radiation therapy departments in the world. It has 17 radiation treatment machines, all of which are equipped with the latest technologies, a superficial ortho-voltage X-Ray machine, and operates a Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery machine in collaboration with Toronto Western Hospital. Also a world leader in Cancer research.

Toronto General Hospital - Its surgeons conducted the world's first double-lung transplant in 1986.

Trillium Health Centre (form. Mississauga Hospital) - Queensway Surgicentre - the largest not for admission surgical centre in North America.

I'll stick with my government healthcare :)

bigred

02-13-2009, 12:41 PM

People say a 2-5% increase in their taxes. But our Medicare levy is 1.5% I believe. I have private medical insurance on top of Medicare and the private is more than Medicare.

Having a universal health care system works. The two times I have been in hospital while an adult I went through the emergency room - first time a stroke, second time a bad break of my upper arm and dislocation of my shoulder. Didn't have to pay anything (because it was covered by Medicare), immediate care, no checking of my financial/insurance status. I could have been Joe Bloggs living on the street or a CEO, didn't matter, I got the best care straight away.

Shouldn't that be how it is in a humane society? You are in pain, we will help you. We won't turn you away, or send you into bankruptcy, because you have a low income. Should the people burnt last weekend in the bushfires have had their insurance status checked before being helped?

As an Australian I can't understand the health insurance being tied to your employer.

Slytovhand

02-16-2009, 07:13 AM

Good call BigRed. The only thing in our system (other than the backlogs and lack of pay for nursing staff..) is that it doesn't cover ambulance travel (but then - the governments don't put a lot of our tax money into ambulances...).

I find it slightly bemusing that human life is supposed to be the most important thing on the planet, yet here is a perfect example of where it clearly isn't.

Since the debate seems to more centred around US's healthcare system, I'd have to say there seems a clear need for people to pull their heads out of their butts and realise that some socialist reforms are needed for the betterment of their humans... capitalism really sucks for humanity as a whole...(well, unless you want to bring in Survival of the Fittest theories..)

TheRoo

02-16-2009, 07:32 AM

I wouldn't say that capitalism in general sucks for humanity. There are some things that capitalism does quite well for society on. Health care is not one of them.

Ideally, I would like to see health care somewhat akin to police and fire protection (both of which are socialized public services). Everyone would be better off if we all pooled our resources to provide health care to everyone, and eliminate for-profit corporations that make more money by denying claims.

Boozy

02-16-2009, 02:14 PM

.. capitalism really sucks for humanity as a whole...

We have capitalism to thank for vastly improving the lives of millions, if not billions, of people. Technological advances just do not happen without free markets.

Capitalism has it's problems, but overall, it's been beneficial to humanity.

Unfortunately, capitalism only works wonders when there's money to be had. There's no profit in treating a poor family without insurance. That's why the government needs to have a hand in health care.

IDrinkaRum

03-03-2009, 06:06 PM

For those who want Socialized or Universal Healthcare run by the Government, consider this:

Those of us who are working and paying taxes are already contributing to a Government health care plan. These are called Medicare and Medicaid.

Before anyone says anything about how "broken" they are, consider this also:

Have the money the Democrats are willing to put into Socialized Healthcare into these already funded-by-the-Government-so-we-already-have-a-form-of-Socialized-Healthcare programs to clean them up. Why not fix what we already have instead of creating something from complete scratch?

protege

03-03-2009, 06:21 PM

Why not fix what we already have instead of creating something from complete scratch?

Because that would make sense :p

Seriously though, fixing the problem doesn't get nearly the coverage that a new program would. Also, the Democrats seem to want people to be dependent on their government. Think about it, if everything that they're fighting for...suddenly goes away, they're literally a party without a cause.

AdminAssistant

03-03-2009, 09:35 PM

Well, I think the long-term goal is healthcare for everyone not just those that qualify for Medicare/Medicaid - two nightmares of bureaucracy. The entire insurance system is broken. For example: a friend of mine has asthma. He has a near impossible time getting affordable health insurance..and even then, they're reluctant to cover any asthma-related expenses, including inhalers and medicine. If he doesn't have the medicine, he dies. So...too fucking bad, sorry you were born with asthma? The whole system is broken and needs to be fixed so that everyone has access to affordable coverage - especially in preventive/general medicine. Obama is absolutely right - uninsured people going to emergency rooms for primary care is a drain on taxpayer money and clogging the system for those with genuine emergencies.

I'm interested to see what Governor Sebelius would do. I think she's a great choice, she's done wonders in Kansas with making sure the Planned Parenthoods stays open. I'm almost sad they picked her for head of Health/Human Services, because I'm afraid her Lt. Gov. won't be able to stand up to the neo-cons from western Kansas as well as she did.

Seshat

03-03-2009, 11:15 PM

I don't care what it's called, just go ahead and do it.

Give everyone under an income level of $X a low-income health card. Give everyone under an income level of $X + $Y an intermediate-level health card.

The person hands the card to a pharmacy tech with their prescription. The tech sees the card, logs that a card of that type was used (but not who the user was), and the medication is paid for with a maximum payment of $affordable-amount.
The government covers the rest, perhaps with assistance from the insurance companies - that aspect would have to be negotiated.
Prescription fraud would be an issue, but I'm sure it already is. Existing techniques and technologies can be used to handle prescription fraud without impinging on peoples' privacy.

Certain expensive medications might need a central authority to approve them - Australia does it that way. Back when the medication for the shingles virus was new, my doctor had to call in to get an approval to prescribe it - but she didn't have to say who she was prescribing it for.

The same cards could be used to access affordable general-practitioner visits and preventative health exams.

Those alone would go a long way to helping people. It does leave specialist issues un-accounted for, including mental health more severe than GPs can handle: but it would vastly improve public health in the USA.

Fashion Lad!

03-04-2009, 04:20 AM

I'm against socialized health-care.

One of the reasons America is what it is, is because of Capitalism. When you get into Socialized healthcare, you're tip toeing your way to Socialism, and I'm not for that.

I live in Rochester, MN which many of you may know that is the home of the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic employees about 30,000 people in a city of 100,000. Granted a lot of those employees our from our suburbs. You get to know people who work there and hear thier stories. People from Canada come here to get an MRI because there's a two month waiting list where they are. This isn't uncommon. Mayo Clinic gets patients from all over the world, one of the reasons because they are well-known, another is because these places with socialized health care sometimes have waiting lists so long that the patient will die before they are even diagnosed. (This isn't always the case, but it happens enough that I get to hear about it quite frequently.)

This is in our Constitution.. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " No where in our Constitution does it mention anything about a guarantee of happiness.

America cannot afford socialized health-care without a fair amount of sacrifice on our part. Right now with the projected spending for 2010 that our President has come up with, even if he taxed the top 2% 100% of their income, we still cannot afford what he has planned. So now, we're looking at raising taxes on people that are not in that top 2%. We'll have to start taxing the middle class. Socialized health-care would be something that we'd have to keep dumping money into, so they wouldn't be temporary tax increases.

Right now, as it stands, China pretty much owns America. Why? Because for some odd reason, we've decided to show restraint in printing money and now we just borrow money from China. If we cease borrowing from China, we then end up printing money making our money worthless.

We should not even beging to think about socialized healthcare until we fix the fact that our economy is tanking. We cannot afford it. There is no money. People need to understand that we are broke. There is NO money. We are borrowing money from China. I'm sorry that someone isn't going to get an MRI because they don't have health insurance. I really am. But we cannot afford it. This is for the greater good in my opinion.

Pedersen

03-04-2009, 04:52 AM

This is in our Constitution.. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " No where in our Constitution does it mention anything about a guarantee of happiness.

Minor nitpick: Our Constitution also doesn't mention "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Rather, the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm) has this to say:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The closest bit in the Constitution would be in the Preamble (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble). To wit:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note the segment in there which reads "promote the general Welfare." That would definitely seem to be an acknowledgement that general health is something that matters. Also note that it is in a document that is, in many ways, more important than the Declaration of Independence.

The DoI basically told the Crown to piss off. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, superceding all other laws. In fact, Article 6 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6) specifically states this as an inarguable fact.

With the presence of article 6 and the preamble in there, and with health care not being able to be afforded by a significant number of Americans, the government might well be obligated to provide health care.

Just some nitpicks and thoughts.

AdminAssistant

03-04-2009, 05:23 AM

I'm sorry that someone isn't going to get an MRI because they don't have health insurance. I really am. But we cannot afford it. This is for the greater good in my opinion.

Greater good? Who makes that decision? Doctors, Insurance brokers, you, me? Rich people are the only ones who deserve decent health care?

Reminds me of a quote from Dickens, "Well, if they're going to die, they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!"

guywithashovel

03-04-2009, 08:36 AM

If we ever adopt a nationized healthcare system here in the US, here are my conditions as of late:

1. I want to pay significantly less in the necessary taxes than I would pay in insurance premiums.

2. If I need to see a doctor for whatever reason, I want to get in within a reasonable amount of time. You can use your own good judgment to determine the definition of the word "reasonable."

3. I do not want to be told which doctor I have to go to.

4. I do not want to be required to go to the doctor on a periodic basis.

If we can implement a universal healthcare system that meets all these conditions, then I might be for it.

Also, to say that such a sytem would "put us on the road to socialism" is not accurate. We use quite a few other things that are "government provided" (e.g. roads, social security, libraries), and we have still retained capitalism There's no need to be overly dramatic about this.

Boozy

03-04-2009, 01:49 PM

We should not even beging to think about socialized healthcare until we fix the fact that our economy is tanking. We cannot afford it.

You cannot afford not to. You have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, no matter how you measure it; by per capita spending, government per capita spending, and as a percentage of GDP. On average, Americans pay 50% more per capita on health care than Canadians - and that includes the icnreased taxes we pay to fund our universal system.

Despite popular belief, the US doesn't have a free market-based health care system. HMO's are heavily subsidized by the government and pharmaceutical companies are patent-protected far beyond what the market would dictate. Special interest groups - not free market forces - have driven health care costs through the roof.

It's time to accept the fact that America has and will always have some hybrid of national and private health care. Finding the right combination of the two will save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars without sacrificing quality.

IDrinkaRum

03-04-2009, 02:02 PM

Again, as taxpaying Americans, we have to remember, we're paying $2.50 per paycheck approximately for an already Government provided healthcare system. Again, let me present two words: Medicare and Medicaid. Yes, they are tanking, but we already have this in place. If it's broke, fix it. DO NOT start over with a system that does have ridiculous amounts of wait time.

I was listening to Chris Plante on WMAL yesterday morning on my drive to my doctor's office. He and his wife were in Ireland to spread his wife's mother's ashes in front of the house the woman had grown up in before moving to America. His wife's Uncle (the dead mother's brother) couldn't be there for the ceremony. He had made an appointment 6 months previously because of some major health issues and his number had come up. He had tried to re-schedule the appointment as this was a family emergency of sorts, but he was told if he canceled now, he'd have to wait 6 to 8 months before getting another one.

This is what we want for America?

If this had happened in America, the Uncle could have said goodbye to his sister, helped with the spreading of her ashes, and had the appointment re-scheduled for later in the week.

How about the gentleman in England, who was told to make an appointment with a Cancer specialist so he could start his cancer treatments. There was ONE specialist he could see, and the person kept pushing the appointment back. (Not the patient, but the DOCTOR). By the time the patient saw the specialist, it was too late, and the guy died one month later.

In America, the gentleman could have found another specialist to see about his cancer treatments.

Call me an enlitist snob, but I prefer what we have now over anything else.

Fashion Lad!

03-04-2009, 02:24 PM

Now I remember why I shouldn't type anything so close to bedtime. I get two important documents mixed up about our nation's history. Anyway!

I think it's time just to bring in the facts. Just the facts. And yes, not having socialized health-care is for the greater good. Because if they can't afford the health-insurance to get an MRI, they probably can't afford the taxes it would take to have socialized healthcare. And when there's a long wait to get that MRI, that they probably can't afford in anyway shape or form, they probably can't afford to go to another city, state or country that *doesn't* have a waiting list.

And yes, I bring up affordibility. Why? Because *EVERYONE* has access to some sort of health insurance.

Ontario Keeps Sending Patients South--- I mentioned previously that a lot come to Minnesota for the Mayo Clinic to get their MRIs. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM. 20080301.wheart01%2FBNStory%2FNational%2Fhome&ord=108782161&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true)

Doctors from all over the world come to work at Mayo Clinic because they know socialized healthcare is a bad idea. We have your doctors, they are paid better for what they do, and have better working conditions.

Americans have better access to advanced medical care that Canadians do. (And we pay less in taxes.) (http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2748)

"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, in a release.
(http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html)

I can't make this up. I cannot make this up. This is kind of stuff happens more frequently in countries with socialized health-care. And before ANY of you nit-pick at that, read what I said very closely. I should be saying, I'm sorry some people are going to die because they have to wait so long to get healthcare. And for that, I am really sorry. It's sad.

The UK isn't immune to this either.

5,000 elderly 'killed each year' by lack of care beds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3341144/5%2C000-elderly-%27killed-each-year%27-by-lack-of-care-beds.html)

Come to the U.S. for your health-care needs. Yes, you'll pay, but you're more likely to live. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/nhs.health2)

So far, it seems like Canada is the biggest failure for socialized healthcare. How much do Canadians pay in taxes? All I need are percents.

There have to be other countries that are seeing a decline in healthcare due to the government running it...

Oh, there is... Australia... although, Australia may be doing pretty well. I can't seem to find a whole lot of dirt on them. Hmm... and the dirt I did find is pretty old. I'm going to have to look into their healthcare a little later. And don't worry, I will.

Oh, and wow... here's something for you. Because of the new tax plan that our new President has come up with. Raising taxes on couples earning $250,000 a year or more, more people will be without healthcare. Why? Because nearly 80% of all workers work for small business. Hey, couples making over $250,000... when do you want that project done? They are our bosses. They own the companies we work for. So now, they are going to get taxed more.

We'll put this into numbers...

250,000 at 35% under Bush's tax plan came out to them paying $87,500. This is just the simple math. And with Obama repealing their tax breaks, that comes out to $99,000 a year. So... we're going to raise taxes, put money into the healthcare system. Probably effectively boot more people off of healthcare because we're raising the taxes on the people who give us jobs and help us gain access to healthcare through corporate discounts... BRILLIANT!

I want everyone to have access to healthcare, that is why I don't want socialized heathcare. No, I don't have a solution to our healthcare, but neither does our government if they come up with socialized healthcare.

Dreamstalker

03-04-2009, 02:52 PM

If he doesn't have the medicine, he dies. So...too fucking bad, sorry you were born with asthma? The whole system is broken and needs to be fixed so that everyone has access to affordable coverage - especially in preventive/general medicine.
I never understood the "pre-existing condition" reasons for denying coverage....oh wait, it's so the multi-billion-profit companies don't have to lay out any more money than they want to.

CSI had a good episode that touched on the shady health insurance industry...I can't recall the title offhand, but an elderly woman decides to plow her car into the insurance offices because the company refused to cover needed cancer treatment.

Rapscallion

03-04-2009, 11:17 PM

This is what we want for America?

If it's done right, that's not what you'll have. I see you're quoting anecdotes, and I'll admit that there are failings in the system, but overall the NHS in the UK does a very good job, and that's one of the problems.

See, the NHS deals with a lot of problems. This means that we get a population with an increased life span, which statistically means there are more problems with people/more people with problems. If the NHS saves someone who would have otherwise died as a result of a disease, yet requires care for the rest of their life, they get the care and that's more resources used.

Rapscallion

Seshat

03-04-2009, 11:35 PM

I was listening to Chris Plante on WMAL yesterday morning on my drive to my doctor's office. He and his wife were in Ireland to spread his wife's mother's ashes in front of the house the woman had grown up in before moving to America. His wife's Uncle (the dead mother's brother) couldn't be there for the ceremony. He had made an appointment 6 months previously because of some major health issues and his number had come up. He had tried to re-schedule the appointment as this was a family emergency of sorts, but he was told if he canceled now, he'd have to wait 6 to 8 months before getting another one.

That's a sign of a faulty system, not a necessary aspect of a publically funded system.

I want everyone to have access to healthcare, that is why I don't want socialized heathcare. No, I don't have a solution to our healthcare, but neither does our government if they come up with socialized healthcare.

I know many, many Americans - yes, anecdotal evidence - who cannot afford health care in the current US system. They make too much or are unqualified in some other way for the 'safety net' systems of Medicare and Medicaid, but they aren't in jobs which supply medical insurance, and the 'Cobra' or whatever the system is for non-employer-based insurance is far too expensive.

I know many, many Americans who tell me that their pre-existing conditions can't be covered.

I have refused to move to America for no reason other than healthcare. I and my husband both have pre-existing conditions, and he's been flatly told he would not be covered. (He has a rare cardiac condition. Apparently the words 'rare' and 'cardiac' are both red-flags to the insurance companies.)

If you had a mental health care system which was affordable to the unemployed and unemployable, a lot of your homeless mentally ill would be able to be medicated to a point where they could look after themselves - and some to the point where they could hold down work.
One of my best friends would be homeless and mentally ill in the States simply because she'd be unable to afford adequate medical care, and -definitely- be unable to afford her meds, unless she was qualified for medicare/medicaid and those systems covered her treatment.

All that aside, let's look at this:

Government-managed universal healthcare:
Everyone chips in according to how much they can afford to pay.
Everyone gets healthcare.

Insurance company-managed universal healthcare, with government-funded assistance for the poor:
Everyone who can afford to pay chips in.
Everyone chips in for the rest according to how much they can afford to pay.
Everyone gets healthcare.

.... now, tell me, because I'm confused. Doesn't that mean both systems are going to be funded pretty much the same way, only the insurance-company one has additional administrative costs and is controlled by people whose objective is to maximise shareholder value?

..... cause, you know, I prefer the one where there are mechanisms in place for journalists, lobbyists, and Joe Average to stick their nose in and critique the administration of the system (provided privacy of personal information is maintained); and where the objective of the ultimate administrators is to keep the populace happy enough to re-elect them.

Fashion Lad!

03-05-2009, 02:05 AM

All that aside, let's look at this:

Government-managed universal healthcare:
Everyone chips in according to how much they can afford to pay.
Everyone gets healthcare.

Insurance company-managed universal healthcare, with government-funded assistance for the poor:
Everyone who can afford to pay chips in.
Everyone chips in for the rest according to how much they can afford to pay.
Everyone gets healthcare.

.... now, tell me, because I'm confused. Doesn't that mean both systems are going to be funded pretty much the same way, only the insurance-company one has additional administrative costs and is controlled by people whose objective is to maximise shareholder value?

..... cause, you know, I prefer the one where there are mechanisms in place for journalists, lobbyists, and Joe Average to stick their nose in and critique the administration of the system (provided privacy of personal information is maintained); and where the objective of the ultimate administrators is to keep the populace happy enough to re-elect them.

To touch one of the things that you mentioned earlier, there are some health insurers that will cover pre-existing conditions, you have to search for them.

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HOSPITALS! *blood shooting out of my eyes* The only time the government should be allowed in a hospital is to insure that the hospital is operating safely and properly. Otherwise, I don't want hospitals funding doctors and making choices for hospitals. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

You prefer when we have a chance to stick our nose in and critique the administration.................................... .................................................. .......................................... we basically have that through our election system. We write our sentors, our representatives and even the President. People hate earmarks... don't like them. Wasteful spending when we need to stimulate the economy... Taxpayers for Common Sense says the bill contains 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion. An estimated 60% of the earmarks are from Democrats, while Republicans requested the remaining 40%.

Yeah, they listened well. They followed through with what we wanted.

Polls show that earmarks -- the pork-barrel projects members of Congress "airdrop" into bills with little review -- are phenomenally unpopular with the public. But on Capitol Hill legislators continue to party with earmarks like it's still the Great Society.

The government is pretty much a failure when it comes to really looking out for us. I don't want the government to grow. I want it to shrink. People need to be responsible for their own lives. It's getting to be rather disturbing for me. More and more people are open to socialism and communism. Why, because no one fails and no one succeeds. No one wants to try anymore.

We are taxed too much as it is. Our taxes would not go up by a percent or two if introduced to socialized medicine. We would have portions of our tax payers paying over 50% to the government. Middle class would be paying probably in the 30s... everyone needs to pay for this.

The biggest problem I have with all of this is I do what I can to maintain a healthy lifestyle. I don't smoke, I rarely drink. I workout. When I'm injured, I try to do home treatment before resorting to a doctor. So, I'm hardly ever at the doctor. Then, Joe-blow next door, he smokes, I don't if he drinks, he doesn't work out. He eats McDonald's 3-5 times a week. And I'm going to take care of that when he goes to the hospital for a heartattack?

I am not responsible for you. You are not responsible for me. Let's be responsible for our own lives.

Socialized healthcare = fail.

Seshat

03-05-2009, 04:23 AM

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HOSPITALS! *blood shooting out of my eyes*

I feel much the same way about 'keep corporations out of our hospitals'.

The only time the government should be allowed in a hospital is to insure that the hospital is operating safely and properly. Otherwise, I don't want hospitals funding doctors and making choices for hospitals. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Our government lets medical people (doctors, specialists, medical administrators) actually run the hospitals, and make decisions about what's needed and so forth.
With an exception: census data might indicate that town X is growing so it needs additional health services, but town Y is shrinking so instead of a clinic going to town Y, it goes to town X; but even that is done by statisticians working with medical people, not by some bureaucrat who doesn't know a thing about health care.

So I'm not advocating letting non-medical people run the medical system: in fact, I think that a corporation-funded health care system is more likely (than a gov-funded system) to have non-medical people making key decisions. So to me, making it government-funded is making it MORE medically-run.

Of course, my culture (Australia) has a very different form of government to yours, and very different attitudes.

. People hate earmarks... don't like them. Wasteful spending when we need to stimulate the economy...

From here down, you seem to using jargon I don't know. (Earmark?)

People need to be responsible for their own lives.

A common argument US folk use against government-funded healthcare is the 'Nanny State' argument. In Australia, that's a paper tiger - our government and culture just doesn't go that way.

We are taxed too much as it is. Our taxes would not go up by a percent or two if introduced to socialized medicine.

What you need to do is check what people are paying in tax+medical costs. I think you'll be surprised at how much that is. Don't compare tax-with-universal-healthcare to current tax alone, but to current tax + health insurance + all the copays that would be reduced or removed.

The biggest problem I have with all of this is I do what I can to maintain a healthy lifestyle. I don't smoke, I rarely drink. I workout. When I'm injured, I try to do home treatment before resorting to a doctor. So, I'm hardly ever at the doctor. Then, Joe-blow next door, he smokes, I don't if he drinks, he doesn't work out. He eats McDonald's 3-5 times a week. And I'm going to take care of that when he goes to the hospital for a heartattack?

I am not responsible for you. You are not responsible for me. Let's be responsible for our own lives.

But you're already paying for Joe Blow's heart attack treatment, it's called health insurance premiums.

And there's the other issue. Bad luck. What if you, who eats well and so forth, suddenly keels over with all the symptoms of a heart attack. But it's not a heart attack. You get rushed to hospital. The cardiologist is confused. It seems to be some sort of syncope episode, but which sort?

Happened to my husband. It took him wearing a Holta(?) monitor while an episode occurred to figure it out.

Or you get fibromyalgia. Or multiple sclerosis. Or you have a kid who turns out to have early-onset (non-lifestyle) diabetes. Or any of a million other problems that are not 'lifestyle diseases'.

Do you want you (or your child, or your friends, or so forth) to have to choose whether to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment, or end up alive (most of these don't kill you outright), but non-functional and unable to work, homeless in the street begging for change?

That's what a no-insurance, no-government-funded health care system offers.

A 'look after everyone' health care system, on the other hand, cleans up the streets of most of the homeless-due-to-treatable-illness people. It can catch problems early, when they're cheap to treat. It can increase the pool of available healthy workers for the whole society. It reduces the risk of communicable disease by reducing the pool of weakened hosts. It reduces the incidence of crimes of desperation ("I was only stealing the DVDs to pay for my daughter's medicines, officer").

Because of that, a universal healthcare system is of enough broad social benefit, in my opinion (and yes, YMMV) to be worth being funded by society as a whole.
It's rather similar to society as a whole funding a police force, an army, sewerage systems, clean water systems, mass literacy and numeracy...... other 'broad social benefit' things.

Fashion Lad!

03-05-2009, 04:48 AM

But you're already paying for Joe Blow's heart attack treatment, it's called health insurance premiums.

And there's the other issue. Bad luck. What if you, who eats well and so forth, suddenly keels over with all the symptoms of a heart attack. But it's not a heart attack. You get rushed to hospital. The cardiologist is confused. It seems to be some sort of syncope episode, but which sort?

Happened to my husband. It took him wearing a Holta(?) monitor while an episode occurred to figure it out.

Or you get fibromyalgia. Or multiple sclerosis. Or you have a kid who turns out to have early-onset (non-lifestyle) diabetes. Or any of a million other problems that are not 'lifestyle diseases'.

Do you want you (or your child, or your friends, or so forth) to have to choose whether to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment, or end up alive (most of these don't kill you outright), but non-functional and unable to work, homeless in the street begging for change?

That's what a no-insurance, no-government-funded health care system offers.

A 'look after everyone' health care system, on the other hand, cleans up the streets of most of the homeless-due-to-treatable-illness people. It can catch problems early, when they're cheap to treat. It can increase the pool of available healthy workers for the whole society. It reduces the risk of communicable disease by reducing the pool of weakened hosts. It reduces the incidence of crimes of desperation ("I was only stealing the DVDs to pay for my daughter's medicines, officer").

Because of that, a universal healthcare system is of enough broad social benefit, in my opinion (and yes, YMMV) to be worth being funded by society as a whole.
It's rather similar to society as a whole funding a police force, an army, sewerage systems, clean water systems, mass literacy and numeracy...... other 'broad social benefit' things.

I understand that. But insurance companies also tend to give healthy people discounts while unhealthy people pay more.

I agree that everyone should have access to health care. There should be programs for that. The majority of Americans have health-care coverage. To change the rules to help the minority, may hurt the majority. I hate government. I want it to shrink. I do believe there should be more corporate responsibility for this kind of stuff, but this is capitalism.

**an earmark is basically funding for something silly, like tattoo removal. Tattoo removal is acutally in Obama's "earmark-free" stimulus bill."

BroomJockey

03-05-2009, 04:56 AM

Pedersen

03-05-2009, 05:22 AM

I understand that. But insurance companies also tend to give healthy people discounts while unhealthy people pay more.

This is true when the individual buys their own insurance policy. But I have never seen it happen when an employee buys their insurance through their employer. In fact, Ive heard (though never confirmed) that it is illegal for an employer to provide discounts based on the health of an employee or a dependent.

I have also seen insurance companies take a census of a workplace before issuing a rate quote to an employer.

Taken as a whole, these factors translate as follows: It is always in the employee's benefit to work for a company full of younger, healthier people. The employer pays less in premiums, which means the employee pays less as well, and gets a better health policy.

On the flip side, if you're a 25 year old working for a company where the average age is over 50, and the workers have regular health issues that require extended hospital visits, you're gonna get boned on the premiums.

Quite contrary to the claim of "insurance companies also tend to give healthy people discounts while unhealthy people pay more". Change the word "people" to "groups", and you're closer. Just make sure that you being the statistical outlier in the group works to your benefit. And hope like hell that your retirement comes way before the rest of the company's.

I like that plan. It's a good one.

Really. I mean it. Honest.

Aw hell, there goes my straight face.

AFPheonix

03-05-2009, 07:47 AM

To touch one of the things that you mentioned earlier, there are some health insurers that will cover pre-existing conditions, you have to search for them.

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HOSPITALS! *blood shooting out of my eyes* The only time the government should be allowed in a hospital is to insure that the hospital is operating safely and properly. Otherwise, I don't want hospitals funding doctors and making choices for hospitals. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

There are insurers that will, but guess what, you'll be paying an arm and a leg for poorer coverage with high deductibles.

And ha ha ha, you'd rather a company that is making money based on your care sticking their nose in your hospital? Would you like to know what happens then? You have to jump through a ton of "step therapy" hoops to get to the therapy that actually does something for you. You end up spending more and wasting time just because some insurance company pinches their pennies like nobody's business.
The pre-authorization system takes flippin' forever, too. It's rare that I can get a claim to go through in a week. At best it's several weeks, sometimes even for important shit like Procrit (http://www.procrit.com/procrit/).

This is after they've cut nursing hours down low enough that it's borderline dangerous just so they save money for bonuses.
I invite all of you who think everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps to volunteer at a free or low cost health clinic. I can guarantee you'll change your mind in a hurry. I'd recommend doing it now, because you'll be sure to meet a helluva lot of people who've lost their coverage through no fault of their own, and they face the choice of food on the table for themselves and their kids or health care. I know, I've met them both at my volunteer position and in my job.

As for Medicare and Medicaid, Medicare actually works quite well, as long as Congress isn't cutting doctor's reimbursements. I have a few beefs with Medicare Part D but overall, it's a good program. Same with Tricare.
Medicaid also has its moments of pretty darn good, but the offices in my area are overwhelmed at the moment so they've been slow getting people plugged in.

Rapscallion

03-05-2009, 08:57 AM

I understand that. But insurance companies also tend to give healthy people discounts while unhealthy people pay more.

Older people tend to require the most care. Corporations run on numbers. Deciding not to fully treat people as they start to cost the company so they stop costing the company is a sound fiscal policy in the actuarists' line of work.

Think about that when you start getting your first grey hair. Panic about it when you get your first grey pube.

If you need to borrow some to get the experience, I've got plenty of grey.

Rapscallion

Slytovhand

03-05-2009, 09:43 AM

Think about that when you start getting your first grey hair. Panic about it when you get your first grey pube.

If you need to borrow some to get the experience, I've got plenty of grey.

And here's me eating dinner as I read.....

2 other points FL. Firstly, what happens in towns where there is low economics? In the non-socialised system, someone will eventually make the decision that having medical treatment there is too expensive, so you won't have any medics there any more. Under the socialised system, even in areas people usually don't want to go, the government can offer up payouts, subsidies etc to incite medics to go there (we've got that for various places up in the Northern Territory in the middle of nowhere...).

Secondly, if you can't afford basic health care, what the hell is the government doing spending billions on a couple of wars? Is that more beneficial to the country than the health of it's citizens back home??

How about what we've got down under... you get a taxbreak for paying for private health insurance. (after all, our health system isn't the best either, given some waiting times, elective surgeries, apparently low pay for nursing staff, while doctors still seem to be loaded...)

Fashion Lad!

03-05-2009, 12:21 PM

Secondly, if you can't afford basic health care, what the hell is the government doing spending billions on a couple of wars? Is that more beneficial to the country than the health of it's citizens back home??

Well, one war was because these people *did* attack us. Quite amazing, maybe you missed it. Two towers, two planes... one Pentagon, one plane... one field, one plane... not ringing a bell? I give up.

The other war, I don't know why the hell we're over there. You say that statement as if I support that notion. Like I've said before, "less government." I want smaller government. I don't even want government in our schools, but apparently, that's something I'll never win. I'm a true conservative. I want less government and more individual responsibility. A lot of places that are low income places tend to have treatment centers for that cause.

Once again, less government. When has the government really ever done anything good? Or, when has the government really done anything well?

IDrinkaRum

03-05-2009, 01:45 PM

Fashion Lad!

03-06-2009, 02:21 AM

FL, I read two basic arguments in your posts. I hope I've got these right.

1. Government = bad.

2. I don't care about other people, and don't want them to care about me.

I know I stated those fairly bluntly, but that's how it reads to me. The second one first.

The redeeming concept of socialized health care, to me, is that if someone, through no fault of their own, is in dire need of high level care, even with insurance, you can still be required to pay tens of thousands of dollars for your care. I'd rather pay a bit of money each year not just against the fact that it may be me in that position someday, but that it may be someone I know, or someone I'd like to know. And since the cost is distributed across the entire population, it's not prohibitively priced. It's a simple matter of world perspective. You seem to be saying "My money is more important than your life." I say "Life is more important, no matter whose." As for wait times, my grandparents never had to wait when they needed life saving surgery, I didn't need to wait when I needed leg surgery. Transplants and such have waiting lists due to not enough donors, and some procedures have waiting lists just because we don't have the population to support more doctors, thus there's simply not enough personnel. From what I've heard of the US, if you take out the population factor, your system's no better.

The first argument about "government = bad" is purely your opinion, and strictly based on your limited (as in only your own) interaction with government. As Seshat pointed out, it's not like politicians go in and say "Sorry, you can't run that MRI, because you've exceeded your allotment of tracer for this month." In Canada, everything's done by regional health boards, which are comprised of people who are actually trained in medical care for the most part, and then bureaucrats from the government are a minority, and mostly act as the representatives to the politicians when it comes time to assign budgets.

Government doesn't solve problems. They are the reason for a large majority of our problems. I do care about other people. At the same time, when 66% of the country thinks that the rich, who have earned their money (typically fair and square) should have to pay more in taxes so they can go to the doctor for every shittin' little sniffle they have, that pisses me off and it's wrong. I know people who go to the doctor for EVERYTHING. Do or die. My parents came from nothing and now are considered "rich" and will have to pay more in taxes due to Obama's plan. And unfortuantly, will be part of the group that will be footing the bill for all of this. I'm not rich. And I still don't agree with this stuff. I don't agree that I should be forced to help out anyone. If I want to, and I do help people, then that should be ok. 15% of my annual salary goes towards chartiable causes. 15%. How much of your salary goes towards charitable causes? Don't fucking tell me that I don't care about anyone other than myself. I just don't think I should have to foot the bill for this stuff and neither should my parents.

There are insurers that will, but guess what, you'll be paying an arm and a leg for poorer coverage with high deductibles.

And ha ha ha, you'd rather a company that is making money based on your care sticking their nose in your hospital? Would you like to know what happens then? You have to jump through a ton of "step therapy" hoops to get to the therapy that actually does something for you. You end up spending more and wasting time just because some insurance company pinches their pennies like nobody's business.
The pre-authorization system takes flippin' forever, too. It's rare that I can get a claim to go through in a week. At best it's several weeks, sometimes even for important shit like Procrit (http://www.procrit.com/procrit/).

This is after they've cut nursing hours down low enough that it's borderline dangerous just so they save money for bonuses.
I invite all of you who think everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps to volunteer at a free or low cost health clinic. I can guarantee you'll change your mind in a hurry. I'd recommend doing it now, because you'll be sure to meet a helluva lot of people who've lost their coverage through no fault of their own, and they face the choice of food on the table for themselves and their kids or health care. I know, I've met them both at my volunteer position and in my job.

I've never had a problem getting the healthcare I need. I had surgery on my shoulder last summer. My insurance didn't as much as flinch when it came to footing the bill. I have my insurance through the Mayo Clinic, last time I checked, they're highering nurses like it's going out of style. They are not-for-profit clinic. And they do see people and treat people without insurance for free.

Think about that when you start getting your first grey hair. Panic about it when you get your first grey pube.

If you need to borrow some to get the experience, I've got plenty of grey.

Rapscallion

I've had grey hair on my head since I was 22. I'm not worried. I take care of myself. What happenes, happens. But, I don't have a history of making a lot of claims on my insurance. I buy my glasses and contacts outright. I pay for my own eye care. Why? Because it's not expensive.

The best thing at all, I know doctors. And they do not want socialized health care. Why? Because they say it reduces the quality of care overall. These doctors do travel the world to help out where they can.

I'll pay to make sure children are covered. Adults, they need to do what they can to take care of themselves. But, don't tell me I only care about myself because that's flat-out wrong, Boozy.

I take care of myself and help out when I can. I want others to do the same. Stop relying on the government to hold your hand, baby you from cradle to casket.

AdminAssistant

03-06-2009, 05:01 AM

Eye care is not expensive? Well, that's good to know, because the last time I went, it was $450 for the exam, new lenses, and frames. That may not seem like a lot to some people, but that's almost an entire paycheck for me (I get paid every two weeks). I have tension headaches that may be aggravated by eye strain, but I can't afford to go to the optometrist. I can go to the health clinic to get medicine for the headache, but the University in its infinite wisdom does not include eyes or dental in its student insurance.

I understand what you're saying about charity, but at this point I do not trust American society to 'do the right thing'. If you would like a current example of that, may I turn your attention to California, where the majority recently voted in favor of discrimination and the removal of basic civil rights.

There is one concern I have about the government getting involved in healthcare (I mean, more than they are) and that's abortion rights. I'm afraid the neo-cons are going to throw a big hissy and insist that if healthcare reform is to pass, then women's rights are going to be taken away. And that scares the hell out of me, and it could easily happen.

Healthcare reform IS coming. It's happening. I think President Obama has a very smart plan, bringing together all different groups to work out the ideas, holding regional town halls and all that. What the Republican Party has to realize is that compromise does not include banging fists on the table and whining that you can't get your way. It means finding a SOLUTION.

Amethyst Hunter

03-06-2009, 06:05 AM

I've been insurance-less for more than ten years. Ditto my family. My parents only just recently managed to get some insurance from my mom's job (which doesn't treat their employees very well to begin with) and that's just barely enough to take care of the both of them.

I'm also unemployed and pretty much unemployable, due to my physical and mental health issues (very few of which are my fault). When I can get employed, it's always part-time, because that's all I can handle. Part-timers rarely get insurance, and if they do, it's always chintzy stuff that doesn't hardly pay for peanuts.

In fact, I have a dental appointment this coming week to deal with a very likely cavity that's probably been festering for some time. I haven't had a dental checkup in *years* because - surprise - I can't afford it. I've only gone to have fillings replaced when one occasionally fell out. Doing that easily costs $150 or better.

I recently was able, thanks to very generous family members, get new glasses. Those cost over $200, and that's *without* any fancy extras like special tinting (like those kinds that change color when you go inside/outside). I have to change prescriptions, on average, about every 3 - 4 years depending on how bad my sight is (and it's pretty bad). I avoid choosing expensive designer frames - I rebuffed the salesperson who tried to get me to go with a nearly $200 set of frames and instead went with one that cost $38.

My prescription medication (birth control for wonky cycle) costs $60 out of pocket. For one month's supply. We won't even touch what my antidepressants used to cost when I was still on those.

My dad requires blood pressure and diabetes medications on a *regular* basis. Sans insurance, those would cost over $400 a *month*. My mom suffered a work-related back injury last year that would have cost thousands of dollars in therapy alone if she'd had to pay for it herself.

I don't qualify for current social aid programs because I live at home. And don't have kids. And am not married.

Frankly, I'd fucking kill for some nice socialized healthcare right now. And people who think people like me and my family should just be able to "pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps" or do without can just fuck right off as far as I'm concerned.

Conservative mouthhorns in the media love to wave around the socialism boogeyman, but the fact is that the type of socialism practiced by other countries today is nowhere near the Cold War-era type of fascism that was so feared back then. Done properly, with special restrictions and checks in place (like some of those already mentioned in this thread), it won't turn into that. If government is OMG SO EVIL, then how come we've seen some pretty bloody amazing reforms in this century in spite of all the bad stuff? This is why I reject the conservatism I've seen mutate over the years. I used to buy the myth that "all government is evil." Some politicians suck, true. Too damn many of them, for sure. But if all of them sucked, then how did we manage to get to where we are today, bad stuff excepted? America isn't completely in the toilet *yet*, and whatever else Obama may be or not be, at least he's making an honest effort to try and fix the problem, so for that he deserves some credit at least. (And no, I don't expect him to work instant miracles.)

And it just stuns me the utter *contempt* that some people have for the poorer of us in this country. How the fuck are the poorer citizens supposed to use their bootstraps if they can't fucking afford any in the first place (and it sure as hell isn't from lack of trying in the majority of cases)?

AFPheonix

03-06-2009, 07:23 AM

What I'm saying is that the United States doesn't need a Univeral Healthcare system. Why? Because we have government funded medical "insurance" already. Just because people don't utilize it, that isn't my concern. If they were serious about wanting medical coverage, they'd get it, but they don't. Plus, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and even Kaiser Permanente sell coverage to individual people/families on a sliding scale - just like automobile insurance, etc. We're not debating about whether or not we need Universal Automobile Insurance, are we?
Medicaid and Medicare are not universal plans, nor is veterans benefits or Tricare.
Further, those individual plans rarely offer that great of a deal to individuals. They're usually high deductible if-the-shit-hits-the-fan coverage. Oh, and did you miss the whole thing I posted where many people I have personally encountered are having to choose between eating and health insurance right now?
Lastly, Kaiser sucks on just about everything except preventative maintenance and maternity stuff. You couldn't pay me to be insured through them.
As for auto insurance, we ARE mandated to get insurance, so you could consider that universal coverage amongst the auto-owning public, if you will. The difference between that and your health is that you can choose to not drive if you can't afford the insurance. You can't choose to not get sick, injured, or otherwise debilitated.

I've never had a problem getting the healthcare I need. I had surgery on my shoulder last summer. My insurance didn't as much as flinch when it came to footing the bill. I have my insurance through the Mayo Clinic, last time I checked, they're highering nurses like it's going out of style. They are not-for-profit clinic. And they do see people and treat people without insurance for free.

Yay for a sample size of one.
I can tell you right now that not everyone has your experience with health care. I'd hazard to say about 50% of middle class people I encounter daily don't get to have the experience you have had. And these are people with coverage. I am getting more and more uninsured people everyday, more and more COBRA coverage every day (something you have to pay an arm and a leg for just to keep what you already had.)
The statistics are undeniable. We pay far more and get less care per dollar than any other country with a universal plan, even countries that don't pay into their national plan as well as others. People use Canada constantly as an example here, and if you look at the numbers, they are not as invested in their NHC as, say Britain or Germany.

bigred

03-06-2009, 11:42 AM

I also had surgery on my shoulder, twice, and 6 months of physio. There was no cost to me. I could have probably paid for it, but I have no idea of the cost. But because I earn enough to pay makes me more deserving of it? Both my grandmothers broke their hips, one on an old age pension without private insurance, the other on a pension based on her dead husbands job (cop) but also with private insurance. Both aged about 90 at the time of the break. Should one have received assistance and the other not? Both received assistance under 'socialised health', as would anyone else.

I wear glasses and have since I was 8. I get my glasses under my private insurance but could buy them outright. But what about people for whom the $500+ mine cost would put them in difficulties? When I was a kid the prescription changed a couple of times a year.

Fashion Lad!

03-06-2009, 12:29 PM

There is no right to healthcare

The United States was founded with the declaration that all men have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Founders recognized that all men have a moral right to be free from the coercion of others, as long as they allow others the same freedom. They believed that rights do not impose a positive obligation on others, but only the negative obligation to restrain from the initiation of force.

The claim that there is a “right to healthcare” violates the principle of individual rights because it requires that the liberty of doctors and the property of taxpayers be violated to provide for others. When the New Deal and Great Society programs forced doctors and taxpayers to become sacrificial offerings to the “common good”, the current “healthcare crisis” was born.

Everytime the government steps in and tries to save something, the area that is being "saved" realizes this and ups the cost. Education is one fine example. Everytime the government offers more government assistance for tuition, the cost of tuition goes up. It is going up much faster than the rate of inflation. A lot of families cannot afford to send their kids through school without getting loans. But these are loans that need to be paid back.

I'm against giving anyone anything for free unwillingly. I have no problem with a lot of education assistance programs because that is debt that needs to be repaid. Right now, there are a lot of Americans that do not pay taxes because they get everything back, plus they get an Earned Income Credit, so the government gives them some of the taxes that me and everyother American pays in for free. And these would be the people needing socialized healthcare, but they wouldn't be paying anything into the system. I'm not responsible for you, and you're not responsible for me.

I'll pay to have children covered and that's it. Children have absolutely no ability to get their own coverage.

When I was 19-22, I worked at Sears part-time. They offered part-timers the same insurance that they offered the full-timers. Same as when I worked at Best Buy. Same as where I work now at Hitachi.

And I know you all are thinking I'm an uncaring asshole. But the truth of the matter is I do care. But socialized healthcare is not the answer to solving this problem. Not in America. Not with what we're founded on. You guys are looking for the quickest fix, I want the most sustainable fix. We cannot be writing blank checks for me (24 years old) my children and their children to foot the bill. We can't afford what we're doing now. China owns us. I'm all for health care reform to get costs down, but I do not want the government taxing us, and giving us "free" healthcare like they do in a lot of other countries.

But you can twist what I say. I'm uncaring, selfish, whatever.

Boozy

03-06-2009, 12:48 PM

But, don't tell me I only care about myself because that's flat-out wrong, Boozy.

I believe that the post to which you're referring is Broomjockey's.

Sylvia727

03-06-2009, 04:43 PM

When I turned 18, I was dropped from my mother's insurance. I immediately applied for Medicaid. I was rejected, because to be eligible for Medicaid you must have been uninsured for six months. So I went uninsured. It wasn't a choice. My mom was broke, and I wasn't earning enough money to cover Cobra. During the six months while I waited to reapply, I was struck by a car. The hospital flew in a specialist to perform the surgery. The doctors told my family to make their peace, because there was an 8 in 10 chance I would die on the operating table. I spent weeks in the hospital, months in a wheelchair, months on a walker and in physical therapy. I still can't sit with my legs under my body for too long, or my muscles will seize up and I won't be able to walk. I can't carry anything on a staircase because if my knees stop working I need my hands free to catch my fall.

The total amount of my hospital bills exceeds one hundred thousand dollars. One hundred thousand dollars. If I get a decent job after school, it will take me four years to earn that much money, and I'll need some money to live off of. How long will it take me to pay that debt off? Ten years? Fifteen? Obviously I'm a teeny bit biased. But I don't think even one person should be in my situation. Even one person is too much. America is supposed to be better than that, more civilized than that.

I tell my friends that debt is better than death, but if medical bills counted against my credit score, ruining my chances to rent an apartment or buy a car or get a credit card, would I be so flip? People have commited suicide over that amount of debt, and I understand why.

Fashion Lad!

03-06-2009, 06:52 PM

I'm sorry, Boozy. My bad. I apologize

Fashion Lad!

03-07-2009, 02:10 AM

I know I've beat this to death... but, we cannot afford socialized healthcare.

America's Federal Debt is Beyond Comprehension (http://www.awb.org/articles/budgettaxes/america_s_federal_debt_is_beyond_comprehension.htm )

Walker figures $53 trillion will cost the average American household $455,000. Since the average family income is $50,000, that is an implicit mortgage of over nine times their yearly income.

This is the first year that the baby boomer's are eligible to retire. And for the next 20 years, they will continue to retire. Our country will go bankrupt, and things will become a lot worse. This isn't speculation, this is true. I for one, am fearful for what the next 10-20 years has in store for me.

The $34 trillion problem. Medicare is poised to wreak havoc on the economy. And our presidential candidates are avoiding the issue. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/03/news/economy/104239768.fortune/index.htm)

Medicare provides a wide range of services and subsidies to more than 40 million old and disabled Americans. As the country ages, Medicare and Medicaid (for those of any age with low incomes) will devour growing chunks of U.S. economic output. So will Social Security, but its cut of gross domestic product (GDP) should stop increasing around 2030, says Fortune: (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15710)

David Walker interview about the economy (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/4595/)

WALKER: Well, let's talk about today, okay? I mean, you know, you would end up having to increase taxes about $11,000 per household immediately in order to deal with this problem. Stated differently, you would end up having to -- we would end up having to tax, rather than at about 18 1/2% of the economy, which is what we're doing now, about 30% of the economy over the next 15 to 20 years and continuing to rise. And those taxes would be borne primarily in all likelihood either based upon income taxes or some type of consumption tax because payroll taxes are already burdening too many Americans.

I understand that people are worried about their health. I understand this. I have health insurance now, but when I was a kid my family and I lived in low-income housing. My parents big treat to themselves was a case of pop every week. My parents had to put children's shoes on lay-away to afford them. I've been down that road. My dad works 80-90 hours a week to make the type of money that would consider him rich, and would make him a prime target for the tax increases. My mom works 40 hours a week at the Mayo Clinic. That's how we have the health insurance we have.

I work full-time and I go to school full-time. I save my money. Any money left-over really, I put in my Ing Direct savings account and let it accrue interest.

Honestly, the the financial state that I'm looking as I get older scares the hell out of me. It absolutely terrifies me. The $34,000,000,000,000 problem, is a problem with interest. Each year our government spends more money, is another year we don't take care of this problem. It's another year that interest accrues. And this is why I don't want the government doing stuff. They don't do it right. They won't make the tough call to help us in the future because it'll make them unpopular now.

Medicare and Medicade are pretty much why we are where we are. Our government's fiscal irresponsibility is why it's easy to say that we are in big, big trouble in the coming decades. I'm talking 2-5 decads. We'll feel a lot more pain than what we feel now. No one will have health insurance.

Cutting programs is for the greater good. There will be growing pains. If you aren't worried about the 34 trillion dollar problem, I'm worried about you.

Seshat

03-07-2009, 12:07 PM

I'll pay to have children covered and that's it. Children have absolutely no ability to get their own coverage.

Neither do the disabled-and-unemployable, the disabled who are unable to work full time (most part-time jobs do not carry health care, and most that do carry only partial health care). Both are on very low incomes, and pensions are barely enough to pay rent, feed yourself basic food, and clothe yourself at charity shops.

Nor can the unemployable, whether they are simply in the wrong place to find work, or unemployable for reasons of illiteracy, innumeracy, or some other 'fault'. Employability programs help, but they're unable to get coverage in the meantime.

And the majority of disability, in my experience, is sheer bad luck.

I know I've beat this to death... but, we cannot afford socialized healthcare.

I can't see how you can afford NOT to have it. Your future problems would be eased by increasing your useful workforce, and treating your disabled and currently-unemployable would do just that; while relieving your welfare burden.

My dad works 80-90 hours a week to make the type of money that would consider him rich, and would make him a prime target for the tax increases. My mom works 40 hours a week at the Mayo Clinic. That's how we have the health insurance we have.

I work full-time and I go to school full-time. I save my money. Any money left-over really, I put in my Ing Direct savings account and let it accrue interest.

So all three of you are employable. Good for you.

I 'work' all day every day to look after my stupid body, my best friend's broken brain, and try to make myself employable. So does she. Our carer also works all day every day, either tending to us or trying to bring in extra income.

If society paid people based on sheer effort, we'd be rolling in it. I honestly can't see how your family deserves more than mine based on effort. (Admittedly, our effort ends up largely inward-focused: most employed people are able to increase the society's wealth.)

But please don't use effort to justify your family's wealth. Poor people put effort in too.

They won't make the tough call to help us in the future because it'll make them unpopular now.

You mean the tough call of increasing your social productivity? Apparently not, not if you were in charge.

Cutting programs is for the greater good. There will be growing pains. If you aren't worried about the 34 trillion dollar problem, I'm worried about you.

'Bad debt' is debt which will not improve the society's effectiveness in the long term.
'Good debt' is debt which will improve the society's effectiveness in the long term.

Improving public health, public sanitation, public education, transport (to a point) and public safety improve social effectiveness.
Improving housing to the point where the public is housed in clean homes, spaced far enough apart to prevent overcrowding health problems, improves social effectiveness.

I have my own ideas about what the US government is doing that's 'bad debt'. I'm sure that if I described them, you (Fashion Lad) would deem them 'liberal hippy nonsense'.

A society has two ultimate forms of wealth: its people (preferably skilled) and its resources. A skilled society can get away with purchasing resources, improving their value, and onselling the finished product. But a society which forgets the rule, will go into debt and crash.

Protect the people. Protect the resources. All else is excess.

Slytovhand

03-07-2009, 02:26 PM

A simple question for those against socialised (pretty much anything). Why is it so bad for the US to do this, and send their economy spinning out of control, yet it's ok in other countries? What's the relevant significant difference??

Also, what's really the difference between paying for roads, military, overseas charity, public service, education, social security, etc, but not health? (again, relevantly significant differences?)

Other than just getting government out of things. I presume we're talking about an idealised healthcare system, rather than just government irresponsibility or general crappiness.

Rapscallion

03-07-2009, 06:17 PM

15% of my annual salary goes towards chartiable causes. 15%. How much of your salary goes towards charitable causes? Don't fucking tell me that I don't care about anyone other than myself. I just don't think I should have to foot the bill for this stuff and neither should my parents.

Problem is, it does sound like you only care for you and yours.

Which charitable causes? Churches over here are charities, and I suspect the same for over in the US. If it's to a church and ringfenced for feeding the impoverished etc, fine, but charity would also count for donations to the upkeep of your church. If it's not relgious, have a look at the accounts for the charities you support. Some of them over here spend nearly 80% of their income on 'administration'.

I've had grey hair on my head since I was 22. I'm not worried. I take care of myself. What happenes, happens. But, I don't have a history of making a lot of claims on my insurance. I buy my glasses and contacts outright. I pay for my own eye care. Why? Because it's not expensive.

I was using grey hair as a measure of age. I'm knocking on the door of forty and things have already started to creak. That sort of thing does tend to concentrate your thoughts. As you get older, bits start wanting to drop off. The problem isn't that you can afford it now, but can you manage to afford it when you'll really need it?

I take care of myself and help out when I can. I want others to do the same. Stop relying on the government to hold your hand, baby you from cradle to casket.

What of those who are incapable? When I was in retail, one customer was a high court judge. His son has Down's Syndrome (or similar - never really asked). The father loves his son and has an income and life that allows him to look after and try and get his son to be at least somewhat independent. Who looks after him when his parents are old, feeble, and eventually dead?

Where I live, it's not exactly impoverished, but there are many families on the social or living on one income. If they have such a problem, what do they do? Go back to exposing them on hillsides? Give up work and live on other benefits?

Someone on a low-paid job who gets injured and can't afford medical care may be out of action permenantly, yet with free treatment then they could be a productive worker once more. I know you say the doctors you know do voluntary work, but that's not all doctors, and that's effectively the same system via another means. Every economy takes money from your pocket - it just calls it different things.

The NHS in the UK is our largest employer, last I heard. Debt to give people jobs results in more economic stimulus.

Rapscallion

Rapscallion

03-07-2009, 06:23 PM

A simple question for those against socialised (pretty much anything). Why is it so bad for the US to do this, and send their economy spinning out of control, yet it's ok in other countries? What's the relevant significant difference??

I think it's culture. The US has a different culture, which is why laxer gun control works there, but wouldn't work in the UK.

When we brought the NHS in over here, there was a period of adjustment. Sure, it hit peoples' wages by a small percentage every week, but people got used to it. Same as any other tax.

I think it could work given time for the population to adjust. It would probably require an opt-out for those with existing health insurance, for a limited time (a decade or so), but it could be managed if handled right.

Rapscallion

DesignFox

03-07-2009, 08:09 PM

Yippee for those of you fortunate enough to have good medical coverage.

I went for a year without medical coverage and thank the many deities, nothing bad happened to me in that span of time.

Most insurance companies will not cover the damage or illness that befell you if the condition existed before you signed on to their insurance package.

I have worked part time jobs, and nearly all of them deny their employees benefits. If you work, you can't get government assistance because you make too much money- at least, as a single, 20 something year old woman who just got out of college you do.

Now, if I'd have had a kid- that would be a different story. THEN I could get coverage for myself and my child. HOW a woman is supposed to work as a single mother, I've no idea.

Since I would rather work and contribute to society, I am being punished.

I SEARCHED for individual health care. I was willing to pay for it out of my own pocket. A SHITTY plan would have cost me at least $400 a month. And most of that coverage was all for preventative. It did not cover ambulance costs, and made me pay a significant amount out of pocket for hospital costs.

Additionally, COBRA is fucking outrageously expensive.

When I DID work full time, and had to leave and find another job (personal reasons which I won't get into- no I didn't get fired) in order to continue the shitty coverage I had at that job, I was expected to pay upwards of $500 a month!

Considering that most full time jobs make you wait 6 months before they will insure you...THNK ABOUT THAT. :eek: And that's if you are lucky and find a new full time job, with benefits immediately!

I mean, sure, as a young 20 something, if I got hurt I could declare bankruptcy and go on charity care. That sounds fucking great. Let me cost the tax-payers, ruin my credit so I can never get anywhere in life and hope to god I'm not disabled so I can at least go back to work and contribute to society once again.

I can do as I've done in the past and let a simple "sniffle" turn into a wracking cough. I can let my virus spread to my co-workers because I can't afford to miss a day of work, but I also can't afford to go to the doctor, and can't afford the medicine if I COULD afford the office visit....I can go another 3 years without an eye exam because I can't afford to see the optometrist... while I did purchase my contact lenses I still can't afford new lenses for my glasses. (I don't have a vision plan).

Oh, and the last time I needed work done at the dentist- $150 to fill a simple cavity. That doesn't include what I pay every 6 months for x-rays and a cleaning. AND that doesn't take into account that a couple years ago (thankfully my Dad was willing to help me pay for this) I had to have all my fillings replaced and a cap put on one tooth which cost me $1500.

My current job offers medical (thank god- it's not great but I won't go bankrupt) but I do not have vision or dental. If I were unlucky enough to be unemployed, I'm only 27, so still too young for medicare.

So just fuck me, right?

I'd like someone to come up with something better than this. I don't know what on earth we need to do, but I consider myself lucky to have what I have, and lucky to be able to afford what I can.

What about the people that can't? What about people like me who are young and trying to be productive members of society, but are hindered by the horrendous cost of healthcare?

What about the people who get struck by cars and now find themselves in horrible debt and can't get out? Sure, maybe the drivers insurance SHOULD have covered the expenses (or at least some of them). And sure, we are all by law required to have insurance if we drive a motor vehicle, but that doesn't mean everyone abides by the law- what if you are struck by an uninsured driver?

So, fuck those people, too, huh?

There HAS GOT to be a better way.

Not all of live near the Mayo clinic, or are fortunate enough to have a parent that works there. Not that it would matter after you reach a certain age.

Not all of us work for the military/want to work for the military, or have family members who work for the military and so get free healthcare (and I really don't begrudge them that- I'm just making a point).

Not all of us live in an area that even has decent hospitals. The closest hospital to me is shitty as hell. I hope to all the heavens that I never get hurt around here and have to be subjected to their treatment. And the SCAMMING that goes on in the ER! (personal experience my dad had- thankfully he was coherent when the ambulance picked him up/dropped him off or he'd be out a few hundred dollars)

Our system needs help.

Fashion Lad!

03-07-2009, 08:11 PM

apparently bothering to read the articles about the $34 trillion problem is below you guys. If you had bothered to read it you'd say "oh, they're doomed" because we are. The proble is people think they can sell bills (to china) print money and solve all these silly money problems. The $34 trillion problem is not political in anyway. This is straight truth coming from the guy who audits the books of The US Government. Honestly, there are a lot of other programs I'd cut too. But, you guys only see me as not wanting people to have health care and that's not true. If there was a way we could cover everyone and not put the burden on the rich. I still want the people being covered to pay in. That means no EIC where people who don't pay in to begin with get more money.

Once again, we cannot afford to have socialized healthcare. Absolutely cannot unless ALL Americans are willing to pay about 40 cents on every dollar they earn to the federal government. And, before you guys jump down my throat, I advise you to really look at those articles. They are A-Political

DesignFox

03-07-2009, 08:22 PM

I'm not saying that a $34 trillion dollar dept isn't a problem. It is. Maybe we need to restructure WHAT it is we are investing in.

Bailing out failing corporations and their CEO's comes to mind as ONE questionable expense....

Rapscallion

03-07-2009, 09:37 PM

apparently bothering to read the articles about the $34 trillion problem is below you guys.

What would you regard as an acceptable cost?

What value would you place on a human life?

Rapscallion

Fashion Lad!

03-07-2009, 09:54 PM

The average person that draws social security, draws more than 10 times more than they put in. Medicare (government healthcare) is the *main* reason why we're in this mess. The money is already going into a system that is making us bankrupt. READ the article. Reas it all before you dispute it. Government healthcare is why we're facing this $34 trillion problem. Human life is currently now $34 trillion that we cannot afford. There is no money. When the interest payments are due, should we just print more money?

Offer a solution that actually addresses the real reason why we cannot have socialized healthcare in the grand format like many people want here? How do you add to a system that is the main reason for the $34 trillion and make it affordable Please, I'm open to suggestions. Go to recovery.org and tell Obama your idea.

Rapscallion

03-07-2009, 11:18 PM

Again, I ask what is an acceptable amount to spend on this sort of project? What price do you put on a human life?

When did I say I wanted a grand format of US healthcare? It's not even my country - I was citing examples from the UK, since I happen to live here.

Rapscallion

Seshat

03-08-2009, 12:41 PM

But, you guys only see me as not wanting people to have health care and that's not true. If there was a way we could cover everyone and not put the burden on the rich.

Medicare (government healthcare) is the *main* reason why we're in this mess.

Offer a solution that actually addresses the real reason why we cannot have socialized healthcare in the grand format like many people want here?

It is possible that the US has waited too long, and is essentially doomed. However, it's possible that it hasn't.

My solution: stop or reduce spending on things which do not improve the main money-making assets of any society. Audit the things which do improve the money-making assets of the society, then increase spending on them.

What are the money-making assets of society? The populace and the resources.

Where do I perceive the US' national capital going (as in actual resources, not necessarily paper resources)?
Excessive salaries for those who can claim them, legislative proposals with no purpose but grandstanding for the politicians who make them, an excess of layers of government (do you really need so many local school boards?)... a whole bunch of places like that.

Trim all of that, and you'd be surprised how much real wealth suddenly becomes available to spend on improving the health of the potentially-working populace.
Give all your people a full health workover, and you'd be surprised how many previously unable-to-work people are now available to work: which means a much lower welfare bill, and an increase in taxpayers. More money!

AdminAssistant

03-08-2009, 03:26 PM

Wasteful government spending....hmmm....

How about NASA? A friend told me that they recently lost $300 Million when they botched a satellite launch. As much as I appreciate what NASA has done for us, and think we should keep it, do we really need to be worried about Mars right now?

I would argue that the two wars overseas, and certainly the situation in Iraq, are wastes of American money and need to end - but that's for a different thread, methinks.

And there are certainly other places to trim some fat. We need to be focusing on education, healthcare, social services, and the economy right now.

Evandril

03-08-2009, 09:51 PM

Military spending, and other 'pork' measures should be cut *LONG* before medical coverage is. We do *NOT* refuse treatment to people in need of it...so the person denied a $100 checkup ends up having a serious medical problem that costs $100,000...With a grand savings to the government of negative $99,900. That's the part people don't mention, when they talk about how we can't 'afford' it. Of course, when people refuse to get checkups and the like (I dislike them myself...but being in the military, they are not optional...and I agree with that, honestly) cause similar problems, but that's a seperate issue.

A country can survive without anything...except it's people. I challenge you to show me a nation that does not care for it's people, who is a player on the international scene. Even China, reviled as it is, provides medical care for it's people.

daleduke17

03-09-2009, 02:32 AM

A country can survive without anything...except it's people. I challenge you to show me a nation that does not care for it's people, who is a player on the international scene. Even China, reviled as it is, provides medical care for it's people.

The United States. The USA doesn't give a flying damn about the citizenry around here (except once or twice every four years) then goes off and gives and gives to every other country in the world.

Seshat

03-09-2009, 05:02 AM

The United States. The USA doesn't give a flying damn about the citizenry around here (except once or twice every four years) then goes off and gives and gives to every other country in the world.

Again, I perceive providing aid to other populations as a positive thing, though more optional for a society than tending to its own citizens.

I think there's a lot of waste the USA can cut before it should cut disaster relief efforts (for everyone*) or healthcare (for its own people).

Development aid I'm more iffy about: so much of it gets misdirected or misused that I see careful auditing as necessary there. But with proper auditing, I see development aid (in the cynical and long-term view) as developing a suitable market for the society's products.

* No, I'm not saying the USA should be carrying the burden of disaster relief for everyone. I think the USA should take a fair share of disaster relief, along with everyone else. How much is fair? Per capita GDP could be a rough rule of thumb.
Or a 'who has the expertise' set of rules: like Aussieland sending California firefighters with lots of experience in Eucalypt fires, or the Dutch providing experts in low-lying land reclamation to help with preventing a repeat of New Orleans.
Or simple proximity: New Zealand sent us (Australia) extra personnel when we had our severe fires last month.

AdminAssistant

03-09-2009, 01:46 PM

then goes off and gives and gives to every other country in the world.

Well, the ones that we like or can in some way profit from later. Which explains why we're fiddling in the Middle East (mmmm, oil) but in many ways ignoring the various problems in Africa - Sudan, Darfur, massive government corruption in many countries, AIDS crisis still raging.

Or the ones with political idealologies that match ours. I'm working on a show about Cuban-Americans, and we had a guest speaker who immigrated here from Cuba. He went back in the 80's, and the stories he told us about near-starving family members were heartbreaking, as well as the fact that he wasn't able to go see his relatives when they were on their deathbeds. Gave a whole new perspective on Cuban/American relations.

daleduke17

03-09-2009, 03:16 PM

Well, the ones that we like or can in some way profit from later. Which explains why we're fiddling in the Middle East (mmmm, oil) but in many ways ignoring the various problems in Africa - Sudan, Darfur, massive government corruption in many countries, AIDS crisis still raging.

Darfur...what a mistake for the US to get involved in.

Boozy

03-09-2009, 03:27 PM

How about starting another thread on foreign aid? There's many directions that topic could take us, so we're apt to get sidetracked rather quickly. It deserves it's own thread.

protege

03-09-2009, 03:33 PM

Getting back to healthcare...I agree that something needs to be done. However, I *don't* think the answer is to throw more money at the problem, and hope it goes away. Nor do I think that making the rich pay for it is the answer either. I have a feeling that when Obama proposed his "soak the rich" campaign, he was simply feeding off the hatred that many have for Wall Street :rolleyes:

AFPheonix

03-09-2009, 05:21 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "soak the rich".
All he's doing is returning tax levels on the rich back to what they were pre-bush era. That's hardly a huge burden to bear, considering they were bearing it juuuust fine before.

protege

03-09-2009, 06:53 PM

Well, considering all the rhetoric flying around CNBC today...you'd think he was declaring some sort of class warfare--"redistribution of wealth" being a popular phrase right now :rolleyes:

Evandril

03-10-2009, 12:17 AM

Well, considering all the rhetoric flying around CNBC today...you'd think he was declaring some sort of class warfare--"redistribution of wealth" being a popular phrase right now :rolleyes:

*gets out his Robin Hood hat and bow*

...What?? ;)

I still wonder if a more 'elective' tax would help...Not as much how much you pay, but earmarking your money to what *you* want it to go towards. I'd happily pay more in taxes if I could pick what was done with it.

Boozy

03-10-2009, 01:02 PM

This poor thread seems determined to go off-topic.

Tax policy is yet another fascinating topic that could take us in many directions. I don't think we have a thread wholly dedicated to the subject, so feel free to start one.

Have we said all we need to say about socialized healthcare?

IDrinkaRum

03-10-2009, 01:52 PM

Hmmm .. how about this? Just a thought or 2 or something like that.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. We wind up paying for it somehow. Either in the money the citizens will be forced to pay. Watching our government dollars go down the drain to sustain it. Or even by paying because we won't be able to get the better doctors, the better tests, etc., etc.

Also, someone mentioned that we Americans seem to not like the idea of Socialized Healthcare in America, but are okay with it in other countries. When I hear stories of the long wait times for services, or that doctors/dentists are going into private practice therefore making it harder for those on the socialized healthcare system to find competent people, I wonder: Why do these people still put up with it? It can't be worth it, can it? I think any country with socialized healthcare is completely and utterly insane.

the_std

03-10-2009, 04:00 PM

Also, someone mentioned that we Americans seem to not like the idea of Socialized Healthcare in America, but are okay with it in other countries. When I hear stories of the long wait times for services, or that doctors/dentists are going into private practice therefore making it harder for those on the socialized healthcare system to find competent people, I wonder: Why do these people still put up with it? It can't be worth it, can it? I think any country with socialized healthcare is completely and utterly insane.

I think you hold this opinion because you've never lived in a country with socialized health care.

My ex-boyfriend is an epileptic, highly susceptible to grand mal seizures. The force of his seizures is so great that, every time he has one, he dislocates both of his shoulders. I couldn't put them back in place myself, so every time he had a seizure, I had to take him to the ER. Six times in the eight months we lived together. We were both students, living off of less than $12,000 a year. Can you imagine the debt he would be in now if it weren't for socialized health care? We got it for free. And we were in and out of the ER in six hours each time. That includes x-rays, medication reviews, painkillers and the procedure to put his shoulders back.

There are some wait times on non-emergency things, such as surgeries and appointments, but if you have a problem, it is fixed right now, and for the cost of a bit of raised taxes. It really isn't as much as you think.

I personally think that any person who objects to a socialized health care system is completely and utterly insane, because not only are they hurting themselves, but they're hurting their entire country.

AFPheonix

03-10-2009, 07:47 PM

For every story I hear about someone having to wait for a procedure, I hear 3 more excellent things about socialized care. Further, most of the bad stories are generated from Canada, which puts fewer funds into their national health plan than other countries, and most of the complaints come from people in very rural areas where there are fewer specialists dealing with a larger area.
What also cracks me up is that very often complainers (I'm related to many of them) tend to gloss over the good things they have from their benefit. I noticed that when I was up there visiting last summer. They bitched and moaned about stuff they had to pay for, and then glossed over the many benefits they received in kind.

We have to pay for our health care one way or another. Either it's to a private company that wastes it and acts as a roadblock to people needing care and not being able to afford it, or we pay government through taxes where at least everyone gets to have access to a basic level of care. I frankly would prefer the latter. Especially since it has been shown over and over that those in a nationalized plan pay less money overall and receive better care.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/healthcare/healthcare_profiles.html

Boozy

03-10-2009, 08:01 PM

What also cracks me up is that very often complainers (I'm related to many of them) tend to gloss over the good things they have from their benefit. I noticed that when I was up there visiting last summer. They bitched and moaned about stuff they had to pay for, and then glossed over the many benefits they received in kind.

You're absolutely right about this. Canadians love to bitch and moan about the health system. We sometimes forget how good we have it.

Incidentally, I don't think everyone here realizes that Canada has managed to provide universal and comprehensive health care for every single one of its citizens - and our tax rates are comparable to those of the US. This isn't about how much it costs, it's about priorities.

Seshat

03-11-2009, 02:08 AM

When I hear stories of the long wait times for services, or that doctors/dentists are going into private practice therefore making it harder for those on the socialized healthcare system to find competent people, I wonder: Why do these people still put up with it? It can't be worth it, can it? I think any country with socialized healthcare is completely and utterly insane.

Because the long waits and the lack of competent people is the oddity, not the commonplace.

Yes, you have a long wait if you go to Emergency with a non-urgent problem, but that's the nature of the emergency room. And the one time I had to do it, we needed the use of the X-ray to detect whether it was serious, or non-serious masquerading as serious. As we were waiting for the X-ray to become available, we heard ambulance sirens. Shortly afterwards, a very nice and apologetic nurse told us they'd just got a very nasty accident in, and there'd be a long wait.
So my friend nipped over to the 7-11 and got some magazines. The staff dropped in from time to time to reassure us they hadn't forgotten us, and to check on my husband (the patient).
So yeah, long wait, but damn good reason for it. And handled very well. And it turned out that the problem was non-serious masquerading. So phew.

But I've been to a public hospital emergency room with urgent cases twice now. And both the heart attack and the overdose were made stable immediately-if-not-sooner.

There can also be a long wait to get on the patient list for the truly excellent general-practice (or 'family') doctors: but that's true no matter what the system. The difference with a public healthcare system is that the truly excellent doctors can be accessible to anyone, not just the rich.

A case study

My mentally ill friend needs medications which she's priced: in a private health care system, she'd be facing a $300/month bill for just one of her meds. In our health system, she pays about $5 for it.
Given the way health funds in the States work, we think she'd be unable to get coverage: pre-existing condition, unable to work, needs regular psych visits and occasional follow-up care, needs multiple psychoactive meds.

Here, she gets all of those, and can look after herself most of the time, is the primary carer for another disabled person, and does significant amounts of volunteer work (on a 'when she can' basis).

As near as we can tell, in the States, she'd be unable to get her meds or the psychiatric care she needs. Because of the lack of meds, she'd be unable to look after herself - even in a small way like paying rent - and we'd be unable to care for her. So without the meds, she'd be in a psychiatric hospital, in jail, or homeless.
Of those options, providing her meds, psych visits, welfare income and occasional care is cheaper than the psych hospital or jail.
It's difficult to price the cost of having her as a homeless person, because so many of those costs are hidden in costs of policing, public health (she'd be a disease vector), social morale, charity work (eg soup kitchens, shelters) and crime.
From an ethical point of view, I vastly prefer the not-homeless options.

Both jail and the psych hospital could get her healthy enough that they'd send her 'home' - where the once again couldn't afford the meds, would again descend into the illness, get out of control, and sent back through the revolving door into either psych or jail.

Treating her illness and making the treatment affordable to her seems to be the best of all options. She's doing useful work (caring for another disabled person, and volunteer work), she's tending herself and thus saving the State the cost of 24/7 nurses or wardens, and from a moral point of view, her quality of life is vastly superior to what it would be in all the other cases.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/index.php is a useful place to look for information on the options available to the severely mentally ill in America.