Discuss the US Presidential Election & Health Care 1270
Yesterday we discussed the war and how foreign policy will matter in your decision next Tuesday. Today our series of election discussion pieces continues with Health Care. With an obesity epidemic, a failing economy, and ballooning health care costs, which candidate has the best answers to making sure that Americans are able to stay healthy without America being bankrupted in the process?
One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the better arguments I've seen for fixing the current health care crisis can be seen here [anntorrence.com]
Of course, the insurance companies (who have very powerful lobbies) will attempt to shoot this plan down as they stand to lose. Though it really can be forcefully argued that insurance companies really do bring nothing to the table in terms of health care. Fundamentally, the idea is a good one when constrained. However, insurance companies have become too powerful and they now function as parasites on the system, making it less efficient and more expensive for the end user. Ask yourself: "what product do insurance companies offer in terms of health care?" What do they create? How do they contribute to health care? When it comes down to it, health insurance companies are not in business to provide health care or help you pay for health care. They are in business to provide insurance, collect money, minimize any payout and answer to their shareholders who expect the system to turn a healthy profit. Any reduction in what they have to pay out is money earned for them.
Which candidate will be better positioned to answer the problem? It will be the one who is able to make some hard decisions and stand up to powerful lobbyists. It will be the candidate who is able to apply creative thought and novel solutions to problems that we've been creating for ourselves for decades now. it will be the candidate who is able to rationally apply logic and recruit, retain and manage in their administration, unbiased and reasoned people who are willing to work hard on solutions that will benefit Americans and the wider global population.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which candidate will be better positioned to answer the problem? It will be the one who is able to make some hard decisions and stand up to powerful lobbyists. It will be the candidate who is able to apply creative thought and novel solutions to problems that we've been creating for ourselves for decades now. it will be the candidate who is able to rationally apply logic and recruit, retain and manage in their administration, unbiased and reasoned people who are willing to work hard on solutions that will benefit Americans and the wider global population.
So in other words, we're completely screwed.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. People of that caliber are smart enough not to get into politics in the first place. They don't desire the power nor do they want to deal with the corruption.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a parasite which uses advertising to cover for the fact that when you really need coverage they are rarely there to help you. The power imbalance is such that 1 on 1 coverage is pointless for any major issues. If they where unable to know what your medical conditions where and had to separate coverage and cost from your medical conditions it might work but that's what government heath care is and what they are so afraid of. Basically, they are all to willing to sell coverage to healthy people like me but as long as they can drop you once something bad happens.
As I young person I don't really use my heath care plain and I am pure profit for now, but I know the system is not designed to help me as I age. We need to fix this and fix it now.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Interesting)
Insurance compaines make their money by selling a service they don't intend to deliver, or deliver only part of. Banks make their money by stealing from you in small ammounts from all accounts.
Neither should be in a position to make decisions relating to the health needs of an individual.
I live in a country that has both Govt health care and private. However, the private insurers have no say in what treatment is given that is and should be the decision of the treating doctor.
It always amazes me that in the US accountants are allowed to decide a patients treatment.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Insurance companies are almost exactly like bookies where you are essentially betting against yourself. They are particularly good bookies in that they very carefully build actuarial tables to help them with the odds.
While gambling in many states is not legal or not legal outside of an Indian reservation, or not legal outside of a particular city, Insurance companies seem to not be considered quite the same thing. They are regulated, with the government (appropriately) requiring that they be able to pay out in all but the most extreme situation (like nuclear war or natural catastrophe).
Part of the "gamble" here is that young people are generally healthy and older people tend to get sick more. Now there are older people who stay very healthy for a long time. My father is a great example, as he lived well into his seventies before he ever saw the inside of any hospital, save to visit someone. Then he had a heart attack that required a stent and is requiring that he take certain medications. His health has declined somewhat, but with proper exercise and as he continues to take prescribed medicine, he should see his 90s.
But this results in a problem. Persons over 65 are not wanted by health insurance companies because their actuarial tables tell them that my father is an exception. They would tend to refuse to cover him and anyone his age because they don't want to lose money.
Enter the government.
The United States decided to take this class of person off the hands of the health insurance companies. They did this for two reasons: Firstly, it is considered a right that you will be able to live your life with some semblance of dignity. In order to create that, the government, in the 1930s created an insurance system that would pay out to persons (then) over 65, a consistent income that would enable them to live with some degree of dignity until they passed away. This is called Social Security. Today, Republicans call it an "Entitlement," and they are trying to make that word into a "dirty word," like they did with "welfare," another insurance program created in the 1930s to give poor people some dignity.
Dignity seems to be a problem with the Republicans nowadays. they would rather make everyone in the Middle Class struggle harder. because when the Middle Class struggles, they occasionally look for someone to blame. And Republicans have learned that, since they only serve large corporations and very rich people, they have to create a pattern of blame so that they can divide the Middle Class. After all, the Middle Class does most of the work (for the large corporations that the Republicans serve) and pay most of the taxes (as a percentage of their income and as an aggregate total of the revenues received by the government). And if they can divide the Middle Class and get them to vote for Republicans, Republicans can serve this minority in the American population (the very wealthy).
So, along come the Democrats, who look at all of the other top economies of the world and they say, "Why don't we have a nationalized system of healthcare that offers Americans some dignity like the other top economies?" And the Republicans launch their "Smoke and Mirrors" campaign to confuse and divide the Middle Class. Because they don't like the Middle Class (or anyone else, save the rich) having any dignity. It goes against the grain. When you have dignity, you can think about how Republican policies will actually affect you. So they launch a campaign, calling this "class warfare," and "Socialism." The hysterics they put on are laughable -- by those with dignity who actually think.
Republicans call this "Big Government" while they want you to ignore the fact that a totally Republican Congress and the Bush Administration just presided over the largest expansion in the Federal Government since FDR with the creation of the "Department of Homeland Security" which is the only civilian federal government agency that is having trouble recruiting people
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a logical response instead of an emotional one?
I'm sorry, you do realize you are stealing money from your neighbor to post, don't you? and to drive on the road? and to get a public defender, and to pay for people to defend the constitution? And to breath clean air? and to get electricity? I'm sure you get your panties in a twist when the fire department shows up to put out your neighbors fire~ I am sure that if someone was holding your family hostage, you would send the police away becasue you don't want someone else paying the bill for your problems~
I could go on, but I know in my heart you have backed yourself into an emotional corner and will panic and scream before looking at your argument rationally.
Go away, the adults need to talk.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. I'm a doctor in Spain and the system works exactly that way. Here it's not the insurance companies, but the "benevolent health system" that press us into delaying or denying tests and treatments to people. The exact people that see a nice amount of their income substracted de facto by the health system.
Those that want (and can) go to the private system to get things done ASAP. They are paying double, though: to the public system which they can't renounce and to the private system.
Still, nothing can beat the fact the public system is obliged to receive and trat you as long as you're alive. But once inside it's not the money but the "I know someone inside" or "I'll file a complaint" that will get you the best bed, the shortest queue or the specialists you want.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Funny)
Here in canada we have functioning public health care :D
Is that anything like a "functioning alcoholic"?
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bureaucrats decide treatment in the US, too. They're just corporate ones, not government ones. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Typically people can vote out the government if they piss off everyone, but they can walk away individually from companies. Health insurance isn't like that. People practically can't walk away from their health insurers, don't have another option.
I don't think there's a perfect way to decide when treatments are as expensive as they often are today. But I do know the following things. Today's market for health insurance was created by government regulation. This market works as often as not against good health care. It has become very efficient: efficient at extracting the most money possible from everyone in the US into the industry while doing as little as possible. Isn't that what markets are best at? There are high barriers to entry in this market and regulations influenced by its biggest players. And so it isn't surprising that we spend a lot on health care and get pretty mediocre service.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to a system that uses money and markets, but we shouldn't construct a system, as we have, where market forces work against us rather than for us.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, that wouldn't work. He would have to have the privately hired fire truck and police force drive on public roads built from money that was STOLEN from his neighbors AT GUNPOINT. And if the fire truck company or security company doesn't do their job, he will have to use the SOCIALIZED COURT SYSTEM presided over by judges paid with money STOLEN from his neighbors. Sigh. Some people just don't think things through very well.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing short of price controls across the entire medical industry can succeed.
Price controls inevitably lead to either rationing or shortages, period. So what you propose may bring "universal" healthcare to the masses, but it will be both lowest-common-denominator healthcare, you'll have to wait on a list to get to it, and the government will decide who you get to see despite any preferences you may have to the contrary.
No thanks. I'll pay my own way, thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We've got neither, despite price controls. What did we do wrong?
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no shortage of health care? I thought millions of people who want it don't have it? Am I missing something?
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup and here's another kicker...
The numbers that DO have health care insurance, they dont have DENTAL care insurance.
and your dental health has a HUGE impact on your general health. Most people have rotting teeth in their heads because they cant afford to go to the dentist and pay $480.00 for a filling. Dental insurance is a joke, it makes the worst medical insurance look like it's fantastic.
Every plan I have seen is half assed and designed to benefit someones special interests.
I think we will never see a decent health plan in america.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe that everyone should have access to a minimum level of health care, should they not have access to a minimum level of food?
You mean food stamps?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I remember the horror of the 1980's and 1990's, when US price controls led to a shortage of food.
What you want to say is "Given perfect competition (neglible cost of entry: which limits distingishing between brands, high up-front or per-period-fixed costs, professional certification and/or limited education, equal and easy access to distribution, etc. ) price controls lead to shortages (rationing is one way of dealing with a shortage) -or- overproduction (in the case of price floors.
Of course, this doesn't apply to health care, where my Hopkins educated doctor has to work in a hospital where they can afford the multimillion dollar machines to diagnose/treat me.
That's not the way it works in any country with socialized medicine. Well, at least not any Western country (to head off comparissions to the Soviet Union's ineptitude at everything). Although my HMO does have a lot of rules, lists and limits what doctor I can see. I think I'd rather have the government limit me than an unaccountable company.
And I don't know of any Western society where the socialized plan is not augmented by private consumption.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prices are already controlled. Most private insurance companies only compensate at the rates set by Medicare.
Unless you have a medical emergency, you will be waiting under the current system as well. This whole canard about waiting lists is completely disconnected from reality. As to your point about provider choices, most patients do not have much of a choice under the current system either. Most HMOs limit coverage to particular lists of providers and do not allow patients to see specialists without a referral. Many insurance companies will not even pay for a second opinion. Furthermore, at some point, people need to understand that it is unrealistic to expect to have unrestricted healthcare choices. You don't choose your police, fire, water, electrical, or other public services, and yet those generally are accepted by the public at large. I don't understand why people think that medicine should be so different. Do you really think if you have a heart attack right now that you or your family will be able to make an informed economic decision as to which doctor should treat you?
It's absurd to pretend that the healthcare system we have now is in any way a free-market, with prices set according to supply and demand and consumers free to make rational economic decisions. In fact, I assert that we already have socialized medicine. It's called the emergency department. But because people refuse to acknowledge this, the current socialized healthcare neglects true medical emergencies and is dramatically cost inefficient.
-Grym
Mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
One of my job responsibilities is to support a Home Health Care system's application and I have a lot of experience with supporting them. The percentage of effort and expense put into keeping up with constantly changing regulatory mandates is truly staggering. I personally don't understand why people continue to get in the business anymore because they are constantly squeezed between increasing costs, and shrinking revenues. A major portion of the cost increases are due to administrative overhead a substantial portion of which is dedicated to ensuring regulatory compliance. I'm not generally a proponent of deregulation, but in the case of health care the government and industry both have made a huge complicated mess of the entire system.
The problems with our current 'private' insurance system have already been well articulated in other posts here. There's also the topic of legal liability which I won't even start in on. Bottom line is that we all need to be willing to start rebuilding the system from the ground up if we truly want change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you already have this in the form of Diagnose Related Groups (DRG Codes) being used by Insurers to determine payouts. It DOES NOT work. All it does is tell the care provider how much they will be on the hook for if the procedures go over cost. Forcing even non-profits to act like for-profits and reduce their cost per procedure.
When hospitals are forced to put focus on their cost per procedure at the expense of quality of care - you're not fixing the system.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife and I just leased a car this summer, a 2009 Subaru Forester. Having experienced a lot of maintenance problems with the car we were replacing, we decided to pre-pay the maintenance on the Forester for the life of the lease, which is 3 years. It cost us about $1000 for the package that gets us oil changes every 3500 miles (we do a lot of city driving). When it came time for the first oil change, I drove over to the shop at the dealer (conveniently close to where we work), turned it over to them, and waited about 25 minutes for them to change the oil. Then I got in the car and drove off, no co-pay, no nothing.
Over the 45K miles of the lease, we'll probably get the oil changed twelve or thirteen times, which would cost us about $600. But there are several other maintenance items along the way that are covered under the plan, including one that costs about $700. One could argue that we could sneak by without having those maintenance items done, and the car would be just fine. But regular checkups and periodic maintenance help a vehicle run well, and help forestall any major catastrophes that cause big problems at unexpected times. So I'm planning to stay on the maintenance schedule, and I expect to turn a healthy car back into the dealership at the end of the lease.
Would you go to the doctor more if it didn't cost you anything than you do now? Probably. But you wouldn't go all the time for everything (some people would, but they're in the minority), because you have better things to do with your time than go to the doctor. Ultimately, though, you'd probably retire healthier if you had free, accessible health care that was of decent quality.
So, how do we get ourselves there? We need a better system than we have, and it probably doesn't need to (shouldn't) involve insurance companies in the capacity they are now. The other end of it is our knee-jerk reaction to sue doctors for malpractice for every little thing. If an issue is egregious, there should be punishment of some sort, and the patient should be compensated somehow. But millions of dollars for doing a complicated procedure less than perfectly is insane.
How about limiting settlements to the total value of someone's carried life insurance policies? Shouldn't the judicial system put the same value on someone's life as that person puts on their own?
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I love the idea that poeple will use 'too much' health care if it's free.
People barely drag themselves to the doctor when actually sick, it doesn't matter how much it costs, people simply do not like to go. The best way of reducing health care costs in this country would be regular checkups, but people don't go to them even if they're free.
The only people who would 'abuse' the system are hypochondriacs, which are quickly recognized by doctors and ignored, and new parents, who already use 'too much' health care for their children anyway.
And considering the 'shortages' people are talking about are for surgery and MRIs and whatnot, none of which you can visit without a reason, it's not like those people will be using them up.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:4, Interesting)
You probably wouldn't argue with the fact that the vast majority of the users of such a healthcare scheme would be good, honest, deserving folks who are ill and need fixing up.
I wouldn't argue that good, honest, deserving folks who are ill need fixing up. I would argue that they need a federal bureaucrat involved in the process. I would argue that, for the most part, they already have systems in place to attend to themselves. I would argue that the main impediment to them maintaining said systems, is the ridiculous way we have tied our health maintenance programs to our jobs. I would argue that the federal involvement debases community involvement and invites corruption.
As a Christian you should thoroughly endorse a system which does so much to help the needy and those who are worse off than yourself
You sir, do not understand Christianity or charity.
It is not charity for me to take someone else's property and spread it around as I see fit. it is only charity when *I* take of my resources and give to who I see as the needy. Christianity teaches that I must spread my wealth around. *I* must do it. The benefit I receive is a spiritual reward. You may not understand, or even care to understand, the reward that I think I recieve; but, you don't have to. It was my charity to give. I take nothing from you when I give it.
And I must spread the word of Christ as I spread my wealth. That is what we Christians call Christ's Great Commission. If you reject the words I bring, then you reject Christ. I'm free to leave you to your misery and move on. Again, you may not understand, or care to understand, my viewpoint; but, again, it is my charity to give. I take nothing from you, and leave all free to do as they will.
The system that Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, like to support and call charity robs me of the benefits of my charity on one side, and emasculates my commission on the other. It may be the law. You may even call it fair. But it is not charity. It's just paying taxes. It robs me of having any say in determining if the people it goes to are deserving in any way. It forces me to contribute resources, without forcing me to contribute emotional involvement in seeing a proper outcome.
The end result is that you see a destitute on the street and in your mind you say, "Why don't they get on a government program." The people who do receive the government aid have no one to prod them to do better...no one to stand with them as they turn their lives around, become productive and no longer need the aid.
As a Christian, I argue that the government's usurpation of the church's place is a sad abomination. It robs everyone and ultimately helps no one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have long thought that having a national health insurance system that anyone can buy into makes a whole lot of sense, especially if you roll in medicare/medicaid and the VA program costs into it. I also wonder how much of a discount doctors would be willing to give if you provide them with free malpractice insurance for accepting patients in the national health insurance program.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:4, Insightful)
Health insurance companies are not health care companies? really? no kidding? Here is a question:
What do auto insurance companies offer drivers? Do they help pay for cars? do they change your oil? They actually bring nothing to the table... oh yea except if you total your car and need it replaced.. Health insurance companies provide that, if I got cancer, tomorrow, I would be able to pay bills that I could otherwise not pay... *IT AN INSURANCE POLICY*
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
if I got cancer, tomorrow, I would be able to pay bills that I could otherwise not pay... *IT AN INSURANCE POLICY*
Or so you think until you check the fine print or they claim a pre-existing condition. And should you survive, good luck getting coverage ever again.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:4, Informative)
I'd like to see a truthful example of this from a reputable insurance company. I had an over $100k back and spinal surgery done on a pre-existing motorcycle accident, (broken L2 and L3) from 4 years before I got insurance. I payed the $10 co-pay for the first visit and that was it. I have no problems getting insurance even though I survived.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
If car insurance companies were large enough and powerful enough that almost all car repair happened under their banner, letting them force repair shops into setting prices low for them and high for everyone else, you might have a point.
As it is, a very small percentage of the population actually has that sort of car insurance, and a tiny fraction of car repairs happen under it.
And, just as more importantly, car insurance payouts happen between a few consenting car insurance companies, and denying claims will cause other companies to deny their own claims back.
That said, there are plenty of us who think that mandatory insurance on cars is stupid too, and that mandatory insurance is inherently a scam...if they government wants to collect money from a group of people to cover large costs they might incur later, it should just collect the damn money and do it itself. (This would not stop companies from providing the optional insurance that banks require on new cars and whatnot.)
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Auto insurance companies don't offer plans that pay for 80% of your oil changes and brake services, but then decline to pay for your work at Jiffy Lube because, while they location is "in the plan", your work was performed by Bill, who's not a covered mechanic.
In fact, laws (at least in my state) require that auto insurance companies pay for repairs no matter who performs the work; they can't force you to use "their" mechanics in "their" approved facilities.
Catastrophic insurance is fine and good for both situations - if they pay out. Maybe the restructuring of health insurance should get those companies out of the routine care & maintenance - driving down the prices for the sort of care that prevents serious conditions - and leave the insurance companies to fight for that catastrophic coverage.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me give you an anecdote to help to make your point and show how much of a parasite the insurance companies really are.
I took my grandfather to his general doctor the other day. On the window is a sign, "Pay in full at time of service with cash and get 30% off." So basically if you skip the whole insurance process you get 30% off on the spot at this doctor. Insurance isn't the only problem, but is a big part of why healthcare costs so much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Insightful)
The plan you link to is not really all that different from the Obama plan, except that Obama's plan tries to make it possible for private insurance companies to survive.
Basically, Obama's plan gives individuals the ability to either (a) buy into a public plan if they aren't covered by any other insurance; (b) purchase private insurance through the kind of group insurance commission that would aggregate their buying power to lower prices or (c) continue to get health care through their employer.
Since many small employers will choose to offer insurance through the government program, and many individuals will buy insurance at group rates, Obama's plan keep the insurance industry viable by having the government take over insuring catastrophic health care. This of course, is a budget buster.
McCain's strategy is quite interesting. He wants to move away from employer supported health care, encouraging individuals to pay for their own insurance. He creates tax based disincentives for receiving employer supported health care, and gives tax breaks for seeking privately purchased health care. The idea is that people will make shrewder decisions if they have the money in their own hands, which is true. Unfortunately what seems shrewd for the individual is not necessarily shrewd for society. Nobody is going to opt for a plan without catastrophic care, so the cheapest plans will skimp on routine care, Nobody wants to get sick, but an individual might find a bet that he won't need care until his insurance kicks in favorable. The cumulative cost of those bets would be staggering and, of course, drive the cost of health insurance and care up for everybody. This, of course, is a budget buster; not for the federal government, but every household that has to buy insurance.
It's not as simple as saying "McCain wants to tax health care benefits", which while technically true is really a clever fib. The problem is that McCain's plan doesn't believe that there is a shared interest in this problem that is distinguishable from the net effect of individuals pursuing their self interest. This is what Republicans mean when they talk about "freedom", and in fact, this kind of shared pursuit of individual gain is often for the best. But the logical end point of the view that this is best in every case is not a program of government incentives and disincentives. It's for the government to have no health policy at all. Introducing a government health policy is tacit admission that cumulative self-interest is not optimal in this case. This is not to say his plan can't work, but you can't argue it has to work from the ideological standpoint that pure market solutions are always best.
McCain is right on this at least: it makes sense to take health care out of the hands of employers. Obama plan flirts with single payer, but doesn't go all the way. It wouldn't want to get a reputation as a hussy ... er... socialist. I think Obama's plan is over complicated. A straightforward offer of government backed health insurance would be simpler and get the job done. However, as you point out, the insurance companies would go ape-shit over single payer, which would be a death sentence for them. It isn't enough for the President to stand up against the lobbyists, congress will have to also. This introduces ... complications.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet his other point was that they do their best to avoid payouts, and throw you into the middle of the money game when in doubt.
Yeah as you are dying you can probably sue to make sure they put up the cash you paid in to the system to get, but you may be too busy dying to do so effectively, and too broke to afford an attorney.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure it happens sometimes, just like the stories you hear of someone being refused emergency treatment from the lack of insurance (illegal BTW).
I wish candidates would talk more about the healthcare they want to fix and provide. Obama says he wants everyone to have healthcare. Does that mean he wants everyone to be able to get weekly checkups or just that if you do get cancer it won't bankrupt you? Many clinics already give free healthcare if you're pregnant, need birth control, or other normal healt
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was surgery that took two days from my visit to the doctor to being under the knife. There wasn't a lot of time to go over the fine print of details like who my anaesthesiologist was going to be and whether he was covered by my PPO. I had the surgery, and a month or two later I got a bill for something like $1700 from the anaesthesiologist.
I called the anaesthesiologist's company and they said "your PPO doesn't cover us. Pay up." I called the PPO and they said "It's the hospital's responsibility to choose a care that is covered by your policy. Don't pay this bill." I called the hospital and they said "We told you who the anaesthesiologist was going to be, it's not our problem your PPO won't pay."
This went around and around for months with everybody denying responsibility. It then went into collections, and totally messed up my credit. I finally paid it out of pocket myself but by that time I had a huge black mark on my credit and the cost had ballooned over $2200.
The total bill for the surgery was over $30k so I'm glad that's all I had to pay. Still, it's pretty clear in the end that I was the one who lost out of this. Nobody had any motivation to "be on my side", and that was pretty clear once it came down to the money.
Re:One of the better ideas to fix health care... (Score:4, Insightful)
Health care costs are not the problem. They have never been the problem. The problem is the money that the health insurance industry is sucking out of the system.
We, unlike many places that have 'socialized' medicine, actually have doctors and hospitals that operate in the free market system, which means, unlike government-run institutions, they have an incentive to reduce costs.
However, we have the most expensive 'health care' in the world. How can that possibly be correct? Free markets reduce costs. It really is true, it's not some made-up talking point.
It's because the money isn't disappearing in the health care industry. It's because we've invented a system and placed it between the health care industry and their customers. A system that makes more money the less health care people get, and operates as a gatekeeper to such a large percentage of health care purchases that they can manipulate prices.
Without the health insurance industry, prices will drop. No matter how such an industry goes away, either by total free market health care or by universal health care.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> why in the world are medical tests on machines, like MRI's, increasing in price? It's not because these machines are more expensive now than they where 15 years ago.
Actually, they are. I work for a hospital and am directly involved with the DI (Radiology) department. When I started 5.5 years ago, they bought a new CT scanner, which was pretty decent at the time. Now we are looking at getting a new one and it's more expensive. Why? Because the resolution and speed have increased so dramatically. B
My Own (Extremely) Biased Take on Their Plans (Score:3, Informative)
McCain [johnmccain.com] : Actually puts numbers out there on how much you're going to "save" according to your tax bracket. But it's confusing to me how one column is showing a flat tax credit of $5,000 for this and then another column (after factoring something called "Income Tax Liability") showing what you save. He concentrates on guaranteeing me a "Better than Congressman" health care plan when I have no idea in hell what kind of health care they get. He also spends more time talking about Obama's health care plan than his own--which I would prefer to read myself and draw my own conclusions. I guess he focuses more on "net tax benefit" to each tax payer which sounds very enticing from a utilitarian standpoint.
Obama [barackobama.com] : First off, his health care page has a lot of really bland generic bullshit slurry--quite different from his Iraq withdrawal plan. While he doesn't spend anytime attacking McCain's plan, I don't see how some of these bullets are going to do anything for Health Care. Every talking point sounds good but nowhere do I see a plan of A) how/when this will be implemented or B) what the net effect will really be. For example: "Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees." What is a "catastrophic illness"? Reduce by how much? Who's footing this bill? What percentage is going to the employer Vs the employee? While he offers some lengthy PDFs on his site (that I don't have a lot of time to read), I'm skeptical he has any objective, measurable, attainable goals.
So that's my quick take on this topic. Honestly, I'm not impressed with either candidate. I give a nod to McCain for actually throwing some numbers out there and wonder where the $2,500 per family figure is coming from in Obama's promises. This isn't going to factor into my voting because the roots of this. I grew up on MinnesotaCare so I'm probably going to lean toward the plan that makes the most of providing basic health care to those who can't afford it. My parents never could have afforded vaccinations and I don't think I ever went to the hospital aside from that. Others aren't so lucky. Call me biased or misinformed but I don't see either candidate really doing anything creative/ingenious with health care to the point of it being worth arguing over.
My Own (Extremely) Biased Take on Their Plans (Score:5, Informative)
Wow - you criticize Obama for not providing the details, but when you remark that he has lengthy PDFs you don't want to bother to read. Either you've already made up your mind and are just rationalizing your opinion, or you don't really care enough about the topic to do your research.
At least you admit to having bias, but then I fail to see anything meaningful at all in what you wrote. At the very least, you should said that you don't have enough information to make a sound judgment on the topic, which is fine. Unfortunately, the norm is that people don't want to admit that, and would rather just make up some reasons for their opinions rather than admit they don't know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me, and I might be wrong (I'm not)....
That John Mcain, a Navy brat, turned lifetime public servant who has had "socialist" government provided healthcare for his entire 72 years on this planet. Probably doesn't know sweet FA about an the average persons health care, outside of what he reads and the health insurance lobbyists tell him.
It's kind of ironic that the guy who's suckled at the government teat for his entire life, calls other people socialists.
Has he even ever been to a job interview? O
Re:My Own (Extremely) Biased Take on Their Plans (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me, and I might be wrong (I'm not)....
That John Mcain, a Navy brat, turned lifetime public servant who has had "socialist" government provided healthcare for his entire 72 years on this planet. Probably doesn't know sweet FA about an the average persons health care, outside of what he reads and the health insurance lobbyists tell him.
It's kind of ironic that the guy who's suckled at the government teat for his entire life, calls other people socialists.
Has he even ever been to a job interview? Or even had to ring an insurance company to get cover?
After a career in the Navy and a career in the Senate, it is doubtful that Senator McCain has interviewed for a job, unless you consider reapplying for his job in the Senate every six years is an interview of sorts.
But, seriously. "Suckled at the government teat"? Really? I'm not voting for McCain, but this is just unfair. Senator McCain's father served in the Navy, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). Senator McCain served in the Navy, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). After serving in the Navy for decades, Senator McCain has served in the Congress, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). C'mon. Suckling at the government teat? That's just not a fair assessment of what Senator McCain has been doing for 72 years. Complain about his inability to offer an coherent, consistent message. Complain about his plan to freeze government spending levels. Complain about his plan to tax health care benefits. I'll even grant you that he doesn't know much about the health care insurance of average folk. Just don't deny that the man has earned his health care for 72 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's possible that there are no "direct answers for simple questions"; probably because the useful questions are not simple*.
I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that I have some sympathy for the modern American politician. They appear to be stuck in a bind since any complex answer to a complex question will be chopped up into sound bites and used to attack him or her. This is especially a problem in this "Age of Outrage" where the easiest way to start a news article is to interview some screaming n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I point out to everyone I know that under McCain's plan, I'd still have no health insurance. Why? Because they won't sell it to me.
Plus, I'd now be out whatever percentage of my taxes went towards providing tax deductions to everyone else who bought health insurance.
Kodos! (Score:3, Funny)
Kodos wants us all healthy, for various reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Does it have anything to do with this book I just found entitled "How to Serve Man"?
Er (Score:5, Insightful)
With an obesity epidemic... which candidate has the best answers?
That isn't something that the government should be dealing with, or even give a damn about. If people (and this includes me, I'm a big guy, so I'm not just picking on others here) are too damn stupid or lazy to manage their weight properly, that's their own fault. Our government has WAY more important issues to deal with than trying to coax some fat Americans into improving themselves.
Re:Er (Score:5, Insightful)
The obesity epidemic can be partially blamed on government subsidies to the production of high fructose corn syrup, and tariffs on imported (more healthy) roe or cane sugar. On top of that if you nationalize healthcare you also nationalize the costs of obesity, therefore such a lifestyle should be taxed higher to cover their added cost to society.
Re:Er (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the obesity epidemic can be fully blamed on those who got fat, the government had no part. No one forces them to eat corn syrup.
Re:Er (Score:5, Insightful)
A similar argument was had a long time ago over automobile safety, wearing seatbelts, crash helmets etc. The bottom line is that what you do has an effect on others. Who will pay for your emergency care when you have a heart attack and no insurance? What is the cost on society of allowing, or even encouraging through fancy adverts, young people to develop all kinds of unhealthy lifestyle related long term illnesses? A libertarian might say that's great, as these people will die earlier, thus requiring less medical care - but the truth is that somebody will end up paying for that medical care, either the tax payer through some government program, or the healthy insurance buyer who never claims.
To paraphrase your answer:
"That isn't something that the government should be dealing with, or even give a damn about. If people (and this includes me, I drive an unsafe car, so I'm not just picking on others here) are too damn stupid or lazy to drive a safe car, that's their own fault. Our government has WAY more important issues to deal with than trying to coax some fat Americans into improving their cars."
Woohoo, car analogy!
Re:Er (Score:5, Insightful)
4/5 may come into existence, but it will ANYWAY. My employer has already started offering $15/mo off for employees who sign a contract (with penalties) stating that they do not smoke. They offer up to $400/yr for people who take a company provided health exam and agree to follow a "health program" prescribed from whatever quack nutritionist they have on staff.
That's how it will go down at the national level too. You can't punish people for being fat or for smoking, but you can offer "incentives".
On the other hand, neither McCain's nor Obama's are any better. McCain's plan will have you get your own insurance, which likely will require a health examination to calculate your premium. If you're fat, it will be higher. If the doctor believes you smoke...it will be higher. etc. Obama's plan basically will boil down to "status quo". Allowing corporations to do as they are presently doing.
So while I agree with your statement, this is not avoidable. Insurance, by nature, is socialist, and insurance, by nature, determines your premium based on risk factors. I hate it, but it's not changing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Er (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can't protect your own back yard from the Soviet Union, Communist China or local gangs, I fail to see why I should care. Let's dissolve the Union and let every man fend for himself.
No, seriously, let's do it. I want to see how all of these whining "Why should I have to care for my neighbour" libertarians do in the Darwinian jungle they apparently want to live in. I wonder how many of them would actually stick to their principles to the bitter end, and what proportion would band together and start rebuilding a Big Brother to keep them safe. Not that could, since it would be outcompeted by the governments built by people who cooperated from the start, but that's besides the point.
Nature is red in tooth and claw and yours are pathetic. A lone wolf can get a meal, but a lone human is the meal. That's why you should care about other people's health.
Re:Er (Score:4, Informative)
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
That's a foreign concept in the US these days.
All I can say is... (Score:4, Insightful)
All I can really say is the obvious: That people don't believe that government is there mostly to just protect rights anymore (if that ever was really the case), so socialized healthcare will be a reality whether we (or I) like it or not,
and that once you get government in healthcare, the incentives to cut costs in places that aren't immediately visible and to pass laws that limit what we can do (and eat, and so forth) are even more likely to go into effect to keep costs low. Expect more restrictions on things like fast food if this goes into effect. People, apparently, cannot take care of themselves, so we need "Democracy" and mass opinion to do it for us. Some people might get the shaft and lose things they love, but in a democracy you sometimes gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All I can really say is the obvious: That people don't believe that government is there mostly to just protect rights anymore (if that ever was really the case), so socialized healthcare will be a reality whether we (or I) like it or not.
The problem with concocting "rights" to healthcare, gasoline, a car, a home, a tax break, though, is that the promotion of such "rights" requires the violation of rights - life, liberty, property, privacy, etc. You can't have both a "right" to other people's property and a right to your own property. It only serves to strip the word "right" of all meaning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear this argument a lot but I am unaware of any evidence of it actually happening anywhere. Sure, it makes sense, if we lived in a society that would allow it. But starting a government health care system isn't giving the government carte blanche control over everything we do. They pass a law banning McDonalds? Vote those
Health care could help save the US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet our country spends more per capita on health care than just about any other country on the planet, thanks at least in part to our for-profit system. In other industrialized countries, the workers are still paying for health care, but it comes out of their paychecks in the same way taxes come out. And in the end those other countries can make similar products at a lower final manufacturing cost (even after paying to export to the US).
If people are so certain that the US system is great, then please answer one question. How can we make American manufacturing competitive on the world market again while paying the highest health care costs in the world?
If you look at our top trading partner (that would be Canada), you'll see that their workers make comparable wages for equivalent jobs to those in the US. Yet numerous auto manufacturing facilities have been moved to Canada to save money. Where is the savings if the workers make similar wages? It is in health care and pensions, both managed by the state.
Re:Health care could help save the US economy (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet our country spends more per capita on health care than just about any other country on the planet, thanks at least in part to our for-profit system.
Do you really believe we have a private system in the US? It was the complete lack of competition that started with the government-sponsored monopoly of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which in turn led to the complete distortion of the structure and purpose of insurance and healthcare, that has brought about the current system.
Re:Health care could help save the US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand. If you have health insurance then the same is true. The people who don't claim subsidise the ones that do. The only difference is that the insurance company is skimming a big chunk off the top and trying to avoid paying anyone if they can possibly avoid it.
And, yes, I do live in Europe. My total tax burden (counting all forms of tax, not just income tax) was slightly below the US average last time I found a detailed comparison study (around 2004 - there may be more recent ones, so if you find one I'd be interested in seeing it), and it includes healthcare.
Misconception (Score:5, Insightful)
There seems to be something of a misconception amongst most Americans that I speak to, that your only options are the current system or some kind of filthy commie healthcare system where government employees carry out open heart surgery with rusty cutlery.
The current system in the UK, for example, offers both private and state healthcare, with the NHS free for all and private healthcare available if you want to pay a bit of money for a TV in your hospital room and a shorter wait for your elective surgery.
If you don't want or can't afford private healthcare then you can use the NHS, which is perfectly adequate for most people and certainly doesn't have huge waiting lists for essential treatment as some people seem to believe. Yes, there are the fringe cases, but for the mostpart the NHS is no worse than any of the private medical services when it comes to patient care.
As a result of this system, the private healthcare providers have to charge reasonable rates, because they know that people will simply abandon them for the NHS if they don't appear to be offering good value for money any more.
Americans seem to be terrfied of any kind of government provided or subsidised healthcare at any level, almost as if they see it as a "gateway drug" to communism - as comical as that appears to the rest of the world.
Disclaimer: I currently contract for the NHS, making me far more cynical about it then I might otherwise be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world. There are maybe five countries in the world that can boast better healthcare, across the board. A lot of places do things better, but not many do so as consistently.
The US is most decidedly not one of the top five. I can't think of ANYTHING it does better than the UK.
Sure, you can see the top specialist in a given field within days in the US. But you
US already spends same $ per capita as UK (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans seem to be terrfied of any kind of government provided or subsidised healthcare at any level, almost as if they see it as a "gateway drug" to communism - as comical as that appears to the rest of the world.
They sure do, yet Medicare (a federal organization) already spends the same $ per capita on health care in the US serving only some of the population as the NHS does on serving an entire country!
Americans might be scared of subsidies, yet they're already wasting as much as we do and get very lit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You pay taxes, and part of your taxes go to health. Just like part of it goes to the military. If you don't like that, well maybe you should join us radical left-wing nutbags in a revolution and get rid of all government. (Not all left-wing nutbags want to do that, but I'm an anarchist.)
If you want to use treatments "not permitted by the government", well it depends on what you mean. If the government won't pay for them, but hasn't outlawed them, just pay for them yourself (you want to do that don't you?)
If
Re:Misconception (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can choose to have any treatment permitted by medical ethics, if you go private. So no worse than in the US. And hardly "no choice".
Of course there are treatments not available on the NHS due to cost. (As I recollect, there is a central body called NICE that decides what drugs are available. Presumably because it has to make nice distinctions....)
And of course, this sometimes involves hard decisions. There are occasionally "edge cases".
At which point you would have to rely on private hea
Re:Misconception (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's my choice not to pay into your system, though?
The same place as your choice not to pay for schools, police, the fire service and the military. It's the choice not to participate in society. If you want to live in the country, grow your own food, and not use money then you don't have to pay any taxes. The rest of us think being a member of society has more benefits than costs.
Or, my choice to use treatments not permitted by the government
You can go private for treatments not funded by the government, or you can go abroad for treatments deemed unsafe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the choice not to pay towards the military, which takes by far the largest proportion of the national budget? Where's the choice not to pay towards the war on cannabis and other soft drugs, which puts millions of people behind bars in expensive-to-run prisons?
Being in a democracy means making compromises and coming to some general agreement with the rest of society about how that society functions. It doesn't mean you get to choose to pay only f
Why do you hate the Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Since when it it a Constitutionally delegated power of the Executive branch to "make sure" that Americans are "able to stay healthy," while also meddling in their finances?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Efficiency (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in Aus we have both nationalised AND privatised healthcare. Yes we are the country of moderation, never going to one extreme or the other.
I've made use of our public hospitals in my life for:
1. A severely broken leg (emergency).
2. A radio frequency ablation (serious but not urgent) in and out in a day, by one of the leading heart specialists in the world.
3. My sons birth...single room for the Mrs, very quiet, great midwives and a nice experience. Funnily my other half is from the UK and MUCH prefers our system and hospitals. Though more stuff is covered over there apparently.
All of these cost me nothing up front, service in all cases was great.
That includes the midwives, the bulk billed GP visits, etc.
Now the cost. I pay ~$600 a year on the 'medicare levy', that's how much it costs me in taxes. That's full cover (except dental, public doesn't cover most of that) for $600 a year for top notch service. There's more than that, but as a tax paying citizen, I'm happy for a portion of my taxes to be alloted to public healthcare.
My mate pays a little more than that for private health insurance. He fell off his ladder a few years ago and totally mangled his wrist, nasty business, many breaks. After years of putting into his private insurance...he ends up in the public system anyway. There was nobody available to operate on him in the private hospital we took him to. Total waste of money.
My father had his ankle fused in the private system, his treatment was no better than the public system. Except he got to pay a $3000 premium for the effort.
I'm happy to pay ~600 a year to the government for 'health insurance', it's money well spent.
I hear of Americans paying in the thousands a year for cover, I have to ask...why? Surely your hospitals can't be that inefficient, or are you all just very sick?
I like our system, it works well. You can have the best of both worlds if you find the right balance point, going to one extreme or the other with total nationalisation or total privatisation seems silly.
several Euro companies baased on private insurance (Score:3, Insightful)
National health care will come from the Right (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a health care provider. I've been in the field in various capacities since 1981 and as a licensed professional since 1990.
When we talk about the "health care system" in America we have to be very clear about what we are talking about. There are two halves to this system- health care providers and health care finance. The main problems in the US health care system are in health care finance, since this is what determines access to health care.
National health care insurance is an inevitability and IMHO will be driven from the Right not the Left. The driving force will be lobbying from large businesses (GM, for example) that will be rendered noncompetitive by health care costs; they will either go bust or leave the US for countries with a national health care plan. IIRC nearly $1500 of a GM auto's sticker price is health care costs for current and pensioned employees. The creation of a national health system would allow GM and other large companies to offload much of the cost of health care insurance for current employees but also for retirees. This would be a major gain in the bottom line for companies struggling under these costs and other market forces, and would put them on a more-equal footing with most European and some Asian competitors. It would also be a major gain for small businesses (like my Dad's, like the company I work for, etc.) as it would reduce payroll costs. The losers, of course, would be private insurance companies and their CEOs, employees and shareholders.
For the individual, national health care coverage would mean greater freedom to move between jobs to improve one's lot in life and greater flexibility in managing care for children or dependent adults (e.g., aging parents).
The creation of a national health care finance plan would be able to leverage economies of scale unavailable to private insurance companies. The removal of the profit motive would reduce overhead from an industry average of 10-30% to closer to Medicare's 2%- a savings of hundreds of billions of dollars per year right there. With universal coverage, every person in the US could obtain preventive, clinic based care (which is the least expensive way to receive care) rather than letting problem go unaddressed and eventually seeking care in an emergency room (the most expensive way to receive medical care). With universal coverage, health care providers would not face defaults on payments for services which would allow a reduction in the cost of care. Rationing of health care would be reduced through the elimination of provider networks and access restrictions imposed by insurance companies. And finally, authorizations for services would not be influenced by the need to protect the profit margin.
From the provider side, it costs money to get paid. Someone has to prepare a bill and send it out. For many of my patients, payment comes from two to four sources and I have to send a bill to each in turn according to an order of precedence. Each bill costs $3-5 to send, and then there are the costs of tracking reimbursement to collate all the payments, figuring out who gets money back if the bill gets overpaid (which happens frequently because the insurance companies don't understand their own systems very well). Being able to do single payer billing would save an average of $10 per patient in my clinic, which means either more profit or the ability to lower costs for services. Imagine the cumulative savings if the cost of every health care service in America could be reduced by an average of $10.
That all sounds like a panacea and of course no such thing exists. Every health care finance system would have problems. People worry about where the money would come from and the only possible answer is taxes, since that is the only source of government revenue. However, we already pay that tax and then some. Like most people, I get my insurance through my employer. I chose the cheapest plan, which is a high-deductible plan. It costs $512 per month, 50% out of my po
Re:National health care will come from the Right (Score:5, Insightful)
"I REALLY don't want to have my money go further and pay for someone who is an unhealthy idiot who made poor decisions about their health and gets a free ride."
Actually, you already do. Insurance reduces risk by spreading out the costs amongst all those who pay premiums. In addition, emergency rooms are required to provide care, even for those who cannot pay. This is a cost that is also passed on to you in one form or another, either in higher fees in other areas of care or via taxation.
Americans spend more money per capita on health care than anyone else. So it's kind of hard to merit an argument that costs would go up even more under a Universal care system, since we can see that this is not the case in other countries.
In the current US model, people seek to minimize their costs. Currently, this is done by avoiding care as often as possible, but buying insurance to mitigate risks should care be unavoidable. This actually is the worst possible outcome, as it results in both poorer health and higher costs as preventative care is eschewed and more emergency care is necessary due to the lack of preventative care. This results in a feedback loop, causing people to pay more and more for insurance premiums, which causes them them to try to cut expenses more and more, which of course means preventative care is used less and less.
It just leads to a vicious cycle, with ever spiraling upward costs and demand pushed towards the opposite side of the spectrum from what would be in the best interests of all.
That's what's broken. How to fix it? There are varying opinions on how to do so, but the one thing that seems clear is that reliance on health insurance as the financial vehicle for medical costs is bass-ackwards.
Stop Punishing Couples!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Insurance companies suck, I'd love to find one that acknowledges that there is a difference between a 2 person family and a 6 person family.
As of right now if I wanted employer healthcare for me and my spouse it would cost me exactly the same as my co-workers healthcare for him, his spouse, and his 3 children.
As two generally healthy adults we cost a lot less to cover than 3 children. But we pay the same amount. That sucks.
Of course, healthcare isn't the governments business any more than housing, cars, or clothes are. If you believe the government should be providing you healthcare then you should also believe that the government should feed, clothe, and house you since those are more fundamental needs than healthcare.
So, please stop your dirty socialist whining.
Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, I have renamed Congress the "Thundering Herd of Dumbass" for a reason (19% approval rating shows I'm not alone).
A Canadian On Healthcare (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A Canadian On Healthcare (Score:5, Informative)
I contacted Canadian medicare and was told that the closest appointment they could give me was EIGHT MONTHS away. It would be another SIX MONTHS after the consult to have any testing I needed done then another SIX MONTHS to see the doctor for my results.
This whole post reeks of US FUD.
First off: you don't contact "Canadian medicare", there is no such thing. You contact your doctor who schedules you with a specialist.
Fact:I went to my doctor on a scheduled check up and because of some minor thing he wanted me to see a cardiologist. It wasn't an emergency and I was there in about 2.5 weeks. An emergency (your "ASAP" situation) certainly would have gotten you in faster.
Re:A Canadian On Healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
This is unmitigated bullshit. I've spent a good part of my life in Northern Ontario in a tiny town far from any major population centre. I had some health challenges, including experimental reconstructive surgery. I received superb care every time and have no complaints. Similarly, my friends and family have had much better luck than yours. One friend was released, in the opinion of his family, too soon. Providing a sufficient level of care for him at home for a couple of weeks cost his son and daughter some holidays. A longer-term disability would have qualified for home care.
Anecdotal evidence, both mine and yours, count for very little in the overall scheme of things. The numbers prove, time after time, that the Canadian system works. Among other things, it puts about twice the amount of constant dollars (US or Canadian) that go into the system into doctors, nurses, equipment and facilities as the American system. In other words, it uses a lot less of the money in administration and paperwork.
If you'd like to get some idea of how it works, check out infant mortality in Canada and the United States. That's a good, objective statistic that it's hard to manipulate.
1 opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
There are serious problems with care for the insured. Contracts and billing between hospitals and payors are a terrible mess and administrative costs are a big part of hospital bills with private insurance. Medicare and the medicaids cost a lot less to administer so more of the public health care dollar goes to care than the private counterparts.
I don't think the Canadian or British models would fit America very well but the German system with multiple non-profit payors or the Australian system with national health care and an option for a private premium insurance is something I think we should explore as they tend to keep choice in the equation.
Obama's plan seems like it would be expensive but we're already paying for everyone to get health care now in some form so for the most part this is just shifting money around in an effort to provide better care. I think a lot of the savings with this plan from increased efficiency of care and cutting some of the cost of caring for the uninsured that is currently passed on to the insured is going to be eaten up by the hospital and insurance companies. It doesn't fix problems with private insurance but that's too big of a problem to tackle now.
McCain's plan will cause some employers to drop insurance and make modest increases in cash wages for their workers because it will cost more to insure them and they can just let their employees buy insurance with a tax credit paid by other employers who provide insurance to their workers and some of their fake raise. It creates a competitive disadvantage to offer insurance because you'll be paying more to insure your employees and your competitors while they are probably paying a bit less than they were before. The insurance they'll be able to buy probably won't have group risk built into it so you'll see a lot more medical underwriting so healthy people can get good insurance cheaply and sick people will still have problems getting insurance.
Re:Cuba? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which seems to distill to "We can't risk helping people in case we accidentally help some people we don't like."
Re:Cuba? (Score:5, Informative)
Got some numbers on Cuba's healthcare being a failure?
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Cuba [wikipedia.org]
References the World Health Organisation.
Despite the US embargo on Cuba.
Dude, you just fucked up. Cuba's health system is the best in "Latin" America, and is in many ways better then the USA's. Tell me how that is a failure?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the chance of a Cuban child dying at five years of age or younger is 7 per 1000 live births in Cuba, while it's 8 per 1000 in the US. WHO reports that Cuban males have a life expectancy at birth of 75 years and females 79 years. In comparison, the US life expectancy at birth is 75 and 80 years for males and females, respectively. Cuba's infant mortality rate is lower than the US with 5 deaths per thousand in Cuba versus 7 per thousand in the US. Cuba has ne
Have you seen the some of their hospitals? (Score:3, Informative)
They are shit holes, in shambles, unsanitary. These are the ones normal Cubans get to visit as opposed to the nice hospital for the party elites and foreigners with cash that you saw in Sicko. Trying to sneak photos of them out of the country can get you arrested, but some have succeeded [therealcuba.com]. I like the guy taking his sick father to the hospital in a wheelbarrow because there were no ambulances. If I go to a pharmacy here I have to pay, but I can get my drugs. There you will see a sign saying there are no presc
Re:Cuba? Failure? Surely you jest? (Score:4, Interesting)
In 2006, BBC flagship news programme Newsnight featured Cuba's Healthcare system as part of a series identifying "the world's best public services". The report noted that "Thanks chiefly to the American economic blockade, but partly also to the web of strange rules and regulations that constrict Cuban life, the economy is in a terrible mess: national income per head is minuscule, and resources are amazingly tight. Healthcare, however, is a top national priority" The report stated that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are pretty much the same as the USA's. Its doctor-to-patient ratios stand comparison to any country in Western Europe. Its annual total health spend per head, however, comes in at $251; just over a tenth of the UK's. The report concluded that the population's admirable health is one of the key reasons why Castro is still in power.
Re:We HAVE universal free health care (Score:5, Insightful)
Walk into any Emergency Room lobby and you'll see a sign saying "you will be treated regardless of your ability to pay"
Which encourages a mentality of waiting for health problems to become emergencies and discourages any sort of preventive measures to maintain health.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's this selfishness that seems apparent to me in this regard, a sort of never-ending spiral. People like this don't go to a clinic or make an appointment, those decisions drive up
Better Congress than murder by spreadsheet. (Score:3, Insightful)
How's privatization and deregulation worked for the stock market? Even Greenspan admits this was doubleplus ungood.
How's privatization and deregulation worked for the public with energy companies? [cough]Enron[/cough].
We are better off trusting Congress than health and insurance companies - because the damage doesn't come from Congressfolk not being "experts" in medicine and medical billing. They can hire experts. No, the damage comes from companies
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, health care is not a right, keep the government out of it.
Just to make a discussion of it, why not apply the same to fire fighters? Why should the government care if your house is burning down? There's a hose over there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please tell me... (Score:5, Insightful)
"My personal health is my responsibility. If I want to smoke, drink, and eat fatty foods until I die of a massive heart attack, that's my business. Nobody else should be concerned with it. If it can't afford to pay for the health problems I've brought on myself, nobody else should be required to pay one red cent to cover me."
I agree. But what if the heart condition is hereditary and you can't afford to pay? Then you have a serious problem.
Look, I hate the thought I my money going to people who don't want to work, who don't want to take care of themselves, etc. There will always be people gaming the system because they're deadbeats and lazy and scammers, etc.
The the reality is, if I were to become homeless, I would want food, shelter, treatment until I got back on my feet. If I were unemployed, I would want food, shelter, medical treatment until I found a job. If I got some disease and couldn't afford it, I would want treatment. Just because some people refuse to find a job, or pick themselves up by the bootstraps doesn't mean the system is completely out of the question.
That costs money. At some point, you have to suck up the fact that some people game the system and will get my something for their nothing. That's life. That's taxes. That's school levys. That's fire/police. That's Social Security. In the end, YOU will need those things.
This country, including myself, needs to change it's me me me me me me me me attitude, or we're not going to make it long term. I'm a firm believer that karma is one hateful mistress when you ignore her.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)