US health care Mentality

[King of the N00bs]

Here's an article to show you how universal health care is working out on a small scale:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

Finally someone who's not an idiot

chronobreak is certainly not an idiot--I always like reading his posts.

However, read to the end of the article:

There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.

The MA experiment with state health insurance...yeah. Didn't work. However, that's the nice thing about our federal system here in America--the states serve as laboratories, allowing Americans to 'experiment' with various social polices the way college allows people to experiment with drugs and same sex relationships.

I wonder how long it took them to compose that bill...no offense...just..wondering

The tragic irony is that it's the Republicans that are pushing us further and further away from 'Medicare for all'. It's the compromises--like no public option--that will make Obamacare into the MA program where if the Democrats would just grow a pair, they could push through something that would work.

 

[jpoon]

I can see advantages of having competition with insurance companies but the free market can always do a better job than some form of Gov' care.

Always?
An open market's aspect of competition is often out-stripped by an market's will to keep high prices all around. Why compete when you can rip your share of the market off while people won't bother changing because all of the competition is as bad as each other? - putting some of that fat profit into advertising to keep up your user numbers, might I add. A cost that government ran services DO NOT require, spending YOUR MONEY so they can make more.
Don't believe me? Look at energy prices.

With a state ran system, there is no need for jacked up prices and no need for so called competition. Just an efficient service, far better than pure un-regulated capitalism could muster.

If you really believe that the free market can't compete with the gov'ment then I will agree that the government should be given a chance to compete in the market with the rest of the businesses. There is no way I would trust the government to take over healthcare completely. Give them a chance, if they can keep up then woohoo, good job, for once the government didn't fail miserably. But if they don't succeed allow them to fail and end the program just as any business should be allowed to do, fail. Don't continue to shovel money at the problem as our government so seems to love doing.

There are prerequisites before this should happen though. We need the Tort reform and we need some deregulation, state line barriers being removed is a definite!
I'll give it a shot if the dems can wrap their minds around Tort reform.

I agree that a government ran opt-in service would probably be the best option, and I would love to comment further, but you're using some American political terms, which I'm afraid I just can't keep up with!
Yes, states having their own laws would be a great hinderance, if that is what you mean.
I have no clue what this Tort reform is, however.

In a nutshell Tort reform would take away the power of individuals that go to a doctor from suing for frivolous actions. Basically doctors would not need such huge amounts of insurance to protect their asses and they wouldn't have to run a thousand fucking tests just in case they missed something, however ridiculous. People wouldn't be able to sue doctors as easily as they now can, they would need a good reason to do it.

Right now insurance will NOT cross state lines, this needs to change so competition can cross state lines. This would be a great thing for bringing good insurance across the nation.

If these two things, among others, were in place prices could drop quite tremendously and doctors wouldn't be so damn nervous when treating their patients.

 

[Radelaide]

Why should healthcare be a right?it's a service
you can fix healthcare without to much goverment interfrance
1.tout reform. That way there is less malpractice suit Doctors don't have to pay for some many needless test to make sur they didn't miss a singal thing in fear of a lawsuit.
2. H.S.A a healthcare savings account, Its like social security a savings account where the gov. can't dip in too and where the people can't use only as a dectable for insurance or healthcare.
3. Give tax exmpts to hospitals who put more than a certain amount of money into free clinces.

Doctors put time and money into learning their skills so they have earn the right to sell them at whatever price the want, but since there is other Doctors to compet against then there are going to be compatable prices.

You don't think you have the right to be healthy at the expense of a government that is meant to protect you?

Australia has had free healthcare for ages, and it's worked for us. It works for dozens of other countries too.

I <3 Medicare.

 

[Jonatron]

snip

snip

snip

snip

In a nutshell Tort reform would take away the power of individuals that go to a doctor from suing for frivolous actions. Basically doctors would not need such huge amounts of insurance to protect their asses and they wouldn't have to run a thousand fucking tests just in case they missed something, however ridiculous. People wouldn't be able to sue doctors as easily as they now can, they would need a good reason to do it.

Right now insurance will NOT cross state lines, this needs to change so competition can cross state lines. This would be a great thing for bringing good insurance across the nation.

If these two things, among others, were in place prices could drop quite tremendously and doctors wouldn't be so damn nervous when treating their patients.

Ah. Then your keen attitude for them to hurry it up and get it implemented sounds well justified.

So market isn't truely open, in that case? Is there any justification for this? Such as conflicting state laws which would cause holes in the insurance policies?

 

[SenseOfTumour]

IT also seems a lot of people think the Health services are free in the UK and the Government pays for everything.

Firstly it's not free, a solid chunk of tax goes towards keeping the health service running. (which I fully agree with, but it seems some people think it's "free")

Secondly, while it's a good service that's unfairly criticised, I think, it's not perfect, and therefore if you're rich enough to be able to pay for private, you can skip past the waiting lists and head straight into a private hospital the next day.

For me, this is the ideal solution, everyone is covered at a basic level, but if that's not good enough for you and you don't want to wait to be treated, or want more expensive forms of treatment that are not covered, then you can go to a private healthcare company.

I also believe it's a basic service like police, fire, refuse collection etc. Strangely I'm sure that if you asked the US public whether people who can't afford to pay for it should have no police coverage or fire service, I'd imagine they'd be against it, yet letting people suffer in pain because they're not rich enough is fine if it keeps an extra few dollars to get their pool cleaned a few more times a year.

For me, Obama's not done everything right, but he's trying to change things for the better, and in general, people just don't like change.

Also, I fully understand that some people slip under the fence in terms of anything that's paid for by national taxes, but I'd prefer 10 people to get free treatment fraudulently that for one legitimate person to not get their treatment because of red tape.

You need to balance checks on people, with how much you're spending on the people checking. People constantly complain about the 'penpushers' in UK government, yet also are as angry about benefit fraud and illegal immigrants, without realising they are both on the same seesaw.

 

[BarkBark]

*Removed

 

[chronobreak]

The tragic irony is that it's the Republicans that are pushing us further and further away from 'Medicare for all'. It's the compromises--like no public option--that will make Obamacare into the MA program where if the Democrats would just grow a pair, they could push through something that would work.

I agree. It's like, take the reins already. Stop being so felxible. Hell, even as a Republican I can see that. If this was a Bush decision, the guy would just make it and it would go through, because he wouldn't be taking advice from all sides and stuff. I'm a little tipsy, not very articulate, I know. Say what you want about Bush, the guy didn't take any shit.

Republicans need to get their act together too. Start thinking about a better plan, and then push that. They need to switch energies from dissenting on Obama to actually figuring something out, and it needs to happen soon, or else we're going to end up with some terrible bill that gets nothing accomplished.

Thank you for the compliment, as well, your posts are also very well-written and interesting. There are a lot of people like this here, so I would advise everyone to not act so surprised when they are encountered! We are a great community, indeed.

 

[Durxom]

I live in Alabama as of now and the general belief is that if you had a health care system like the one in Canada you would have to wait to long to get whatever you needed to treated so old people and other sickly folk will die. Some of the peoples opinions here range from America becoming comunist to Obama making his own world order and army using minorities.
Oh and Obama is racist against whites. Not my personal opinion but what I've heard.

Yes, because that is obviously it, there is not a single old person here in Canada because they die before they get the care they need, we live in a perfect society of young people..how did I not see that.. >_>..

Its not that bad here, yes there are waiting times, but nothing longer than from 5-30 mins, and if it is something fatal or something like that, you are given top priority

 

[BarkBark]

Well, no--right in the Constitution it says that Congress can spend for the general welfare and that patents are not just a recognition of property rights but are to promote the useful arts and sciences.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html

Alexander Hamilton =/= Andrew Ryan

We've been fed propaganda by people...well, let's just saying they're not to the left, about how when America started it was the intellectual love child of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan. It wasn't. It's important to remember the context in which the American Revolution/the Enlightenment occurred. King George III did not read The Communist Manifesto and go about imposing the various Acts which precipitated the Revolution. That's not what happened. The Enlightenment ideas on economic freedom were in response to Mercantilism. The ideas America was founded on were those that didn't consider all markets to be a zero sum game where someone has to win and someone has to lose. They were ideas about free trade creating wealth, *but in the context of an economic theory that did not believe that a free market could create wealth, only transfer it*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism#Criticisms

Before I say anything let me thank you for such a thoughtful response.~

In all honesty I don't reject anything you said. So I don't
really know how to respond.

What I was doing in my response was to offset the argument by
throwing in some points of views I had not seen in the forum
as of yet. I know about the very very very narrow minded
nature America has and will be, and I know it very much
this happens on all sides of believes.

I agree with John Locke's views views of Mercantilism.
But (As you know) The Enlightenment was not just about
Mercantilism. I found fascination in just the whole principle
of what it stood for. Although I interpreted a key role in
the power of the individual out of my studies of the
Enlightenment. I could just be seeing what I
want to see out of it.

But how does what you said affect individual rights in health
care reform? I don't want to sound stupid, its just I don't know
if I blatantly missed you point. Because all I saw was a very
interesting response about events and ideas that I already knew/accepted.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

I'll read other comments later, but for now:

What I think needs to happen is that the government should defend our rights as consumers: If we are paying for Health Care we shouldn't be dropped for having to actually use our insurance.

I said once before that I personally think that private insurance would fail because, like how a car insurer doesn't want to insure a drunkard, a health insurer doesn't want to insure a sick person, i.e. people who actually need coverage. Compare how much money the average American spends/receives for car damages to the amount of money they put into health services (check ups, dental work, and god forbid if you have children.)

Despite how I feel about private health insurance, at the end of the day I feel that government health insurance is not a necessity; all that needs to be done is to reprimand the Health Insurance CEOs who are committing these crimes against us. People should not go bankrupt for a medical bill if they have insurance.

If we do get "healthcare for all," I'd rather States control it. Our country is just too massive to manage it effectively on a Federal level. Diseconomies of scale, and all.

 

[BarkBark]

But how does what you said affect individual rights in health
care reform?

It seemed to me like you were saying that levying taxes on people for purposes of health care was taking away their individual liberty in a way that would be anathema to the Founders. I wanted to point out that the Constitution was not conceived as such a radical statement on the balance of individual rights vs. government action that government involvement in the health care industry would be unthinkable. Whatever their beliefs about the merits of the idea, I think enough of them would think it clearly falls under spending for the general welfare that we can't say the idea is necessarily at odds with the concept of individual rights they held.

I wasn't talking about this proposed health care
itself being this unthinkable evil of pure anti-
Americanism. I was talking about forced reform
happening, if there is no strong majority for reform,
is something that should not happen. The foundation
of our government is to be representing 'the people'.
And that was the premise I was trying to get across.

 

[Skeleon]

I would turn away poilce. The police are just as currupt as the goverment...

And corporate executives out to make money aren't?
I can understand that people are doubtful of their government, but this weird trust in people that are out to rob you on the other hand is beyond me.

 

[Seldon2639]

It's just that the mass American public has been brainwashed into believing that Socialized Medicine is the tool of the devil thanks to a multi-billion dollar campaign by the Republican Party and HMO's.

Go watch "Sicko." by Michael Moore. That explains it.

PS. I'm from Britain .

Eh... That's only really half the story.

There are basically two major ways countries have chosen to attempt to restrain cost in healthcare:

- Limit Access
- Limit Quality

Canada and the U.K limit quality of care (by which I mean the ability to get certain procedures and screenings, the amount to be spent on care, ect.) America has limited the access to the system (through prohibitive price).

The issue is that Obama is trying to swap cost-saving mechanisms, and the people who have health insurance legitimately are happy. If you compare the healthcare of those in America with healthcare to those in England or German or Canada, America is better in almost all of the criteria. America gets hosed in the international comparisons because the WHO lumps all Americans into a group and compares it to all Canadians, which isn't fair.

America isn't premised on "unversality" we're premised on "give the best care to those who can afford it" and largely we do. If you're in the system, in America, you don't want to leave it. And certainly you don't want to sacrifice some of your healthcare awesomeness for the benefit of the unwashed masses. That's the issue.

Call us selfish, call us greedy, but don't paint it as uninformed blathering. There's a legitimate reason to be against "universal access", especially if you're part of the group that already has access.

If you'd be interested, I actually did an entire rant on this during finals last year:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.116331#2172276

 

[jpoon]

well spoken.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

There is a long standing animosity between 'red blooded, God fearing, loyal, patriotic, americans,' and 'pinko, commie, religion hating, liberty spiting, socialists,' that was readily fed upon by those with something to lose.

I am an American, and I am uninsured. I don't know what the rest of my compatriots think, but I would very much like to have the luxury of being sick (something I do not view as being my fault) and still be able to get medical treatment without losing half my savings.

I am equally perturbed by the fact that the people making the decision as to whether or not I get to be insured are also the people with the best health coverage on the planet, for the rest of their lives... for free. (And it is being paid for by tax-payer dollars...)

Anyway, I am starting to whine (in part because I am sick right now.) I have no answers, and I can only hope for the best.

Cheers.

 

[Skeleon]

Call us selfish, call us greedy, but don't paint it as uninformed blathering.

Isn't helping your countrymen part of being patriotic? Solidarity and such?
I'm not in favor of NHS because I couldn't afford private insurance (in fact, I am privately insured), I'm in favor because everybody should have cancer screenings, heart-operations and other essentials.