Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Yes, and the care can cost as much as 1 million dollars for a premature baby. For someone who has a plan that covers 80 percent, his portion would be $200,000.00. For a young family just starting out it could devastate them financially for the rest of their life. And that's if the family is lucky enough to have a standard insurance plan. Which is why a lot of people who get hit with this just declare bankruptcy. Sometimes it's better just to cut your loses. Nevertheless, such loses drains personal wealth and damages the overall economy, which is Obama's argument for reform.

This conversation about health care is not about WHO, nor is it about some Americans trying to demonstrate that America has the "best" health care (which they can't). It's utter crap. Only a health care system that works for the greater part of its population is "best."

 

Chandos, one question is what cost is it worth paying? If we have perfect health care for everyone in the US, but the cost is so high we end up living packed like sardines, with no luxuries of any kind, is it worth it? Yes, that's a far extreme, and I don't expect it to ever come even close to that, but the question is how far are you willing to go?

The other question I see is how you determine who get's care and who doesn't. The fact of the matter is that we don't have the people, the facilities, or the materials to provide perfect healthcare for everyone. Someone will go without. Do you let it be the unemployed, the elderly, those who disagree with your politics, what? Do you go for a merit-based system (such as the free market provides, heartless as it is) or do you decree a group to die without healthcare? Do you give poor healthcare to everyone or good healthcare to a few?

 

As far as most of the industrialized West.

 

It's not exactly necessary to run over the private sector completely you know. Germany as far as I know has a system of a mandatory government insurance which can then be complemented with various private packages (usually offered by employers), to improve the coverage. It just offers a basic level of coverage for everyone.

Finland and Sweden on the other hand have systems with completely socialized healthcare with a very limited private sector. However you can still pay for private appointments to get past the dreaded lines (which for most issues aren't even that long) and it's not even insanely expensive.

I do not believe for a second that the US health infrastructure or doctor competence (the wages are A LOT higher though) is that much higher than in Europe and the numbers certainly don't show that to justify the exclusion of a major percentage of the population from the health care system.

 

The big bogeyman has been Canada. We actually had a Republican Congressman stand up in the middle of the House and comment that, "The Canadians have nationalized health care because they don't value human life as much as Americans." A US Congressman!

The even scarier part is that there are morons who believe that kind of rhetoric.

Even with insanely expensive insurance we still have long lines here. The last two times I visited the emergency rooms at two local hospitals they were actually turning people away because the lines were so long. Incredible that some argue that there are long lines in Europe and that they are not even educated enough to know that they exist here. It's just plain ignorant. There's no other way to describe the level of ignorance in the current health care debate.

 

I agree. The thing that bugs me is that the Republicans keep pushing the notion that a government option would mean the end of private insurance, which is a bald faced lie. There have been many plans floated out there, but one of the few items in common with all of them is, "If you like your coverage, and you like your doctor, you can keep them both."

In fact, I suspect that most people who already have employer-provided insurance will at least initially keep that coverage. The whole "devil I know" mindset.

 

It's dipstick comments like that that started this thread -- Canada's system works just fine -- I've used it for over 30 years and so have my family and friends. Despite some horror stories I've heard 2nd and 3rd hand (and as has been mentioned, EVERY system has them) the overall quality of care that I, my family, and my peers has been really, really good.

I understand that the American system has a lot going for it, and that many people have never had a bad experience with it. Good for them. That's not a reason to go slagging other countries or accusing them of not caring about their citizens.

 

I don't know why I missed this comment before. I do remember posting somewhere (perhaps even in this thread) that doctors salaries are higher in the US than elsewhere, but not excessively so. I looked up average doctor salaries for the US, Canada, and the UK as all were English speaking nations that were easy for me to research (in hindsight, I suppose I could have added Australia and New Zealand to the list as well).

Anyway, the point is the average salary for general or family practice doctors in the US was about $140,000. In Canada, once you convert to USD, the salary was about $120,000, and in the UK, converting pounds to dollars it worked out to be about $110,000. So the average doctor definitely makes more, but I don't think an increase in salary by about 20% is a lot more, and it certainly in no way explains the health care costs in the US. (Also, I would be interested to see salaries for doctors after malpractice insurance is taken into account. US doctors make more money, but they also pay much higher malpractice insurance premiums.)

As I've said in the past, I do think that the US is capable of providing good care to some people - we just do a poor job of getting health care to a significant portion of the population. My larger point is that for the amount we spend per capita on health care, we should be out performing nearly every other country in the world in most rankings. The WHO is not the only organizaiton in the world that ranks health care by nation. The wiki page you linked to had a link for CIA Factbook as well. CIA Factbook actually ranked the US lower than the WHO. Is the CIA biased against the American system as well?

 

Unfortunately, Aldeth, that's not true. I've actually looked at the most recent Senate bill and, while there are no strict provisions saying you must loose your doctor or coverage, it's pretty clear that, in the long run, the entire private sector of health insurance would come under gov't control through a regulatory entity, with existing regulatory provisions already being more than just protecting the customer.

You're right that there is a middle ground, and you're right that we can probably afford it if we really want to (and I imagine a lot of people do), but so far the Republicans have been unwilling to budge even that far and the Democrats seem determined to take it much farther. THIS is my problem with gov't run health care in the US. It's necessarily going to be set up by Congress, and I don't trust any of them for a second.

 

@NOG - I have to disagree. While the bill is still in the works and there is no saying what will eventually emerge as a result (the House and the Senate bills appear quite different), a regulatory entity need not mean total government control. There are bodies regulating and setting standards for nearly anything, from cigarettes to plane flights to bread, but that does not mean the state controls all these industries. Personally, I am ok with the state paying some role in healthcare - it is far from perfect, sure, but as far as impartial regulators go you could do worse; if its role becomes too big I will oppose it. For now, however, I do not see that happening in the US.

 

NOG,

While there are many ways of reforming the health care system, all those ways are going to have one of two points as their central theme:

1. A government run public option for health insurance. This one requires little involvement with the current private health insurance sector - it just presents a form of competition for the private sector. This is the plan that is likely to be put forward by the House.

2. Regulation of the private insurance industry without offering a public option. This version obviously requires lots of government involvement in the health care industry, and is the one that is being put forward by the Senate.

Like Shaman, I think you jump to conclusions when you say that a regulatory entity will eventually result in government control of private health insurance. The government regulates all kinds of things without controling them - look at the FDA.

Besides, I said that Republicans are saying the public option means the end of private health care - the version that actually requires LESS government involvement with the private health insurance industry. The Senate plan does not even HAVE a public option, so the Senate example does nothing to refute my statement about the public option. Perhaps you weren't fully aware of what differences existed in the House and Senate versions of the bill. I stand by my statement that it's a bald faced lie to say that a public option will mean the end of private health insurance.

As an ancillary point, I think the reason I support the House version more than the Senate version is that the House version represents health care reform, while the Senate version seems to be health insurance reform.

 

Is anybody else kind of freaked out by this?

Am I in danger?

 

IF government run insurance is as bad as everyone claims it is (although the millions of Americans who are on it seem to be doing pretty well), the insurance compaines, with all their resources and money, should be able to compete very nicley. What is it that they are so afraid if people are so unhappy with government insurance? It seems good enough for all those people in Congress.

Yes. They are still listening in on your phone conversations, checking your internet content and activity, and checking out which books you are reading from the library. Thank GWB for that. It's all for your own good, you know....

 

I have no problem with this, as long as it is cost effective and not over the top. I don't want to be paying for a druggy's hangover fight or a prostitute's boob-job. I'm fine with fixing little Timmy's bum leg if his parents can't afford it, though.

I'm ok with that as long as it's reasonable regulation. The requirement that a company meet a certain ratio between money taken in for insurance and money payed out in claims is understandable, as long as it's a reasonable ratio. The requirement that companies no longer discriminate based on medically relevant life-style choices (such as long-term drug abuse) isn't.

That depends on how you define "control". In a very real sense, the FDA does control what I eat, but it does so to a reasonable degree (usually, there are a few issues, but there will always be issues). To some degree, by definition, gov't regulation is gov't control, but the question is what kind of control. As I said in response to your point 2, there are some proposed regulations I would love to see passed, but others I'd vocally protest. I think gov't regulation of health-care should focus on ensuring the business is fair and above-board, and not worry about using it for wide-spread health-care coverage. That's what a public policy should be for.

My point wasn't that the Reps were right, but rather that neither side was really trying to get a comprimise. My worry now is that, since the Dems have essentially complete control (even fillibuster-proof Senate majority now), they won't try to comprimise, because they won't need to. We'll see, though. There are some reasonable Dems that may blow things for them.

As you may be able to tell from above, I think I prefer a watered-down combination of the two.

First off, a lot of people on the existing gov't systems aren't happy with them. They're better than nothing, but that doesn't mean they're good. Secondly, as you may be able to see from above, a simple gov't alternative isn't the only proposal. If they instead go more for the Senate plan, the gov't would be directly telling the private insurance companies what they can and can't do. As I said above, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly can be. Lastly, the most vocal objections I've heard to the public option is how much coverage we'll be forced to pay for. Again, as I said above, there are reasonable levels and unreasonable levels.

 

Bull. A lot of people are happy with it. Most government empoyees like their insurance. For instance, my dad, a retired cop, is happy as a clam with his insurance through the county; my mom, and a hardcore conservative, was paying for priviate insurance after she retired. She was paying through the nose for it, because she refused to go on "government run" insurance (and this was before the current debate). I finally convinced her to try Medicare, and even she claims there's no difference, and it's way cheaper. Show me where the difference is. I know government employees, like the post office, Congress, teachers, military, and others, get very good insurance. In fact, one of the reasons a lot of people work for the government is to get the excellent insurance and other benefits the government provides.

Medicare is similar to standard private insurance but way chaeper for the elderly. So where is this profound difference in them that the opposition to reform claims there is?

 

These "reasonable" Dems as you call them are more commonly referred to as "Blue Dogs". They are in a tricky spot. A lot of them come from states that are typically Republican leaning. If they don't side with Obama on health care, good luck getting much funding from the DNC when you run again, which for members of the House is 2010.

If they don't support the president on this measure, what platform are they going to run on? That they supported the bailout? Yeah, that will play really well in red states.

 

I get what you're saying Aldeth, and I don't think people are beating down the doors anytime soon to get the Republicans back in power again. Why would they? The "bailout craze" started with a Republican administration. Whille I'm sure there are those who are foolish enough to believe the Republicans would spend less, but given their track record, it's unlikey they would spend any less than Dems once back in power again. Of course, they will continue to run on a "less spending" platform as long as they are still out of power.

 

Ah, to dream about getting a true fiscal conservative into the White House. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

---------- Added 0 hours, 0 minutes and 46 seconds later... ----------

I'm going to have buy more tinfoil.

 

I think Ron Paul would be your best hope for that. Yet, the country isn't really ready for him. As much as people claim they are for less spending, they mean as long as it's not "my pet program" you are cutting. While your view is a minority view - once you come right down to it - its benefits would be substantial for the country. Whether they are Republicans or Dems they are captured by the same special interests, which means lots and lots of spending.

There are a lot of things the government can do well. And the taxpayers can reap substantial benefits from some government programs - SS is an example of a very successful program. Yet, on balance there is so much fat in the system for large corporations, that the idea of cutting funds for them brings out an army of corporate lobbyists who can buy access to government officials that you and I can't.

 

Well, it's nice to know we can all agree on one thing: fiscal conservatism.