this new Health Bill they are trying to pass, I am reading about it and reading the CBO's summary, but I was wondering what you fine people thought...so shall we discuss....or am I just really this nerdy?
Bet this one gets shut down for being political pretty fast.
That saying, socialized medicine has FAILED everywhere it's been tried. Name one thing that the government has managed to run better than the private sector... and you want them responsible for your healthcare?
This bill is a baaaaaad idea.
Politically I'm a libertarian so I don't believe the government should be doing anything beyond the bare minimum of responding to aggression (police) and providing a forum for settling disputes (courts).
That said, I'll fall back on cliches. The postal service is probably the most effective government program. Do you want the Post Office delivering your medical care? How about them deciding what medical care you get?
I currently ration my medical care through placing a dollar value of what I'm willing to spend on my health care. I put up with some inconveniences like eczema, and have funds put back for truly debilitating injuries and illness.
Nope, nope, nope! I have a dear friend in Canada who's a vicitm of socialized medical "care". She has multiple chemical sensitivities that keep her virtually imprisoned in her own home. She pays a staggering amount of taxes so the govenment can fund "free" healthcare out of her pocket, and for this, she has to wait weeks even for a routine visit to her doctor. Lord help her when her symptom flare up and she's in distress. Thanks but no thanks.
FWIW, it's already been tried in the US, on a smaller scale. The built-in abuse escalated so rapidly that it failed in only 7 months. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/health/main4527996.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/health/main4527996.shtml)
I'll only say that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeated the same mistakes. Socialism has failed in ever facet in the past. Just because a charismatic gentleman in our highest office says it'll work doesn't make it so. Same with the Stimulus package.
Right you are, TG....Could it work...? Possibly. The downside would be rationing other gummint services, and those that already have a piece of that action (ie.."entitlements...) will squall like hungry little piglets. Maybe we could downsize the worlds most professional armed services...? Park a few nuclear carriers, send a few hundred thousand soldiers home, close some more bases that provide jobs for entire communities....? But there is the problem; the Constitution provides for the common defense. There's not a single thing about health care.
On the other hand....the system is broken. Insurance companies and lawyers write the rules that doctors and patients are obliged to follow. There has to be a better way to do this......I can tell you first hand that losing your health insurance is no bloody picnic. But more government intervention has always been a recipe for disaster. I could not have put it better than Zaubon did....having the postal service running the medical system? Really? How about that miserable SOB you almost choked out the last time you visited the DMV?
To say nothing of the potential for abuse...if you were furious with welfare that went five generations deep, you'll just love this...
For the record, I claim no political party affiliation. Both parties have lost sight of anything more important than the next election cycle.
The gov't. trying to run what should be private, even when it founders, has never been a good idea... anybody remember Amtrak? Yeah, that went well.
Quote from: Tipsy Gypsy on July 25, 2009, 09:09:34 AM
Nope, nope, nope! I have a dear friend in Canada who's a vicitm of socialized medical "care".
Canada ranked 10th in the world for longevity...USA ranked 45th.
Canada ranked 23rd for infant mortality...USA 33rd.
No opinion expressed on the plan, just some numbers for thought.
the US also has ten times the population (300 million vs. 33 million) and far higher percentages of recent immigrants with congenital problems from their homelands and/or who still live in austere conditions by choice (trust me, I see it every day). Not to mention many of them choose not to seek medical help due to culture or suspicions. I see Hispanics with medical problems going to a Curandera for some ritual or other rather than the hospital all the time, and many other groups do the same- Chinese, Haitian, etc.- while others do not trust hospitals at all and tend to try to treat injuries on their own (especially prideful country boys... hate trying to treat them when they get injured, too stubborn to admit what's wrong and want to fix it with superglue or a stapler). Not knocking it, it's their traditions, but it does skew the numbers significantly. I cannot tell you how many times people have refused treatment when in dired need of proper medical care. Add to that the generally risky lifestyles of most Americans in their teens and twenties, higher concentrations of populations in small geographical areas (cities and megacities) and all that comes with it (exponentially increased rates of violent crime, disease, accidents, etc.) and it skews them even further.
As for the healthcare bill, I'm pretty much in the same boat as Zaubon on this one.
Quote from: Zaubon on July 25, 2009, 06:49:35 AM
...Do you want the Post Office delivering your medical care?...
Yes actually. Seems as much as many here malign and disparage our government they tend to forget what government made us what we are. I can pay less than four-bits and have a letter picked up at my house and delivered ANYWHERE in the country in about three days with near 100% accuracy. Gotta give cred where it's due.
My government leaders in the pentagon have done what no other country in modern times has done. Defeated despots bent on world domination. Saved most of the free world (and saved much of the not so free). And did it without the annexation on any other country.
Government got us to the moon. Built one of the worlds largest road infrastructures. Educates millions with free and unbiased education. Cares for millions more in their retirement.
Seems that big bureaucracy does pretty danged well with much. I am proud of my nation and it's people. I realise the people ARE the government and I do not fear them trying to improve our lives and position in the world. Much to like in the new bill and much to hate. That is why I vote for my congressmen to make sure they get it right. Lord knows they make mistakes, as do I, but I will give them a chance. The fact the bill is faultering says they are indeed doing their homework and trying to make it right.
I thought that since this is one of the few places where people can express different, even opposing issues without fear of being drug through the mud. If I offended anyone by posting a political topic I apologize, I just thought it would make for good discussion. And so far it has in the respectable way I have come to love and expect from this community of folks!
My thoughts are that, so far what I've read sounds good. I know that there are going to be some sacrifices, and that not everyone is going to be happy, but that's life. But if we are required to have a base amount of health care...don't you think that it would go a long way to reduce the amount of unpaid ER bills we have in this country? (and we have alot!)
Idk, once again I apologize if you were offended by the political content of the post.
Quote from: Noble Dreg on July 25, 2009, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: Zaubon on July 25, 2009, 06:49:35 AM
...Do you want the Post Office delivering your medical care?...
Yes actually. Seems as much as many here malign and disparage our government they tend to forget what government made us what we are. I can pay less than four-bits and have a letter picked up at my house and delivered ANYWHERE in the country in about three days with near 100% accuracy. Gotta give cred where it's due.
My government leaders in the pentagon have done what no other country in modern times has done. Defeated despots bent on world domination. Saved most of the free world (and saved much of the not so free). And did it without the annexation on any other country.
Government got us to the moon. Built one of the worlds largest road infrastructures. Educates millions with free and unbiased education. Cares for millions more in their retirement.
Seems that big bureaucracy does pretty danged well with much. I am proud of my nation and it's people. I realise the people ARE the government and I do not fear them trying to improve our lives and position in the world. Much to like in the new bill and much to hate. That is why I vote for my congressmen to make sure they get it right. Lord knows they make mistakes, as do I, but I will give them a chance. The fact the bill is faultering says they are indeed doing their homework and trying to make it right.
I'll agree that we, as a country, have done great things but I would attribute these successes to
people rather than the government machine. Regardless of which party held the reins. Government mismanagement is legendary. I firmly don't think the government should or can successfully operate in the private sector. For example, they couldn't succeed in a business selling sex and booze. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292166,00.html What's happening now seems to be a push for more machine and less people. Not fond of the trend. Not fond to the point where I can't even fathom the real purpose behind the decisions that are being made. There has to be some ulterior motive because all of the major changes we have seen seem to be having the direct opposite of the desired results.
**Squeezes eyes shut tight, sticks fingers in ears**
Not gonna get involved, Not gonna get involved, Not gonna get......
Ahhhh....nuts!
Ok...
First, and foremost, I'm glad to see this discussion staying away from the dogma of "Socialism is Evil!" Police, Fire, Education (to a point), the roads you drive on, the military that defends you....all Socialism. It's something provided for by the community for the good of the community.
Second...I love the idea of socialized health care...in theory. Putting it into practice would require fixing far too many things than the next 4 presidents would have time for. :o Not the least of which is an overblown sense of entitlement too many people seem to have, and an illegal immigration problem that's absolutely staggering. Do I have a problem with immigration? No, sir! Do I have a problem with illegal immigration? You bet yer sweet bippy!
Third...Do you really like the idea of an insurance company, who gets paid more for giving you less, making you and your families health care decisions? My doctor can say I need something, but my insurance company can say no? What am I paying them for? There's a part in the Nixon/Watergate tapes about HMO's that's pretty darn telling. And before we get into the "wait lists" portion of this conversation, I know a few people abroad, and I've asked them what they think of their health care, and from what I can tell, elective and cosmetic surgeries can be wait listed for awhile. Required or necessary surgeries? Not so much. LOL, and I'm sure someone else could have talked to friends in other countries and heard the opposite. ::) :P
And last, I think we can agree that the private sector doesn't have much on the Gov't when it comes to running a business. I'm lookin' at you, GM and Enron!
Quote from: Noble Dreg on July 25, 2009, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: Zaubon on July 25, 2009, 06:49:35 AM
...Do you want the Post Office delivering your medical care?...
Yes actually. Seems as much as many here malign and disparage our government they tend to forget what government made us what we are. I can pay less than four-bits and have a letter picked up at my house and delivered ANYWHERE in the country in about three days with near 100% accuracy. Gotta give cred where it's due.
When it comes to medical care, almost ain't good enough. I want 100% accuracy
...Educates millions with free and unbiased education.
Are you kidding me? Public education has been unbelieveably biased since the mid '70s.
...Cares for millions more in their retirement.
FDR never intended Social Security to be a retirement plan, it was money to use when you can't work until you can. It is in the New Deal that FDR inflicted on the country that extended the Great depression for nearly 10 years
Seems that big bureaucracy does pretty danged well with much. I am proud of my nation and it's people. I realise the people ARE the government and I do not fear them trying to improve our lives and position in the world. Much to like in the new bill and much to hate. That is why I vote for my congressmen to make sure they get it right. Lord knows they make mistakes, as do I, but I will give them a chance. The fact the bill is faultering says they are indeed doing their homework and trying to make it right.
This nation prospers in spite of bureaucracy, not because of it, more or bigger government has NEVER been the answer to ANYTHING. The bill is faltering? That implies that it worked. Never did and never was intended to. But that's what happens when you don't read what you are signing.
Well put MaelStrom, well put indeed.
Now pull your fingers outa your ears and go back to eating that turkey leg! (God I hope that is a turkey leg!)
either that, or one very unfortunate- and quite large- pigeon ;D
Well, I think we're all aware of what crap shoot Faire food can be. It coulda been "Dumpster Chicken" for all I know but, it was sure tasty!! :P
Dracconia, I think it's funny that we thought along the same lines, I too wondered about socialized healthcare so I turned to the boards for answers, I sent a personal message to a member of the Canadian forum on here and we had a lengthy discussion about the pros and cons of their healthcare system, all in all she was happy with it.
As long as I can take a private insurance, if I so desire, I'd have no problem with it. But a mandated, government-run medical system only? No thanks. There's actually not much wrong with the current (aside from skyrocketing premiums), and as I see, there are three fixes that would vastly improve things:
1) Do away with HMOs. Period. That was the worst thing to happen to medical care, ever, was their invention.
2) Better regulation of the pharmaceutical companies. They've gotten out of hand. Better regulation of the drugs they put out, and no allowance for them to provide doctors money to push a specific company's product. That's a big load of horse droppings.
3) Kill the FDA. Period. Slash that organization apart, bury it, and come up with something better. It is the single most corrupt government organization out there, bar none, and needs to go the way of the dodo. I might be a little more harsh because of their recent reregulation of tobacco that goes into effect starting 1 Oct, but they seriously need to go away.
Those three things happen, guarantee you, things would improve vastly.
Quote from: MaelStrom on July 26, 2009, 02:50:10 PM
Well, I think we're all aware of what crap shoot Faire food can be....
Now there is a true argument for universal health care...Rennies need help paying the doctor bills should they eat at Faire! ;D
To be honest, I'm rather shocked this topic is still active. So, let's see if I can squeak one post in under the wire.
I'll leave aside "friend of a friend" stories in regards to "socialized" healthcare, as seemingly everyone on one side of the argument has a Canadian or British friend who's being mistreated by their health coverage. Personally, I have friends and relatives in the U.K., France, and Canada. To a person, they like their coverage and treatment. However, the relatively few I know are also inconsequential to the discussion.
Here's what's consequential:
The U.S. is now 47th in life expectancy - source: CIA Factbook
The U.S. is now 43rd in infant mortality - source: CIA Factbook
The U.S. is now 37th in WHO health care rankings, a measure of how much WE like our health care system
The U.S. had 47 million uninsured citizens as of 2006, according to the US Census Bureau.
Not good numbers. However, there are a few areas where we're first:
- U.S. citizens spend more than twice as much per capita on health care as any other citizens in the world ($7,129 as of 2005)
- Over the last decade, the U.S. has the highest rate of health care sector inflation in the world (clocking in at 87% over just the period from 2000-2006). Overall inflation during that time was a mere 3.5%. Wages increased over that same time frame by just 3.8%. Middle class incomes shrunk by 2.8%.
- The U.S. has the most profitable health insurance sector in the world, with over $30 billion in reported profits in the last three years
- The U.S. health system spends more on health care-related paperwork than any country on Earth. By example, as of 2004, the U.S. spent four times as much on health care-related paperwork as Canada.
- The U.S. leads the world in personal bankruptcies attributable to medical expenses. Source - Health Affairs Journal 2005
The same boogeymen I've seen for years are now coming back out of the closet to, once again, knock down any sort of real health care reform.
"Socialized medicine has never worked." - To the contrary, we are the only first world nation which does NOT have socialized medicine. We have socialized police, fire, military, roads, mail, water & sewage, etc., but we're lead to believe that if we take that step over to medicine, we'll all be a bunch of pinko commies. And we're lead to be believe that for a very good reason: There is a mother load of profit to be had out of such a poorly run health care system.
"The government can't do anything right." - Two points. The government is, and always has been, what the people demand of it. Secondly, there seems to be a belief that even in a single-payer system, which this proposed legislation is most definitely NOT, government mail carriers would be treating your sick kid. You'll still get the doctors you get right now. The only difference would be removing some of the unsustainable cost increases from the system. Also, we might get to a system where someone's bonus check isn't dependent on denying your kid the care he needs. After all, that's how health insurance companies make $30 billion in profits in a three-year span: rate increases and coverage denial.
"It's un-American!" - In reality, the tremendous profit motive apparent in the health sector is a relatively new phenomenon, traceable to the Nixon years. For some delightful listening, I'd encourage anyone to listen to the Nixon tapes regarding the formation of HMOs.
"We'll derail medical advances" - In 2006, less than 10% of all drug trials involved distinctively new drug compounds. (source: Wired) What our drug companies have become, in large part, are "me too" companies. For instance, one company develops Viagra. Another company pours hundreds of millions of dollars into developing a similar chemical compound which is just different enough to avoid patent violation and calls it "Levitra". Another comes along and, after a few hundred more million, releases "Cialis". As for actual cures, our drug companies have no motive for curing disease. It would be like me finding a cure for advertising. It just wouldn't make financial sense. What drug companies excel at are making expensive chronic treatments, in most cases quite similar to those already on the market.
"But we'll have to ration health care" - Lastly, we have rationing. Ever since Reagan On Vinyl in the 60's, we've heard about the evils of rationing care. Yes, care WILL be rationed. And yes, care IS rationed now. Any time you have something less than an infinite number of doctors, care, by necessity, is rationed. It's just a matter of math.
The monster we've created is simply unsustainable. It now accounts for 1/6th of our GDP. Given another ten years of double-digit sector inflation, it'll be up around 1/4. A good health insurance plan can now easily exceed a middle class family's mortgage payment. And if you're getting your health insurance through your employer, please remember it's not free. Middle class wages fell 2.8% from 2000 to 2008, in large part because businesses were picking up most of the tab as health care inflation soared.
As a small-business owner who still provides health insurance, this runaway inflation has reached near-crippling levels, where I'm almost left with two choices: freeze or even cut payroll, or cut all health benefits, which would be akin to a huge pay cut for my employees. As an added bonus, we have a system where small-business owners, even those who belong to large group pools through chambers of commerce and the like, pay almost 33% more for our employee health insurance than large companies. And being the only first world country without a single-payer system, our larger companies have to compete on the world stage with foreign competition which don't have to shoulder the burden.
It's too expensive, there's too much profit gouging, there are too many uncovered citizens. To be receiving any sort of reasonable "bang for our buck" on health care, Americans would have to be living for about 180 years at this point. But we're not. While we like to claim our health system is the best in the world, the numbers just don't add up.
The time for fixing this problem via baby steps was 10 or 20 years ago.
// And no, I most assuredly didn't not intend for this post to be THAT long. :)
Quote from: RSLeask on July 27, 2009, 02:48:18 AM
As long as I can take a private insurance, if I so desire, I'd have no problem with it. But a mandated, government-run medical system only? No thanks. There's actually not much wrong with the current (aside from skyrocketing premiums), and as I see, there are three fixes that would vastly improve things:
1) Do away with HMOs. Period. That was the worst thing to happen to medical care, ever, was their invention.
2) Better regulation of the pharmaceutical companies. They've gotten out of hand. Better regulation of the drugs they put out, and no allowance for them to provide doctors money to push a specific company's product. That's a big load of horse droppings.
3) Kill the FDA. Period. Slash that organization apart, bury it, and come up with something better. It is the single most corrupt government organization out there, bar none, and needs to go the way of the dodo. I might be a little more harsh because of their recent reregulation of tobacco that goes into effect starting 1 Oct, but they seriously need to go away.
Those three things happen, guarantee you, things would improve vastly.
Quick replies:
1. Okay, we've killed HMOs. Now what? HMOs are crap, most certainly, but now that we've dislodged millions of Americans from the only type of insurance they can afford, where to now? If they're on HMOs, they almost certainly can't afford PPO plans or the like, and they may not qualify for government programs as they're currently structured.
2. Good idea. I'd extend that to the insurance industry, as well. Actually, my preference would be to go there first. Heck, go there at the same time.
3. While I'd argue that the defense department is far and away the most corrupt in regards to kickbacks and waste (I'd still like the 40 senators who voted to sustain funding for a multi-billion dollar jet program, the Raptor, which won't even fly in the rain, to explain themselves), I'd certainly go along with this. I think there are other priorities I'd throw in my top three, but the FDA does need a serious reboot.
Quote from: Noble Dreg on July 26, 2009, 10:04:48 AM
Well put MaelStrom, well put indeed.
Now pull your fingers outa your ears and go back to eating that turkey leg! (God I hope that is a turkey leg!)
As the guy who took that photo, I know EXACTLY what it is.
//And for $50.00, I'll tell the whole world.
I'm glad to see that everything has managed to stay civil in this thread and that all sides are being presented in a calm and objective manner.
I'm for it.
Quote from: Xanthenes The Unbalanced on July 27, 2009, 07:38:41 AM
...I'd still like the 40 senators who voted to sustain funding for a multi-billion dollar jet program, the Raptor, which won't even fly in the rain, to explain themselves...
'Cuz it looks so danged cool! ;D
Factcheck.org does a pretty balanced job of debunking rumors about it as well as checking into Obama's statements
Obama's Health Care News Conference Facts vs. Obama
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_health_care_news_conference.html
Debunking ads claiming Congress is pushing a Canadian-style health care bill.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/canadian_straw_man.html
...and that's how it's done, right there. I always like to hear what my friends and neighbors think, I like hearing both sides of a discussion, but I'll be sure to read a variety of well documented sources before I really make up my mind about an issue.
I've been reading along , but haven't posted my own thoughts, because, frankly I'm not sure yet how I feel about it. I have a good insurance program now..a PPO...and I'm very happy with it. I do think there is a huge amount of corruption in the insurance game as it stands now and I do think the current programs need better regulations. Just not sure if I want to see it swing so far the other way.
Thanks for those links Groomporter. :)
Government run system like Canada's, and most Europeans have work fine as long as all that is needed is standard noncritical, care. Regular check up that are scheduled months in advance, getting flu shots, etc. Its when a person needs emergence or critical care fast that they fall apart. That is why the cancer and heart attack survival rates is so much lower there than in the USA. Both those require fast response and one thing the government is never good at is fast response.
The trick is to figure out a way to get the standard stuff under control while still keeping the fast response for critical care we now have.
One opinion I think is worth looking into is small government run medical centers, staffed with nurses and medics instead of doctors. You could go there for your flu shots, get a bandaid changed, all the things that really don't require a visit to the doctor office.
Also we need to expand insurance so it looks more like car or home insurance. We need options that lets young people only buy coverage for major accidents and illness instead of total care. Like the reverse of car insurance I don't carry full cover on my 20 year Oldsmoble, just cover the other guy because its not worth it. Let young people who don't need to see a doctor choice to only have the coverage they want.
When I look at the plan going through congress today I don't see a bill to improve peoples health care I see a bill designed to increase government power and control over individual. I don't want the government telling me my mother is to old for hearth sugery and just needs to take pain pills. That sounds to much like saying old people need to die quickly and stop wasting their kids money. To much of that going around all ready.
Some of the problems with the Canadian system may be exaggerated according to this
Debunking Canadian health care myths
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427
it's bad idea I'm telling you it's not good.
I dare you to call me "un-american" because of the thoughts that I am going to write herein.
I've given. My family has given and paid the ultimate sacrifice to protecting all that we find just in this country. I have a right to speak my mind and let me voice not only be heard but be respected.
So don't you dare think for one second that because I think differently from you and I'll vehemently fight for my directlon and continue to support my way that makes me "un-american'...
I was brought up and sacrificed my family directly and know that my soldiers are fighting and dying today to support the idea of "I'll fight for your right...."
As an American of the United States I know that all people living today in the United States..illegal, old, young, aged, dying beyond repair, poor, rich, race unidentified, sex unidentified, have a right to be taken care of.
I'm of the old school that says and believes that if you CHOSE to be a doctor or nurse or teacher or fireman or policeman or soldier you have chosen to HELP people.
To save and to provide and to sacrifice because you chose to do so.
Healthcare....I'd challenge any of you to deal with the VA system. Any of you, Republicans or Democrats alike...the conditions are abysmal. For me, I have to judge my current status as a civilian the same as for the aformentioned. And it's really not very attractive....no wonder.
Just cause you are poor does'nt mean you shoud lose your leg when the insurance pays to keep the insured persons leg.
This is an abomination....and if you think for one second it doesn't happen your are being naive, lied to and stupid.
"Feb 14, 2006 ... Forbes magazine reports that William W. McGuire, CEO of UnitedHealth Group) received compensation of $124.8 million in 2005".
"Dollar Bill" has made lots of news with cash-and-stock paydays that have topped $100 million in recent years -- and he's still sitting atop stock options valued at $1.6 billion".
Look it up, there was more paid out in other years. One company, one CEO. I do not fear government waste...seems private business has a corner on the market. ;D
I hear you Julianne, and respect you. The truly remarkable thing about this country is every single American has the right to be heard, regardless of service, race, sex, creed, and more...That's what we fought for. What a fantastic place to live.
And kudos to all who managed to keep it cool.
Thank you ND.
I'm very passionate about health care as most of us here but I fail to see the compassion. Because we all believe that everyone has that right to such apparently that is not the case. I've learned that if you aren't "American" you just die if you get sick. We just don't all believe in the same way, apparently in how the right to happiness is meted out.
I have say strongly that you can't be my bretheren without believing that everyone has the same right to the same health care...based on the ability to pay or sometimes no ability to pay. I don't always want to give to the indigent but under the US Bill of Rights they are afforded the same rights as I am. If you are going to put people in jail, in a mental ward, in a foster home, in any socialized facility because they become the dregs of society then you have an OBLIGATION TO CARE FOR THEM FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Otherwise, in the case of prisoners...then you believe in captial punishment for those that can't be rehabilitated.
The best part of being a righteous born and bred 'merican is knowing the difference between humanity and ideaolgy.
And if you can't pay, like prison inmates, or if you can't pay because you are illegal in this country, or if you are a child, or if you live off medicare or medicaid, or just because you live off the streets and nobody cares about you,....
....you get to keep your leg through the same medicine that would have amputated it if you were poor.
The reality is....if my husband divorces me..and I'm living on the edge of poverty which would be the case....if I get an infection in my leg...my leg is off.
If I get an infection today...I get surgery...and my leg is saved.
That's just wrong.
Quote from: SirRichardBear on July 27, 2009, 09:44:36 AM
Government run system like Canada's, and most Europeans have work fine as long as all that is needed is standard noncritical, care. Regular check up that are scheduled months in advance, getting flu shots, etc. Its when a person needs emergence or critical care fast that they fall apart. That is why the cancer and heart attack survival rates is so much lower there than in the USA. Both those require fast response and one thing the government is never good at is fast response.
Unfortunately, that just doesn't stand up well to statistical evaluation.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
"Study Shows U.S., Japan, and France Have Highest Cancer Survival Rates"
"In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers."
Four of the the top five countries have single payer systems.
Oh puh-leeze!! You and all your fancy-shmancy facts and figures! Whatever! :P ;) :D
Oriental races have the lowest rate of Cancer.
Oriental races have the highest level of cigarette smokers.
Western Europeans have a low rate of born Diabetes
American Indians have a high rate of born Diabetes.
Western Europeans have a high rate of sugar intake
American Indians have the highest rate of fat and intake.
Western Europeans have an infant mortality rate 3 times lower then the U.S.
Go with your thoughts.
Quote from: MaelStrom on July 27, 2009, 05:47:12 PM
Oh puh-leeze!! You and all your fancy-shmancy facts and figures! Whatever! :P ;) :D
fancy-shmancy?...really?
could quite possibly save your effin life one day...*frown*....and maybe when you are old and grey and discarded and useless..
oh ....oh .....ahem...my apologies...sometimes I get just a bit too emotional about these type of subjects...
ahem.
all's well.
continue with the mundane ;)
Quote from: Julianne on July 27, 2009, 05:54:48 PM
Quote from: MaelStrom on July 27, 2009, 05:47:12 PM
Oh puh-leeze!! You and all your fancy-shmancy facts and figures! Whatever! :P ;) :D
fancy-shmancy?...really?
could quite possibly save your effin life one day...*frown*....and maybe when you are old and grey and discarded and useless..
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I knew I should have quoted Xanthenes' post! He and I have been friends since we were kids. He's always been great in an argument because he researches things and knows what he's talking about before he gets started. I just like to give him a little shine once in awhile. Sorry if my comment offended you.
Julianne, your look at Health Care is exactly the way it should be. I stress, should be, because like everything else in society today, it all comes down to the almighty dollar. Green makes right, and I don't care who it is, that's just how we operate. Which is truly unfortunate. It should be that care provision is given to all. It's the Hippocratic Oath, not the Hypocrite Oath.
There's one point that I could get into you with, and that's the subject of illegals... wait, I'm sorry... Unrecognized Americans (gotta be PC these days). I'd wager that of anyone else, they could actually afford better health care than most average American, but simply don't because they can't be in the system. Or they'll get booted (unless the Wicked Witch of the Hill gets her way). Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you on the point that, if they need treatment, they should get it, regardless. I'm just of the mind that if they get treatment, their release paper should be stapled to the deportation pass, but that's a different debate entirely.
Make no mistake, I do think that health care should be afforded, and affordable, to everyone. I also believe that those that can, should be able to have added benefits to their health care, instead of reliance on a government-run system. Keep the municipal and the private practice separate. Let us choose which we'd prefer. Just my two cents.
Gentles, A lot of my thinking on this subject has also been subjugated in a more recent topic in another thread.
Most qualified insured Americans don't take advantage of the health care afforded them.
What most "tax-paying, born-bred 'merican", god-fearing" republican/democrat citizens don't even realize is what is out there for them.
I have no illusions about capitalism and America. We have propogated this idea and in the end as a wage earner...I love it.
I also remember a time ...a time in my life when teachers, nurses, fireman were the heroes.
A Doctor's word was epiphany...and he or her would take a chicken as payment.
It was also the family doctor that assured us that my mother would be "just fine".
Times change...Our constitution allows this...change with it or begone
Quote from: MaelStrom on July 27, 2009, 06:00:20 PM
Quote from: Julianne on July 27, 2009, 05:54:48 PM
Quote from: MaelStrom on July 27, 2009, 05:47:12 PM
Oh puh-leeze!! You and all your fancy-shmancy facts and figures! Whatever! :P ;) :D
fancy-shmancy?...really?
could quite possibly save your effin life one day...*frown*....and maybe when you are old and grey and discarded and useless..
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I knew I should have quoted Xanthenes' post! He and I have been friends since we were kids. He's always been great in an argument because he researches things and knows what he's talking about before he gets started. I just like to give him a little shine once in awhile. Sorry if my comment offended you.
Do I know you, sir?!?!?!?
:)
I would just like to say thank you to everyone who has posted here for keeping it so calm and polite. I am so grateful that so many of us have been able to come together, practice freedom of speech and respect. I know I am learning alot and will post more on my opinons on the topic once I have gathered one based on all this new information. As the one who started the topic, once again, thank you for being polite and allowing others their thoughts and views!
Love you all!
Dracconia
I'm for big, major changes in healthcare in our country, just for the record. And I think it should include a healthy dose of care for those with mental illnesses and disabilities.
I think that Xanthenes brought home an important point about the cost of medical insurance for small businesses and one of which many people are just plain unaware, (unless, of course, you're the owner of a small business). Many of the huge household name companies in our country started as small, entreprenuerial enterprises long before these kinds of costs burgeoned...What small companies with wonderful ideas that could bring a bright future to our country are being thwarted by the high cost of staying in operation and providing healthcare for the people who make up their smaller teams?
I've been reading what I can on the subject. You all have made me put my thinking cap on!
Agreed Nicki. I wonder what the cost difference would be for small businesses under thenew plan as compared with what is available now.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124759535535340189.html
An excerpt:
"Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage."
The article goes on to say the average small business with between five and nine workers had a payroll of around $375,000. This was in 2006. Aprox 1 million small businesses fell into this category.
For myself, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that I'd be grandfathered in with my current poilicy, assuming the Govt. can't lure my company to do away with our current plan and adopt theirs for a tax break or some such incentive program, but should I cange jobs, I'd then be forced to join the Govt program regardles of there being private companies I'd prefer to join.
Does anyone know what voice the voters have in this? I'm not terribly political. Is there an avenue someone can recommend to have our voices heard?
Quote from: Dracconia on July 27, 2009, 07:42:32 PM
I would just like to say thank you to everyone who has posted here for keeping it so calm and polite. I am so grateful that so many of us have been able to come together, practice freedom of speech and respect. I know I am learning alot and will post more on my opinons on the topic once I have gathered one based on all this new information. As the one who started the topic, once again, thank you for being polite and allowing others their thoughts and views!
Love you all!
Dracconia
Gathering information before forming an opinion??? Congratulations on taking a very novel, and may I add, intelligent approach; no matter what opinion you form.
And thanks for starting the thread. Always nice to have a civil debate.
// Sometimes I use slashies just for sashies' sake.
This is precisely why this thread has been so great to view and respond to, since it all has managed to remain civilized...(the researching to form one's own opinion, not necessarily the slashes, although they have a certain appeal). I do think that it is unique in that it is a bit political but also it's something that we all are concerned about in the mundane world...Hey, if you're still breathing you just may need a doctor sometime!
"The article goes on to say the average small business with between five and nine workers had a payroll of around $375,000. This was in 2006. Aprox 1 million small businesses fell into this category. "
I work for a company that falls way far short of this. Do I mind?...no
Working for a small family owned business...I know what I'm doing....I was aware when I got the job.
Currently, my husband's job provides our health care so this is not an issue.
If I was single...then I would have to apply for Medicare for me and my disabled child. My employer gives me $70 a month towards health care. He knows that falls short but its the best he is willing to do currently.
Simple as that. Would we, my daughter and I, get the same level of health care with medicare...hell no...and I know this as a fact.
The lesson is to provide for yourself...otherwise you fail as a parent.
I'll give you a direct example: My daughter is disabled and entitled to Medicare due to her disability which all of you pay for through SS.
Medicare does not provide for any cardiovascular related illnesses required to be treated by a Doctor visit that my daughter needs due to a birth defect. Medicare does not pay for hearing aids.
Medicare does not provide for orthotics needed for rheumatoid arthritis.
Medicare does not pay for echocardiograms.
Medicaid is even worse. If my husband divorces me and try to support my daughter on my salary I am entitled to Medicaid. Medicaid will pay for the emergency services related to these illnesses once they become a life-threatening condition.
I do believe that through Medicare and Medicaid we (as a tax-paying community) have tried to help the disadvantaged and disabled.... but the reality is that the system falls severely short of proper health care.
Especially when you consider our birth mortality rate in comparision to other countries. It is also true however that many young women wait till it is far too late to seek medical help for problem pregnancies.
But I find that to be stastically a shallow argument...sorry, but the overall fact is that once poor girls and women decide to have their babies they want healthy babies and do what is necessary to have them thus...for the most part...the stereotypical pregnant junkie is still the rarity. And the fact is that if a woman is on drugs when her baby is born...and the baby can't be care for...we separate them anyway...the 'Foster Child" is born.
The Vet...just wants what is his/her due. And without media attention focused on there specific issue ...they won't get the treatments/therapy that they need. VA hospitals are an abomination. We should all be ashamed at the way unemployed disabled veterans are left there to die in deplorable conditions. But hey...we do that to our own elderly every day.
Private insurance has paid for all of these things.
Do I approve of the measure...oh yes.
The biggest reason for our higher birth mortality rate is our high illegal immagration rate. Its a double problem since they are not only among the poorest being illegal they are even more scared to get medical treatment than normal. Nothing in the present plan before congress would solve that. Free medical clinics would help but you would still have a problem convincing people that they were safe to visit. The present plan going throught congress would most likely result in everyone being on medicaid with all its problems and no hope of anything getting better.
I do know that medicaid and medicare fall short of their goals and the needs of those on them. I do know that what we have isn't working. I do know that the millions of people who need health care needed it yesterday. I do know that we have billions of dollars in unpaid er bills due to the fact that those millions of people without health care go to the er for everything from a cough to a broken limb. The lack in family doctor visits and check ups results in conditions going untreated and worsening eventually costing more to fix or the inability to fix.
I do know that private sector health care has failed miserably.
I do know that so far what the gov't has provided has been a joke.
What I don't know is what to do to fix it, so I am open to suggestions.
I do know that sometimes even the best of intentions fail. So...we might have to fix some stuff as we go but at least we have someone in office that sees the pressing issues and addresses them....
So far that is my well informed opinion ..... still becoming imformed....but will post more :)
Quote from: SirRichardBear on July 27, 2009, 09:33:20 PM
The biggest reason for our higher birth mortality rate is our high illegal immagration rate. Its
That is an incorrect statement as the US infant mortality rate does NOT include alien birth rates.
We lack far behind European rates considering all the socialized and nationalized health organizations of the various countries which are absolutely taken into statistical rationing.
Quote from: SirRichardBear on July 27, 2009, 09:33:20 PM
The biggest reason for our higher birth mortality rate is our high illegal immagration rate. Its a double problem since they are not only among the poorest being illegal they are even more scared to get medical treatment than normal. Nothing in the present plan before congress would solve that. Free medical clinics would help but you would still have a problem convincing people that they were safe to visit. The present plan going throught congress would most likely result in everyone being on medicaid with all its problems and no hope of anything getting better.
Actually, the biggest factor is African American women, with an infant mortality rate of 13.6 (per 1,000 live births), more than double that of 5.66 for Caucasian women. Illegal immigration seems to play little, if any, role in the overall figures, as a quick look at further racial breakdowns shows:
Women of Cuban ethnicity in the United States had the lowest infant mortality rate -- 4.55 per 1,000 live births, according to the report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
American Indian: 8.45
Puerto Rican: 7.82
Mexican: 5.47 (actually below the Caucasian average)
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.67
Central/South American: 4.65
* Source: Washington Post
** As the U.S. Census does not differentiate between citizen and non-citizen when determining infant mortality, each racial grouping consists of both.
Interestingly, one thing which really does cost a few tenths of a percent is the way we judge "live births", which we do differently than most European countries. Canada switched to our system for a year and their infant mortality rate immedately rose by 0.3/1,000 live births.
I won't bore everyone with a huge analysis, but the more you dig into it, the more you find that the biggest factor in this country is income, regardless of citizenship. Income = coverage. Coverage = care.
Isn't there some question about some of the infant mortality rate comparisons on how different countries interpret live births? Something like some countries count deaths within the first year and some only consider any successful delivery/live birth even if the infant dies later, or something like that??
Of course one of the things people don't consider is that lack of health care can become a public safety issue. As example, there was an outbreak of polio among the Amish a couple years ago due to their lack of vaccinations. It doesn't matter as much if you have coverage if the person next to you on the bus to work has TB, or if the ER is packed with uninsured people with preventable illnesses when you have a heart attack, or car accident.
Brilliant stats, as usual, Xanthenes. Always much appreciated!
Quote from: Charlotte Rowan on July 27, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
Brilliant stats, as usual, Xanthenes. Always much appreciated!
He occasionally has his uses. :P
Lots of interesting opinions listed here... and lots of fascinating facts and figures. Thanks for all of the wonderful research. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments either for, or against, but I will say that the system as it stands is broken, and I, for one, am glad that at least something is being done to try and change it. I doubt it will be enough to fix it, but at least it's a beginning, and nothing says that this bill will be considered the be-all and end-all of the issue. I'm hopeful that the PTB's will keep working on it until it at least gets better...
You notice that they break hispanics into four different classifications those four combine to make up 75% of the illegal population. Combining them show a very different picture, and points to one of the biggest problems with today's health care. The fact that people wait to long to get preventative treatment. Most of that preventative treatment doesn't require seeing a doctor. Nurses and medics could do 70% of that type treatment. But another nothing in the plan going through congress address any of the real problems all it does is take control from individuals and place it into the hands of the government.
I agree income is a big factor but don't forget that legal status plays a big part in a groups or individual income.
look at cancer survival rates: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%),
Death rate for stroke in Canada is 11.1% within 30 days compared to 7% in the USA.
While the present system has problems and some of them are serious it is hardly broken. The biggest risk today is that the government will totally break it like they did the drug problem. The first priority should be to do no harm, then to fix the problems with a review process that requires the government to prove that their fixes work and if they don't they scarp them and try something else.
Quote from: MaelStrom on July 27, 2009, 10:34:21 PM
Quote from: Charlotte Rowan on July 27, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
Brilliant stats, as usual, Xanthenes. Always much appreciated!
He occasionally has his uses. :P
I firmly believe that I was put on this Earth to open pickle jars; nothing more, nothing less. Any other service I may provide is merely a bonus, and purely accidental.
As an enduring fan of pickles (dill, please... no sweet gherkins)... may I express my undying gratitude? :D
Chuck Norris (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105094) thinks Obamacare is a bad idea.
Quote from: SirRichardBear on July 28, 2009, 12:16:21 AM
You notice that they break hispanics into four different classifications those four combine to make up 75% of the illegal population. Combining them show a very different picture, and points to one of the biggest problems with today's health care.
The math does not support this statement. If you add the four categories of "hispanics" and take the mean, it comes out to 5.62, which is still lower than the 5.66 for whites.
QuoteWomen of Cuban ethnicity in the United States had the lowest infant mortality rate -- 4.55 per 1,000 live births, according to the report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
American Indian: 8.45
Puerto Rican: 7.82
Mexican: 5.47 (actually below the Caucasian average)
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.67
Central/South American: 4.65
So (4.55 for Cubans + 7.82 for Puerto Ricans + 5.47 for Mexicans + 4.65 for = Central/South Americans)/4 = 5.62
You have to combine them by population then recalculate the percentage then the numbers come out that Hispanic come out just under African Americans. Then you have to take the subset of those that are illegal and they come up just over African Americans. Then you compare the difference in population make up between the USA and Europe and Canada. That shows that the reason the USA has a higher rate is our higher illegal population. The reason is that illegals are the poorest section of our population and the ones least likely to seek medical treatment.
None of which changes the facts that the plan before congress is about control not health care. I've been on government run health care and private and never want to be forced back on to government care. War on drugs, war on poverty, medicaid, medicare, all totally failed government programs. If they can fix the problems without breaking the system fine but government doesn't have much of a track record of being able to do that in the past 40 years.
Quote from: Leyla on July 28, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Chuck Norris (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105094) thinks Obamacare is a bad idea.
;D
But then Norris is a wackjob who is a young earth* creationist and also recently thought Texas should secede from the union
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103
*Young Earth Creationists believe the earth is only 4,000 or 6,000 years old deny the evidence of astronomy, geology, cosmology, paleontology and any number of other "ologies"
Quote from: SirRichardBear on July 28, 2009, 09:22:51 AM
You have to combine them by population then recalculate the percentage then the numbers come out that Hispanic come out just under African Americans. Then you have to take the subset of those that are illegal and they come up just over African Americans. Then you compare the difference in population make up between the USA and Europe and Canada.
Please to show figures and sources...
Or as my high school math teacher would say... "Show your work!"
Quote from: SirRichardBear on July 28, 2009, 09:22:51 AM
You have to combine them by population then recalculate the percentage then the numbers come out that Hispanic come out just under African Americans. Then you have to take the subset of those that are illegal and they come up just over African Americans. Then you compare the difference in population make up between the USA and Europe and Canada. That shows that the reason the USA has a higher rate is our higher illegal population. The reason is that illegals are the poorest section of our population and the ones least likely to seek medical treatment.
None of which changes the facts that the plan before congress is about control not health care. I've been on government run health care and private and never want to be forced back on to government care. War on drugs, war on poverty, medicaid, medicare, all totally failed government programs. If they can fix the problems without breaking the system fine but government doesn't have much of a track record of being able to do that in the past 40 years.
I'm still not getting that math to add up, as the largest segment of Hispanic illegals in this country are Mexicans, and they have a lower infant mortality than Caucasians (and, again, the Census does combine illegals and legals in their infant mortality studies - they don't differentiate). Were the numbers for illegals through the roof, that would mean the infant mortality for LEGAL Mexicans in this country would be somewhere around 1.5/1,000, which just doesn't make any sense, and isn't supported by any survey I can find.
Even allowing for a 0.3 differential due to the way we tabulate infant mortality, our CAUCASIAN rate is still higher than most of Europe.
We can nitpick the numbers til we're blue in the face, factoring in more career-focused women having babies in their 30's, drug use, immigration, poverty, etc., but most of these are factors at play in other health care systems, as well.
When you get right down to it, I feel the most embarrassing aspect of our infant mortality rates, our life expectancy, our WHO satisfaction ranking, etc., is the amount of money we're paying for those results.
I'm not a huge fan of the government either, though I think it's far too easy to gloss over the things they do fairly well, but when I see a system which allows a guy like Bill McGuire, CEO of United Health Group, to regularly pull in cash-and-stock paydays of more than $100 million per year, there's something wrong. The guy's sitting on a pile of stock options worth over $1.6 billion. It's a health insurance company; that means that compensation comes from excessive insurance premiums, denial of coverage, or both.
I'm a capitalist and a business owner. I think if you want a Corvette, you work for one and you buy it. If you want an iPod, you work for one and you buy it. There's nothing wrong with turning a profit. Does that really mean, however, that we need to throw excessive profiteering into EVERY sector of the economy? Does that mean we look at something as excessive and egregious as what Bill McGuire has done, and proclaim "Hey, that's the American way!"? We're not talking about a citizens right to have an iPod or drive a Corvette or have an HD TV. In many cases, we're talking about their lives.
There was a time when "war profiteering" was considered a bad thing. As the war in Iraq has shown, that time has apparently past. I fear the same thing has happened to health care.
Quote from: groomporter on July 28, 2009, 09:34:05 AM
Quote from: Leyla on July 28, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Chuck Norris (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105094) thinks Obamacare is a bad idea.
;D
But then Norris is a wackjob who is a young earth* creationist and also recently thought Texas should secede from the union
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103
*Young Earth Creationists believe the earth is only 4,000 or 6,000 years old deny the evidence of astronomy, geology, cosmology, paleontology and any number of other "ologies"
In fairness, I've visited Texas several times and have often left thinking the same thing. :)
* And I'm not touching Creationism. This has been quite peaceful so far. Throw some religion into the mix and this thread gets shut down in 3...2...1
Yup I'll leave evolution/creationism out of it, but Norris has a number of stances that make me a bit paranoid. One of my favorite podcast lists him as on of the
Ten Most Wanted: Celebrities Who Promote Harmful Pseudoscience http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4125
But enough thread-jacking, back to health care discussion.
QuoteDoes that really mean, however, that we need to throw excessive profiteering into EVERY sector of the economy?
That's the other puzzlement is the number of HMO's that have "non-profit" status. Admittedly even non-profits have to take in more than they spend or they go out of business, but there's something funny there.
Quote from: Charlotte Rowan on July 27, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
Brilliant stats, as usual, Xanthenes. Always much appreciated!
Thank you, m'lady. Admittedly, I'm now tiring of stats and am seriously thinking of going back to my Magic 8-Ball.
//*shake* Reply hazy, try again??? Damn thee, Magic 8-Ball!
Quote from: Xanthenes The Unbalanced on July 28, 2009, 10:59:58 AM
Quote from: Charlotte Rowan on July 27, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
Brilliant stats, as usual, Xanthenes. Always much appreciated!
Thank you, m'lady. Admittedly, I'm now tiring of stats and am seriously thinking of going back to my Magic 8-Ball.
//*shake* Reply hazy, try again??? Damn thee, Magic 8-Ball!
Tis true that the Magic 8-Ball never lies! I actually was unpacking a couple of boxes last night and came across mine. Fun fun.
Ok...HMO's is being thrown around a lot and I have a vague idea, even Goggled it....however there are many different defs...mostly good versus evil....I felt like I was researching vouchers for debate again...no definition of what they are or are supposed to be...only opinions.....any help?
Quote from: Dracconia on July 29, 2009, 11:47:44 AM
Ok...HMO's is being thrown around a lot and I have a vague idea, even Goggled it....however there are many different defs...mostly good versus evil....I felt like I was researching vouchers for debate again...no definition of what they are or are supposed to be...only opinions.....any help?
While I'm, admittedly, not a huge Michael Moore fan, this clip from "Sicko" contains a portion of Nixon Tapes concerning the creation of Kaiser's HMO, one of the first modern HMO's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QkgUkM0o6Q
It's about 15 seconds in.
An HMO differs from a PPO (Preferred Provider) in a number ways, but the biggest is the type of network they set up. In essence, an HMO offers the least expensive doctors in a given area a steady stream of patients if those doctors reduce their rates even further. This is what leads many to describe HMOs as "assembly line health care". In some cases, the doctor gets more cases than he/she can handle, at a cut-rate, and therefore has to run patients through as quickly as possible to remain profitable, or even in business.
Quite a number of years ago I had an HMO plan through another company. The doctors I was allowed to see on my plan were the worst. It was like going to a free clinic. I felt I received the bare minimum required. Under an HMO, if you want to see a specialist you have to go through you primary healthcare doc to get permission. Though there may be some HMO programs that do not require reference from a primary care physician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMO
Now with my current PPO I can choose my own doctors/dentist within network or choose to go outside that network for a bit more. Good if you already have healthcare practitioners you like, and if I need to see a specialist I can go without prior approval. I feel I am in much better control of my own health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_provider_organization
My father is a physician, and still does business the old-school way in addition to taking insurance. I have seen him take a goat and five chickens as payment from a rural couple for treating their son, I kid you not. He is in his sixties, and part of a dying breed, but if we had more like him, the whole bloody discussion would be moot.
Quote from: Anna Iram on July 29, 2009, 01:25:10 PM
Under an HMO, if you want to see a specialist you have to go through you primary healthcare doc to get permission.
You forgot the hoops you have to jump through in order to get that referral. Hoops on fire. With vats of acid on either side. That are also on fire. And there's you. Trying to make the jump through. While on fire.
Generalities are bad...Ironically a generality in itself.
As a teen I was part of my fathers insurance plan, an HMO. Cannot recall the name of the group though it included the letters H-M-O in their name. Great care as I recall. Got my wisdom teeth removed (Lost 12 IQ points as a direct result). Had full preventative care including seeing specialists for a nasal issue. Missed it dearly as a young adult without insurance and had to go to the free clinic.
Worse was going to the University of Minnesota and having to use their health service (forced to sign up and pay for as a part of admission). "Would you mind if 65 students came in to help with the examination of your schwanzstucker"? "All right class, who would like to go first? One glove each please"! :o
One thing I've asked our congressman about is why I've heard nothing about tort reform as a means of reducing health care costs. Marginally needed or otherwise unneeded tests are a component in health care costs. High malpractice premiums are another component.
California has had a State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for many years. I worked for them when I left the Army nearly forty years ago. The purpose of SCIF was to provide employers with an alternative source of workers' compensation insurance. It sure hasn't put private insurance companies out of the workers' comp business in California. Could there be a parallel for a government health insurance company?
As an aside, I'm retired and have been using Medicare for several years. Admittedly, I've not needed major medical intervention, but I've had no trouble getting specialist referrals and testing when needed.
I think Congress is going down the wrong track, but I agree that something is needed.
Quote from: Noble Dreg on July 29, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Cannot recall the name of the group though it included the letters H-M-O in their name.
Think you're referring to HOM. They were decent. I wouldn't go so far as to say good. But there was less red tape in getting proper care.
Key components to improving healthcare- 1. Tort reform, because when my father- a small town regional doctor- is having to pay $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance, over 2/3rds of his practice's GROSS income, there's a problem. Punitive damage caps ($2mill is working well in California) are a part of that as well. 2. Guaranteeing private insurance will not be driven out of business by taxpayer-subsidized healthcare, and restrict government healthcare to those unable to afford or qualify for it otherwise. 3. Keep the control of the healthcare in the hands of the patients and their doctors, not politicians or government bureaucracies.
The current bill does none of the above, though I will admit it will probably be next week before I finish reading the damn thing. It bloats FedGov, jacks taxes up in the middle of a financial crash (always guaranteed to make a recession worse, and if 75% of congress were businessmen/women instead of lawyers, they would've learned that in Economics 101), and doesn't do most of what it's hyped to do.
Now, as someone who has worked in an ER as a trauma medic, I can tell you this- NO ONE goes without basic medical care, not the poor, not illegals, no one. Anyone who goes into an ER MUST be treated, regardless of insurance status. It may not be top-tier care, but its free and ensures a basic quality of life. The myth that people are dying because they cannot get basic medical care is just that: a myth. I have been on ambulance calls to pick up elderly people with no insurance and get them to an ER, and its written off and budgeted for by most agencies.
It ain't perfect, needs fixing, but I've been to many other countries and seen the alternative, so it's pretty damn good by comparison.
Quote from: RSLeask on July 29, 2009, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Noble Dreg on July 29, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Cannot recall the name of the group though it included the letters H-M-O in their name.
Think you're referring to HOM. They were decent. I wouldn't go so far as to say good. But there was less red tape in getting proper care.
I want to say Group Health HMO. I remember they re-organized after I left the program (Booted out when I moved away from home to go to school). Today I am one of the fortunate and have a good plan through my wifes work...But there are grumblings the plan will soon change adding about $2,500 per year to the premiums.
Quote from: Noble Dreg on July 29, 2009, 09:21:19 PM
Quote from: RSLeask on July 29, 2009, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Noble Dreg on July 29, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Cannot recall the name of the group though it included the letters H-M-O in their name.
Think you're referring to HOM. They were decent. I wouldn't go so far as to say good. But there was less red tape in getting proper care.
I want to say Group Health HMO. I remember they re-organized after I left the program (Booted out when I moved away from home to go to school). Today I am one of the fortunate and have a good plan through my wifes work...But there are grumblings the plan will soon change adding about $2,500 per year to the premiums.
Not terribly surprising, actually. Double-digit inflation is unsustainable over the long term. I cringe every year when our Blue Cross rates show up. We were told this year that we could keep the increase down to only 5%...if we dropped down three full tiers of coverage. Well, three plan tiers would result in one hell of a lot less take-home for my employees. We've gone as is for the next three months, but might wind up getting them just catastrophic (quite a bit cheaper) and setting up a reimbursement pool for doctors visits and prescriptions.
If that doesn't work, I'm going to expressly forbid sickness among the workforce.
Quote from: Noble Dreg on July 29, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Worse was going to the University of Minnesota and having to use their health service (forced to sign up and pay for as a part of admission). "Would you mind if 65 students came in to help with the examination of your schwanzstucker"? "All right class, who would like to go first? One glove each please"! :o
Seriously. I work at the U of M, and my primary clinic is Health Partners, but I went to Boynton once because it's close to work (obviously) and all I wanted was to have a strep culture taken. Oh boy, was that a mistake. I already KNEW that if I didnt' have strep, it was jut a bad cold, but my throat was really sore so I thought I better check. They took the culture, it was negative, but then they made me stick around for another hour while they took blood tests, AND waited for the results! They had decided it was necessary to check for mono. Whatever. That test was negative too.
After a 2 hour visit, they announced that I just had a bad cold. I could have found that out in less time if I'd have driven out to my clinic in Minnetonka!
Not sure if this has been addressed in the thread yet but with the incredible expense of supplying health care to the entire population, why not just buy health insurance for everyone that doesn't have it right now. Rather than shake the entire tree and put control in the governments hands. It would cost a hell of a lot less. But alas, maybe this isn't about the health of our population at all... maybe it's about power and control.
I did no research on the numbers but after seeing the cost of anything else the Pres puts out, I'm sure the cost of the health plan has more 0's than a bowl of Cherrio's.
Quote from: Grov on July 30, 2009, 09:03:25 AM
Not sure if this has been addressed in the thread yet but with the incredible expense of supplying health care to the entire population, why not just buy health insurance for everyone that doesn't have it right now. Rather than shake the entire tree and put control in the governments hands. It would cost a hell of a lot less. But alas, maybe this isn't about the health of our population at all... maybe it's about power and control.
I did no research on the numbers but after seeing the cost of anything else the Pres puts out, I'm sure the cost of the health plan has more 0's than a bowl of Cherrio's.
The problem isn't just the lack of insurance among so many millions of Americans, the bigger problem is the rampant inflation rate in the health sector over the last decade. As is, it's simply unsustainable.
Cumulative inflation since 2000 was 44%. Cumulative wage growth since 2000 was 29%. Wage growth in the middle class between 2001 and 2008 was -2.8%.
Cumulative health care inflation since 2000 was over 120%. (source: NCHC "Facts About Healthcare")
The reason people in single-payer systems don't suffer from their system is simple, and it's something that a lot of people in this argument don't want to wrestle with: Insurance companies bring NOTHING to the doctor-patient relationship. They don't prescribe, they don't diagnose, they don't treat. They're a middle layer of fat; expensive fat. They're middle-men, siphoning off large chunks of cash and bringing nothing to the table in terms of wellness, care, treatment or recovery.
In terms of paying for a revamped health care system, any decent plan would more than pay for itself. We spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care as a nation. That's the baseline. Anything under that and we're saving money. Anything over that and there's no point to doing it.
I provide insurance to my employees. Were a single-payer system put into effect which offered better information management (which reduces costs, and is embarrassingly bad as it stands now), and removed a lot of profit gouging out of the middle, my taxes as a business would go up. Sound bad? Not so fast. My premiums for my employees disappear. Now, I realize tax is a bad word, but as a business owner, I don't care if the number says TAX or the number says INSURANCE PREMIUM. It's just a number. If the description changes to TAX and the number goes down, I couldn't be happier.
The most tenured talking point in the battle against single-payer is "I don't want a government bureaucrat deciding what I can get treated". Okay, fair enough. But right now you have an insurance company bureaucrat with a very real PROFIT MOTIVE deciding when you can get treated. The all-too-real result is that there are people who take home larger bonuses for denying patients care they need.
I'm a capitalist and a business owner, but I simply don't believe we need unbridled profit motive in every single sector of our society; I don't believe we need it in police protection, I don't believe we need it in our utilities, I don't believe we need it in national defense, and I surely don't believe we need it in health care. It's good for a few, unsustainable for the rest.
At the very least, a panel should be put together to see if we could scale up a VA-like system for the rest of the country. Even uber-neo-conservative Bill Krystal admits that the VA is the best health care system in the country, private or public (and yes, I know it's not perfect...nothing is perfect). It even runs at about 70% the per capita cost of Medicare.
Bill Krystal just doesn't think regular Americans deserve health care that good.