Support NeoGAF

[NetMapel]

everyone acces to broadcast TV for both US and Canada or US and the UK

watching the national network news of any of the big US networks... watch them pharmaceutical commercials

then watching the national network news of either a main Canadian network and or a UK network news

see a difference? ask your doctor if Livetra is right for you

I watch CNN and every commercial break have Cialis and Viagra commercials. It's kind of scary.

 

[gutter_trash]

See, the US was based around this idea of states rights. I think there would be a lot of states who would say "Bububu I thought you were going to pay for this Uncle Sam! Forget this idea!" and the entire thing would fall through.

In Canada:
The Federal Government helps with more money with a % of Federal Taxes moneys to be funneled to Provinces who need more monies depending on the Federal budget.

In Canada there is the Canada Health Act and all provinces must abide by it

Often at times when the Federal Goverment is having surpluses.. it is normal for Provinces to bitch and moan and ask for more monies.

it is up to the Provinces to manage their Health ministries and provincial taxes and caca like that.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

States can't secede. A whole civil war was fought over this. This notion of state rights is moot and is in no way an absolute, even in America.

States need to secede in order to pursue political agendas? Whether or not you think it's relevant the idea that state governments have some autonomy from Federal regulations is pretty set in stone. If the feds had all the power in the world to mandate what states do you wouldn't see things like California legalizing medical marijuana when it's against federal regulation, for example.

No, that's not what I meant exactly. Obviously, there are laws and routines you've got to follow. But essentially it should be worked out at a state level and the hospitals could still be run privately. I don't know what kind of flexibility you're talking about though?

If the feds are dishing out the money then it will most likely be the feds that administrate the functions of the program. Typically this results in an institution that is less in tune with the regional needs of different areas, like medicare. Medicare basically functions the exact same way everywhere, without any sort of real regional take to how its managed.

Edit:
Basically I'd be surprised if the canadian way of doing things would fly in the US political climate. It's pretty different. There's already a ton of squabbling over where federal appropriations go. They even have a whole committee for it.

 

[itsinmyveins]

If the feds are dishing out the money then it will most likely be the feds that administrate the functions of the program. Typically this results in an institution that is less in tune with the regional needs of different areas, like medicare. Medicare basically functions the exact same way everywhere, without any sort of real regional take to how its managed.

You really should look through that PBS-video posted a page or two back. They bring Medicare up and various issues.

 

[NetMapel]

If the feds are dishing out the money then it will most likely be the feds that administrate the functions of the program. Typically this results in an institution that is less in tune with the regional needs of different areas, like medicare. Medicare basically functions the exact same way everywhere, without any sort of real regional take to how its managed.

Edit:
Basically I'd be surprised if the canadian way of doing things would fly in the US political climate. It's pretty different. There's already a ton of squabbling over where federal appropriations go. They even have a whole committee for it.

Cost saving can be found in a single unified medical system, which is what all the UHC countries have. Having multiple medical systems tailored to each insurance companies gives rise to a lot of redundant costs that should be eliminated. You are aware that UHC countries spend less on medical expenses per capita than the US, right ?

 

[Giganticus]

Right, you're quoting a figure from a pro-UHC lobbying group. There's absolutely no conflict of interest there.

The actual report comes from the New England Journal of Medicine, while PNHP is writing an article on it. Of course, you never actually read the report, so whatever.

I said that administration costs include costs of government regulations. I didn't say these costs were all because of government regulations anyway. This is pretty much a straw man. Regulations add costs, it's as simple as that, and the fact that we have regulations means we have added costs. If anything you're proving my point for me. We have administrative costs and public healthcare programs have administrative costs. That means we can write those costs off as a factor that would cause the healthcare cost disparity. As I said in my suggestions, we need to do what we can to streamline these requirements to reduce these costs. It really has nothing to do with who does the paperwork, and everything to do with how much paperwork there is. It doesn't magically cost a company more to hire clerks than it does for the government.

Currently, most countries with National Healthcare Systems have far more regulations than the US' current healthcare systems. Yet, administration costs are far far far lower as a proportion of care cost. The reason is that a Private healthcare system requires far more administrators and accountants to keep tally with all the various insurers; every procedure has to be pre-approved, and is it covered under the patient's plan? What is the patient's plan? Compared to: "How much did that cost?" "This much" "Ok here's a cheque". A government clerk doesn't cost more than a private clerk, but with a private system, you need a lot more clerks.

Also you need to know what a strawman is. You say something is excessive and .'. contributes significantly towards costs, I say it's even more excessive somewhere else and yet costs are reduced .'. it doesn't have much to do with costs, and you say it's a strawman. Learn.

And once again you're confusing healthcare providers (IE, Hospitals, Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses) with the people that pay the bills. Last I checked there weren't even really all that many commercials by private health insurance firms, and certainly no more than what would be necessary to spread knowledge about a public healthcare option. This is a non-issue.

You say that Government advertising would cost more than current private healthcare advertising. I counter. You ignore a fucking huge chunk of the private healthcare industry (pharmaceuticals) and then claim the private industry doesn't advertise much.

The VA may be able to negotiate costs, but it also suffers from lack of adequate care according to most veterans. Now, private insurance companies also base the prices they pay for medical fees around the prices that medicare/medicaid pay. Without creating a new plan whatsoever but by reforming medicare we'll already grant any advantage this gives to the private system.

VA adequate care as it lacks adequate funding (Walter Reed).

Medicare and Medicaid are forced to pay at the rates private insurers pay, not the other way round. Giving medicare/medicaid the legal right to negotiate would reduce costs; VA's negotiation does reduce costs. Allowing them to negotiate however will not reduce private costs, as private companies do not have the clout to negotiate and/or will simply refuse treatment to their customers.

An insurance company can't legally refuse treatment for a condition if it was covered by the original healthcare agreement, and as much as we want to demonize them they typically don't behave like this. We already have a system in place to prevent this sort of thing as it stands, and with new regulation saying that people cannot be turned down due to pre-existing conditions this whole point of your argument is a farce. There are ethical codes these companies abide by, and where the ethical codes aren't sufficient there are typically regulations to prevent negative behaviors. The fact of the matter is that preventive medicine is in the interests of a healthcare insurer because it ensures future profits. Governments however are concerned with meeting budgets, and as we've often seen in the past they will cut funding in the present to meet budgets regardless of what impact it has in the future. Governments are fairly short-sighted in this way.

Insurance motive is profit. They get profit based on denial of care. That's what the entirety of Sicko is about. That's the design of the system. Yes, they are legally "not meant" to do such things, but they do on a regular basis. And who's gonna sue em? Most of the people they fuck over are dead.

The only ethical code they have is profit. That's it. It's a bad code.

Any type of care disparity that comes to light will help steer appropriate measures of medicine leading to gains in both preventive medicine or the effectiveness of treatment. But this is another case of a suggestion that has nothing to do with the insurance industry. This is part of the healthcare industry and cutting its costs, and could be done whether or not private insurers or public funds pay the bills.

agreed here I dunno why you brought it up to begin with.

There are so many instances of it in this country because it was easy to make a lot of money doing it. Unfortunately it has huge reprocussions. As I already addressed, most of this shuffling and unnecessary treatment that you speak of comes from defensive medicine caused by the prevalence of malpractice cases. A federally mandated cap on the payouts of malpractice suits would reduce this sort of thing drastically. It already has in individual states that have adopted the legislation.

As far as the "downgrading" of treatment, I almost find it humorous that you point to this as unique to private health insurance when it's just as rampant in the public health insurance system. The public health systems across the world constantly pick and choose treatments they feel are unnecessary or overly costly.

Malpractice is a tiny cost to the overall industry. Did you read the report? A federally mandated cap would only serve poor doctors.

And as for Downgrading of treatment? A public system will choose the most effective treatment, and will usually downgrade anything that's unnecessarily expensive. However, as it has a duty to help you, it usually wont refuse anything except for the most marginal benefit drugs (here in the UK, it's usually cutting edge cancer drugs of dubious benefit that can still be paid for out of pocket) For example, generic drugs over branded is a common "downgrade". A private system however, is based upon cost. When the maximum payout for a certain condition is say, $500,000 for cancer, then it's likely your doctor will have to make a choice between the right treatment, and one you can afford.

A public system wouldn't do anything to reduce malpractice costs if it did nothing to address the reason the cases happen in general. Again, the person who pays for the healthcare has little bearing on how the healthcare is run. In this country less than 1/3 of hospitals are publicly owned or run, which means changes in how they are run have little effect on the overall costs of the country. What is needed is regulation on the overall healthcare industry to prevent malpractice suits and other unnecessary costs. Just because the government is paying a doctor now instead of an insurance company doesn't magically make people less likely to sue the doctor.

Now, regarding the costs of defensive medicine, well, you say potayto, and I say patata.

When a public system guarantees that all diagnostic procedures and treatments that are required are paid for, the only doctors that will get sued are the ones that fuck things up. No doctor will be sued (as they currently are) for downgrading care. I'm trying to find the stories of various people breaking bones and having a very poor splint or cast or such applied as the MRI that would help with diagnosis couldn't be "approved".

And Malpractice is a necessary cost. If you don't have it, then the worst doctors are never stopped.

 

[Instigator]

States need to secede in order to pursue political agendas? Whether or not you think it's relevant the idea that state governments have some autonomy from Federal regulations is pretty set in stone. If the feds had all the power in the world to mandate what states do you wouldn't see things like California legalizing medical marijuana when it's against federal regulation, for example.

No state on its own is going to institute UHS within its jurisdication because, for one thing, it would put them at an immediate competitive disadvantage with other states with no such system. There are also other issues such as lobbies and price controls that require a national system to be more (cost-)effective

This is the kind of a thing you have to do nationally. Not to declare the federal government master of the universe, but more as an arbiter and provider of extra financing where the need arises so that every America gets access to minimal coverage no matter where he/she lives in the Union.

 

[charlequin]

All Massachusetts did was say "It's illegal to not have health insurance" without lowering the cost of state run MassHealth or Commonwealth Care - it's not like everyone in MA has health insurance now. I certainly don't.

That's not quite true. MA significantly increased the funding (and income ceiling for) Commonwealth Care, and many people who didn't qualify before now do. There's also apparently a health-insurance pool you can buy into now, although I don't know anyone who has done so.

As far as I've been able to make out, the revision has been really good for low-income families, essentially neutral for people who already had health insurance, and pretty shitty for part-time, self-employed, or non-employer-covered individuals who make a medium wage but can't afford health insurance at the usurious rates private insurers generally charge.

You are aware that UHC countries spend less on medical expenses per capita than the US, right ?

Not just less, in many cases half as much. The US spends about 7% of GDP each on government and private health care; 8% of GDP is enough to pay for a full, functional UHC system in most European countries, and 10% enough even in places with particularly expensive systems like Germany. The only other nations that spend 15% on health care like we do are tiny island nations (with extremely low GDPs) and developing nations.

 

[Qwell]

Ok I'm going to toss my two cents in probably not the most wise decision but whatever. First, I haven't had insurance for the past 2 years, and this was by choice, I left a good job of over 11 years to take a gamble on a better paying job to advance my career and then the economy took a dump. I've been in contractor positions ever since which don't provide insurance, and I still do not want UHC. I keep seeing people say that healthcare is a basic human right... and I'm going to disagree with that. You have the right to the "pursuit" of happiness... not to actually be happy, same thing with health.

This country was founded on freedoms, and those freedoms go both ways, the freedom to make good decisions and the freedom to make bad decisions, but you have to live with those. Lets say we go with a UHC option, what is the incentive for people to live good healthy lives? Don't give me "because people will want to" I mean deep down what will make someone eat better, exercise, actually make doctors appointments for preventive care under UHC? How come someone who does lead a good healthy life, eats good, exercises, yearly visits have to contribute the same for his / her own along with for everyone else who doesn't lead such a good life? What about the person that leads a risky life by their own choice. Someone who smokes, eats fast food every day, breaks a few bones every year from extreme sports etc. etc? That other person is a bigger burden based on their freedom to choose a more unhealthy life, and they have the same contribution as everyone else? Why is that?

I do think the current system is broken, but I have a different idea to fix it, number one is break the tie between the employer and the insurance company. That is why our current system isn't currently a truly free market solution. You are not the customer of your insurance company, whoever you work for is. And the insurance company is the customer of the doctor not you. That needs to change, people have no idea how much stuff really costs because of the way the current system works. We have more tests in this country than anywhere else, and no one ever asks how much it actually costs. People only ask if its covered. But the problem is that stuff IS costly, an MRI is expensive, a lot of blood tests are expensive, but because the individual never sees that real cost they don't get to actually decide if they should or shouldn't do x,y, or z. Make health insurance more like car insurance. Give the tax break to the individual not to the employer, then you will have insurance companies actually fight to offer better service for the individual. If the companies still want some participation let them pay a % of the individuals premium or something, but still let the individual fully decide what kind of coverage they want and who with.

If someone wants all the bells and whistles that will cost 3x as much because they cover the cost of prescription drugs, check-ups, all tests along with catastrophic care then let the individual choose, but also allow options like only catastrophic coverage etc. Car insurance doesn't cover the cost of new tires, oil changes, and transmission maintenance etc. The real costs need to be shown and reflected in the insurance coverage to the individual to incentivize them to make better or worse choices in their life.

I had the same dentist for almost 20 years, but because my employer chose to change insurance I had to pick a new dentist, doctor, and everything... why is that? I thought I had a good dentist, and a good doctor, but I had no choice in the matter. That is the biggest problem we face.

 

[freethought]

This country was founded on freedoms, and those freedoms go both ways, the freedom to make good decisions and the freedom to make bad decisions, but you have to live with those. Lets say we go with a UHC option, what is the incentive for people to live good healthy lives? Don't give me "because people will want to" I mean deep down what will make someone eat better, exercise, actually make doctors appointments for preventive care under UHC? How come someone who does lead a good healthy life, eats good, exercises, yearly visits have to contribute the same for his / her own along with for everyone else who doesn't lead such a good life? What about the person that leads a risky life by their own choice. Someone who smokes, eats fast food every day, breaks a few bones every year from extreme sports etc. etc? That other person is a bigger burden based on their freedom to choose a more unhealthy life, and they have the same contribution as everyone else? Why is that?

Wait, you think in a country with universal health care people wouldn't feel the need to look after themselves? How does that make any sense? It also doesn't explain why the US has the highest obesity rates in the world.

edit: I mean seriously, that doesn't make any sense. I live in a country with UHC. At no point have I ever thought; "I could break my leg doing this. Ah who cares, the taxpayer will foot the bill."

Double edit: Without going through the rest of your post, I also think that the idea we should make decisions about our healthcare based on cost, rather than medical advice or concerns is very, very dangerous.

 

[Instigator]

This country was founded on freedoms, and those freedoms go both ways, the freedom to make good decisions and the freedom to make bad decisions, but you have to live with those. Lets say we go with a UHC option, what is the incentive for people to live good healthy lives?

Clearly, the US is a model of fitness and healthy eating in the developed world and UHC would screw this up.

Don't give me "because people will want to" I mean deep down what will make someone eat better, exercise, actually make doctors appointments for preventive care under UHC?

So you attritube people exercising and eating right as a plan B for lack of health insurrance? What world do you live in?

How come someone who does lead a good healthy life, eats good, exercises, yearly visits have to contribute the same for his / her own along with for everyone else who doesn't lead such a good life?

The same reason someone who lives right and pays health insurrance does it. In case he needs it. No buts or ifs, if he gets hit by a car or fall down the stairs, he expects what he paid for to kick in.

What about the person that leads a risky life by their own choice. Someone who smokes, eats fast food every day, breaks a few bones every year from extreme sports etc. etc? That other person is a bigger burden based on their freedom to choose a more unhealthy life, and they have the same contribution as everyone else? Why is that?

In a proper UHC system, these things tend to be heavily taxed as a 'penalty' and also extra financing for the same UHC system.

But that person will still get treated if he needs it. It doesn't mean it will save him from a rotten liver or lung cancer, the result of bad decisions, but the UHC will care for him if he needs it.

I do think the current system is broken, but I have a different idea to fix it, number one is break the tie between the employer and the insurance company. That is why our current system isn't currently a truly free market solution. You are not the customer of your insurance company, whoever you work for is. And the insurance company is the customer of the doctor not you. That needs to change, people have no idea how much stuff really costs because of the way the current system works. We have more tests in this country than anywhere else, and no one ever asks how much it actually costs. People only ask if its covered. But the problem is that stuff IS costly, an MRI is expensive, a lot of blood tests are expensive, but because the individual never sees that real cost they don't get to actually decide if they should or shouldn't do x,y, or z. Make health insurance more like car insurance. Give the tax break to the individual not to the employer, then you will have insurance companies actually fight to offer better service for the individual. If the companies still want some participation let them pay a % of the individuals premium or something, but still let the individual fully decide what kind of coverage they want and who with.

Did you support Giuliani in the Republican primaries by any chance?

 

[xnipx]

stuff

so how do you feel about the insured person who gets brain cancer through a random transformation of cells COMPLETELY out of control and has to file for bankruptcy because even with insurance the chemotherapy costs are in the upwards of $100k? Is it their fault? what if the insurance company denies them this theoretical "catastrophic coverage"? and even still, having to pay $100k on a million dollar hospital bill will bankrupt most "responsible" individuals even WITH insurance.

 

[Kinitari]

Ok I'm going to toss my two cents in probably not the most wise decision but whatever. First, I haven't had insurance for the past 2 years, and this was by choice, I left a good job of over 11 years to take a gamble on a better paying job to advance my career and then the economy took a dump. I've been in contractor positions ever since which don't provide insurance, and I still do not want UHC. I keep seeing people say that healthcare is a basic human right... and I'm going to disagree with that. You have the right to the "pursuit" of happiness... not to actually be happy, same thing with health.

This country was founded on freedoms, and those freedoms go both ways, the freedom to make good decisions and the freedom to make bad decisions, but you have to live with those. Lets say we go with a UHC option, what is the incentive for people to live good healthy lives? Don't give me "because people will want to" I mean deep down what will make someone eat better, exercise, actually make doctors appointments for preventive care under UHC? How come someone who does lead a good healthy life, eats good, exercises, yearly visits have to contribute the same for his / her own along with for everyone else who doesn't lead such a good life? What about the person that leads a risky life by their own choice. Someone who smokes, eats fast food every day, breaks a few bones every year from extreme sports etc. etc? That other person is a bigger burden based on their freedom to choose a more unhealthy life, and they have the same contribution as everyone else? Why is that?

I do think the current system is broken, but I have a different idea to fix it, number one is break the tie between the employer and the insurance company. That is why our current system isn't currently a truly free market solution. You are not the customer of your insurance company, whoever you work for is. And the insurance company is the customer of the doctor not you. That needs to change, people have no idea how much stuff really costs because of the way the current system works. We have more tests in this country than anywhere else, and no one ever asks how much it actually costs. People only ask if its covered. But the problem is that stuff IS costly, an MRI is expensive, a lot of blood tests are expensive, but because the individual never sees that real cost they don't get to actually decide if they should or shouldn't do x,y, or z. Make health insurance more like car insurance. Give the tax break to the individual not to the employer, then you will have insurance companies actually fight to offer better service for the individual. If the companies still want some participation let them pay a % of the individuals premium or something, but still let the individual fully decide what kind of coverage they want and who with.

If someone wants all the bells and whistles that will cost 3x as much because they cover the cost of prescription drugs, check-ups, all tests along with catastrophic care then let the individual choose, but also allow options like only catastrophic coverage etc. Car insurance doesn't cover the cost of new tires, oil changes, and transmission maintenance etc. The real costs need to be shown and reflected in the insurance coverage to the individual to incentivize them to make better or worse choices in their life.

I had the same dentist for almost 20 years, but because my employer chose to change insurance I had to pick a new dentist, doctor, and everything... why is that? I thought I had a good dentist, and a good doctor, but I had no choice in the matter. That is the biggest problem we face.

Just want to comment on this section really - I am not American so maybe my values are different, but as you guys stand right now, you are already paying for other peoples healthcare. Paying through the nose even. It's been mentioned a few times in threads like this, but you basically have a sort of universal healthcare, just a very poorly implemented version. If anyone goes to the ER, they have to be treated for example. If they're homeless and can't afford it, people who can afford it pick up the bill in a roundabout sort of way. Unless you want to stop proving healthcare to people who cannot afford it, you're stuck.

Also - people will most likely go to the doctors more often for preventative care and treatment once it is free, because they wont be terrified of paying 323832073 dollars because the insurance company decided - hey - we don't actually need to pay for this. Which apparently happens... to gaffers... in this thread.

You sound kind of like a Libertarian - if I keep healthy and avoid health costs my money shouldn't have to pay for those who do not keep healthy.

1. It's not so cut and dry, your 'money' isn't going to only those who are eating Mcdonalds and smoking, its going to those with type 1 diabetes, incurable genetic illnesses or those who just fell on some bad luck.

2. You're already paying for them.

3. If those people don't get any care - because no one wants to pay for it - maybe they just live uncomfortably. Maybe they are unable to work properly. Maybe they die. Maybe they leave behind some kids. Maybe they were contagious. Maybe a lot of things. It just seems to cold and heartless not to care for your fellow man, let alone countryman.

 

[Qwell]

I'm not saying that my option would magically make people live better, and healthier lives, like I said its about person freedom and responsiblities. I know myself I stopped snowboarding after I lost my coverage. You asked if I thought my system would make them want to be healthy and then said yourself that a universal system will make them healthier. Well why is that? Again you used to same old "because they will want to" argument, well sorry but I call BS to that. There will be gaps in any system and non is perfect, but I also don't think healthcare is a "right". Hell health insurance didn't even come about until I think it was the 50s or something, and before then you never saw the government step in and make sure that every town had a doctor. Yes I am for smaller government, and a lot of the UHC debate comes down to those principles.

In the second scenario of the brain cancer with a $100k or whatever large number and coverage... well again it depends, on what kind of coverage they got in the first place. But every policy usually has a catastrophic clause which would cover that $100k bill, but it depends on how much catastrophic coverage they got. And I'm sorry but shit happens, sometimes life deals you bad cards, call me heartless but bad shit happens every day. And if you think we should save that person with a $100k bill for brain cancer, what about all the other people that die every day in the world from much smaller things? What about all the strife in south africa, do you cry for those people too? What about the women that are murdered in the middle east for looking at another man do you cry for them? What about the child that gets blow up in a pizza parlor by a suicide bomber because he lives in the wrong place? etc. etc. bad shit happens, you can't save everybody.

At least here I don't have to wait over a year for a check-up or to get my heart surgery like I've heard so many times over in here from people in countries with UHC.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

And I'm sorry but shit happens, sometimes life deals you bad cards, call me heartless but bad shit happens every day. And if you think we should save that person with a $100k bill for brain cancer, what about all the other people that die every day in the world from much smaller things? What about all the strife in south africa, do you cry for those people too? What about the women that are murdered in the middle east for looking at another man do you cry for them? What about the child that gets blow up in a pizza parlor by a suicide bomber because he lives in the wrong place? etc. etc. bad shit happens, you can't save everybody.

Ah, so it's inept comparisons that don't really pertain to this discussion, then?

 

[Qwell]

To Kinitari's comments and others, I'm not saying that my system would also drop the ER clause because it wouldn't. That safety net would still be there, and the US is known for having the most charitible donations of any country, and that has also helped the uninsured and would still be there.

First and foremost cut the ties between the employer and the insurance company, get it back into the hands of the individual so they can make better decisions themselves. Let them get the tax break for their insurance plan instead of the employer and let them choose what kind of coverage they want, and if they want to switch plans instead of having it forced upon them.

How come the healthcare that is not covered in any way by insurance (lasik and plastic surgery) are known for having the best doctor patient relations and also have had their costs reduced so greatly over the past 15 years?

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not saying that my option would magically make people live better, and healthier lives, like I said its about person freedom and responsiblities. I know myself I stopped snowboarding after I lost my coverage. You asked if I thought my system would make them want to be healthy and then said yourself that a universal system will make them healthier. Well why is that? Again you used to same old "because they will want to" argument, well sorry but I call BS to that. There will be gaps in any system and non is perfect, but I also don't think healthcare is a "right". Hell health insurance didn't even come about until I think it was the 50s or something, and before then you never saw the government step in and make sure that every town had a doctor. Yes I am for smaller government, and a lot of the UHC debate comes down to those principles.

In the second scenario of the brain cancer with a $100k or whatever large number and coverage... well again it depends, on what kind of coverage they got in the first place. But every policy usually has a catastrophic clause which would cover that $100k bill, but it depends on how much catastrophic coverage they got. And I'm sorry but shit happens, sometimes life deals you bad cards, call me heartless but bad shit happens every day. And if you think we should save that person with a $100k bill for brain cancer, what about all the other people that die every day in the world from much smaller things? What about all the strife in south africa, do you cry for those people too? What about the women that are murdered in the middle east for looking at another man do you cry for them? What about the child that gets blow up in a pizza parlor by a suicide bomber because he lives in the wrong place? etc. etc. bad shit happens, you can't save everybody.

At least here I don't have to wait over a year for a check-up or to get my heart surgery like I've heard so many times over in here from people in countries with UHC.

First emboldened part - I can't guarantee they will, but the logic I am using goes as follows - someone doesn't feel good, they go to the Doctor. When they don't have to worry about paying a bajillion dollars, they go to the doctor more often (which is actually a problem with UHC - UHC is not perfect, people go to the doctors for every little frivolous thing they want to because it is free, lesser of two 'evils' though in my opinion).

Second part - this is where you lose any semblance of logic and rationality.

1. Tough shit? Shit happens? Really? That's your argument against UHC?

2. What the hell does strife in other countries have to do with yours? If everything is pointless why bother? If the world is going to end one day, why should I take out the garbage, etc?

3. Ignoring the much often ridiculously exaggerated wait times (while I do admit wait times exist, statistics show it is not as dramatic as some, ie. you, would like to believe, but it is something that needs to be improved), I find it kind of silly that on one had you will say 'whatever, people die, nothing you can do about it' and on the other lament UHC for not saving people -quickly- enough.

 

[Fenderputty]

In the second scenario of the brain cancer with a $100k or whatever large number and coverage... well again it depends, on what kind of coverage they got in the first place. But every policy usually has a catastrophic clause which would cover that $100k bill, but it depends on how much catastrophic coverage they got. And I'm sorry but shit happens, sometimes life deals you bad cards, call me heartless but bad shit happens every day. And if you think we should save that person with a $100k bill for brain cancer, what about all the other people that die every day in the world from much smaller things? What about all the strife in south africa, do you cry for those people too? What about the women that are murdered in the middle east for looking at another man do you cry for them? What about the child that gets blow up in a pizza parlor by a suicide bomber because he lives in the wrong place? etc. etc. bad shit happens, you can't save everybody.

At least here I don't have to wait over a year for a check-up or to get my heart surgery like I've heard so many times over in here from people in countries with UHC.

I can at least help my countrymen. Who said anything about the world?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

To Kinitari's comments and others, I'm not saying that my system would also drop the ER clause because it wouldn't. That safety net would still be there, and the US is known for having the most charitible donations of any country, and that has also helped the uninsured and would still be there.

The charitable donations that help the uninsured? I assume by that, of course, you mean the system wherein the individual declares bankruptcy because there's no way in hell he can afford this ER bill? That charitable system?

 

[nubbe]

Universal healthcare is just the same as universal education, an investment in the future of the nation.

A healthy nation will be able to work better and have a higher morale.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I can at least help my countrymen. Who said anything about the world?

You misunderstand. It was one of those pithy "There is no middle ground!" arguments. You can care about nothing or you can care about everything! You can't have your cake and eat it too!

 

[Qwell]

The charitable donations that help the uninsured? I assume by that, of course, you mean the system wherein the individual declares bankruptcy because there's no way in hell he can afford this ER bill? That charitable system?

Ok lets put it another way.... is it better that they go through bankruptcy or that they don't get the treatment in the first place because of a long queue, or not enough trained doctors to provide the treatment?

Remember the UHC plan that the US is trying to implement will have a board that will decide who gets what care and when. They are talking about putting limits on how many of x procedures will be done a year because of costs etc. Do you want your life in the hands of the government... when has the government ever done anything effeciently? I remember a few posts back someone said something like "the government always has the best interest of the people in mind".... really? you honestly think the government as a whole as your best interest in mind, because I don't trust them to handle anything. I now I'm not counting on my social security check to be around or enough to cover me when I retire, and I know I don't trust them to have my best interest in mind when you have people like Nancy Palosi saying "I was more interested in getting my Democrates re-elected then debating our national security policies". If you want a direct quote of that I'll go hunt one down.

 

[Kinitari]

Ok lets put it another way.... is it better that they go through bankruptcy or that they don't get the treatment in the first place because of a long queue, or not enough trained doctors to provide the treatment?

Remember the UHC plan that the US is trying to implement will have a board that will decide who gets what care and when. They are talking about putting limits on how many of x procedures will be done a year because of costs etc. Do you want your life in the hands of the government... when has the government ever done anything effeciently? I remember a few posts back someone said something like "the government always has the best interest of the people in mind".... really? you honestly think the government as a whole as your best interest in mind, because I don't trust them to handle anything. I now I'm not counting on my social security check to be around or enough to cover me when I retire, and I know I don't trust them to have my best interest in mind when you have people like Nancy Palosi saying "I was more interested in getting my Democrates re-elected then debating our national security policies". If you want a direct quote of that I'll go hunt one down.

1. If that is true it is dumb and kind of going against UHC.

2. Stop being so goddamn afraid of the government. You act like some government official is waiting behind your bedroom door with a rubber mallet, waiting to empty your pockets while you lay on your bedroom floor unconscious.

The government is not perfect in any country, but living IN a country, you end up depending on them regardless. It seems more logical to put your life in the hands of someone who doesn't profit off of not treating you.

Edit: Also, I guess no one in Canada gets any sort of heart surgery - ever. Neverever... ever.

 

[dave is ok]

I havent seen a doctor in eight years, that was the last time I had a job give me health insurance - but I've been working full time ever since then

If I had health insurance these past eight years - I would have gone for at least a yearly checkup and probably a couple more times when I thought things were wrong with me or I could have used allergy medicine or an antibiotic to get well quicker.

This is what people mean, by UHC will make us a healthier nation. There are thousands of people who ignore symptoms because they can't afford to pay if something is truly wrong.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Do you want your life in the hands of the government... when has the government ever done anything effeciently?

Ah, this argument. We trust and/or take for granted tons of stuff the government does, but you're right. The government sucks at everything. That's why I mail my own mail, drive only on private roads, and enforce my own laws.

 

[dave is ok]

It seems more logical to put your life in the hands of someone who doesn't profit off of not treating you.

This is basically it. We don't care that insurance companies' slice of the health care pie is only 10 or 15% or whatever. The fact that they profit off of not offering treatment or offering cheap, ineffective treatment - means that something isn't right. The private sector shouldn't handle the well being of a populace. The country should.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

The actual report comes from the New England Journal of Medicine, while PNHP is writing an article on it. Of course, you never actually read the report, so whatever.

I was actually pointing out that the figure is so obviously cherry picked it's laughable. If you want I'll cherry pick one of my own: 13%. Wowee. We've both successfully proved nothing but that the other can cite examples of statistics used to show one viewpoint or another.

Currently, most countries with National Healthcare Systems have far more regulations than the US' current healthcare systems. Yet, administration costs are far far far lower as a proportion of care cost. The reason is that a Private healthcare system requires far more administrators and accountants to keep tally with all the various insurers; every procedure has to be pre-approved, and is it covered under the patient's plan? What is the patient's plan? Compared to: "How much did that cost?" "This much" "Ok here's a cheque". A government clerk doesn't cost more than a private clerk, but with a private system, you need a lot more clerks.

Also you need to know what a strawman is. You say something is excessive and .'. contributes significantly towards costs, I say it's even more excessive somewhere else and yet costs are reduced .'. it doesn't have much to do with costs, and you say it's a strawman. Learn.

Aside from the fact that I already offered a good example of how to alleviate this disadvantage AND proven the fact by simple arithmetic that this can only account for a small percentage of the actual disparity between healthcare costs between systems, you still keep trying to go after it. In the big picture of healthcare costs this is pretty insignificant, and far from a hurdle that can't be overcome. There are other advantage private insurance has over public payment options that you willfully overlook that balance out any discrepancy here as it is.


You say that Government advertising would cost more than current private healthcare advertising. I counter. You ignore a fucking huge chunk of the private healthcare industry (pharmaceuticals) and then claim the private industry doesn't advertise much.

Insurance motive is profit. They get profit based on denial of care. That's what the entirety of Sicko is about. That's the design of the system. Yes, they are legally "not meant" to do such things, but they do on a regular basis. And who's gonna sue em? Most of the people they fuck over are dead.

The only ethical code they have is profit. That's it. It's a bad code.

You're right, they are about profit, which is what gives them the ability to respond to market demands, adopt new treatments or medical breakthroughs, or any other sort of fluctuation far better than a public option, since no legislation would be required to change procedure. The government has already regulated the industry to the point that it cannot function without a care in the world for its patients, and really, it's not in the insurance companies interest to do so. I don't know what school of business you studied, but you don't maintain a customer base, let alone expand it by doing exactly the opposite of what is in the customers interest, and any idiot running these firms knows that. They're able to balance necessary costs from unnecessary costs. Profit only works when you have a consumer base, and any idiot knows that if you alienate your consumer base you alienate your profits. The current regulation combined with simple economics has for the most part eliminated any basis for complaint. That is, of course, unless you let Michael Moore's propaganda blind you to it.

Malpractice is a tiny cost to the overall industry. Did you read the report? A federally mandated cap would only serve poor doctors.

Did you read any of the three that I linked that, for example, showed that defensive medicine in this country, caused by malpractice, causes up to $2.2 TRILLION in unnecessary medical spending? I guess that's so insignificant an amount that it's irrelevant though.

And as for Downgrading of treatment? A public system will choose the most effective treatment, and will usually downgrade anything that's unnecessarily expensive. However, as it has a duty to help you, it usually wont refuse anything except for the most marginal benefit drugs (here in the UK, it's usually cutting edge cancer drugs of dubious benefit that can still be paid for out of pocket) For example, generic drugs over branded is a common "downgrade". A private system however, is based upon cost. When the maximum payout for a certain condition is say, $500,000 for cancer, then it's likely your doctor will have to make a choice between the right treatment, and one you can afford.

I guess those cutting edge cancer drugs are the ones that you get in the US that leads the US to have a higher cancer survival rate than most European countries too

A public system is also based on cost, it's just less individualized. A public system is going to prioritize young patients or patients without chronic illness over older or chronically ill patients when it comes to which treatments they will approve. They have to, otherwise they'll have to either serve a smaller set of the population, increase wait times, or decrease quality of care. They have a budget just like private health insurers set a budget.

When a public system guarantees that all diagnostic procedures and treatments that are required are paid for, the only doctors that will get sued are the ones that fuck things up. No doctor will be sued (as they currently are) for downgrading care. I'm trying to find the stories of various people breaking bones and having a very poor splint or cast or such applied as the MRI that would help with diagnosis couldn't be "approved".

And Malpractice is a necessary cost. If you don't have it, then the worst doctors are never stopped.

A public system guarantees that they are all paid for, but it has nothing to do with whether or not a doctor orders the treatment. No doctors in this country are sued for downgrading care, they're sued because they miss a test or a prescription or if they have an incident in a surgery. The problem with malpractice is that it doesn't do anything to remove these doctors from practice in most cases, only to pay out money to the people who were victims of the doctor. Just losing a malpractice suit doesn't mean you lose your license (nor should it). It has less to do with improving medical care than it does with giving recompense to people who weren't satisfied with the care they got, and that's going to happen anywhere doctors are human. The path to reducing this is two fold: cap the payout of malpractice settlements to make them less lucrative for lawyers and their clients, and if a doctor genuinely screwed up then make sure they no longer practice.

Again, barely any of this has to do with who is paying the hospital fees and everything to do with the cost of those fees which neither you nor anyone has laid a significant case in proving that the wonder pill for this problem is UHC. I find it strange that instead of focusing on how healthcare costs can be reduced and inefficiencies removed from the system takes a back burner for you to the idea that government should pay for healthcare. Thus far the US government has done a pretty shoddy job running their public healthcare programs, maybe it's just as shoddy as how private companies do. But before we decide to turn the entire system on its head maybe we should do the pragmatic thing and get healthcare costs down so that people can afford private insurance or public programs can be broadened to cover those who can't. If people STILL can't get coverage, then I'd have no problem trying something new. Pointing the finger at insurance companies instead of healthcare providers is pretty flawed logic no matter how you look at it. The red herring here is the whole concept that the payer matters and the good the payer is purchasing is irrelevant.

 

[dave is ok]

I still don't get people who argue to the death against UHC. It'd most likely work out better than the current system for everyone except the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance giants. It's just scare tactics from the anti-socialism, pro-private sector zombies.

 

[Qwell]

Ah, this argument. We trust and/or take for granted tons of stuff the government does, but you're right. The government sucks at everything. That's why I mail my own mail, drive only on private roads, and enforce my own laws.

They don't suck at everything, but they do suck at a lot of stuff. How come Fedex and UPS can ship faster and track to the exact location of any parcel I send through them? USPS tracking system is this "yes we have received and shipped your package". Fedex will tell me exactly where that package is, what stops it takes between getting to me and the exact day that it will show up on my door.

And what about public roads... yes they make public roads, but at an extremely exaggerated cost and time table. I've been watching private businesses build private drives and construct entire buildings near my house which takes mere months to do. Yet the government has been working on a road near my house for years... multiple years... and it was a road that already existed, they are simply widening it, and it has had I think 3 different bond measures to try and raise more and more money to complete it.

To quote Milton Friedman on the 4 ways to spend money
"The fourth way is when people spend other people's money on other people. In this case, the buyer has no rational interest in either value or quality. Government always and necessarily spends money in this fourth way. This guarantees inefficient public spending because the spenders have no vested interest in efficiently allocating those funds."

 

[dave is ok]

They don't suck at everything, but they do suck at a lot of stuff. How come Fedex and UPS can ship faster and track to the exact location of any parcel I send through them? USPS tracking system is this "yes we have received and shipped your package". Fedex will tell me exactly where that package is, what stops it takes between getting to me and the exact day that it will show up on my door.

And what about public roads... yes they make public roads, but at an extremely exaggerated cost and time table. I've been watching private businesses build private drives and construct entire buildings near my house which takes mere months to do. Yet the government has been working on a road near my house for years... multiple years... and it was a road that already existed, they are simply widening it, and it has had I think 3 different bond measures to try and raise more and more money to complete it.

To quote Milton Friedman on the 4 ways to spend money
"The fourth way is when people spend other people's money on other people. In this case, the buyer has no rational interest in either value or quality. Government always and necessarily spends money in this fourth way. This guarantees inefficient public spending because the spenders have no vested interest in efficiently allocating those funds."

USPS has an Express Mail system that does what Fedex and UPS do. Comparing standard First Class Mail with Fedex Overnight is retarded. It's two completely different services.

Over the course of your many posts in this thread you've shown yourself to be a typical "Recite the talking points, offer no counterargument to anyone who disputes them" conservative. You even used the tired, debunked 'Five hour wait in an emergency room with UHC' argument.

Your mind is made up. Big Business can do no wrong. Keep sucking on the knob of your corporate overlords and leave this thread alone.

 

[Qwell]

Thanks for the personal attacks, much appreciated, anyways this is what debating on the internet usually does, just wanted to toss my two cents in. Would still like to hear why people think the government would do a better job besides "because they have the public interest in mind".

 

[dave is ok]

Thanks for the personal attacks, much appreciated, anyways this is what debating on the internet usually does, just wanted to toss my two cents in. Would still like to hear why people think the government would do a better job besides "because they have the public interest in mind".

As soon as you can give a better reason why they won't except for "My 25 dollar FedEx Overnight got there quicker than my 42 cent stamped letter!"

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

USPS has an Express Mail system that does what Fedex and UPS do. Comparing standard First Class Mail with Fedex Overnight is retarded. It's two completely different services.

Over the course of your many posts in this thread you've shown yourself to be a typical "Recite the talking points, offer no counterargument to anyone who disputes them" conservative. You even used the tired, debunked 'Five hour wait in an emergency room with UHC' argument.

Your mind is made up. Big Business can do no wrong. Keep sucking on the knob of your corporate overlords and leave this thread alone.

Funny, because I find a very similar thing happening when people try to refute my arguments against UHC.

 

[Big-E]

I can't believe some of the things I am reading. The delusion in some posters here is giving me actual physical pain as I try to rationalize how people can think this way. America needs a whole reset button.

 

[BigGreenMat]

You guys really should watch the 2 frontline segments I posted earlier. They go over almost EVERYTHING you are talking about in regards to drawbacks of UHC and also some of the ways in which these drawbacks are eliminated or at least lessened. I will give 2 examples brought up on this last page.

1. MRI's are expensive: This is bullshit. MRI's in the United States are expensive. Japan was looking at the costs of MRI's and determined they were out of range and being driven up by unnecessary new models and glut. They simply said (as they have a single payer system) the costs are not justified and we won't pay them. So unless the MRI centers could justify the costs enough to have people pay for them out of pocket they were going to lose their business. What happened? Costs were driven down dramatically. Both cost to the patient, and cost to the MRI centers. MRI producers were forced to streamline and innovate and come up with cheaper more efficient designs. The result MRI in the US is $1200, in Japan it is $98. So Japan paid less for MRI's and then subsequently less to buy the machines. This led them to be a major exporter of the machines themselves. It was all win.

2. Health Care is 'free' so people will overuse and abuse the system: The government can easily see who these overusers are. They can set rules and guidelines and also specifically address such cases (the doctors themselves would be wonderful tools for this, but this also assumes divorcing malpractice from it's current civil lawsuit based premise). Taiwan uses a system where if a person visits excessively (and I mean excessively they set it at 20 visits in a month or 50 visits in a 3 month period) a member of the health administration will visit them to discuss their usage and they show drops on average of 35 to 60%. Any system we put in place could do something similar. Or as I say have the doctors themselves be the guardians (they will be able to see visit frequency through an easy nationalized system that Obama is already laying the groundwork on).

The moral of the story is just about every drawback that I see people against extending health care coverage make is related to OUR ALREADY BROKEN SYSTEM. The point is to get rid of it. The counterpoints people bring up in reply aren't hypothetical. They exist in all the other countries around us and we can cherry pick them as we see fit. We don't have to be Canada. We can be Japan with some France or Germany thrown in. We need to take the blinders off and realize that the problems are with what we have now and the reason building more on top won't work is because they will be applied to an already unstable system and just make it more likely to collapse.

A public system guarantees that they are all paid for, but it has nothing to do with whether or not a doctor orders the treatment. No doctors in this country are sued for downgrading care, they're sued because they miss a test or a prescription or if they have an incident in a surgery. The problem with malpractice is that it doesn't do anything to remove these doctors from practice in most cases, only to pay out money to the people who were victims of the doctor. Just losing a malpractice suit doesn't mean you lose your license (nor should it). It has less to do with improving medical care than it does with giving recompense to people who weren't satisfied with the care they got, and that's going to happen anywhere doctors are human. The path to reducing this is two fold: cap the payout of malpractice settlements to make them less lucrative for lawyers and their clients, and if a doctor genuinely screwed up then make sure they no longer practice.

Capping the payouts isn't the answer. The answer is taking Malpractice out of the hands of the civil justice system. It is a system not equipped to address the complexities in understanding what does or does not constitute malpractice. Ideally, this should be funneled into a separate mediator body composed of competent physicians who would determine malpractice. Putting these cases in the hands of juries and even judges is sort of ridiculous. Also this will reduce the costs to both parties in legal fees (as usual lawyers are the real devils).

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Thanks for the personal attacks, much appreciated, anyways this is what debating on the internet usually does, just wanted to toss my two cents in. Would still like to hear why people think the government would do a better job besides "because they have the public interest in mind".

Well, some people are arguing that the government would do a better job based on their perception of how UHC is working in countries where it is already implemented.

I'm more moderate than I am liberal, so while I'm open to UHC, I'm also open to some idea that gets things less screwed up than they are now. My main problem with the system is that for most people who don't get health insurance as part of their benefits through their employer, optional insurance is cost prohibitive. It's easy for me to say "Fuck UHC! Let those freeloaders get a job like I do!", but what happens if the shitty economy sees me getting the ax next? Sure, there's COBRA, but that's for a limited time, and how am I going to afford it anyway? I just lost my job! Other options tend to be worthless because of the high deductibles, or are again completely cost prohibitive.

So, you roll the dice. You pretty much have to. But let's hope you don't need REAL health care during this time, because anything done in a hospital is going to be ridiculously expensive. I've been to the hospital once. And it wasn't for anything I could have prevented. It was for an appendectomy when I was 21 years old. Routine, boring procedure right? I was only there for a couple of nights. Well, that EOB showed that the hospital billed about $30,000 for this service. Good thing I was still in school and my dad's plan covered me!

It's just examples like that which tell me that the current system is FUBAR'd. If that had happened about a year later before I had a job with benefits, I WOULD have been stuck with that bill, or at least with a stupidly high deductible. It wouldn't have just been a matter of being cheap and taking a gamble, I wouldn't have been able to afford GOOD health insurance.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

You guys really should watch the 2 frontline segments I posted earlier. They go over almost EVERYTHING you are talking about in regards to drawbacks of UHC and also some of the ways in which these drawbacks are eliminated or at least lessened. I will give 2 examples brought up on this last page.

1. MRI's are expensive: This is bullshit. MRI's in the United States are expensive. Japan was looking at the costs of MRI's and determined they were out of range and being driven up by unnecessary new models and glut. They simply said (as they have a single payer system) the costs are not justified and we won't pay them. So unless the MRI centers could justify the costs enough to have people pay for them out of pocket they were going to lose their business. What happened? Costs were driven down dramatically. Both cost to the patient, and cost to the MRI centers. MRI producers were forced to streamline and innovate and come up with cheaper more efficient designs. The result MRI in the US is $1200, in Japan it is $98. So Japan paid less for MRI's and then subsequently less to buy the machines. This led them to be a major exporter of the machines themselves. It was all win.

2. Health Care is 'free' so people will overuse and abuse the system: The government can easily see who these overusers are. They can set rules and guidelines and also specifically address such cases (the doctors themselves would be wonderful tools for this, but this also assumes divorcing malpractice from it's current civil lawsuit based premise). Taiwan uses a system where if a person visits excessively (and I mean excessively they set it at 20 visits in a month or 50 visits in a 3 month period) a member of the health administration will visit them to discuss their usage and they show drops on average of 35 to 60%. Any system we put in place could do something similar. Or as I say have the doctors themselves be the guardians (they will be able to see visit frequency through an easy nationalized system that Obama is already laying the groundwork on).

The moral of the story is just about every drawback that I see people against extending health care coverage make is related to OUR ALREADY BROKEN SYSTEM. The point is to get rid of it. The counterpoints people bring up in reply aren't hypothetical. They exist in all the other countries around us and we can cherry pick them as we see fit. We don't have to be Canada. We can be Japan with some France or Germany thrown in. We need to take the blinders off and realize that the problems are with what we have now and the reason building more on top won't work is because they will be applied to an already unstable system and just make it more likely to collapse.

Indeed. I advocate for taking the best ideas and regulations we have and using them to reform health care costs, instead of reforming who is paying the costs.

Capping the payouts isn't the answer. The answer is taking Malpractice out of the hands of the civil justice system. It is a system not equipped to address the complexities in understanding what does or does not constitute malpractice. Ideally, this should be funneled into a separate mediator body composed of competent physicians who would determine malpractice. Putting these cases in the hands of juries and even judges is sort of ridiculous. Also this will reduce the costs to both parties in legal fees (as usual lawyers are the real devils).

I largely agree with you on this but there are a few pitfalls. Malpractice suits are inevitably about pain and suffering associated with the negligent care, and as such they're more about empathy than anything, which leads people to believe they're absolutely qualified for these types of juries (they're not). Taking these payments out of the hands of juries and into a certain group of peers is unfortunately going to cause people to claim that a group of doctors is always going to side with their peers when something goes wrong (which they wouldn't, but you can't tell the average joe that). And of course malpractice lawyers would leverage their significant lobbying powers to try to get any legislation like this changed. I think a cap is a more attainable goal, even if it's ultimately not the best answer.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

They don't suck at everything, but they do suck at a lot of stuff. How come Fedex and UPS can ship faster and track to the exact location of any parcel I send through them? USPS tracking system is this "yes we have received and shipped your package". Fedex will tell me exactly where that package is, what stops it takes between getting to me and the exact day that it will show up on my door.

First class mail + optional delivery confirmation does mostly what you describe for half or less of the cost. It's the budget system, and it's pretty darned good.

I'ma fan of the USPS, I have shipped a ton of stuff through them with far less headaches than UPS. FedEx is better still, but cost-prohibitive.

 

[jmdajr]

I have a couple of friends who are doctors and my mind always wants to explode when this subject comes up.

I don't think any of them are for universal health care because it could potentially be a huge pay cut for them.

 

[Qwell]

Steve Youngblood, I see your point about if you lose your job you lose your coverage, and again that is why I would rather see us cut the tie between the employer and healthcare. There are other things that are driving the cost up because of that type of scenerio, again there is no direct relationship between the doctor and patient because of the employer / insurance company bond, and right now health insurance providers aren't allowed to bid across state lines from what I understand. I know when I was looking into an individual insurance plan when I went to become a contractor my competition for options were strickly Oregon offices. Insurance has national carriers which open up the competition options why does health insurance have the strict state by state policy?

I was able to find some very reasonable plans out there as well, and yes they had high deductables because they for the most part only covered catastrophic events, which is really all I needed and would have covered your issues as well. Again it would have been a $1k deductable, but that is still better than the full $30k bill right? I saw someone else post how they haven't had insurance for over 8 years, why not get your own that covers catastrophic events? I know the plan I was looking at was under $100 a month, at least you are covered if you break a leg, have a hospital visit in case of emergency or other issues. If you can find a doctor that accepts cash only (non insurance) they usually offer really good rates, like $30 for a checkup kind of rates. If health insurance is in everyones best interest don't you think people should be able to come up with that? I know if I wanted to I could come up with the money to cover myself, but I'm too greedy and would rather have my kind of nice cars, motorcycles, tv's etc. It's probably stupid, but again its the choice I made, and I'm glad I have the option to make it.

And yes keep in mind like I had always been saying, those that are truly poor still would have the ER option, they will always treat you no matter what.

And regarding the government doing a good job in other countries, I'm looking specifically at the US and their track record for running businesses, like public schools, the railway, public transportation, etc. etc. and in all those businesses they have gotten into they are always worse off then a private sector option. In Oregon each public school gets over $10k per student in funding, and yet scores worse then private schools with I think it was an average tuition of around $6k per student.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Strictly Oregon? Sounds like Regence or Asuris

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I was able to find some very reasonable plans out there as well, and yes they had high deductables because they for the most part only covered catastrophic events, which is really all I needed and would have covered your issues as well. Again it would have been a $1k deductable, but that is still better than the full $30k bill right?

I'm not saying you're lying, but how much are you talking for this when you say "reasonable." Due to the tough times, one concession we had to make here was switch to a lesser plan, or pay a share for the more expensive one from your salary. I'm 25, so I switched to the marginally less expensive plan where there's now a $1500 deductible instead of nothing. I'm gambling and taking my chances with this plan, and this is a company plan with a rate that is surely lower than I could get independently. And despite the fact that I'm in the lowest risk group, it's STILL not cheap. I highly doubt I would be able to afford the COBRA payment if I lost this job.

 

[Qwell]

Yah COBRA is way expensive, but with COBRA you keep like all the perks, the plan I was looking at was $130 a month and it only covered like 15 or 20% of check-up visits and prescriptions, but it did offer a really high ceiling for catastrophic event like $250k or something with I think a $1k or $2k deductible. It may seem like a lot, but again I would rather pay the $1k deductible and be covered in case I need a surgery or break a bone.

 

[Stinkles]

I have a couple of friends who are doctors and my mind always wants to explode when this subject comes up.

I don't think any of them are for universal health care because it could potentially be a huge pay cut for them.

"First do no harm."


Doctors either need to admit that they are in it for the cash and enjoy a new hated status like lawyers, or take the hypocratic oath seriously in the first place. The idea that universal healthcare will put them in fast food worker cars is laughable. Doctors are wealthy in every western nation, universal healthcare or not.