Since the Democratic nominee will be running with Universal Health Care as a primary chunk of their platform, Let's have a discussion.
This is especially for anyone who has any doubts or is totally against UHC. I want to know your views and hear your best argument.
The thread title was to draw those people in. I'm not projecting any candidate or their plan. Most people here are pro-UHC from what I've seen in the past, so, many of you have good info to put out there. This is to hopefully replace the myths and misunderstanding.
There is no good reason to stay with what we now have. There are many reasons why we should switch.
PLUS
It will be cheaper.
Care would be better and everyone could participate.
MINUS
Doctors will probably earn less.
I'd really be interested to hear from the doctors and anyone living with a UHC system.
HillaryCare!
I don't have a ton of experience with UHC, but I can lend the knowledge I gained spending a little time in Canada recently. Basically UHC really benefits the poor the most. Single mom can feel confident that if little Johnny gets sick she can go to the clinic and he will be seen by a doctor. It may take a few hours of waiting but he will eventually get care.
On the other end the middle class and up suffer because of a lack of doctors and long wait times for procedures / scans that we get in a week in the U.S. They might schedule an MRI for 8 weeks from now where in the U.S. it's next week.
Also, doctors are salary capped so many are coming here to work.
Many of the people I worked with carried a supplemental policy that covered what the government doesn't.
Thats about all I remember.
On the other end the middle class and up suffer because of a lack of doctors and long wait times for procedures / scans that we get in a week in the U.S. They might schedule an MRI for 8 weeks from now where in the U.S. it's next week.
Also, doctors are salary capped so many are coming here to work.
Many of the people I worked with carried a supplemental policy that covered what the government doesn't.
Thats about all I remember.
Waiting times most definitely are cited as the biggest drawback by opponents, and especially when looking at the Canadian system. Also you mentioned access to equipment. The US does very well regarding numbers of machines such as MRIs.
I understand parts of Canada it is illegal to have any private coverage above the Government plan?
Some stats-
-Nearly 45 million people in the US have no health care insurance
-Health care is 15% of our GDP, which is highest in the world.
-The US ranks 72nd in overal health
-The US ranks 42nd in life expectancy
-Over 50% of all bankruptcies are at least in part attributed to health care costs. (2.03 million in 2001)
edited to add insurance
I understand parts of Canada it is illegal to have any private coverage above the Government plan?
Some stats-
-Nearly 45 million people in the US have no health care insurance
-Health care is 15% of our GDP, which is highest in the world.
-The US ranks 72nd in overal health
-The US ranks 42nd in life expectancy
-Over 50% of all bankruptcies are at least in part attributed to health care costs. (2.03 million in 2001)
edited to add insurance
Last edited by gulliver on Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
ScrmnPeeler
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:46 pm
Brad - Nice to add some real facts. I agree. I work for a canadian corporation and everyone there agrees, the healthcare there sucks for the working man.
gulliver - to rebut your "stats"
-nearly 45 million people have chosen not to pay for Health Insurance. Try not to mislead.
-Health care is 1/6 of our economy, lets not let the govment fuck that up too.
-Americans are 72nd least healthy because we lay around and eat donuts, not because the government doesn't take care of us.
-American life expectancy is 77.9 and the number one is 83.9 for the tiny country of Andorra. Not bad for all the donuts we eat. We must have a hell of a health care system.
-If you are too dumb to get insurance then I am not surprised to find a bankruptcy in your past.
Stand up for yourselves people. Please don't ask me to pay for your health insurance, its not fair.
gulliver - to rebut your "stats"
-nearly 45 million people have chosen not to pay for Health Insurance. Try not to mislead.
-Health care is 1/6 of our economy, lets not let the govment fuck that up too.
-Americans are 72nd least healthy because we lay around and eat donuts, not because the government doesn't take care of us.
-American life expectancy is 77.9 and the number one is 83.9 for the tiny country of Andorra. Not bad for all the donuts we eat. We must have a hell of a health care system.
-If you are too dumb to get insurance then I am not surprised to find a bankruptcy in your past.
Stand up for yourselves people. Please don't ask me to pay for your health insurance, its not fair.
So, you're a feminist...isn't that cute.
It will take a bipartisan effort and more than promises. This won't happen by force of will. The biggest obstacles are entrenched ignorance and special interests.ynot wrote:Every election we get promises of health care reform and what we get is nothing. It's been that way every time and it will be the same this time.
There are many arguments that fall back on an American exceptionalism , as in it can't be done here because we're not you. It works elsewhere, there is no reason to say we are uniquely incompetent.
If there is a real reason we shouldn't have it, we should find it.
I like the idea of some basic national healthcare, but I don't see a way to make it work. People should have to pay something for cutting edge, expensive procedures, otherwise, they won't invent them.
I think the only reason national healthcare works in some other countries is because:
a) they don't spend all their tax money on military operations around the world like we do.
b) they acquire the bulk of the actual technology from the US.
I just don't see people spending as much money, time, and effort on creating new drugs and procedures if there will be a strict limit put on how much money they can earn off of them. Yeah, some people will do it just to save people, but its greed that ultimately drives technology forward, national healthcare kills that.
I think the only reason national healthcare works in some other countries is because:
a) they don't spend all their tax money on military operations around the world like we do.
b) they acquire the bulk of the actual technology from the US.
I just don't see people spending as much money, time, and effort on creating new drugs and procedures if there will be a strict limit put on how much money they can earn off of them. Yeah, some people will do it just to save people, but its greed that ultimately drives technology forward, national healthcare kills that.
Some have chosen not to true, the rest either cannot afford it or have been denied for various reasons.ScrmnPeeler wrote: gulliver - to rebut your "stats"
-nearly 45 million people have chosen not to pay for Health Insurance.
As it is, we are spending more and getting less. It will be a good thing economically.-Health care is 1/6 of our economy, lets not let the govment fuck that up too.
Of those 2 million bankruptcies:-If you are too dumb to get insurance then I am not surprised to find a bankruptcy in your past.
*75.7% had health insurance at the onset of the bankrupting illness.
68% had coverage at the time of their bankruptcy filing
62% had continuous coverage
1/3 of those with private coverage at onset lost it during the course of illness
Only 2.9% of the uninsured went without coverage voluntarily – most others couldn’t afford it
You are already paying for it.Stand up for yourselves people. Please don't ask me to pay for your health insurance, its not fair.
*
http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexc ... ?year=2005
-
ditzywonder
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:31 pm
i am so anti universal health care its not even funny. Being somone who works full time in the health care field, and seeing how everything breaks down is downright ridiclous.
the second point that 'shamis' brings up is a very valid point. We are one of the only countries i know of where the drug rep/reseach industry is not heavily regulated, therefore allowing more research on new drugs by physicians currently in practice. This makes the US a more lucrative base for more medication that is in the research stages, which in turn allows us to provide more medically advanced treatments to patients who are needing it.
The only things i think should really be regulated right now is the INSURANCE system. there are a lot of people who can not afford regular insurance, and these days even a basic insurance policy will not cover basic health care, which is the goal of most americans to have some sort of 'in case shit' policy, that covers the majority of thier basic medical expenses.
The thing that most of you good paying health care concintious individuals dont realize is that the insurance that you good people are paying 100 bucks a month for only pay the regular physicaian 50 bucks for a standard exam. So even though you might get a bill for 85 - 90 bucks for a non insurance billed claim, when we get the check from your insurance company, the doc's office is still getting cut almost in half, because the 'allowable' ammount is only 37 - 40 bucks for the same exam. Granted, this varies from insurance to insurance (and PLEAAAASE dont get me started on medicare!!!!) but thats about the normal ammount.
Most doc's offices actually give a discout for those cash paying customers, because a lot of the time if you take 15 - 20 % off of a bill were the total was $90 to begin with, it does one of two things. 1) it saves us the time of filing a claim with your insurance (which takes us time to get paid on) and 2) it actually gives us more money on the end total!
One more reason your insurance premiums and benifits are what need to be regulated: I can not tell you how many times, United and Blue Cross have made and adjustment to a claim to pay our doc's office more money, and wasted a 41 cent stamp to mail us a check for either 1 or 2 cents. SERIOUSLY! It happens at LEAST 4-5 times a week. so multiply that by all the other doc's offices out there that they feel need an adjustment, and how much postage are we talking about taking out on our insurance premiums? A LOT!.
So in summary, if it were up to the insurance companies (who make the majority of thier money off of healthy people who dont need to meet their deductables and only have to make a few co-payments) we would be in good hands. Unfortunatly, the people who can not afford their insurance premuims are the people who usually argue for universal health care, and i dont want to say that they are uneducated, but the majority just think that it is going to be a cheaper option when in fact it is not. The insurance companies should be chipping in on all the research, but they don't because they consider it a 'risk'. This means that they dont pay (typically) on the medically advanced claims. If we hold the insurance companies more responsible for the care they are supposed to be providing in the first place the CEO's would be making less money (gee darn) and we would be getting better health care.
bottom line is regulate the insurance industry, not the health care field as a whole, because it is our independant researchers who's technology we thrive on for medical advances, and technology. If you cripple that we might as well all become canadians.
I do not feel that we should sacrifice the quality or the extinsivness of our research (which benifits the rest of the world as well) to the fact that there are some people who can not afford to pay for the health
the second point that 'shamis' brings up is a very valid point. We are one of the only countries i know of where the drug rep/reseach industry is not heavily regulated, therefore allowing more research on new drugs by physicians currently in practice. This makes the US a more lucrative base for more medication that is in the research stages, which in turn allows us to provide more medically advanced treatments to patients who are needing it.
The only things i think should really be regulated right now is the INSURANCE system. there are a lot of people who can not afford regular insurance, and these days even a basic insurance policy will not cover basic health care, which is the goal of most americans to have some sort of 'in case shit' policy, that covers the majority of thier basic medical expenses.
The thing that most of you good paying health care concintious individuals dont realize is that the insurance that you good people are paying 100 bucks a month for only pay the regular physicaian 50 bucks for a standard exam. So even though you might get a bill for 85 - 90 bucks for a non insurance billed claim, when we get the check from your insurance company, the doc's office is still getting cut almost in half, because the 'allowable' ammount is only 37 - 40 bucks for the same exam. Granted, this varies from insurance to insurance (and PLEAAAASE dont get me started on medicare!!!!) but thats about the normal ammount.
Most doc's offices actually give a discout for those cash paying customers, because a lot of the time if you take 15 - 20 % off of a bill were the total was $90 to begin with, it does one of two things. 1) it saves us the time of filing a claim with your insurance (which takes us time to get paid on) and 2) it actually gives us more money on the end total!
One more reason your insurance premiums and benifits are what need to be regulated: I can not tell you how many times, United and Blue Cross have made and adjustment to a claim to pay our doc's office more money, and wasted a 41 cent stamp to mail us a check for either 1 or 2 cents. SERIOUSLY! It happens at LEAST 4-5 times a week. so multiply that by all the other doc's offices out there that they feel need an adjustment, and how much postage are we talking about taking out on our insurance premiums? A LOT!.
So in summary, if it were up to the insurance companies (who make the majority of thier money off of healthy people who dont need to meet their deductables and only have to make a few co-payments) we would be in good hands. Unfortunatly, the people who can not afford their insurance premuims are the people who usually argue for universal health care, and i dont want to say that they are uneducated, but the majority just think that it is going to be a cheaper option when in fact it is not. The insurance companies should be chipping in on all the research, but they don't because they consider it a 'risk'. This means that they dont pay (typically) on the medically advanced claims. If we hold the insurance companies more responsible for the care they are supposed to be providing in the first place the CEO's would be making less money (gee darn) and we would be getting better health care.
bottom line is regulate the insurance industry, not the health care field as a whole, because it is our independant researchers who's technology we thrive on for medical advances, and technology. If you cripple that we might as well all become canadians.
I do not feel that we should sacrifice the quality or the extinsivness of our research (which benifits the rest of the world as well) to the fact that there are some people who can not afford to pay for the health
black diamonds are a girls best friend
You give some very good examples of how the system we have does not work.
There's evidence that we don't have anywhere near the best care overall. But we do have the most expensive.
Every developed nation in the world has some form of UHC except the US. (every OECD Member)
According to World Health Org., the average individual spending in the US for health care is $3371 per year. Australia is next at $1016. Canada’s indivdual spending is $916, and the UK is at $397.
http://tinyurl.com/2le6xh
3 times what Australia spends yet 28% of our people have no care at all. And again health ratings below every other developed country.
Most people will think this is because taxes in countries with UHC are so high.
By OECD 2006 numbers, US gov. spending for health care was $2887 per person. France is behind us in 2nd place at $2714. Others, Australia $2106, Canada $2338, and the UK $2372
We are already heavily committed to a government run program.
http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx ... ode=HEALTH
^^^
really good source of info.
I'll try to get to some of your and Shamis's concerns about how it could affect high end stuff. The info is out there. Hopefully someone else will join in.
Drugs-Waiting periods-R&D
It's bedtime.
There's evidence that we don't have anywhere near the best care overall. But we do have the most expensive.
Every developed nation in the world has some form of UHC except the US. (every OECD Member)
According to World Health Org., the average individual spending in the US for health care is $3371 per year. Australia is next at $1016. Canada’s indivdual spending is $916, and the UK is at $397.
http://tinyurl.com/2le6xh
3 times what Australia spends yet 28% of our people have no care at all. And again health ratings below every other developed country.
Most people will think this is because taxes in countries with UHC are so high.
By OECD 2006 numbers, US gov. spending for health care was $2887 per person. France is behind us in 2nd place at $2714. Others, Australia $2106, Canada $2338, and the UK $2372
We are already heavily committed to a government run program.
http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx ... ode=HEALTH
^^^
really good source of info.
I'll try to get to some of your and Shamis's concerns about how it could affect high end stuff. The info is out there. Hopefully someone else will join in.
Drugs-Waiting periods-R&D
It's bedtime.