Seriously thoughtful American Health Care

[WDecraene]

Originally Posted by Halk

Personally I'm in favour of IVF being provided by the state. The reason is not simply because of compassion. It's because we will have a lopsided population eventually, and generally speaking people who would go on IVF are stable couples, the type of people I'd like to see raising kids rather than Vicky Pollard.

I'm all for free health care, but fertility treatments ? No, there I would draw the line ...

There's always adoption. (should be) Less expensive, and there's too many children dying elsewhere.

The reasoning that it should be covered because it is very important for the people involved could be made to work for people who want esthetical surgery too...

[nanotube]

Originally Posted by WDecraene

I'm all for free health care, but fertility treatments ? No, there I would draw the line ...

There's always adoption. (should be) Less expensive, and there's too many children dying elsewhere.

The reasoning that it should be covered because it is very important for the people involved could be made to work for people who want esthetical surgery too...

I agree, on a certain level. No, I don't understand why people want to "have their own kid" while they can do the same through adoption. However, as far as I know, it's EXTREMELY difficult to adopt a child. I dont know how much it costs but adoption is not cheap, it's very expensive. Perhaps people choose fertility treatments because 1) may not qualify the requirements for adoption or 2) the cost between treatments and adoption is pretty much the same, so why not have a kid myself?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by nanotube

I agree, on a certain level. No, I don't understand why people want to "have their own kid" while they can do the same through adoption. However, as far as I know, it's EXTREMELY difficult to adopt a child. I dont know how much it costs but adoption is not cheap, it's very expensive. Perhaps people choose fertility treatments because 1) may not qualify the requirements for adoption or 2) the cost between treatments and adoption is pretty much the same, so why not have a kid myself?

It's extremely difficult to adopt white, healthy, infant children. Adopting non-white children, or children with health problems, or pre-teens, is much easier.

And as much as it's easy to say, "why don't you just adopt," it's not always that simple; people can't just demand that their emotions engage with a baby. Aside from any genetic tendency to love our own offspring (an arguable point), when nurturing a child (fetus, embryo, whatever) through pregnancy, there are several months of buildup & emotional connection that aren't possible with a child who already needs tending.

Not that it's not possible to build deep connections with a child handed to you later--but they are different connections, and some people who would make excellent parents just aren't able to start from that point.

[Kostas]

Originally Posted by Shunt1

Liberals, if you want your own "Free" health care plan, then go for it.

In Europe, you could put the blame on conservatives too.
Conservatives and liberals mostly share the same views on the FREE principle of health care system.
So, whether the system should be free or not is not a political issue.
The political debate is about how to make the FREE system more efficient and on rather (comparatively) minor issues (should IVF be covered, ...).
My guess is that same thing happens in Canada and Australia.
Here is a set of maps of a World Health Organization's report.
Comparing with other "western countries", it seems that in the states health expenditure as a % of GDP is higher while life expectancy and overall performance of health system sre lower.
It's not only about principles and human rights, it's also a matter of value for money.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kostas

In Europe, you could put the blame on conservatives too.
Conservatives and liberals mostly share the same views on the FREE principle of health care system.
So, whether the system should be free or not is not a political issue.

Absolutely right. The principle of public-funded health care is NOT a political issue anywhere in Western Europe that I know of. It's something which all parties support.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Absolutely right. The principle of public-funded health care is NOT a political issue anywhere in Western Europe that I know of. It's something which all parties support.

I think this is analogous to Social Security.

Nobody in the United States wants to do away with Social Security. Political parties even try to avoid discussing making changes to the system, because the opposing party will use it as an excuse to demonize the other party. However, the system is going broke and is simply unsubstainable -- essentially it is a Ponzi scheme.

Social Security could have been set up as a private system where contributions where actually invested. We would still be better off even if contributions could only have been invested in government bonds. In fact, I'd already be a millionaire if my contributions to Social Security had been placed in a private retirement account.

Currently, I have decent healthcare. My fear is that a government run healthcare system will be analagous to our government run retirement fund. And, just like with Social Security, it will be impossible to make changes or improvements to a government run healthcare system. As soon as one party recommends some type of change the other party will accuse them of wanting to take away healthcare from the elderly or find a similar way to demonize their political foes.

Just because political parties and the public aren't demanding a private run health/retirement system, doesn't mean that a government run healthcare/retirement system is better than a market based system.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I think this is analogous to Social Security.

Nobody in the United States wants to do away with Social Security. Political parties even try to avoid discussing making changes to the system, because the opposing party will use it as an excuse to demonize the other party. However, the system is going broke and is simply unsubstainable -- essentially it is a Ponzi scheme.

Social Security could have been set up as a private system where contributions where actually invested. We would still be better off even if contributions could only have been invested in government bonds. In fact, I'd already be a millionaire if my contributions to Social Security had been placed in a private retirement account.

Currently, I have decent healthcare. My fear is that a government run healthcare system will be analagous to our government run retirement fund. And, just like with Social Security, it will be impossible to make changes or improvements to a government run healthcare system. As soon as one party recommends some type of change the other party will accuse them of wanting to take away healthcare from the elderly or find a similar way to demonize their political foes.

Just because political parties and the public aren't demanding a private run health/retirement system, doesn't mean that a government run healthcare/retirement system is better than a market based system.

I was wondering... could it be that such a polarised two-party system as in USA (as it appears from over here), could actually hamper a goverment run system? It seems to me that the party not in power - *especially* the Republicans - appear more interested in obstructing and attacking the other part, than actually getting things done to the benefit of the people and nation. Seems a waste of money and energy.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ea

I was wondering... could it be that such a polarised two-party system as in USA (as it appears from over here), could actually hamper a goverment run system?

The system here is designed to run on gridlock. Really. (And it's designed to have more than two parties, dammit, which is a lot of the problems.) The premise is supposed to be, we have these inalienable rights, based on the premises of liberty and justice for all, and so on. And we can do anything we want, providing we're not stepping on someone else's rights. (So the theory goes.)

In that case, making new laws, which basically means "new restrictions on what people can do," should be difficult. We should need a whole lot of people of different perspectives to agree on the need for new laws. Because of this, the system allows filibusters and has two legislative houses, so that new rules aren't easily passed, even if they're strongly desired by whatever group is more popular at the moment. The opposition is supposed to have an easier time blocking than the party-in-power is supposed to have to make laws.

The problems: even when everybody agrees that *something* needs to be done, it's hard to get enough agreement to do it. Also, the system was designed for several hundred thousand to a couple-million people, not 350 million; it didn't take into account that many special interest groups getting filtered over and over into two large parties. And, of course, the system was designed pre-telephone; it was supposed to be okay to argue the point of a topic for weeks or even months. New data wasn't supposed to come in every six hours, and the lawmakers certainly weren't supposed to have to give press reports every three days with pretty soundbites or face public outrage.

[formerroadie]

Originally Posted by Ea

I was wondering... could it be that such a polarised two-party system as in USA (as it appears from over here), could actually hamper a goverment run system? It seems to me that the party not in power - *especially* the Republicans - appear more interested in obstructing and attacking the other part, than actually getting things done to the benefit of the people and nation. Seems a waste of money and energy.

You see clearly what the problem is..... But, historically, a party in a country that has passed UHC of some sort stayed in power for a very long time. So, the Republicans fear being the minority party for the next 20-40 years. I don't fear it, I hope for it .

[formerroadie]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The system here is designed to run on gridlock. Really. (And it's designed to have more than two parties, dammit, which is a lot of the problems.) The premise is supposed to be, we have these inalienable rights, based on the premises of liberty and justice for all, and so on. And we can do anything we want, providing we're not stepping on someone else's rights. (So the theory goes.)

In that case, making new laws, which basically means "new restrictions on what people can do," should be difficult. We should need a whole lot of people of different perspectives to agree on the need for new laws. Because of this, the system allows filibusters and has two legislative houses, so that new rules aren't easily passed, even if they're strongly desired by whatever group is more popular at the moment. The opposition is supposed to have an easier time blocking than the party-in-power is supposed to have to make laws.

The problems: even when everybody agrees that *something* needs to be done, it's hard to get enough agreement to do it. Also, the system was designed for several hundred thousand to a couple-million people, not 350 million; it didn't take into account that many special interest groups getting filtered over and over into two large parties. And, of course, the system was designed pre-telephone; it was supposed to be okay to argue the point of a topic for weeks or even months. New data wasn't supposed to come in every six hours, and the lawmakers certainly weren't supposed to have to give press reports every three days with pretty soundbites or face public outrage.

Well said. The "melting pot" we have become was never in the minds of the founders. It's a new beast. And, yes, the internet has changed the dynamics to a certain extent. I think for the better for the most part. The press.... yikes. They have so dropped the ball and become a joke. I wish we had something akin to the BBC on TV. Oh well, we have NPR. That's the closest thing I feel gets to decent reporting anymore.

[kaan]

Here is a story from the Danish media today.
http://translate.google.dk/translate...0%2F104101.htm

It reports that U.S. healthcare actually cost the double of what it cost in Denmark (measured in BNP).

[NormHart]

We have a health care system?



Oh, you mean our Health Care Insurance Industries health. Yes they are well covered.



I've had health care coverage for less than half my adult life, couldn't afford it most of the time.



Glad to hear that now the Health Care Insurance industries make up one sixth of America's economy.



Record profits this year too, how nice.



Bitter? afraid?, oh yes.

[fugazied]

I travel to Australia a lot and health care is a universal human right there as well. Many industrialized nations have health care for their citizens so yes the US is at odds with the norm.

The big problem for the US is the fact there are so many vested interests in the current system. Many hospitals, insurance companies and drug companies make millions with costly treatments and medications (which cost 25% as much in other countries). So it is like there is a lot of price goughing going on.

Combine that with the fundamentalist free market doctrine of republicans and you have a lot of opposition to what most countries see as a human right.

I personally believe a citizen should have some basic rights - food, shelter, clothing, medical care. So even if you come from an incredibly disadvantaged background or have terrible 'luck' and have a string of illnesses, you can still have a chance at the American dream. In Australia they call it 'a fair go'. The fundamental premise that the disadvantaged deserve a helping hand so they get to the stage where they can use their skills to participate in society.

Many Americans go bankrupt if they get sick or die because the insurance company denies coverage. It's not right and both sides of politics need to work at it. At the moment the republicans seems to want to side with corporations yet again and ignore the 50 million Americans without a safety net.