Seriously thoughtful American Health Care

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Shunt1

had you lived in a country where healthcare is state-provided, why do you believe that, in similar circumstances to the ones you describe, you would have been treated more poorly than you were under your current system?"


Who is paying for this?

Seriously, with the type of injuries that my wife and I have both suffered since 2000, we are talking about well over $1,000,000 for only two people.

Would government health care actually provide that medical quality, at such a minimal personal cost?

Can't talk for any other country but here in Australia, yes you would have been provided that kind of care on the public health system free of charge.

Originally Posted by Shunt1

Remember, in America, we do have government health care!

I served in the Army for 20 years, and could go to any V.A Hospital for "free" medical care at any time, since I am a veteran.

Personally, even I am not that STUPID!

Today, I can walk, because I did not go to a V.A. Hospital for "free" medical care.

Care to debate that topic?

Ask any person who has earned their time with the military, and how good that government V.A. Hospical care can be.

Crappy care would be preferrable to no care which is essentially what many many people in the USA receive unless it is an immediate life threatening emergency. Even then, all that is required is that the immediate life threatening emergency is solved, after that if they don't have money they don't get treated.

Further, perhaps the substandard care given is a reflection of the lack of investment in the service. This lack of investment no doubt reflect the concept of "I'm alright so don't spend any of my taxes on healthcare for others" attitude you display.

Originally Posted by Shunt1

Liberals can do anything that they want, as long as they keep me out of it! Why is that concept so hard to understand?

The fact that you live in a society is what makes it so difficult for me to understand.

Isn't democracy all about allowing the people to determine what is important to them as a collective? Your country claims to be the champion of democracy. You can't opt out when the democratic process doesn't give you what you want.

And before you harp on about the federal government not having the power to provide public health care........the states do and from your comments here I don't think you'd be any more happy with a state run public health system than you would a federally run one.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Shunt1]

There is a 50% split between Americans, and political parties are not a good lable. I use conservitive and liberal, but black and white will work.

I joined the U.S. Army in 1974, at the end of the Vietnam War. Anyone that has served in the military, knows about the disgusting treatment provided by the V.A. Hospitals in America.

After Iraq, things got changed rapidly for the better, and to a large part, because us "old vets" refused to allow that to happen to our modern heroes.

However, the V.A. Hospital has been a primary example in America of how bad medical health care can be, where there are no other options.

But I will say this once again, and why is this so darn difficult to understand?

You can do anything that you want, as long as you keep me out of it!

If you want "free" health care, then pay for it yourself. Do any experiments that you desire, and I will wish you the absolute best of luck.

[Shunt1]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And before you harp on about the federal government not having the power to provide public health care........the states do and from your comments here I don't think you'd be any more happy with a state run public health system than you would a federally run one.

True, I would complain about a State run public health system, but would admit that iit would be Constitional! In this case, it would be legal and authorized.

The American Constitution is rather simple to read and understand, if you ever actually read the words.

[HarryT]

Sorry, Shunt; you asked if anyone cared to debate this issue, but you seem to be unwilling to actually listen to anyone who has an opinion that differs from your own. With the very greatest respect, that's not much of a "debate"!

If you want to have a proper debate about this, please let's do so, with everyone's views being respectfully considered.

[Salgueiros]

i think you can keep out, as long as part of your taxes go to the public health service. if you want to use it or not then it will be your decision.

i think the people who don't own a car and still see part of their taxes go to new highways would agree with me. and many more examples i could give of people as a whole contributing to the common good. And making that way a better society.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Shunt1

True, I would complain about a State run public health system, but would admit that iit would be Constitional! In this case, it would be legal and authorized.

The American Constitution is rather simple to read and understand, if you ever actually read the words.

Your comments don't seem to be about the legality of the proposed system. They seem to be about "I don't want to pay for someone elses health care".

That is fair enough and you have every right to that opinion.

I'm assuming you will be opting out of all other aspects of your society that are subsidised by others? For example you wont ever call the police or fire brigades if you need them because that would entail other people's taxes going to pay for a service you have received. You wont be using those waste disposal and sanitation services because they are subsidised by others as well. You will grow all your own food because you don't want subsidised food.(your agriculture industry is one of the most heavily subsidised in the world)

You seem so adamant you shouldn't subsidise anyone else so why should they subsidise you? Oh, that's right, it's because you live in a society of people and you need and want those things subsidised.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ggareau]

Originally Posted by Shunt1

Three years ago, I crashed my airplane and my spine was shattered. The hospital costs were well over $500,000 to repare my spine.

It took me over six months before I could walk once again.

Yes, this outstanding health care was obtained for a simple "working stiff" on a "Blue Cross / Blue Shield" plan, which was provided by the company that I work for. The company does not actually pay for this health care plan, since the actual costs are deducted from my paycheck each month.

For a cost of $300 per month, this "horrible American health care" was able to fully repair me. The doctors and nurses were absolutly outstanding, and I could not ask for anything better.

Today, I can fly airplanes once again.

5 years ago my back was surgically broken and reset. I have 2 14" rods and 12 screws fusing 10 vertebrae (T2-T12). It cost me absolutely nothing.

Just saying.

EDIT: And that was out of province.

[GlennD]

All arguments about the legality and Constitution aside, I think part of what you're seeing behind some of the arguments here against a national health care system is just plain mistrust of the government. I'd be happier to have a lighter hip pocket for others' medical care if my pocket hadn't already been lightened for numerous other reasons. US debt is high (60% of GDP today) and getting higher (expected to be 100% of GDP by 2015 by some estimates). Congress has shown plenty of interest in spending tons of money and not much interest in balancing a budget. There's a limit to how much we can cough up, and the expected costs of a national health care system just speed up how fast we expect to go further into debt.

Seeing responses here from people who live with a government health care system has certainly given me reason to think harder about it - I was very much against it at one point, partly because of reading horror stories not only in the US press but even in other internet-accessible media outlets in other countries. But, hearing from live people here on Mobileread who don't see those same problems occuring helps quite a bit to ease my mind about the concept.

It still remains though, that we have a huge and growing deficit. (Yes, the military budget is one reason but there are many others.) We have several federal health programs that are not run efficiently. We have a state-run health program in Massachusetts that is running into higher than expected costs, and as a result is heavily in debt. I see other facets of health reform that are being totally ignored. None of these things give me much faith that my tax dollars will be spent wisely. I see a lot of knee-jerk reaction in our government and not a lot of thoughtful analysis of how to make a health care program actually work. When I see that kind of thought, when I see Congress saying "we're going to prioritize our spending and cut in these other places to provide the funding for a health care program", then I'll be much more inclined to support it.

Just my two cents.

[ahammer]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Your comments don't seem to be about the legality of the proposed system. They seem to be about "I don't want to pay for someone elses health care".

That is fair enough and you have every right to that opinion.

I'm assuming you will be opting out of all other aspects of your society that are subsidised by others? For example you wont ever call the police or fire brigades if you need them because that would entail other people's taxes going to pay for a service you have received. You wont be using those waste disposal and sanitation services because they are subsidised by others as well. You will grow all your own food because you don't want subsidised food.(your agriculture industry is one of the most heavily subsidised in the world)

You seem so adamant you shouldn't subsidise anyone else so why should they subsidise you? Oh, that's right, it's because you live in a society of people and you need and want those things subsidised.

Cheers,
PKFFW

let see. cop- state run. fire-state run. garbage-state run(my area does not do this. I pay for my garbage to be pick up right from the people that pick it up. most of my state does this or pays a hoa to do this.)

You will grow all your own food because you don't want subsidised food.
been trying to get the govrment out of this system for years now.

yes I want the goverment out of all of our aspects of our lives as we can. the overall cost goes down that way.

the fedral goverment is already in tomany things they should not be lets not add somthing on top of it.

also ask yourself if this is needed so badly "NOW" then why is the build being held off till after the next prez race.

[ggareau]

Originally Posted by GlennD

All arguments about the legality and Constitution aside, I think part of what you're seeing behind some of the arguments here against a national health care system is just plain mistrust of the government. I'd be happier to have a lighter hip pocket for others' medical care if my pocket hadn't already been lightened for numerous other reasons. US debt is high (60% of GDP today) and getting higher (expected to be 100% of GDP by 2015 by some estimates). Congress has shown plenty of interest in spending tons of money and not much interest in balancing a budget. There's a limit to how much we can cough up, and the expected costs of a national health care system just speed up how fast we expect to go further into debt.

Seeing responses here from people who live with a government health care system has certainly given me reason to think harder about it - I was very much against it at one point, partly because of reading horror stories not only in the US press but even in other internet-accessible media outlets in other countries. But, hearing from live people here on Mobileread who don't see those same problems occuring helps quite a bit to ease my mind about the concept.

It still remains though, that we have a huge and growing deficit. (Yes, the military budget is one reason but there are many others.) We have several federal health programs that are not run efficiently. We have a state-run health program in Massachusetts that is running into higher than expected costs, and as a result is heavily in debt. I see other facets of health reform that are being totally ignored. None of these things give me much faith that my tax dollars will be spent wisely. I see a lot of knee-jerk reaction in our government and not a lot of thoughtful analysis of how to make a health care program actually work. When I see that kind of thought, when I see Congress saying "we're going to prioritize our spending and cut in these other places to provide the funding for a health care program", then I'll be much more inclined to support it.

Just my two cents.

See, and that's perfectly reasonable. The issue is, I think, that with the way the government is set up in the US, they can't do all of the consulting and planning until congress/senate already agree to reform (if I'm wrong, please let me know) so the dollars and cents can't be accounted for at this stage of the game.

The Canadian system isn't perfect. It needs reform itself. A lot of money is being spent inefficiently, but it's a hard sell to get people to pay slightly more taxes in the short-term to get things fixed. That's the real issue with politics/democracy in general - trying to get people to agree with long-term plans while not impacting the short-term. I don't think it's possible. In Canada the battle over healthcare (when it was instituted) was fought for the future of the country rather than the (then) present. It was a different time, when some people didn't even have electricity so people didn't see things changing quite so quickly. Now, everything changes almost instantaneously so even improving the near future is a hard sell at the cost of the present.

I don't envy you guys and gals in the US. If this debate were going on in Canada right now, I doubt it would ever be instituted. Luckily, it was put in nearly 50 years ago so we're all used to it and couldn't imagine life without it.

What I don't think is useful is political spin like horror stories and words like "rationing." Maybe they happen, maybe they don't, but if they do happen, they're extreme cases and not anywhere near indicative of the system. More people die from car accidents than from health issues in Canada. Does that mean that everyone will stop driving cars?

[kaan]

Originally Posted by formerroadie

Ok, I know many of you hear are from other countries and many of you know what is going on in the US concerning Health Care. What I would like to know is, what is your perception of it all? I know that outside news organizations often report on issues far better than our domestic news does (it's why most in the US have no clue about other cultures or geography, etc). Anyway, I want to leave it open ended so you all can say your peace. For my US colleagues, my intention is not to have this turn into a debate on weather a public option should be implemented. It's a contentious topic in the states and I don't want to go there here.

My perception?

For me it comes natural to care about other people, even those I don't know.

I would be ashamed of my country if treatment for people with serious ills can lead to bankruptcy afterwards. In my book that would be like kicking someone who is already lying down.

I don't know who said that you can measure a society by the way it treats those who are worst off, but I believe it to be true.

Living in a small country I have given up hope to save the entire world, but the least we can do is to look after our own.

When talking about "American conditions"*** in the Danish health care debate, you might as well refer to a "Banana Republic".

*** Usually used in the negative, i.e. "We don't want ...".

Now that should clarify what the consensus is where I'm coming from. Please don't take this as a general hatred towards the U.S. because we do love most things American.

So here comes this new president and wants to make a health care reform. "Good for you" I think.
Then the most amazing thing happens. Instead of having the usual political arguments about what is right and what is wrong, I hear arguments that is out of any kind of proportion to the subject. "rationing", "death councils" and so on.

I can't see what all the fuss is about.
For me it's a no-brainer.

I wish you the best, with whatever health care system you might choose

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shunt1

There is a 50% split between Americans, and political parties are not a good lable. I use conservitive and liberal, but black and white will work.

No, there isn't a 50% split; it's a myth of the media that all issues boil down to two equal and opposing sides. There are many perspectives on health care in the US, on what's currently being done well and what's currently being botched, and many ideas on how to fix the problems.

Right now, health insurance companies pay for problems like the ones you had, at a much higher cost than you paid in. In your case, you gambled and won. Not sure why you think that's a virtue, nor why that should be encouraged as a national policy.

Accident/trauma services are generally good. Lifelong debilitating condition services, especially for mental health conditions, are not.

[Daithi]

One of the major causes of spiralling healthcare costs is due to low reimbursement rates for existing government healthcare programs, such as medicare and medicaid. What happens is that healthcare providers get such low reimbursements from medicare that they are forced to raise their rates on the private insurance companies. Furthermore, physicians also start refusing to accept medicare patients because the reimbursements are so low. Alternatively, physicians don't go into general practice but instead go into a specialization that gets paid higher rates, and now we end up with a shortage of general practice physicians and an abundance of physicians specializing in internal medicine and such. Many patients don't realize it, but medicare is an absolute mess and it is an awful program for physicians and other healthcare providers.

Likewise, government run hospitals are also atrocious. Remember the headlines about rats infesting the Roger Reed Medical Center? How about the headlines about Pres. Obama's administration asking returning soldiers to use private insurance to pay for their military related health issues? Or the booklet the VA was handing out to returning soldiers with major health problems that asks them if they wanted to be burden to their familes, or if they wanted to live like this?

The government also points to the enourmous costs of paperwork and a lack of electronic medical records as causes of spiralling healthcare cost. However, it is usually government regulations and mandates that are the cause of the bureaucratic paperwork. It is also government regulations on patient privacy (i.e. HIPAA) that is a major hurdle to healthcare enties sharing electronic medical information.

I am apprehensive about turning over private control of healthcare to the government when examples of government envolvment in healthcare has been less than stellar to say the least. However, this doesn't mean I am opposed to some kind of change. I want everyone to have access to healthcare. I want healthcare costs lowered. I just don't think the nebulous plan put forward by the Obama administration is the solution. In fact, I am nearly certain that it will cause healthcare costs to either skyrocket or will result in significant deterioration of healthcare quality. Probably both. I'm also happy with my own healthcare coverage and I fear that the Obama plan will result in the loss of my current healthcare insurance. JohnClif, in a previous post, put forward several excellent recomendations that I could support
- Tort reform (a major cause of spiralling healthcare costs)
- Catastrophic insurance for the unissured (excellent idea JohnClif)
- Prevention of denying claims due to pre-existing conditions
- Allow purchase of insurance across state lines (imagine doing this online)

Another suggestion is to relieve the strain placed on Emergency Rooms. Maybe this can be accomplished by allowing pharmacies to provide "minute clinics", where typical ailments such as colds, flu, strep throat, etc. can addressed by medical personnel outside of a hospital setting and could also provide revenue for the pharmacy. They have these in Mass. and are well liked.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by formerroadie

Ok, I know many of you hear are from other countries and many of you know what is going on in the US concerning Health Care. What I would like to know is, what is your perception of it all? I know that outside news organizations often report on issues far better than our domestic news does (it's why most in the US have no clue about other cultures or geography, etc). Anyway, I want to leave it open ended so you all can say your peace. For my US colleagues, my intention is not to have this turn into a debate on weather a public option should be implemented. It's a contentious topic in the states and I don't want to go there here.

My impression is that if you're very poor, you can get some basic healthcare at the private expense of the hospitals. If you're not quite so poor and covered through your employer, you're basicaly screwed if you loose your job - and that's quite unfair both to you AND your employer. If you can pay, and get an insurence company to cover you, you can get the really great health care. What confuses me most is that this system apparently costs twice as much per person as in Europe without twice the advantage - and that people will live with that a great part of the able work force may be at risk - to the risk of the society at whole. I see this as an example of individualism that costs society as a whole, and I can't undertsnad why it can be seen a s good thing.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ahammer

let see. cop- state run. fire-state run. garbage-state run(my area does not do this. I pay for my garbage to be pick up right from the people that pick it up. most of my state does this or pays a hoa to do this.)

You will grow all your own food because you don't want subsidised food.
been trying to get the govrment out of this system for years now.

yes I want the goverment out of all of our aspects of our lives as we can. the overall cost goes down that way.

the fedral goverment is already in tomany things they should not be lets not add somthing on top of it.

also ask yourself if this is needed so badly "NOW" then why is the build being held off till after the next prez race.

As I stated, and Shunt1 agreed, his concerns are not about whether or not the federal government should be providing public health care. His concerns are about there being any cost to him in providing health care to others via any form of government spending.

I find it very hard to believe that many here who are arguing against a public health care system would suddenly have no problem with such if it were provided by the state governments instead of the federal government.

It may sound better to be saying that you oppose a federally run public health care system but what is really the issue, as evidenced by the comments of most of those arguing against public health care, is that those opposing it simply don't want any of their money spent on it.

Cheers,
PKFFW