The rest of the industrialized world has universal health care

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can't we all just agree that both systems suck? We've all heard enough stories now that it's quite obvious neither private or public health care is working out.

Anyone got a solution?

Make Charles pay for it?

[incanada1234 0]

Can't we all just agree that both systems suck? We've all heard enough stories now that it's quite obvious neither private or public health care is working out.

Anyone got a solution?

Make Charles pay for it?

That actually doesn't sound too bad.........

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Can't we all just agree that both systems suck? We've all heard enough stories now that it's quite obvious neither private or public health care is working out.

Anyone got a solution?

Make Charles pay for it?

actually, steven, since you seem to have this great sense of altruism, you should be digging out your checkbook and paying for it.

[Reba 2]

I don't think there is a solution. Not in the US anyway. There's been too many generations of government spewing ###### and lies about "socialized" health care. And in other countries where they do have universal health care, the populace spews ###### and lies about high taxes and yadda yadda yadda.

The reality is, that here in North Carolina I'm paying about the same in income taxes that I'd be paying back home in Ontario, and yet here in the US, I'm not eligible for medicare because I'm a sponsored immigrant.

Once I'm eligible for benefits at work, they'll start deducting Gods know how much from my paycheques to pay premiums for health insurance, where I have a choice of maybe half a dozen doctors and facilities in the area that are in their "network of providers". Plus, if I ever need to see one of those providers, I'll have to pay about a $1000 up front in deductibles before my insurance will even kick in! I make a whopping $8.75 an hour. How healthy will that get me?

Before I left Canada, I had to have a surgery to remove a rather large cyst from my one remaining ovary. This was the third such surgery that I've had in my lifetime. I spent 5 days in hospital after my surgery and you know what it cost me? $11 per day to rent my TV. The surgeon also removed my appendix while he was in there, to save me a trip later.

That same surgery here in the US would have cost us our house, because I don't have insurance.

Say what you want about tax levels in one country over another, but if my tax dollar isn't getting me the benefits that I'm paying for, what the hell is the point? Where is it going?

I'm fairly certain that the US could afford to institute univesal healthcare on its current tax payments. They're just too greedy to do it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think there is a solution. Not in the US anyway. There's been too many generations of government spewing ###### and lies about "socialized" health care. And in other countries where they do have universal health care, the populace spews ###### and lies about high taxes and yadda yadda yadda.

I'm fairly certain that the US could afford to institute univesal healthcare on its current tax payments. They're just too greedy to do it.

Not to mention the people with the power and opportunity to investigate the possibilities won't do so, and will simply make up lies to maintain the status quo.

While politics are driven by profit, and the backroom deals of political lobbyists representing the health insurance industry. Nothing will change.

Hell, the government has ALREADY taken action to stop consumers from buying cheap prescription drugs through Canada, forcing people to buy them at a hugely marked up cost via the US system.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can't we all just agree that both systems suck? We've all heard enough stories now that it's quite obvious neither private or public health care is working out.

Anyone got a solution?

Make Charles pay for it?

actually, steven, since you seem to have this great sense of altruism, you should be digging out your checkbook and paying for it.

Charles, if you were down on your luck and needed to see a doctor, and I could afford it - I'd pay your bill without question. And I'd hope, that you or someone else would do the same for me if I were in your shoes.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Can't we all just agree that both systems suck? We've all heard enough stories now that it's quite obvious neither private or public health care is working out.

Anyone got a solution?

Make Charles pay for it?

actually, steven, since you seem to have this great sense of altruism, you should be digging out your checkbook and paying for it.

Charles, if you were down on your luck and needed to see a doctor, and I could afford it - I'd pay your bill without question. And I'd hope, that you or someone else would do the same for me if I were in your shoes.

i'm sure

[cmartyn 0]

This is where the argument starts to deteriorate. This is the USA. The Canadian system is frought with issues that many Americans dont want to see in their system regardless. You cant win this argument. It does nothing to further the cause even if the oposing viewpoint is bizzarre on its face to someone who lived in Canada for most of their life.

Baby steps are needed. Its tough because the government has botched up medicare so bad. Medicare insures the worst of the worst as far as Risk goes. They need money from young healthy wealthy folks to make a viable system. However they shot themselves in the foot because all of the jobs have been outsourced and young people need to go in debt for 200K in order to get a 50K / year job now.

A side note: In NYC we are subsidising housing for families making over 100K / year.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I agree that part of the problem with getting universal healthcare in the US is the bad rep is has among the people who either view it as a form of communism and thus contrary to US values or as leading to massive and expensive bureaucracy. However, neither is true. Private insurers are not only expensive (high overhead despite attempts to keep the unhealthy out), but they hurt the system by pushing the burden of insurance on individuals and private enterprises (heaving a sick, uninsured work force is not conducive to productivity).

Anyway, I just read this editorial and thought it might be of interest:

September 22, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

Insurance Horror Stories

By PAUL KRUGMAN

“When Steve and Leslie Shaeffer’s daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would cover the bulk of her treatment costs.” But “shortly after Selah’s medical bills hit $20,000, Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage retroactively.”

So begins a recent report in The Los Angeles Times titled “Sick but Insured? Think Again,” which offers a series of similar horror stories, and suggests that these stories represent a growing trend: more and more health insurers are finding ways to yank your insurance when you get sick.

This trend helps explain something that has been puzzling me: why is the health insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by 1 percent. But over the same period, employment at health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent. What are all those extra employees doing?

Now we know at least part of the answer: they’re working harder than ever at identifying people who really need medical care, and ensuring that they don’t get it. In the past, they mainly concentrated on screening out applicants likely to get sick. Now, it seems, they’re also devoting a lot of effort to finding pretexts for revoking insurance after they’ve already granted it. They typically do this by claiming that they weren’t notified about some pre-existing condition, even if the insured wasn’t aware of that condition when he or she bought the policy.

Welcome to the ugly world of American health care economics.

Health care is poised to become America’s largest industry. Employment in manufacturing, which once dominated the economy, has fallen 18 percent since 2000, to 14.2 million. Meanwhile, employment in the private health services industry has risen 16 percent, to 12.6 million. Another 1.3 million people are employed at government hospitals. So we’re quickly approaching the point at which more Americans will be employed delivering health care than are employed producing manufactured goods.

Yet even as health care becomes the core of the American economy, our system of paying for health care remains sick, and is getting sicker.

Because everyone faces some risk of incurring huge medical costs, only the superrich can afford to be without health insurance. Yet private insurers try to refuse coverage to those most likely to need it, and deny payment whenever they can get away with it.

The point isn’t that they’re evil or greedy (although you do wonder how the people who cut off the Schaeffers can look themselves in the mirror). The fact is that cruelty and injustice are the inevitable result of the current rules of the game. Blue Shield of California is a nonprofit insurance provider, yet as a spokesman put it, if his organization doesn’t follow the for-profit practice of selectively covering only the healthiest people, “we will end up with all the high-risk people.”

Now, before you panic about the state of your own coverage, you should know that the horror stories in The Los Angeles Times article all involve individual insurance; if your coverage comes via your employer, you’re reasonably secure against sudden cancellation.

But employment-based insurance is in rapid decline, as employers balk at the cost and more and more companies adopt Wal-Mart-style minimal-benefit policies. That’s why many people are turning to individual insurance — only to find out, in some cases, that they didn’t get what they thought they paid for.

And here’s the thing: it’s all unnecessary.

Every other wealthy nation manages to provide almost all its citizens with guaranteed health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do. And there’s no mystery why: we’re paying the price for pointless, destructive reliance on private insurers. Medicare, which is a universal health insurance program for older Americans, spends less than 2 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, leaving 98 cents to pay for medical care. By contrast, private insurance companies spend only around 80 cents of each dollar in premiums on medical care; much of the remaining 20 cents is spent denying insurance to those who need it.

If we had a universal system — Medicare for everyone — there would be no more horror stories like those reported by The Los Angeles Times. And we’d almost certainly spend less on health care than we do now.

Source

[ual777 0]

What independent studies have shown is that it would actually save money. As for paying for those who are too lazy to work...Charles, give an example of someone you know that is purposely not working because they are too lazy...and again, look at the unemployment rate in this country - even if one were to assume that everyone unemployed is too lazy to work, it's a very low percentage of people you'd have to pay for their healthcare which would be offset by the money saved with national healthcare. Not only that, you do know that your premiums help pay for others, right? Why should you have to pay for a smoker's healthcare costs? Or someone who's overweight because of poor diet choices? Or someone who doesn't wear a helmet or seatbelt? Don't just stop with lazy people who don't work, isolate yourself from everyone who doesn't take their health as serious as you do.

highlighted part - my next door neighbor's daughter and son. both in their 30's, both would rather milk the system rather than work. and no, their father does not condone their actions.

yes i'm fully aware that my premiums for such would help pay for others. which is exactly my point. you want to help someone else with my money. how altruistic of you! you should get a nobel peace prize! if you want to go help someone with your money, go knock yourself out. just keep your hands out of my wallet while you have such feelings of generosity.

the ones you list - smoking, poor diet choice, no helmet or seatbelt. all personal choices made by someone that should have zero impact on my wallet, as these are choices made by those individuals. but i know, you also think it's a great idea to sue auto makers even though driving a car isn't a right.

ditto.

[cmartyn 0]

We could shut down welfare and unemployment to pay for healthcare. That might ease those concerns somewhat :-)

[KaiserD 12]

more NHS horror stories...

They nearly killed my mother, because they left her in a ward when she was ill and did not do the simple thing of getting her hydrocortisone (even though she kept reminding them!) so she went into crises. We got a call at 4am saying she had gone into intensive care. It absolutly disgusted me, that woman has been through so much already and she is so strong, I don't know what I would do without her.

We had all these empty promises about how she was going to be looked after and it was all #######. As soon as she was out of ICU she was forgotten about again, eventually sent home when the extra steroids kicked in. I absolutly hate her consultant with a vengance - the most arrogant stupid man I ever met. During one consultation with a registrar he told her "You should just think yourself lucky you don't have cancer". Badly cared addissons disease has wrecked her life

They also bodged up my gran's hip replacement and told her after an X-ray she had cancer when she didn't.

[Texanadian 10]

6 and one half dozen....

It was only about 5 years ago that Seattle had more MRI's than all of Canada.

I have relatives in California who both work for a living but wish they had a Canadian style health care system. They're too rich for California medicaid, too poor to afford any decent level of insurance. They live on the edge.

What doesn't get mentioned in the US is the amount of poor and I mean downright poverty poor seniors who can't afford to pay for their prescriptions.

$130/month for health care coverage for 2 people? Currently my fiance's health care plan is $830/month in Texas. That's single coverage. Too add her son would be another $800/month out of her pocket. Fortunately he's on his dad's health care plan (retired US postal worker) and it only costs him $30/month to be added to that plan. How can you have coverage being $800 or $30 for the same person? And it's not like my fiance doesn't know what's going on. SHE'S THE PERSON WHO'S IN CHARGE OF THE COMPANY HEALTH PLAN. 20 years experience in that regard. It's just that her company has a lot of older staff and a few who had some cancer situations the last few years. Thus her coverage is really expensive.

I always find it odd that Americans complain that they'd be paying for other people on public health care plans. That's the whole idea of insurance in the the first place, private or public. It's a group plan that saves money by purchasing on the economies of scale. And as far as paying for people who smoke and drink all their lives. It's the socialized systems that have the high cigarette and alcohol taxes.

In either system it comes down to everybody wants everything for nothing.

MRI's.....

In British Columbia there is a controversy going on about MRI machines in public hospitals. The hospitals are budgeted X amount of dollars per year to run the machines. So they do a certain amount of MRI's and that's that. This means the machines sit there not being used while there is a waiting list of people waiting to use it. A private company offered to let patients use the machines when they're not in use if they paid a fee for it. The company then payed the hospital to use their MRI machine.

This caused a big stink about private companies making money by using public hospitals. Some say it should be encouraged to reduce the backlog. Others say it should be illegal.

On the flip side of the coin, when my fiance got an MRI done in Houston, she got it done the next day and it was covered by her insurance plan. The hospital charged the plan $4,000 for the MRI scan. Her health care company gave them $800 and marked it paid. The hospital accepted it. (My fiance had to pay a $500 deductable.)

Now right there, it shows you that pricing is being mislead. If you walked into a US hospital with $800 in your hand, there is no way you could get an MRI and pay that much. I've seen casts for broken arms that have $2500 bills in the US (paid by the patient).

If there was a set bill amount for health care, it would be so much easier to comparison shop and get the proper insurance plan.

Edited September 25, 2006 by Texanadian

[ieldanth 0]

A hybrid system maybe?

One thing that can help is for individuals to have the same tax breaks for providing their own insurance as their company gets. This would tremendously help out the self-employed, which make up a portion of those who are un/under-insured since they cannot afford the premiums on after-tax dollars. As it is, the health-care industry is not exactly operating in a free market. They get all the benefits of private enterprise while simultaneously enjoying government protections against competition, which would be the mechanism that controls prices. They operate a virtual oligopoly which is similar in effect to a monopoly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A hybrid system maybe?

One thing that can help is for individuals to have the same tax breaks for providing their own insurance as their company gets. This would tremendously help out the self-employed, which make up a portion of those who are un/under-insured since they cannot afford the premiums on after-tax dollars. As it is, the health-care industry is not exactly operating in a free market. They get all the benefits of private enterprise while simultaneously enjoying government protections against competition, which would be the mechanism that controls prices. They operate a virtual oligopoly which is similar in effect to a monopoly.

Exactly - and the government steps in to protect corporate interests even when in doing so, they conflict with the best interests of patients. I say patients, I should really say "consumers". Even from a capitalist perspective the current system doesn't make sense - it favours the profits of shareholders above providing a decent (and affordable) standard of care. The only way they are able to do this is through monopolies, that effectively ensure a captive market.

At the very least - some sort of government (or an independent entity) regulation is clearly needed.

I'm intensely suspicious of the argument that "protecting massive profit" ensures a decent standard of care.