Health care increasingly out of reach for millions of Americans

[MyLittlePony 340]

Greedy doctors need to charge more to pay million dollar homes.

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

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Wait a minute. Have you ever used the VA medical care or worked there? I have (worked there). Holy $hit. I don't want any part of that for my primary care!

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

How Veteran Hospitals Became The Best in Healthcare.

If you're surprised, that's understandable. Until the early 1990s, care at VA hospitals was so substandard that Congress considered shutting down the entire system and giving ex-G.I.s vouchers for treatment at private facilities. Today it's a very different story. The VA runs the largest integrated health-care system in the country, with more than 1,400 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes employing 14,800 doctors and 61,000 nurses. And by a number of measures, this government-managed health-care program--socialized medicine on a small scale--is beating the marketplace. For the sixth year in a row, VA hospitals last year scored higher than private facilities on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index, based on patient surveys on the quality of care received. The VA scored 83 out of 100; private institutions, 71. Males 65 years and older receiving VA care had about a 40% lower risk of death than those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, whose care is provided through private health plans or HMOs, according to a study published in the April edition of Medical Care. Harvard University just gave the VA its Innovations in American Government Award for the agency's work in computerizing patient records.

And all that was achieved at a relatively low cost. In the past 10 years, the number of veterans receiving treatment from the VA has more than doubled, from 2.5 million to 5.3 million, but the agency has cared for them with 10,000 fewer employees. The VA's cost per patient has remained steady during the past 10 years. The cost of private care has jumped about 40% in that same period.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238,00.html

Edited May 12, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

That's a tough one. On one hand, I hate the idea of being in the same risk pool with a 300 pound man who eats Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and would like to see everyone pay their own way.

At the same time, I recognize that some people are born with disabilities and pre-existing conditions and are at a disadvantage when it comes to healthcare.

I think the right solution is a compromise - an insurance system which only covers costs of expensive treatments of catastrophic illnesses. Everything else that is not life threatening should be paid for by individuals out of pocket. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it - tough luck.

Wow.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I wonder if you know what socialism means. I get the feeling you like to employ the definition of state socialism in an attempt to avoid wearing the label.... More likely, this is all you know about socialist theory and application- An online dictionary is the sum of your knowledge. Why don't you explain how single payer doesn't fit the model of the socialist gift economy espoused by Malatesta and others? Do you know anything about social democratic policy? Do you know what a mixed economy is? Enlighten yourself before making accusations of ignorance. You won't seem like such a doofus in the end.

Sure I will be happy to point out to you how single-payer isn't socialized medicine.

Here's an enlightened,civilized yet lively discussion about what is and isn't socialized medicine.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/socialized.html

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Sure I will be happy to point out to you how single-payer isn't socialized medicine.

Here's an enlightened,civilized yet lively discussion about what is and isn't socialized medicine.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/socialized.html

Single Payer no matter how you try to steer away from what it truly is, is indeed socialized. Anyting where you force a populace into paying into something that anyone and everyone has access to/can use, it socialism. It goes against everything this country was found upon, and goes against human nature as well in forcing others to abide by your will. Well, other human beings forcing other human beings to do something is a part of human nature. So you can call it socialism or you could even call it a form of slavery. Either way you look at it though, unless you're the person who's for forcing others to do things your way, it's a negative.

[mawilson 2,133]

Anyting where you force a populace into paying into something that anyone and everyone has access to/can use, it socialism.

Your private health insurance plan is therefore socialist - everyone pays into the same risk pool and everyone has access to it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Wow.

Really? What did I say that was so shocking? You don't think personal responsibility matters at all?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Your private health insurance plan is therefore socialist - everyone pays into the same risk pool and everyone has access to it.

To an extent yes. However you aren't forced into using it. There's a difference into choosing your plan, choosing the way you pay, etc.. vs. someone or the government forcing you to be a part of a specific plan/one plan, etc..

[james&olya 1,121]

Single Payer no matter how you try to steer away from what it truly is, is indeed socialized. Anyting where you force a populace into paying into something that anyone and everyone has access to/can use, it socialism. It goes against everything this country was found upon, and goes against human nature as well in forcing others to abide by your will. Well, other human beings forcing other human beings to do something is a part of human nature. So you can call it socialism or you could even call it a form of slavery. Either way you look at it though, unless you're the person who's for forcing others to do things your way, it's a negative.

According to your argument the very notion of laws and government is socialism or even slavery! How is the notion of publicly funded health-care intrinsically different from publicly funded roads, schools, courts, postal system, etc? I find publicly administered national health insurance to be very much in line with the principles this nation was founded upon!

[웃 910]

Really? What did I say that was so shocking? You don't think personal responsibility matters at all?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

According to your argument the very notion of laws and government is socialism or even slavery! How is the notion of publicly funded health-care intrinsically different from publicly funded roads, schools, courts, postal system, etc? I find publicly administered national health insurance to be very much in line with the principles this nation was founded upon!

Most roads, schools, courts, etc. are not federally funded. Publicly yes, by state and local government. You have a choice in the state/community you live in.

The postal system isn't publicly funded, well at least wasn't. That might be changing. you made a choice to buy stamps, use the system, etc...

If you find health insurance in line to be FEDERALLY funded, then you're not looking at the founding of the United States. Perhaps a communist state like China, etc.. but hardly one of the United States.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

That's a tough one. On one hand, I hate the idea of being in the same risk pool with a 300 pound man who eats Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and would like to see everyone pay their own way.

At the same time, I recognize that some people are born with disabilities and pre-existing conditions and are at a disadvantage when it comes to healthcare.

I think the right solution is a compromise - an insurance system which only covers costs of expensive treatments of catastrophic illnesses. Everything else that is not life threatening should be paid for by individuals out of pocket. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it - tough luck.

OK Mark, you asked me what it was you said that is so shocking. Sooooooooo, I've stepped and back and thought about your solution. Mostly because your solution isn't the complete "screw you if you can't afford insurance" solution so many people espouse.

I have a couple of questions.

1. What about care for someone with a degenerative illness? And I'm not talking about just the biggies, like cancer and heart disease.

For instance, my husband has polycystic kidney disease. As his disease progresses, he has 50/50 odds of needing dialysis or a kidney transplant. However, normally, this illness doesn't affect his daily life as far as "expensive treatments" are concerned. He needs blood tests a couple of times a year. He needs medication for his blood pressure (because his degenerating kidneys stress his heart). Now, recently, he landed in the hospital because of malignant hypertension (his systolic blood pressure was over 260). My husband also has a couple of other issues, including thyroidism and high cholesterol. His physicians think all of his health issues contributed to a "perfect storm" in his body which caused the Grand Mal seizures that put him in the hospital. It is essential for my husband to have "wellness care" to keep his "biggie" illness in check.

So - how would your solution handle medical costs for someone like my husband?

2. How would your solution handle the routine medical needs of families?

Like costs for childbirth; ear tubes for kids; burst appendix; broken limbs; etcetera. None of these are pre-existing conditions or the result of a disability.

I've given your proposal some serious thought. So I'd like the same from you.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Most roads, schools, courts, etc. are not federally funded. Publicly yes, by state and local government. You have a choice in the state/community you live in.

The postal system isn't publicly funded, well at least wasn't. That might be changing. you made a choice to buy stamps, use the system, etc...

If you find health insurance in line to be FEDERALLY funded, then you're not looking at the founding of the United States. Perhaps a communist state like China, etc.. but hardly one of the United States.

Marc, the thing I find odd about the argument that single payer somehow conflicts with the founding of this country is simply this - we don't know FOR CERTAIN what the founders would think about this mess we are in today because the healthcare mess didn't exist then. The Constitution, while written to be a document for all time, was also very much a document of its time. That's why there was written into it the ability to amend it. The founders were wise enough to realize they could not see into the future. I do believe these wise men wanted what was best for this country and it's people - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - all that jazz.

What is the most different from the politicians of that era and those of today is they would have taken care of the problem, instead of half-a$$ing it like what we see today. I don't believe the founders would view today's system of healthcare inequality as anything close to acceptable.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Rebecca Jo