Universal Health Care: For or Against?

[Dasquian Belargic]

This seems to be a fairly hotly discussed issue lately, so I thought I'd see what all you guys think (in particular our US posters) - are you for or against universal health care?

[Figrin D'an]

Philosophically? For

Based on the implementations of it that I've seen so far? Against

[Regulus Varo]

Wish there was a maybe option.

I think eventually we need to get there, but I think some of the details of the current proposed plan are a little worrisome.

[Crusader]

I am for it but I am not from the US.

[Rutabaga]

I am for it.

A lot of the misinformation being thrown about by those who are opposed to it here drives me crazy. I'm not going to go into specifics because it's such a sore subject for me, but I do want to say that the most recent tactic--telling the elderly that they will be selectively euthanized by the government--really, really chaps my hide. :shakefist

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

That's... something else, right there http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh126/silancy/emot-ughh.gif

[Darth Turbogeek]

I am for it.

A lot of the misinformation being thrown about by those who are opposed to it here drives me crazy. I'm not going to go into specifics because it's such a sore subject for me, but I do want to say that the most recent tactic--telling the elderly that they will be selectively euthanized by the government--really, really chaps my hide. :shakefist

It helps to remember that these kind of people who spread crap like this are the ones who watch Fox News and believe Obama was born in Kenya. So if it helps, spread the rumour that Birthers and Fox watchers will be euthenised for being too stupid to live :D

I have no doubt the sane majority would go for that in a flash ^_^

[Shadow Storm]

Fox News = Radical Right
MSM = Radical Left

Therefore I watch neither.

I personally don't like the concept of Universal Health Care, in some respects. But it is a good idea.

[Darth Turbogeek]

Fox News = Radical Right

Close. It's Moron Right. No one with a brain thinks that's anything more than pure shit.



MSM = Radical Left



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You really think US MSM is left wing? Dude, you REALLY gotta get out more. I'ts barely centre right. Obama is more right than our own Centre right Rudd. NPR is the ONLY media that give the US anything left of centre and that's not radical in the slightest.

THe USA really needs to learn what real socialism and real left wing is to work out how badly skewed it's own politics are.

[Rutabaga]

I am for it.

A lot of the misinformation being thrown about by those who are opposed to it here drives me crazy. I'm not going to go into specifics because it's such a sore subject for me, but I do want to say that the most recent tactic--telling the elderly that they will be selectively euthanized by the government--really, really chaps my hide. :shakefist

It helps to remember that these kind of people who spread crap like this are the ones who watch Fox News and believe Obama was born in Kenya. So if it helps, spread the rumour that Birthers and Fox watchers will be euthenised for being too stupid to live :D

I have no doubt the sane majority would go for that in a flash ^_^

It was rather horrifying to see that Daily Kos did a poll last week that showed that half of Republicans aren't sure if Obama was born in the US :eek. That crazy birther bullshit is gaining traction, for pity's sake. Every time I see some of the clips related to that, or to the members of Congress who are putting forth the euthanasia claim, I just shake my head in disbelief and shame, wondering what the rest of the world thinks of us. The lunatics are running the asylum for sure.

And I also disagree that the MSM is radical left. I can't judge MSNBC because my cable provider does not offer it (even after announcing they were adding it to the digital tier last December, it never showed up), but as for the rest? Even putting aside Faux Noise, other places like CNN and CNBC are putting forth a lot of negative misinformation and leaving it unchallenged. It also doesn't help that a large portion of the Democrats in Congress are a bunch of pussies.

I was especially incensed over the whole thing with Obama's comment about the Henry Louis Gates situation. It was an honest moment, although I wish he had chosen his words more carefully. He had just spent nearly an hour talking about health care, but what was the one thing everyone was talking about the next day, and for days after? :mischief

And yeah, about socialism...every time I hear someone scream about socialism, I want to ask them the questions about how they like their fire department, police department, public schools, pothole repair, etc. and so forth. And their Medicare. I had to laugh when I heard some older man at some town hall meeting yelled something about the government keeping its hands off his Medicare. Um, yeah.... :mischief

[stevenvdb]

Fox News = Radical Right

Close. It's Moron Right. No one with a brain thinks that's anything more than pure shit.



MSM = Radical Left


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You really think US MSM is left wing? Dude, you REALLY gotta get out more. I'ts barely centre right. Obama is more right than our own Centre right Rudd. NPR is the ONLY media that give the US anything left of centre and that's not radical in the slightest.

THe USA really needs to learn what real socialism and real left wing is to work out how badly skewed it's own politics are.


*breathes again*

Finally!

I wish there was a large radical left for me to rebel against, I really do! I'm considered left-wing by most folks here (what? for not being a racist pig or whatever?) and admittedly i often I do find myself aligning with Classical Liberal-Left issues, though I don't necessarily agree with all the various mandates and coercive techniques some of the more left-leaning parties might dictate. Though seeing what the Republicans are doing, now and looking back on history...I can now understand why Teddy Roosevelt felt he needed to do what he needed to do. This is class-warfare to the hilt, bunker-mentality-all-or-nothing-never-budge-or-whe'll-lose power two-party swill-fest at it's nauseating worst.

Too bad doesn't lead to actually trying to find solutions to anything.

Obama is no Roosevelt, though. He is definately a right-of-center pro-industry, pro-insurance-company kind of guy.

The political right controls, shapes and co-ops most of the language, here, providing most of the divisive wedge arguments and false-dichotomies, praying on the basic fears (fringe far-left and far-right parties usually do), of most people who haven't been nurtured otherwise. The supposed Left, well..,really more and more Neo-Liberal Capitalists, aren't really providing a contrasting foil, just deluding themselves, compromising and generally sliding more to the right.

I certainly wish there were some more Socialist or other lefty voices to help rebalance this crap out.

*grumble*

Closest thing broadcast-coomentary-wise at least on a week-day basis is from the lips of Amy Goodman and her crew. Good show, but sticks to a critical power/money/influence/war critique...hey what about the more arty side? ;)

http://www.democracynow.org/

I don't like to play dirty, but maybe it's time to speak up, be a bit more persuasive amongst my friends. Maybe get off of my ass again, get back to the trenches.

(Listening to my parents go at it back in the day - my mother Labour, father Christian-Democrat --- crazy Dutch politics.. the fireworks were entertaining, passion-inspiring ..what little I understood back then :D)

[Shadow Storm]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You really think US MSM is left wing? Dude, you REALLY gotta get out more. I'ts barely centre right. Obama is more right than our own Centre right Rudd. NPR is the ONLY media that give the US anything left of centre and that's not radical in the slightest.

THe USA really needs to learn what real socialism and real left wing is to work out how badly skewed it's own politics are.

I just said I don't watch MSM. I just took two examples, one of which I've seen branded as a tool for the far right, and the other I've seen branded as a tool for the far left, on political debate forums aside from these here forums. :rolleyes


It was rather horrifying to see that Daily Kos did a poll last week that showed that half of Republicans aren't sure if Obama was born in the US

I've also decided to stear clear of Daily Kos, after browsing some of the articles they had posted up that various people on both sides have used in their arguements on the political boards. O_o <!-- / message -->

[Morgan Evanar]

"Both sides" is one of the worst things that's ever happened to media, because it's so seldom true. It's either one thing, and other people are lying, or it's REALLY COMPLICATED.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

For me, I think America has a wonderful chance to take a look at the other countries and nations that do have universal healthcare and learn from them. We can see the pros and cons of them all, and put together something that is a next step in the evolution of healthcare.

This stonewalling and heel-dragging is really detrimental to our continued growth as a nation. We need to keep evolving as a people, not cling to outdated methods that are no longer up to snuff with the changing times.

[Morgan Evanar]

Health care in this country exists to make a select few much richer. Making money on what truly is an essential service is deplorable.

[Darth Turbogeek]

Health care in this country exists to make a select few much richer. Making money on what truly is an essential service is deplorable.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAH. Altho, making money in itself on y0 skills isnt bad thing - when it's used to make completely unjustified moolah at the peril of the poor that's bad. Healthcare is about coverign the ass of the ones who cant afford it - and who can afford to pay for good medical care without coverage? No one here.

One of the other issues tho is that medical insurance for doctors is insane. They can earn half a million and a good HALF of that can be eaten in insurance costs, especially for obsectrics. I know of doctors earning 300K and they are broke due to costs of insurance. It's seriously insane that doctors are reluctant to service the community because they cant afford to or they are scared one mistake and they owe 10 million and are fucked for life.

And of coruse there's the other problem of "Fuck you I got mine" that seems to be all to prevalent in society and a bunch of people who cant see that like 1% of 100,000k to pay for fantastic healthcare is a bargain but NOOOOOO fuck you I wont pay cause I wont allow taxes raised ever but yet I want the bestest services and why the fuck is my state gone broke and the police cant afford donuts? DAMN DEMOCRATS!

There is also a fair whack of racism in there as well, lets not forget. Poor people are from minorities usually. Rich white fucks dont want their taxes helping them Mexicans and Blacks.

(And there's also pure insane too, like Birthers. Holy shit, there's a whole new world of purestain stupid being exposed in all that)

[stevenvdb]

The current plan doesn't look all that bad on the surface, though - I'm tentatively optimistic that it has to be better than the sick-care service we currently have - it just has to be. It looks like you can choose to keep what private insurance you have, join a co-op, or buy into a national health service. (provided that part passes... hopefully it does)

Though, unless everyone pays in, including the top few percent (this plan looks like it's meant to appease those folks by keeping it private money and paying for it with fees, etc) i don't see how the public option is going to take hold and give the insurance companies a real run for the money on the competitive side. We are near 40% uncovered, here..if all of those buy in without the tax revenues...looks like I need to crunch some numbers and get back to this. :/

[Mitch]

I'm against it. Go ahead and make fun of me now. That is what you do, right?

[stevenvdb]

I'm against it. Go ahead and make fun of me now. That is what you do, right?


No, not really.

One reason I like this board is that everyone gets a say, regardless of what it may be. There is no threat of banning etc like some other boards, where one set of views get preferential treatment and another are discriminated against, killing discussion. Those boards tend to die from within from resentment and unresolved issues/conflicts. Most people here on the other hand seem to self-regulate themselves pretty well. Personal attacks are kept to a minimum.

You just need a well-fortified set of ovaries and a thick skin.

It really depends on why you are against it. Just saying one is, is fine, but it doesn't offer much insight into the whys and wherefores. If the reason are reasonable and sound from a logistics point of view, I'm certainly willing to hear it through.

I'd love to hear your alternatives. ;)

(If I feel there is primarily fear, misinformation and misplaced resentment guiding your opinions , though...yeah I'm going to pick through them to get through to the underlying root reasons... you betcha.)

I'm a pretty timid guy and usually prefer to make nice, though. I'm usually sickeningly pleasant at most times, though there are a few things that will get me riled up. I might even jump in and play Devil's Advocate and help you formulate some of your hypotheses, if you seem to get too nervous. I have heard arguments from the other end of the spectrum, you know. ;)

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

I'm against it. Go ahead and make fun of me now. That is what you do, right?

Your taillight's out, and... you've got no... knees ;)

[Morgan Evanar]

I'm against it. Go ahead and make fun of me now. That is what you do, right?Against the entire concept or the current plan?

A) means your an asshole
B) is totally understandable

[Jason Dreggs]

I said for it. I believe the current plan as I understand it needs some work but nothing is ever perfect when you start change. Change is something the US needs and has been neglecting for years. On truthful note I will admit I don't know much about this Healthcare plan but that's because I find it hard to find anything informative sifting through all crap about how it's a socialist agenda.

I can't believe we are still stuck in the red scare era of politics.

[Darth Turbogeek]

I said for it. I believe the current plan as I understand it needs some work but nothing is ever perfect when you start change. Change is something the US needs and has been neglecting for years. On truthful note I will admit I don't know much about this Healthcare plan but that's because I find it hard to find anything informative sifting through all crap about how it's a socialist agenda.

I can't believe we are still stuck in the red scare era of politics.


A) means your an asshole
B) is totally understandable

The problem with the current plan is that it's not flawed, even tho it clearly is. The real problem is that Obama was given the most unholy of messes to clean up after the complete disaster of Bush II - the financial crisis in itself had it's roots in the absurd voodoo economics of Regean and Thatcher. Regean especially spent but didnt tax - for some reason the Republicans have been latching onto this absurdity and the real chickens coming home to roost is Bush II and the shocking decision to not just increase spending on wars but to also give tax cuts. And of course, the GFC just exploded on his way out and there goes the tax base and there has to be a huge amount of money spent to prop shit up.

This means as flawed as the proposal is, I doubt anyone is going to really try for more.... because the USA is 10 trillion in the sack and frankly you cant afford a kleenex.

You can blame Regean to begin with - Bush I at least tried to turn shit around, Clinton wasnt too bad (altho some lunatic legislation got past his desk when the GOP controlled Congress and he was in lame duck mode) but Bush II was just plain bloody awful. The USA is in a frightful mess and frankly I am surprised Obama is tackling healthcare at all, given the mountain of problems his successor shit on his desk. So I think that yes, change will be by necessary slow and will take well into Obama's second term (if he gets one altho frankly anyone voting for a Republican as President in this generation should be shot - did you fucking see the utter disaster the last one was? Why the fuck would you let these twats near power so soon again?) to really be defined.

Then the next issue is that yes, the GOP turned "Socialism" into the devil incarnate, when in fact there really isnt all that much wrong with a mild dose of left wing politics. So anythign can be branded "socialism" and there's a good percentage of the population who run in fear, when in fact it would be quite an improvement on what they have.

The thing tho is that racism is a factor in this. Socialised healthcare will benefit the most the minorities. There is an unhealthy amount of racism in the USA - quite a mind blowing amount to be honest and frankly lots of racist whitey dont want to help them niggers and spicks. Or they design programs that draw public money away from minorities - the original school vocuhers program was invented in Georgia to get around anti discrimination and to create whitey only schools. Vouchers really do have quite a disgusting and blatantly racist beginning.

Well there's a lot more to be said and a lot more you can hate right wingers for. And I'll make no bones about it, I actively despise right wingnuts and the stupidity they sprout. The older I get, the more I see the racism and fuck you I got mine that is also so anti Christian - when these people also form the Christian Right as well. So there is hypocracy too! But that's for another discussion. I can say that I've gotten more centralist because the blatant racism and shameful policies sprouted by my own country's right make me sick.

But that's also for another discussion.

However, I do wish the USA luck in at least making steps in the direction of doign what it can in healthcare, while also realising that there is suck massive problems at the same time I am amazed anythign is beign done at all. I wouldnt have Obama's job for any money.

(Amusing sidefact - the latest fake birth certificate of Pbama was based on a South Aussie certificate - we're trolling the shit out of Free Republic and Birthers!)

[CMJ]

Well, the massive decicit spending of Reagan did get us out of the Carter malaise. Tho this recession had the potential to get much worse than that one, I don't think we were anywhere near as bad off the last year as the stagflation issues under Carter. Also I must say, the tax cuts he delivered on recorded a huge INCREASE in the revenue gained by taxes - as more money poured in because incomes went up. The highest tax breacket especially was taxed to death by Carter - and hurt all sorts of indistries.

The main issue as far as the Reagan deficits was the massive buildup up the military, which Reagan tried to intimidate the Eastern Bloc. Whether that helped speed up the destruction of the USSR and it's allies is probably a subject historians will debate long after we're all gone.

Now - that said I'd love for Healthcare to be nationalized. However, I'd rather get to the point where we have our deficits under control and can at least make Medicare and Medicaid solvent(both are projected to go bankrupt in a generation or less) before we add another huge social spending plan.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Completely even in this poll now, I see!

[Drin Kizael]

Now that the tide has shifted on the debate in the US, we're finally starting to hear a little more about Plan B, Health Insurance Co-Ops.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/healthcare/bg2290.cfm

IF implemented correctly, this could be just what we need. Mututal-owned companies is not a new concept. There are plenty of credit unions and life/auto insurance mutuals, but for some reason it has not been tried with health insurance. Giving tax breaks to companies that join such a co-op would be enough incentive to get plenty of solid companies on board. It could be a mechanism for wider access, and more competition for insurance by giving people more options, hence lower costs for insurance without upping the cost of the health care itself.

The catch is the way that many will want to implement it is a co-op in name only. A lot of us fear that they'll try to turn this option into the Freddie Mac of health insurance, which would be guaranteed to have the same effect as it did on the housing market.

It's only half a step away from the state run system that the country is trying to denounce. But at least there's been some movement on the issue. Three months ago it was a foregone conclusion that it would pass. But the state-run "option" was so unpopular with the American people that the Dems won't even use their filibuster-proof majority to pass it, even though they technically could.

[Morgan Evanar]

The catch is the way that many will want to implement it is a co-op in name only. A lot of us fear that they'll try to turn this option into the Freddie Mac of health insurance, which would be guaranteed to have the same effect as it did on the housing market. That's pretty disingenuous, since the whole problem stemmed from unregulated credit markets being able to "package" and sell debt, and the fact that the people loaning money were not doing anything to make sure it could be paid back.

If we could outlaw "pre-existing conditions" that would level the playing field quite a bit.

FYI on that link:

"The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership."

[Drin Kizael]

Actually that wasn't the reason for the housing market crash. It was the alleged regulators themselves (the government created entities Freddie and Fannie and the senators who ran the show from committee) mucking with the market, lowering the criteria for loan approval, changing the rules to accommodate stupid people who couldn't afford home ownership in the first place, and when that didn't work forcing banks (yes I said it -- forcing -- through overreaching of fair housing laws) into taking bad loans... then throwing empty paper over the bad debt in the form of repackaging deals. The packaging and reselling of those bad loans did not CAUSE the problem. It was more of an effect, as banks were scrambling to cut their losses however they could.

Is Bush innocent in this for lifting the rule that in turn allowed that repackaging to be done in the first place? NO. But let's keep some perspective. It was not the sole cause by any stretch of the analysis.

And the truly ironic part is that the housing market decline was still salvageable, until Bush ramrodded that boneheaded Stimulus Part I down our throats, making sure that anyone who hadn't defaulted on their loans yet would.

The housing market crash was the government's fault. Every trace of the problem can be drawn right back to Freddie and Fannie and a handful of senators who walked away with millions while the rest of the country was hung out to dry. Then we were tipped over the edge by more government intervention. And just in case that wasn't enough, here comes Stimulus II. Whew, glad that kept us from hitting 8% unemployment like Barry promised it would. Oh,wait.

But on the topic at hand... since you've just established that you have no interest at all in hearing any ideas proposed by a conservative, I guess we're done here. It's good to know that y'all are open to friendly discussion over the substance of the issues.

[Dasquian Belargic]

From the perspective of someone already living in a UHC society, I have never had any problem with my health-care, i.e. the NHS which is getting such flack from some US critics lately.

Every time either myself or my family has suffered an accident or injury, they have received the appropriate treatment in the appropriate time frame. For instance, when I shattered my elbow and my arm was all hanging off the wrong way 'round, I was seen to very promptly, but when I had just sprained my ankle the wait was a little longer. Some people complain about having to sit in waiting rooms forever, but don't think that maybe others might have more threatening injuries than themselves.

I spent 8 weeks in hospital with my aforementioned shattered elbow, which had also resulted in lots of torn ligaments. A specialist had to be brought in to reconstruct the arm and set it all back in place. I was also offered physiotherapy once my arm was healed enough to move again. All of this was paid for by taxes.

I have only just started paying taxes myself, so I'm not sure how much of what I pay actually goes towards the NHS - roughly £185 / $306 seems to be my monthly income tax - as this tax obviously also goes to pay for other government-run services, so don't look at that figure and think it's a lot because it's covering a lot of things. That being said, it seems like a fairly small amount to pay to secure any medical treatment I might need.

[Dasquian Belargic]

In the interests of fairness, I've altered the vote count since two members took it on themselves to vote numerous times with multiple accounts... that's not fair :mneh

[Tear]

Oooo that's quite the change.

[Drin Kizael]

In the interests of fairness, I've altered the vote count since two members took it on themselves to vote numerous times with multiple accounts... that's not fair :mneh
Ahhh that explains it. When I saw the initial results, I was shocked that there were that many people on this forum who would disagree with a liberal position on anything. It almost gave me hope. Honestly I'm surprised there are even as many No's as there are. I was expecting 2-3 tops.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I only did it because my last poll was completely screwed by someone doing something similar. :mneh

[Dasquian Belargic]

Well, this is a more serious discussion... so I thought it was worth having an accurate poll record

[Dasquian Belargic]

For anyone still pondering this issue, here's an interesting comparison article from the BBC that looks at the healthcare systems in the UK, US, France and Singapore: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8201711.stm

[Travis North]

Glenn Beck on Health Care: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10

[Yog]

I have some strong opinions on this subject, but kept silent because it is after all a US domestic issue, and it's none of my business. Various right wing lunatics in the media makes it intolerable for me to keep silent though, and Glenn Beck broke the camel's back for me.

Here is another perspective from someone living in an UHC country, Norway, with experiences from both types of system.


First on waiting times. Last time I had to call for an appointment to the doctor, because I had some general aching in the chest / stomach, although nothing critical. I saw the doctor within a couple hours. No waiting whatsoever. You can of course also schedule appointments further ahead, but that is more a question of convenience. There are no hospitals here that I know of that would refute seeing you the same day.

When I was in the third grade, I broke my leg doing a ski jump. I was rushed to the hospital, saw a doctor with no delay, got an X-ray, and it was plastered within the hour after said X-ray.

There are wait times for specific types of surgeries though, like hip surgeries etc, where the wait time won't have any chronic effects, and pose no threat to your general health condition. In those cases, it can take months before you get your surgery. Those are usually the cases you hear about on Fox News describing the "health queues of Europe". Although, if it's anything critical or a serious health condition that requires urgent attention, like a heart surgery, you will get the surgery the very same day, or within the hour.

The doctors here are also thorough, giving you a series of tests to map your full health condition, and monitoring for any changes, pro-actively preventing minor health issues to become bigger ones. I always felt they were both very competent and helpful. If your doctor (usually a general practitioner) needs a more in depth analysis of a problem, he will send you to a specialist in the field, and it will cost you nothing extra.

Regarding costs, there is a cost ceiling per year of about $300 for treatment and medicines. Anything above that is paid by the government, and if you're poor / unemployed / old / have certain chronic diseases etc, you won't pay anything. The health care program is covered by taxes. The amount of money spent over the national budget per capita on health care is only slightly more than in the US (graph (http://mneh.org/pics/debatt/healthcare/healthcarespending.jpg)).

Like in all UHC countries, there are also privately owned clinics and private health insurance plans, which you can choose to use. But most people don't bother paying extra for those when the public program is more than adequate. But at least we have a choice of both public and private plans. The private insurance plans are both better and cheaper than the monopolist ones in America, with premiums typically ranging from $20-100 per month for basic plans, depending on your age and health condition. The reason they are cheaper is, most health expenditures are already covered by the government, instead you may get additional coverage, such as dental treatments, optical costs, general pharmacy products, acupuncture, physiotherapy / chiropractic treatment etc. You may also use private clinics / doctors, and no wait times for surgeries. There are also more expensive plans that cover treatment abroad (you can choose among the best hospitals and specialists in the world), and includes spa treatment, cosmetic surgery and such for the monocle wearing rich people. Once you sign any of these, the insurance plan sticks with you for as long as you like. The insurance companies can't drop you for whatever reason.


Now for a couple of anecdotes of my experiences with the American health care system. About a decade ago, I went to New York on a week vacation with my father. Unfortunately, upon arrival, I experienced a food poisoning or virus of some kind that made me really nauseous. I went to the nearest hospital I could find (this was on Manhattan). Judging by the exquisite marble decor and the clientèle, I quickly determined this was a privately run clinic. There was no waiting time. The doctor ran some tests, and gave me some pills against the nausea. It was a pretty good clinic, and the doctor seemed very competent, and I have no complaints to the quality of the treatment. I do remember it was very costly though. I also can't say there was anything worse or better about the doctors or the clinic than the standard treatment you would receive at a public Norwegian hospital. The main difference was the men wearing Armani suits and the women wearing Coco Chanel, really.

Roll on a few years, and I experienced severe dehydration when I was traveling in Cleveland, Ohio (it was a very hot summer). This time, I went to a university hospital, thinking public run hospital would be cheaper than private, still having the experience in New York fresh in mind. Well, I arrive in the waiting room, or rather "emergency room" and, I was.. shocked. People suffering great pains (who really should not be waiting at all), several people who looked like they were homeless. A very large percentage were Afro Americans, Latino Americans etc. One guy with half an arm limping on crutches, several people were crying, some of them looked like they had been waiting for hours. The queue was really really long. The general atmosphere was of a field hospital in a war-zone or of a third world country, not what you would expect from an industrialized nation. I pick a queue number from a machine.

Finally, my number turns up, and I get called to the reception desk. I barely get the chance to describe my condition before the lady behind the desk asks if I have a health insurance. Perplexed by being asked for such a thing before the treatment even started, I give her my cheap European travel insurance card, which says "Medical expenses: Unlimited". Some quick initial tests are done by a nurse, and it is determined that I am dehydrated, and that I will need some medical attention, and thus I was moved to the top of the treatment queue. I do remember feeling very sad for those still standing in the hallway waiting. Probably, most of them were uninsured, and thus were kept waiting despite being in more need than me.

They took some more tests including blood sample and X-ray, then put me on a bed. Much to my surprise, I was kept on this mobile bed on wheels in the middle of a hallway, because all their rooms were full. They stuck some needle with tube into my arm feeding me intravenous liquid so I would feel better and to compensate for my dehydrated state. After an hour or so, they move me to an available room, and after yet some hours, I am ready to check out. I then get the bill. I am even more puzzled by the price than the last time. It was about $1,000. They preferred I pay in advance, and handle the paperwork for my insurance company later, so I do that.

Back home again, after many phone calls, and months of waiting, and back and forth with the American hospital, I have all the relevant documents faxed to me. It was a paper monster with pages after pages with a breakdown of their diagnosis, results and recommendations, and the costs of each part of the treatment. I said to myself, "thankfully, we don't have this bureaucracy at home!". I gave the documents to my my insurance company, filled a form, and they paid the amount without any questions asked, despite it had only been a few years since my misadventure in New York.


It was about this time I started to sense something was terribly wrong about the American health care system. Now I know more:

- 45,000 Americans die annually because they did not have a health insurance source (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/index.html). That is 15 x the deaths at September 11 attacks every year. 46 million americans are uninsured.

- US spend more money (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=HEALTH) on health care than any other place in the world, yet do poorly in health care rankings (ranked #37 by WHO). US citizens ranks 41st in life expectancy. The infant mortality rate (http://mneh.org/pics/debatt/healthcare/infant-mortality.gif) and the mortality amendable to healthcare (http://mneh.org/pics/debatt/healthcare/mortality-healthcare.gif) are the highest in OECD.

- In a comparative study (http://mneh.org/pics/debatt/healthcare/ranking.gif) of 6 OECD countries, US ranks 5th or 6th in areas such as quality of care, safe care, coordinated care, patient centered care, access, efficiency and equity.

- Annual health care spending amounts to $2.5 trillion (2009), that is 17% of GDP. U.S. health care spending is projected to increase by an average of 7.2% annually until 2015, when spending will reach $4 trillion and account for 20% of the gross domestic product. The next biggest spender is Switzerland at 11% of GDP.

- Health insurance premiums are rising faster than inflation and wage growth put together. This means less money to spend for the average worker. Many companies are going bankrupt partially or exclusively because their employee health care insurance were getting too costly. Did you know, a family plan at GM cost the company $1,000 a month per employee. I hope those insurance plans included Hummer limousine trips to the hospital.

- 75% of health costs are caused by untreated chronic illnesses. The 3 biggest ones being Heart Disease, Diabetes, and Asthma. Uninsured patients receive $125 billion worth of health care, yet pay only about 26% of that, with $92.5 billion going unpaid.

- 2/3 of the doctors in US are specialists, while in other countries, there are at least 50% GP. 2/3 is an outrageous amount. Not only are the specialists about twice as expensive as the General Practitioners, but such a high percentage hurts rather than helps the quality of care. It is more important with correct initial diagnosis, and being analyzed by a doctor that you already know, and who understand your full health condition in detail.

- Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just six years. What you might not know, the majority of those bankruptcies were people who were insured...

- Here are some price quotes from Japan!
* hospital room 4 people $10 per night
* private room $90 per night
* MRI $98 (in the US: $1200)
* 6 inches surgical cut: $4
(btw, if you're interested in learning more, I recommend the PBS documentary Sick Around the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/))

.. and here is a random quote (http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/09/health-care-reform-insurance-opinions-contributors-doctors.html) from a conservative doctor who oppose UHC.

We have found that, almost without exception, laboratories, doctors and other services will happily take 70% less if paid in cash at the time of service. Their costs are increased by that much if they have to bill insurance companies and incur other expenses--plus the risk of denial--in an effort to obtain payment which, if approved, generally arrives 30 to 300 days after initial billing. For instance, we have contracts with the major laboratories at 70% less than what they bill insurance companies. CT scans and MRIs, usually billed $2,500 to $3,000 to insurers, are contracted at a rate of $165; colonoscopies that doctors bill at $1,500 are done for $400. The cost savings are not in the care but rather the system.


It all boils down to one thing. People are getting ripped off by the health insurance companies, and these huge cost increases are due to health insurance bureaucracy and profit margins of corporations. Free market is a wonderful thing when it is not tainted by monopolies and cartels. What you have now is not choice and free market. It's corporate welfare. It's the health insurance companies choosing for you, instead of you and your doctor. The only solution is doing what the rest of the industrialized world has been doing for a long time; offer a UHC system that applies to everyone, regardless of wallet. Only then will you have a choice in health care, and it will be an affordable and better quality one.

[Darth Viscera]

I used to consider myself a Republican. Some of you may remember me arguing in favor of the Iraq War. After that fiasco didn't result in the middle east rising up and demanding Jeffersonian democracy, I began to rethink my ways, and when the 2006 election rolled around, I decided to cast my vote for the first time. Before doing so, I figured I owed it to myself and to my countrymen to take a long, hard look at my long-standing beliefs.

I quickly came to the conclusion that more Americans die because they can't access health care than have died as a result of terrorism. Since 9/11, the death toll has reached somewhere between 144,000 and 360,000. Since the Republicans' answer to our country's health care woes was for people to put money in a bank account and pay for your $500,000 battle with brain cancer out of pocket after your insurance company drops you for being unprofitable (as happened to a friend of mine when she was 17, causing her family to declare bankruptcy), I decided to side with the Green party and the Democrats, as I don't know anybody who has half a million bucks lying around in case of catastrophic illness. Nowadays, I usually watch 3 hours of MSNBC every day. I can't get enough of Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Amazingly, my mother pays $10,800/year in insurance premiums, and she has no history of ill health. I can't even get private health insurance, because I need to lose 50lbs and insurance companies will only insure aryan supermen. So, I have to pay out of pocket and hope I don't get struck by the bad kind of lightning or attacked by one of your fancy earthman cars or get flu cancer. I've been lucky so far, but I'd really feel better if the health insurance companies would sell me some insurance. I don't know what I'm more worried about, getting a catastrophic illness, or getting a catastrophic hospital bill. My uncle had a terrible ailment that required he be hospitalized for less than a month, and came home with a bill for more than $100,000. That's more than the cost of a house down in the deep south, where he lives. He probably won't pay it off in his lifetime.

The lines are awful. At my local clinic, my doctor is amazingly overbooked. He doesn't take lunch breaks, so he just sees patients all day. If I have an appointment to see him at 1pm, I can usually count on him being 5 patients behind, so I'll probably have to wait until 3pm to see him. If you are coming to the walk-in clinic, and haven't got an appointment, the wait will be 3 hours. The other patients in the waiting room are stressed out and defensive and sometimes desperate to see the doctor, to the point that they will badger you and demand that you give them your place in line. Thank god for the invisible hand of the free market, or I might have to wait in lines to see the doctor for free rather than waiting in line to see the doctor for full price, cash up front.

Some people are unworried about passing health care reform. "I've got health insurance with my job, this doesn't affect me," they think. Well, the average person in this country pays $7,500/year for health care costs, compared to $2,500/year in other first world nations with universal health care. They're probably paying half, and their boss is paying the other half, which is probably why they haven't seen a raise in a while, or if they have, the raise could be bigger. $5,000 a year, multiplied by 307,458,000 people. That's a savings of $1,537,290,000,000 a year. Put another way, the savings from adopting a universal health care system like every other first-world nation could pay for our entire national debt in 8 years and 4 months. GM might not have gone bankrupt with such economical health care costs. GM was spending more money on the their employees' health insurance than they were on steel. American businesses would be better able to compete in the global marketplace.

Even with the Obama plan, we're not there yet. It's a baby step in the right direction, and I've been hoping for it to pass for months now, but I wish that we didn't have to experiment with varying degrees of wrongness before finally doing what's right. Winston Churchill once said "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." Sadly, our health care system will still be almost entirely dependent upon health insurance companies, which means costs will be 70% higher than they would be without them. You know the part of Medicare that says "for ages 65 and older"? Delete that.

Obama should have bargained better. He should have called for single-payer right off the bat, then after many months agreed to the public option as a compromise. Then the republicans could have gone home and told their constituencies that they saved the country from communism, communism being that thing that nazis do.

I was appalled, this August, to see the will of the people all but hijacked by a small number of loudmouths, some brandishing assault rifles, disrupting townhalls, defending the health insurance CEOs and arguing against reform, against their own self-interest. Every American has a friend or a family member who has experienced difficulties in getting or paying for health care. I expect that 6 months down the road, when these townhall-disruptors experience a catastrophic illness themselves, or are near to a person who experiences one, they will repent.

The health insurance companies are spending a million dollars a day to influence lawmakers to oppose health care reform. There was a pretty good AARP commercial airing a few weeks ago which pointed that out:

<object width="560" height="340">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TNrUAve-opU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></object>

[Darth Turbogeek]

Wow, now that's a post that lays it all out for folks to see. Well done.

As an aside, I pay 1% in tax for healthcare, which for me is about 1000 a year. For that I am fully covered except dental. Dental cover is cheap and Medicare basically allows me to see a doctor for no further payments for anything.

Medicare is so good that even the previous moronic conserative government didnt dare touch it in fear of the rightful electoral backlash.

[CMJ]

Just for the heck of it I decided to post this article. It's mostly about the US vs Canada - but other countries are mentioned at times. And for the record,as I mentioned earlier I am not opposed to a nationalized system. I do worry about the cost tho.




Brief Analysis | Health

No. 649

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

by Scott Atlas

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1]Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Concord Working Group, "Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study,.S. abe at responsible for theountries, in s chnologies, " Lancet Oncology, Vol. 9, No. 8, August 2008, pages 730 - 756; Arduino Verdecchia et al., "Recent Cancer Survival in Europe: A 2000-02 Period Analysis of EUROCARE-4 Data," Lancet Oncology, Vol. 8, No. 9, September 2007, pages 784 - 796.

[2] U.S. Cancer Statistics, National Program of Cancer Registries, U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada; also see June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 13429, September 2007. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.

[3] Oliver Schoffski (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg), "Diffusion of Medicines in Europe," European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, 2002. Available at http://www.amchampc.org/showFile.asp?FID=126. See also Michael Tanner, "The Grass is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems around the World," Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 613, March 18, 2008. Available at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272.

[4] June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."

[5] Ibid.

[6] Nadeem Esmail, Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, "Waiting Your Turn, (17th edition) Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada," Fraser Institute, Critical Issues Bulletin 2007, Studies in Health Care Policy, August 2008; Nadeem Esmail and Dominika Wrona "Medical Technology in Canada," Fraser Institute, August 21, 2008 ; Sharon Willcox et al., "Measuring and Reducing Waiting Times: A Cross-National Comparison Of Strategies," Health Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 4, July/August 2007, pages 1,078-87; June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."; M.V. Williams et al., "Radiotherapy Dose Fractionation, Access and Waiting Times in the Countries of the U.K.. in 2005," Royal College of Radiologists, Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 5, June 2007, pages 273-286.

[7] Nadeem Esmail and Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, "Waiting Your Turn 17th Edition: Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada 2007."

[8] "Hospital Waiting Times and List Statistics," Department of Health, England. Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandsta...p;Rendition=Web.

[9] Cathy Schoen et al., "Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults' Health Care Experiences In Seven Countries, 2007," Health Affairs, Web Exclusive, Vol. 26, No. 6, October 31, 2007, pages w717-w734. Available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/6/w717.

[10] June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."

[11] Victor R. Fuchs and Harold C. Sox Jr., "Physicians' Views of the Relative Importance of 30 Medical Innovations," Health Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 5, September /October 2001, pages 30-42. Available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/5/30.pdf.

[12] OECD Health Data 2008, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_...1_37407,00.html.

[13] "The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation," Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2004), 108th Congress, 2nd Session H. Doc. 108-145, February 2004, Chapter 10, pages 190-193, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/2004_erp.pdf; Tyler Cowen, New York Times, Oct. 5, 2006; Tom Coburn, Joseph Antos and Grace-Marie Turner, "Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation," Heritage Foundation, Lecture No. 1030, April 2007; Thomas Boehm, "How can we explain the American dominance in biomedical research and development?" Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2005, pages 158-66, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2002. Available at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/...55/8649_ERP.pdf .

[14] Nicholas D. Kristof, "Franklin Delano Obama," New York Times, February 28, 2009. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01Kristof.html.

[15] The Nobel Prize Internet Archive. Available at http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/medicine.html.

[16] "The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation," 2004 Economic Report of the President

[Darth Viscera]

The situation that we're in where health care costs $7,500 per person is caused by our reliance upon the health insurance companies. There is nothing inherently wrong with America, that all of our health care costs must be thrice that of other first-world nations into perpetuity. We will eventually see the creation of a national risk pool and a single-payer health care system. Getting an MRI will no longer require that we pay with our health insurance, which waits 30-300 days before sending payment and is charged $3,000 by a doctor who would as readily accept $165 in cash at the time of service. Rather, the single-payer system will pay the doctor $165 and pay him promptly.

When this happens, when we have removed the rotten core from our health care system, we will see health care costs similar to other first-world nations.

[CMJ]

Medicare and Medicaid are supposed to be insolvent within like....15-20 years without reform of some kind. Adding everyone else onto that is definitely something we will struggle to afford.

[Darth Viscera]

Without health insurance companies to warp health care prices to astronomical levels, we will easily be able to afford to cover everyone. Health care prices aren't supposed to be $7,500/year per person. They have been artificially skewed upwards, and this is why Medicare and Medicaid and the American people and American businesses are going broke.

[Pierce Tondry]

I used to work for a woman I hated who was also a doctor. One of the things I learned from that experience was that she (and apparently many other doctors too) would not bill so much for the cost of the services they were providing, but would bill for above what they thought they would get from the Medicare/caid payout in order to get close to what they actually wanted. I'll grant you that there are some external forces at work (malpractice insurance driving up costs) but anytime the core players of the game skew their own prices upward, there's something fundamentally wrong with the system.

In a way you could say I'm ahead of the game in this regard. I think my issue is and has been with my concern of opt-out choices under single payer. I think there needs to be a way for people who don't want to play that particular game to not have to.

It's such a mishmash of incentives though. A really interesting piece of work. Like a Salvador Dali sculpture of melted spoons.

[Darth Viscera]

Just out of curiosity, why would you prefer to opt out of a hypothetical future single-payer system, when the health insurance companies will charge you more, provide fewer services, may not cover you to begin with, and would probably refuse to pay for your treatment if you became ill? Why not take the lower-priced sure thing?

[Yog]

As an aside, I pay 1% in tax for healthcare, which for me is about 1000 a year. For that I am fully covered except dental. Dental cover is cheap and Medicare basically allows me to see a doctor for no further payments for anything.
I don't know if I would call Australian dental cheap, but I guess your prices are more reasonable (http://www.nobledentist.com.au/dentist_dental_fee_price_cost.php) than what I am used to. I had 3 molar root fillings, with accompanying porcelain crowns fused to gold, among other things, but I decided to do it in a Budapest clinic because the savings (http://www.kreativdental.co.uk/dentist_cosmetic_price.php) were massive (I quote prices from the UK site, because it's in english). Currently, dental treatment in Norway is covered for anyone up to 18 years of age, but above that it is entirely privatized. If there is anything I learned about our privatized dental care, it really drives up the costs. In this field at least, we're getting ripped off just as bad as in the US. But I never heard of anyone dying of toothache (also extractions are cheap), and most dental expenditures can be paid out of pocket. Some coverage of mandatory dental treatment is likely to be included in future revamp of our health care system.

As a matter of curiosity, do you have some sort of nationwide price regulation of dental services in Australia?



Just for the heck of it I decided to post this article. It's mostly about the US vs Canada - but other countries are mentioned at times.
Some comments about the article. Not to accuse the author of cherry picking data, but UK has the worst (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3136874.stm#cancer) cancer survival rates in western Europe, and Canada ranks #30 on the WHO list. Also regarding prostate cancer, that's because US got an amazing high 5 year survival rate for that particular cancer type. In fact, you're at 99%! But that says more about early cancer detection rate, than treatment and general status of the health care system. That prostate statistic also skews the other data (http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2794/ncancer121lv3.gif), like the survival rate for men, but if you look at the data for women, the survival rate is not much different compared to the top European countries. Btw, if we're going to cherry pick, Japan has the best survival rates for male colon and rectal cancers, at 63% and 58.2% respectively, while France fares best for women with those cancers at 60.1% and 63.9%.

I will give him a cookie though. Indeed, US has better cancer survival rates overall than Europe, probably the best in the world for the moment. This is the one area where US health care does better than Europe. The reason is the much higher percentage of MRI machines in the US, and frequent usage of them diagnosing patients. This leads to early detection, which is the most important factor to keep a high survival rate rate.

Our politicians (yes, I am talking about Europeans) are pretty frickin stupid. If they were smart, they would vastly enhance the MRI / CT scanning capacity, and introduce an offer of MRI scan for the entire population on a 3 year cycle, and to anyone needing it on a case by case basis. It would save hundreds of thousand lives, and save society enormous amount of money in increased productivity and cheaper treatment because of early detection.

The MRI situation is changing rapidly (http://www.euphix.org/object_document/o5123n27128.html) though, and in more recent studies (http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/36284208?graph%5Blimit%5D=40&limit_modifier=limit&graph%5Blimit%5D=17&commit=%3E), OECD countries are starting to catch up with US. I predict this will heavily impact the cancer survival statistics within a 5 year period, and US won't maintain the lead for long.

As for innovation and Nobel prizes, I don't see that changing any time soon even converting to UHC. You are the largest economy in the world, with a high percentage of specialists and high competence medical industry, and the best scientists and medical colleges, a high percentage of very rich people and so on. The difference would be in funding research on a more central level, rather than the pure profit motives for pharmaceutical companies. Btw about pharmaceutical companies, this reminds me of that scene in Michael Moore 'Sicko', where one of the 9/11 volunteers needed 2x $120 inhaler per month, because she breathed too much ash and dirt at ground zero, but she was only living on 1,000/month in social security disability. Then she discover the same inhaler on sale for 5 cents in a pharmacy on Cuba. She wanted to fill her suitcase up with them and go home with it. Something is very wrong with that picture.




Medicare and Medicaid are supposed to be insolvent within like....15-20 years without reform of some kind. Adding everyone else onto that is definitely something we will struggle to afford.
Not if you do it right. If you had a cost regulating body that set maximum prices like in Japan, you would have dramatic decreases in medical expenses. Medicare would benefit most of all. You might have noticed, Medicare covers 65 years and older, which is precisely the reason it's so expensive. Those are the high risk groups, and hospitals are ripping them off like crazy because there is no cost control, and payments are guaranteed. Also, because UHC would cover all, you could replace the employee health insurance with taxes, meaning more income for the national budget, yet the same wallet size for your average worker. It is merrily the formality of changing the names on the check. :)



One of the things I learned from that experience was that she (and apparently many other doctors too) would not bill so much for the cost of the services they were providing, but would bill for above what they thought they would get from the Medicare/caid payout in order to get close to what they actually wanted.
Exactly! That is why any successful introduction of UHC and public insurance depends on price regulation, otherwise pharmaceutical companies and hospitals will charge whatever they want. That $165 MRI should not cost $3000. There should be a law saying hospitals can't charge more than $300 for a MRI.

[CMJ]

In a tangent to something you mentioned early on Yog

Technically speaking - you can die of a toothache. It's rare, but if a tooth becomes abscessed, you can die from a few weird complications(Ludwig's angina, or even a brain abscess are included). In fact in the 19th century, it was supposedly somewhat common among the wealthy(those that could afford large quantites of sugary foods) to die that way since modern dental practices were in their infancy.

[Darth Viscera]

It is pretty strange for UHC to cover all sorts of health care except dental, considering that tooth problems can hurt so much. At the same time, though, I doubt many modern norwegians have died of tooth ache.

That would be a vast improvement here in the US, if we only had to worry about dying of toothaches and not dying because your life-threatening car accident was a "pre-existing condition".

[Mu Satach]

I am for it only if it makes me into a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7TFssY9ZF0">Universal Soldier</a>.

[Mandy with an I]

I can't really add anything, since I've never lived without OHIP, but they don't cover dental/vision/prescriptions here in Canada.

I get my medication for free from my shrink, and I get my birth-control from the Sexual Health Clinic for $10 cheaper than it costs at the pharmacy. I can claim dental and eye wear on my taxes though, but it has to be a certain percentage of my wages for the year. Since I got new glasses and had dental work, I have enough to claim it this year.

[Dasquian Belargic]

You have to pay for birth control.. as in the pill? :eek Is that the case in the US too?

[Mu Satach]

You have to pay for birth control.. as in the pill? :eek Is that the case in the US too?

What don't we pay for?

on second thought - brain no work well today


Yes. We pay for everything. If you are particularly blessed with a pharmacy plan as part of your health plan if you happen to have a health plan meds arn't too bad. BUT you can have a health plan and then still be paying up the waaahzoo for your prescriptions.

[Mandy with an I]

Yeah, you have to pay for it, but it's cheaper if you buy it from the SHC, which is government run. I pay $10/pack. I don't think paying for it is a big deal when it's not that expensive. I was paying $101/month for my birth-control and Zoloft when I was taking it. >_<

Our minimum wage here is higher than the States, but our cost of living it higher too. I make $13,000-15,000/year at my little convenience store job and get paid $9.50/hour. Next year it goes up to $10.75. I also "rent" my mothers' house with my two sisters, so I'm paying a third of a mortgage instead of full rent, otherwise I'd probably be poverty-level :(


To afford the D*Con trip, I basically paid all of my bills, put what I could into savings/my credit card and lived off $20 every two weeks.

[Darth Viscera]

At my online pharmacy, a 1-month supply of birth control pills (Yasmin 28) is $69.55. Wow, birth control is expensive.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Can you get condoms for free? From a family planning clinic or some such? o_O

I suppose I do pay a certain amount of my income towards the National Health Service, which in turn provides my birth control pill... so I am technically paying for it indirectly.

[Mandy with an I]

The sexual health clinic gives away condoms for free, offers pregnancy testing/STD testing, and sells birth control at a reduced price. I guess it's like Planned Parenthood? It's a government run thing, so...

[Darth Viscera]

Apparently you can get free condoms at any Planned Parenthood location that hasn't been blown up by <strike>islamic</strike> christian fundamentalists.

[Mu Satach]

Apparently you can get free condoms at any Planned Parenthood location that hasn't been blown up by <strike>islamic</strike> [selectively read there are parts of the bible I like and parts of the bible I don't like, pick and choose what to bash people over the head with because God's obviously not doing the job so I'm taking matters into my own damn hands cause I hate everybody and who gives a flying fuck that Jesus said "be as harmless as doves" and I don't want to think for myself so I'm going to just believe whatever jackass in a suite and tie spews forth in a sanctimonious manner] christian [in name only] fundamentalists [nut job].

Hello, My name is Nat. I'm a Christian and I have issues.

*sits down*

[Darth Viscera]

:lol isn't that pretty well summed up by the word "fundamentalist" though?

:hug

[Darth Viscera]

Sounds like things are in motion! I just got this email from my congressman:


Dear Walter:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for healthcare reform. I appreciate your taking the time to let me know how you feel about this important piece of legislation.

I am pleased to report that the House Committees on Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means has introduced the American Affordable Health Choices Act (HR 3200). This legislation has been over half a century in the making and marks a historic moment in our nation. As you may know, Congress is in the process of reviewing a number of amendments to achieve the best legislation. The American Affordable Health Choices Act fulfills the promise of bringing real change to America through two key provisions: giving Americans the choice of a public health option and providing universal coverage to all Americans.

First and foremost, the American Affordable Health Choices Act will provide universal health coverage. Soon, the 46 million uninsured Americans and the millions more who have inadequate coverage will enjoy access to quality, affordable health care. During these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever that the American people rest assured, knowing that good medical treatment is available to them or their loved ones.

One of the most significant elements of this bill will be the public health option. A public option is essential for creating choice for consumers and more competition for the insurance companies. The top 10 insurance companies have seen their profits increase 430 percent over the last seven years, yet the majority of Americans' incomes have stayed flat while their insurance premiums have sky rocketed. A public option will keep insurance companies honest and bring health costs down for the American people.

I am committed to working with President Obama, Congress and our state partners to develop the best possible health care system for all Americans. Again, thank you for contacting me and please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.

Sincerely,
Chris Van Hollen
Member of Congress

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am going to comment on this. I think the U.S health care system is a mess. We are tied with Costa Rica in quality of health care. That is darn pathetic, IMO. I have a friend who lives in Boston who has epilepsy. She has insurance and the HMOs and doctors run her through the ringer and she still has problems. Something needs to be done because right now unless you are very wealthy you are getting poor coverage.

[stevenvdb]

Yeah, it doesn't matter who you are (in this case maybe because of who she was?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Lee_Sutton

Insured, denied coverage. Seems the 'death squads' of greed know no decency.

[Yog]

^^ she was not alone. 14,000 people get dropped by their health insurance companies EVERY day.

I know this is not a neutral site, but these are health care stories submitted by people who got denied coverage, or got dropped.. :(
http://stories.barackobama.com/healthcare

[Sam]

The thing about the health care issue is that it's vast and complicated enough to be damn near impossible for the majority of the population to understand. Even if you decide you want to educate yourself on the problem, you can really only scratch the surface. All that's really left is to take a few generalities, some personal accounts, and a handful of statistics and try to form an opinion based on that.

But what happens is that we parrot back sound bites, statistics, and arguments we read or hear about. We pick a side and defend it with all the fervor of a shirtless guy covered in body paint, cheering on his favorite sports team.

It's the same thing with climate change. Unless you've devoted your life to studying historical trends in global climate patterns, it's nigh impossible to form an educated on the issue. But that doesn't stop people from screaming about how their side is right and the other side is a bunch of idiots whenever the discussion comes up.

(edit: damn homophones)

[Darth Viscera]

No, the issue is emphatically *not* complicated. It's bloody simple. It is unethical to withhold medical treatment from someone if they are unable to pay. It is unethical to watch 45,000 people die every year who are unable to pay for medical treatment. It's unethical when I can't afford to go to the hospital, it's unethical when you can't go afford to go to the hospital, it's unethical when anyone can't afford to go to the hospital.

[Yog]

The thing about the health care issue is that it's vast and complicated enough to be damn near impossible for the majority of the population to understand.
There are two ways of looking at the issue, the principal and the practical side.

Let's look at the principal aspect first. It can be broken down to one question:

Do you believe Government should protect its citizens from dying, regardless of individual means?

A. Yes
B. No

If B, why? Are roads / police / fire department / schools more important than the right to live? What is more important than health? Or would you rather have a society where there is no Government at all (anarchy)?

Principally, it's not a complicated issue. It's about human values.

Now the practical side. If you answered A to the previous question, that's when it gets complicated, because then you have to figure out how much it should cost, how the costs are going to be covered, issues related to quality of care, how the service should be run etc.

The problem is when you have all these people thinking B, without realizing the implications. Or they think A, yet they say "Government, stay away from MY health care!".



Unless you've devoted your life to studying historical trends in global climate patterns, it's nigh impossible to form an educated on the issue
This is beside the topic, but a couple notes.

The so called scientific "debate" on human made global warming, that was at least 10 years ago. Nowadays, the consensus among the experts in this field is overwhelming because... well, the data is getting overwhelming. It's literary only a handful of climatologists disagreeing with the conclusions of the IPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change), comprising the top experts in this field. Yet, those same handful of people get almost the same amount of media attention as the 3,000+ people of IPCC. No wonder people get confused.

You don't need to devote your whole life to educate yourself on global warming btw. I recommend browsing this site (http://www.realclimate.org/) for a crash course, it's run by climate scientists, but pretty accessible for normal people. There are some really good articles there that you can dip into, or you can go more in depth if you wish. There was also a pretty comprehensive discussion about it in this thread (http://www.sw-fans.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15833). Feel free to awake that thread if you wish. :)

[Darth Turbogeek]

At my online pharmacy, a 1-month supply of birth control pills (Yasmin 28) is $69.55. Wow, birth control is expensive.

WTF, my g/f pays 29 AUD for three months ?!?!?!?!


The thing about the health care issue is that it's vast and complicated enough to be damn near impossible for the majority of the population to understand. Even if you decide you want to educate yourself on the problem, you can really only scratch the surface. All that's really left is to take a few generalities, some personal accounts, and a handful of statistics and try to form an opinion based on that.

But what happens is that we parrot back sound bites, statistics, and arguments we read or hear about. We pick a side and defend it with all the fervor of a shirtless guy covered in body paint, cheering on his favorite sports team.

It's the same thing with climate change. Unless you've devoted your life to studying historical trends in global climate patterns, it's nigh impossible to form an educated on the issue. But that doesn't stop people from screaming about how their side is right and the other side is a bunch of idiots whenever the discussion comes up.

Actually..... no, it's not that hard to understand.

1) Health insurance is mind bogglingly expensive and people get denied coverage, unlike other countries.

2) Medical costs are mostly three times that of other countries.

3) Continuing down the same path is completely unaffordable.

4) Too many people have no cover at all and are denied basic care as a result - because they cant afford it.

Generalities? No that's the heart of the issue

And I would point out that climate change isnt that hard to get a head around either. All you had to do in Sydney last week is stick your head out the window and wonder how the hell the entire city had been transported inside an Arrakis sandstorm. Now there's climate change right there and I dont need no stinking PhD to tell you that be climate change and no Right Wing fucktard can deny it.

[Darth Viscera]

Unsatisfied with my current uninsured condition, I tried re-applying for health insurance 3 weeks ago. I filled out their application, informing them in detail of all my medical records for the last 7 years. A few days later, they informed me that I had been denied, because my doctor had written me a prescription for a sleep evaluation, and I have yet to get that done.

I have a crazy condition where I have a 25-hour clock. I sleep more or less an hour later each night than the last, so every month I spend probably 3 weeks awake during the day and asleep at night, and one week asleep during the day and awake at night. My doctor thinks that a sleep evaluation would provide some insight into why my sleep schedule rotates like this. Basically, you go to a medical facility to spend the night, they strap a tricorder to you which has these electrode-thingies, and they monitor your life signs while you're asleep, to see if you're not breathing or if you're not entering REM sleep (and so not getting restful sleep) or something else of this nature. When you wake up, you give the tricorder back to them, and they examine the data it collected and tell you if you have any medical problems that are making you not sleep well. For this, they can charge you upwards of $6,000.

So, after talking to United Health Care customer service for advice, I wrote the underwriters a letter, telling them that if I do decide to get a $6,000 sleep evaluation, I would pay for it out of pocket, rather than using their health insurance to pay for it, and that their health insurance would be used for things such as emergencies, like getting in a car accident. I shouldn't have had to say that, since their plan had a $10,000 annual deductible anyway, so I wouldn't be able to tap into their health insurance to pay for the sleep evaluation even if I wanted to. 2 weeks later, they sent me a reply, which was just copying and pasting the original response without reading my letter or commenting on it. You have been denied due to a pending sleep evaluation.

They did provide excellent customer service with regards to processing my payment, however. Before the first day of my application was over, they had taken the payment from my bank account. It should be noted that they offer no payment options except irreversible electronic funds transfer direct from your bank (basically a wire transfer minus the fees). For every bill they send you, they charge you a $10 penalty, so bank EFT or nothing. Credit card payments are right out! But they do differ from Nigerian princes in one respect, which is that they are so eager to take your money, that they actually withdrew from my bank account 133% of the funds that I had authorized them to withdraw, which I'm 99.999999% sure is illegal and falls under that most heinous of crimes, theft of money. They sent me a letter, saying that they would be billing me prior to making their decision as to whether or not to sell me insurance. It seems to me that people shouldn't start charging you right before denying you service, rather they should start providing you service and THEN charge you. Two weeks later, they sent me a refund. They mailed me a check rather than just depositing it directly into my bank account, for whatever reason.

I sure am glad that our loving Wall Street death panels are here to care for us.

My family was among the first to settle the new world. One of my ancestors was Evangeline. My other ancestor, Private Francois LaBiche, rode with Lewis and Clark on their expedition to chart the west and open it to settlers. When those millions of brave souls were struggling to tame North America, I doubt that it occurred to them that their descendants' chief cause of bankruptcy would be hospital bills, and that one of their chief causes of death would be, you guessed it, hospital bills! While their cousins in Europe and the rest of the first world nations would enjoy medical care without an insurance company executive standing between them and their doctor. Two-thirds of a century ago, Prime Minister Attlee of the UK said that a nation should combat the five giant evils of society - want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. Combat, not embrace.

[Liam Jinn]

Unsatisfied with my current uninsured condition, I tried re-applying for health insurance 3 weeks ago. I filled out their application, informing them in detail of all my medical records for the last 7 years. A few days later, they informed me that I had been denied, because my doctor had written me a prescription for a sleep evaluation, and I have yet to get that done.

I have a crazy condition where I have a 25-hour clock. I sleep more or less an hour later each night than the last, so every month I spend probably 3 weeks awake during the day and asleep at night, and one week asleep during the day and awake at night. My doctor thinks that a sleep evaluation would provide some insight into why my sleep schedule rotates like this. Basically, you go to a medical facility to spend the night, they strap a tricorder to you which has these electrode-thingies, and they monitor your life signs while you're asleep, to see if you're not breathing or if you're not entering REM sleep (and so not getting restful sleep) or something else of this nature. When you wake up, you give the tricorder back to them, and they examine the data it collected and tell you if you have any medical problems that are making you not sleep well. For this, they can charge you upwards of $6,000.

So, after talking to United Health Care customer service for advice, I wrote the underwriters a letter, telling them that if I do decide to get a $6,000 sleep evaluation, I would pay for it out of pocket, rather than using their health insurance to pay for it, and that their health insurance would be used for things such as emergencies, like getting in a car accident. I shouldn't have had to say that, since their plan had a $10,000 annual deductible anyway, so I wouldn't be able to tap into their health insurance to pay for the sleep evaluation even if I wanted to. 2 weeks later, they sent me a reply, which was just copying and pasting the original response without reading my letter or commenting on it. You have been denied due to a pending sleep evaluation.

They did provide excellent customer service with regards to processing my payment, however. Before the first day of my application was over, they had taken the payment from my bank account. It should be noted that they offer no payment options except irreversible electronic funds transfer direct from your bank (basically a wire transfer minus the fees). For every bill they send you, they charge you a $10 penalty, so bank EFT or nothing. Credit card payments are right out! But they do differ from Nigerian princes in one respect, which is that they are so eager to take your money, that they actually withdrew from my bank account 133% of the funds that I had authorized them to withdraw, which I'm 99.999999% sure is illegal and falls under that most heinous of crimes, theft of money. They sent me a letter, saying that they would be billing me prior to making their decision as to whether or not to sell me insurance. It seems to me that people shouldn't start charging you right before denying you service, rather they should start providing you service and THEN charge you. Two weeks later, they sent me a refund. They mailed me a check rather than just depositing it directly into my bank account, for whatever reason.

I sure am glad that our loving Wall Street death panels are here to care for us.

My family was among the first to settle the new world. One of my ancestors was Evangeline. My other ancestor, Private Francois LaBiche, rode with Lewis and Clark on their expedition to chart the west and open it to settlers. When those millions of brave souls were struggling to tame North America, I doubt that it occurred to them that their descendants' chief cause of bankruptcy would be hospital bills, and that one of their chief causes of death would be, you guessed it, hospital bills! While their cousins in Europe and the rest of the first world nations would enjoy medical care without an insurance company executive standing between them and their doctor. Two-thirds of a century ago, Prime Minister Attlee of the UK said that a nation should combat the five giant evils of society - want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. Combat, not embrace.

You think including that last paragraph was necessary?

[Darth Viscera]

What's wrong with it?

[Liam Jinn]

What's wrong with it?

Nothing...

[Darth Viscera]

Out with it!

edit~After talking with Liam Jinn on AIM, I didn't mean to toot my own horn with talk of ancestors and such. Sorry if it came out that way, my bad.

I was trying to express the notion that our nation, founded upon noble principles, has since gone off course, to the point that, in terms of health care at least, our standards are worse than those in the countries the founding fathers and the early settlers were trying to escape. The top 1% richest Americans now possess more wealth than the bottom 90%. My $6,000 8 hour sleep study would consume more wealth than is generated in a month and a half of labor by the average American worker. If you get in a car accident or some other form of medical catastrophe and get stuck with a half a million dollar hospital bill, there goes 12 years' pay. CEOs make what, more than 6,000 times more money than their employees? Can't they just be happy making 100 times more money than the average working joe, having only 100 houses and 100 cars and 100 wives? Hell, their employees have to have a household with two wage earners, and get a home equity loan just to get by while accruing massive debt. Meanwhile, our government operates on the principle of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Where does the greed stop?

I suspect that to rekindle the American dream, we will one day need another American Revolution that dislodges the entrenched monied interests and restores the level playing field and free market.

[Bercilak de Hautdesert]

I will simply say that anyone who has ever had to deal with the Department of Veteran's Affairs with anything health or money related would never in their right mind (which some still aren't in thanks to inaction) trust the government with health care for anyone. People who don't have government benefits look at a government-run healthcare system and think, gee, that couldn't possibly be worse than what we've got right now, surely not...right? The government currently deals with the benefits of every federal government employee and usually their husbands, wives, and children and they drop the ball faster and more often than a politician tells a lie, which we all know is every time they open their mouth. Currently, filing a claim using government-owned insurance means submitting the claim at the least four times with a month long period in between to find out if they drop it again. I talked to a lady with the VA office the other day and I pretty summed up the process to her.

Filing a claim with them is like giving a five year old all of your personal information (ssn, name, medical history, residence, telephone number, and basic medical information such as height and weight, age, gender, and ethnic group) and telling that five year old to file it in a filing system the five year old came up with. For those with children, you know what happens when you tell a five year old to clean up their room. It might get done, and it might get done without everything getting shoved into the closet, but probably not. Same metaphorical results.

If you've never had any experience with the VA's office or something like it, then think about tax season and the IRS. Now think about insanity like that all year long.

On the bright side, government-operated insurance would create a whole new class of jobs. Just like those companies that exist to help people through the tax seasons and the computer programs designed to make sure you get the maximum amount of money back from the government, there will be companies offering to get you the best deals through loopholes and technicalities and where these companies spring up, they will need employees.

For the record, I am very against government run insurance for many many reasons.

[Morgan Evanar]

On the bright side, government-operated insurance would create a whole new class of jobs. Just like those companies that exist to help people through the tax seasons and the computer programs designed to make sure you get the maximum amount of money back from the government, there will be companies offering to get you the best deals through loopholes and technicalities and where these companies spring up, they will need employees.

For the record, I am very against government run insurance for many many reasons.If everyone is being covered that takes away a lot of paperwork, doesn't it? That's why our current government provided systems are so costly, because they have to make sure people who aren't in the system aren't covered. You do realize that most private coverage is every inch the disaster any public coverage is, only some of us are paying over 600 a month a person.

[Bercilak de Hautdesert]

If everyone is being covered that takes away a lot of paperwork, doesn't it? That's why our current government provided systems are so costly, because they have to make sure people who aren't in the system aren't covered. You do realize that most private coverage is every inch the disaster any public coverage is, only some of us are paying over 600 a month a person.

The government care system would never care for every single citizen. There will still be the same amount of paperwork trying to keep out those who don't belong. I would rather be able to choose who I want my money to go to.

[Darth Viscera]

As someone who has dealt unsuccessfully with the private health insurance companies, I would say that anyone who has ever had to deal with them and their fake "pre-existing conditions" would never in their right mind trust them to pay for your emergency hospitallization bills, given a better choice. You can go ahead and trust them though, if you like, that's your right, but don't be surprised if you're struck by lightning one day, and when it comes time for them to pay for it, the insurance company declines you and produces a photograph of you flying a kite 20 years ago and calls it a pre-existing condition. Yes, my current condition of no health insurance literally couldn't possibly be worse. No, I don't trust private corporations more than I trust the government, and yes, our existing Wall Street death panels today concern me much more than any future government death panels cooked up in the fevered dreams of a teabagger.

I have practice dealing with bureaucratic incompetence, I'm a Comcast subscriber. You know, the private corporation that has a lower customer satisfaction rating than the IRS. I don't mind submitting a claim 4 times, considering that the private health insurance companies won't even let me through the door.

Really though, what gives you the right to say "I wouldn't trust the government with YOUR health care"? That's my choice, not yours. It's pretty weird and self-centered for one to say "I don't like X, therefore NOBODY should get to have X!" You shouldn't be going out and imposing your belief system on other people. We have a thing in this country called freedom. It's like what George Washington (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA) said when he was blasting commies during the american revolution, "get yer mitts off my grub". Don't tread on me. Live and let live, man. It's a public option. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ha3Rm4MSX-g&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ha3Rm4MSX-g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Yog]

The government care system would never care for every single citizen. There will still be the same amount of paperwork trying to keep out those who don't belong.
Why would the Government want to keep out anyone? The whole point of public option is to cover those who for whatever reason do not get private health insurance. It's not a program designed with the motive of profits. Paperwork also seems like a minor inconvenience compared to the prospect of getting bankrupt or dead.



I would rather be able to choose who I want my money to go to.Who says you can't? Even in "single payer" UHC countries where everyone is covered by default, you still have the option of private health insurance. Yet, in those countries, you'd actually spend less in taxes for the public coverage. If you're so concerned about where your money goes, you should be demanding a single payer system right away, because in it's current form, the system is just going to get more and more expensive, and accumulate massive debt.

[Dasquian Belargic]

If everyone is being covered that takes away a lot of paperwork, doesn't it? That's why our current government provided systems are so costly, because they have to make sure people who aren't in the system aren't covered. You do realize that most private coverage is every inch the disaster any public coverage is, only some of us are paying over 600 a month a person.

The government care system would never care for every single citizen. There will still be the same amount of paperwork trying to keep out those who don't belong. I would rather be able to choose who I want my money to go to.

Those who don't belong? :huh

[Mandy with an I]

Those who don't belong = poor people? people of color? what? I'm confused!

And yes, you can have a private health insurance AND government health insurance. Private usually covers what the government doesn't. As for paper-work...I've never done any (that I can remember, anyway). In Canada, you have a OHIP card that you swipe at the doctors and it brings up your file.

[Morgan Evanar]

The government care system would never care for every single citizen. There will still be the same amount of paperwork trying to keep out those who don't belong. I would rather be able to choose who I want my money to go to.Who would we be keeping out?

[Morgan Evanar]

I know you've been online, but you're either unwilling or unable to answer the question.