Should the US Start with the Premise that it WILL Provide Universal Healthcare?

[jackson33]

John; You certainly have made a good case, if for nothing else in support of the Australian HCS. Wish the mods would make this a new thread, but then it is related to a potential US UHC....

 

Strawman; No, generalized statistics are meaningless, when comparing totally different cultures/governments/involved risks and a number of factors. We have at least 41M (14%) Blacks and an unknown number of from the 6M declaring two races, whom for no reason of their own, have less life expectancy than whites or orientals. Studies in Cycle Cell and some thought immune system deficiencies are making great strides to the expectancies just 20 years ago.

 

One example; Many Nations have 5-10 and up hospital beds per 1000 population, others have less than 1 or 2, but any statistic is meaningless with out knowing the percentage of those beds being used. In the US we have 3m, beds in Nursing Homes alone with a NATIONAL average of 84.2% occupied. Then we have scores of Hospitals that have gone specialized, catering to a particular group or medical need. Children's hospitals, Cancer, Heart decease and so on, who range rarely full (rehabilitation) to never full and long waiting list (usually children's). We also have 'For Profit' Hospitals/Clinics, Religious Sponsored Hospitals, City or State run facilities, VA Hospitals and many others. All all these counted?

 

 

 

" Your infant mortality rate is nearly 50% higher than ours and would be the highest in the developed world."

 

This statistic is based on LIVE BIRTH to one year. How many infants are born live around the world compared to the US. We just had a woman give birth to eight at one time, not one of which would have lived to the birth, much less to one year just 40 years ago.

 

 

My point on our brightest students NOT choosing a medical profession, should be self explanatory. Even then, to qualify for Medical Schools in the US are already very high and there are just so many. Those standards to facilitate a UHC, will have to drop and IMO is not a good thing...

 

We are a Confederation of States, we act like what we are and much of the opposition to UHC is based on those principles. Today I could visit the local Clinic, get a physical for about 40.00 and feel like I'm going to live forever. If I lived in NYC (or many others places than small town USA), it would cost me that much to get to a Clinic and up to 500.00 for that physical, much more if

if to acquire a Class A Drivers License or Food Service Permit (in some States)...Single payer will eliminate that difference and I would bet NYC will not drop its price, mine would go up.

 

I wasn't aware a person in any "Industrialized" Country, could sue their Government for damages, especially punitive where in the US can be very large numbers. ONE class action suit against the US Government (not permitted) would end everything if successful. Ref; Tobacco Company or Asbestos Related, hundreds of billions.

 

John, I don't oppose UHC at the State Level. I sincerely believe something can be worked out, allowing Free Markets to exist and keeping the Medical Industry developing procedures, medical product development and pharmaceuticals for R&D. I think some form of mandated/compulsory insurance, based on an individuals or families need could be imposed, relieving a great deal of the pressure on cost inflation. Similar to the States and their Auto Insurance programs. Most of those so called 40 million uninsured are working class people, who for good reason just don't want to pay for all those that seem to need medical attention. If somehow tomorrow all those jumped into the system, the cost to those that are already in the system would drop in half, possibly much more. The only reason our cost are going up and yes at staggering rates is because, less and less are participating, whether for that new car or they think government will soon provide the care.

[iNow]

The only reason our cost are going up and yes at staggering rates is because, less and less are participating, whether for that new car or they think government will soon provide the care.

 

Yeah, that and the stranglehold insurance lobbyists have on our legislator. But sure... If you'd prefer to argue this and represent reality with blinders on to those other parts which counter your worldview, I suppose that's one approach, too.

[ecoli]

Yeah, that and the stranglehold insurance lobbyists have on our legislator.

And this is a problem we can fix by giving the politicians even more control over the insurance business?

 

You've got to explain that one to me.

[iNow]

ecoli - It sure is easy to poke holes and snipe at other ideas, but for some reason, nobody is offering a better alternative.

 

I'm not here trying to defend our corrupt politicians. I'm here arguing in favor of something better, and for aggregating enough of those in power to do something positive for the country.

 

You're not going to get your absolute free market. Ain't gonna happen. With that taken as a given, what's your counter proposal?

[ecoli]

ecoli - It sure is easy to poke holes and snipe at other ideas, but for some reason, nobody is offering a better alternative.

That's because there are only slightly less bad alternatives.

 

I think socialized health care is a slightly less bad alternative to what we currently have, which are both more bad than a true free market system.

 

I'm not here trying to defend our corrupt politicians. I'm here arguing in favor of something better, and for aggregating enough of those in power to do something positive for the country.

Yet you're advocating for a system that will put corrupt (or corruptible) politicians in charge of a system that has the potential to be very lucrative for them.

 

Even if you build in the proper oversights and assume rent-seeking won't be a significant problem, you still have a system that falls prey to the classic central planner problem.

 

In a high-tech field like medicine, this is a problem you definitely want to reduce, not enbiggen (yes, this word is perfectly cromulent). There is a reason why technological innovations make health care more expensive in a single-payer system (a problem you don't have in the free market).

 

You're not going to get your absolute free market. Ain't gonna happen. With that taken as a given, what's your counter proposal?

Revolution

 

Seriously though... we need serious changes in this country. About how people view the government in relationship to themselves. It's not impossible, the ideas just has to be popularized again.

 

Maybe people need a dose of 'socialism' for us to realize how good free market systems really are. The yuppy-liberal elite claim to love the European model so much... well lets see how much they like it when we tax all the businesses out of our country, and people stop trying because the government absorbs all the risk out of life.

 

To bring it back on topic; the model I propose is a free market model. Maybe these ideas are 'politically unpopular' right now, especially due to the 'unfettered capitalism failed us' stawman, but I'm a firm believer that "moderation in the pursuit of liberty is no virtue."

[The Bear's Key]

Seriously though... we need serious changes in this country. About how people view the government in relationship to themselves.

A government by and for the people. Special interests, businesses, etc, are secondary. Or need to be.

 

Thus you're correct about how people need to refresh their view of government in relationship to themselves.

 

Maybe people need a dose of 'socialism' for us to realize how good free market systems really are. The yuppy-liberal elite claim to love the European model so much... well lets see how much they like it when we tax all the businesses out of our country, and people stop trying because the government absorbs all the risk out of life.

It's like that in Europe?? Since when did businesses and entrepreneurs flock out of there? Is the business landscape a desert over there? No commercials on TV or billboards on highways? I think you might lay off certain political network drugs a bit.

[iNow]

To bring it back on topic; the model I propose is a free market model.

 

Yes, of course, you're correct. The free market is a panacea. No gray area there. Competition just might bring those $50,000 each cancer treatments down to the mere cost of $49,000, and suddenly everyone will be safe and smiling and riding rainbows.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4920557n

 

 

Btw, I can also tell that you haven't watched the video linked in the OP.

[Pangloss]

I don't think that bit about whether people have watched the video is advancing the discussion. Maybe you should post some references from web sites when appropriate instead. It might help spur further discussion along the lines that you're looking for. That sort of thing tends to rub people the wrong way and puts a bookend on the exchange rather than promote more investigation of the possibilities.

 

This would be a good place to start: Did they actually go beyond singular cases of people who ran out of money and actually show statistical analysis of how many people that's happening too, what percentage of the population that is, how much it costs the system, etc?

[iNow]

The video is what motivated the thread. If people want to contribute, it would be helpful if they watched it.

Yes is the answer to your query.

[ParanoiA]

Maybe people need a dose of 'socialism' for us to realize how good free market systems really are. The yuppy-liberal elite claim to love the European model so much... well lets see how much they like it when we tax all the businesses out of our country' date=' and people stop trying because the government absorbs all the risk out of life.

 

To bring it back on topic; the model I propose is a free market model. Maybe these ideas are 'politically unpopular' right now, especially due to the 'unfettered capitalism failed us' stawman, but I'm a firm believer that "moderation in the pursuit of liberty is no virtue."[/quote']

 

Ok, but there's one thing about healthcare that creates an unnatural market condition: the service will be provided, regardless. In a truly free market system, we would escort them out of the hospital until they could come up with funds. But since we won't allow ourselves to do that (thank goodness), how does the free market recover from that condition?

 

This is the exception that I think fuels the legitimacy behind some kind of universal system, though I'm not advocating socialism.

 

Do we consider government run police, socialism? Or city paid fire fighters?

[The Bear's Key]

From the vid posted in the OP.

 

 

Part 1. Great Britain: A Leader in Preventative Medicine

 

(Length: 12:41)

 

Correspondent T.R. Reid finds there's a lot to like in its socialized health system, funded with taxes. There are problems, but reforms are underway.

 

 

2. Japan: Universal Coverage, No Gatekeepers

 

(Length: 11:31)

 

With the best health stats in the world, they go to the doctor a lot, get to see any specialist they want, and their costs are low. How do they do it?

 

 

3. Germany: A Popular, Largely Market-Based System

 

(Length: 11:01)

 

Its universal health care covers medical, dental, mental health, homeopathy. Insurers can't make a profit; providers and government negotiate prices.

 

 

4. Taiwan: A New System They Copied From Others

 

(Length: 8:02)

 

It has state of the art IT, gives equal access to all, free choice of doctors, no wait, lots of competition among providers, and gov't runs financing.

 

 

5. Switzerland: Its Former System Resembled Ours

 

(Length: 13:16)

 

Since 1994, everyone now must buy health insurance - with the state paying for the poor. And insurance companies can't make a profit on basic care.

 

 

The enticement of #2 and #4 is potentially a threat to the universal healthcare advocate's most treasured points. If such advocates can't bring themselves to watch only the very first minutes of something, even if the reality of it might expose factual inaccuarcies they've held dearly -- in other words, dread for the potential they've been wasting so much energy on a lie -- then it might just really be a purposeful avoidance of facts (unless the vid is a lie, but how can you debunk anything without at least taking a peek?).

 

Simply view the first introductory minutes of #2 and #4 and you can shut it off. Easy peasy.

 

For those who just can't: if you really need me to, I'll transcribe the beginning of all five parts for you. (Consider it a public health service )

Edited April 6, 2009 by The Bear's Key
addendum

[iNow]

For those of you who watched and enjoyed the special in the OP, Sick Around the World, here is the follow-up which was on this week:

 

Sick Around America

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/

 

 

 

It was this one which really got me going and pushed me to open a dialog here with you all.

 

Watch here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/view/

[JohnB]

No, generalized statistics are meaningless, when comparing totally different cultures/governments/involved risks and a number of factors. We have at least 41M (14%) Blacks and an unknown number of from the 6M declaring two races, whom for no reason of their own, have less life expectancy than whites or orientals. Studies in Cycle Cell and some thought immune system deficiencies are making great strides to the expectancies just 20 years ago.

Okay, so now we have moved to "Special Pleading". The bottom line of your argument is that "America has a world class health care system, provided that you don't actually compare it to the rest of the world."

 

We have problems too you know. The life expectancy for Aboriginals in Australia is some 10-15 years less than that of white Australians. Most Aussies view this as scandalous.

Then we have scores of Hospitals that have gone specialized, catering to a particular group or medical need. Children's hospitals, Cancer, Heart decease and so on, who range rarely full (rehabilitation) to never full and long waiting list (usually children's). We also have 'For Profit' Hospitals/Clinics, Religious Sponsored Hospitals, City or State run facilities, VA Hospitals and many others. All all these counted?

Yes they are counted and even if they weren't, so do we. Do you think Veterans hospitals, private "for profit" hospitals and clinics and Religious Sponsored hospitals only exist in the US?

 

Something I didn't mention before and I should have. Our "Medicare", (which has the same name as yours but is completely different) reimburses for expenses. However, the Federal money for hospitals (and I think you'll like this bit) is given to the State govs for disbursement. So while the money is Federal, the actual budgetting and allocation is done at a State level for hospitals, nursing homes, etc.

This statistic is based on LIVE BIRTH to one year. How many infants are born live around the world compared to the US. We just had a woman give birth to eight at one time, not one of which would have lived to the birth, much less to one year just 40 years ago.

Irrelevent. The fact is that a child born in the US today has less chance of seeing his first birthday than a child born in any one of 45 other nations.

My point on our brightest students NOT choosing a medical profession, should be self explanatory. Even then, to qualify for Medical Schools in the US are already very high and there are just so many. Those standards to facilitate a UHC, will have to drop and IMO is not a good thing...

On that logic, US doctors are "better" than Aussie doctors, Swiss Drs, German Drs, English Drs, etc. If this is true, why do we live longer than you do?

Today I could visit the local Clinic, get a physical for about 40.00 and feel like I'm going to live forever. If I lived in NYC (or many others places than small town USA), it would cost me that much to get to a Clinic and up to 500.00 for that physical

The difference here is that I can go to any Dr and get the physical for roughly the same price anywhere in the country.

I wasn't aware a person in any "Industrialized" Country, could sue their Government for damages, especially punitive where in the US can be very large numbers.

Where did that come from? I quoted the average payouts for malpractice suits in three nations. Are you under the impression that we can't sue a Dr for malpractice? We can.

 

Hell, we extradited one from his hiding place in the US and have him on trial for bloody homicide.

Maybe people need a dose of 'socialism' for us to realize how good free market systems really are.

After everything that has been shown here and the statistics quoted you might want to reconsider just how "good free market systems are". In this case, anyway.

Also, if anyone says "healthcare is a right" I'm going to punch you in the face.

If you reread my post, I specifically called it a benefit, like a good police force and fire brigade.

However, I believe that over a longer timeline, private systems are more adaptable, actively producing new technologies, lowering costs, increasing coverage. While government-run providers resist technological change because it raises costs, prevent cost-lowering competition and innovation and offer 100% of the same shoddy care to everyone.

You are free to believe that, however the figures prove you wrong. If your argument was correct, then your costs would be less than ours for a better outcome. The figures show your way is more expensive with a worse outcome.

However, the problem with this system is that you get problems with innovation, consumer choice, economic freedom (through much higher taxes) etc. These are problems we've seen in other countries and I think are unavoidable and undesirable.

There are a few points here, all worthy of discussion.

Innovation: Any new procedure or drug must be passed by the applicable nations health service. Whether in a free market or national scheme, it must run the gauntlet of Federal Approval and all that entails. New procedures are being developed all the time all over the world. Sometimes we copy you, sometimes you copy us, sometimes we both copy the Europeans. That's how medicine advances.

 

It is mental self deception to think that innovation comes only from the US system.

 

Consumer choice: Are you free to go to any Dr? Or does your insurance company prefer you to go to their recommended one? I can go to any GP in Australia. I have total freedom of choice in that. In the case of specialist care, it's true that I can't choose the specialist that performs the op, I get the one rostered on for that day that is qualified for that procedure. However, if I don't for some reason like the specialist my GP refers me to, I have the ability to change specialists. So I don't see much lack of choice here.

Higher taxes: I think this is really a "non point". Yes we do pay higher taxes, but we get more too. We pay higher taxes, but you pay higher insurance premiums. I pay some $600 per year in extra taxes to fund the UHC, you pay $600 per month not to have it. Whether you pay the gov, or pay the insurance companies, you're still paying the money, aren't you? It's semantics, the money is still coming out of your pocket.

 

Could you give a good economic reason why it is better to pay $600 per month than $600 per year? In some ways a well developed UHC system is taking jackson33s comment to it's logical conclusion.

Most of those so called 40 million uninsured are working class people, who for good reason just don't want to pay for all those that seem to need medical attention. If somehow tomorrow all those jumped into the system, the cost to those that are already in the system would drop in half, possibly much more.

So if everybody was in it, the cost would drop much more, wouldn't it?

 

Economic Freedom: I've said this before, you haven't got it. Where is the economic freedom when you have to sell your house to pay medical bills? Where is the economic freedom when you are forced, yes forced to choose your job based not on what you want, but what type of insurance the employer offers.

 

I'd love to be an (unscrupulous) employer in the US when a recession starts to bite. I could pay managers the minimum wage and they'd take it, if I offer full medical coverage. If the choice is no job and no cover or $10 per hour and full cover, they'd line up to work for me. And that is where your system is taking you. Zero economic freedom. Zero.

 

You're going to replace "Slavery by violence" with "Slavery by medical cover".

Of course, the benefit of completely privatized care is more consumer choices, wider coverage for more people, more economic freedom, less bureaucrats in control of medical decisions... the list goes on.

Yes, it does. I'll recap it for you:

Nations with a longer life expectancy than the US:

Andorra

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Cyprus

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Luxembourg

Malta

Monaco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal

Republic of Korea

San Marino

Singapore

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

 

And

* 2.9 hospital beds per 1' date='000 Americans, compared with a median of 3.7 per 1,000 residents in the other countries;

 

* 2.4 physicians per 1,000 Americans (in 2001), compared with 3.1 per 1,000 elsewhere in 2002;

 

* 7.9 nurses per 1,000 Americans (in 2001), compared with 8.9 nurses per 1,000 elsewhere in 2002;

 

* 12.8 CT scanners per million Americans (in 2001), compared with 13.3 per million elsewhere in 2002. [/quote']

So the fact is that you spend twice what we do to have higher infant mortality, less doctors, less nurses, less hospital beds, less access to quality healthcare and a [b']lower life expectancy.[/b]

 

The list does indeed go on. I must add that the US is the only developed nation where people don't have needed surgery because they can't afford it and the US is the only developed nation where people are bankrupted by medical bills.

 

In these at least you "lead the world". The rest of us simply have no interest in following.

Even if you build in the proper oversights and assume rent-seeking won't be a significant problem, you still have a system that falls prey to the classic central planner problem.

See what I said above about the Federal money being disbursed by the states, it goes a long way towards solving that problem.

This is the exception that I think fuels the legitimacy behind some kind of universal system' date=' though I'm not advocating socialism.

 

Do we consider government run police, socialism? Or city paid fire fighters? [/quote']

This is my point. It's not socialism and I frankly have trouble seeing the connection that some in the US seem to make. It's a benefit of living in a developed society. Like police and fire brigade.

 

Even taking the personal insurance part out of it, your Federal gov is spending $2.26 Trillion this year on health. You're already spending baskets of money, more than anybody else, for the worst system in the developed world. With that sort of money being thrown around, you shouldn't need to raise taxes to pay for UHC. Just stop paying half of it to the insurance companies.

The enticement of #2 and #4 is potentially a threat to the universal healthcare advocate's most treasured points.

Um, don't you mean "opponents"?

[Saryctos]

Don't forget that when you quote all of these statistics that America itself is as varying as the many nations it is compared to. It's hard to take any of them to heart when I know there's large amounts of outliers dragging the total average down. Taking anything as a % of the population is just not a good idea when looking at the whole country. This is the problem with federal spending most of the time aswell. They'll see that shit is bad for 80% of the population and allocate funds for everyone, thing is the funding need only go to areas where life sucks for 100% instead of the areas of 10-20%, but then that's being <insert discriminatory reason here>, but then this only widens the gap and makes the numbers an even worse display of reality.

 

summary, don't trust nationwide statistics without a caveat.

[jackson33]

John; I'm afraid your taking my arguments opposing UHC in the US or your notion that it works well for you, as an attack on Australian HC. I have already stated that it's my belief, US States should be involved and/or if their is an answer to maintain 'Choice' or if you prefer 'Free Market Principles', this would be the only viable approach. If HC is not a right (could argue either way), then IMO the US Federal Government, under its Constitution simply has no authority.

 

I did insinuate possible better care on that Sky Slope, but to enhance a point.

For all I know the best Doctor's on this planet may now be in your Country, mine, in England or reasonable equal everywhere. I doubt this, but not the point of this discussion. I have also said, near half our Doctors, practicing today in the US are foreign born and will add much innovation has come from this sector.

 

You have said Medicare in Australia is based on reimbursement, which scares the heck out of me. If I have a heart attack and am required to pay expenses which could be $250k (my mothers medical bill in 1994 for just such an event) I may not have that much value and then to think Government (especially here) will determine the cares validity and reimburse me on what they consider valid expenses is simply not going to happen.

 

On infant mortality, we are not happy with our record. I don't have an argument other than possibly 'lifestyle' why so many die before one year of age, but the issue has nothing to do with UHC. If anything is already UHC in the US it is a pregnant woman and the mother and child to birth and through 18 years for the child. http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2006/05/08/us_infant_mortality_rate_fails_to_improve.html

 

Malpractice suits today are against individual institutions/doctors/policy or any number of issues. Medicaid/Medicare for instance list required test and procedures for certain problems. If it is determined, often is, that one additional test would have prevented say 10k deaths, no class action suit could be brought against the Federal Government.

 

 

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2006/db20060913_099763.htm

1 Hawaii 80.0 2 Minnesota 78.8 3 Utah 78.7 4 Connecticut 78.7 5 Massachusetts 78.4

45 Tennessee 75.1 46 West Virginia 75.1 47 South Carolina 74.8 48 Alabama 74.4 49 Louisiana 74.2 50 Mississippi 73.6 51 District of Columbia 72.0

 

On statistics, this gives an idea how different States would compare to your international figures. The same would be true on any US stat, which is an average of all States. Yes, I though about your Aborigines and considered this when figuring your averages, which according to later charts are not much different than the US. There are significant demographic differences and in some cases work related jobs available, but will leave it to you to evaluate.

 

 

For a general cost of living between two cities;

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Cost+of+Living+by+State&page=1&qsrc=121&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bankrate.com%2Fbrm%2Fmovecalc.asp

 

I picked a couple location in the US to show the differences of major towns. Small towns vary even more to metropolitan areas.

[ecoli]

After everything that has been shown here and the statistics quoted you might want to reconsider just how "good free market systems are". In this case, anyway.

 

This is a common misconception... if you had read an earlier post I note that the health care industry in the US is NOT a free market system. Attacking the US health care system as one is a strawman. In my earlier post, I also say I would prefer a universal system to the obfuscated market that we currently have, but a free market system would be even better.

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n5/healthcare.html

 

Also I agree with you that health care is a benefit. That comment was not directed towards you.

[The Bear's Key]

The enticement of #2 and #4 is potentially a threat to the universal healthcare advocate's most treasured points. [/quote']Um, don't you mean "opponents"?

You're quite correct. I'm not able to edit it now unfortunately. Perhaps a kindly mod will happen by, see it, and perform a drive-by correction (*hint*)

 

I have already stated that it's my belief, US States should be involved and/or if their is an answer to maintain 'Choice'....

Didn't you see post #61?

 

Have another looksy...

 

(....stuff about maintaining choice even with universal health....)

 

I'll copy/paste the relevant bits once again. Maybe someone wants to bet on the odds of you missing it again? I rarely gamble with money, but this is approaching a sure bet.

 

2. Japan: Universal Coverage, No Gatekeepers

 

(Length: 11:31)

 

With the best health stats in the world, they go to the doctor a lot, get to see any specialist they want, and their costs are low. How do they do it?

 

 

4. Taiwan: A New System They Copied From Others

 

(Length: 8:02)

 

It has state of the art IT, gives equal access to all, free choice of doctors, no wait, lots of competition among providers, and gov't runs financing.

[iNow]

This is a common misconception... if you had read an earlier post I note that the health care industry in the US is NOT a free market system.

 

The free market will cause insurers to only cover healthy people since unhealthy people cause them to have higher costs. It's a failed approach, regardless of how free or unfree you describe it as.

[Saryctos]

The free market will cause insurers to only cover healthy people since unhealthy people cause them to have higher costs. It's a failed approach, regardless of how free or unfree you describe it as.

 

Perhaps the problem is with insurance existing at all?

[jackson33]

Didn't you see post #61?

Have another looksy...

 

Yes, I saw it and had already reviewed the Switzerland plan years ago.

 

 

5. Switzerland: Its Former System Resembled Ours

 

"Since 1994, everyone now must buy health insurance - with the state paying for the poor. And insurance companies can't make a profit on basic care."

 

It takes me an hour to change my sound system from TV to my computer set up and then back, so if addressed apologize. What is the penalty for not purchasing Health Insurance (Massachusetts, under a forced purchase is an added tax) and does coverage to avoid penalties have a minimum. As mentioned, anyone can purchase 'Catastrophic Insurance' (covers only costly ailments) or a large number of reasonable cheap policies for limited coverage and affordable to most not currently insured.

 

As for the other systems; There is no private sector Insurance Company that can exist and not make a profit. It could be Church run, Government Run or some "Charitable Trust Fund', with no recourse to the consumer for failure. A Private Sector Insurance Company, in the process of taking peoples money for future possible problems (then for profit) is somehow using that money to make money.

 

iNow; I suppose you have Auto Insurance and I suppose it's you hope you never need to use it. That company (usually multi-faceted) will produce a profit, generate an economy, work employees while protecting your interest while driving a car. It should be no different for Health Insurance, which no one should actually want to use.

 

While a policy is in effect, yes use of that policy abusive or needed will increase the cost, but if you become sick under that policy there are laws to prevent cancellation from that sickness, in most States that I am aware of...

As for applying with a pre-condition, like old age then yes it will be hard to come by and it should be. It's called planning ahead for emergencies and has been practiced by generations of people.

 

To your thread: The best example of what the Federal Government does with one simple act of compassion is explained from FDR's New Deal or SS act of 1935. What started out as a simple forced 1 (ONE) percent deduction of WORKERS pay, and later to be paid to THAT worker, at age 65 as turned into one giant pyramid scheme, nearing 5 Trillion in Federal Revenues since and over 4 Trillion in benefits, today sending out 41 million monthly checks...

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0861154.html

 

For the record, people were not even expected to live to 65 when newborns had life expectancies of 59.9, white males 59.7 and black men 47.3 years.

 

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

[The Bear's Key]

Yes, I saw it and had already reviewed the Switzerland plan years ago.

 

 

5. Switzerland: Its Former System Resembled Ours

.....

As for the other systems; There is no private sector Insurance Company that can exist and not make a profit....

I meant #2 and #4 only. If you did see those both, even only a few minutes of each, and still disagree with the proposals, I can only say fair enough.

 

But I'm not certain if you have seen either, by that answer. You didn't even address the key point: choice.

 

The best example of what the Federal Government does with one simple act of compassion is explained from FDR's New Deal or SS act of 1935. What started out as a simple forced 1 (ONE) percent deduction of WORKERS pay, and later to be paid to THAT worker, at age 65 as turned into one giant pyramid scheme, nearing 5 Trillion in Federal Revenues since and over 4 Trillion in benefits, today sending out 41 million monthly checks...

Somehow I think the problem had to with robbery (borrowing) by politicians for other things.

 

A piling money inventory of that magnitude should've been collecting interest all the while. It never should have depleted so fast except for the careless policy of having no strict oversight. And therein lies the problem -- not with S.S.

[iNow]

iNow; I suppose you have Auto Insurance and I suppose it's you hope you never need to use it.

If my car breaks down, or gets into a wreck, I don't personally suffer health issues, or failing kidneys, or retinopathy leading to blindness, or neuropathy leading to amputation. Further, I'm not sure of any car accidents which cause people to go into bankruptcy, yet over 700,000 US citizens every year go into bankruptcy due to medical costs.

 

Frankly, I find your analogy failing, and were it not for the seriousness of the health care issue it would also be quite laughable.

 

 

That company (usually multi-faceted) will produce a profit, generate an economy, work employees while protecting your interest while driving a car. It should be no different for Health Insurance, which no one should actually want to use.

While you're welcome to hold that opinion, it should not be asserted as some fact, because it's not. I quite disagree. I think the business of health care groups should be care for peoples health, not profit. It's the profit which is causing so many Americans to die unnecessarily each year, or to go into financial ruin.

 

Either way, you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not one with which many enlightened minds would tend to agree.

 

 

While a policy is in effect, yes use of that policy abusive or needed will increase the cost, but if you become sick under that policy there are laws to prevent cancellation from that sickness, in most States that I am aware of...

The point being that many policies are far too expensive for people to afford, and people get turned down due to preexisting conditions, and even those who have policies have coverage denied.

 

That's the problem with a free market based system where profits are involved. The business mind will always take the bottom line over the claimants health... every time. It's that issue we need to address, and I find any calls to continue with the existing status quo to be nausating, shameful, and disgusting.

 

 

As for applying with a pre-condition, like old age then yes it will be hard to come by and it should be. It's called planning ahead for emergencies and has been practiced by generations of people.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what others experience, the suffering which occurs, and the pain and anguish a lack of care can cause. I am happy that you've led a life where you have never had to face such life threatening challenges, but since you're not even willing to try to see things outside of your tiny worldview, I think I'm done with you now.

[CharonY]

as for applying with a pre-condition, like old age then yes it will be hard to come by and it should be. It's called planning ahead for emergencies and has been practiced by generations of people.

 

OK. You are 20 and have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Now go ahead and plan for the future.

[JohnB]

Just quickly.

You have said Medicare in Australia is based on reimbursement, which scares the heck out of me. If I have a heart attack and am required to pay expenses which could be $250k (my mothers medical bill in 1994 for just such an event) I may not have that much value and then to think Government (especially here) will determine the cares validity and reimburse me on what they consider valid expenses is simply not going to happen.

I think I haven't explained properly. Medicare reimburses me when I go to the GP. So it's for general expenses.

 

In the case you gave of a heart attack there are two possible outcomes.

 

1. You have no private insurance, just the UHC. You go to hospital. (BTW, we pay an $80 per household state tax to pay for ambulances, so all trips are free) You will be treated in accordance with best medical practice by the Drs and nurses. You will recover in a "Public" ward which has 4 beds. If you need a pace maker, one will be supplied and installed. When recovered, you will be discharged.

 

For all the above you will pay nothing.

 

If there is a drug regimen required as an outpatient, you will pay for those in future, but we do have a PBS (Pharmacutical Benefits Scheme) which drops the cost a lot. Basically, the gov part pays for the drug, so you might only pay $20 instead of $100. The amount varies depending on the drug.

 

2. You have personal health insurance. You go to hospital. The ambulance is still free. You will be treated and stabilised. Once stable, you now have the option of calling your own GP and calling in whatever specialist he recommends. You might transfer to a private ward (1 bed) or you might choose to transfer to a "Private Hospital". (one that is run for profit)

 

Again if you need a pacemaker one will be supplied and fitted.

 

Outpatient drugs are pretty much the same as option 1.

 

How much you pay and how much your insurance pays depends on the policy, but I doubt the bill to you would be more than circa $2,000.

 

The main difference is that you might have a number of different Drs under option 1, but under option 2 you would be treated by the same Dr and specialist. That's one reason for transferring to a private hospital, most of our specialists work from private hospitals but spend time at public ones on a roster system, so you would transfer to your specialists hospital.

 

To give an example, a few years ago my father had a shoulder replacement. One of those ones where they hollow out the bone and put a big steel replacement in. While it improved his situation, it still caused him trouble and resulted in a loss of mobility in his right arm. The technique used was "State of the Art", but he was one of the few that it didn't work well with. Last year better tech became available and so he was sent in by the specialist to replace the replacement. Cost to him? Nothing. The new one works much better but of course he took a while to heal.

 

After all, he is 92. No joke, he was born on the 1 st of November, 1916. The mere fact that we can do such surgery on someone that age shows that our Drs are indeed "World Class".

John; I'm afraid your taking my arguments opposing UHC in the US or your notion that it works well for you, as an attack on Australian HC.

No, if anything I think I haven't explained our system properly. As you seem to be getting the wrong idea from my comments.

 

Before you can get 1st world results, you have to realise that that you aren't currently getting them.

1 Hawaii 80.0 2 Minnesota 78.8 3 Utah 78.7 4 Connecticut 78.7 5 Massachusetts 78.4

45 Tennessee 75.1 46 West Virginia 75.1 47 South Carolina 74.8 48 Alabama 74.4 49 Louisiana 74.2 50 Mississippi 73.6 51 District of Columbia 72.0

And they're all below ours.

which according to later charts are not much different than the US.

Later charts? The WHO stats I quoted in post #31 are from the 2008 report. Link. That's the latest report. They don't come any later than that.

 

The biggest point I've been trying to make is this. It appears that many Americans think along the lines of "Yes, our system is a mess, but we do get world class treatment". I've been trying to show that your system is providing "World Class" results only if compared to the "Second World".

 

Why don't you admit the fact that compared to the rest of the developed world, your system sucks. Not only by cost, which is exhorbitant, but in outcomes, which are inferior. What I see are people devoting themselves to preventing comparison. The Catch 22 of that is that if you don't compare your outcomes with other nations, then you cannot claim your outcomes and services are "World Class".

 

Is the American ego so easily bruised that it can't admit to not being the best at something? I know you're better than that.

[iNow]

I think I haven't explained properly.

Quite the contrary. You've been doing a stellar job making this information accessible, John. The challenge appears to be with some particular members of your audience, not with the presentation. Please, keep up the nice posts. They are very much appreciated for their content, clarity, and supporting figures.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps the problem is with insurance existing at all?

 

Are you thinking that we should take insurance out of the equation completely and let the government provide all coverage, or are you thinking that we should take insurance out of the equation completely and let the people find ways to pay for their own healthcare?