Socialized Health Care Thoughts

[Dave Gray]

Same as they are doing with bailouts.  You take money from them then they have a right to get envolved in your life or business.

I do not invest in a business without getting a say.  Do you?
 That is what I was looking for.  Just some thoughts.

I see the point you're making, and I think our disagreement just comes in a fundamental idea of what government's function is. 

For example, we have a military, and I don't expect to help pick out the fighter jets we use.  They take my money and have people in place to make those decisions.  The same with NASA, building contracts, education, etc.  I'm not always happy with how the money is spent, but I take the good with the bad, in that I think that having the government take over huge projects like that is the best solution, and I vote for people who I think would spend the money more wisely.  I feel that health care is another one of those things.  I think that the country is better off as a whole if everyone is taken care of and we pool our resources as a nation to negotiate good deals, implement standardized technology, etc.  I'm totally fine with that money being chosen and decided by someone who isn't me.

Let me make a suggestion.  To try and understand where I'm coming from, ask yourself this:

As you stated before, you're okay with roads and bridges being built by government, instead of the private sector.  That isn't in the bill of rights, yet we can all kind of agree that they're necessary.  Why are you okay with being taxed for this purpose, and these business decisions (how to spend the money) being made by an elected official, yet the idea of the same system for health care being totally preposterous?

[MaineDolFan]

Also, I do not believe it will be a open check book.  I think you will have to go through a Gov official to determine if you can have a surgery & if you are cost effective.  Meaning is your remaining life expectation going to get them a return on them paying for your surgery.

I just need to toss this out here - private carriers are doing this now.  They also cap procedures at what "they" feel is the appropriate cost.  Person "x" has an approved an appendectomy.  The procedure runs into a couple minor bumps in the road that causes additional anesthesia, blood work and a slightly longer stay in the hospital than what is on a grid sitting in someone's office for the appendectomy.

If the carrier stated that the surgery shouldn't exceed $10,000 - that is all they will pay.  Period, end of story, no rights to appeal within the carrier.  They are very rigid on these "guidelines."  So even though that additional anesthesia, blood work and a slightly longer stay in the hospital was needed to save a person's life...if it added $15,000 grand on to the total guess who flips the bill?

The poor sap that needed the surgery in the first place, based on a chart sitting on some processor's desk.

I don't know how the private section, health care wise, could be in worse condition than it is now. 
 
Wait times?  Head off to your local ER right now and see how long you sit.  I had to do one of my clinicals in the ER in one of Portland's hospitals.  Portland isn't exactly a massive city, I think last count there was a metro population of about 70,000 with a rough service area that covered about 140,000.  The wait times in that ER were brutal.  I would watch a young couple come in with a 6 month old with a 105 degree fever.  They would be triage in maybe two hours and actually seen by a doctor after four - five (and several screaming matches later).

The wait times in our country aren't anything to sneeze at.

[Dave Gray]

I don't think the "waiting times" argument is relevant.  That speaks to the efficiency of the system in place, not who's paying for it.

Government doesn't have the best track record for efficiency, granted, but it doesn't mean that we can't seek higher standards.

[Dphins4me]

With regard to Dead Meat: just as you can find people who have fallen through the cracks in the Canadian system, you can find people who have fallen through the cracks in the American system (some of them are in Sicko).  The difference is that in Canada, 100% of citizens are covered and ~90% of them are satisfied with their services.  In America, nearly 20% don't have healthcare insurance to begin with.  Even if 100% of covered Americans were satisfied with their services, we'd still be lagging behind.

Where are you pulling these percentages?  I know any plan will never hit 100%.  Not expecting that BTW.

I'll take the possibility of future problems over the reality of current problems.
If I go to an emergency room (with healthcare insurance) and my ins.co. tells me to leave, I am personally on the hook for any bills I incur.  So what's the point of having healthcare insurance if, when I really need it, I'm going to have to pay out of pocket anyway? 

Even if the future problem could be far worse? 

  If you are in the emergency room, then why would the Ins. Co be telling you to leave? I've never spoke with my Ins Co while in the ER.    Expand on that please.

[Dphins4me]

Dphins4me, I suggest you stay on topic.

The topic is not "how can Americans improve their daily health habits." 

I agree & was going stop it if the discussion went further down that road.

It would be great if we lived in a society where people didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't eat unhealthy foods, and exercised regularly.  (And for the record, the U.S. rates better than most of the gov't healthcare countries in % of smokers and drinkers.)  But unless you are suggesting some sort of law to require this (or some sort of other direct incentive), then it's a pipe dream.  The option to "live healthier" has existed for a long time, and it (meaning, the availability of the option) is clearly not a substitute for healthcare insurance.

I'm all for people being allowed to smoke, drink & eat really bad food on a daily basis if that is their choice. They know what they are doing to their bodies.  Its fast easy food.  Its easier to sit on a coach than walk on a treadmill.    However, don't come crying about it when those decisions you make land you in very bad health & in need of HC.

[Dphins4me]

have you ever read the constitution?

Every last word of it?  Years ago.

how about the bill of rights ?

Yes.

because this is one of the amendments in the bill of rights:
see .. what that means is that rights are rights .. if the people of this country deem them to be rights .. that's all it takes ..

we could all say that we have a right to government funded ice cream sundays for everyone .. and if the "people" read "congress" makes that a law .. then it is constitutional  and is a RIGHT

so maybe while you're looking for what rights are written in the bill of rights .. you should maybe read it first

With all that.   Is HC in the BoR?  When they amend the BoR then you have something.  Until then.  Its not a right.

[Dave Gray]

So, what if we have a base insurance for everyone, so that it's harder to abuse the system.  So, you still have to pay for the first parts of treatment.  It keeps people from going to the ER for a blister (they still have to pay for the deductible), but you don't have people with brain cancer getting bankrupted or refused insurance.

Perhaps you could still have some insurance in the private sector to fill in those gaps above and beyond, so we're providing a base level of coverage to everyone, but those seeking more can get it.

..and let's say that there are mandatory checkups every however often that you have to do to remain on the plan (just like you would with a car or whatever else).  That way, prevention is higher.

These are just some ideas.

Right now, these costs are on the backs of business and it's tough.  When I started my business, one of our goals was REAL health insurance for ourselves.  It's costly.  I'd gladly pay a higher personal tax rate to get that burden off of the business.

[Fau Teixeira]

I personally have health insurance .. and supplemental insurance (aflac)

between the two .. i pay next to nothing for any sort of hospital stay / procedure / dentist

i just have to file paperwork with aflac and they send me money .. in exchange, i pay extra every month for this type of coverage .. but for all intents and purposes i have free healthcare .. If instead of me paying two private companies to provide this service, i pay the extra 150 a month in taxes then i'm fine with it

[Spider-Dan]

Where are you pulling these percentages?  I know any plan will never hit 100%.  Not expecting that BTW.

Every citizen in Canada is covered.  That's 100%.

As far as the U.S. goes:

Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Even if the future problem could be far worse?

I don't think it could be.

I think we can all agree that there is no way that a system like Canada's (where you are legally not permitted to purchase private healthcare insurance) will not get passed in the U.S.  There's just no way it will fly.  So there will always be a failsafe option of purchasing private insurance, or, in the absolute worst case, paying outright for your own services (exactly like we do today).  Therefore, the "worst case" scenario is really the same system what we have today, but with higher taxes.

Given that, I think it is more than worthwhile to ensure healthcare access to every citizen.  If the unlikely worst case scenario is that it's just as bad as it right now (but with higher taxes), I'll happily accept that deal.

If you are in the emergency room, then why would the Ins. Co be telling you to leave? I've never spoke with my Ins Co while in the ER.    Expand on that please.

This is far from uncommon.  If you are insured with, say, Kaiser Permanente, you can only visit a non-Kaiser ER for what is determined to be a "serious emergency."  As noted, my niece's asthma attack did not qualify as such.  For any "less serious" emergency, you will be directed to leave the ER and go to a Kaiser hospital.  This happens after you give them (the ER) your insurance information and they contact your insurer.

The alternative is to commit fraud and say that you are not insured, which may or may not result in you receiving a bill anyway.

[Buddhagirl]

Dphins, you still have not told us what you would like to see. Telling people to change their lifestyle is not solving the problem. What do you think the solution is here?

[run_to_win]

And for those that do take care of themselves and still need pills to stay healthy. What would you like them to do?

They should still get healthcare but with some incentive to start caring for themselves.  Perhaps they should pay a deductible/copay or  something.

It's difficult for me to have a lot of sympathy for someone who needs healthcare but can't afford it because they're CHOOSING to afford to McDonald's every meal and a case of beer every night. 

It's the same feeling you get on the rare occasion you see someone drive a status symbol car (BMW, Cadillac, Mercedes, etc) to the grocery store and pay with food stamps.  How many of us could afford a nice "ride" if someone else was paying our grocery bill?

[Buddhagirl]

They should still get healthcare but with some incentive to start caring for themselves.  Perhaps they should pay a deductible/copay or  something.

It's difficult for me to have a lot of sympathy for someone who needs healthcare but can't afford it because they're CHOOSING to afford to McDonald's every meal and a case of beer every night. 

It's the same feeling you get on the rare occasion you see someone drive a status symbol car (BMW, Cadillac, Mercedes, etc) to the grocery store and pay with food stamps.  How many of us could afford a nice "ride" if someone else was paying our grocery bill?

Uhm...I care for myself. However, my blood clots in my veins. It's a genetic thing. I must monitor it and take blood thinners when/if my levels hit a certain point. I have to go to the doctor and have blood drawn. So...am I just supposed to "just take better care of myself"?

[run_to_win]

Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.

No one disputes that too many people who want/need to be covered aren't.  That being said, the 18% number is somewhat disputed due to the number of young people who think they're bullet-proof who have insurance available but choose not to have it.

[Spider-Dan]

No one disputes that too many people who want/need to be covered aren't.  That being said, the 18% number is somewhat disputed due to the number of young people who think they're bullet-proof who have insurance available but choose not to have it.

I think that this number is at least balanced (I would actually say "greatly outweighed," but that's a guess) by people who are actually underinsured.  These are people who don't have enough coverage to handle anything but the most superficial of problems; were they to develop any sort of serious disease (e.g. cancer), their coverage would quickly run out.

One of the main benefits of a single-payer system is that in all but the most super-extreme cases, you don't have to worry about getting a call informing you that your coverage threshold has been exceeded and you're on your own.

[bsmooth]

They should still get healthcare but with some incentive to start caring for themselves.  Perhaps they should pay a deductible/copay or  something.

It's difficult for me to have a lot of sympathy for someone who needs healthcare but can't afford it because they're CHOOSING to afford to McDonald's every meal and a case of beer every night. 

It's the same feeling you get on the rare occasion you see someone drive a status symbol car (BMW, Cadillac, Mercedes, etc) to the grocery store and pay with food stamps.  How many of us could afford a nice "ride" if someone else was paying our grocery bill?

Your idea does not address people with hereditary or genetic problems that can skip a generation and strike them down even though they do not engage in any of the unhealthy practices you and dlphin keep talking about. By the standards the two of you have set forth, if you at anytime had, ingested, consumed, etc anything bad, then you would be barred from state run medical coverage.

I think "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could be used to show people have as much right to medical care as they do an education. How many billions of dollars are lost in productivity each year to illness because people cannot get care and work themselves into the ground, until they are too sick to function, and in the mean time infect their co workers? Perhaps the overall cost of the program could be offset by recovering some of this lost time.