Results 1 to 30 of 537

Thread: The U.S. Health Care Debate

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Immunisation has a benefit for not just the individual, if enough of the population has it a disease can be stopped in its tracks because it can't find vectors to viable hosts. So immunisation of most diseases should be subsidised by the state.

    What I think the healthcare system should be aiming for is outcomes. Increase the health of society. Take a more holistic approach. Put more medicos in per dollar and less bureaucrats. Make it harder to sue for accidents and easier to prosecute malicious Drs (less monetary gains and more criminal)... malpractice insurance should go down as it should be harder to sue for accidents. While actual criminal actions should be handled by the state, no vigilante justice by suing.

    Allow the state to handle emergency and the private system to handle boob jobs.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  2. #2
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio View Post
    Allow the state to handle emergency and the private system to handle boob jobs.
    Whilst I agree with this, sadly there's a massive amount of grey between these two cases. Even with these two there's some variance. And it is the case that State would be free?

    For example, although most women have boob jobs to, uh, uplift their self image, there are some who have very unequal breasts and this causes significant psycological distress. Then there's post cancer / trauma or even infection.

    And if someone is having recurring flare ups of gall stones, it would over time be cheaper to whip it out once and have a 3 day inpatient stay than have attacks every few months requiring far more state resources.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  3. #3
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Thumbs up Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Whilst I agree with this, sadly there's a massive amount of grey between these two cases. Even with these two there's some variance. And it is the case that State would be free?

    For example, although most women have boob jobs to, uh, uplift their self image, there are some who have very unequal breasts and this causes significant psycological distress. Then there's post cancer / trauma or even infection.

    And if someone is having recurring flare ups of gall stones, it would over time be cheaper to whip it out once and have a 3 day inpatient stay than have attacks every few months requiring far more state resources.

    Essentially if it is elective and not health related (health including psychological as mentioned) then it should be paid by the individual. I would include gall stones within the non-elective state funded side of the equation. If a patient wants there own Dr or single room then that is a user pays (private health) add on.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  4. #4
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Bankruptcy, social Darwinism, and the War on the American Middle Class:
    NIGHTMARES OF AMERICAN MEDICAL#CARE

    As someone who has lived roughly half my life in the United States and half in Canada, and as an economist by profession, I think I can provide a vivid sketch of American healthcare.

    There actually is no system.
    There is private health insurance for most middle-class people, and the tradition, not a requirement, is that this is paid by your employer as an employee benefit.
    Since there are about 1,500 insurance companies looking for this business, the nature and quality of the policies vary immensely.

    For a privileged cut of the population – those working for the government and large corporations and legislators – the benefits are very good, and they get excellent medical care.

    As you may imagine, the quality and quantity of the benefits goes down as you move down the prestige scale. For a more typical office worker, there will usually be many limits on the policy. Examples: an annual $1500 deductible; a 15-20% deductible for each procedure; and, in some cases, coverage that is as low as 60% of costs.

    This is why health care is the single largest cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S. Inflation in fees and costs by the health-providing industry means that a single-day as an outpatient with some relatively minor procedure – has a full cost on the order of $7,000 when all the bills are in.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    I say ‘when all the bills are in’ because the patient for weeks after the procedure will receive bills: from each doctor, from the anesthetist, from the hospital, from laboratories, from the ambulance company, etc. There will be items on your bill, on a long computer list, like $150 for the use of a scissors or $10 for some aspirins in a cup.

    Under some insurance policies, you pay and are later reimbursed. This can still cause a cash crunch where the bills are high. Under other policies, the bill you receive will be for the residual after separate billing to your insurance.
    In any case, if you do not pay the balance fairly promptly, your file will be turned over to a collection agency who will then hound you daily for the money.
    There are invariably disagreements with the insurance company over specifics. You usually have an 800-number where you will often wait a long time to talk to call center about the issue. Because of the complexity of the terms of a given policy, you will have to be well-informed even to discuss your point.
    On some policies, even pretty decent ones, you are required to call an 800-number before going to the emergency room to get the insurance companies permission for what you are doing. Otherwise, you will pay the emergency-room bill yourself.

    But even for pretty good insurances, typically policies have lifetime limits on benefits. If you are struck with something really seriously expensive, you will reach the end of your benefits.
    Note the fact that very good to excellent coverage for upper-middle class and government people effectively silences those who would be active in changing the system.

    This is a key reason why the healthcare chaos never becomes a burning political issue. It also provides a lever to be used if someone, as the Clintons did, wants to reform things. Upper middle-class people were directly appealed to, being told in a barrage of ads that the excellent level of their care would be reduced, a very effective ploy.

    For many of the privately insured however, benefits range from mediocre to terrible. America has more than forty million with no benefits, but a statistic never given, and more important, is the huge number of under-insured.
    Note that you can approach some companies to buy your own insurance if your employer provides none. Because you are not part of pool in these circumstances, your fees will be very high. The benefits are also likely to be poor to mediocre.

    The industrial sector of the U.S. has badly declined for decades, and with its decline the opportunity for decent, employer-paid insurance for most working people. The growth sector of the economy is services, and these places typically offer poor or no insurance. Of course, many of these are the infamous McJobs.
    People in non-union factory or middling office jobs or much of the service industry get benefits so limited that a serious event can throw them into bankruptcy. This is how the policies, where they are available, are priced low enough for such employers to afford.

    There are many other disturbing elements in this national healthcare chaos.
    For example, your private health records are in the hands of private insurance companies, and this is marketing information in which they trade for profit.
    It is possible for your private health-care information to disqualify you from employment somewhere else.
    People with better policies hang desperately on to their jobs for fear of losing coverage in middle-age, just when you most need it.
    Morality enters American health care, as some private companies will not cover procedures such as abortion.

    You may have a policy with which you are quite satisfied, but for some reason, usually cost-cutting, your employer may change insurers suddenly. You will be faced with a whole new set of qualifiers, requirements, 800-numbers, deductibles, and limits. And this can happen a number of times in your career, and it is very unsettling.

    Companies deeply concerned about costs will gradually work their way down from excellent policies to mediocre ones. You must adjust accordingly.
    There are hundreds off details not possible to cover outside of a major essay. As an example, not many years ago, if you lost your job, you, in most cases, immediately lost your insurance. Too bad if you or your child had chronic needs. Now, there is a time-limited bridging mechanism – for which you must apply, fill out forms, and pay – that allows you to be insured until you secure your new job with new insurance.

    The chaos includes often-impoverished county hospital emergency wards for the really poor. These will still try getting some degree of payment out of you according to your means. In general, the care in such places is poor. There is the Veterans’ Administration system for qualified ex-soldiers. There is Medicare for retired Americans, a system whose benefits are completely inadequate to modern needs. If you retire without a supplemental insurance – either paid by your past employer in a good job or by yourself in other cases – you may face serious problems.

    There is the Medicaid system for poor Americans. It is an extremely complex system, and the extent and nature of benefits vary considerably from state to state. If you move from one state to another you can lose coverage for the services you were using before. Again, depending on the state, you may be required to make co-payments for services. You really do have to be needy to qualify for benefits, and your means are examined in detail. For some Medicaid services, officials are entitled to recover expenses from a beneficiary’s estate.
    Private hospitals in the U.S. – generally the best but not always – are in various jurisdictions required to take a certain quota of non-insured patients. This quota is never generous. The cost of this effectively gets dumped onto the insured, increasing the cost of insurance.

    This also leads to some bizarre results. Suppose you are an uninsured person picked up on the street by an ambulance after an accident. The ambulance will be calling ahead to the nearest hospital to see whether they can take another uninsured. If the answer is no, another hospital is called. This continues until there is a taker, however, by that time, you may expire in the ambulance, a not uncommon event.
    Imagine the horrors as an uninsured person, whether a citizen or a visitor from abroad, of getting mugged in the United States? First, there is the horror of the mugging or rape or assault, and then the horrors of dealing with the Medical Kremlin.

    This brief review gives you a realistic sketch of healthcare in America. If you are young and healthy, you need not be overly concerned. Of course, it is precisely the pool of young and healthy people that insurers love, because their employers pay but the employees don’t use many benefits. That is why institutions like the high-tech industry or huge multi-national corporations have such good policies. They get used comparatively little.

    Note the fact that very good to excellent coverage for upper-middle class and government people effectively silences those who would be active in changing the system.

    This is a key reason why the healthcare chaos never becomes a burning political issue. It also provides a lever to be used if someone, as the Clintons did, wants to reform things. Upper middle-class people were directly appealed to, being told in a barrage of ads that the excellent level of their care would be reduced, a very effective ploy.


    The entire ‘system’ segments the population into many different pools, from low risk with excellent benefits to high risk with terrible benefits. It truly is medical Social Darwinism, organized by lawyers and financiers.
    link
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  5. #5
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Do you dislike socialised healthcare? Do you insist on individual freedom? Then don't take your cue from socialist countries like Canada and the UK. There are other options:
    An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

    That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine."
    link
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  6. #6
    Member Senior Member Proletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Far up in the Magnolia Tree.
    Posts
    3,550

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Hm, great article. If this thing is inevitable for America, than I hope we go with the French style, if anything at all.

  7. #7
    Part-Time Polemic Senior Member ICantSpellDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    7,237

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    Do you dislike socialised healthcare? Do you insist on individual freedom? Then don't take your cue from socialist countries like Canada and the UK. There are other options:link

    While it gets into very sparse detail, the article makes the system sound promising - especially after they find a way to cut it off from payroll taxes.
    "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
    -Eric "George Orwell" Blair

    "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
    (Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  8. #8
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff View Post
    While it gets into very sparse detail, the article makes the system sound promising
    The nice people over at the embassy translate lots of stuff for curious Americans.

    http://ambafrance-us.org/IMG/pdf_Uni...ustainable.pdf

    Not all is rosy, of course. As the questions about sustainability above and the more brief and factual article below show.
    France is often seen by liberals as the ideal system. It has universal health care, with few waiting lists. France has the highest level of satisfaction with their health care among all European countries. How can this be? What is their secret?

    France provides a basic, universal health insurances through large occupation-based funds. The General National Health Inusrance Scheme covers 83% of French workers, while other occupational specific (e.g.: for agricultural workers, for the self employed, for miners, etc.) cover the remainder. About 99% of individuals are covered by this universal health insurance system.
    However, France utilizes more market-based ideas than most people realized. Copayment rates for most services are 10%-40%. About 92% of French residents have complementary private health insurance.

    In essence, the French system avoids widespread rationing because, unlike true single-payer systems, it employs market forces. Even the OECD says that the “proportion of the population with private health insurance” and the degree of cost sharing are key determinants of how severe waiting lists will be.
    Insured. About 99% of French residents are covered by the national health insurance scheme.
    Cost. France is the third most expensive health care system (~11% of GDP).
    http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...-world-france/
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  9. #9
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio View Post
    Immunisation has a benefit for not just the individual, if enough of the population has it a disease can be stopped in its tracks because it can't find vectors to viable hosts. So immunisation of most diseases should be subsidised by the state.
    This principle does not apply to immunisation only.

    Society as a whole benefits from a high level of general health, hygiene, prevention and disease control. Like fire prevention and the maintenance of public order, health is a common good, not a private issue.

    That's why health care systems with socialized funding compare favourably to health care systems based on private funding. Lemur and Louis already pointed to longevity, infant mortality and related criteria. Only three OECD member states have no universal health care: the US, Turkey and Mexico. On most relevant indicators in the latest comparative OECD study Health at a glance 2007, those three are at the bottom of the table. For a rich country like the US this should be unthinkable, but it is the truth. Infant mortality, age expectancy, mortality from heart disease and stroke, all cancers, low birth weight and infant mortality, you name it - in all instances the US rates well below the OECD average or well below expected outcome based on GDP.

    Sorry guys, your system stinks because it is based on private funding. Socialised medicine (also known as state health care) has its drawbacks as shown by the NHS, but that is not the same as socialised funding.

    Switch to socialised funding, cut costs, live longer and send your kids to a school where not one in three kids has missing teeth and one in ten has problems due to premature birth, obesity &cetera.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO