Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 537

Thread: The U.S. Health Care Debate

  1. #61

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    I'm Canadian but I know a few Americans :p

    In one case; friend has absolutely stellar health insurance-has heart attack falls of bike and spends an uncomfortably long time on hot pavement; rushed to hospital, resuscitated, treated for burns; the receiving hospital was not covered by his plan - 3/4 of a million for treatment; fortunately he did get shipped to a hospital under his coverage for recovery.

    I shudder to think that that is the "best health care" in the world; how many ppl plan for $750,000 dollar hit? how many can afford it? and this, despite having coverage that costs more than my yearly income! I hope Obama injects some sanity into American Health Care.
    Ja-mata TosaInu

  2. #62
    Nobody expects the Senior Member Lemur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Death Trip
    Posts
    15,754

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Whoa, this is a thread about healthcare, not Iraq, not Bush, not soldiers, except as regards their healthcare. I don't mean to be both a rules geek and a stick-in-the-mud, but the GC-ATPG exchange seems to be wandering far afield.

    Just gonna re-state my position:
    • The appetite for healthcare is infinite.
    • No economy can sustain "full" healthcare for everyone at all stages of their lives.
    • Ergo, some sort of rationing is not only inevitable, it's the reality. Everywhere.

    So the only real question is "How would you like your triage served, sir?"

  3. #63
    Chieftain of the Pudding Race Member Evil_Maniac From Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,407

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemur View Post
    Just gonna re-state my position:
    • The appetite for healthcare is infinite.
    • No economy can sustain "full" healthcare for everyone at all stages of their lives.
    • Ergo, some sort of rationing is not only inevitable, it's the reality. Everywhere.
    This is something that concerns me deeply, especially here in Europe. We have all of these fancy healthcare systems set up, but as more and more people become older, and as our population pyramid inverts more and more, we have less workers paying for more people needing the services. These health and welfare systems already cost a fortune, they already consume large portions of our financial resources. Just how are we going to keep paying for them? Will we go into debt? Will we have to cut services? What is the price that I, or more importantly my descendents are going to end up paying for the continued maintenance of such extravagant systems?

  4. #64
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemur View Post
    Just gonna re-state my position:
    • The appetite for healthcare is infinite.
    • No economy can sustain "full" healthcare for everyone at all stages of their lives.
    • Ergo, some sort of rationing is not only inevitable, it's the reality. Everywhere.

    So the only real question is "How would you like your triage served, sir?"
    So...
    • You agree with the idea of scarcity
    • See point one
    • Prices are a method of rationing


    Excellent! Another free marketer.

  5. #65
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Meneldil View Post
    There's absolutely no valid reason to explain why members of the military have free healthcare and other people don't.
    Breach of equity of the worst kind. Nationalism is definitely stupid.
    There is absolutely a valid reason. It's a benefit provided by the state to help encourage people to sign up for the armed forces. It's essential for a nation to have armed forces, therefore it's essential for the nation to compensate their military well enough to maintain adequate numbers, it's really as simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemur
    (1) The appetite for healthcare is infinite.
    (2) No society can appease all healthcare needs and wants and survive.
    (3) Therefore, rationing of some sort takes place in every market.
    The demand for anything is infinite when price is removed as a consideration. As it stands, our health "insurance" makes about as much sense as grocery insurance. Why not let people buy grocery insurance- or better yet, have it provided by their employer. You can go to the grocery store as often as you want and you'll pay the same premium for your insurance no matter what. What do you think would happen to the price of groceries?

    What I think we need to do is 1) divorce health insurance from employment. It should be something you can choose based on your personal needs/preferences and it should be something you can continue to purchase regardless of who your employer is- or even if you're employed at all. 2) I think insurance should actually be insurance- against catastrophic events. If I get the sniffles, I should be able to pay out of pocket for a doctor's visit and antibiotics. If I'm in a car wreck and severely injured, insurance should kick in. We could probably engineer some kind of tax credit the goes into something like a health savings account that people could use on non-insurance type expenses. Each year, anything that you haven't spent you can pocket. Give people some real incentives to keep healthcare costs down.

    Do most people even know what a doctor's visit costs? I'm sure people know what their copay is, but do they know or even care what the total cost is?
    Last edited by Xiahou; 06-29-2009 at 06:29.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  6. #66
    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.

  7. #67

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Okay.

    Not an in-depth study but why does the USA private insurance system cost the gov't more (per capita) than the Canadian gov't insurance system? If you cover less ppl (proportionately) by spending more money, this speaks to a very peculiar transfer of resources. Efficient? How?

    No doubt beneficial to some segment of society
    Ja-mata TosaInu

  8. #68
    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

  9. #69
    Nobody expects the Senior Member Lemur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Death Trip
    Posts
    15,754

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
    Do most people even know what a doctor's visit costs? I'm sure people know what their copay is, but do they know or even care what the total cost is?
    Based on my experience with my Insurer From Hell, I can tell you what the doctor says the visit costs, what his employer says the visit costs, what my insurer says the visit costs and what I'm told at the paperwork station about its cost. The cool thing is that you get four wildly different answers.

    If you think HSAs are the way, with some sort of catastrophic insurance to gild the lily, cheers. How would you address people with chronic illnesses? Pay for treatment until they can't anymore? Then what?

  10. #70
    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 Lemur View Post
    How would you address people with chronic illnesses? Pay for treatment until they can't anymore? Then what?
    They die. Just like they do anywhere else in the world when they can't afford treatment. OK, often this is for things that are pitifully easy to treat.

    Living beyond one's means now can also mean living for too long, unless the burden should just fall on the young exponentially whilst the elderly and infirm have 24 hour care from healthcare professionals plus meds and the rest.

    Healthcare economics is an area where hard decisions have to be faced.

    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

  11. #71
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,415

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    They die. Just like they do anywhere else in the world when they can't afford treatment. OK, often this is for things that are pitifully easy to treat.

    Living beyond one's means now can also mean living for too long, unless the burden should just fall on the young exponentially whilst the elderly and infirm have 24 hour care from healthcare professionals plus meds and the rest.

    Healthcare economics is an area where hard decisions have to be faced.

    Blatantly stated, this is nevertheless the decision facing the US electorate and their rep's.
    Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.

  12. #72
    Hope guides me Senior Member Hosakawa Tito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Western New Yuck
    Posts
    7,914

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Exerpt from the link in my earlier post:

    The United States is unique among nations in that it was
    originally based upon the value of individual liberty: freedom from
    coercion. No individual or government had a presumptive claim to
    the property or labor of others.
    Liberty requires rights. Rights are a just claim to freedom of
    action. The original rights as recorded were “negative” in that they
    implied the absence of interference. The only individual obligation
    was to refrain from interfering with others. In contrast, positive rights
    impose an obligation for someone to do something for others. The
    Bill of Rights is a list of negative rights.
    A “right to health care” implies that someone has to provide it.
    But what of the liberty rights of physicians, nurses, and other medical
    workers? Or the property rights of taxpayers and entrepreneurs?
    Some rights must be abrogated to meet the demands of a positive
    right. President Obama and other politicians who call a professional
    service a “right” do not understand the founding principles of the
    United States.
    I find it difficult to argue this statement. However, I agree that something needs to be done without driving us into bankruptcy.

    Regarding the WHO health performance rankings, I wonder if they polled people's satisfaction with their health care system by asking those that actually use it, the chronically ill or those with debilitating conditions that aren't immediately life threatening but are very painful and affect quality of life. Access to a waiting list is much different than access to health care, and for some health care delayed is health care denied.

    In the US the COBRA Laws & EMTALA require that any person who comes to the emergency room must be examined and/or treated regardless of the person's ability to pay.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*

  13. #73
    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

    What if people present to ER with hip pain for example.

    An X-ray shows the hip is wrecked. Severe loss of joint space - the bones are basically rubbing on each other.

    To treat:

    Up the pain meds.
    Admit for a joint replacement.

    Which one is undertaken?

    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

  14. #74
    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

  15. #75
    is not a senior Member Meneldil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
    I'll be the first to say that the Army makes someone out of touch with the civilian world. I still get culture shock when I go on leave--and it gets worse every time, especially after Iraq. But to say it's a breach of equity that the Military should offer me outstanding healthcare?
    Yes, it is. If the military is the only state organization that receive free healthcare, I don't see how you could claim otherwise.

    I don't care what's your job, where you'd been fighting and what not. You signed up, for I guess a few reasons. You're doing your job, which involve getting shot at. That's dangerous and brave, but that's what you signed up for.
    Having a military is not essential for a nation, it's essential for the US, because of their honestly war-focused foreign policy and their role as a superpower. That doesn't change the fact that a soldier shouldn't have more rights than the average citizen.

    That's kind of funny if you think about it. American right-wing people keep claiming universal and free healthcare is crap and would doom their entire country, but when it comes to the army, it's the fair reward for a dangerous job and serving your country. Talk about hypocrisy.

    I guess we're kind of getting used to it by now
    - "The state shouldn't offer free healthcare. Except for the military"
    - "The state shouldn't rule our lives. Except when it comes to abortion and homosexuals"
    Last edited by Meneldil; 06-29-2009 at 17:04.

  16. #76
    Sovereign Oppressor Member TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Turkey Shoot Champion, Juggler Champion Kralizec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Meneldil
    Yes, it is. If the military is the only state organization that receive free healthcare, I don't see how you could claim otherwise.

    I don't care what's your job, where you'd been fighting and what not. You signed up, for I guess a few reasons. You're doing your job, which involve getting shot at. That's dangerous and brave, but that's what you signed up for.
    Uh, how is that unequal? Someone working for the IRS may not get the same health care benefits, but that's because of his own career choice - he could have signed up for the military, but decided not to despite the health care.

    I suppose one could argue that the military shouldn't pay for medical treatments that have no relation to the work done, but suggesting that getting shot isn't any different from a sprain limb after doing construction work is pretty daft


  17. #77
    Chieftain of the Pudding Race Member Evil_Maniac From Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,407

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Meneldil View Post
    Having a military is not essential for a nation
    Yes, it is, and if it isn't immediately, it will be.

  18. #78
    This comment is witty! Senior Member LittleGrizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The wilderness...
    Posts
    9,215

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Yes, it is, and if it isn't immediately, it will be.

    Costa Rica seem to have done okay for themselves, and without the expense of an armed forces...
    In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!

  19. #79
    Chieftain of the Pudding Race Member Evil_Maniac From Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,407

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly View Post
    Costa Rica seem to have done okay for themselves, and without the expense of an armed forces...
    Fifty years is a paltry amount of time. Eventually they will need a military.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Ignoring the fact that their police force is fairly powerful and retains some military equipment.

  20. #80
    This comment is witty! Senior Member LittleGrizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The wilderness...
    Posts
    9,215

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Im not saying never have a military, But tell me what threat should they be worried about requiring the build up of thier military now ?

    If the situation changes in 50 years time sure. As things stand they have saved themsleves 50 years of unnessecary expense, and i see them saving themselves another 50 years of unnesecary expense... all to the benefit of Costa Ricans and the dismay of wargamers and military enthusiasts !
    In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!

  21. #81
    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

    Um, Grizz.. who wants Costa Rica?
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  22. #82
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly View Post
    Yes, it is, and if it isn't immediately, it will be.

    Costa Rica seem to have done okay for themselves, and without the expense of an armed forces...
    Only because everyone knows we, the US, won't let them be invaded.
    Yes, it is. If the military is the only state organization that receive free healthcare, I don't see how you could claim otherwise.

    I don't care what's your job, where you'd been fighting and what not. You signed up, for I guess a few reasons. You're doing your job, which involve getting shot at. That's dangerous and brave, but that's what you signed up for.
    Having a military is not essential for a nation, it's essential for the US, because of their honestly war-focused foreign policy and their role as a superpower. That doesn't change the fact that a soldier shouldn't have more rights than the average citizen.
    Preposterous. He is not receiving health care. Nor did he agree to be in the military for free. The military agreed to compensate him for his service - with both a salary and complete health insurance.

    CR
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  23. #83
    This comment is witty! Senior Member LittleGrizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The wilderness...
    Posts
    9,215

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Only because everyone knows we, the US, won't let them be invaded.

    During the cold war... its a possibility. Since the collapse of the soviet union theres has been no need for that American threat either.. the sanctions they would get from alot of countrys around the world would make invading Costa Rica not worthwile...

    The only country (s) where any sanctions wouldn't make a difference as they are already there would not be able to launch an invasion of Costa Rica anyway, besides North Korea has more pressing concerns... any other country would be so battered by sanctions that even if everyone agreed not to take military action against thier invaders the invasion would be extremely counter productive...

    Um, Grizz.. who wants Costa Rica?

    The same people who want a cold damp rock just off mainland europe (uk) the evil boogey men who will came and get us if we don't have a military...
    Last edited by LittleGrizzly; 06-29-2009 at 19:55.
    In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!

  24. #84
    Chieftain of the Pudding Race Member Evil_Maniac From Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,407

    Default Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly View Post
    Im not saying never have a military, But tell me what threat should they be worried about requiring the build up of thier military now?
    Not the most stable of regions, is it?

    If the situation changes in 50 years time sure. As things stand they have saved themsleves 50 years of unnessecary expense, and i see them saving themselves another 50 years of unnesecary expense... all to the benefit of Costa Ricans and the dismay of wargamers and military enthusiasts!
    It costs a lot to progressively wreck, underfund, or even destroy a military over the course of fifty years and then suddenly be forced to build it back up, as Canada is figuring out right now. When Trudeau and his ilk shattered the military, many people either ignored it or had a similar attitude that you have (oh, we don't really need it now, but if we do in the future...), and now and in the near future they will have to pay the price.

    So who pays? It's kind of like my earlier post on the health systems around here.
    Last edited by Evil_Maniac From Mars; 06-29-2009 at 20:24.

  25. #85
    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



    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

  26. #86
    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.

  27. #87
    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


  28. #88
    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


  29. #89
    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.

  30. #90
    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

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

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