I could be wrong here, but from what I know of the situation in Australia they do have this exact system. Any Aussie's here able to explain? Or am I imagining things?
We do have that system here. We have Medicare, which is government funded - whereby you can be seen in a public hospital - no charge for emergencies, or for elective surgery, however you may have to wait for surgery or to be seen by a specialist if it's not an emergency. We also have private health insurance, which you can purchase and will allow you to be seen quicker in most cases. You get a rebate from any cost incurred when you see a doctor through our public system as well. It's not perfect, but from what I know of the American system, ours is much much better. We also have many many clinics that allow you to see a doctor and the cost is billed through our medicare system to the Government, so there is no out of pocket expense. Also with prescription medicines, there is a scheme so that the cost is lowered for most medicines, and once you reach a certain yearly limit, the cost is lowered to something like $5 per prescription. It works pretty well really.
Thanks hunny!
And, why is something like this so hard to do in America??? I mean really? Is it only because of the for profit insurance we have, or something else?
Unfortunately I think it is more than simply for profit insurance companies. Medical supply companies, pharmaceutical companies, Universities with a medical school, there are so many people with their hands in this pot. Healthcare industry is about 1/6th of the entire US economy. To have that taken over by the government would cause the industry to take a nose dive. Not saying the government would be the cause of it, just that there are so many people that benefit from the system currently it would be almost immeasurable to try to foresee the consequences or impact it would have on our country. People would pay less in medical bills that may or may not come, but they certainly would have to pay more in taxes, and we all know how people feel about that.
2. Would be hard to continue funding said program when the economy turns to shit like it does now. With tax revenue down and politicians on all sides unable to be responsible with funds it would be hard for me to believe the government could handle running a larger version of medicare and medicaid. There is already tons of fraud. Borrowing money can only happen for so long. We already have a debt level that will cause our downfall.
3. 300,000,000+ that is the number of americans that will need it. To have a universal health care system here would be a monstrous logistical nightmare.
4. Add that into the fact that the US federal government is limited by the constitution in which there is no real provision for healthcare coverage. So to really do it correctly, and make it a right, a constitutional amendment would be needed which would be difficult to do. Simply passing a law can be reversed constantly, as they are trying to do now with the defunding of the program...
Ultimately I think that a single payer system is by far the best option for the people, but we all know how often politicians move simply on the best interest of the people. I also am not a big believer in a huge central government and this would only give them more power in our lives. the way some of our social programs(at least in minnesota) get abused, there would be plenty of people who would simply be able to live off the state through provided money (EBT) and healthcare...I am not a big believer in a system that would allow that.
There is no easy decision here and unfortunately we don't have a system that is set up to solve this kind of problem efficiently.
just my two cents anyway
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Just for the record... Every single person I know who is affiliated with a university medical school (including the executives) is adamantly in support of a single-payer system.
Coming from the UK where our Health service is pretty much free I am baffled as to why people are against free health care. My auntie died of cancer recently, she had been fighting it on and off for over 8 years now and if we had to pay for any of her treatment she wouldn't have lasted half that. It sickens me to see people in the US who have to sell their homes and lose all their savings just for the opportnity to continue to live.
You're right some people do wait longer for say a hip replacement but there are private firms around that can see to you straight away if you chose to pay. I believe medical insurance can be taken to help pay for these private treatments if you wish. The NHS doesn't get enough praise these days, I will take this over any free market bullshit anyday. Prescription drugs are available at a flat price of £7.20 I think it is at the minute.The rich have no more of a claim to life than the poor, simple as that.
Health insurance NEEDS to be universal. It needs to cost the same for everyone. It's one of those things we can't fuck around with and if you don't agree with me, this is one of those rare arguments I will just flat out tell you to go fuck yourself..
I agree!
If those who have money want to pay for private care it not only appeases everyone but it also clears up waiting list times for those who can't afford it
I could be wrong here, but from what I know of the situation in Australia they do have this exact system. Any Aussie's here able to explain? Or am I imagining things?
We do have that system here. We have Medicare, which is government funded - whereby you can be seen in a public hospital - no charge for emergencies, or for elective surgery, however you may have to wait for surgery or to be seen by a specialist if it's not an emergency. We also have private health insurance, which you can purchase and will allow you to be seen quicker in most cases. You get a rebate from any cost incurred when you see a doctor through our public system as well. It's not perfect, but from what I know of the American system, ours is much much better. We also have many many clinics that allow you to see a doctor and the cost is billed through our medicare system to the Government, so there is no out of pocket expense. Also with prescription medicines, there is a scheme so that the cost is lowered for most medicines, and once you reach a certain yearly limit, the cost is lowered to something like $5 per prescription. It works pretty well really.
We have a similar system in NZ too. Our of curiosity, does the Australian system cover tourists who don't have travel insurance? I know our does - if you're in NZ and you break your leg hiking a glacier, you can get it fixed up easily. Like you guys (and the Canadians, Brits, and Swedes) we think healing the sick is more important than checking their bank account.
I'd like to see someone from the anti-universal healthcare crowd look a cancer patient in the eye and tell them they can't get chemo because their bank balance is too low.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
I'd like to see someone from the anti-universal healthcare crowd look a cancer patient in the eye and tell them they can't get chemo because their bank balance is too low.
I just got an individual policy for myself. The premium is $120/month.
Is that really unaffordable? Really?
It is a pretty standard policy, but if that is unaffordable for some, they could just raise their deductible and make it more of a catastrophic plan than a maintenance plan.
Of course, that would involve people saving the extra money so they can meet the deductible if needed and nobody is able to do that. Most just seem to want the remote control of having their employer deduct the premiums automatically and insurance pay for their healthcare automatically. That's what has gotten us in this mess.
If I had been on my own for health insurance and was able to keep the money my employers have spent on the premiums, I'd likely have about $100K put away for health/medical issues today.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Can someone against universal health care please explain to me why it's okay that someone goes bankrupt because they get sick?[/b]
The issue is WWWAAAAYYYY more complex than that and there are far more grey areas to it than that simple question.
My answer against universal health care is that it will only raise the cost and bureaucracy of health care more than the unbelievable level it currently is.
The solution is for individuals to take back control of paying for their healthcare themselves....but very few people are willing to do that.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The healthcare system over on my side of the world is similar to the Australian and New Zealand system. All healthcare is absolutely free no matter what the procedure is. There's only one government hospital(and a substantial amount of clinics) here but considering how tiny my country is, it would be ridiculous to suggest another. The only downside is that you have to wait to get a non-urgent procedure done for several months; but generally that's because there is a lack of staff or even beds sometimes. Then there's the private sector, which is pretty vast, and relatively affordable over here. Sometimes government employed and private doctors work together in special occasions (when there's a strike etc).
Healthcare is also free even for tourists without travel insurance.
I honestly wouldn't expect it any other way and can't believe people would argue against universal healthcare.
$120 a month for a single person is ok, and is quite normal. why does it then triple when you add a spouse to that policy? why does it quadruple or quintuple when you add a child to it? i would figure adding a spouse is one extra person, why does the premium skyrocket exponentially?
the root cause of this problem is the greed of the for profit insurance companies. they make money hand over fist by denying claims and denying coverage for justifiable and necessary care. or they pass that cost along to the sick person in the form of high deductables or outrageously low drug coverage. plus, on top of that, these insurance companies are corporations who pay minimal if any taxes. it is absolutely criminal.
i guaranfuckingtee that if you make it illegal for health insurance companies to make a profit none of them would even be in that industry.
if i were revmping the system this is where i would start.
I just got an individual policy for myself. The premium is $120/month.
Is that really unaffordable? Really?
It is a pretty standard policy, but if that is unaffordable for some, they could just raise their deductible and make it more of a catastrophic plan than a maintenance plan.
Of course, that would involve people saving the extra money so they can meet the deductible if needed and nobody is able to do that. Most just seem to want the remote control of having their employer deduct the premiums automatically and insurance pay for their healthcare automatically. That's what has gotten us in this mess.
If I had been on my own for health insurance and was able to keep the money my employers have spent on the premiums, I'd likely have about $100K put away for health/medical issues today.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
My answer against universal health care is that it will only raise the cost and bureaucracy of health care more than the unbelievable level it currently is.
Please explain this, because I'm pretty sure it's just a myth that has been perpetuated to turn people against the idea of a single-payer system. Every shred of evidence I've ever seen indicates that having a single-payer system would drastically reduce bureaucracy costs.
My answer against universal health care is that it will only raise the cost and bureaucracy of health care more than the unbelievable level it currently is.
Please explain this, because I'm pretty sure it's just a myth that has been perpetuated to turn people against the idea of a single-payer system. Every shred of evidence I've ever seen indicates that having a single-payer system would drastically reduce bureaucracy costs.
For instance, this article from the New England Journal of Medicine found that:
In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada’s national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada’s private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers’
administrative costs were far lower in Canada.
Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations’ figures exclude insurance- industry personnel.)
Conclusions
The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.
Most of the single-payer proposals I've heard involve having a system similar to Medicare. Medicare spends 3.6% of its budget on its bureaucracy. Bureaucratic spending for private insurance in the U.S, however, is 11.7% - more than 3 times higher. It makes sense to me, if you're concerned about the cost and bureaucracy of healthcare, to switch to the system that has considerably less bureaucratic costs.
maybe health insurance companies in the US spend more time and money figuring out how not to cover you? :?
for instance, most united healthcare policies only reimburse $40 for a physical therapy session. at my former job at times we would do $300 worth of physical therapy per appointment on some patients and we would only get a $20 copay and only $40 from united healthcare. we dropped uhc because we were having to write off too much money to treat people who had that insurance. and at the time it was 25% of our patient population. we lost money while the ceo of uhc made billions himself. we were a small company and we almost went under because of bullshit like this....
if you fill out paperwork wrong they will deny your claim. they will look for an excuse to not pay. it is ridiculous.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
maybe health insurance companies in the US spend more time and money figuring out how not to cover you? :?
for instance, most united healthcare policies only reimburse $40 for a physical therapy session. at my former job at times we would do $300 worth of physical therapy per appointment on some patients and we would only get a $20 copay and only $40 from united healthcare. we dropped uhc because we were having to write off too much money to treat people who had that insurance. and at the time it was 25% of our patient population. we lost money while the ceo of uhc made billions himself. we were a small company and we almost went under because of bullshit like this....
if you fill out paperwork wrong they will deny your claim. they will look for an excuse to not pay. it is ridiculous.
Hell, even if you fill out all the paperwork right they'll still deny your claim on the basis that you filled it out wrong, hoping you won't have the time to go through all your documentation & make your case. As you know, providers have to hire people whose sole job is just to argue with insurance companies. So how is that supposed to cut down on bureaucracy?? :?
We have a similar system in NZ too. Our of curiosity, does the Australian system cover tourists who don't have travel insurance? I know our does - if you're in NZ and you break your leg hiking a glacier, you can get it fixed up easily. Like you guys (and the Canadians, Brits, and Swedes) we think healing the sick is more important than checking their bank account.
I'd like to see someone from the anti-universal healthcare crowd look a cancer patient in the eye and tell them they can't get chemo because their bank balance is too low.
Not sure about tourists really - as far as I am aware, if you are a tourist you need to have taken out some sort of travel insurance, either from your own country, or you can purchase insurance here through our private health system. BUT, whether you have insurance or not, if there is an emergency, you will be seen in our public hospitals. You may just end up with a bill if you're a tourist. I didn't know tourists were covered in NZ. I think healthcare should be universal everywhere though. There should be no difference in treatment whether you have $1 in your bank, and can't afford $120 a month (which is not really a miniscule payment), or whether you have $12000 in your bank and think $120 isn't much to pay. It shouldn't matter. People are still people, and we all deserve medical care.
My answer against universal health care is that it will only raise the cost and bureaucracy of health care more than the unbelievable level it currently is.
Please explain this, because I'm pretty sure it's just a myth that has been perpetuated to turn people against the idea of a single-payer system. Every shred of evidence I've ever seen indicates that having a single-payer system would drastically reduce bureaucracy costs.
You don't think that if people just paid for health care out of their own pockets and didn't rely on their employers, health insurance companies, and/or the government to take their cut for administering and then pay that it wouldn't lower the overall cost?
Think about how many unnecessary people have to be involved in the process as is (or if the government was administering it) that have to be paid a salary. Without those, health care would be cheaper. There is no doubt.
Having someone else pay for your health care - whether it's the government or an insurance company - is exactly what has made health care cost so much.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
maybe health insurance companies in the US spend more time and money figuring out how not to cover you? :?
That's certainly part of it. And don't think the government wouldn't be doing the same thing.
I just want to scream this question - Why do we think we have to PAY SOMEONE ELSE to turn around and pay for our health care?
It would be just like paying someone to go buy your groceries. Do you think they're going to do it for free? Do you think they'll buy the cheapest groceries?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Unfortunately I think it is more than simply for profit insurance companies. Medical supply companies, pharmaceutical companies, Universities with a medical school, there are so many people with their hands in this pot. Healthcare industry is about 1/6th of the entire US economy. To have that taken over by the government would cause the industry to take a nose dive. Not saying the government would be the cause of it, just that there are so many people that benefit from the system currently it would be almost immeasurable to try to foresee the consequences or impact it would have on our country. People would pay less in medical bills that may or may not come, but they certainly would have to pay more in taxes, and we all know how people feel about that.
2. Would be hard to continue funding said program when the economy turns to shit like it does now. With tax revenue down and politicians on all sides unable to be responsible with funds it would be hard for me to believe the government could handle running a larger version of medicare and medicaid. There is already tons of fraud. Borrowing money can only happen for so long. We already have a debt level that will cause our downfall.
3. 300,000,000+ that is the number of americans that will need it. To have a universal health care system here would be a monstrous logistical nightmare.
4. Add that into the fact that the US federal government is limited by the constitution in which there is no real provision for healthcare coverage. So to really do it correctly, and make it a right, a constitutional amendment would be needed which would be difficult to do. Simply passing a law can be reversed constantly, as they are trying to do now with the defunding of the program...
Ultimately I think that a single payer system is by far the best option for the people, but we all know how often politicians move simply on the best interest of the people. I also am not a big believer in a huge central government and this would only give them more power in our lives. the way some of our social programs(at least in minnesota) get abused, there would be plenty of people who would simply be able to live off the state through provided money (EBT) and healthcare...I am not a big believer in a system that would allow that.
There is no easy decision here and unfortunately we don't have a system that is set up to solve this kind of problem efficiently. just my two cents anyway
My answer against universal health care is that it will only raise the cost and bureaucracy of health care more than the unbelievable level it currently is.
Please explain this, because I'm pretty sure it's just a myth that has been perpetuated to turn people against the idea of a single-payer system. Every shred of evidence I've ever seen indicates that having a single-payer system would drastically reduce bureaucracy costs.
You don't think that if people just paid for health care out of their own pockets and didn't rely on their employers, health insurance companies, and/or the government to take their cut for administering and then pay that it wouldn't lower the overall cost?
Think about how many unnecessary people have to be involved in the process as is (or if the government was administering it) that have to be paid a salary. Without those, health care would be cheaper. There is no doubt.
Having someone else pay for your health care - whether it's the government or an insurance company - is exactly what has made health care cost so much.
Wait - I think you just changed the subject. Your comment to which I was responding was that moving from the current private insurance system to a single-payer system would "only raise the cost and bureaucracy of health care more than the unbelievable level it currently is". Can we please acknowledge that I just demonstrated that not only is this a myth, but that the opposite is actually true, and all agree to stop perpetuating this nonsense once & for all?
As to your new point that we should move from the current system to one in which everyone paid directly for services out of pocket:
(1) That's simply not possible. Not everyone can pay for their medical bills out of pocket & not all medical bills can be paid out of pocket by anyone.
(2) No, I don't think this plan would really lower overall costs. All those "unnecessary people involved in the process as it is" would still have to be involved in the process - only instead of trying to collect from insurance companies they'd be trying to collect from individuals. (This would probably add even more unnecessary people to the mix: lawyers & bill collection agencies.) Plus, then we would have the ENORMOUS added cost of all the unpaid medical bills that would end up being subsidized by the system. (I'm sure you're not suggesting that lifesaving medical care be withheld from everyone who can't afford to pay for it entirely up front.)
maybe health insurance companies in the US spend more time and money figuring out how not to cover you? :?
That's certainly part of it. And don't think the government wouldn't be doing the same thing.
I disagree with this last statement. Sure, there will be some disputes in every system - even in a system with no middle-man. But have you ever worked for a doctor's office billing private insurance vs. public systems vs. individuals? As I believe gimmesometruth & I have both pointed out in the past, the public systems (Medicaid, Medicare, IHS, etc) are BY FAR the easiest from which to collect. They have very clear rules about what they will & will not pay for and - though you may disagree with the rules & work to change them - you can generally count on them to pay what they say they will pay. I'm not saying there are never any mistakes, but there are FAR fewer problems than with trying to collect from private companies or individuals.
(1) That's simply not possible. Not everyone can pay for their medical bills out of pocket & not all medical bills can be paid out of pocket by anyone.
(
So who IS paying for health care currently. Someone must be paying....
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
(1) That's simply not possible. Not everyone can pay for their medical bills out of pocket & not all medical bills can be paid out of pocket by anyone.
(
So who IS paying for health care currently. Someone must be paying....
We are all paying in various ways. I'm sure you know how the systems work.
But just because I can afford to have money taken out of my paychecks monthly for insurance & taxes doesn't mean I'd have 100 grand to plop down up front if I ever needed major care - even if I had been saving money instead of giving it to insurance companies & the government.
Are you just going to completely ignore the rest of my other two posts?
(1) That's simply not possible. Not everyone can pay for their medical bills out of pocket & not all medical bills can be paid out of pocket by anyone.
(
So who IS paying for health care currently. Someone must be paying....
The insured and taxpayers pay for everyone.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Comments
Unfortunately I think it is more than simply for profit insurance companies. Medical supply companies, pharmaceutical companies, Universities with a medical school, there are so many people with their hands in this pot. Healthcare industry is about 1/6th of the entire US economy. To have that taken over by the government would cause the industry to take a nose dive. Not saying the government would be the cause of it, just that there are so many people that benefit from the system currently it would be almost immeasurable to try to foresee the consequences or impact it would have on our country. People would pay less in medical bills that may or may not come, but they certainly would have to pay more in taxes, and we all know how people feel about that.
2. Would be hard to continue funding said program when the economy turns to shit like it does now. With tax revenue down and politicians on all sides unable to be responsible with funds it would be hard for me to believe the government could handle running a larger version of medicare and medicaid. There is already tons of fraud. Borrowing money can only happen for so long. We already have a debt level that will cause our downfall.
3. 300,000,000+ that is the number of americans that will need it. To have a universal health care system here would be a monstrous logistical nightmare.
4. Add that into the fact that the US federal government is limited by the constitution in which there is no real provision for healthcare coverage. So to really do it correctly, and make it a right, a constitutional amendment would be needed which would be difficult to do. Simply passing a law can be reversed constantly, as they are trying to do now with the defunding of the program...
Ultimately I think that a single payer system is by far the best option for the people, but we all know how often politicians move simply on the best interest of the people. I also am not a big believer in a huge central government and this would only give them more power in our lives. the way some of our social programs(at least in minnesota) get abused, there would be plenty of people who would simply be able to live off the state through provided money (EBT) and healthcare...I am not a big believer in a system that would allow that.
There is no easy decision here and unfortunately we don't have a system that is set up to solve this kind of problem efficiently.
just my two cents anyway
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You're right some people do wait longer for say a hip replacement but there are private firms around that can see to you straight away if you chose to pay. I believe medical insurance can be taken to help pay for these private treatments if you wish. The NHS doesn't get enough praise these days, I will take this over any free market bullshit anyday. Prescription drugs are available at a flat price of £7.20 I think it is at the minute.The rich have no more of a claim to life than the poor, simple as that.
:idea:
We have a similar system in NZ too. Our of curiosity, does the Australian system cover tourists who don't have travel insurance? I know our does - if you're in NZ and you break your leg hiking a glacier, you can get it fixed up easily. Like you guys (and the Canadians, Brits, and Swedes) we think healing the sick is more important than checking their bank account.
I'd like to see someone from the anti-universal healthcare crowd look a cancer patient in the eye and tell them they can't get chemo because their bank balance is too low.
Is that really unaffordable? Really?
It is a pretty standard policy, but if that is unaffordable for some, they could just raise their deductible and make it more of a catastrophic plan than a maintenance plan.
Of course, that would involve people saving the extra money so they can meet the deductible if needed and nobody is able to do that. Most just seem to want the remote control of having their employer deduct the premiums automatically and insurance pay for their healthcare automatically. That's what has gotten us in this mess.
If I had been on my own for health insurance and was able to keep the money my employers have spent on the premiums, I'd likely have about $100K put away for health/medical issues today.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The issue is WWWAAAAYYYY more complex than that and there are far more grey areas to it than that simple question.
My answer against universal health care is that it will only raise the cost and bureaucracy of health care more than the unbelievable level it currently is.
The solution is for individuals to take back control of paying for their healthcare themselves....but very few people are willing to do that.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Healthcare is also free even for tourists without travel insurance.
I honestly wouldn't expect it any other way and can't believe people would argue against universal healthcare.
the root cause of this problem is the greed of the for profit insurance companies. they make money hand over fist by denying claims and denying coverage for justifiable and necessary care. or they pass that cost along to the sick person in the form of high deductables or outrageously low drug coverage. plus, on top of that, these insurance companies are corporations who pay minimal if any taxes. it is absolutely criminal.
i guaranfuckingtee that if you make it illegal for health insurance companies to make a profit none of them would even be in that industry.
if i were revmping the system this is where i would start.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Please explain this, because I'm pretty sure it's just a myth that has been perpetuated to turn people against the idea of a single-payer system. Every shred of evidence I've ever seen indicates that having a single-payer system would drastically reduce bureaucracy costs.
For instance, this article from the New England Journal of Medicine found that:
Most of the single-payer proposals I've heard involve having a system similar to Medicare. Medicare spends 3.6% of its budget on its bureaucracy. Bureaucratic spending for private insurance in the U.S, however, is 11.7% - more than 3 times higher. It makes sense to me, if you're concerned about the cost and bureaucracy of healthcare, to switch to the system that has considerably less bureaucratic costs.
if you fill out paperwork wrong they will deny your claim. they will look for an excuse to not pay. it is ridiculous.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Hell, even if you fill out all the paperwork right they'll still deny your claim on the basis that you filled it out wrong, hoping you won't have the time to go through all your documentation & make your case. As you know, providers have to hire people whose sole job is just to argue with insurance companies. So how is that supposed to cut down on bureaucracy?? :?
Not sure about tourists really - as far as I am aware, if you are a tourist you need to have taken out some sort of travel insurance, either from your own country, or you can purchase insurance here through our private health system. BUT, whether you have insurance or not, if there is an emergency, you will be seen in our public hospitals. You may just end up with a bill if you're a tourist. I didn't know tourists were covered in NZ. I think healthcare should be universal everywhere though. There should be no difference in treatment whether you have $1 in your bank, and can't afford $120 a month (which is not really a miniscule payment), or whether you have $12000 in your bank and think $120 isn't much to pay. It shouldn't matter. People are still people, and we all deserve medical care.
You don't think that if people just paid for health care out of their own pockets and didn't rely on their employers, health insurance companies, and/or the government to take their cut for administering and then pay that it wouldn't lower the overall cost?
Think about how many unnecessary people have to be involved in the process as is (or if the government was administering it) that have to be paid a salary. Without those, health care would be cheaper. There is no doubt.
Having someone else pay for your health care - whether it's the government or an insurance company - is exactly what has made health care cost so much.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That's certainly part of it. And don't think the government wouldn't be doing the same thing.
I just want to scream this question - Why do we think we have to PAY SOMEONE ELSE to turn around and pay for our health care?
It would be just like paying someone to go buy your groceries. Do you think they're going to do it for free? Do you think they'll buy the cheapest groceries?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
your good points worth a million
Wait - I think you just changed the subject. Your comment to which I was responding was that moving from the current private insurance system to a single-payer system would "only raise the cost and bureaucracy of health care more than the unbelievable level it currently is". Can we please acknowledge that I just demonstrated that not only is this a myth, but that the opposite is actually true, and all agree to stop perpetuating this nonsense once & for all?
As to your new point that we should move from the current system to one in which everyone paid directly for services out of pocket:
(1) That's simply not possible. Not everyone can pay for their medical bills out of pocket & not all medical bills can be paid out of pocket by anyone.
(2) No, I don't think this plan would really lower overall costs. All those "unnecessary people involved in the process as it is" would still have to be involved in the process - only instead of trying to collect from insurance companies they'd be trying to collect from individuals. (This would probably add even more unnecessary people to the mix: lawyers & bill collection agencies.) Plus, then we would have the ENORMOUS added cost of all the unpaid medical bills that would end up being subsidized by the system. (I'm sure you're not suggesting that lifesaving medical care be withheld from everyone who can't afford to pay for it entirely up front.)
I disagree with this last statement. Sure, there will be some disputes in every system - even in a system with no middle-man. But have you ever worked for a doctor's office billing private insurance vs. public systems vs. individuals? As I believe gimmesometruth & I have both pointed out in the past, the public systems (Medicaid, Medicare, IHS, etc) are BY FAR the easiest from which to collect. They have very clear rules about what they will & will not pay for and - though you may disagree with the rules & work to change them - you can generally count on them to pay what they say they will pay. I'm not saying there are never any mistakes, but there are FAR fewer problems than with trying to collect from private companies or individuals.
So who IS paying for health care currently. Someone must be paying....
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
We are all paying in various ways. I'm sure you know how the systems work.
But just because I can afford to have money taken out of my paychecks monthly for insurance & taxes doesn't mean I'd have 100 grand to plop down up front if I ever needed major care - even if I had been saving money instead of giving it to insurance companies & the government.
Are you just going to completely ignore the rest of my other two posts?
The insured and taxpayers pay for everyone.
"With our thoughts we make the world"