Health Care in America
hippiemom
Posts: 3,326
The Waiting Game
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 16, 2007
Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. ''I mean, people have access to health care in America,'' he said last week. ''After all, you just go to an emergency room.''
This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance -- they can just go to emergency rooms, right?
O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.
The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.
Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that ''the poorest Americans are getting far better service'' than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?
A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: ''In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.''
A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.
We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures -- and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's performance.
Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.
This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. ''It was only later,'' writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, ''that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher co-payments.''
He adds, ''I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero.''
To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their ''medical losses'' -- the industry term for actually having to pay for care.
On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.
That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding -- end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.
The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health care here in America.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 16, 2007
Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. ''I mean, people have access to health care in America,'' he said last week. ''After all, you just go to an emergency room.''
This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance -- they can just go to emergency rooms, right?
O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.
The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.
Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that ''the poorest Americans are getting far better service'' than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?
A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: ''In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.''
A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.
We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures -- and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's performance.
Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.
This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. ''It was only later,'' writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, ''that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher co-payments.''
He adds, ''I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero.''
To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their ''medical losses'' -- the industry term for actually having to pay for care.
On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.
That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding -- end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.
The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health care here in America.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
It's becoming critical.
Can you imagine when they start rolling out the RFID chips?
It's coming, and they' will be used for everything. All purchases, doctor visits, travel to anywhere. What if they decide to eliminate paper money after that?
Don't laugh. It could happen tomorrow with this type of snap your fingers legislation.
All they have to do is turn ioff your chip and you're screwed. Can't buy anything, can't go anywhere...nightmare.
America get together and unite against this type of legislation.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w_tlRRZmWwQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=D4b5f3TomPo
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
they pretend to care, as bush in 2000 saying he was ever so concerned about all the ppl w/o health insurance or they flat out don't give a shit like ron paul
how can they justify a fucking health care system that is pretty much ran on giving as little treatment as possible to save money
profit shouldn't come before ppl's lives and it's pathetic and sick that not only they get away w/ it but how they rationalize and spin it
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
-Ronald Reagan
-Enoch Powell
Some people believe that some needs should be universal and not for sale :
health, clean water... If these people are a majority in your country then your government must listen to this and offer that service. Why isn't there some kind of referendum on the subject by the way?
But that's not egalitarian enough! We need more government programs.
The left's solution to everything is more, not less.
-Enoch Powell
Maybe you should just get one comprehensive program instead of the myriad of programs you already have. Just HealthCare instead of insurance schemes, medicare, medicaid and so on. There would be no passing the buck along, as it would all be paid the same place anyway. Billing departments would be history and so on. And perhaps the prpgram would be allowed to use it's leverage to bring down prices on medicine as well.
Left is not equal to more programs. I for one don't need many programs. I want big simple ones solving real problems for real people. Health is to me such a no-brainer that I am slightly shocked to hear how it is done in the US. Our healthcare isn't perfect either ofcourse, but noone is flat out refused treatment at least. Besides, what is more efficient? Letting a building rot and having to do major overhaul to save it every 20 years, or just do some maintenance continously? Having people in earlier keeps them healthier, and thus the expensive last ditch measures may not have to be used.
Anyway. I am a no good leftie and not ashamed of it!
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Once again, trial and error. Who knows?? Maybe it'll work! Why not? No need to look at silly old history. That does us no good.
-Enoch Powell
please refer to #7....
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22429
That argument doesn't work if you don't believe the government does anything right. There aren't any programs I believe are well-run.
-Bill Hicks
Ever think that might have something to do with the people we let run them?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Which is what i wonder...
If the government cannot handle something such as basic health care to its own citizens... how can it Spread Democracy to a completely foriegn culture?
How can it run a system that monitors its citizens to make sure the 'Bad Guys' aren't doing bad things? Do you want inept government workers watching what you do?
Hail, Hail!!!
I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
The Best Doctors money can buy... but who can afford them?
And it seems to me... most of the people here who are against a National Health Care system.... are probably people with access to HealthCare (either through an annual income above the poverty line or through their employer). do you think that under government funding... the doctors become federal employeees? How does government funding change the doctor's skills?
And you said it... the ones in Canada and Europe come here for the big ticket items (heart suyrgery, etc...), but do they come here for routine check-ups? Do they come here for a flu shot? Do they come here when they sprain their ankle playing soccer?
Why not just provide a baseline coverage and let those of us who are gainfully employed to upgrade? I know that if I lose this job... I lose my coverage and have to fend for myself in the shark tank that is healthcare insurance. How many of you are in the same boat as I am?
Hail, Hail!!!
How come police and fire aren't privatized? Are they more important than health...life itself?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
When will the screwing stop?
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
Absolutely.The problem is that there will always be extreme levels of corruption in politics. The cyclical nature of politics also ensures that even if you agree with a politician, you will probably disagree with his predecessor.
-Bill Hicks
I have high hopes that we will adapt to learn to address these problems and hold our representatives accountable. Certain people make good leaders and can do a good job serving the people but it takes all of us participating in the system to make a strong, worthwhile democracy.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Exactly... and if we all had coverage for checkups and preventative care, it would lessen the demand for some of the big ticket expensive health care items.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
People are the ingredients. Focus on improving the integrity of the ingredients.
Interesting how for (some) self professed food connoisseurs, making and eating a shit sandwich (Iraq) is a fantastically delicious event.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
yeah, reagan wouldn't know anything about increasing the government, increasing governmental spending, corporate handouts, limiting rights (some constitutional)
:rolleyes:
how many tens of billions does his war on drugs cost us a year?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
which dr's like ron paul refuses to accept
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i dont know how you know this living in Utah :rolleyes: but i've needed various things looked at over the years in hospitals and at doctors and i think our system is excellent... ok, i live in Scotland and its not exactly inner-city or a built up metropolis, but our National Health System, at least where i live, is still one of the greatest political achievements of modern day.
FREE healthcare... whats not to like
Our system is a long way from shit. In need of improvements here and there, and everything is not smoothly run for all all the time. But generally, you need treatment, you get treatment. And without having to pay more than a small co-payment. (which will cease once you reach the limit of roughly 2-300$ for the year)
I can only speak for myself I guess, but I have never had any trouble whatsoever with the provision of my health care. Infected eye with consequent visits to a specialist, no problem. Admitted to hospital for constipation (as it turned out) no problem. There are waiting lines for some surgery, yes. But it doesn't sound like the US system doesn't have waiting either.
The point is that neiter the european or american health systems are shite in themselves, but I put forth the statement that the US one is A LOT more inefficient, and has far more people falling outside getting none but the most urgent treatment. That european health services pay for sending some of their surgery to the US is just a further sign of our system working well. You have to wait too long, they send you to the US at their expense and gets it done.
Healthcare for all, no questions asked. And the funny thing is that it might even be cheaper than the system you have going now.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965