Newsflash: In a UHC system, the healthcare fairy does not swoop down and sprinkle FREE healthcare on everybody. We all STILL PAY FOR IT. And the issue is more that some of us look and see how much the cost of everything goes up when government gets involved and realize it's not a smart solution. Just because you're not physically writing a check out of your checkbook for healthcare does not mean you are not paying for it.
Dear God! I know that - in fact, I pointed that out in my first post in this thread. Granted, it wasn't abundantly clear in that post, but I had mentioned it before. Can we be a little less condescending, please?
This is a great way to disagree with someone. Honest, not backing down, but saying "Hey, we disagree, what else can I say?" without throwing out an insult. Well done!
That sounds great in theory, but what happens to those who can't afford healthcare? Or those (like most of us) who could afford routine care, but if something major was needed (heart surgery, cancer treatement, etc.) couldn't afford it?
And most people aren't suggesting that the gov't would be "in charge of your health"... Just they would be in charge of paying for your healthcare. If there is one thing that our government is good at, is paying for things.
you
You say paying for cancer tratment or heart surgery wait until it is in the hands of some govt. b-crat. They may deem that since you are 65 years old with a heart condition that surgery is not needed.
What about people who lead an unhealthy lifestyle i.e. smoking, drugs, heavy alcohol. Should a lifelong smoker be put in the back of the line for cancer tratement? The govt may say yes. How long would a 70 year old wait to have needed surgery. NATIONAL HEALTHCARE WOULD BE A DISASTER!
Who are people in favor of this kidding. bunch of fucking whiners in this country who think the Govt needs to take care of them. The govt needs to stay off my back and get out of my way.
My Healthcare is great. The reason it is so high is because I am also subsidizing all the free loaders who show up in the ER for treatment.
don't hold your breath waiting for that miracle, mert, or you may be in need of medical care yourself!
when this topic came up one time shortly after i joined here, i thought i would post what i thought was a rather benign statement that i was happy to live under a universal health care system because of my mother and father's health problems at the time. they were getting fantastic treatment and i can't say enough about the wonderful people in the hospital...the nurses, the doctors, everyone. they saved their lives.
i was answered by a "few people" here saying things along the lines of "how is that MY problem" and "they should have known better and prepared for things that may happen." how do you do that when you're trying to support a family on minimal wages that barely cover food, clothing and shelter? you can't. thank goodness they were able to get through without having to lose their home or make the choice to go without the procedures. thank goodness they didn't have the added stress of thinking about money.
i also mentioned that my father only had a fifth grade education because he grew up in the thirties at a time when it was more necessary for him to work than go to school so that he could help support his family. again "some people" were kind enough to insult a man who spent his working life as a janitor, doing volunteer work for his church in his spare time and even working weekends and extra hours to do maintenance on local softball fields so that the kids in the neighbourhoods could have good fields to play on and things to do to have fun.
later, when my mother got seriously ill, another poster (a candian, mind you) who i haven't here seen in ages...perhaps he was banned...had the audacity to say..."well, i'm glad my money is paying for your mother's problems"...and said it sarcastically. it was disgusting. i have to wonder if he'd still be so callous now that my mom has passed away, if he were still around here.
my dad is still living well and going strong, thanks to the wonderful people who helped him get through what were a few life threatening situations. he didn't have the stress of worrying about how he was going to pay for this and i think that was a great part of why he was able to pull through. it's sad that paper can be valued more than lives by some. it's sad that there are people out there who call themselves human who would call medical help a "business" or that it should be a money transaction. it's true we pay taxes when we buy things so that all can help all, but that's the stupidity of the world we live in. we're smart enough to create these technologies to help people, but stupid enough to allow the people who make these things to charge for it.
still, after all the insults and terrible things said, if these people had a situation where they were in need of help and it meant the difference between being ok and healthy and suffering, i would be there and so would many others to help them, even if they were unwilling to help us. it gives me hope that there are still plenty of good people out there to make up for those who don't get it.
There are many people inside UHC systems who disagree with them, but they have no option to exercise their own disagreement as they are forced to participate in those systems.
germany has a state-run, tax-paid health care system...if people don't like it, they can insure themselves privately...of course you need some cash for that...but if you haven't you can rely on (not too bad at all) government health care...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
germany has a state-run, tax-paid health care system...if people don't like it, they can insure themselves privately...of course you need some cash for that...but if you haven't you can rely on (not too bad at all) government health care...
m.
This is fine and is the direction I hope and would expect America to take when it implement UHC. However, none of this changes the fact that Germans (and one day Americans) can not simply opt-out of the system if they find no value in it. All they can do is opt-out of receiving the benefits of the system. All are made to suffer the costs regardless of the individual benefits.
don't hold your breath waiting for that miracle, mert, or you may be in need of medical care yourself!
when this topic came up one time shortly after i joined here, i thought i would post what i thought was a rather benign statement that i was happy to live under a universal health care system because of my mother and father's health problems at the time. they were getting fantastic treatment and i can't say enough about the wonderful people in the hospital...the nurses, the doctors, everyone. they saved their lives.
i was answered by a "few people" here saying things along the lines of "how is that MY problem" and "they should have known better and prepared for things that may happen." how do you do that when you're trying to support a family on minimal wages that barely cover food, clothing and shelter? you can't. thank goodness they were able to get through without having to lose their home or make the choice to go without the procedures. thank goodness they didn't have the added stress of thinking about money.
i also mentioned that my father only had a fifth grade education because he grew up in the thirties at a time when it was more necessary for him to work than go to school so that he could help support his family. again "some people" were kind enough to insult a man who spent his working life as a janitor, doing volunteer work for his church in his spare time and even working weekends and extra hours to do maintenance on local softball fields so that the kids in the neighbourhoods could have good fields to play on and things to do to have fun.
later, when my mother got seriously ill, another poster (a candian, mind you) who i haven't here seen in ages...perhaps he was banned...had the audacity to say..."well, i'm glad my money is paying for your mother's problems"...and said it sarcastically. it was disgusting. i have to wonder if he'd still be so callous now that my mom has passed away, if he were still around here.
my dad is still living well and going strong, thanks to the wonderful people who helped him get through what were a few life threatening situations. he didn't have the stress of worrying about how he was going to pay for this and i think that was a great part of why he was able to pull through. it's sad that paper can be valued more than lives by some. it's sad that there are people out there who call themselves human who would call medical help a "business" or that it should be a money transaction. it's true we pay taxes when we buy things so that all can help all, but that's the stupidity of the world we live in. we're smart enough to create these technologies to help people, but stupid enough to allow the people who make these things to charge for it.
still, after all the insults and terrible things said, if these people had a situation where they were in need of help and it meant the difference between being ok and healthy and suffering, i would be there and so would many others to help them, even if they were unwilling to help us. it gives me hope that there are still plenty of good people out there to make up for those who don't get it.
You're parents sound like good people and I'm glad they were able to get their medical care covered. (Of course, even if they weren't good people, they would still deserve good medical care.) I'm glad to know your dad's doing well and sorry about your mom's passing. Thanks for sharing with us.
you
You say paying for cancer tratment or heart surgery wait until it is in the hands of some govt. b-crat. They may deem that since you are 65 years old with a heart condition that surgery is not needed.
What about people who lead an unhealthy lifestyle i.e. smoking, drugs, heavy alcohol. Should a lifelong smoker be put in the back of the line for cancer tratement? The govt may say yes. How long would a 70 year old wait to have needed surgery. NATIONAL HEALTHCARE WOULD BE A DISASTER!
Who are people in favor of this kidding. bunch of fucking whiners in this country who think the Govt needs to take care of them. The govt needs to stay off my back and get out of my way.
My Healthcare is great. The reason it is so high is because I am also subsidizing all the free loaders who show up in the ER for treatment.
I think this (that I bolded) is the most important point. YOU have healthcare for YOURSELF and YOU are happy with it and so YOU don't think there needs to be a change (except maybe to not subsidize those damn free loaders).
But the problem is that having health coverage for YOU (or me) isn't good enough. EVERYONE needs health care. I have a hard time understanding why, even if we can't agree on the best way to do it, we can't at least agree on this.
You're parents sound like good people and I'm glad they were able to get their medical care covered. (Of course, even if they weren't good people, they would still deserve good medical care.) I'm glad to know your dad's doing well and sorry about your mom's passing. Thanks for sharing with us.
I think a lot of the problems of the united states would go away if people never had to worry that their lives would basically be ruined if they got sick.
for those of you whose principal worry about UHC is that you will be paying for someone else's health care, you should stop paying taxes.
you probably don't want to pay for other people's trash pickup, fire and police services, public education, street maintenence among other things.
it's terrible when you're a f**king hypocrite and you don't even know it.
Thing is that it can of course be done poorly, and a poor way in the US would be to go over the federal budget with federal oversight. Integrate the cost into state taxes (for instance) and let them deal with it. The bigger the bureaucracy the larger the cost. Universal health care trims away a fair portion of bureaucracy by default, and to keep it that way, put it down at least to state level in the case of the US.
Peace
Dan
Ithink this would be a great idea, but as with a state run program, would this mean that in less populated states you would have to pay more out of your pocket in taxes? Not sure, your thoughts?
I will hold the candle until it burns up my arm. I'll keep taking punches until their will grows tired. I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. I won't change direction and I won't change my mind.
Ithink this would be a great idea, but as with a state run program, would this mean that in less populated states you would have to pay more out of your pocket in taxes? Not sure, your thoughts?
Well, you want it state-level, the state must pay for it. But then adding a federal evening-out program or something are slippery slopes as to containing unnecessary bureaucracy. Thing is, you'd probably pay less in less populated states. I work with sick-leave numbers in my region, and it is a clear trend that people in densely populated areas are more sick (or at least have more sick-leaves) than in rural areas.
Point is, that there must be no crossing ifs and whens on the bureaucracy. (Which largely accounts for the clutter of big bureaucracies) Single-payer, decisively put on either federal or state level, and incorporated into those taxes is the thing. Clear responsibilities, no questions as to where the bills go, and what gets covered and how much, that's the ticket. Just pay your share, get well and get out, and the hospital deals with getting the rest of the money from the single-payer on a regular and predictable basis. Minimal overhead, better efficiency, and ultimately more health for the buck.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"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
I think this (that I bolded) is the most important point. YOU have healthcare for YOURSELF and YOU are happy with it and so YOU don't think there needs to be a change (except maybe to not subsidize those damn free loaders).
But the problem is that having health coverage for YOU (or me) isn't good enough. EVERYONE needs health care. I have a hard time understanding why, even if we can't agree on the best way to do it, we can't at least agree on this.
Agreed if they can come up with a plan that has little or no impact on my current coverage yet helps the less fortunate thna myself I am all for that. I would be very scared if the Govt tried to do the whole thing itself and come up with big whole sale changes. Look at how fucked up the educational system is. I live in MA and they can't even do a dam highway project right. At the end of the day the thing is going to cost over 30bln dollars, I think we were told it was going to be approx 6-8 bln. But the Great Liberal Lion Teddy K. was able to deliver the Bacon for all of his union croonies. What a country!
If they come up with a govt plan all of those assholes in Congress and in the House better be on the same plan.
Whenever I think about the fact that we don't have some kind of universal health care system in this country, I get increasingly pissed off until I finally stop myself from thinking about it. It is just completely fucking wrong, and maybe people here on this thread have articulated why it's wrong very well. It's also inefficient.
Poll after poll shows most Americans want UHC. Personally, I think we should have a single-payer system in each state, where the funds are public and the management remains private, but there should be publicly mandated guidelines. The only reason we don't have UHC is because the HMOs have bought out politicians. That is the ONLY reason. Think about it: part of the money you pay for health care is being used to deny other people health care so that well-connected people can have more money for their own pleasure.
later, when my mother got seriously ill, another poster (a candian, mind you) who i haven't here seen in ages...perhaps he was banned...had the audacity to say..."well, i'm glad my money is paying for your mother's problems"...and said it sarcastically. it was disgusting. i have to wonder if he'd still be so callous now that my mom has passed away, if he were still around here.
my dad is still living well and going strong, thanks to the wonderful people who helped him get through what were a few life threatening situations.
Sorry to hear about your mom. With no sarcasm whatsoever, I am glad my money helped your parents, and that your father recovered so well! Man, it makes me angry when people think they can be douche bags online because it's not "real life." If it's not acceptable to say to a friend, it's not acceptable to say period. Thanks for sharing that though!
Sorry to hear about your mom. With no sarcasm whatsoever, I am glad my money helped your parents, and that your father recovered so well! Man, it makes me angry when people think they can be douche bags online because it's not "real life." If it's not acceptable to say to a friend, it's not acceptable to say period. Thanks for sharing that though!
thanks to you as well. i mention my mother's passing only because of the surprise at what a couple of people had to say is all. these kind of things happen and it makes a person feel inclined to speak more strongly about this than they normally would. i guess i see it that way.
Agreed if they can come up with a plan that has little or no impact on my current coverage yet helps the less fortunate thna myself I am all for that.
Yea! That's 2 of us! Now let's get some more to join in and move forward from there.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I just watched a special on this. I'll keep what I have, thanks. The poor can get UHC but I'll pass for myself and my family. Health care is not a Right.
I am curious, for people who are happy with the system that the US has, does it not bother them that the government is spending more per person on health care than a lot of countries with universal health care? Does it not bother them that their life expextancy is lower and their infant mortality rate is higher?
It sucks so bad. I've writing the conclusion of my dissertation, and am trying to tie everything up, and what I read today has put me so far down in a hole it's ridiculous. I always believed that people who said W. was an actual criminal, instead of figuratively, were wrong, BUT no. The Bush family are top level MF's, who have been able to maintain power and wealth illegally while taking away basic civil rights from the people.
The sad part is that their doctrine is so convincing that people actually believe that "universal health care" and "free education" is a communist goal (see: Debbie Riddle Texas State Rep.), or that it shouldn't be a basic right when 40 years ago this would have been laughed at.
It sucks so bad. I've writing the conclusion of my dissertation, and am trying to tie everything up, and what I read today has put me so far down in a hole it's ridiculous. I always believed that people who said W. was an actual criminal, instead of figuratively, were wrong, BUT no. The Bush family are top level MF's, who have been able to maintain power and wealth illegally while taking away basic civil rights from the people.
The sad part is that their doctrine is so convincing that people actually believe that "universal health care" and "free education" is a communist goal (see: Debbie Riddle Texas State Rep.), or that it shouldn't be a basic right when 40 years ago this would have been laughed at.
What's your dissertation on again? I think you may have mentioned it but I can't remember.
What's your dissertation on again? I think you may have mentioned it but I can't remember.
It's kind of changed since I've last written here I think. Anyway it is tentatively titled: "Pledging a Grievance to the Flag: Baseball, Citizenship, and White Neoliberalism" (obvious influence from a particular band). The main idea is tracing how citizenship in America has changed over the course of the past 50 years, using baseball as my empirical example (Little League World Series, and Red Sox Nation). Right now I'm trying to fit my project into the broader American experience...it's really painful.
It's kind of changed since I've last written here I think. Anyway it is tentatively titled: "Pledging a Grievance to the Flag: Baseball, Citizenship, and White Neoliberalism" (obvious influence from a particular band). The main idea is tracing how citizenship in America has changed over the course of the past 50 years, using baseball as my empirical example (Little League World Series, and Red Sox Nation). Right now I'm trying to fit my project into the broader American experience...it's really painful.
That sounds interesting! And in what subject are you getting your graduate degree?
I'll throw my Canadian two cents in here (which, hey, is actually worth two American cents now! ). I also work in a hospital, which gives me another perspective....
1. I definitely agree with the posters here who mentioned the importance of PREVENTATIVE health care. The problem with only catastrophic health care coverage is that is leaves the costs of the most beneficial health care (prenatal care, childhood immunizations, annual checkups, etc) to the individual. In some cases, the individual can afford it; in many, they can't. Hence the reason why poverty correlates with poorer health status.
2. Although in most situations, a privatized market lowers prices because competing parties need to have competitive prices, in the case of health care, this doesn't seem to work. Health care costs in the US are largely HIGHER than elsewhere, because health care is a FOR PROFIT industry. This means drug companies want to maximize profits, physicians want to maximize profits, medical equipment manufacturers want to maximize profits, hospitals want to maximize profits, etc. The poster who is a hospital administrator indicated that it is NECESSARY for pharmaceutical companies to be profitable so they can fund research into new drugs; however, pharmaceutical companies tend to fund research into drugs that they feel are the most profitable, not the most needed. For example, they create yet another statin drug or ACE inhibitor, or erectile dysfunction drug (not that sexual wellbeing isn't important, but it isn't exactly lifesaving), etc. Most of these "new" drugs aren't really new at all, don't have much added benefit or reduced side effects. But they are profitable because they are marketed to chronic diseases that affect a large part of the north american population (i.e. heart disease). However, drugs that are needed but don't have as much profitability potential don't get developed (such as new antibiotics, or treatments for rare, life threatening diseases).
I think it would be pretty impossible at this stage to de-privatize the aspects of health care (drugs, medical supplies) that drive up the costs. But in Canada, gov't regulate drug prices, which helps to keep the costs down. It may be worthwhile to consider having gov't regulation of new drug development, so that even if there are fewer research dollars available (due to lowered drug prices and narrowed profit margins), those research dollars can go towards significant advances, rather than the easy-buck drugs.
3. With regards to who "deserves" health care, I struggle with this as well.
As an example, I saw a guy at my hospital who was admitted with a serious bacterial infection of his heart valve, due to IV illegal drug use. The doctors asked the guy if he was interested in entering a drug-rehab program (at no cost to him), and he said absolutely not. Now, the treatment for this kind of infection is about 6 weeks of IV antibiotics. Usually what we'd do is treat the person in hospital until they were stable (i.e. 1 or 2 weeks) and then send them home with an IV and have a nurse come to their house every day (at no cost to them) and administer the antibiotics at home for the remaining 4 weeks. However, for this guy, we can't do that, because no home care nurse is going to assume responsibility for care of an IV in a person who is a known, active IV drug user (since that guy will most likely be using the IV to administer IV drugs to himself). Which means we have to keep him in the hospital (at no cost to him) for the entire 6 weeks. Essentially providing a free baby-sitting service.
Now, I get annoyed when I think about patients such as this, because I feel like it is my tax dollars that are paying for this guy's treatment, which was directly caused by IV drug use, and this guy indicates he has absolutely no intention of stopping his IV drug use.
However, if I suggested that this type of person doesn't deserve universal health care (which is actually "free" to him, 'cause I know he's not paying taxes), where do we draw the line in that type of judgement? When I'm 65, should I be denied universal access to cardiac care because I didn't go to the gym 3 times a week and stay away from McDonald's when I was 30 years old? Should smokers who develop lung cancer be turned down for universal access to chemotherapy? I would say NO, unless cigarette smoking was made illegal, fast foods were banned and the public was somehow legislated to do X number of hours of exercise every week to earn their universal health care (which I am no way suggesting should be done).
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have a right to access medical care (it doesn't say it has to be "free" or "socialized medicine", but they do have the right to access it):
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
I wish I knew the answers to how to provide universal health care to everyone in a way that was sustainable and responsible (for both the providers and the recipients) and fair to everyone. It is a complex problem with no simple solutions.
Comments
Dear God! I know that - in fact, I pointed that out in my first post in this thread. Granted, it wasn't abundantly clear in that post, but I had mentioned it before. Can we be a little less condescending, please?
You say paying for cancer tratment or heart surgery wait until it is in the hands of some govt. b-crat. They may deem that since you are 65 years old with a heart condition that surgery is not needed.
What about people who lead an unhealthy lifestyle i.e. smoking, drugs, heavy alcohol. Should a lifelong smoker be put in the back of the line for cancer tratement? The govt may say yes. How long would a 70 year old wait to have needed surgery. NATIONAL HEALTHCARE WOULD BE A DISASTER!
Who are people in favor of this kidding. bunch of fucking whiners in this country who think the Govt needs to take care of them. The govt needs to stay off my back and get out of my way.
My Healthcare is great. The reason it is so high is because I am also subsidizing all the free loaders who show up in the ER for treatment.
don't hold your breath waiting for that miracle, mert, or you may be in need of medical care yourself!
when this topic came up one time shortly after i joined here, i thought i would post what i thought was a rather benign statement that i was happy to live under a universal health care system because of my mother and father's health problems at the time. they were getting fantastic treatment and i can't say enough about the wonderful people in the hospital...the nurses, the doctors, everyone. they saved their lives.
i was answered by a "few people" here saying things along the lines of "how is that MY problem" and "they should have known better and prepared for things that may happen." how do you do that when you're trying to support a family on minimal wages that barely cover food, clothing and shelter? you can't. thank goodness they were able to get through without having to lose their home or make the choice to go without the procedures. thank goodness they didn't have the added stress of thinking about money.
i also mentioned that my father only had a fifth grade education because he grew up in the thirties at a time when it was more necessary for him to work than go to school so that he could help support his family. again "some people" were kind enough to insult a man who spent his working life as a janitor, doing volunteer work for his church in his spare time and even working weekends and extra hours to do maintenance on local softball fields so that the kids in the neighbourhoods could have good fields to play on and things to do to have fun.
later, when my mother got seriously ill, another poster (a candian, mind you) who i haven't here seen in ages...perhaps he was banned...had the audacity to say..."well, i'm glad my money is paying for your mother's problems"...and said it sarcastically. it was disgusting. i have to wonder if he'd still be so callous now that my mom has passed away, if he were still around here.
my dad is still living well and going strong, thanks to the wonderful people who helped him get through what were a few life threatening situations. he didn't have the stress of worrying about how he was going to pay for this and i think that was a great part of why he was able to pull through. it's sad that paper can be valued more than lives by some. it's sad that there are people out there who call themselves human who would call medical help a "business" or that it should be a money transaction. it's true we pay taxes when we buy things so that all can help all, but that's the stupidity of the world we live in. we're smart enough to create these technologies to help people, but stupid enough to allow the people who make these things to charge for it.
still, after all the insults and terrible things said, if these people had a situation where they were in need of help and it meant the difference between being ok and healthy and suffering, i would be there and so would many others to help them, even if they were unwilling to help us. it gives me hope that there are still plenty of good people out there to make up for those who don't get it.
How do explain this, then?
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12683
And this:
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2006/1/20/Department-of-Veterans-Affairs-Outperforms-Private-Health-Care-Facilities-in-Consumer-Satisfaction-Survey-Finds.aspx?topicID=49
And this:
http://www.houston.va.gov/pressreleases/News_20080103.asp
And this from the RAND Corp. Let's be objective folks
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9100/index1.html
And this:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/22/2218
And this (the VA has the most brilliant medical records system I have ever seen or used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Information_Systems_and_Technology_Architecture):
http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/pub/12_6/news/5992-1.html
And this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101073_pf.html
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
germany has a state-run, tax-paid health care system...if people don't like it, they can insure themselves privately...of course you need some cash for that...but if you haven't you can rely on (not too bad at all) government health care...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
They aren't very good at securing all of that private electronic information either.
This is fine and is the direction I hope and would expect America to take when it implement UHC. However, none of this changes the fact that Germans (and one day Americans) can not simply opt-out of the system if they find no value in it. All they can do is opt-out of receiving the benefits of the system. All are made to suffer the costs regardless of the individual benefits.
You're parents sound like good people and I'm glad they were able to get their medical care covered. (Of course, even if they weren't good people, they would still deserve good medical care.) I'm glad to know your dad's doing well and sorry about your mom's passing. Thanks for sharing with us.
I think this (that I bolded) is the most important point. YOU have healthcare for YOURSELF and YOU are happy with it and so YOU don't think there needs to be a change (except maybe to not subsidize those damn free loaders).
But the problem is that having health coverage for YOU (or me) isn't good enough. EVERYONE needs health care. I have a hard time understanding why, even if we can't agree on the best way to do it, we can't at least agree on this.
very kind to say. thank you, scb.
for those of you whose principal worry about UHC is that you will be paying for someone else's health care, you should stop paying taxes.
you probably don't want to pay for other people's trash pickup, fire and police services, public education, street maintenence among other things.
it's terrible when you're a f**king hypocrite and you don't even know it.
Ithink this would be a great idea, but as with a state run program, would this mean that in less populated states you would have to pay more out of your pocket in taxes? Not sure, your thoughts?
Point is, that there must be no crossing ifs and whens on the bureaucracy. (Which largely accounts for the clutter of big bureaucracies) Single-payer, decisively put on either federal or state level, and incorporated into those taxes is the thing. Clear responsibilities, no questions as to where the bills go, and what gets covered and how much, that's the ticket. Just pay your share, get well and get out, and the hospital deals with getting the rest of the money from the single-payer on a regular and predictable basis. Minimal overhead, better efficiency, and ultimately more health for the buck.
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
Agreed if they can come up with a plan that has little or no impact on my current coverage yet helps the less fortunate thna myself I am all for that. I would be very scared if the Govt tried to do the whole thing itself and come up with big whole sale changes. Look at how fucked up the educational system is. I live in MA and they can't even do a dam highway project right. At the end of the day the thing is going to cost over 30bln dollars, I think we were told it was going to be approx 6-8 bln. But the Great Liberal Lion Teddy K. was able to deliver the Bacon for all of his union croonies. What a country!
If they come up with a govt plan all of those assholes in Congress and in the House better be on the same plan.
Poll after poll shows most Americans want UHC. Personally, I think we should have a single-payer system in each state, where the funds are public and the management remains private, but there should be publicly mandated guidelines. The only reason we don't have UHC is because the HMOs have bought out politicians. That is the ONLY reason. Think about it: part of the money you pay for health care is being used to deny other people health care so that well-connected people can have more money for their own pleasure.
Sorry to hear about your mom. With no sarcasm whatsoever, I am glad my money helped your parents, and that your father recovered so well!
thanks to you as well. i mention my mother's passing only because of the surprise at what a couple of people had to say is all. these kind of things happen and it makes a person feel inclined to speak more strongly about this than they normally would. i guess i see it that way.
Yea! That's 2 of us! Now let's get some more to join in and move forward from there.
yes, it is. If we have the money for a useless war, we have money for OUR people.
I believe it is. But even if it weren't, isn't it just basic human decency to take care of one another?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/libertarian-legacy-ron-pa_b_111079.html
Wow. :(
That's so sad, but thanks for sharing. I just hope we'll learn from things like this before the same fate befalls too many more people.
The sad part is that their doctrine is so convincing that people actually believe that "universal health care" and "free education" is a communist goal (see: Debbie Riddle Texas State Rep.), or that it shouldn't be a basic right when 40 years ago this would have been laughed at.
What's your dissertation on again? I think you may have mentioned it but I can't remember.
That sounds interesting! And in what subject are you getting your graduate degree?
1. I definitely agree with the posters here who mentioned the importance of PREVENTATIVE health care. The problem with only catastrophic health care coverage is that is leaves the costs of the most beneficial health care (prenatal care, childhood immunizations, annual checkups, etc) to the individual. In some cases, the individual can afford it; in many, they can't. Hence the reason why poverty correlates with poorer health status.
2. Although in most situations, a privatized market lowers prices because competing parties need to have competitive prices, in the case of health care, this doesn't seem to work. Health care costs in the US are largely HIGHER than elsewhere, because health care is a FOR PROFIT industry. This means drug companies want to maximize profits, physicians want to maximize profits, medical equipment manufacturers want to maximize profits, hospitals want to maximize profits, etc. The poster who is a hospital administrator indicated that it is NECESSARY for pharmaceutical companies to be profitable so they can fund research into new drugs; however, pharmaceutical companies tend to fund research into drugs that they feel are the most profitable, not the most needed. For example, they create yet another statin drug or ACE inhibitor, or erectile dysfunction drug (not that sexual wellbeing isn't important, but it isn't exactly lifesaving), etc. Most of these "new" drugs aren't really new at all, don't have much added benefit or reduced side effects. But they are profitable because they are marketed to chronic diseases that affect a large part of the north american population (i.e. heart disease). However, drugs that are needed but don't have as much profitability potential don't get developed (such as new antibiotics, or treatments for rare, life threatening diseases).
I think it would be pretty impossible at this stage to de-privatize the aspects of health care (drugs, medical supplies) that drive up the costs. But in Canada, gov't regulate drug prices, which helps to keep the costs down. It may be worthwhile to consider having gov't regulation of new drug development, so that even if there are fewer research dollars available (due to lowered drug prices and narrowed profit margins), those research dollars can go towards significant advances, rather than the easy-buck drugs.
3. With regards to who "deserves" health care, I struggle with this as well.
As an example, I saw a guy at my hospital who was admitted with a serious bacterial infection of his heart valve, due to IV illegal drug use. The doctors asked the guy if he was interested in entering a drug-rehab program (at no cost to him), and he said absolutely not. Now, the treatment for this kind of infection is about 6 weeks of IV antibiotics. Usually what we'd do is treat the person in hospital until they were stable (i.e. 1 or 2 weeks) and then send them home with an IV and have a nurse come to their house every day (at no cost to them) and administer the antibiotics at home for the remaining 4 weeks. However, for this guy, we can't do that, because no home care nurse is going to assume responsibility for care of an IV in a person who is a known, active IV drug user (since that guy will most likely be using the IV to administer IV drugs to himself). Which means we have to keep him in the hospital (at no cost to him) for the entire 6 weeks. Essentially providing a free baby-sitting service.
Now, I get annoyed when I think about patients such as this, because I feel like it is my tax dollars that are paying for this guy's treatment, which was directly caused by IV drug use, and this guy indicates he has absolutely no intention of stopping his IV drug use.
However, if I suggested that this type of person doesn't deserve universal health care (which is actually "free" to him, 'cause I know he's not paying taxes), where do we draw the line in that type of judgement? When I'm 65, should I be denied universal access to cardiac care because I didn't go to the gym 3 times a week and stay away from McDonald's when I was 30 years old? Should smokers who develop lung cancer be turned down for universal access to chemotherapy? I would say NO, unless cigarette smoking was made illegal, fast foods were banned and the public was somehow legislated to do X number of hours of exercise every week to earn their universal health care (which I am no way suggesting should be done).
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have a right to access medical care (it doesn't say it has to be "free" or "socialized medicine", but they do have the right to access it):
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
I wish I knew the answers to how to provide universal health care to everyone in a way that was sustainable and responsible (for both the providers and the recipients) and fair to everyone. It is a complex problem with no simple solutions.
(sorry that post was rather long...)
<font color="red"> So much music, so little time.... </font>