also, im just saying UHC inhibits the free market. you cant say it doesnt. canada's model prohibits insurance companies....giving up freedom. If i were canadian i wouldnt be free to conduct business as i pleased. it's as simple as that.
Anyone who believes we actually have a free market is fooling themselves. Corporate welfare inhibits the free market. There are plenty of regulations which inhibit the free market. "Free market" is just another one of those meaningless catch phrases created for people to rally around.
One might even argue that an unhealthy (or less healthy) workforce inhibits the free market and that we need universal healthcare to ensure a healthy and productive workforce to support our economy.
Creating universal healthcare wouldn't necessarily prohibit insurance companies anyway; it would just take away the need for them. Isn't this the basic law of supply and demand which your "free market" holds so dear? The preservation of the free market doesn't dictate that we must maintain a system whereby people have no alternative but to purchase coverage from insurance companies. That's like saying we shouldn't create alternative energy sources because it's not fair to the oil companies who have a "right" to force the world to purchase their product.
Besides, even if you did have a good point, the welfare/health of the public is more important than the profit of the few. I believe our Constituation itself dictates that we "promote the general welfare" of all Americans - not that we secure the profits of corporations (which aren't even people, yet are given greater considerations than we are). Where are the words "free market" written in the Constitution?
I believe our Constituation itself dictates that we "promote the general welfare" of all Americans - not that we secure the profits of corporations (which aren't even people, yet are given greater considerations than we are). Where are the words "free market" written in the Constitution?
the welfare of americans lies in the oppurtunities that exist. In the words of EV. your dirt is my food. life is what u make it. I like to give myself and my fellow americans more credit. i think we're capable of providing for ourselve. The "free market" has a way of working itself out.
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
also, im just saying UHC inhibits the free market. you cant say it doesnt. canada's model prohibits insurance companies....giving up freedom. If i were canadian i wouldnt be free to conduct business as i pleased. it's as simple as that.
You can see I Doctor that You choose, just good luck finding one, I'm Canadian and I think our version of UHC sucks and needs a major overhaul. When it comes to our version of UHC I would look at a different model for sure, we need to allow more privatization of the system, believe me if I could opt out I would.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
the welfare of americans lies in the oppurtunities that exist. In the words of EV. your dirt is my food. life is what u make it. I like to give myself and my fellow americans more credit. i think we're capable of providing for ourselve. The "free market" has a way of working itself out.
Clearly this is not the case when not all Americans have the same opportunities to receive the health care they need and the disparity is increasing. The "free market" is not working. Even if it did work itself out eventually, how many people should die while we wait for that to happen?
Americans as a country are capable of using our vast resources to provide for ourselves though - when we all pitch in to ensure that everyone has health care.
Clearly this is not the case when not all Americans have the same opportunities to receive the health care they need and the disparity is increasing. The "free market" is not working. Even if it did work itself out eventually, how many people should die while we wait for that to happen?
Americans as a country are capable of using our vast resources to provide for ourselves though - when we all pitch in to ensure that everyone has health care.
The misconception is the talking about the free market when there is no free market. Between the Government and Insurance conglomerates they have cornered the market. Doctors don't compete for customers they compete for better rates of pay from Insurance agreements and the Government. That's one of the biggest issues with health care. Before withholding (for medical care and taxes etc) people had an idea of what health cost. Now they know it costs 20 dollars at the regular doc and 40 for a specialist... if you HAVE insurance... if you don't it's either all covered by medicare or you have to go to the emergency room where it's "covered by medicare" but actually is a loss which gets picked up by higher bills for paying customers. People don't even pay attention to everything else on the bill like insurance write off... or what the company pays per visit etc or per paycheck..
I know this, Delivering a baby now even with the new drugs and technology isn't that much more complicated than it was in 1943 and it's about 20 grand to deliver a baby now. I'm pretty sure it wasn't close to that then even adjusted for inflation.
The system is definately broken I don't think it would be completely fixed by any one sweeping change. I think it's going to take an amalgamation of solutions across the board... some public and many private
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
I know this, Delivering a baby now even with the new drugs and technology isn't that much more complicated than it was in 1943 and it's about 20 grand to deliver a baby now. I'm pretty sure it wasn't close to that then even adjusted for inflation.
This is in large part because of the outrageously-increasing cost of malpractice insurance for OB care, especially for Family Medicine docs who do deliveries. This will have to be addressed if we are to fix the system.
(I can't help but notice that this is yet another problem involving insurance companies.)
This is in large part because of the outrageously-increasing cost of malpractice insurance for OB care, especially for Family Medicine docs who do deliveries. This will have to be addressed if we are to fix the system.
(I can't help but notice that this is yet another problem involving insurance companies.)
exactly. Tort reform is a big part of it even in any system. I'd be interested in hearing how malpractice suits work in social systems. I don't really know much about that. I'm guessing it's pretty well controlled or not allowed at all.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
exactly. Tort reform is a big part of it even in any system. I'd be interested in hearing how malpractice suits work in social systems. I don't really know much about that. I'm guessing it's pretty well controlled or not allowed at all.
That's actually one of the nice side effects of the Canadian system, it totally cuts down on personal injury lawsuits, and weasely, ambulance chasing personally injury lawyers. I mean if someone causes a traffic accident and you are injured it is pretty difficult to sue for medical expenses when there aren't any.
Silly government intervention -- that's where. Insurance companies have long existed in the health market, but they traditionally played a very small roll in that market. Then came WWII. Fearing inflation, the government instituted wage caps for most American workers. As prices increased and labor pools decreased, American employers desperately needed incentives to hire and keep workers. They were prohibited from raising wages, but part of the wage cap allowed for employer payments towards "worker health and welfare" (sounds great, huh?). That's when the concept of employer-sponsored healthcare, one of the dumbest labor missteps in American history, was born. At the time, everyone thought it was wonderful for much the same reason they currently think UHC is wonderful (i.e. "free healthcare"). But that "free" healthcare dramatically increased demand and, coupled with Medicare and Medicaid and other governmental and market forces, played a huge roll in putting healthcare prices at their current levels.
Certainly much blame for the current state of our healthcare system can be placed at the doorstep of insurance companies. But if you think government intervention is the solution to insurance company dominance, please don't forget that governmental intervention gave rise to insurance company dominance in the first place.
"She and her husband returned with a check for $45,000. After a blood test and biopsy, the hospital oncologist urged admittance quickly. Then the hospital demanded an additional $60,000-$45,000 just for the lab tests and $15,000 for part of the cost of the treatment.
To shorten the story, she received chemotherapy for over a year. Often her appointment was “blocked” until she made another payment.
In a particularly grotesque incident, she was hooked up to a chemotherapy pump, but the nurses were not allowed to change the chemo bag until Mr. Kelly made another payment.
She endured other indignities and overcharges. Reporter Martinez cites $360 for blood tests that insurers pay $20 or less for and up to $120 for saline pouches that cost less than $2 retail.
Imagine anything like Mrs. Kelly’s predicament and pressures occurring in Canada, Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, Holland, England or any other western country. It would never happen."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Silly government intervention -- that's where. Insurance companies have long existed in the health market, but they traditionally played a very small roll in that market. Then came WWII. Fearing inflation, the government instituted wage caps for most American workers. As prices increased and labor pools decreased, American employers desperately needed incentives to hire and keep workers. They were prohibited from raising wages, but part of the wage cap allowed for employer payments towards "worker health and welfare" (sounds great, huh?). That's when the concept of employer-sponsored healthcare, one of the dumbest labor missteps in American history, was born. At the time, everyone thought it was wonderful for much the same reason they currently think UHC is wonderful (i.e. "free healthcare"). But that "free" healthcare dramatically increased demand and, coupled with Medicare and Medicaid and other governmental and market forces, played a huge roll in putting healthcare prices at their current levels.
Certainly much blame for the current state of our healthcare system can be placed at the doorstep of insurance companies. But if you think government intervention is the solution to insurance company dominance, please don't forget that governmental intervention gave rise to insurance company dominance in the first place.
Thanks for that interesting bit of history.
For the record, I don't believe I've ever said that the government should completely take over (or that it shouldn't). All I know is that in a country as rich as ours there is no excuse for anyone going without healthcare. We need to make universal healthcare happen. I don't care how it happens as long as it works. The system is obviously broken now.
Regarding insurance companies, I believe "for-profit" and "for the good of the people" are mutually exclusive concepts.
Regarding the government, I understand your point about the government having screwed things up before, but I don't think it follows that they will necessarily screw things up forever more.
Sad but true. I just now told a patient she couldn't have a single pill she needed until she forked over $105. Then I came back to my office and read this post. How apropos. :(
Sad but true. I just now told a patient she couldn't have a single pill she needed until she forked over $105. Then I came back to my office and read this post. How apropos. :(
That's brutal. I just has transsphenoidal surgery a couple months ago in Canada at a top hospital.
I was admitted for a week and a half just to be sure I was good. I could walk into the any of the multiple store rooms on any floor whenever to get more gauze, bandages, tape, blankets, gowns, when needed. Doors wide open. Any pain medication was for the asking no strings attached. When I left..nothing to sign just shake hands and walk out...
I can't imagine having to wait for, or be denied anything I needed during that time.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
For the record, I don't believe I've ever said that the government should completely take over (or that it shouldn't). All I know is that in a country as rich as ours there is no excuse for anyone going without healthcare. We need to make universal healthcare happen. I don't care how it happens as long as it works. The system is obviously broken now.
That's fair -- there's certainly nothing incorrect about saying the system now is broken and saying that we can do much better. However, it's this "I don't care how it happens" attitude that invites very bad solutions. When you have an itch, cutting off your arm is not a very good "solution".
Regarding insurance companies, I believe "for-profit" and "for the good of the people" are mutually exclusive concepts.
That's silly. My homeowner's insurance is "for-profit" and provides me much "good" in the event of a disaster that affects my home. Automobile insurance largely happens "for profit" and provides much "good". Finally, even the much maligned healthcare insurance industry, despite more awful stories than one can count, makes both a "profit" and provides most of its users with low-cost healthcare. There's nothing mutually exclusive about "profit" and "good for the people", particularly considering the fact that philosophically those two things are synonymous. When you get great healthcare at a reasonable cost, you are profitting. Not all "profits" are measured in $$$.
Certainly there is a motive inherent in the market for insurance providers to deny claims, but one needs to think about this more deeply than that. Insurance providers deny claims in order to control costs. The exact same thing happens in UHC systems where people are regularly denied care. In a health insurance market, however, there is also a strong motive not to deny care. That motive extends from revenue. If you were going to buy insurance yourself, would you willingly buy it from a provider that routinely denies care??? Of course not.
The fundamental problem we have is that the people who buy insurance typically are not the people who use it. We have too many employers selecting health insurance plans who don't give a shit whether or not the companies backing the plans deliver on claims. The employers are simply trying to offer insurance for employee retention, attraction, or regulatory reasons. And employers are often going with the cheapest instead of the best option. So now, not only do insurance companies have a motive to deny claims (control costs), their customers (employers) have a similar motive (control costs). Meanwhile, the end user (you) is getting fucked because you're not providing any value into the process because you're getting your healthcare for "free".
Health insurance, once upon a time, used to be relatively cheap (though not so cheap that everyone could afford it) and it used to pay out as regularly as any other type of insurance. Why? Because the people buying it valued the service they got out of it and held the providers to appropriate standards of care. That dynamic is now largely gone thanks to employer-sponsored healthcare. Furthermore, that dynamic can be hard to come by in many nations with UHC where people are denied care due to insufficient taxation and/or supply rationing.
Regarding the government, I understand your point about the government having screwed things up before, but I don't think it follows that they will necessarily screw things up forever more.
Absolutely not! Everyone makes mistakes, not just the government. However, in order to solve economic problems one must take an economic approach. The healthcare "crisis" in America is an economic problem, not a philosophical problem or a emotional problem or even a justice problem. And economic problems always have economic solutions. In terms of pricing, taking any action that increases demand for a product and decreases supply (as UHC would likely do in this country), is to take a step back, not a step forward.
That's brutal. I just has transsphenoidal surgery a couple months ago in Canada at a top hospital.
I was admitted for a week and a half just to be sure I was good. I could walk into the any of the multiple store rooms on any floor whenever to get more gauze, bandages, tape, blankets, gowns, when needed. Doors wide open. Any pain medication was for the asking no strings attached. When I left..nothing to sign just shake hands and walk out...
I can't imagine having to wait for, or be denied anything I needed during that time.
hmmmm???? I dont think I want to pay taxes toward a system that allows patients to roam free in hospitals and make arbitrary decisions about what they need for care. I admit here in the US we need to do something to deal with the rising cost of healthcare but i dont think UHC is the way to go..Farfromglorified has the right idea. Economic solutions for an economic problem.
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
We don't have universal health care by any stretch of the imagination. We also don't have a free market - hence the quotes in my original post.
I got that part, I'm just saying you could just as well have written "universal health care" isn't working. It's in quotes because we don't have it either.
hmmmm???? I dont think I want to pay taxes toward a system that allows patients to roam free in hospitals and make arbitrary decisions about what they need for care. I admit here in the US we need to do something to deal with the rising cost of healthcare but i dont think UHC is the way to go..Farfromglorified has the right idea. Economic solutions for an economic problem.
The doctors make the decisions on what you need for care. I'm just talking just bandages, and towels, and clothing. The bare necessities... they should be freely available!!
I think it's an extremely beautiful thing the trust factor is still alive and well in Canada in this regard.
The health system the US has borders on tyrannical...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
hmmmm???? I dont think I want to pay taxes toward a system that allows patients to roam free in hospitals and make arbitrary decisions about what they need for care. I admit here in the US we need to do something to deal with the rising cost of healthcare but i dont think UHC is the way to go..Farfromglorified has the right idea. Economic solutions for an economic problem.
You don't think patients in the US get to make arbitrary decisions about what they need for care? What do you think all those drug commercials that say "Ask your Doctor about [insert drug name here]" that don't really explain what the drug does are for? I saw a news program once that basically said that a large proportion of the time if you ask for one of those drugs you will get it whether you need it or not. Sounds like a bunch of patients making arbitrary decisions about what they need to me
If you believe the US system "borders on tyrannical", you're a little crazy. "Flawed" and "tyrannical" are not synonymous.
You need this pill?
what? it hurts? You feel like you're dying?
too bad...wipe the tears...pay up
Yeah, that's a form of torture when you're living it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You don't think patients in the US get to make arbitrary decisions about what they need for care? What do you think all those drug commercials that say "Ask your Doctor about [insert drug name here]" that don't really explain what the drug does are for. I saw a news program once that basically said that a large proportion of the time if you ask for one of those drugs you will get it whether you need it or not.
SO...what ur really saying is we need tighter regulations in the FDA.
if thats not what your saying then you should be. A huge factor behind the rising cost of healthcare in America is do to the overwhelming amount of new drugs being allowed on the market. The drug companies have thousands of lobbyists in the pockets of the bureaucracy. A switch to UHC is like hacking at the branches and not pulling the roots.
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
Yeah, that's a form of torture when you're living it.
Umm...you understand the exact same dynamic happens in Canada, right? Your gauze, bandages, tape, blankets, gowns didn't just magically pay for themselves or materialize out of thin air. Someone, maybe you, maybe your neighbor was forced to pay for those things.
That's silly. My homeowner's insurance is "for-profit" and provides me much "good" in the event of a disaster that affects my home. Automobile insurance largely happens "for profit" and provides much "good". Finally, even the much maligned healthcare insurance industry, despite more awful stories than one can count, makes both a "profit" and provides most of its users with low-cost healthcare. There's nothing mutually exclusive about "profit" and "good for the people", particularly considering the fact that philosophically those two things are synonymous. When you get great healthcare at a reasonable cost, you are profitting.
Perhaps I should have phrased it better: I believe "for-profit" and "for the good of the people" are mutually exclusive GOALS. Certainly profit and the good of the people can co-exist. But when the purpose of a company is to make profit first and to provide healthcare only so much as it makes them profit, that's where the problem lies.
Of course I agree that there are more ways to profit in the world than monitarily. But when we speak of "for-profit" companies - we are speaking of money.
In a health insurance market, however, there is also a strong motive not to deny care. That motive extends from revenue. If you were going to buy insurance yourself, would you willingly buy it from a provider that routinely denies care??? Of course not.
Of course I wouldn't. But I don't buy insurance myself - I'm stuck with whatever insurance my employer provides.
The fundamental problem we have is that the people who buy insurance typically are not the people who use it. We have too many employers selecting health insurance plans who don't give a shit whether or not the companies backing the plans deliver on claims. The employers are simply trying to offer insurance for employee retention, attraction, or regulatory reasons. And employers are often going with the cheapest instead of the best option. So now, not only do insurance companies have a motive to deny claims (control costs), their customers (employers) have a similar motive (control costs). Meanwhile, the end user (you) is getting fucked because you're not providing any value into the process because you're getting your healthcare for "free".
Absolutely not! Everyone makes mistakes, not just the government. However, in order to solve economic problems one must take an economic approach. The healthcare "crisis" in America is an economic problem, not a philosophical problem or a emotional problem or even a justice problem.
I disagree. When we can't even agree that every person deserves healthcare, the healthcare crisis is first and foremost a philosophical & justice problem.
Once we can agree that our goal is to provide healthcare for all, then we can move on to the details of how best to make that happen. It's at that point that it becomes an economic problem.
Umm...you understand the exact same dynamic happens in Canada, right? Your gauze, bandages, tape, blankets, gowns didn't just magically pay for themselves or materialize out of thin air. Someone, maybe you, maybe your neighbor was forced to pay for those things.
....after all this time I thought it was magic.
There is a certain urgency after you've been sliced open, operated on, and tubes and wires flow into and out of you from various holes.
Not quite the same feeling of urgency I get when I watch my neighbor mow his lawn, or pay my taxes for said services.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I got that part, I'm just saying you could just as well have written "universal health care" isn't working. It's in quotes because we don't have it either.
Why use either term if we have neither?
I was responding to another post which said we shouldn't have UHC because it would inhibit the free market.
There is a certain urgency after you've been sliced open, operated on, and tubes and wires flow into and out of you from various holes.
Not quite the same feeling of urgency I get when I watch my neighbor mow his lawn, or pay my taxes for said services.
Do you have a lot of data suggesting that American medical patients who have been sliced open, operated on, and have tubes and wires flowing into and out of their various holes who have not had access to gauze or gowns or towels?
Comments
Anyone who believes we actually have a free market is fooling themselves. Corporate welfare inhibits the free market. There are plenty of regulations which inhibit the free market. "Free market" is just another one of those meaningless catch phrases created for people to rally around.
One might even argue that an unhealthy (or less healthy) workforce inhibits the free market and that we need universal healthcare to ensure a healthy and productive workforce to support our economy.
Creating universal healthcare wouldn't necessarily prohibit insurance companies anyway; it would just take away the need for them. Isn't this the basic law of supply and demand which your "free market" holds so dear? The preservation of the free market doesn't dictate that we must maintain a system whereby people have no alternative but to purchase coverage from insurance companies. That's like saying we shouldn't create alternative energy sources because it's not fair to the oil companies who have a "right" to force the world to purchase their product.
Besides, even if you did have a good point, the welfare/health of the public is more important than the profit of the few. I believe our Constituation itself dictates that we "promote the general welfare" of all Americans - not that we secure the profits of corporations (which aren't even people, yet are given greater considerations than we are). Where are the words "free market" written in the Constitution?
the welfare of americans lies in the oppurtunities that exist. In the words of EV. your dirt is my food. life is what u make it. I like to give myself and my fellow americans more credit. i think we're capable of providing for ourselve. The "free market" has a way of working itself out.
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Clearly this is not the case when not all Americans have the same opportunities to receive the health care they need and the disparity is increasing. The "free market" is not working. Even if it did work itself out eventually, how many people should die while we wait for that to happen?
Americans as a country are capable of using our vast resources to provide for ourselves though - when we all pitch in to ensure that everyone has health care.
The misconception is the talking about the free market when there is no free market. Between the Government and Insurance conglomerates they have cornered the market. Doctors don't compete for customers they compete for better rates of pay from Insurance agreements and the Government. That's one of the biggest issues with health care. Before withholding (for medical care and taxes etc) people had an idea of what health cost. Now they know it costs 20 dollars at the regular doc and 40 for a specialist... if you HAVE insurance... if you don't it's either all covered by medicare or you have to go to the emergency room where it's "covered by medicare" but actually is a loss which gets picked up by higher bills for paying customers. People don't even pay attention to everything else on the bill like insurance write off... or what the company pays per visit etc or per paycheck..
I know this, Delivering a baby now even with the new drugs and technology isn't that much more complicated than it was in 1943 and it's about 20 grand to deliver a baby now. I'm pretty sure it wasn't close to that then even adjusted for inflation.
The system is definately broken I don't think it would be completely fixed by any one sweeping change. I think it's going to take an amalgamation of solutions across the board... some public and many private
This is in large part because of the outrageously-increasing cost of malpractice insurance for OB care, especially for Family Medicine docs who do deliveries. This will have to be addressed if we are to fix the system.
(I can't help but notice that this is yet another problem involving insurance companies.)
Do you know where the problem of involving insurance companies came from?
exactly. Tort reform is a big part of it even in any system. I'd be interested in hearing how malpractice suits work in social systems. I don't really know much about that. I'm guessing it's pretty well controlled or not allowed at all.
I'll bite. From where?
That's actually one of the nice side effects of the Canadian system, it totally cuts down on personal injury lawsuits, and weasely, ambulance chasing personally injury lawyers. I mean if someone causes a traffic accident and you are injured it is pretty difficult to sue for medical expenses when there aren't any.
Silly government intervention -- that's where. Insurance companies have long existed in the health market, but they traditionally played a very small roll in that market. Then came WWII. Fearing inflation, the government instituted wage caps for most American workers. As prices increased and labor pools decreased, American employers desperately needed incentives to hire and keep workers. They were prohibited from raising wages, but part of the wage cap allowed for employer payments towards "worker health and welfare" (sounds great, huh?). That's when the concept of employer-sponsored healthcare, one of the dumbest labor missteps in American history, was born. At the time, everyone thought it was wonderful for much the same reason they currently think UHC is wonderful (i.e. "free healthcare"). But that "free" healthcare dramatically increased demand and, coupled with Medicare and Medicaid and other governmental and market forces, played a huge roll in putting healthcare prices at their current levels.
Certainly much blame for the current state of our healthcare system can be placed at the doorstep of insurance companies. But if you think government intervention is the solution to insurance company dominance, please don't forget that governmental intervention gave rise to insurance company dominance in the first place.
"She and her husband returned with a check for $45,000. After a blood test and biopsy, the hospital oncologist urged admittance quickly. Then the hospital demanded an additional $60,000-$45,000 just for the lab tests and $15,000 for part of the cost of the treatment.
To shorten the story, she received chemotherapy for over a year. Often her appointment was “blocked” until she made another payment.
In a particularly grotesque incident, she was hooked up to a chemotherapy pump, but the nurses were not allowed to change the chemo bag until Mr. Kelly made another payment.
She endured other indignities and overcharges. Reporter Martinez cites $360 for blood tests that insurers pay $20 or less for and up to $120 for saline pouches that cost less than $2 retail.
Imagine anything like Mrs. Kelly’s predicament and pressures occurring in Canada, Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, Holland, England or any other western country. It would never happen."
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)
(")_(")
You might as well say universal health care isn't working because our system is probably closer to that than it is to a free market.
Thanks for that interesting bit of history.
For the record, I don't believe I've ever said that the government should completely take over (or that it shouldn't). All I know is that in a country as rich as ours there is no excuse for anyone going without healthcare. We need to make universal healthcare happen. I don't care how it happens as long as it works. The system is obviously broken now.
Regarding insurance companies, I believe "for-profit" and "for the good of the people" are mutually exclusive concepts.
Regarding the government, I understand your point about the government having screwed things up before, but I don't think it follows that they will necessarily screw things up forever more.
We don't have universal health care by any stretch of the imagination. We also don't have a free market - hence the quotes in my original post.
Sad but true. I just now told a patient she couldn't have a single pill she needed until she forked over $105. Then I came back to my office and read this post. How apropos. :(
That's brutal. I just has transsphenoidal surgery a couple months ago in Canada at a top hospital.
I was admitted for a week and a half just to be sure I was good. I could walk into the any of the multiple store rooms on any floor whenever to get more gauze, bandages, tape, blankets, gowns, when needed. Doors wide open. Any pain medication was for the asking no strings attached. When I left..nothing to sign just shake hands and walk out...
I can't imagine having to wait for, or be denied anything I needed during that time.
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)
(")_(")
That's fair -- there's certainly nothing incorrect about saying the system now is broken and saying that we can do much better. However, it's this "I don't care how it happens" attitude that invites very bad solutions. When you have an itch, cutting off your arm is not a very good "solution".
That's silly. My homeowner's insurance is "for-profit" and provides me much "good" in the event of a disaster that affects my home. Automobile insurance largely happens "for profit" and provides much "good". Finally, even the much maligned healthcare insurance industry, despite more awful stories than one can count, makes both a "profit" and provides most of its users with low-cost healthcare. There's nothing mutually exclusive about "profit" and "good for the people", particularly considering the fact that philosophically those two things are synonymous. When you get great healthcare at a reasonable cost, you are profitting. Not all "profits" are measured in $$$.
Certainly there is a motive inherent in the market for insurance providers to deny claims, but one needs to think about this more deeply than that. Insurance providers deny claims in order to control costs. The exact same thing happens in UHC systems where people are regularly denied care. In a health insurance market, however, there is also a strong motive not to deny care. That motive extends from revenue. If you were going to buy insurance yourself, would you willingly buy it from a provider that routinely denies care??? Of course not.
The fundamental problem we have is that the people who buy insurance typically are not the people who use it. We have too many employers selecting health insurance plans who don't give a shit whether or not the companies backing the plans deliver on claims. The employers are simply trying to offer insurance for employee retention, attraction, or regulatory reasons. And employers are often going with the cheapest instead of the best option. So now, not only do insurance companies have a motive to deny claims (control costs), their customers (employers) have a similar motive (control costs). Meanwhile, the end user (you) is getting fucked because you're not providing any value into the process because you're getting your healthcare for "free".
Health insurance, once upon a time, used to be relatively cheap (though not so cheap that everyone could afford it) and it used to pay out as regularly as any other type of insurance. Why? Because the people buying it valued the service they got out of it and held the providers to appropriate standards of care. That dynamic is now largely gone thanks to employer-sponsored healthcare. Furthermore, that dynamic can be hard to come by in many nations with UHC where people are denied care due to insufficient taxation and/or supply rationing.
Absolutely not! Everyone makes mistakes, not just the government. However, in order to solve economic problems one must take an economic approach. The healthcare "crisis" in America is an economic problem, not a philosophical problem or a emotional problem or even a justice problem. And economic problems always have economic solutions. In terms of pricing, taking any action that increases demand for a product and decreases supply (as UHC would likely do in this country), is to take a step back, not a step forward.
hmmmm???? I dont think I want to pay taxes toward a system that allows patients to roam free in hospitals and make arbitrary decisions about what they need for care. I admit here in the US we need to do something to deal with the rising cost of healthcare but i dont think UHC is the way to go..Farfromglorified has the right idea. Economic solutions for an economic problem.
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
I got that part, I'm just saying you could just as well have written "universal health care" isn't working. It's in quotes because we don't have it either.
Why use either term if we have neither?
The doctors make the decisions on what you need for care. I'm just talking just bandages, and towels, and clothing. The bare necessities... they should be freely available!!
I think it's an extremely beautiful thing the trust factor is still alive and well in Canada in this regard.
The health system the US has borders on tyrannical...
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)
(")_(")
You don't think patients in the US get to make arbitrary decisions about what they need for care? What do you think all those drug commercials that say "Ask your Doctor about [insert drug name here]" that don't really explain what the drug does are for? I saw a news program once that basically said that a large proportion of the time if you ask for one of those drugs you will get it whether you need it or not. Sounds like a bunch of patients making arbitrary decisions about what they need to me
:rolleyes:
If you believe the US system "borders on tyrannical", you're a little crazy. "Flawed" and "tyrannical" are not synonymous.
You need this pill?
what? it hurts? You feel like you're dying?
too bad...wipe the tears...pay up
Yeah, that's a form of torture when you're living it.
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)
(")_(")
SO...what ur really saying is we need tighter regulations in the FDA.
if thats not what your saying then you should be. A huge factor behind the rising cost of healthcare in America is do to the overwhelming amount of new drugs being allowed on the market. The drug companies have thousands of lobbyists in the pockets of the bureaucracy. A switch to UHC is like hacking at the branches and not pulling the roots.
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
Umm...you understand the exact same dynamic happens in Canada, right? Your gauze, bandages, tape, blankets, gowns didn't just magically pay for themselves or materialize out of thin air. Someone, maybe you, maybe your neighbor was forced to pay for those things.
Perhaps I should have phrased it better: I believe "for-profit" and "for the good of the people" are mutually exclusive GOALS. Certainly profit and the good of the people can co-exist. But when the purpose of a company is to make profit first and to provide healthcare only so much as it makes them profit, that's where the problem lies.
Of course I agree that there are more ways to profit in the world than monitarily. But when we speak of "for-profit" companies - we are speaking of money.
Of course I wouldn't. But I don't buy insurance myself - I'm stuck with whatever insurance my employer provides.
That's my point exactly.
I disagree. When we can't even agree that every person deserves healthcare, the healthcare crisis is first and foremost a philosophical & justice problem.
Once we can agree that our goal is to provide healthcare for all, then we can move on to the details of how best to make that happen. It's at that point that it becomes an economic problem.
....after all this time I thought it was magic.
There is a certain urgency after you've been sliced open, operated on, and tubes and wires flow into and out of you from various holes.
Not quite the same feeling of urgency I get when I watch my neighbor mow his lawn, or pay my taxes for said services.
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)
(")_(")
I was responding to another post which said we shouldn't have UHC because it would inhibit the free market.
Do you have a lot of data suggesting that American medical patients who have been sliced open, operated on, and have tubes and wires flowing into and out of their various holes who have not had access to gauze or gowns or towels?