socialised health care

ajedigecko

addicted to smoking leads to health problems.....
addicted to alcohol leads to health problems....
addicted to fatty foods leads to health problems
addicted to .....you see the pattern.

i admire those of you who do not have a problem paying for the health care of these people. i work hard 6 days a week and do not engage in addictive behavior, so i have a problem with my tax dollars supporting addicts that do not work hard.

i would rather see my tax dollars being spent on education.

redrock

RM291946 wrote:

How can anyone in their right mind think this is a good idea for us? Coming from a socialist country, I know how bad it is..People waiting for months to get treatments, sometimes even years. Imagine someone with cancer being made to wait for chemo. It happens. And why should we pay for the health care of the wealthy..Let it roll out of their own damned pockets.

Then again, one can get all the treatment they need without having to worry about costs and whether they can put it off or not. Sure, there are lots of horror stories, but all I can say is that my husband would not be alive and well after 7 months in hospital (including brain surgery) and neuro rehab (with continuing community care) after a major cerebral hemorrhage without 'socialised' health care (National Health Care in the UK). I do not have to worry about his continued treatment with physios, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, paying for a carer while I am at work, etc. All is 'free' for as long as he needs it. A few years back, I also went into intensive care for a pulmonary embolism with great treatment. How much would all of this have cost in the US? Would he have been able to get 3 months of intensive neuro rehab? Would he be able to get continuing care after discharge from hospital? I lived in the US for many, many years.. I say not (and from experiences related to me by friends living there, I am sure not).

Yes, sometimes you do have to wait for non urgent sugery, etc. But for cancer treatment... probably not (a couple of friends of mine have been treated for that). Also, I believe that 'elective' surgery/treatment (should be paid for by the person choosing to have that type of surgery.

And.. the wealthy pay taxes as well....

Flutter Girl

scb wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

One of my issues with socialised insurance is if it means prices for doctors cannot be set by the doctors, will it be a set standard across the board..Cos if that is the case we will run into the same problem as we have with the VA. It's unfortunate, but money often is a motivating factor for doctors to do a better job. If they charge a lot but do a crap job, they lose patients. The better a job they do, the higher traffic they get, the bigger their annual income. That is one of the largest issues with the VA.

Maybe we just have different experiences/perspectives. Although I have never been a patient at the VA, I have always received my medical care from either military hospitals or state/university hospitals and I've had no major complaints about the care itself.

At the university medical center where I currently work, most of our patients are either on Medicaid (which, as you said, sets the price they pay) or simply don't pay at all. Our doctors get paid much less than doctors with private practices. And yet we provide the best care in the state.

I'm actually not entirely sure I understand your argument. You said they'll do a better job so they can get more patients so they will have a bigger salary. That seems to be incentive to do a GOOD job, not a bad one. Plus, they would make more money because they wouldn't have to pay so many people to deal with the insurance companies or spend so much time trying to figure out various billing procedures.

LoL..no I'm saying if there becomes a set pay for doctors, as I imagine there would to be regulated along with other costs, then unfortunately a lot of doctors would lose their incentive to do a good job. If they aren't making the kind of money they do prior to nationalised insurance, they (in their minds) have no reason to care. As it is currently, doctors set their own prices, which of course means they are setting their own income. If they set high prices, they sudenly have incentive (in their minds) to do well. They can't command those prices if they are crap doctors, they would lose patients. At the VA, tho, paychecks are set, doctors can't change that, so many have lost their will to care. There are a few good doctors who are there cos they care. But only a very few. In fact one of folk who work with my foundation, she is one of the most caring people I have ever met. But she left the VA, actually joining the Army Reserves and getting sent to Bosnia (or Croatia..I never keep it straight..), cos the pay was better. she just couldn't afford basic cost of living anymore. Especially not as a newly divorced single mother.

The VA is notorious for how bad they are..Those specials they show every now and then on, I think on 60 Minutes, unfortunately those stories are common throughout the country.

Flutter Girl

redrock wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

How can anyone in their right mind think this is a good idea for us? Coming from a socialist country, I know how bad it is..People waiting for months to get treatments, sometimes even years. Imagine someone with cancer being made to wait for chemo. It happens. And why should we pay for the health care of the wealthy..Let it roll out of their own damned pockets.

Then again, one can get all the treatment they need without having to worry about costs and whether they can put it off or not. Sure, there are lots of horror stories, but all I can say is that my husband would not be alive and well after 7 months in hospital (including brain surgery) and neuro rehab (with continuing community care) after a major cerebral hemorrhage without 'socialised' health care (National Health Care in the UK). I do not have to worry about his continued treatment with physios, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, paying for a carer while I am at work, etc. All is 'free' for as long as he needs it. A few years back, I also went into intensive care for a pulmonary embolism with great treatment. How much would all of this have cost in the US? Would he have been able to get 3 months of intensive neuro rehab? Would he be able to get continuing care after discharge from hospital? I lived in the US for many, many years.. I say not (and from experiences related to me by friends living there, I am sure not).

Yes, sometimes you do have to wait for non urgent sugery, etc. But for cancer treatment... probably not (a couple of friends of mine have been treated for that). Also, I believe that 'elective' surgery/treatment (should be paid for by the person choosing to have that type of surgery.

And.. the wealthy pay taxes as well....

Britain is a lot smaller. And we already have socialised health care here that is proven an utter failure. The U.s. just can't do it right. They found a nodule in my mum's lung months ago. she still has not had a biopsy to see if it is cancer. The appt. is not scheduled till the end of March. That is fast. she got it that soon purely cos she used to work there, as did my aunt, so between the 2 of them, they know a lot of the other employees and are friends with them and can sweet talk them easily into squeezing them into appt's a lot sooner.

Also, 2 months ago she began to have agonising pain in the upper extremities, she does not have an appt until next month just for an x-ray. Lord knows how long it will be before she can get an appt for actual treatment.

Plus someone on here already mentioned some of those elective surgeries are actually necessary like a hip replacement, and while waiting you are in agonising pain. As it is now, if you have insurance, you can go find a surgeon and get the surgery done next week virtually, or completely, for free.

With insurance, yes you can get everything your husband received, and I believe it's called worker's comp..I don't recall exactly, for medical leave, so you do get pay while you are unable to work. My other aunt's husband is getting that now. He's been out of work for nearly a year after his leg got crushed at work, and has already gotten a few surgeries to fix it. I think he either has one, or 2 more surgeries to go..Then there is a good chance he'll get medical retirement because he won't be able to work that job anymore. Which means he'll get payment for the rest of his life to stay unemployed due to the permanent damage from his injury.

Flutter Girl

ajedigecko wrote:

addicted to smoking leads to health problems.....
addicted to alcohol leads to health problems....
addicted to fatty foods leads to health problems
addicted to .....you see the pattern.

i admire those of you who do not have a problem paying for the health care of these people. i work hard 6 days a week and do not engage in addictive behavior, so i have a problem with my tax dollars supporting addicts that do not work hard.

i would rather see my tax dollars being spent on education.

Amen.

That's another thing that goes back to the people burdoning the taxes. The rich pay taxes too, but they make up less than 1% of the population. so it really is the rest of us paying for everyones health care. Including the people who choose to make poor choices that lead to poor health.

And our education system is in desperate need of attention. And I don't mean fancy new travertine walls added into their expansion budget....ooooo that one gets under my skin what a massive waste of money that could have bought all new updated books for the children!!!! I was absolutely disgusted when I saw that. They could go to school in an air conditioned cardboard box for all I care, it's the quality of the education that matters, not the quality of the stone facing you put up

CB206820

I agree with you on that point....

My highschool building is a shithole... BUT, we have some great teachers, great resources (we've REALLY used technology) and I can't discredit the education I've gotten.

_

RM291946 wrote:

LoL..no I'm saying if there becomes a set pay for doctors, as I imagine there would to be regulated along with other costs, then unfortunately a lot of doctors would lose their incentive to do a good job. If they aren't making the kind of money they do prior to nationalised insurance, they (in their minds) have no reason to care. As it is currently, doctors set their own prices, which of course means they are setting their own income. If they set high prices, they sudenly have incentive (in their minds) to do well. They can't command those prices if they are crap doctors, they would lose patients. At the VA, tho, paychecks are set, doctors can't change that, so many have lost their will to care. There are a few good doctors who are there cos they care. But only a very few. In fact one of folk who work with my foundation, she is one of the most caring people I have ever met. But she left the VA, actually joining the Army Reserves and getting sent to Bosnia (or Croatia..I never keep it straight..), cos the pay was better. she just couldn't afford basic cost of living anymore. Especially not as a newly divorced single mother.

The VA is notorious for how bad they are..Those specials they show every now and then on, I think on 60 Minutes, unfortunately those stories are common throughout the country.

But, as I said before, I don't believe most people are really asking for a socialized healthcare system like the VA. They just want a single payer source. The delivery of services would remain private. Therefore, although the government would set the price they pay the clinics/hospitals for different services, they would NOT dictate the salary of the doctors.

I understand that you seem to be saying their salaries would depend on what the government is willing to pay for services, but there is more to it than that. Very simply speaking, the salaries of the doctors would be income minus overhead. And working only with a single payer would substantially decrease overhead. Their salaries would not be dictated by the government, then, but by the number of patients (higher salary for being a better doctor who more people want to go to) and how efficiently they manage their practices.

_

RM291946 wrote:

Britain is a lot smaller. And we already have socialised health care here that is proven an utter failure. The U.s. just can't do it right. They found a nodule in my mum's lung months ago. she still has not had a biopsy to see if it is cancer. The appt. is not scheduled till the end of March. That is fast. she got it that soon purely cos she used to work there, as did my aunt, so between the 2 of them, they know a lot of the other employees and are friends with them and can sweet talk them easily into squeezing them into appt's a lot sooner.

Also, 2 months ago she began to have agonising pain in the upper extremities, she does not have an appt until next month just for an x-ray. Lord knows how long it will be before she can get an appt for actual treatment.

That sucks about your mom. I hope everything turns out okay and she feels better soon.

I think it's important to remember, though, that your mom has to wait for an appointment because she is only covered if she goes to the VA. (We're still talking about the VA, right?) If we had national health coverage she could go to whatever doctor had an early appointment available.

Plus someone on here already mentioned some of those elective surgeries are actually necessary like a hip replacement, and while waiting you are in agonising pain. As it is now, if you have insurance, you can go find a surgeon and get the surgery done next week virtually, or completely, for free.

You seem to have quite an optimistic view of the way health insurance works. I've never known of anyone to have it that easy or cheap.

For one thing, you can't just go to any surgeon who can see you next week. You have to choose from a list of surgeons who are "in-network" for your particular insurance plan. You would probably have to see an in-network primary care physician first, so s/he could give you a referral to a specialist. Then you'd have to see an in-network specialist, who would have to get a prior authorization from the insurance company, meaning they would have to justify why you need this surgery to a for-profit company whose best interest is served by denying the authorization. This alone can take weeks or months.

You would probably have to pay co-pays for every doctor's visit, pay your deductible for the surgery (which is sometimes thousands of dollars), and pay your part of the co-insurance (meaning they might pay only, say, 80%, and you pay 20% of the total cost). Then you'd have to pay for any/every little thing the insurance says wasn't covered (like if they only pay for one dose of anesthesia and you needed two, or if the doctor was in-network but the nurse wasn't). Any number of things could go wrong with your idea that you're fully covered. (Remember, the movie Sicko was about people who HAD health insurance.) Then you'd have to pay for your post-op medications, which could cost you only a few bucks out of pocket or hundreds of dollars. Then you'd have the co-payments for the follow-up visits, etc.

But, most importantly, if you lost your job due to your medical condition or for whatever reason, you would lose your insurance and have to pay for everything out of pocket. And this is all assuming you had health insurance to begin with. Millions of Americans don't.

With insurance, yes you can get everything your husband received, and I believe it's called worker's comp..I don't recall exactly, for medical leave, so you do get pay while you are unable to work. My other aunt's husband is getting that now. He's been out of work for nearly a year after his leg got crushed at work, and has already gotten a few surgeries to fix it. I think he either has one, or 2 more surgeries to go..Then there is a good chance he'll get medical retirement because he won't be able to work that job anymore. Which means he'll get payment for the rest of his life to stay unemployed due to the permanent damage from his injury.

You only get worker's comp if you can prove that your injury happened because of your job. Otherwise you're screwed... and if you lose your job you lose your health insurance.

redrock

RM291946 wrote:

With insurance, yes you can get everything your husband received,

With insurance.... What if you can't afford insurance? Or your insurance pays up to a certain amount only or doesn't cover your family?

Approx 1/3 of firms in the US do not offer health coverage. About 20% of working adults have no health coverage at all. Firms that do offer insurance may not offer to all employees (certain grades only, etc.) or the premiums may be too high for a number of them. 46 million americans are without health insurance, the majority with a job - 8 in 10 (so paying taxes and not 'scroungers). With families, it is not just the adults, it is the kids that suffer the consequences too.

National health care has a long way to go, but even in it's current state it is well worth it (at least here). It is up to the governments and the people to make it work. It's too easy to say 'it doesn't work so let's forget about it'. Let's make it work!

heidihi

ok So I live in Australia where we do have a nationalised health system and I know that many peple complain a heap about it but I also know people who have had fabulous care. A very good friend of mine got cardiomyopathy (I do not know how to spell it; it is like the flu in your heart), over the years he has had 6 months stints in hospital and recently he received a heart transplant all for free and he received it within days of finding out he needed it. He had to wait for the correct donor to show up and that took the longest. I have also had three babies by cesarean (by necessity) in hospital all for free. The staff were excellent and I had no problems so I have to say that so far our health care system has taken great care of me and the people I love.

My Mum is a kids nurse in this system as well and she says that if medical attention is required it is given and that very often the private patients are seen by the same doctor that the public patients are, the only differenc being that they pay extra on top of their insurance to the hospital and might have a room on their own rather than sharing with another person. My husband and I both work as teachers (I know not the highest paid jobs but not the lowest either!) and I am happy that everyone can see a docotor and obtain health care. I would hate to see people less fortunate than myself have their health fail due to poor circumstances and let's face it with the economic downturn more people will find themselves in worse condition than they were previously in. Perhaps it is just what we are used to in Australia.

OutOfBreath

It really boils down to whether you think it's more fair that the resourceful can get any care or procedure at any time leaving the resourceless without any, or whether you want a system covering all and prioritizing after medical need, with the downside of waiting for less essential procedures. I have no doubt whatsoever which I prefer. As for me, I have had nothing but good experiences, and I choose my own doctor.

As for the cost of the various systems, the WHO/UN has some statistics on amount spent on helathcare pr capita pr country, doctor coverage pr 1000 and so on. Noone spends remotely as much as the US on health care (public and private combined)pr capita. Norway, which spends a lot and more than most other comparable countries, spend around half of what the US does. In that light, I find it quite astonishing how little or no care big portions of the US population receives. It's not about whether you can afford it as a country, you definitely can. But it is also about priority. For the same amount of money that get spent on keeping some rich people alive and very healthy, you could provide basic services for a lot more.

Is it more important the the rich can have super-service, or that most people can have decent service? That is the question.

Peace
Dan

Flutter Girl

CB206820 wrote:

I agree with you on that point....

My highschool building is a shithole... BUT, we have some great teachers, great resources (we've REALLY used technology) and I can't discredit the education I've gotten.

My highschool was a shithole AND has crap teachers

No seriously, it's so bad I learned something. When a principal is placed at a school, short of quitting the school system altogether, they are to stay there for 3 months, after which point they can choose to stay or be transferred to a new school. After my principal "retired" (he was found to be stealing school funding) our VP was given his position. Our VP had turned around what was considered the worst school in Miami.

With ours....He quit after 3 months. They haven't found a permanent principal yet, and that VP quit years ago...

Flutter Girl

scb- I just don't see how if the government is going to pay the doctors income, which would be the case with nationwide insurance, that they would not begin regulating how much the doctor's get paid. After all, once they begin getting their income from the insurance, they essentially become government employees. And once that happens the government can very easily say, "well whatever money you weren't getting cos of overhead, will deduct as well..Why should the tax payers have to pay you that?"

At that point they would likely end up going into the same issues they are currently having in Japan, which has the exact system you are talking about, with a single payer source. Government keeps saying taxpayers shouldn't have to pay that much, then reducing what doctors can charge for themselves, and at a certain point they have to take on so many patients they are not able to be patient and thorough anymore cos they have to get through all of them just to get paid enough to pay the bills. Case in point, clinics like the one I go to. They take paying patients, but the majority have medicaid or are on the United Way program. To earn enough, my doc, although he despises it, has to only spend a max 10 minutes with each patient in order to get thru all of them, and then, 3 days a week, he works shifts at the hospital, because even with what he does at the clinic, he still needs a second part time job. This is because medicaid dictates how much the doctor can charge for medicaid patients. Most every insurance company does it, but unsurprisingly, government-run medicaid cheats the doctors out of the most.

TY about my mum..We're calm about it for now..just biding time till the appt.

Yea I was still talking about the VA..But I want to go back to the clinic. Again, privately run, but with the amount of medicaid patients they see, it is essentially government paid. I should have an appt. every month. I'm lucky that I get one every 6 weeks, and that is cos I always schedule 2 ahead appt's ahead of time. The typical wait is 2-3 months. And I end up having to cut into his quick sessions fairly regular just to get another prescription filled out, something I could get done during my appt. if I could get one for every month. It's one big mess..

My view about private ins. is based on experience with my dad's when I was on it thru his job, and with his treatment after a heart attack and bipass surgery..I know it's out of the norm for private companies. I hadn't taken that into consideration when I was typing away before.. :?

But with his, you find a doc you like in the phone book, then just call and ask if they accept his insurance, if they do, you go in for an initial appt. Then they put in request for the procedure necessary, and if approved, which in most cases does take only one to 2 weeks, they go ahead with the treatment. With the emergency care for the heart attack, and the surgery that followed, he actually didn't pay anything. And with the check up appt's he had afterward, he only paid the 5$ co-pay for the office visit, and 10$ co-pay for his prescriptions.

But as said, that is not nearly common place with private companies..

With medical retirement you automatically recieve either medicaid, or medicare. In my mum's case it was medicare, even tho she is a vet (the medical retirement wasn't from the military, it was from the VA Hospital where she was working at the time..).

I'm in favour of government insuring folk who are unemployed, or don't make enough to afford enough insurance..

For worker's comp, yes. But for medical retirement you get social security retirement, and in some cases you can also get a pension. The key word is retirement.

Also, I think I have found out why the medicaid situation is different in our states. It comes down to state budgeting..Have a look at paragraph 3 at the link below-

http://www.alz.org/join_the_cause_medicaid.asp
I happened upon it while looking for stats..

I also thought this might be of interest..I want to note that #7 is due to how the vast majority of money for medicaid is spent for nursing home care..They have to do something to keep the system from crashing. I like how #9 shows medicaid will be improving, not declining, as the parents of the boomers take over the nursing homes from the currently dying out generation (literally, I know, it's sad and a bad thing to say :?)

http://www.aarp.org/research/assistance/medicaid/fs146_myths.html




redrock- That's what I'm saying, Insure those who can't pay for it. But not those who can. It would be less costly to the government (aka our tax dollars) and wouldn't put pressure on companies to insure their employees. The number one reason companies don't is cos they can't. It cost too much, and in the case of small businesses, they wouldn't even be breaking even if they did that. Better to be uninsured with a job, than insured for 5 minutes then have neither the job nor the insurance cos the business went belly up..

Regulations placed on medicine costs, treatment costs, and private insurers would make insurance, actually health care over all, far more affordable, making it so more people can get private insurance, and further lessoning how much tax money would have to be spent to insure the rest.

There is one other thing the Obama is strongly against and wants to put an end to, even tho it would put greater pressure on small businesses in particular, causing us to lose even more jobs..I cannot for the life of me remember what it's called, but it is a non-taxable account that an individual can have part of their pay automatically transferred to specifically for medical costs. If and when the time comes, God forbid, and they need money for medical treatment, then can take it from that account. Obama, and the other Dems, hate it cos it's not taxable.



littledee- Yea but we have 282 mill more people in the u.s. than you guys. We're struggling just to keep up with the 13 mill on medicaid.

It's the same with the UK and Ireland..UK has 60.9 mill people, and Ireland has 4 mill.

And Norway has 4.6 mill(for Dan..)...With numbers like that, it would be easier to provide for everyone, and provide more and better quality at faster rates, for that matter, than it would be for us..We have 303.8 mill people..213.3 mill more than all four of you combined.

_

RM291946 wrote:

scb- I just don't see how if the government is going to pay the doctors income, which would be the case with nationwide insurance, that they would not begin regulating how much the doctor's get paid. After all, once they begin getting their income from the insurance, they essentially become government employees. And once that happens the government can very easily say, "well whatever money you weren't getting cos of overhead, will deduct as well..Why should the tax payers have to pay you that?"

I don't know how else to explain it. Every business gets its income from outside itself and yet is still able to decide for itself how to run the business and how much to pay the employees. Even with our current medical system, doctors receive their income from insurance companies and from the government, and yet neither of those organizations dictates doctors' salaries.

Case in point, clinics like the one I go to. They take paying patients, but the majority have medicaid or are on the United Way program. To earn enough, my doc, although he despises it, has to only spend a max 10 minutes with each patient in order to get thru all of them, and then, 3 days a week, he works shifts at the hospital, because even with what he does at the clinic, he still needs a second part time job. This is because medicaid dictates how much the doctor can charge for medicaid patients. Most every insurance company does it, but unsurprisingly, government-run medicaid cheats the doctors out of the most.

So you've just pointed out that we ALREADY have a system that's not working. Seems to me like a good reason to change it. I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that it's Medicaid's fault though, since our system is currently based on a for-profit, private insurance model. I can tell you, though, that for every 10 minutes a doctor spends with a patient, much more than 10 minutes will go into figuring out the billing. Imagine all the patients who could be seen and the money that could be saved if this wasn't the case. Also, your doctor probably doesn't work in the hospital because he needs a second job so much as to provide continuity of care. Many, many primary care physicians do this, and it's a good thing.

Yea I was still talking about the VA..But I want to go back to the clinic. Again, privately run, but with the amount of medicaid patients they see, it is essentially government paid. I should have an appt. every month. I'm lucky that I get one every 6 weeks, and that is cos I always schedule 2 ahead appt's ahead of time. The typical wait is 2-3 months. And I end up having to cut into his quick sessions fairly regular just to get another prescription filled out, something I could get done during my appt. if I could get one for every month. It's one big mess..

Once again, you're talking about the CURRENT system, which goes to show that it needs to be changed. If your doctor works both in clinic and in the hospital, and if your clinic sees a high volume of Medicaid patients, it sounds to me like you are part of a state/county/university-type hospital system, much like the one I where I work.

We have the same problems you're describing. But our patients aren't just patients with Medicaid and private insurance. Our hospital system cares for the many, many people who have no coverage at all, and THAT is a huge part of what spreads us too thin. If all of our patients had some form of coverage like Medicaid, we would be a lot better off. Plus, if everyone had coverage, they wouldn't all have to come to & overload our hospital system - they could go anywhere.

But with his, you find a doc you like in the phone book, then just call and ask if they accept his insurance

Once again, you illustrate that with the current system we are limited in who we can see. With a national system, we wouldn't be.

With medical retirement you automatically recieve either medicaid, or medicare......

For worker's comp, yes. But for medical retirement you get social security retirement, and in some cases you can also get a pension. The key word is retirement.

But Medicare, Social Security, etc. is often not enough to provide for people's healthcare once they retire.

Also, I think I have found out why the medicaid situation is different in our states. It comes down to state budgeting..Have a look at paragraph 3 at the link below-

http://www.alz.org/join_the_cause_medicaid.asp

Yes, I know that states have a certain amount of control over how their state Medicaid funds are spent. This is how Medicaid pays for abortion in my state. But check out paragraph 2, which mentions that states are bound by federal eligibility requirements.

redrock- That's what I'm saying, Insure those who can't pay for it. But not those who can.

Here's one reason I support covering everyone - this is from the Physicians for a National Health Plan website (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php):

"Why shouldn’t we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?
Whenever we allow the wealthy to buy better care or jump the queue, health care for the rest of us suffers. If the wealthy are forced to rely on the same health system as the poor, they will use their political power to assure that the health system is well funded. Conversely, programs for the poor become poor programs. For instance, because Medicaid doesn’t serve the wealthy, the payment rates are low and many physicians refuse to see Medicaid patients. Calls to improve Medicaid fall on deaf ears because the beneficiaries are not considered politically important. Moreover, when the wealthy jump the queue, it results in longer waits for others. Studies in New Zealand and Canada show that the growth of private care in parallel to the public system results in lengthening waits. Additionally, allowing the development of a parallel, private system for the wealthy means the creation of a permanent lobby for underfunding public care. Such underfunding increases the demand for private care."

Also, it's the multitude of private insurance that's causing such high administrative overhead.

There is one other thing the Obama is strongly against and wants to put an end to, even tho it would put greater pressure on small businesses in particular, causing us to lose even more jobs..I cannot for the life of me remember what it's called, but it is a non-taxable account that an individual can have part of their pay automatically transferred to specifically for medical costs. If and when the time comes, God forbid, and they need money for medical treatment, then can take it from that account. Obama, and the other Dems, hate it cos it's not taxable.

I think you're referring to Flexible Spending Accounts. I hadn't heard that the Democrats hated these though.

redrock

scb wrote:

redrock- That's what I'm saying, Insure those who can't pay for it. But not those who can.

RM291946 wrote:

redrock- That's what I'm saying, Insure those who can't pay for it. But not those who can. It would be less costly to the government (aka our tax dollars) and wouldn't put pressure on companies to insure their employees. The number one reason companies don't is cos they can't. It cost too much, and in the case of small businesses, they wouldn't even be breaking even if they did that. Better to be uninsured with a job, than insured for 5 minutes then have neither the job nor the insurance cos the business went belly up..

Regulations placed on medicine costs, treatment costs, and private insurers would make insurance, actually health care over all, far more affordable, making it so more people can get private insurance, and further lessoning how much tax money would have to be spent to insure the rest.

There is one other thing the Obama is strongly against and wants to put an end to, even tho it would put greater pressure on small businesses in particular, causing us to lose even more jobs..I cannot for the life of me remember what it's called, but it is a non-taxable account that an individual can have part of their pay automatically transferred to specifically for medical costs. If and when the time comes, God forbid, and they need money for medical treatment, then can take it from that account. Obama, and the other Dems, hate it cos it's not taxable..

Check your quotes - I never said that. I believe all should be covered as the 'rich' pay taxes as well.

redrock

RM291946 wrote:

littledee- Yea but we have 282 mill more people in the u.s. than you guys. We're struggling just to keep up with the 13 mill on medicaid.

It's the same with the UK and Ireland..UK has 60.9 mill people, and Ireland has 4 mill.

And Norway has 4.6 mill(for Dan..)...With numbers like that, it would be easier to provide for everyone, and provide more and better quality at faster rates, for that matter, than it would be for us..We have 303.8 mill people..213.3 mill more than all four of you combined.

As socialised health care is funded by taxes, the figures are all in relation to each other. The UK has X number of inhabitants which raise £xxxx in taxes to care for their population. The US may have loads more inhabitants, but loads more taxes are raised again, to care for their population. All in proportion (more or less). Number of inhabitants of a country is not an issue.

decides2dream

OutOfBreath wrote:

It really boils down to whether you think it's more fair that the resourceful can get any care or procedure at any time leaving the resourceless without any, or whether you want a system covering all and prioritizing after medical need, with the downside of waiting for less essential procedures. I have no doubt whatsoever which I prefer. As for me, I have had nothing but good experiences, and I choose my own doctor.

As for the cost of the various systems, the WHO/UN has some statistics on amount spent on helathcare pr capita pr country, doctor coverage pr 1000 and so on. Noone spends remotely as much as the US on health care (public and private combined)pr capita. Norway, which spends a lot and more than most other comparable countries, spend around half of what the US does. In that light, I find it quite astonishing how little or no care big portions of the US population receives. It's not about whether you can afford it as a country, you definitely can. But it is also about priority. For the same amount of money that get spent on keeping some rich people alive and very healthy, you could provide basic services for a lot more.

Is it more important the the rich can have super-service, or that most people can have decent service? That is the question.

Peace
Dan

exactly!
i think far too many americans are under the mistaken impression that somehow socialized medicine would cost more, when more than likely...it would cost less. and many argue about how inept the government is, don't want them in charge of healthcare, etc....but we already have governemrnt funded healthcare for some...so why not for all? i think this is one of the biggest domestic policy issues in the states today - i absolutely believe every single american should have health care, for life!

_

redrock wrote:

scb wrote:

redrock- That's what I'm saying, Insure those who can't pay for it. But not those who can.

RM291946 wrote:

redrock- That's what I'm saying, Insure those who can't pay for it. But not those who can. It would be less costly to the government (aka our tax dollars) and wouldn't put pressure on companies to insure their employees. The number one reason companies don't is cos they can't. It cost too much, and in the case of small businesses, they wouldn't even be breaking even if they did that. Better to be uninsured with a job, than insured for 5 minutes then have neither the job nor the insurance cos the business went belly up..

Regulations placed on medicine costs, treatment costs, and private insurers would make insurance, actually health care over all, far more affordable, making it so more people can get private insurance, and further lessoning how much tax money would have to be spent to insure the rest.

There is one other thing the Obama is strongly against and wants to put an end to, even tho it would put greater pressure on small businesses in particular, causing us to lose even more jobs..I cannot for the life of me remember what it's called, but it is a non-taxable account that an individual can have part of their pay automatically transferred to specifically for medical costs. If and when the time comes, God forbid, and they need money for medical treatment, then can take it from that account. Obama, and the other Dems, hate it cos it's not taxable..

Check your quotes - I never said that. I believe all should be covered as the 'rich' pay taxes as well.

For the record, I was just quoting the other post to respond to it. I didn't mean to suggest that you said that. :?

Flutter Girl

All I know is at the clinic, because of how chincy medicaid is, the doctors don't get paid as much as they could with a practice that doesn't accept medicaid patients...I know it doesn't work, tho, that was what I was saying, take it and fix it. My doc doesn't spend any time on the paper work, none of the doctors there do, their time is all spent on patients (and getting interrupted to sign prescriptions)..But he definately has the second job for income. He's said as much..We were talking about it when he was mentioning that he buys the groceries for his parents cos when they applied for food stamps, they got approved for a whole ten dollars a month! They told the foodstamp people where they can shove their 10$....He's also against socialised insurance. I have an appt on the 30th, I'll ask him exactly why he is against it to get a better understanding..cos I know my family doc is against it as well.

With the requirements for medicaid, it's the same standard of requirements, but deciding how to determine who fits those requirements is a whole different story. I've signed up for medicaid at the hospital twice before. Filling out the paperwork is all they do. You don't get approved there. You have to go thru the process.

Raising taxes would be inevitable. I am originally from a socialised country..2 actually, we lived for a short while with family in soviet Latvia before defecting..socialised countries do have one very important thing in common that you are overlooking...higher taxes than us. To afford socialised services like national healthcare. It's not a mistaken belief as Decides suggested. socialised medicine would likely lead to lower costs, but socialised insurance would not.

I'd have to find the info again to be sure, but I think those are the accounts...There is a record showing how many times dems, and specifically Obama himself, have voted on bills proposing to get rid of the accounts..



redrock- my apologies, I read it wrong...But what you are saying now would be worse. If taxes were raised to afford it as they are in other countries with it, it would be even worse. You have to take into account that cost of living is rising, but pay is getting cut. Add more taxes onto the cost of living and it's that much more difficult for the poor to get by than it's already becoming. It would be different if income was rising up along with the taxes, but that simply isn't the case.

_

RM291946 wrote:

My doc doesn't spend any time on the paper work, none of the doctors there do

That would be illegal.

With the requirements for medicaid, it's the same standard of requirements, but deciding how to determine who fits those requirements is a whole different story.

How is it a different story? It's not subjective. To qualify for Medicaid one must meet citizenship/immigration requirements, meet income requirements based on the federal poverty guidelines, be a resident of the state in which they're applying, be pregnant or be a child (if applying for pregnancy or children's Medicaid), etc. The states have to meet the minimum federal requirements but can vary in whether/how they choose to cover additional people. Are you suggesting that individuals within the same state can personally change the requirements, or refuse to accept valid documentation provided? I mean, if I have a birth certificate stating that I'm a U.S. citizen, Jow Schmoe can't just decide that I don't fit the citizenship requirement. I just don't get what you're saying, I guess.

I've signed up for medicaid at the hospital twice before. Filling out the paperwork is all they do. You don't get approved there. You have to go thru the process.

I understand that the Medicaid office itself makes the final determination about the approval of your full application. But many states have hospital/public health/etc. - not Medicaid - employees who are able to approve the initial application granting at least temporary Medicaid to populations such as children and pregnant women. I don't even remember why we're dicussing this though.

Raising taxes would be inevitable. I am originally from a socialised country..2 actually, we lived for a short while with family in soviet Latvia before defecting..socialised countries do have one very important thing in common that you are overlooking...higher taxes than us. To afford socialised services like national healthcare. It's not a mistaken belief as Decides suggested. socialised medicine would likely lead to lower costs, but socialised insurance would not.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I agree with D2D. I believe it has been clearly demonstrated by groups such as the one I cited earlier that we don't have to become Soviet Latvia in order to provide healthcare for all our people.