I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!
Comments
-
I hope we never have universal health care until some other issues are solved.0
-
inmytree wrote:jlew24asu wrote:
answer a question with a question. nice move.
and um, the anesthetic they gave you, took longer then 30 seconds to research, develop, and produce.
I'm sorry but I have another question: how do you know this....?
I'm serious...perhaps the anesthetic they gave me was developed 30 years ago...so the research, development and production costs are low...perhaps a gov't grant paid for the research....perhaps it just cost pennies to produce...
see, I can assume, too....
find out the name of it, and I'll research it for you. telling you the R&D costs are high is not an assumption. nice try though0 -
jlew24asu wrote:decides2dream wrote:jlew24asu wrote:I'll ask again, since it was ignored. how do you pro-UHC system people plan on paying for this?
knowing that a similar system designed to take care of only senior citizens is 30 TRILLION dollars underfunded.
i'm no healthcare specialist, nor am i an economist...but i'd say firstly, look at other models from other countries and how they do it. enough models do exist to study. after that, i truly think simply by cutting out the middlemanl, the insurance iundustry would more than likely cover the bulk of the cost. as i've said earlier...we already do offer free health care to some....and the vast majority of the rest of us pay for our healthcare thru our employer deductions.....so instead of giving to the HMOs, goes direct to goverment fund for healthcare. obviously, there is still paperwork involved, but i bet a VAST amount is greatly reduced, again, lowering costs. doctors are already pressed in a corner by insurance companies for fees, etc....so i am sure further restructuring could be done. again, obviously i am no expert.....but it IS doable.
but we can't base it off the models of other countries. we are too large and demand too high (quality) of care compared to other countries.
and yes, we do offer it for "free" to some...the elderly. and its 30 Trillon underfunded. thats 3000 billion. or 30,000 million.
its simply NOT doable in this country, especially given our tough economic times. its going to take years to recover from this alone. and not to mention, a huge part of the population (baby bombers) are set to retire, get older, and need care.
and say we somehow do decide to provide UHC. the materials, the drugs, the doctors, the research, the equipment, will all be provider by the lowest bidder to save costs.
no thanks
and again...i disagree. i think it IS doable, and so do many others. looking at other modeals does not mean copy them exactly.....so you can still look to other, smaller countries to see how it's done. and even smaller/larger....obviously, it would self-adjust due to how mny would be paying into our system, etc. as to standards of care, i asked earlier...you really think our 'standards' are so much higher than everywhere else in the world? i think not. beyond that.....if your personal standards are so much higher, private doctors would always exist...just like private schools still exist within a public school system here. it's still better to offer healthcare to all than only some. it is possible to do....we just have to rework our current, wasteful system...and take the insurance companies out of the equation. i truly hope to see it happen within my lifetime, or at least some form of it...b/c it is shameful just how many are withouth insurance, cannot afford care, etc.Stay with me...
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow0 -
decides2dream wrote:
and again...i disagree. i think it IS doable, and so do many others. looking at other modeals does not mean copy them exactly.....so you can still look to other, smaller countries to see how it's done. and even smaller/larger....obviously, it would self-adjust due to how mny would be paying into our system, etc.
again, I see us trying a "free" system for only one small section of our society and its 30 Trillon underfunded. yet you think it can work for the ENIRE popultion? yea, lets agree to disagree.decides2dream wrote:as to standards of care, i asked earlier...you really think our 'standards' are so much higher than everywhere else in the world? i think not.
I think so. again, with a Universal Healthcare system, everything involved in heathcare would go to the lowest bidder. the government is not going to spend 100 billion on carbon fiber wheelchairs when they can spend 25 billion on cheap aluminum ones. forgive the example, but you get my point.decides2dream wrote:beyond that.....if your personal standards are so much higher, private doctors would always exist...just like private schools still exist within a public school system here. it's still better to offer healthcare to all than only some. it is possible to do....we just have to rework our current, wasteful system...and take the insurance companies out of the equation. i truly hope to see it happen within my lifetime, or at least some form of it...b/c it is shameful just how many are withouth insurance, cannot afford care, etc.
I'm not saying the government shouldn't be involved at all. I believe they should. I'd like to see some type of healthcare for children, the elderly, and those with special needs. anyone else, maybe some type of application process? I dont know. but their needs to be some type of proof of need. laziness is not a qualification.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:inmytree wrote:jlew24asu wrote:
answer a question with a question. nice move.
and um, the anesthetic they gave you, took longer then 30 seconds to research, develop, and produce.
I'm sorry but I have another question: how do you know this....?
I'm serious...perhaps the anesthetic they gave me was developed 30 years ago...so the research, development and production costs are low...perhaps a gov't grant paid for the research....perhaps it just cost pennies to produce...
see, I can assume, too....
find out the name of it, and I'll research it for you. telling you the R&D costs are high is not an assumption. nice try though
thanks...I'll see what I can find...it's been three+ years...I have no idea where that stuff is filed...I'll look though...
I guess the bottom line is this...people will have issues with Medicare/Medicaid, no system is perfect...the for-profit system is worse...which is why I asked if Grandpa will run out to get private insurance...everyone knows private insurance is not a solution in this case...0 -
Commy wrote:
by fascists you mean the evil free market capitalists? dont answer that.
you honestly believe America, (and the world?) should adopt some anarchist no money system and expect things to turn out better ? this conversation is pointless.0 -
The size and incompetence of the U.S. government has got to be the only reason we are still having this debate. There isn't a single country with a universal health insurance system that is even considering going back to private insurance. Even though I think it's insane to not have a public insurance plan, like the single-payer plan, the thought of letting DC run it doesn't sit well with me. From what I understand, Obama wants to implement nationally something like the current system in Massachusetts - a complicated mess of private and public insurance, which is bullshit - it's just keeping the for-profit system in place, and creates more bureaucracy than is needed.
The last poll I read showed 96% of Canadians prefer their single-payer system to the American way of doing health insurance. But maybe 96% of Canadians are idiots. :roll:
Although I think the U.S. is too large and all of the states should secede from the Federal gov't... this will never happen, but we could have a system that is Federally funded and locally managed... privately managed even. We can cover everyone, and keep the field competitive, making doctors compete for clients.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:cajunkiwi wrote:Here's the trick, from someone who comes from a quasi-socialist country. Look at some of the countries at the top of the standard of living indexes - New Zealand, and the Scandanavian countries... socialism has its benefits and can work well, but it has to be done RIGHT in order to work. Otherwise you just end up with a mess like your situation. I wouldn't want George Bush running a Dairy Queen (to steal a Mark Cuban line), let alone a nation where he had more control than he did for the last eight years, and it's too early to tell with Obama - but if you get rid of the incompetent assholes on both sides of the aisle in Washington you might find it isn't as bad as Fox News says it is (socialism isn't Soviet-era communism).
Then again, if you get rid of the incompetent guys in Washington, you'd be left with two or three people standing around wondering where their co-workers went lol
I hear that argument alot.."well it works in new zealand"...America is one of the largest and most complex countries in the world. trying to implement a government run health care system is nearly impossible. but I think Obama is looking for a different type of "socialist" health care system. I think his plan has a chance, but is too expensive IMO.
I sometimes wonder if, in the long run, it wouldn't be cheaper. Think of all the bureacracy you could lose... people spending hours shuffling paper to decide if you qualify for medicare/medicaid benefits, what those will covers, whether or not your disease is eligible. That might be enough to fund regular doctor's visits right there... and preventative medicine could cut down big time on the kind of "wait until a huge crisis last minute" expenses most people opt for since they can't afford a doctor. In addition, if there's an option to still buy your own insurance/doctor's fees, the competition will drive prices down all around. If everyone has free health care, doctors and hospitals and pharmacies are going to have to start bringing their services down to compete. And that's a good thing.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:I think so. again, with a Universal Healthcare system, everything involved in heathcare would go to the lowest bidder. the government is not going to spend 100 billion on carbon fiber wheelchairs when they can spend 25 billion on cheap aluminum ones. forgive the example, but you get my point.
Ever deal with an insurance company? They're not keen on the carbon fiber wheelchair when they can get you into a cheap aluminum one too. They make their living screwing people that bought their services to up their profit margin. Those that can afford and want carbon fiber will still get them... just as they do now.0 -
whatever the case..
profit motivating a system to heal the sick and wounded is criminal. that's the bottom line.
you're always going to get the cheap wheelchairs and sub-par treatment under this system. one way to avoid that is to have universal health care, not a profit based coverage plan, not universal insurance, but universal government run insurance. as long as the government isn't in it to make money-hey they work for us theoretically-there should be no problem.0 -
christ I'd just be happy to have healthcare right now..... asshole ex husband. :evil:"I'm not present, I'm a drug that makes you dream"0
-
I haven't read this whole thing but two observations......
1- People that do not want UHC, have no other suggestions on what to do and it is ignorant to think that there is nothing wrong with the system we have now. Like others have said there is not reason why there should be uninsured people in THIS the most powerful country in the world. So please offer suggestion and tell us your ideal insurance that will not leave working individuals without insurance.... yes working, most of the uninsured work...
2- Stop saying it is impossible, that is the dumbest excuse I have ever heard. If that is the case then you probably think reducing dependence on foreign oil is impossible, or improving the nations public schools is impossible, or going to the moon is impossible..... oh wait...... so many advancements have been made in the last 50-75 years that that to say fixing our health care is impossible is just lazy**CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **0 -
maybe we could get UHC and throw in some shiny new stealth bombers or more r and d into bombs that could kill people more effectively for the conservatives....
cmon people...compromise0 -
jlew24asu wrote:I'll ask again, since it was ignored. how do you pro-UHC system people plan on paying for this?
Part of the solution:Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.
N Engl J Med 2003;349:768-75.
Background
A decade ago, the administrative costs of health care in the United States greatly exceeded
those in Canada. We investigated whether the ascendancy of computerization, managed
care, and the adoption of more businesslike approaches to health care have decreased
administrative costs.
Methods
For the United States and Canada, we calculated the administrative costs of health insurers,
employers’ health benefit programs, hospitals, practitioners’ offices, nursing
homes, and home care agencies in 1999. We analyzed published data, surveys of physicians,
employment data, and detailed cost reports filed by hospitals, nursing homes,
and home care agencies. In calculating the administrative share of health care spending,
we excluded retail pharmacy sales and a few other categories for which data on administrative
costs were unavailable. We used census surveys to explore trends over time in
administrative employment in health care settings. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars.
Results
In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States,
or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration
accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States
and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada’s national health insurance
program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada’s private insurers
was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers’
administrative costs were far lower in Canada.
Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for
by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew
from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations’ figures exclude insurance-
industry personnel.)
Conclusions
The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown
to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs
could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf0 -
Government run health care is not without some problems, but I've worked in a country that has universal health care and im working in a country that doesn't. So i have experienced both.
The one thing i will say about the Country that did have it....people that require urgent life saving non elective surgery are treated as a priority. The same thing does not happen here.
And thats a fact. What good is having the best doctors in the world, when the people that need them the most can't get treatment.
Crock of shit.
Meanwhile, let's keep funding the never ending war. Who cares about our own citizens?0 -
Also, if you're actually interested in knowing what solutions are being proposed, read this article:
“Proposal of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance,” JAMA 290(6): Aug 30, 2003
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/proposal_of_the_physicians_working_group_for_singlepayer_national_health_insurance.php
Here's some more information (with details/sources at the link below):
• Administrative costs consume 31 percent of US health spending, most of it unnecessary.
• Taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of US health spending. Americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. We pay for national health insurance, but don’t get it.
• Despite spending far less per capita for health care, Canadians are healthier and have better measures of access to health care than Americans.
• Business pays less than 20 percent of our nation’s health bill. It is a misnomer that our health system is “privately financed” (60 percent is paid by taxes and the remaining 20 percent is out-of-pocket payments).
• For-profit, investor-owned hospitals, HMOs and nursing homes have higher costs and score lower on most measures of quality than their non-profit counterparts.
• The US could save enough on administrative costs (more than $350 billion annually) with a single-payer system to cover all of the uninsured.
• Competition among investor-owned, for-profit entities has raised costs, reduced quality in the US.
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/pnhp_research_the_case_for_a_national_health_program.php0 -
TriumphantAngel wrote:The one thing i will say about the Country that did have it....people that require urgent life saving non elective surgery are treated as a priority. The same thing does not happen here.
And thats a fact. What good is having the best doctors in the world, when the people that need them the most can't get treatment.
Exactly. What we tend to overlook when we talk about rationing or long waits is that, although all systems have finite resources, universal systems "ration"/prioritize according to need, while our system rations according to who has the money to pay. I feel less sorry for Joe Blow who has to wait for a knee replacement when I remember that he was bumped back in line by someone whose life depended on it. So the question we should be asking ourselves isn't "Should Joe Blow have to wait for a knee replacement?," it's "Should Jane Blow be allowed to die so that Joe Blow with more money gets his knee replacement sooner?"0 -
soulsinging wrote:jlew24asu wrote:cajunkiwi wrote:Here's the trick, from someone who comes from a quasi-socialist country. Look at some of the countries at the top of the standard of living indexes - New Zealand, and the Scandanavian countries... socialism has its benefits and can work well, but it has to be done RIGHT in order to work. Otherwise you just end up with a mess like your situation. I wouldn't want George Bush running a Dairy Queen (to steal a Mark Cuban line), let alone a nation where he had more control than he did for the last eight years, and it's too early to tell with Obama - but if you get rid of the incompetent assholes on both sides of the aisle in Washington you might find it isn't as bad as Fox News says it is (socialism isn't Soviet-era communism).
Then again, if you get rid of the incompetent guys in Washington, you'd be left with two or three people standing around wondering where their co-workers went lol
I hear that argument alot.."well it works in new zealand"...America is one of the largest and most complex countries in the world. trying to implement a government run health care system is nearly impossible. but I think Obama is looking for a different type of "socialist" health care system. I think his plan has a chance, but is too expensive IMO.
I sometimes wonder if, in the long run, it wouldn't be cheaper. Think of all the bureacracy you could lose... people spending hours shuffling paper to decide if you qualify for medicare/medicaid benefits, what those will covers, whether or not your disease is eligible. That might be enough to fund regular doctor's visits right there... and preventative medicine could cut down big time on the kind of "wait until a huge crisis last minute" expenses most people opt for since they can't afford a doctor. In addition, if there's an option to still buy your own insurance/doctor's fees, the competition will drive prices down all around. If everyone has free health care, doctors and hospitals and pharmacies are going to have to start bringing their services down to compete. And that's a good thing.
this still all comes down to money. no matter how much bureaucracy you cut down, its still going to go into the Trillions. if we can't afford Meidcare for the elderly, how are we going to afford it for EVERYONE else? I know one helpful method...cut costs. is that the strategy you want when it comes to your healthcare?Post edited by jlew24asu on0
) 
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help