US health care.

[Jan Volkes]

I do not understand why Americans are not marching in the streets protesting at the state of US health care, millions and millions of Americans are suffering because the system is failing them, many hundreds of thousands of people are going bankrupt because of medical bills and tens of thousand of people are dying because they can not afford ongoing health care.

It's about time Americans woke up and took a hard look at just what is happening in America TODAY and stopped playing politics with people's lives.

 

[Jan Volkes]

31 views and not one comment, I suppose that says more about America than a hundred comments ever could.

2 soldiers are killed in Iraq and the whole country mourns, 2000 die needlessly every month because they can not afford health insurance and no one even notices or cares.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

31 views and not one comment, I suppose that says more about America than a hundred comments ever could.

2 soldiers are killed in Iraq and the whole country mourns, 2000 die needlessly every month because they can not afford health insurance and no one even notices or cares.

I would have replied sooner but I didn't see your thread.

The great health tragedy in America, and the world, is that people don't take care of themselves properly. All the hospitals and insurance policies won't help if people continue to destroy their health through their ignorance.

For example, disease due to obesity is a fast growing health problem. But instead of getter thinner Americans continue to get fatter. Obesity is probably one of the most easily prevented conditions, and yet people keep overeating.

Sarah Palin is quite right is calling people sheeple. People are mindless when it comes to their health and well-being.

The operational mantra of American's is, "Eat (everything in sight), Drink (everything in sight), and be Mary (get a sex change operation). Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[hedrick]

The US is stuck, because we are equally committed to individual responsibility and compassion for everyone, and sometimes don’t do a very good job of combining those.

In the health care area, historically it’s been an individual responsibility. But with the amount that doctors can do, and the cost of it, it’s easy to get into situations where individual’s can’t afford it. If individual responsibility were our only value, we’d say “tough luck,” and let people die. But in fact we aren’t prepared to let people die because they can’t afford health care. Before Obamacare there were laws forcing hospitals to care for anyone. The effect was to turn emergency rooms into primary care for a significant number of people.

We also have a strong commitment to competitive industry, and strongly distrust services run by the government — with good reason.

The effect was that doctors and hospitals had to provide care that they couldn’t get paid for. This put them under pressure, and to some extent increased rates for everyone. The situation couldn’t continue. But the cause wasn’t any one thing. It was the combination of individual responsibility, unwillingness to deny care to anyone, unwillingness to say that there were limits to what we could spend on any person, and an aversion to government-provided services.

There are good reasons for all of these values. That includes the aversion to government-provided services. People look at our veterans’ hospitals, and don’t want them to be models for the service for all of us.

Obamacare is the best compromise anyone has been able to come up with. It uses the government to arrange coverage for almost everyone, but leaves delivery in private hands. Personally I think we’d be better off with a European system. But maybe politics are so toxic here that governement-run services don’t work as well for us as for Europe. There’s some evidence for that. Not that health care is wonderful in the UK or Europe for everyone, either.

There are lots of ways in which Obamacare needs to be changed. But given the situation in the US, it’s probably the only viable approach. I don’t think even the Republicans will be able to do much better. If they repeal it, they’ll do something that’s almost identical, with a different name. Because the basic prinicple of universal coverage is the only thing that can work, unless people decide to let patients die in the streets — which we won’t.

I think it’s pretty clear that the Republican opposition to Obamacare is largely because Obama’s name is attached. It’s otherwise a compromise actually created by Republicans. But things are so bad here that the Republicans will compromise anything to avoid letting Obama get credit for a major improvement for people.

 

[Liberasit]

I do not understand why Americans are not marching in the streets protesting at the state of US health care, millions and millions of Americans are suffering because the system is failing them, many hundreds of thousands of people are going bankrupt because of medical bills and tens of thousand of people are dying because they can not afford ongoing health care.

It's about time Americans woke up and took a hard look at just what is happening in America TODAY and stopped playing politics with people's lives.

The haves love it and they don't care a lot about the have nots.

Healthcare has to be rationed as it is a resource whose demand outstrips supply. In the UK, we ration, rightly or wrongly, by waiting list. In the U.S., they ration by wealth, which just seems wrong. We have very good outcomes for about 7% of GDP; the U.S. not so good outcomes for about double GDP.

 

[Albion]

The haves love it and they don't care a lot about the have nots.

Healthcare has to be rationed as it is a resource whose demand outstrips supply. In the UK, we ration, rightly or wrongly, by waiting list. In the U.S., they ration by wealth, which just seems wrong.

There you ration. That's the important point. Here we don't. And there you die before you can get care, even if you are one of the "in" group. That is not the case here (unless you're unfortunate enough to be relying upon government care, as with the Veteran's Administration).

 

[Liberasit]

There you ration. That's the important point. Here we don't. And there you die before you can get care, even if you are one of the "in" group. That is not the case here (unless you're unfortunate enough to be relying upon government care, as with the Veteran's Administration).

You do ration by excluding more than half your population from healthcare, not to mention the under insured.

 

[Albion]

You do ration by excluding more than half your population from healthcare, not to mention the under insured.

They're not excluded.

 

[Jan Volkes]

The great health tragedy in America, and the world, is that people don't take care of themselves properly. All the hospitals and insurance policies won't help if people continue to destroy their health through their ignorance.

These are the facts.......... The US is the ONLY country out of ALL the industrialised countries in the world that does not have universal health care of some sort for every citizen in the country, the only one.
Even Mexico has universal health care, yes Mexico.

Bankruptcy caused by medical bills accounts for about [some figures say more] 750,000 [3/4 of a million] every year in the US, this does not happen in any other industrialised country in the world.

At least 45,000 people die every year in the US because they can not afford ongoing healthcare, if you or your child has asthma and you can not afford the inhalers you die, no other civilised country in the world allows this to happen.

The US is the only civilised country where if you lose your job you also lose your health insurance, when a person is at their lowest ebb after losing their job the system then cuts them off at the knees and takes away their health care, I must say it sounds like a wonderful country to live in.

 

[Albion]

People who actually know the way health care operates in the USA--because they live with it everyday as I do--are the ones whose thoughts on the subject influence me. European Socialists have no stake in the matter and even less credibility IMO.

 

[Albion]

I think it’s pretty clear that the Republican opposition to Obamacare is largely because Obama’s name is attached.

At least, that's what the Democrats would like everyone to think. I believe it's fair to say that Republican opposition to Socialized Medicine is much, much older than Obama, and I know this personally. So do you, I think.

It’s otherwise a compromise actually created by Republicans.

How do you figure?

But things are so bad here that the Republicans will compromise anything to avoid letting Obama get credit for a major improvement for people.

Bring one on and let's see.

 

[Vylo]

At least, that's what the Democrats would like everyone to think. I believe it's fair to say that Republican opposition to Socialized Medicine is much, much older than Obama, and I know this personally. So do you, I think.

Obamacare isn't socialized healthcare, so there is your first problem.

 

[Jan Volkes]

People who actually know the way health care operates in the USA--because they live with it everyday as I do--are the ones whose thoughts on the subject influence me. European Socialists have no stake in the matter and even less credibility IMO.

There are lots of other countries all over the word who have Universal Health Care.
NOTICE. There is no USA on the list, the richest country in the world does not want it, or does it?

Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate

Insurance Mandate means they use insurance companies just like the US but those insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit, the countries that use Insurance Mandate are LESS socialised than the US.
Americans do not know what socialism is but they know it's bad.

 

[Vylo]

There are lots of other countries all over the word who have Universal Health Care.
NOTICE. There is no USA on the list, the richest country in the world does not want it, or does it?

Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate

Insurance Mandate means they use insurance companies just like the US but those insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit, the countries that use Insurance Mandate are LESS socialised than the US.
Americans do not know what socialism is but they know it's bad.

One interesting this is that every country with a better healthcare system than ours have universal care.

Unless you have cancer or a rare condition, you are going to pay a lot more for pretty much the same healthcare you could get in many other countries. That is why healthcare tourism has become so popular. It is literally cheaper to fly halfway across the world, get an operation and fly back than to get it here.

 

[Jan Volkes]

One interesting this is that every country with a better healthcare system than ours have universal care.

Unless you have cancer or a rare condition, you are going to pay a lot more for pretty much the same healthcare you could get in many other countries. That is why healthcare tourism has become so popular. It is literally cheaper to fly halfway across the world, get an operation and fly back than to get it here.

With universal health care in the long run it's cheaper for everyone, as I have lived in the UK all my life I can only speak for the UK, we pay a percentage of our salary every month in National Insurance, the more you earn the more you pay, [there is a limit] if you are unemployed the government pays, that's the only payments we make so it's not free like everyone thinks it is.

People go into hospital and every bill no matter how big or how small is covered, we are not asked for a penny, which means no one needs to leave anything because they can't afford it, no need for burst appendix here.

This guy wrote a book about healthcare around the world, if you really want to know then watch this, if you don't want to have your mind changed then don't watch it.

If you have plenty of money you can pay for private medical care just as you can in the US so we have the best of both worlds.

 

[Vylo]

The UK program has had quite a few problems, but still, we can learn from them instead of trying to completely avoid this issue while it destroys people's lives.

 

[bhsmte]

There are lots of other countries all over the word who have Universal Health Care.
NOTICE. There is no USA on the list, the richest country in the world does not want it, or does it?

Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate

Insurance Mandate means they use insurance companies just like the US but those insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit, the countries that use Insurance Mandate are LESS socialised than the US.
Americans do not know what socialism is but they know it's bad.

One of the largest, if not the largest healthcare insurer in the United States; Blue Cross/Blue shield is non profit and other health insurance groups in the US are also non profit. Most hospitals in the United States are non profit as well.

Now, the question you raise is a ideological question; should the government assure healthcare for all and it is an important question. The United States has been driven by making sure competitive forces are in place to drive quality and also to keep prices in check and this has carried over to healthcare.

To be clear, I have been in the healthcare field in exective rolls for over 20 years and I have been exposed to the workings of for profit organizations, non profit organizations and have had to deal with how the government runs medicare and medicaid.

It is my philosophy, that all Americans should have healthcare and a single payer would be a good solution, to help control costs (the insurance companies are middle men, that drive up costs) but at the scale we are talking about in the United States, makes this more difficult and stringent controls must be put in place to assure quality of care does not decline.

My experience with the government and medicare and medicaid is this; the work very slowly and very inefficiently and they waste a lot of money. My experience with non profit health care providers is also the same, they tend to be overstaffed, not very efficient and it costs them more to deliver the same care a for profit can deliver. These are realities that I can not deny, because I have seen them up close and personal for many years.

If a single payer was to be put in place, one would have to assure, the government would not be in the business of rationing care, delaying payments to providers and or reducing payments so much, that talented people will choose to not go into the healthcare field.

To me, the ability to give all citizens a decent level of healthcare is important and no one should have to bankrupt because of disease or sickness. Keep in mind though, there is a reason in all of these countries with a universal single payer, that private clinics open up and only see patients willing to pay cash for their services, because the care is simply better. There is also a reason, why many people with money, will travel to the United States, to receive care.

We need to assure good care for all, without bankrupting people and also assuring in doing so, we don't reduce the quality and or remove the motivation, to provide good service and good care.

 

[Supreme]

All I can say is: few things make me prouder to be British than our National Health Service. It just... works.

Not to say we don't have health inequalities, as we clearly do. But at the very least, those inequalities don't come from the ability of someone to pay for their treatment.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Now, the question you raise is a ideological question; should the government assure healthcare for all and it is an important question. The United States has been driven by making sure competitive forces are in place to drive quality and also to keep prices in check and this has carried over to healthcare.

If you watch that video an American will tell you just how inefficient the US system really is, it's the worst in the world,
everything cost more under the US system and the efficiency is diabolical, it cost at least twice as much as every other country, against some countries it's 4 or 5 times less efficient and against most countries the medicals results are worse as well.

Trying to give every American health care is not an ideological question it's a moral question, either Americans care about other Americans or they don't, from what we are seeing in the US today Americans just don't care about other Americans.

 

[bhsmte]

If you watch that video an American will tell you just how inefficient the US system really is, it's the worst in the world,
everything cost more under the US system and the efficiency is diabolical, it cost at least twice as much as every other country, against some countries it's 4 or 5 times less efficient and against most countries the medicals results are worse as well.

Trying to give every American health care is not an ideological question it's a moral question, either Americans care about other Americans or they don't, from what we are seeing in the US today Americans just don't care about other Americans.

Here are the reasons things cost more in the United States:

-doctors and other healthcare professionals make 2-3 times what the same professionals do in countries with universal care
-Insurance companies are middle men and they drive up costs because they take their share of the pie for their services
-The united states population is not all that healthy, with some of the highest obesity rates in the world
-technology tends to be very advanced in the United States and this costs money
-Liability insurance is very costly for hospitals and physicians, because of the liberal tort laws we have, which other countries do not have. For example, a specialist physician may pay up to $100,000 a year in liability coverage

One reason doctors make more money in the United States, is in other countries, the cost of medical school is subsidized by the government. In the United States, a physician may start practicing medicine, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, from school loans.

Some of the problem would be solved with forming a single payer and taking the insurance companies cut out of it, but there is significant work to fix the other realities. If you diminish physician salaries, then fewer talented people would go into healthcare and that would reduce quality. Lastly, paying for some of this stuff would require a significant increase in taxes, which is why the tax rate is so much higher in countries with universal care.