Health care problems and solutions in politics

[expos4ever]

Social programs, as they are designed today, keep people in a cycle of systemic poverty. Explain to all of us how that is good, right, and just please.

Come on now. Canada has universal health care. Where is the systemic poverty?

 

[Hank77]

Not exactly true. The government does offer its own type of Medicare plan (totally different from yours as it is only for poor, disabled, and retired people) and Medicaid for disabled people with less than $1500. So private health insurance is not the only way. Unfortunately, what we call Medicare is very limiting. It pays for hospital stays and doctor appointments, but people have to buy medication coverage separately.

Medicare does not cover the poor, Medicaid does, with certain qualifications which vary from state to state.
Medicare is for those over 65 and the disabled.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't blame liberals, I blame those who brainwash folks into progressive ideals. We are finding this in both our schools and churches (see "Moral Monday Movement"). It will result, if successful, into turning all Americans into state-owned slaves. You wanna be a slave? Keep at it....

From the description you gave of your neighbor, it sounds like "state-owned slavery" is voluntary for those who don't mind living like she does. William F. Buckley, a well-respected conservative in his day, was of the opinion that people who wanted to live like that should just be allowed to, because there really wasn't anything else you could do with them.

What is your concern with the "Moral Monday Movement?" They look like an activist group with a more or less centrist agenda. But I can't find anything they've done to encourage gaming the welfare system.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Insurance companies already cover maternity healthcare.

So why are elective abortions still cheaper for pregnant women to get than what they really need?

 

[jayem]

Of course if health insurance companies offered maternity plans for pregnant women, abortions would not be cheaper. How about creating a one-year plan that would cover contraception, ultrasounds, gynecology appointments, treatments for pregnancy complications (including gestational diabetes), medically needed (but not elective) abortions, delivery (including C-sections), hospital stays, and breastfeeding problems? I don't know if it is realistic, but this should make abortion opponents happy.

Maternity is currently covered by all health insurance plans, both employer group plans, and individual plans. It's one of the 10 essential health benefits that was mandated by ACA in 2014, and which is still in force.

Maternity Coverage: All About Pregnancy and Health Insurance

Although, the link doesn't mention that if you're 26 and covered by your parent's insurance, it may not pay for labor and delivery (though prenatal care is covered.) Also, a few older, grandfathered health plans (2010 and earlier) may still exclude pregnancy.

For insurers, early term abortion is much cheaper than pregnancy. The cost of maternity care varies widely by location. As per the link, it averages $5,000-11,000 for prenatal care and vaginal delivery. C-section raises the price to $7,500-14,500.

What Is the Cost of Having a Baby in 2019? - SmartAsset

The average cost of a 1st trimester termination is $400-1,200. And obviously, a medical abortion is less than surgical.

How much does an abortion cost

 

[GodLovesCats]

Does anyone have specific ideas for how to make a single payer system work in America?

 

[Larniavc]

Does anyone have specific ideas for how to make a single payer system work in America?

Have the government be the single buyer for all health needs of the country.

Use that leverage to force the prices of health commodities down (like most other countries have).

Profit

 

[Silverback]

Under the Australian system the government can't say "no". The government has no say in the specific medical treatment you do or do not get. It's not like the private insurance system.

Americans are so fixated on the private insurance driven, for-profit system that I think it's become impossible for them to think outside that system and conceive of better alternatives.

OB

As far as thinking outside the system, that depends, as I said things are changing.

If you have good health insurance through your employer, and you get really sick, the medical care you will receive is top notch. Anything other than that, and quality of care will start to slip, Even our Medicare System that covers elderly, and disabled is not cheap, and it only pays 80%, the other 20% is your responsibility. This simply means you have to have a supplemental plan that will cover the 20%, or, you have to find a Dr. and/or hospital that will accept what Medicare pays, and there are a good number around that will do this. However, if all else fails you have to dip into your saving to pay it, or make other arrangements, and Medicare reimbursement is pitifully low.

I am fortunate, and I am thankful, and I am humble, because I retired from the US Navy, and the Department of Defense takes care of my, and my wife's healthcare, we do have small copays, and premiums. The system is cumbersome, and like any Government program you have to deal with several layers of bureaucracy...But I'm thankful.

I still think we are another generation away from any meaningful changes to our healthcare system, with the exception of improvements to the Affordable Care Act, which will not be earth shattering, IMHO.

Generation X, my kids Generation were also pushing a National Health System, along with other social changes, but by the time they reached 30, their was significant changes in how they thought about these things, and the majority have backed away from radical changes to our society.

The US just has cultural feelings about interaction with the Government, either it's something to be viewed with suspicion, or, it's the answer to all our problems, and there are few in the middle.

This suspicious view of the Government still pervades American culture, which is why the approval rating for Congress usually sits in the 20% range, sometimes much lower. The only Government institution that is consistently receiving high public approval, usually in the 70% (+) range is the US Military.

Our Federal Government is essentially non functioning, and has been that way for many years, we have not had a budget passed in like 10 years. The US is so deeply divided, more so than at anytime since Vietnam, and until we have a functioning Government, and heal divisions, things like National Healthcare, and other needed social programs will never come to pass.

65% of Americans have excellent Health Insurance, the rest have crap, outrageous premiums, deductibles, and copays, or, nothing at all. Those who are in the 65% do not generally want big changes in our healthcare system,and are vocal about it.

But it's the "I don't trust of the Government" that's hampering any significant changes to our system of healthcare.

 

[Hank77]

So why are elective abortions still cheaper for pregnant women to get than what they really need?

There is more long term care and procedures involved in a pregnancy.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There is more long term care and procedures involved in a pregnancy.

Yes, but the insurance company's job is to make sure expecting moms don't have to pay for anyrhing and save innocent babies at risk of being killed.

 

[98cwitr]

Come on now. Canada has universal health care. Where is the systemic poverty?

Do you have supplemental coverage, and if so, how much does it cost? What is your effective tax rate?

To add

In 2011, Canada ranked 21st out of 27 OECD countries in terms of poverty levels, with 1 in 7 or 4.9 million people living in poverty, including 1.34 million children.

Poverty in Canada — Canadian Poverty Institute

 

[98cwitr]

From the description you gave of your neighbor, it sounds like "state-owned slavery" is voluntary for those who don't mind living like she does. William F. Buckley, a well-respected conservative in his day, was of the opinion that people who wanted to live like that should just be allowed to, because there really wasn't anything else you could do with them.

What is your concern with the "Moral Monday Movement?" They look like an activist group with a more or less centrist agenda. But I can't find anything they've done to encourage gaming the welfare system.

We don't have state owned slavery yet. Bernie is doing his best to promote it though, Warren seems to dance with the topic.

Right now, the state owns 28% of my labor, at what point, numerically, would you say that I am a slave? 50%? 75%? 100%?

 

[98cwitr]

So why are elective abortions still cheaper for pregnant women to get than what they really need?

No one needs to murder their own child. How immorally reprehensible of a statement.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No one needs to murder their own child. How immorally reprehensible of a statement.

Some pregnant women need abortions for medical reasons. For everyone else, I'm totally against allowing health insurance companies to cover abortions.

 

[Speedwell]

We don't have state owned slavery yet. Bernie is doing his best to promote it though, Warren seems to dance with the topic.

Right now, the state owns 28% of my labor, at what point, numerically, would you say that I am a slave? 50%? 75%? 100%?

No point at all. You are always free to stop paying and leave the country.

 

[GodLovesCats]

State-owned slavery was permanently ended by Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s. Any other use of the word is just going to result in the same post replies that forced a Christians General Politics thread to be locked so I will not tolerate anyone describing health care proposals that way.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That attitude murders your countrymen.

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance




Nice strawman you built there, nicely knocked down too. What the heck is "regular wellness exams and disease testing"? Seriously? My single payer system diagnosed and paid for my kidney cancer. Is that different enough for you?

I am pretty sure that when the ME comes to your house ( or wherever else to officially declare you deceased plenty of things appear on that paper your name, certain family members names cause or even causes of death, HOWEVER, I am pretty sure that lack of health insurance is not listed among them. You die from lack of health insurance like you do of old age. You do not die of old age. Now you can die as a result of AGE RELATED health issues, but not of old age. Everyone ( with maybe VERY few exceptions like living in the middle of nowhere sure enough has access to healthcare. If he or she chooses not to access it for any reason then that is his or her choice, but when you die lack of health insurance is NOT going to show up on the document as a reason I am almost certain.

 

[jayem]

Does anyone have specific ideas for how to make a single payer system work in America?

Yes. Enact single-payer coverage only for catastrophic expenses. It would cover medical costs over something like $4,000-5,000 per adult, and maybe $500 per child. This would replace all other health insurance for medical costs of this magnitude. This doesn't have to be a huge, national bureaucracy. I'd prefer a regional arrangement. Groups of 7 or 8 contiguous states would establish a catastrophic health insurance fund. Everyone in the region would pay a premium--or you can call it a tax--into the fund. Medical risk is not a factor. Employers would also pay through a FICA like payroll tax. The fund is responsible for covering medical costs over the deductible. Then, private insurers can sell optional supplemental plans that could cover the deductible, or experimental treatments, or any benefits someone is willing to pay for. This arrangement is actually a hybrid single-payer system. It's based on the Medicare model, which is already well accepted and very popular.

There are several advantages to this kind of single payer coverage:
1) It's non-profit. No premiums must pay for a profit margin, or exorbitant CEO salaries.
2) Having as many individuals, and businesses as possible in each region pay into the fund spreads the risk as widely as possible. A large risk pool lowers each payer's cost as much as possible. That's a basic actuarial principle. And that's also why it must be mandatory. Imagine if 20 million or so working people, and businesses are contributing to the same insurance fund. There will definitely be a cost saving compared to the premiums people and employers in smaller risk pools must pay. And it allows people which chronic, pre-existing conditions to have coverage at the same price as everyone else.
3) It has a potential to lower medical fees. A single payer can negotiate prices with providers much more effectively than can many small insurers. One of the biggest misunderstandings is that single-payer insurance is anti-competitive. It's wrong because insurance companies are not really sellers of a product. Fundamentally, they are buyers. Their business is paying for health care. When you have dozens of payers for a product--especially one like medical care with a high, inelastic demand--there is no pressure on the sellers of that product--who are hospitals, providers, drug and medical equipment manufacturers, etc-- to keep prices low. But when there is only one buyer, then there is real price competition among hospitals and doctors and drug companies. The buying power of a monopsony lowers prices. You can't go overboard with this. If you stiff providers, you'll lose them. (Which is a problem with some states' Medicaid programs.) But a sensible one-payer system, that pays fair and reasonable fees, has the best chance to keep medical costs in check.
4) Insurance for catastrophic illness or injury is the only kind of coverage everyone really needs. I do think people should be responsible for their own initial health care. If they want coverage for that too, then they can buy that themselves. Limiting publicly funded coverage to high cost illness reinforces the idea that health care is not free, and social welfare programs are just a safety net.

This is just an overview. Good health care will never be cheap. But I think this a rational and sensible approach that has the ability to keep costs reasonable and maintain quality.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[98cwitr]

Only one provider? I was never covered by BCBS and have been insured by several other companies as a result of where my parents worked.

Did your parents have any other option besides whatever company covered you at the time? I've never had "options" when it came to healthcare. Whatever employer I was with to earn an income, there was only one choice.

 

[98cwitr]

The US has the "highest rate of maternal mortality in the industrialized world." In the United States, the maternal death rate averaged 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births during the years 1979–1986, but then rose rapidly to 14 per 100,000 in 2000 and 17.8 per 100,000 in 2009.

Maternal death - Wikipedia

From your link:

It is unclear why pregnancy-related deaths in the United States have increased. It seems that the use of computerized data servers by the states and changes in the way deaths are coded, with a pregnancy checkbox added to death certificates in many states, have been shown to improve the identification of these pregnancy-related deaths. However, this does not contribute to decreasing the actual number of deaths. Also, errors in reporting of pregnancy status have been seen, which most likely leads to overestimation of the number of pregnancy-related deaths.[3] Again, this does not contribute to explaining why the death rate has increased, but does show complications between reporting and actual contributions to the overall rate of maternal mortality.[42]

To add:

NPR and ProPublica teamed up for a six-month long investigation on maternal mortality in the U.S. Among our key findings:

• More American women are dying of pregnancy-related complications than any other developed country. Only in the U.S. has the rate of women who die been rising.
• There's a hodgepodge of hospital protocols for dealing with potentially fatal complications, allowing for treatable complications to become lethal.
• Hospitals — including those with intensive care units for newborns — can be woefully unprepared for a maternal emergency.
• Federal and state funding show only 6 percent of block grants for "maternal and child health" actually go to the health of mothers.
• In the U.S, some doctors entering the growing specialty of maternal-fetal medicine were able to complete that training without ever spending time in a labor-delivery unit.

This is the most alarming:

Federal and state funding show only 6 percent of block grants for "maternal and child health" actually go to the health of mothers.

WHERE'S THE MONEY GOING?!?!?

Only proves my point: Get the government out of my pockets and get the government out of my body.