Healthcare in the US - is Obamacare the right call?

[TheReasoner]

Some people have been critical towards Obamacare, stating a few problems concerning for example the financial aspect of it. An it might be there is something to the skepticism.
There is very little I would want more than good and affordable healthcare for my loved ones in the US, but one cannot have everything one wants, and as far as this goes, my question is if the US can pull it off without going spectacularly broke - unless some radical changes Obamacare does not ensure are pulled through.

There are some significant elements to consider;
Consider hospital beds/1000 people: Hospital Beds per 1,000 people statistics - countries compared - Health data on NationMaster
The US comes out rather poorly, one might safely say.

And in terms of physicians/1000 people the image is hardly very different;
Physicians per 1,000 people statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster

Life expectancy in terms of expected healthy years is low;
Life Expectancy healthy years statistics - countries compared - Nation Master
- a measly 67 years.

Healthcare funding per capita is sky-high;
Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
Sum total noone spends more than the US per capita. Private spending per capita on health is also a world high. Public spending is the third highest in the world, still sky-high in other words.

The quality and efficiency of healthcare is also really low. You can find it quantified in the healthcare index which you can find here: International Human Development Indicators - UNDP - listing the US as 38th!

So the US has some rather big problems healthcare wise, coming behind most (all?) other nations in the west on related stats. It is clear Americans do not get what they pay for. Not even close. The way I understand it however Obamacare does not deal with any of the problems I have outlined here. It seems to be an attempt at stepping towards universal coverage without dealing with the issues which (unless fixed first or at least at the same time as implementing a universal solution) will make for a really sticky situation.

What are your thoughts? How do you think the US can fix their healthcare system? And before you say 'remove the government from the equation', if that WAS a solution, why is the US with it's privatized healthcare so far behind so many nations with universal healthcare systems controlled by the govt. in the respective nation? Libertarians: You have some explaining to do there. You can't just have an opinion based on wishy washy opinions, if more govt. meant - categorically - more expenses and lower quality why does the US rank so low compared to nations where it is governmentally run?

 

[EddyMabo]

One payer like the remainder of the civilised advanced world would be my vote were I to live there. Ultimately the entire thing is a fascicle issue that has extended for the entire first term of Obama, probably encouragingly so, in order to pay less attention to all his other more serious problems.

 

[DaisyDay]

No, Obamacare is not the best solution; it is a hacked together compromise. It is, however, better than what we had before. And there are some genuine good provisions in it.

 

[razeontherock]

So the US has some rather big problems healthcare wise, coming behind most (all?) other nations in the west on related stats. It is clear Americans do not get what they pay for. Not even close. The way I understand it however Obamacare does not deal with any of the problems I have outlined here. It seems to be an attempt at stepping towards universal coverage without dealing with the issues which (unless fixed first or at least at the same time as implementing a universal solution) will make for a really sticky situation.

What are your thoughts?

You seem to have a good handle on at least part of the situation.

Some other aspects:

what other countries classify money injected into the election system (aka bribery) to be "speech?" The lobbying influence here is HUGE, and for the most obvious reason.

Are you aware of the reason for the surprise pivotal vote pushing this through? It is both a gamble, and a sacrifice. In short, the Judge wants to push Obama out, and rally republicans to gain other seats too. All in the hope this measure could be repealed.

Now the real question here, is what would it take for any integrity at all to gain traction in the arena of US spending? A certain Bob Marley song comes to mind:

Bob Marley - Real Sitiuation (Other version) - YouTube

 

[sk8Joyful]

There is very little I would want more
than good and affordable healthcare for my loved ones in the US, but
one cannot have everything one wants.

Correct, you CANT have good & affordable healthcare in the USA.
why not?
Because the USA (starting pre-birth) practices bad & bankrupting sickcare; that displaces good & affordable healthcare from being practiced.

iow, you need to START over, beginning with teaching people -
1. what constitutes a FOOD
2. what HEALTH is,
3. what Optimum-health is, and how to maintain/continue it.

Short of that, it's hopeless: the eugenic movement's intended outcome.

There are some significant elements to consider:
doctors, hospital beds, Life expectancy - a measly 67 years,
Healthcare funding per capita is sky-high.
Sum total no one spends more than the US per capita.

The quality and efficiency of healthcare: listing the US as 38th!
however
Obamacare does not deal with any of the problems I have outlined here.

How could you expect 'Obamacare' to care,
when the man behind it, does NOT care.

O'bama spent about 4 yrs. busy golfing, & on vacations, etc.
yet you expect him to give a flying fig about the LIFE &
HEALTH of marine-plants, marine-animals, let alone
USA-citizens in the wake of a disaster, let alone the rest of the time??
He could care less.

How do you think the US can fix their healthcare system?

Already said it:
START over, beginning with teaching people -
1. what constitutes a FOOD
2. what HEALTH is,
3. what Optimum-health is, and how to maintain/continue it.
4. This would mostly eliminate 'chronic'-diseases, and
free medical doctors doing what they are there for: First-aiding in emergencies.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Some people have been critical towards Obamacare, stating a few problems

*Gigglesnort* "a few"

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Correct, you CANT have good & affordable healthcare in the USA.
why not?
Because the USA (starting pre-birth) practices bad & bankrupting sickcare; that displaces good & affordable healthcare from being practiced.

iow, you need to START over, beginning with teaching people -
1. what constitutes a FOOD
2. what HEALTH is,
3. what Optimum-health is, and how to maintain/continue it.

Short of that, it's hopeless: the eugenic movement's intended outcome.


How could you expect 'Obamacare' to care,
when the man behind it, does NOT care.

O'bama spent about 4 yrs. busy golfing, & on vacations, etc.
yet you expect him to give a flying fig about the LIFE &
HEALTH of marine-plants, marine-animals, let alone
USA-citizens in the wake of a disaster, let alone the rest of the time??
He could care less.


Already said it:
START over, beginning with teaching people -
1. what constitutes a FOOD
2. what HEALTH is,
3. what Optimum-health is, and how to maintain/continue it.
4. This would mostly eliminate 'chronic'-diseases, and
free medical doctors doing what they are there for: First-aiding in emergencies.

You're the one who claims to cure cancer with upper colonics, aren't you?

 

[sk8Joyful]

You're the one who claims to cure cancer with upper colonics, aren't you?

Never believed it, never said it.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Never believed it, never said it.

Yet you do espouse non mainstream healing therapies, don't you?

 

[sk8Joyful]

Her derail can't & won't work.

Staying ON TOPIC :

Correct, you CANT have good & affordable healthcare in the USA.
why not?
Because the USA (starting pre-birth) practices bad & bankrupting sickcare; that displaces good & affordable healthcare from being practiced.

iow, you need to START over, beginning with teaching people -
1. what constitutes a FOOD
2. what HEALTH is,
3. what Optimum-health is, and how to maintain/continue it.

Short of that, it's hopeless: the eugenic movement's intended outcome.


How could you expect 'Obamacare' to care,
when the man behind it, does NOT care.

O'bama spent about 4 yrs. busy golfing, & on vacations, etc.
yet you expect him to give a flying fig about the LIFE &
HEALTH of marine-plants, marine-animals, let alone
USA-citizens in the wake of a disaster, let alone the rest of the time??
He could care less.


Already said it:
START over, beginning with teaching people -
1. what constitutes a FOOD
2. what HEALTH is,
3. what Optimum-health is, and how to maintain/continue it.
4. This would mostly eliminate 'chronic'-diseases, and
free medical doctors doing what they are there for: First-aiding in emergencies.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Derail? *snort* If you think questioning the opinion of someone whe believes she can cure AIDS with feathers and crystals when it comes to healthcare, then yeah, I guess derail.

 

[EddyMabo]

Her derail can't & won't work.

Staying ON TOPIC :

In other words you do espouse alternative therapy and also you dodge questions?

 

[TheReasoner]

*Gigglesnort* "a few"

If you discard the nonsense from what to me appears to be the majority of such criticisms, aye. A few. Most of the criticism I have seen is along the lines of "Nuhuuuh!" accompanied with a tongue sticking out - or possibly "Yeah, well your momma's fat, so it won't work!".
Along those lines, anyway. And to be honest, such arguments cannot possibly be considered valid. Or given any credence whatsoever.
Consider the all too common accusations of socialism (rubbish), or the claims that it will make US healthcare as bad as British healthcare, Canadian healthcare or whatnot. Goodness gracious, both of those countries and indeed any other country I have seen used in such argumentation deliver far superior quality healthcare for far lower costs. The brits have problems, aye. But they are smaller than the US problems. So the whole comparison is featherbrained, and easily revealed as such by people who care to actually fact check. Hence, most arguments I have seen against Obamacare are rubbish. But some criticism appear valid. Not the ones that praise less government and more privatization - we know empirically that such an argument is... Shall we say "shoddy" - to be polite. Not the ones glorifying US healthcare the way it is, because - again - that would be another "shoddy" (again, polite) argument. But the ones more along the lines of "Hangonasecond, does this really address the issues with American healthcare? Does it solve any problems, or is it just the political equivalent of a band-aid applied to a broken bone?"

 

[sk8Joyful]

yeah, I guess derail.

Let's see, 4 more months until the Election,
and that was not how we answer the OP's questions. He asked
(not for sorry derails), but everyone's opinions to his valid questions.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Does it solve any problems, or
is it just the political equivalent of a band-aid applied to a broken bone?

Yes, 'Obama-care' is that.

Also, I took you at your word, trusting & thinking you really did want to know. Sorry for that mistake.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

If you discard the nonsense from what to me appears to be the majority of such criticisms, aye. A few. Most of the criticism I have seen is along the lines of "Nuhuuuh!" accompanied with a tongue sticking out - or possibly "Yeah, well your momma's fat, so it won't work!".
Along those lines, anyway. And to be honest, such arguments cannot possibly be considered valid. Or given any credence whatsoever.
Consider the all too common accusations of socialism (rubbish), or the claims that it will make US healthcare as bad as British healthcare, Canadian healthcare or whatnot. Goodness gracious, both of those countries and indeed any other country I have seen used in such argumentation deliver far superior quality healthcare for far lower costs. The brits have problems, aye. But they are smaller than the US problems. So the whole comparison is featherbrained, and easily revealed as such by people who care to actually fact check. Hence, most arguments I have seen against Obamacare are rubbish. But some criticism appear valid. Not the ones that praise less government and more privatization - we know empirically that such an argument is... Shall we say "shoddy" - to be polite. Not the ones glorifying US healthcare the way it is, because - again - that would be another "shoddy" (again, polite) argument. But the ones more along the lines of "Hangonasecond, does this really address the issues with American healthcare? Does it solve any problems, or is it just the political equivalent of a band-aid applied to a broken bone?"

Some good observations there.

You and I both come from countries with sound public health care. I'm quite conservative, but I'm also a doctor, and can't abide the idea of people who need help being turned away without treatment, so I consider public helthcare to be a necessary evil. Yes it would be nice if we lived in a world where it weren't necessary, but the same is true of policedepartments, fire brigades and the military, yet no one seems incensed at the idea of non users paying for them, and public healthcare, to my POV is exactly the same. That said, programs like Australia and the European countries have, while not perfect, seem to deliver, more or less, with a fair degree of oversight and waste prevention. This new Obamacare business however seems to me to be extremely ungainly, and confused. America should have adopted a program like our countries' yet adopted a weak, meally mouthed substitute designed to cater to all sorts of interest and lobby groups, and make compromise with the Republicans. Frankly, I see it creating at least as many problems as it solves.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Let's see, 4 more months until the Election,
and that was not how we answer the OP's questions. He asked
(not for sorry derails), but everyone's opinions to his valid questions.

uh-huh. Perhaps some more naturopathic chai tea would help with your choleric humours.

 

[sk8Joyful]

uh-huh.
Perhaps some more naturopathic chai tea would help with your choleric humours.

This is the 3rd. nonsensical/useless response, no less by a 'doctor'?
No wonder this country is in trouble

 

[TheReasoner]

Yes, 'Obama-care' is that.

Also, I took you at your word, trusting & thinking you really did want to know. Sorry for that mistake.

Pardon? Of course I want to know what people think. What ever made you think I do not?

 

[citizenthom]

There are some significant elements to consider;
Consider hospital beds/1000 people: Hospital Beds per 1,000 people statistics - countries compared - Health data on NationMaster
The US comes out rather poorly, one might safely say.

Most care in the U.S., including most minor surgeries now, is home-based. Very few of our hospitals are anywhere near capacity. More hospital beds would be pointless. This is a pretty poor measure of health outcomes. In fact if your health care system is high-quality you're not going to need as many hospital beds.

And in terms of physicians/1000 people the image is hardly very different;
Physicians per 1,000 people statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster

Our medical schools are a lot harder to get into than most countries', so yes, we crank out fewer MDs. The push now is to create more Licensed Nurse Practitioners (LNPs) and other lower-tier professionals to deal with everyday illnesses. Those people do many of the same jobs handled by foreign MDs.

Life expectancy in terms of expected healthy years is low;
Life Expectancy healthy years statistics - countries compared - Nation Master
- a measly 67 years.

Now that's just flat-out inaccurate: life expectancy in the U.S. is 78 years for men and 82 for women. FASTSTATS - Life Expectancy

Healthcare funding per capita is sky-high;
Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

And herein lies the rub. Why is our health care spending so sky-high? Because of our third-party payer system...which ObamaCare forces EVERYONE to use. When we had a predominantly cash system for health care we had the best outcomes in the world and spent 10-12% of GDP on health care.

Health "coverage" plans--which no longer "insure" anything--add tremendous administrative costs and encourage shell game-like pricing while delivering ZERO extra value to the consumer.

And the Democrats' brilliant plan to "fix" health care was to make this system MANDATORY.

The solution is to break up the health "coverage" cabal by declaring, accurately, that it is not "insurance" and that it is therefore subject to antitrust laws. Take away their collusive advantage and those payers will fade away, forcing providers to negotiate directly with patients and to set prices people can actually pay out of pocket.

But that makes too much sense for Washington.