Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

Byron · 2003-09-14 06:46:38

I've just completed reading an article in this morning's paper that's gotten me madder than a baked clam...and into a real tizzy to boot!

A gentleman who lives in the Miami area of Florida experienced a fall down a set of stairs to avoid hurting a kid on a bicycle. He has no health insurance, but he had to go to the emergency room for severe bruises on his face and two herniated discs in his back.

You may find this hard to believe...I sure did! Here goes:

The bill from the hospital *alone* came to $6,518. It is broken out as follows: $1,077 for basic E.R. charge just for walking in the door in a "critical" state. $2,063 for 10 X-rays of his pelvis, shoulder, chest and spine. $1,064 for a CT scan. $257 for an EKG and $1,250 for unrequested lab work for drug testing (!) This total does not include seperate bills from the various doctors that treated him.

This man is attempting to file a class-action lawsuit, which mean if he wins, the hospital would not only have to negate his own bill, but the bills of thousands of other uninsured folks who were forced to pay these extremely inflated prices. (Wouldn't that be a miracle!) There is even a Congressional inquiry to the billing practices of this hospital and others around the country (are the pols finally starting to smell the coffee?)

What the article mentions what these hospitals are doing is something called "cost shifting," as billing rates for insurance plans, Medicare and Medicaid are far lower than the full "list price" that are set by the hospital. If anyone reading this thinks this is a fair practice...I'd like to hear why...just be ready for some hard-nosed responses!

The results of a preliminary investigation into these atrocious billing practices clearly demonstrate that these "master lists" of rates "are often inflated far beyond their actual costs and reasonable profits due, in part, by the providers' need to make up for steep discounts demanded by third-party health plans."

Ughhh..I'm so mad right about now... :angry:

The reason I'm posting this on a Mars-related forum, is because this is one of the few places where the people are intelligent enough to see that "something might be wrong with this picture," as so many of the people I know in "real life" just go on about their merry way, without a care in the world. (Like the ones that don't even bother cracking open a newspaper to see what's going in in the world.)

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to fix America's broken health care system is to go to a single-payer system managed by the federal government, just like in *every other* industrialized country in the world. If it works for them...I *honestly* do not see why it won't work for us.

If any of you out there can present a reasonable arguement to why the United States should not switch over to an universal health care system immediately, I really want to hear it.... If you do, I think you have your work cut out for ya....lol :;):

B

Post Edit: For those of you who believe that the U.S. health care system is the "best in the world," here's an article that may give you pause...http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_may99/tall.html]Auxology Site

The things I come across on the web sometimes..lol...

dicktice · 2003-09-14 10:14:13

Byron: That's just one of the many reasons I love Canada: People still count here. My Health Card (which works nationwide) is one of my treasured possessions!

Palomar · 2003-09-14 10:29:16

*Hi Byron. I don't have time to give a more indepth response today, but:

Day before last I transcribed a report of a young man in Seattle who has chronic clinical depression. He'd been prescribed Paxil, which has a high success rate; he had no side effects and the medication was working wonders in his life.

Then he lost his job (laid-off due to downsizing thanks to our crappy economy), and so of course lost his co-pay company insurance policy...and he cannot afford to pay for the Paxil out of his own pocket. I believe Paxil costs approximately $120.00 for a 30-day supply. With his insurance policy he was probably making a co-pay of $20.00 or thereabouts.

I agree with you. This is ridiculous. We shovel billions of dollars per annum out to other nations, many of whom spit in our face as a "thank you" (Egypt, for one), and our own people face dilemmas like this.

So much for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sure, if you're in the 5% of Americans who own 80% of the nation's wealth!

--Cindy

Spider-Man · 2003-09-14 11:47:14

I agree... I very much agree... I for one don't like paying for college tuition either; it would be nice if we were like Germany where students can go to college while paying an equivalent of a "co-pay" of just a few hundred dollars.

Our economy, of course, is fundamentally different from those of other European countries. The change couldn't happen overnight. Like the other industrialized countries, we have a balanced capitalist/socialist economic structure, but for that ours is prone toward capitalism. This means we're the richest country in the world. Conversely, you have the European countries which are tilted the socialistic route. And their economies are quite weak, and growing weaker all the time (Germany is in severe recession to the point where 7 million ? nearly 10% of its population! ? is unemployed, and the rates are only getting worse; and also, every one of those unemployed workers is getting no impetus to work, because they're still getting plenty of money from the government).

So, there are advantages and disadvantages to the system. For instance, in Germany, I could not decide what college I might go to. Indeed, at the end of German high school (college preparation school, called Gymnasium), every student has to take this super-large, incredibly scary test called the Abitur, kind of like the SATs ? except that it's about ten times larger and fifty times more important than the SATs. This test is unbelievably terrifying. (The drinking parties they have afterwards in celebration are quite infamous.)

The Abitur essentially is an aptitude exam across the board. Once it is taken, a student is given a choice of universities he now can get into. But the options are frequently rather limited; all the higher level colleges are out of reach, not because of financial limitations, but because of intractable, unbridgeable federal ones. The university I'm in now is incredible, very high level, but I didn't do as well in high school, despite how much better I'm doing in college. If the university itself had not been able to gauge me and my aptitudes and talents themselves to decide if I were qualified to be a student at their school, and instead rationed by the government, I doubt I'd have gotten in. And I would be very unhappy, because my college has given me more joy than any other place I've been in my life ? including Germany itself from when I visited during an exchange program, which says a lot.

So it's a double edged sword. Free health care means higher taxes, reduced freedom for everyone as the price. Is it worth it?

I doubt a system as fully socialized as that in Germany and the rest of Europe could be instituted in the United States. America is too bound to what it's been doing for so long that it would take a war (as with Germany) to change its foundations so drastically. More than that, it would require such an upheaval just to make it work at all, to start from scratch.

On Mars, as Dr. Zubrin notes, we will create a new government that will be yet another "noble experiment". I would advocate true and total democracy for Mars ? every citizen voting on every issue every day as if they themselves were Congressmen ? but not for America. The sad truth is that people simply aren't educated enough or priveledged enough to have access to all the information (internet) and resources (computers) that are required for every person in such a society for it to work. That kind of change to the US, to the world, can only happen if something true and wonderful like that is proven on Mars first, and then brought back home to us, just as Europe was representationally democracized after the US proved it could work.

Free heath care and other wonderful changes can't occur before they're proven through and through on the New World. And so, may we go there soon.

dicktice · 2003-09-14 11:59:26

Spider: To me, the New World means Canada, where health care is available to everyone here, merely by presenting your Health Card--to your own family doctor, any hospital reception or emergency room. Drugs are something else, but generics are available less expensive alternatives to the name brands. You don't pay just to enter a hospital or clinic. Your taxes go into the pool, and hopefully you won't ever get to use the service. But if you do, you can breath easy because it's not going to ruin you--see?
By the way, our health plan is better in some ways than Sweden's even, regarding freedom to choose where to go and who to see, which I found quite amazing.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-14 12:21:26

I'd love it if we could emulate that, Dick. But making those changes is quite hard for our economic system as it is. We don't like taxes, and never did historically. And higher taxes means a weaker economy.

Take your pick.

Byron · 2003-09-14 13:46:03

But making those changes is quite hard for our economic system as it is. We don't like taxes, and never did historically. And higher taxes means a weaker economy.

First of all, please allow me to compliment you on your thoughtful and illuminating post concerning the German educational system. Those nasty tests do sound a bit scary..lol.

But getting back to what I was saying before...I think our economy is sagging precisely because of our existing economic system. Employers are unable to hire new / additional employees because of staggering increases in the cost of health care premiums, and they are currently faced with the dire choice of providing cost-of-living increases in pay versus paying the vastly higher health care premiums...often choosing the latter, as workers would surely have a revolt if they lost their insurance coverage en masse. If the cost of health care continues rising at the rate it is now, this nation will end up devoting so much of its GDP (it's already the highest of the entire world) that the rest of the economy would surely collaspe under the weight of such incredibly high health care costs (especially if the gov't requires hospitals to charge the "noninsured" the same rates they charge the insured, which will, of course, increase the cost to these health care plans even further.)

Also, anyone that's studied basic economic principals know that a free market only works if its truly "free." That means that in order for the U.S. health care system to work in the same fashion as the rest of the capitalistic economy, you would have to eliminate the portion of the U.S. health care system that is socialized, namely the incredibly massive Medicare and Medicaid programs, which covers something like a third of the entire U.S. population. This situation causes long-term distortions in the marketplace, which pushes costs to intolerably high levels over the long run (this will become even more evident when the Baby Boomers start becoming eligible for Medicare in the next few years.)

Becuase of this unfortunate fact, I feel the U.S. will have no choice but to federalize the health care system as a whole, especially when companies start buckling under the crushing load of soaring health care premiums.

So which is the better of the two options - higher taxes in the short term, which would reduce labor costs, and therefore result in a lower unemployment rate, or keeping our taxes low and throwing millions of people out of work? Our unemployment rates may be currently lower than that of Germany at this time, but I do not think this will remain true in the years ahead unless major changes are made here in the U.S.

And besides, if lower taxes promote a healthier economy, why then, has our economy been faltering for the past 3 years in spite of Mr. Bush's huge tax cuts? I will be highly grateful to anyone that can answer this pressing question.

I do agree with you, Spiderman, that making major changes is hard on the economy, and because of this, I'm fully aware that these changes will not occur until things get so bad that we have *no choice* but to implement these changes. So I guess we'll just have to sit back and wait and see what happens in the years ahead...

B

Byron · 2003-09-15 05:07:44

Spider: To me, the New World means Canada, where health care is available to everyone here, merely by presenting your Health Card--to your own family doctor, any hospital reception or emergency room. Drugs are something else, but generics are available less expensive alternatives to the name brands. You don't pay just to enter a hospital or clinic. Your taxes go into the pool, and hopefully you won't ever get to use the service. But if you do, you can breath easy because it's not going to ruin you--see?
By the way, our health plan is even better in some ways than Sweden's even, regarding freedom to choose where to go and who to see, which I found quite amazing.

Hey Dicktice, I was having a debate with one of my friends last night about the need for the U.S. to change its medical system, and he insisted that Canada's system is worse than the U.S. as you have to wait months and months just to get in to see a doctor, and that people are coming across the border to have surgeries that they can't get at home in Canada. Would you be so kind as to help refute these claims? (Which I beleive are mistaken, as far as that goes.) I know every universal care system has its flaws, but surely it's not as bad as so many people in the U.S. claim it to be.... ??? When I explained to him that the Medicare program will eventually bankrupt the entire system because of economic distortions...he did say that "is going to be a huge problem." Well, if it's gonna be such a "huge problem," what's the solution? He didn't offer me any...

I did see one thing that heartened me in the paper (which, as always, continues to be a prime source of early-morning entertainment.)

Quote from Sun-Sentinel, 9-15-03 --> "Facing budget-busting increases in prescription drug bills, the governor of Illinois took the first step Sunday toward purchasing lower-cost medications from Canada, a move that puts in direct conflict with federal drug regulators and signals a dramatic escalation in the civil war over U.S. drug prices.
What began a decade ago with busloads of senior citizens trekking across the border in search of cheaper medicines has mushroomed into a nationwide rebellion. It has spread from small, nonprofit groups to the private sector, and now, to local and state officials who are defiantly ignorning warnings by the Bush administration and the pharmaceutical industry that drug reimportation is dangerous and illegal." -->

"Civil war"? "rebellion"? That sounds like pretty strong language to me...lol Let's bring on the revolution in this (Dis)United States of America!

Sometimes you just have to love life for what it is...and as always, just when things start to really suck, hope springs forth from over the horizon....

Anyone care to sing "Oh Canada" with me? :;):

B

clark · 2003-09-15 09:20:51

All universal health care systems, or private one for that matter, are giant pyramid schemes. Their stability is derived by preventing use of the system by a large number of the population group.

Think about this for a minute. We have a system that can only work if most people don't use the system. Costs stay down if say only 1 person out of 100 uses the system. The 100 people end up subsidizing the 1 person using the system. Now, say 10 people use the system- well, now it costs more becuase 100 people are subsidizing 10 people (but each person requires the same amount of resources, so there is either less to go around, or we each pay more to ensure that all 10 get the same care).

Simple math here so far.

Now, let's push that up to 30 out of 100. Or how about 50 out of 100. As more people use the system, less resources are available for everyone. Or, if you want to ensure the same level of care for eveyone, then everyone has to pay more.

Notice all of those warnings and studies on the various health effects of our lifestyles? There is a real economic reason for these warnings. Here is the result.

Now, let's couple this realization with a large aging population (some call it the Baby Boom) that will by neccessity, require more health care for ailments. Also couple this with our technological and scientific ability to extend life far beyond that which the body is capable of providing.

I would be dead if I was born 100 years ago. Medical science has allowed a stay of execution. Now, some people will still require more pills, or more surgery, throughout their life, in order to survive. More and more people use the science to extend life becuase we as a society are getting better at it, it becomes more available, and really, in an equal society, no one should be denied.

Here is the result.

I for one don't think universal health care is the answer. It won't fix anything. It can't, becuase it address's the wrong problems.

For the system, as conceived, to work, we would need to always have more healthy working people than not.

Demographic predictions for the future do not bode well for any industrilized country in this respect.

Are there comprimise solutions? Sure, but none of them are perfect. Every comprimise is still built on the same faulty system of a pyramid scheme. Copayments and other novelties are merely a means to reduce use of the system and/or try to expand profit margins where possible (remember, most HMO's are a business, but not all!)

You're really going to have to think outside the box to solve this one.

Byron · 2003-09-15 10:14:00

You're really going to have to think outside the box to solve this one.

Well, I'm trying... Does anyone out there have any ideas that might work? I, for one, would love to hear you share it with us.

However, my take is that the "evils" of universal medicine are fewer than that of "private" medicine, for the simple reason that the costs are spread out over the population (in the form of universal taxes, unfortunately.) In my current situation, I have ZERO access to health care, except for what tiny bit I could manage out-of-pocket. (Please refer back to 1st post to see how that would work.)

Yes, I am practicing better health than I was a few years ago when I did have health insurance...because I must. I excercise regularly, I watch what I eat, I avoid common vices such as alcohol (as much as I can!) and I now practice better safety in my daily activities, such as mowing the lawn or driving a car. Otherwise, I just hope and pray that nothing *major* happens to me, healthwise...

B

Post Edit: To be fair, I should mention that I do have access to treatment for my asthma condition in the form of participating in professional studies...but this sort of thing doesn't last forever, or always work. That's why I'm crossing my fingers that the current treatment I'm on will "reverse" my chronic condition...if the side effects don't kill me first... j/k.. Actually, I'm doing quite well with it at the moment, so I guess you could consider this a case of "thinking outside the box," although I prefer to it as "working the system." That's the cool thing about America these days...there's just so much out there that can be had if you're dedicated to "working the system"....

clark · 2003-09-15 10:28:45

Well, I'm trying...anyone have any ideas that might work?

I have some, but then, I'm the facist.

However, my take is that the "evils" of universal medicine are fewer than that of "private" medicine, for the simple reason that the costs are spread out over the population (in the form of universal taxes, unfortunately.)

It's still the same thing though. If you have 10,000 people in a private system, or 100,000,000 in a universal public system, the bills get paid the same exact way.

Now, you mentioned that you have changed your lifestyle since the loss of health care. Do you think you would so willingly make those changes, or even think about making those changes, if you didn't have a problem getting access to health care? Probably not. Now multiply that mindset by 100,000,000 and you see the problem.

In my current situation, I have ZERO access to health care, except for what tiny bit I could manage out-of-pocket.

Well, now we start getting into details. What kind of universal health care would be preferable? I would imagine one that cured any problem you might have, whenever you need it. That's the ideal, right?

What would eb the bare minimum? The one that cured, or mitigated any immediate problem. So they set the bones, but they don't teach you to walk again. That would be the minimum, right?

So where are we?

Well, we have state funded emergency and critical care wards. We have federal mandates (LOTS) that forbid an ER room from denying service based on pay (so they have to stabilize you before you pay). We have federal laws that require health care providers to work with patients in coming up with payment plans that don't break the bank. We have state funded clinics (not that those are the best mind you). We have state funded vaccinations. We have state funded prenatal care.

If something catastrophic did happen to you, then Medicare or Medicaid can be used to pay for services (how much, and what dependant upon your coverage).

But there are other ways to provide services without resorting to the for-profit model.

Can anyone name me a non-profit HMO?

Here is a hint, a European country is asking one of these Non-profit HMO's to help them with their National Health Care system.

clark · 2003-09-15 10:34:39

a related story:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 2028-8736r
By Ellen Beck
United Press International
Published 9/13/2003 8:00 AM

Analysis: Premium hikes no surprise

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 (UPI) -- No one should have been surprised to learn this past week that health insurance premiums rose 13.9 percent this year. Fair warning -- they will be moving up by double-digits next year, too.
It is the price for the "we want it all" American health care mentality.
The insurance industry is caught in the middle. Managed care cut costs but Americans did not like being told they could not have their full choice of doctors and hospitals, could not receive every conceivable treatment and technology, and could not enjoy their choice of drugs.
They did not like it even if it meant lower costs. In true, pass-the-buck fashion -- because employers pay the lion's share of insurance premiums -- employees, who share only a fraction of the costs, seemed to think their insurance bills were being paid by some premium fairy with a magic wand.
Managed care quickly ran out of ways to save money. It could not restrict utilization as much as it wanted to because of the consumer backlash. It also had trouble reining in physician contracts using penalty and bonus incentives. Worst of all, managed care plans were inundated by a tidal wave of prescription drug cost increases.
Insurers have abandoned many of these tactics, but in giving consumers what they have demanded, the companies have been passing along the additional costs to employers. In good economic times, employers were able to absorb these increases, but now more and more employers have been forced to raise employee contributions.
A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust found over the past three years, family coverage premiums for employees have increased almost 50 percent, from $1,619 to $2,412 -- about $200 per month.
Employers pay, on average, 73 percent of the cost of a family's health insurance policy -- which now averages about $9,068 a year -- putting it out of range for many self-employed workers.
In 2001, private health insurance plans paid out $496 billion of the nearly $1.4 trillion America spent on health care that year. Another $206 billion was spent by Americans out-of-pocket. Add to that the $242 billion spent on Medicare for seniors and $224 billion on Medicaid for the poor. Other public health care spending accounted for another $180 billion.
Yet for all that spending, 41 million people remain uninsured and the number is growing. Employer health care costs continue to rise and some small businesses can no longer afford to offer the benefit. Some companies -- albeit a small number -- have dropped health care coverage entirely but most will maintain it by passing on premium and co-pay increases to workers, a trend that eventually could force many low-wage workers to drop out because even the subsidized premiums will become too expensive.
More insurance plans now offer benefit tiers -- the better the coverage, the higher the premium or, in prescription plans, higher payments for brand name rather than generic drugs.
The poor and chronically ill are affected most of all. A monthly premium of $200, $20 co-pays for doctor visits and other services, $20 prescription co-pays and a $200-per-hospital-stay deductible add up. For example, consider a family of four that has 10 doctor visits per year ($200) plus $2,400 in insurance premiums, two monthly prescriptions ($480) and one hospital stay ($200). That's $3,280.
The federal poverty level for a family of four is $18,400 and more than 37 percent of American households have incomes under $35,000. Continued increases in health care costs are a major concern for these families.
There are no simple solutions and America has not yet reached consensus about its healthcare priorities and responsibilities across the board -- for the young, middle age, elderly, poor, disabled, uninsured and unemployed. Health care analysts say there needs to be a national discussion to sort out what the government's responsibility and contribution should be and what Americans need to provide for themselves.
There is a small but growing alarm, giving way to calls for Americans to consider a national health insurance program that would cover everyone. There are two schools of thought:
--The government should establish a one-payer system and
--Private insurance market principles should meld with government subsidies.
There also is the "disease management" theory, which says if health care providers can manage chronic illness better and prevent or contain illness and disease it will save money. But there is not a lot of evidence so far this is a workable approach.
Ultimately, there is no premium fairy, and healthcare's financial realities are forcing Americans to do what they did not want managed care to do for them: limit their access to health care services.

Byron · 2003-09-15 11:50:47

Well, I'm trying...anyone have any ideas that might work?
I have some, but then, I'm the facist.

Here's a "facist" idea for you...implement Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" plan ASAP. Better late than never, I say.

O.K...I've done my part...let's see you cough up some of the crazy ideas inside your head...as I actually thrive on diversity of opinion around here...

Can anyone name me a non-profit HMO?
Here is a hint, a European country is asking one of these Non-profit HMO's to help them with their National Health Care system.

Don't tease us Tell us, please...lol...

B

Post Edit: Also, Clark, can you tell me why you think a single-payer system wouldn't at least be more efficient than the system we have now? If a model of a non-profit HMO has been proven to work, why not just use that as a "standard model" for a unified health care plan?

clark · 2003-09-15 12:03:45

Here's a "facist" idea for you...implement Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" plan ASAP. Better late than never, I say.

Better Dead than Red, I says.

O.K...I've done my part...let's see you cough up some of the crazy ideas inside your head...as I actually thrive on diversity of opinion around here...

Impose taxes on all tobacco, alcoholic bevearages, fatty foods, and any other product that lead to greater instances of health problems. Those products included would be reviewed on an ongoing basis, and every 5 years would be reevaluated to see if any new medical or scientific evidence demonstrates that there is no longer a health consquence of the product. The money generated from this tax could only be used for providing health care for the general public.

I would also impose a copay system that reduces the amount of your personal copay provided you meet basic health plan guidelines, which would include mandatory check-ups once a year, mandatory vaccinations, mandatory flu shots, etc. Failure to comply leads to higher co-pay or premium rates, compliance leads to lower co-pay and/or premium rates.

Those with chronic illness must be involved with a system to manage their health problem, failure to do so leads to higher co-pay for the individual.

Knowingly tansmit an infectious disease, such as AIDS, Herepes, mono, etc, go to jail.

As for the Non-profit (as in NOT for profit) HMO, it is none other than Kaiser Permanente.

England is looking at how Kasier Permanente delivers care as a model for their own national health care system.

Byron · 2003-09-15 12:14:04

Impose taxes on all tobacco, alcoholic bevearages, fatty foods, and any other product that lead to greater instances of health problems. Those products included would be reviewed on an ongoing basis, and every 5 years would be reevaluated to see if any new medical or scientific evidence demonstrates that there is no longer a health consquence of the product. The money generated from this tax could only be used for providing health care for the general public.
I would also impose a copay system that reduces the amount of your personal copay provided you meet basic health plan guidelines, which would include mandatory check-ups once a year, mandatory vaccinations, mandatory flu shots, etc. Failure to comply leads to higher co-pay or premium rates, compliance leads to lower co-pay and/or premium rates.
Those with chronic illness must be involved with a system to manage their health problem, failure to do so leads to higher co-pay for the individual.
Knowingly tansmit an infectious disease, such as AIDS, Herepes, mono, etc, go to jail.

As for the Non-profit (as in NOT for profit) HMO, it is none other than Kaiser Permanente.
England is looking at how Kasier Permanente delivers care as a model for their own national health care system.

Well, you're not the first person to suggest this...

But these taxes would have to be raised to extremely high levels to force people to change their habits en masse. I myself would agree to these sort of taxes if the prices of healthy foods were greatly subsidized as well...as you really need to have the carrot to go along with the stick. However, I wouldn't shed any tears if every fast food restaurant (the burger 'n fries ones, anyhow) in the U.S. went out of business...we did just fine without them 50 years ago, and we'd do just fine (much better, actually) without them now.

As for your other ideas, I actually think they're quite good. I don't know about everyone else, but I could certainly agree to those type of stipulations. Especially the part about disease transmitters going to jail. I definately agree with that one...

B

clark · 2003-09-15 12:26:38

: Also, Clark, can you tell me why you think a single-payer system wouldn't at least be more efficient than the system we have now?

It's not a matter of effeciency, it's a matter of addressing the wrong problem with the wrong solution. As you yourself admitted, the loss of health coverage made you change your lifestyle- to one which will hopefully require less health coverage (you are in effect trying to live within your means). But regardless of effeciency, if we have just a single payer plan, then people lose an incentive to worry about their health. That alone will destroy any health care system you can imagine.

In America, people value their personal freedom and liberty above most else. They don't like it when the group says "do this". We have a gut reaction to hate anyone who mentions "do this, for your own good." Even if we know it's for our own good. But that is precisely what we have to do if we want socialized medicine to work.

Individual liberty must suffer for it to work. So where is the compromise?

The compromise exsists similar to our tax structure. Tax the fatty foods. Tax the sedentary life-style. Require check-ups, with fines imposed for missed ones. How much the fines should be, or for what can be determined by whoever we put in charge to make the system to work.

I would also suggest that everyone be required to give blood. That everyone automatically be an organ donor, with no opt outs.

Now with some of these thoughts out in the open, is this the world you want to live in?

???

Byron · 2003-09-15 12:39:51

Now with some of these thoughts out in the open, is this the world you want to live in?

I see exactly where you're coming from. However...this is exactly the kind of world I live in now...lol... I have to live within my means, so I have the motivation to lose weight, excercise, etc. Is this a good thing? I would have to say yes in that regard...I certainly don't mind looking and feeling better, and truthfully, I get far fewer colds and other minor illnesses I used to get in the "old days." However, the end result is the same...I didn't actually choose this...it was imposed on me by my particular set of economic circumstances. So much for freedom, huh?

I guess what I would really like to have is *catastropic* coverage for things like accidents, cancer, heart attacks, things of that nature. If we had a system that eliminated all health insurance for the "routine" stuff like doctor visits, but kept it for the "major" stuff...would that be enough to induce people to strive for better lifestyles? Or is Mr. Joe Blow On The Street just too ignorant / dumb to know any better?

It really doesn't look too good which way you slice the pie, does it?

The house of cards is starting to fall....

B

Byron · 2003-09-15 12:53:21

But regardless of effeciency, if we have just a single payer plan, then people lose an incentive to worry about their health. That alone will destroy any health care system you can imagine.

Just one question...if this it true (I'm not arguing that it isn't,) why hasn't the health care plans in places such as Canada collasped because of this?

Or do you think Canada and most other nations are about to face their "day of reckoning" with their respective health plans?

B

clark · 2003-09-15 12:55:10

However...this is exactly the kind of world I live in now...lol... I have to live within my means, so I have the motivation to lose weight, excercise, etc. Is this a good thing?

Yeah, but you're not being told when to see the doctor. "I'm feeling fine, but now I have to miss a day of work to go have a doctor tell me what I already know, or else I have to pay through the nose..." Or, "Man, i really want some fries, but I just can't handle the higher co-pay for those with high cholesterol..."

"Man, a 6 dollar burger costs 10 now!"

I guess what I would really like to have is *catastropic* coverage for things like accidents, cancer, heart attacks, things of that nature.

You have that now. If you have a heart attack, are you left in the street? If you get hit by a car, do you just bleed to death becuase you don't have insurance? No and no.

You go to any ER in the nation, and they CAN'T turn you away. It's against the law, and if they do, they are going to be sued into oblivion. Believe me, the system is on your side on this one.

Where it starts to break down though is on prevenative care. People without money for regular care will invariably save-up their ailments and do a "One visit for everything". So instead of getting that cough loooked at, early, they wait for it to develop into full blown phenumonia. Instead of getting that infection looked at, they wait until gangrene has set in, and amputation is the only option. Instead of getting that headache looked at, they wait until they have a whole slew of other problems, then go in, and the headache (which could be symoptomatic of neurological disorders) gets missed and is attributed to other ailments, which leads to a final breakdown of the patient...

If we had a system that eliminated all health insurance for the "routine" stuff like doctor visits, but kept it for the "major" stuff...would that be enough to induce people to strive for better lifestyles?

We still end up paying more becuase disease and ailments are cheaper and easier to deal with sooner rather than later. I don't think about the fatty fries until my diabetes or my heart attack- but at that point, we've lost (society viewpoint). I'm okay becuase I can get insulin for free now, or get my clogged artieris shunted. Then off to eat more fries I go...

Besides, what you just described is effectively the system you are railing against now. :;):

clark · 2003-09-15 12:57:44

Just one question...if this it true (I'm not arguing that it isn't,) why hasn't the health care plans in places such as Canada collasped because of this?
Or do you think Canada and most other nations are about to face their "day of reckoning" with their respective health plans?

All industrilized nations with a stagnant growth (or declining) population and an aging workforce will face this day of reckoning. It's the inherent problem of any pyramid that requires an expanding base to support an ever increasing top.

Byron · 2003-09-15 13:02:31

Besides, what you just described is effectively the system you are railing against now.

Just trying to look at all sides of the issue here...lol

Ever get the feeling we're stuck on a merry-go-round that we can't get off of?

B

Edit...well, it's time for my daily bout of excercise...gotta do my part, you know... :;):

clark · 2003-09-15 13:07:57

I agree!:D

Like I said, it's going to take some out of the box thinking to come up with a real solution.

dicktice · 2003-09-15 16:16:13

Anyone:
How up-tight of you (you know who you all are)! Here in Nova Scotia, a Provence of Canada (you know, like, a State?), if I fall sick tonight (not likely, but if I do) I drive (hopefully I can do that, being single) to the community hospital and present my Health Card, whereupon the emergency clinic doc looks me over and determines if I need to stay, prescribes, sends me home to return to see a specialist tomorrow if necessary. If I feel poorly tomorrow, I drop into my family doc's office where they have my Health Card number on file, for the same. In either case, the waiting time is minimal. If minor surgery, like a surface tumour that needs to be removed and sent to be diagnosed for malignancy (like I had last year), either he if he is on duty at the evening clinic, or one of his two colleagues, will do you that same evening if necessary. The report naturally takes time, and he informs you a week or so later (mine was, but he had got it all, so no worries). I was diagnosed as needing cataract lens implants, and since I could still drive (not an emergency) I waited about three months for the first eye, and one month later had the other eye done. No charge for rigid lenses to be inserted, $200 each for flesible ones, which the specialist recommended.) They do it on an assembly-line basis, and it takes 20 minutes, not including two hours before and one hour after. The doc wheels you in himself. It was fun!Since I had been wearing glasses since early primary school (ooh, I can see the leaves on the trees, mummy!) they eliminated my myopia at the same time, and now I can see like a kid without glasses. Now I am able to fly gliders without the damn things, which my license stated before that I had to wear while flying. If I dropped 'em I wouldn't have been able to land, see?--so I wore another pair on a string around my neck. Every time I need a shot for 'flu, pheumonia, or whatever, I get it the moment I enter the office of my GP, and I never see a bill because I possess a Nova Scotia Health Card. I pay for the card with my Provencial Income Tax...a nominal fee I don't even notice. I could have done any of the above, anywhere in Canada. No charge for appearing on the doorstep of the hospital, which I simply cannot imagine what it would be like, since I'm a fixed income pensioner! (You poor guys, south of the border.) Naturally, the more serious (and costly to perform) health needs take more time: such as a liver, kidney, heart or lung implant (I can't believe I'm writing this) but, how many of us poor saps need that done? I'm glad to contribute. What it all means is: I'm relieved of any financial worries about whether I can afford to visit any care giver in this blessed country. I think I'm healthier being relieved of this worry, and have gone to any doc only for my 'flu shot and athlete's foot prescription, this year. What's that up-tight guy talkin' aboot, eh? In a country where "Liberal" and "Socialist" (whatever they mean) are dirty words.... Maybe that's the answer, misunderstandings with an agenda? By the way, I'm 78, going-on 77 next time, because I feel so healthy. When they stop telling me I don't look that old, I'll start counting up again. Now, what-say we get get back to discussing these great Mars topics?

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-15 16:23:41

dicktice, that was a good post, it's good to have someone of your wisdom here.

Byron · 2003-09-16 05:38:01

dicktice, that was a good post, it's good to have someone of your wisdom here.

I second that, Josh...

Dicktice...let's just say that you're very lucky to be living in a country that takes such good care of its citizens...

B

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-09-14 06:46:38

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#2 2003-09-14 10:14:13

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#3 2003-09-14 10:29:16

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#4 2003-09-14 11:47:14

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#5 2003-09-14 11:59:26

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#6 2003-09-14 12:21:26

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#7 2003-09-14 13:46:03

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#8 2003-09-15 05:07:44

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#9 2003-09-15 09:20:51

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#10 2003-09-15 10:14:00

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#11 2003-09-15 10:28:45

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#12 2003-09-15 10:34:39

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#13 2003-09-15 11:50:47

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#14 2003-09-15 12:03:45

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#15 2003-09-15 12:14:04

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#16 2003-09-15 12:26:38

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#17 2003-09-15 12:39:51

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#18 2003-09-15 12:53:21

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#19 2003-09-15 12:55:10

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#20 2003-09-15 12:57:44

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#21 2003-09-15 13:02:31

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#22 2003-09-15 13:07:57

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#23 2003-09-15 16:16:13

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#24 2003-09-15 16:23:41

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#25 2003-09-16 05:38:01

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

Board footer