[peeb]

crappy post timing issue

[peeb]

So, you state that 'logically' governments should control some things, but you don't spell out your logic. What is the logical difference between these statements:
1) The government/city planner in a central location is much better equipped and enabled to handle road development.
2) The government/education planner in a central location is much better equipped and enabled to handle school development.
3) The government/healthcare planner in a central location is much better equipped and enabled to handle healthcare development.
4) The government/public health / epidemiologist in a central location is much better equipped and enabled to handle contagious epidemic planning?
Privacy? What makes you think that corporations are more careful with your healthcare data than governments, or that data being held by corporations is not available to governments?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I notice that you haven't responded to the facts on litigation expenses, but, moving on, I was not insulting your education level, but commenting on the lack of knowledge most Americans show when discussing these things. The point is not whether or not some things should be socialized, but the fact that Americans don't seem to know that many things are socialized, or be able to intelligently explain why they think some things should and others should not. Their arguments boil down to what you just said - "I want some things to be, and other things not to be, but I don't know why." That's why I think it is an issue with education.

I already discussed the some/some not argument earlier in the thread. There are logically some things the government should control. As I mentioned, roads are an excellent example. The government/city planner in a central location is much better equipped and enabled to handle road development. Nowhere did I say "...but I don't know why." Please don't put words in my mouth. I think more people than you think have an innate understanding of why the government should control some things and not others. Privacy is a big factor in all of this. It relates to health care, but definitely not roads.

[Big Mac]

People may want to take a look at MTV's response to Sicko:

'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder - Movie News Story | MTV Movie News

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

"Sicko" Presents False View of Cuba's Health System

The Real Cuba

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

That's part of the reform package, that no person be denied. We don't know the specifics yet, but when you look at the business side of this idea it makes sense for insurance companies to be involved at such a wide level because the majority of insured people don't make claims. The companies make their profit, everyone has insurance and can get healthcare if they need it, and government is eased of a burden.

As for being denied, even a national heath service doctor can deny you treatment (and they do). In many cases treatment will take a long time and can be poor. Try getting injured on a Friday night in the UK and you'll find yourself waiting for hours to see a doctor as they have to deal with one drunk after another with minor or no problems. Even worse are immigrants who go to hospital for relatively minor problems, like stomach ache because they eat too much spicy food, and are unable to understand what the doctor is saying (don't eat spicy food). The UK's national health service is slow, cumbersome, poor and on the verge of bankrupcy. Michael Moore presents it in a completely opposite light where you go there, are given high quality service quickly, and can withdraw welfare cash from the hospital like it's all yours for the taking.

And this is different from the US system how? At least in the UK you won't get hit with a $15,000 hospital bill for an accident. Something you can never pay back. Something that goes on your credit reports, which ruins all chances of getting a credit card, mortgage, line of credit, etc etc etc.

The national health care system is the best one.

[Spliffdaddy]

HAHAHAHAHA. You'd be truly blessed to have no access to credit. But that's not really the point. The point is that money has no impact on the happiness of a life. Frankly, I'd be thrilled to have my health restored and get a bill for it. Besides, I'm 100% certain I would have already paid more than $15,000 in "universal healthcare" taxes under your utopian scheme. Folks, the government is not the answer. And, honestly, nobody has explained exactly what the problem is...six pages later. So tell me what the problem is. Are US citizens being denied necessary medical care? Of course not. Are healthcare costs high? Sure they are. But the same people who subsidize the non-payers will simply continue to do the same thing under a "universal healthcare" program. Hell, in the US we provide heathcare to folks who are in the country ILLEGALLY. You can't find many countries that do that.

So what's the problem? What needs fixed?

I've been bankrupt before. It was the best thing that ever happened to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

HAHAHAHAHA. You'd be truly blessed to have no access to credit. But that's not really the point. The point is that money has no impact on the happiness of a life. Frankly, I'd be thrilled to have my health restored and get a bill for it. Besides, I'm 100% certain I would have already paid more than $15,000 in "universal healthcare" taxes under your utopian scheme. Folks, the government is not the answer. And, honestly, nobody has explained exactly what the problem is...six pages later. So tell me what the problem is. Are US citizens being denied necessary medical care? Of course not. Are healthcare costs high? Sure they are. But the same people who subsidize the non-payers will simply continue to do the same thing under a "universal healthcare" program. Hell, in the US we provide heathcare to folks who are in the country ILLEGALLY. You can't find many countries that do that.

So what's the problem? What needs fixed?

I've been bankrupt before. It was the best thing that ever happened to me.

The problem that needs to be fixed is simple: health care needs to be more accessible so that there isn't such an astounding number of Americans that are uninsured. Whether we do this by lowering costs somehow, expanding Medicare/Medicaid, tweaking what we have, I don't care, but the problem needs to be rectified one way or another.

I just personally think that a profit driven business is fundamentally broken and that our best bet is to either heavily regulate this market, or else publicly fund the system.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem that needs to be fixed is simple: health care needs to be more accessible so that there isn't such an astounding number of Americans that are uninsured. Whether we do this by lowering costs somehow, expanding Medicare/Medicaid, tweaking what we have, I don't care, but the problem needs to be rectified one way or another.

I just personally think that a profit driven business is fundamentally broken and that our best bet is to either heavily regulate this market, or else publicly fund the system.

If we could lower the costs, there wouldnt be this whole debate. Health insurance is great until they deny your claim. I recently got stung by a mantaray on my honeymoon in Mexico, I brough all the paperwork back with me to submit a claim, but it was denied. It didnt bother me since it was $100, but what if the next time its a broken limb, head trauma, car accident etc... Health insurance isnt all that its cracked up to be.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem that needs to be fixed is simple: health care needs to be more accessible so that there isn't such an astounding number of Americans that are uninsured.

It wasn't long ago that 100% of Americans were uninsured. I still don't understand why it's a problem if 20% of Americans are uninsured. Heck, that means 80% of Americans HAVE insurance. That's astounding. I wish 80% of licensed drivers had insurance.
Health care is accessible regardless of whether you're insured or not. If you can't afford health insurance now, then how can you afford to buy it from the government? Wouldn't it be necessary for other citizens to buy it for those who cannot afford it? You know, kinda like how they subsidize the current citizens that do not pay their medical bills. I fail to understand how a federally-mandated insurance program will make any difference.
Like any other type of insurance, there are different policies to choose from. Would you be satisfied with an inexpensive medical insurance policy that pays, let's say, 50% of the cost of your treatment? Or maybe a "major medical" policy that covers expenses in excess of the first $15,000 of charges? Wouldn't something like that prevent bankruptcy due to medical bills? I can tell you from personal experience that pretty much nobody (and no government) can afford a health insurance policy that pays 100% of your medical bills without restriction. The only policies you see that cover 100% of costs are HMOs. And they don't allow you to choose just any doctor. You choose from a list of 'in-network' doctors - (and the one you choose will very often not participate next year.) and all treatment must be pre-approved.
When people tell me 20% of Americans are uninsured, I would like to know just what sort of policies the other 80% have. I can pretty much guarantee that most of those 80% are still paying for some of the medical expenses. And the ones who aren't have given away their freedom of choice by joining an HMO.

Whether we do this by lowering costs somehow, expanding Medicare/Medicaid, tweaking what we have, I don't care, but the problem needs to be rectified one way or another.

I would hesitate to enact any sort of price controls on any industry. The marketplace should determine what a product or service is worth. And, really, when human beings do not directly have to pay for a product or service then "the marketplace" never gets a chance to influence the prices. I mean, do you care if your auto insurance has to pay $16,000 to fix your wrecked car when they could have paid $6,000? Would *you* pay $5 for a Tylenol capsule? Do you care if Blue Cross pays it on your behalf?
I'm going to be totally serious....medical care would be as inexpensive as possible if NOBODY had medical insurance. If we all paid cash then there would exist no beaurocracy, no claims adjusters, no middle-men to add to the cost of medical care. Everybody would, indeed, have a problem with paying $5 for a Tylenol capsule.
I would like to see the medical community be accountable for their charges. And I'd like to see citizens be more accountable for their own health and lifestyle. Giving people 'free' healthcare would be the absolute worst way to fix the alleged problems you mention. There would be no incentive for hospitals and doctors to charge less - and there would be no incentive for citizens to be more responsible for their own health.

I just personally think that a profit driven business is fundamentally broken and that our best bet is to either heavily regulate this market, or else publicly fund the system.

I hope you understand why I believe those 'solutions' won't fix the 'problem'.

In my estimation, we are guaranteed to do more harm than good as long as we believe that the government can somehow do things better than we, as individuals, can do. The cost of medical care can only increase if we add a layer of government mandates to the mix. Our current system does not exclude anybody from getting necessary medical care. The 'problem', if any, does not require immediate (and ultimately stupid) solutions based on government intervention. Next time you're at the DMV, take a long look around and ask yourself if government is efficient and cost-effective.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

If we could lower the costs, there wouldnt be this whole debate. Health insurance is great until they deny your claim. I recently got stung by a mantaray on my honeymoon in Mexico, I brough all the paperwork back with me to submit a claim, but it was denied. It didnt bother me since it was $100, but what if the next time its a broken limb, head trauma, car accident etc... Health insurance isnt all that its cracked up to be.

I am curious to know why they denied it? This illustrates the point- even people who have insurance are constantly being denied for totally bogus reasons.

[Spliffdaddy]

It would be unusual for a US-based insurance company to cover any medical costs from foreign providers. Travel agents and cruise lines make this point very clear. You either need to purchase a different policy that covers you during your travels - or you need to purchase a 'rider' from your existing insurance provider.

Even auto insurance works the same way. While some US insurers cover your car while driving in Canada, practically none of them cover your car in Mexico. In fact, it is illegal to drive a car in Mexico unless you purchase insurance from a Mexican company - regardless of whether your US-based insurer already covers you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

It wasn't long ago that 100% of Americans were uninsured. I still don't understand why it's a problem if 20% of Americans are uninsured. Heck, that means 80% of Americans HAVE insurance. That's astounding. I wish 80% of licensed drivers had insurance.

We can do better Spliffdaddy, unless you think that the world's leading superpower should lag behind several other countries in this department.

Health care is accessible regardless of whether you're insured or not. If you can't afford health insurance now, then how can you afford to buy it from the government?

Firstly, running a publicly funded system is cheaper than a private system like we have now. Secondly, when the government is billed for expenses they have the luxury of being able to regulate things like the $5 or $6 dollar asprin they'll disperse at the hospital and add to your bill. Thirdly, when this is just a part of your taxes, this is just something you add to your cost of living. Salaries are adjusted to meet these costs of living. This form of payment is much less than having to deal with a crippling blow of an unexpected illness at an inopportune time. Fourthly, the annual premium is $300-900. Spread out over 12 months, is this an outlandish expense? Granted, you would have to pay for your dental and optometry and stuff, but still...

Wouldn't it be necessary for other citizens to buy it for those who cannot afford it? You know, kinda like how they subsidize the current citizens that do not pay their medical bills. I fail to understand how a federally-mandated insurance program will make any difference.

I'm not sure where your confusion lies, but to answer your question, yes, such a program is publicly funded, so you are paying for other people's expenses, indirectly. We are already doing this with the Medicaid/Medicare programs, with welfare, with public education, etc.

Like any other type of insurance, there are different policies to choose from. Would you be satisfied with an inexpensive medical insurance policy that pays, let's say, 50% of the cost of your treatment?

I would be satisfied with an inexpensive and comprehensive plan that I could feel confident about submitting claims to where they couldn't weasel out of fulfilling my claim. I would also like to cut out all of this HMO crap, in and out of network stuff, etc. if I could.

I can tell you from personal experience that pretty much nobody (and no government) can afford a health insurance policy that pays 100% of your medical bills without restriction.

And that is the problem. While 100% might be a tall order, anywhere in the ball park would be great.

The only policies you see that cover 100% of costs are HMOs. And they don't allow you to choose just any doctor. You choose from a list of 'in-network' doctors - (and the one you choose will very often not participate next year.) and all treatment must be pre-approved.

Which is why I find the whole "ohhh.. you can't choose your doctors in Canada" thing not only ignorant, but rather funny.

When people tell me 20% of Americans are uninsured, I would like to know just what sort of policies the other 80% have.

Where are you getting these numbers from, just out of curiosity?

I would hesitate to enact any sort of price controls on any industry. The marketplace should determine what a product or service is worth.

Why don't we privatize our schools, fire, and police departments then? What would the downsides be?

Would *you* pay $5 for a Tylenol capsule?

I would if I was hospitalized and didn't happen to have some spare Tylenol on me, unfortunately.

I would like to see the medical community be accountable for their charges. And I'd like to see citizens be more accountable for their own health and lifestyle. Giving people 'free' healthcare would be the absolute worst way to fix the alleged problems you mention. There would be no incentive for hospitals and doctors to charge less - and there would be no incentive for citizens to be more responsible for their own health.

I agree whole heartedly that citizens neglect their own health as a whole. However, there are plenty who don't and have still suffered from the glaring weaknesses of our current health system.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

If we could lower the costs, there wouldnt be this whole debate. Health insurance is great until they deny your claim. I recently got stung by a mantaray on my honeymoon in Mexico, I brough all the paperwork back with me to submit a claim, but it was denied. It didnt bother me since it was $100, but what if the next time its a broken limb, head trauma, car accident etc... Health insurance isnt all that its cracked up to be.

I agree! If lower costs and controlling health insurance was possible, our problem would be solved as far as I'm concerned. However, with regards to the latter, I just don't see it is realistic to expect this to happen. Health insurance companies are in the business to make money. That is what they do, that is their reason for existing, and that is what their shareholders expect. They have no interest in accepting claims like yours, because why on Earth would they want to?

[Spliffdaddy]

I discovered some very interesting statistics relating to what medical care costs in the US. Granted, this is from 2003, so it's safe to assume these figures are at least 30-40% higher today.

This is how the cost would break down at a 'per capita' rate - meaning a family of four would use approximately 4X the $3,729 figure. And this figure is arrived at by simply dividing the annual cost of healthcare amongst the entire population - AND - eliminating all waste and fraud. There is no possibility that the US could provide a $900 annual premium for universal healthcare. Besides the fact that Canadian businesses also include a payroll tax - which is, in effect, paid for by the workers through lower overall wages.

"The "bottom-line" per capita cost of $3,729 is a 25 per cent reduction from what is projected for 2003. It is still more than 50 per cent higher than Germany's, the G7 nation with the 2nd highest per capita cost, but it is a big improvement and far more affordable. We can't achieve this just by shifting costs to insured employees, though that will help. We can't do it by breaking the back of pharmaceutical companies and risk killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

What we can do is evaluate all that we do in our ICUs and ERs and stop doing it if there is not "value added" and use case management for all high cost patients. That will take a lot of understanding and acceptance by everyone. "

Translated: "we'll send away anybody at the ER that does not have an emergency...and we'll have to stop trying to save the lives of patients that are likely to die anyway"

The most interesting aspect of this article was *where* we spend all the $1.4 trillion (a figure from 2003). I think you might be shocked.

" The Rand study cited above also showed that out of pocket expenses had no impact on the utilization of inpatient services and health care costs were not evenly spread across the population. Ten per cent of the population accounted for about 75 per cent of costs, and 20 per cent of the population accounted for about 85 per cent of costs. Reports in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) publications 00-0024 and 00-0026 show that in 1996, 86 per cent of the U.S. population had medical expenses. While the average expense per person was about $2,400, half of all people with medical expenses spent less than $559 on health care. The same year, hospital inpatient stays made up the largest share of national health expenses (38 per cent), followed by ambulatory services from both physicians and non-physician providers (33 per cent).

Most Americans have low health care expenditures, and shifting more of the costs for office visits and prescription drugs to them is not going to have a large impact on total health care costs. The greatest opportunity for reducing America's health care costs is in lowering the amount spent on the top 20 per cent of users and especially the top 10 per cent. With total health care spending in 2003 predicted to reach $1.4 trillion, about $1.05 trillion will be spent on just 10 per cent of the population while another $140 billion will be spent on the next 10 per cent. "

Seems to me that 10% of the population consumes pretty much all the healthcare services. I was wondering why I never spend more than $400 per year on healthcare (all on contact lenses and optometry).

It looks to me like a universal healthcare program in the US would cost me an additional $3,000 per year over what I would normally spend. And a family of four would be paying roughly $15,000 per year. When I was employed by AT&T they provided me with an insurance policy that cost them over $5,000 per year. So, from what I can tell, it appears that the cost of 'universal healthcare' would cost pretty much what it does right now. Probably an average of $5,000 for each individual that can afford to pay. Since not everybody can afford to pay. As it stands we're already subsidizing those that cannot pay - and nonody is refused necessary treatment. The only thing that would change if we had 'universal healthcare' would be the fact that 100% of Americans would have insurance. No problem would be solved, in actuality. And worse...the liberals would move on to the next 'non-problem' in an effort to give the government more control over our lives, for no reason.

Almost half (well, roughly 43%) of the population only pays $559 or less - annually for their total medical expenses. So lets create a government program that forces them to pay $5,000. Makes perfect sense. not. (EDIT; that figure was from 1996, but you get the point. All of these figures are far higher today, but the ratios and percentages are likely similar)

full text of above referenced article > U.S. Medicine Information Central

[Spliffdaddy]

Notes, and further discussion

We already have universal healthcare for all citizens over 65. I assume the figures given for per-capita expenses include Medicare.

Also, noteworthy is something I've never considered before. Different countries have different cultures. In the US we are probably far more likely to spend time and effort to prolong the life of somebody who would not live much longer - and would have a poor quality of life. Other countries may have more 'sympathy' for the dying and react like they would for themselves if in the same situation...that is, die with dignity. Americans always think they're immortal. So we spend tons of money to keep a dying unconscious person alive for 72 more hours...just to prove we're Godlike.

Here's an interesting read.
The Health Care Blog: POLICY: Oh Canada

It dispels pretty much all the mythology surrounding Canadian healthcare. I found the following quote to be quite stereotypical of Canadian attitudes ...

It is worth pointing out that the other 99% of Canadian doctors didn't believe that doubling their salary was enough to compensate for the associated unpleasantness of having to move to the US!

heh. bastards. Ya know what? I bet Canadians probably spend 80% of their income on healthcare. They just refuse to admit it to anybody because they want to appear to do just ONE THING better than Americans.

[besson3c]

Spliff,

I can just see the gears turning in your head. I suggest that while you research this stuff, you look for a wider range of opinions and information rather than stuff that just reaffirms your preconceptions.

Ask yourself why health care in this country would cost as much as you think it does. One reason is that our current prices are inflated out of profit-driven determination. See if you can figure out how much this stuff *really* costs.

[Big Mac]

Besson, why don't you take some of your own advice? You don't have substantive responses to Spliff's points or anyone else's on the other side of this debate - all you have is rhetoric.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Here's an interesting read.
The Health Care Blog: POLICY: Oh Canada

Okay, finally got around to reading some of these links. This is indeed a great read, good find Spliffdaddy!

I do agree that this seems to be a pretty objective look at both systems, and I do agree that it is foolish to assume that one system is perfect while the other is flawed. There are tradeoffs to both, and legitimate reasons to be on other side of these tradeoffs.

A lot of Canadians are very proud of their system, possibly because this is something that differentiates themselves from their southern neighbor, and something that is quite attractive to many of them. However, some refuse the acknowledge the problems with their system.

On the other hand, like I've said before, Americans have some ridiculous assumptions about Canada's system and are blinded by some of their own ideology. When they make assertions like Canadians can't choose their own doctors, they fail to realize that in many ways the same holds true here.

The tradeoffs, according to this guy's summary, are as follows:

Canada

- less access to bleeding edge medical stuff that is "rationed" by the government
- longer waits for things such as elective surgery

US

- high costs
- low accessibility
- complications and difficulties with insurance companies
- inequality

I think this list is pretty fair... So, the question is, which set of tradeoffs are more desirable to you?

I'd say Canada, because to me in order to improve or "fix" Canada's problems, you'd have to fund programs better so that there are no significant wait times and people have access to the kinds of treatments they desire. To "fix" America's problems you'd have to:

- lower costs across the board

- provide stricter standards so that insurance companies can't back out of claims, perhaps providing legal counsel for citizens to challenge denials in a way that is accessible for Joe six pack to tap into. What would the costs of this be?

- either get a lot of buy-in to lower cost insurance or make it manditory so that it has enough customers to sustain itself (the way any company turns a profit by lowering its price is by increasing its number of sales).

Like the article points out, there are cultural differences here, and it would take a lot to get a lot of American buy in no matter which way you take this. However, I'd say that America's system would be much harder to fix... Some might say it is fundamentally broken.

This is what I think an objective and reasonable conclusion to all of this, any holes in my reasoning?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Besson, why don't you take some of your own advice? You don't have substantive responses to Spliff's points or anyone else's on the other side of this debate - all you have is rhetoric.

See my last post, just needed some time to digest everything.

[Spliffdaddy]

I wonder if the USA is actually helping to keep healthcare costs lower in other countries. Nearly all of the new technology is researched and developed here - and mostly that's done in university settings. Several years ago I was fortunate enough to have an inside look at the development of 'Cyber Knife' which is an "image guided" thingy that makes impossible surgical operations more possible. Stanford University and their Medical Center played a huge role. Today, you can find this technology all over the world. It wasn't so much a "machine" that could be manufactured and sold (but you can buy a machine that does it) - but more like a technology that utilized several other already existing technologies. So it would be rather simple for anyone to copy it. The cost of developing this 'image guided' doohickey was very high. As far as I know, none of the people involved with its creation made any profit directly from its sale.
Stuff like that wouldn't go away if we limit the profit potential in the healthcare fields (though a good part of the financing for such endeavors would disappear). But how many other breakthroughs would never happen? A lot of the world depends on the USA to continue developing and testing new medical technology. That sort of thing is not inexpensive. Anytime you have the latest greatest newfangled device - you paid top dollar for it. Last year's latest and greatest thing costs a lot less. see also, iPhone. For every successful new technology there were 99 other failed efforts. All of those efforts cost money. Pharmaceutical companies are a good example of this fact, too.
If Toyota were to develop and build just *one* new vehicle, what would they have to sell that vehicle for in order to make a profit? $100billion? But you could copy that vehicle (China) for a fraction of the cost.
All I know for sure is that none of us here at MacNN have the knowledge to 'fix' the alleged 'problems' with healthcare in the US. It seems rather obvious that any change that's made will result in an unintended sacrifice somewhere else. Too many things are linked together and those links aren't usually obvious. I think the simple answer lies in the willingness of each individual to be more responsible for their own health. Making better lifestyle choices would go a long way toward minimizing the need for medical care. Hold on a second, let me light another cigarette. Just finished eating a country ham sandwich.

[peeb]

Canada

- less access to bleeding edge medical stuff that is "rationed" by the government
- longer waits for things such as elective surgery

This is, of course, only true for people who rely exclusively on the state system. It's perfectly possible for people with more money and no tolerance for wait to have additional insurance, or pay for care privately. It's STILL cheaper than the US.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I wonder if the USA is actually helping to keep healthcare costs lower in other countries. Nearly all of the new technology is researched and developed here - and mostly that's done in university settings. Several years ago I was fortunate enough to have an inside look at the development of 'Cyber Knife' which is an "image guided" thingy that makes impossible surgical operations more possible. Stanford University and their Medical Center played a huge role. Today, you can find this technology all over the world. It wasn't so much a "machine" that could be manufactured and sold (but you can buy a machine that does it) - but more like a technology that utilized several other already existing technologies. So it would be rather simple for anyone to copy it. The cost of developing this 'image guided' doohickey was very high. As far as I know, none of the people involved with its creation made any profit directly from its sale.
Stuff like that wouldn't go away if we limit the profit potential in the healthcare fields (though a good part of the financing for such endeavors would disappear). But how many other breakthroughs would never happen? A lot of the world depends on the USA to continue developing and testing new medical technology. That sort of thing is not inexpensive. Anytime you have the latest greatest newfangled device - you paid top dollar for it. Last year's latest and greatest thing costs a lot less. see also, iPhone.
All I know for sure is that none of us here at MacNN have the knowledge to 'fix' the alleged 'problems' with healthcare in the US. It seems rather obvious that any change that's made will result in an unintended sacrifice somewhere else. Too many things are linked together and those links aren't usually obvious. I think the simple answer lies in the willingness of each individual to be more responsible for their own health. Making better lifestyle choices would go a long way toward minimizing the need for medical care. Hold on a second, let me light another cigarette. Just finished eating a country ham sandwich.

Doesn't this all depend on where this research takes place? The answer to this I don't know...

I know that a lot of drugs are sponsored by drug companies, so it would be important to consider the effect on our drug innovation with any sort of change here.

However, if most medical breakthroughs occur in research heavy universities like you are claiming, I agree that the effect of a change in our system would be minimal in this respect.

I agree completely that none of us here have all the answers, but I think that it is better to be as informed as possible so that if you are the type to spout off your own opinions (as I am, and I'm assuming most others here are), they do not contribute to spread of misinformation and distortion. We have plenty of that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is, of course, only true for people who rely exclusively on the state system. It's perfectly possible for people with more money and no tolerance for wait to have additional insurance, or pay for care privately. It's STILL cheaper than the US.

I believe that the availability and strength of the fully private sector varies from province to province though.

Mind you, all doctors are still their own businessmen and businesswomen... They simply bill Medicaid.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is, of course, only true for people who rely exclusively on the state system. It's perfectly possible for people with more money and no tolerance for wait to have additional insurance, or pay for care privately. It's STILL cheaper than the US.

I didn't know it was possible for a doctor to have a private practice and set his own rates for services. I thought the whole point of universal healthcare was to prevent this from happening. Why would *any* doctor prefer to participate in a program (universal healthcare) that restricts what he can charge for his services? I'm pretty sure that both a single-payer (US) system and a 'universal healthcare' (Canada) system cannot co-exist. Only the poor would be serviced by the government healthcare system. Those who could afford to seek private treatment would be more likely to do just that.

edited: No, it's illegal for a doctor to have a private practice in Canada. All doctors are required to participate in the provincial healthcare plan. Also, you cannot "buy more insurance" unless it's for dental or opthamology plans.

Where do you get your information? You couldn't have been more wrong. Every statement you made was 100% wrong. It wouldn't be "cheaper than in the US" for a Canadian to seek private treatment - because that Canadian would almost certainly be seeking that treatment *in* the US.

[bstone]

Because some of us are becoming doctors not for profit but to become healers.

[OldManMac]

I'd like someone here to explain how the poor and uninsured get the "necessary" health care they need. That's been thrown around a lot in this thread, and I'm wondering how they do that.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'd like someone here to explain how the poor and uninsured get the "necessary" health care they need. That's been thrown around a lot in this thread, and I'm wondering how they do that.

Healthcare providers in the US are required by federal law to treat *all* patients regardless of their ability to pay. This applies to necessary medical care...not tummy tucks or facelifts. So, to answer your question, I'd say that the poor people go to a hospital or clinic just like wealthy people do.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'd like someone here to explain how the poor and uninsured get the "necessary" health care they need. That's been thrown around a lot in this thread, and I'm wondering how they do that.

They don't get 'necessary' care - healthcare providers are required to give them 'emergency' care whether or not they can pay. This means the taxpayer or people who have insurance pick up the bill for pretty much the most expensive way to treat someone possible. Almost any other system imaginable would be cheaper and more effective.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Healthcare providers in the US are required by federal law to treat *all* patients regardless of their ability to pay. This applies to necessary medical care...not tummy tucks or facelifts. So, to answer your question, I'd say that the poor people go to a hospital or clinic just like wealthy people do.

That applies to emergency care, but not preventative stuff or general discomfort.

[Spliffdaddy]

No, it applies to NECESSARY medical care. If it wasn't necessary then it wouldn't be an emergency. Call it whatever you want, but "emergency" by its nature requires a definition. That definition is what is known as "necessary".

There are also clinics in practically every city, county, and township that provide low-cost or free medical care as well as preventative stuff.

Folks, there is simply no crisis. Most of the people who require extensive medical care, statistically, are elderly and already covered by Medicare which is a universal healthcare program.

Stop listening to leftwing liberal soundbites. There are no Americans dying in the streets because they can't get necessary medical care.

"Necessary" is defined by federal law as

"a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:
> placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy
>serious impairment to bodily functions, or
>serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions:
>that there is inadequate time to make a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
>that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

Each state also has their own laws regarding medical care, most of which redefine the federal definition in a much more broad manner.

In any case, if you arrive at an emergency room for treatment it is illegal for you to be asked about your ability to pay until after your condition is screened by a doctor. All emergency rooms are required to post signs that reflect these laws. In 1986 a federal law also made it illegal to "dump" or transfer patients to different facilities until the patient's condition was stabilized. In all cases, patients can never be transferred against their will.

Again, there exist PLENTY of low-cost and free medical clinics in all areas of the US. If you arrive at an emergency room with a medical condition that does not require immediate treatment - and you do not have the ability to pay for your non-necessary medical care - you will be directed to one of those (generally state-run) clinics.

[OldManMac]

I see. So, those who don't have insurance, who die earlier because they don't have access to good preventive medicine, don't exist, according to you. Interesting.

There is a problem, and it needs to be fixed.

http://www.fcomi.org/facts/The-Unins...e-Oct-2006.pdf

The
uninsured are less likely to receive preventive care than
those with insurance and more likely to be hospitalized for
conditions that could have been avoided. For example,
people with insurance are significantly more likely to have
had recent mammograms, and other types of cancer
screenings than the uninsured. Consequently, uninsured
cancer patients are diagnosed later and die earlier than
those with insurance.

Researchers estimate that a reduction in mortality of 5% to
15% could be achieved if the uninsured were to gain
continuous health coverage. The Institute of Medicine
estimates that at least 18,000 Americans die prematurely
each year because they lack health coverage.

Charitable care and the safety net of community clinics and
public hospitals do not fully substitute for health insurance.
Lack of health coverage matters for millions of uninsured
Americans, affecting their access to care, health status, job
decisions, and financial security, as well as exacting an
indirect toll on society in terms of more disability, lower
productivity, and increased burden on the health care
system.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I see. So, those who don't have insurance, who die earlier because they don't have access to good preventive medicine, don't exist, according to you. Interesting.

Millions eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and yet are not enrolled. Why?

For example, people with insurance are significantly more likely to have
had recent mammograms...

enter zip code for free mammograms

...and other types of cancer

free screening and treatment for other forms of cancer
...and more...
...and still more...

This does not work in lieu of Medicare or Medicaid. These are free services someone with 5 minutes and an internet connection at the local library can avail themselves of absolutely free. If you don't have health care in the US, you're not trying. Period. If you need help, you need to ask for it. Not to sound cold, but if you are telling yourself, "oh gosh, I don't have health care I must sit here and die." there is nothing the government can do for you. This is likely the same individual who will not react to chest pain in the first place. Stats without foundation mean absolutely nothing.

screenings than the uninsured. Consequently, uninsured
cancer patients are diagnosed later and die earlier than
those with insurance.

Because they're not trying. The government will never be able to care more for you than you.

Researchers estimate that a reduction in mortality of 5% to
15% could be achieved if the uninsured were to gain
continuous health coverage. The Institute of Medicine
estimates that at least 18,000 Americans die prematurely
each year because they lack health coverage.

These same individuals would die regardless. Hell, I'm quite certain at least this many have died prematurely at the hands of a doctor. Misdiagnosis and mistreatment account for what, almost a HUNDRED THOUSAND deaths annually? It sounds like you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. To be clear, stats without foundation mean nothing. Any stat can be thrown out such as "18,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they lack health coverage", but that really doesn't mean anything at all does it.

Charitable care and the safety net of community clinics and
public hospitals do not fully substitute for health insurance.
Lack of health coverage matters for millions of uninsured
Americans, affecting their access to care, health status, job
decisions, and financial security, as well as exacting an
indirect toll on society in terms of more disability, lower
productivity, and increased burden on the health care
system.

The free clinics and free services and Medicare and Medicaid not only substitute for health insurance, they are health insurance. Again, the government cannot care more for you than you. If you don't have health care in the US, you're not trying. It's as simple as this. The folks at Starbucks are lying to you.

[OldManMac]

I understand that everything is cut and dried and simple and black and white in your world. The real world is different, but, for you your world is what counts.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: what health insurance is available to me if I'm a freelance artist earning a middle class income, other than the same health insurance available to everybody else that I'd have to pay astronomical rates for?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I understand that everything is cut and dried and simple and black and white in your world. The real world is different, but, for you your world is what counts.

It's much easier to shoot down somebody else's ideas than it is to come up with alternative solutions.

Ebuddy, what is your solution to the woes with our health care system? Are the vast majority of Americans who are unhappy with what we have simply full of ****?

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Healthcare providers in the US are required by federal law to treat *all* patients regardless of their ability to pay. This applies to necessary medical care...not tummy tucks or facelifts. So, to answer your question, I'd say that the poor people go to a hospital or clinic just like wealthy people do.

No no and no. Wrong and no.

If a hospital subscribes to Medicare/Medicaid then by federal law they must treat anyone presenting in the ER or a woman in active labor. There is *NO* federal law requiring a private physician to treat someone who cannot pay.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

How about a documentary on Michael Moore? Manufacturing Dissent started out as a documentary project by fans of his, but after two years of following him around they realised Moore is not what he seems.

Manufacturing Dissent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manfacturing Dissent Movie DVD Uncovering Michael Moore

Manufacturing Dissent on YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

In June 2007, on ABC's Nightline, Moore claimed that in Cuba "there is not religious persecution, there is artistic freedom" and that Cubans are able to "freely speak their minds." Stated the show's host, Terry Moran, "Human rights groups like Amnesty International say Cuba continues to repress nearly all forms of dissent".[

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I understand that everything is cut and dried and simple and black and white in your world. The real world is different, but, for you your world is what counts.

Funny, that's kind of what I thought when I read your posts. The difference of course was that I addressed your points.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: what health insurance is available to me if I'm a freelance artist earning a middle class income, other than the same health insurance available to everybody else that I'd have to pay astronomical rates for?

Good question and the first step to getting coverage. There is an AHIRC database that provides a host of different plans specifically geared towards artists as well as the self-employed under all income brackets broken down by state and by craft such as; Architecture Design, Dance, Entertainment Industry Unions, Film/Television/Theatre, Literary Arts, Graphic arts groups, multiple arts groups, music groups, and visual arts groups.

There are also links within that same database for Low income individuals and families, information regarding HSAs, short-term insurance, insurance for the 'uninsurable' or 'high risk' occupations all including dental. There is also information on a host of discount plans and providers. There is also the National Association for the Self Employed and Graphic Artists Guild which is more specialized. I found an artist online who has a comprehensive plan costing less than $200.00 per month under Blue Cross Blue Shield.

All in less than 5 minutes online.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's much easier to shoot down somebody else's ideas than it is to come up with alternative solutions.

It is much easier to ignorantly cry "the end is near" for the quick high-five than it is to deal with the actual issues surrounding health care. There are millions of children eligible for medicare and others qualifying for medicaid that aren't enrolled. Why? Please answer this time. Why are there those who qualify for coverage, but are not enrolled in it?

Ebuddy, what is your solution to the woes with our health care system? Are the vast majority of Americans who are unhappy with what we have simply full of ****?

No. In most instances I see health care ranking behind immigration in level of importance. I say, let's deal with the immigration problem in this country first, get some of those clinics back open, disseminate more of the public coffer on legal citizens and take audit of our situation at that time. In the meantime, I strongly suggest investment in HSA's and other tax-sheltered investment programs for health savings. Instead of the average square footage of living space of 3 Europeans, let's live more effectively within our means. Let's not eat out twice a week, let's save more money, let's forego the BMW lease and maybe settle for something used and inexpensive. How about a couple less channels of cable television, one less gaming system, computer, iPod, iPhone, vehicle, and large-screen HD television? Let's spend less and let's start acting like we truly give a shXX about health care. This is a matter of education and discipline. The government cannot care more for you than you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the system when people avail themselves of information and resources to meet their needs efficiently. In trying to save the undisciplined individual from filing bankruptcy, we're proposing the entire country file on our behalf. This is more than a bad idea.

If it is important to you, act like it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

How about a documentary on Michael Moore? Manufacturing Dissent started out as a documentary project by fans of his, but after two years of following him around they realised Moore is not what he seems.

Manufacturing Dissent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manfacturing Dissent Movie DVD Uncovering Michael Moore

Manufacturing Dissent on YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I see how folks here deal with dissenting opinion. The links will go unclicked. The information will be lost. The mantra and drumbeat will pound onward with blatant disregard for pesky things like facts, figures, stats, and truth. There will be name-calling, accusations of right-wing partisanship, and indictments of wealth and disconnectedness for which they themselves are guilty.

In the meantime, I'm not only to find health care coverage for starving artists, but I'm to clean the paint stains from their trousers as well. If I can't do it, there must be some huge government construct that can do it for them. Anything and everything, but taking responsibility into your own hands.

I'm still left wondering, in what instances has the Federal government been better stewards of finance than the average American?

It never ends.

[bstone]

Why is it that instead of debating the actual issues some posters here feel the need to post links that "discredit" Michael Moore?

It's called ad hominem.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dakarʒ]

Because Michael Moore brings out the worst in people.

[bstone]

Darak, please try to stick to the topic at hand- the movie Sicko and the healthcare crisis in America. Thank you.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by bstone 

Why is it that instead of debating the actual issues some posters here feel the need to post links that "discredit" Michael Moore?

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Because Michael Moore brings out the worst in people.

Originally Posted by bstone 

Darak, please try to stick to the topic at hand- the movie Sicko and the healthcare crisis in America. Thank you.

I answered your question. You're welcome.

[bstone]

Dakar, there are many of us who with to debate the healthcare issue in America. The documentary Sicko has inspired this recent debate. I kindly and gently ask for you to not disrupt this debate with your completely off-topic remarks. Thank you.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by bstone 

Dakar, there are many of us who with to debate the healthcare issue in America. The documentary Sicko has inspired this recent debate. I kindly and gently ask for you to not disrupt this debate with your completely off-topic remarks. Thank you.

I was done until you decided to voice your displeasure.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bstone 

Why is it that instead of debating the actual issues some posters here feel the need to post links that "discredit" Michael Moore?

You can't really discredit someone who has no credit in the first place. Starting with his first documentary 'Roger and Me' all the way up to 'Sicko', Michael Moore has lied through his teeth, manipulated facts for teenage consumption, told half the story, been a fear monger, and taken advantage of people lesser well off or even dead for his personal glory and profit. It's all blowing up in his face now.

Take a look at the real figures as to why many haven't got health insurance and it is much less (I and others have mentioned several reasons in this thread) than the 47 million Moore tries to sell. It's less than 10 million. That's not a healthcare crisis when the population of the US is almost 300 million. That's fixable.

[Kerrigan]

Celebrity gossip juicy celebrity rumors Hollywood gossip blog from Perez Hilton � Blog Archive � Paris Hilton Is Sick

Paris Hilton was seen crying after leaving Sicko