jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (94 posts)

Will we ever have national healthcare?

  1. eternals3ptember profile image59
    eternals3ptemberposted 5 years ago

    Not Obamacare, but some sort of national healthcare to provide services to those who can't help themselves.

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6644877_f248.jpg

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Working on it. wink

  3. profile image66
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    It's called family, friends, churches, community.
    Why must taxpayers be robbed to provide for others that made bad choices?  Why can't we accept responsibility for our actions and accept the consequences?
    I've made some faulty choices, but I do not expect to be bailed out by others.  I am paying the price and accept the responsibility for payment in full of my own accord.

    1. Jane Bovary profile image84
      Jane Bovaryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you have to be moralistic about something as basic as human health? It's not always bad choices - sometimes it's just circumstance, bad luck or unavoidable disaster that keeps people poor and let's not pretend there's a level playing field to begin with. Universal healthcare is really in every one's interest, rich or poor. Untreated diseases can spread through the whole community, not just among those who can't afford healthcare. Apparently it's cheaper too.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        When you pay for an insurance premium, a good portion of it goes to pay other policy holders expenses, ever think about that? Must be a happy world logic,commonsense lives in.
        logic,commonsensemust mus of have went to a private school, have enough cash to pay for every medical/dental need, has a private library, police, fire and recue team, and no need to collect social security or join any other government program. "Why must taxpayers be robbed to provide for others that made bad choices?" Wake up call, it's because you live in a society.

  4. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    I think some kind of national healthcare is essential.

    [As an aside, isn't it important for a capitalist country to have an efficient and healthy work force and not one continuously stressed by the thought of illness or injury?]

    At some time in their lives everybody is in the position of not being able to help themselves, the very old, the very young and those not blessed with a healthy constitution.

    As it is in your country, the only people who are totally free from worry are those very few who can afford anything that life throws at them. Most of the rest would be financially floored by any life threatening illness.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    All true.
    Not to mention, how can free marketers support saddling our business owners with the financial burden of providing health insurance to their employees?
    That's the argument I simply can't understand.
    We are hobbling our own job providers. How can they compete with businesses in countries that don't have this albatross around their necks?
    Makes NO sense to me.
    And that's just the financial argument.
    I will leave the moral argument for others, who have already argued it formidably.
    smile

  6. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    States should be in charge of healthcare system.

    Think about it this way. Right now, states can make changes that effect jobs. If state A tries one thing and state B tries another, we can watch what happens. Maybe state A will have higher unemployment and state B lower unemployment. This does two things. It shows that state B's policies worked better, and people in state A can go to state B for a job if they need to.

    The same kind of competition could help healthcare.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That would probably be even worse than the system you have now!

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why?

        Because there would be increased competition? How does competition hurt a market?

        If someone loves Obamacare, they can move to Massachusetts, or another state if they adopt something similar.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Competition should have no place in health care.

          People don't always have the option of moving from one place to the other.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You're kidding right? No Competition means absolute Monopoly and that cannot be allowed because then they could charge whatever they want without recourse.
            True enough.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Is that why health care in countries that have nationalised health care are so much cheaper than the States?

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                roll

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You don't agree Cags! The facts are out there and very easy to check.

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Not worth checking. Because it's actually meaningless.

                    Just because it appears to work, doesn't mean that it actually works. It is a pure and unadulterated raping of the Economies of the world is what it actually is.

            2. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's how it is now.
              The insurers charge whatever they feel like charging without recourse.
              Even large employers don't have much choice when it comes to paying up, because the health plan down the street may lure them in with a lower rate this year, but hike that rate up 25% next year.
              Health insurance is NOT a buyer's market at the group purchasing, or especially at the individual purchaser level.

              And the reality is, the government already pays for health care for poor people, people on disability, and old people. The right course of action is close the hole and cover the rest of us poor saps in the middle, too.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And, I'm not willing to agree with your assessment.

              2. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                High costs are NOT the fault of the insurance companies. They make between 1-4% profit. That's on the low side of standard for any industry.

                The problems are more than that, the costs of medications/treatments, physician/nurse salaries, and lawsuits contribute more to our high costs than anything else

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I have little experience of American health care. I was in the US once and needed medical attention. I was asked if I had cover or was I paying myself. I was given more than an impression that paying myself would result in a smaller bill than if my insurance company were paying.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Many providers are willing to negotiate their prices down if you pay cash. Some do it to be nice, others do it to get any money period, and some do it because it's less work than dealing with the carriers.

          2. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Competition brings prices down everywhere. Without competition there would be one healthcare provider who could charge whatever they wanted.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A market is a place where things are bought and sold, do you really respect your health so little that you would have people barter over it?

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A free market brings innovation and helps everyone. All of the great things we enjoy are due to innovation and competition. Yes, I want healthcare companies competing for me.

          2. innersmiff profile image72
            innersmiffposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This argument is akin to arguing against restaurants because businesses should not compete for the basic human need to eat. There is no reason at all why healthcare should not be privatised, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that general health of the population would rise.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, eating out is a luxury, you can eat just as well at home. Fancy a major op on the kitchen table?

              You already have private health care in the US and plenty of evidence that the general health of the population suffers.

              Sorry innersmiff, I didn't notice that you had posted, please revise my post to read "They already have . . ."

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                This statement is untrue. Don't place the blame of the population on private health care. It's not mutually exclusive.

                A person's health suffers because most citizens refuse to take care of themselves. It has nothing to do with the Health Care industry.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But if people are afraid to use their health care industry because of costs . . .

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Let's say our healthcare system is poor.

                    How is that causing obesity in Americans?

                    Not enough people have access to lyposuction?

                  2. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Now you're just talking in circles. And defeating yourself within the constructs of this conversation.

                    The costs of Health Care are related and powered by other things, other than profit alone.

                2. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  True. Americans eat so much fast food, and drink soda(Diet! Aspartame proven to increase appetite!).

                  How is healthcare responsible for obesity?

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Health Care isn't responsible for obesity. People are.

              2. innersmiff profile image72
                innersmiffposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You still need to buy food unless you grow it all yourself. I wager I won't see you complaining about farmers exploiting the consumer in that regard. You can also make steps to lead a healthy lifestyle without going to the hospital (there would also be a greater incentive too if healthcare wasn't free).

                To call it 'private' is not quite right . From a libertarian perspective neither the mercantilism of America nor the nationalism of Britain is the most ideal or moral solution.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But you might hear me complain about supermarkets exploiting the consumer and the farmer!

                  1. innersmiff profile image72
                    innersmiffposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    But are you be opposed to competition in the food market in general?

            2. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This.

              Post office = $5 billion loss last year.

              UPS = $4 billion profit last year.

              Private competition is better than government control.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Comparative costs please.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  How about this.

                  USPS - $65 billion in revenue. $5 billion in losses. Profit margin = -7.7%
                  UPS - $53 billion in revenue. $4 billion in profit. Profit margin = 7.5%

                  But think about it. An entry-level position in the post office pays $20/hr, and usually includes overtime. Government is irresponsible with money. There is no question.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, the cost of using the service, what would it cost me to post 100 grams by each service.

  7. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    John, how is poor healthcare responsible for obesity?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who says it is?
      I'd put it down to poor education.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But you say that our system here is responsible for poor health.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There are "fatter" countries than the US take Australia for example where the life expectancy and quality of life are much better as is the medical care, to suggest that the US has poor health just because of Obesity is false.

  8. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    Anybody know of a resource comparing waiting lists for treatments by country?

    "Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S."

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So? Surgeries and ER visits are easily scaled so that people with the most important issues can be seen first.

      The American system is being outperformed by literally dozens of public systems, in the last WHO health care ranking the US was ranked 37 and that has apparently fallen significantly.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not saying our system is the best, I think we need some serious reform.

        I was just asking for information.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Furthermore according to the Years of potential life lost, Index the US was third worst in the thirty developed nations being better only than Mexico and Hungary. Canada was significantly better by the way, but the US was also superseded by poorer nations like Poland, New Zealand and Slovakia.

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not to mention that according to Harvard studies 45 000 people die annually in the US because they don't have health insurance.

      1. Aficionada profile image91
        Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Did you ever read those studies or know how they came up with their figures? I would like to know how a researcher proves that the lack of insurance was what caused a person's death.  I could easily claim that millions of people die every year because they have health insurance. After all, millions of people who have health insurance die every year, right?

        Until someone comes along and tells me how that figure of 45,000 was contrived - er, I mean deduced - I'll remain skeptical about the number. (For those who like to jump to conclusions, skeptical does not mean that I believe that the figure is absolutely wrong; it does mean that I'm not convinced that it is correct.)

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-ins … adults.pdf

          Good attitude, here is the report of the study feel free to read it and analyze their methods for errors.

          1. Aficionada profile image91
            Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you so much for that link, Josak.  And thank you for the compliment to my healthy skepticism!  Yes, I know you were being sarcastic, but I believe it is worth accepting as a genuine compliment, because I think a healthy skepticism is important in delving into any subject, especially anything related to government.

            It took me a long time to read the article, and I confess that I have forgotten a great deal of what I ever learned in statistics classes, so I didn't get as much out of it as someone with a stronger statistics foundation would have received.  But here are several things that I found to be of interest:

            1) In addition to the correlation (which I misunderstood to have been reported as causation) between lack of insurance and predictability of death, the correlation between (a) being unemployed, or (b) a former smoker, or (c) a regular drinker, and death was very nearly the same (unrelated to insurance status); being a current smoker had a much higher hazards ratio.

            The highest hazards ratio of all, far higher than the lack of insurance, was the overall health self-rating or physician rating of "fair or poor."   In fairness, the article did state that there could be some association between fair/poor health ratings and lack of insurance, and I agree that that could be the case.

            2) The study was supported by a Health Resources and Service Administration National Research Service Award - the government.

            Obviously, researchers have to receive funding from somewhere, and it would be extremely skeptical on my part to look askance at the fact that a study that supports the goverenment's position was paid for by the government, but.... If the funding had come from the insurance industry or from Big Pharma, and if the results tended to support the underwriters' views, it would be proper to keep some question in the back of our minds, in my opinion.

            3) The exact wording in one part of the conclusion was this (bolding is mine): "The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance."

            The reason why they specified private insurance was because the study did not include the government health insurance programs that we already have in place. Those programs currently serve specific portions of the population that already have a higher predictability of death, due to age or indigence and their concomitant health problems.

            One very big question that I have was not addressed in the study at all - that is, Was there any measurable number of those living at the end of the study who were either being kept alive by "heroic means" or whose lives were being extended through medical treatment (because their insurance would pay for it) but whose quality of life was in a very low category?  There may not have been anyone at all in that group in the study, but I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

            And finally, I may have misunderstood this altogether - I'll try to follow-up and reread it when I can - but it sounded to me like the writer said that the study subjects were only asked about their insurance status in the interviews that took place between 1988 and 1994, but their vital data was studied and analyzed in 2009. Did I understand that right?

            So does that mean that there was no follow-up to determine whether those individuals' insurance status had changed at any time in the intervening decade-and-a-half? To my mind, that would be worth including in the study - certainly worth more than just speculating about how the results would or might have varied if that had been researched.  My apologies, if I  did not grasp what Wilper was saying there.

            Again, thank you for the link.  It was a wonderful lesson in the power of statistical analysis and extrapolation.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No seriously I was not being sarcastic at all... Seriously. If we just accept things without checking them we could easily be duped, I like finding the facts and I think it's great that other people want to check them.

              I am sorry I came across as rude, it was not my intention.

 
working