Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Irrefutable Public Health Care Thread
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 226 of 314 (652836)
02-16-2012 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2012 11:29 AM


Re: Parody Logic
CS writes:
But not every individual has insurance... The cost isn't divided by everyone, and neither is the quality.
It's divided by the pools of payers in each of the plans, such as you.
Even if we were to socialize it, it still might cost a lot more than other countries and look unjustifiably expensive.
Yes, there most likely will still be a lot of graft & thievery going on.
BTW, there is free health care in the US - the uninsured poor in the emergency room are getting their healthcare paid for by an increase on the premium you pay for your individual healthcare. They get it for free. You are paying for it. In a national single payer system, everyone would pay into the system through something like taxes. Oh wait! These same poor paisanos don't a-pay no taxes, meaning the rest of us still have to pick up their slack.
In theory it would be significantly less of a slack to pick up than what you are paying for them now, because of a huge reduction in bureaucracy and the cost of the medical needs in the emergency room as opposed to a planned doctor checkup they would now qualify for and be perhaps required to do. In practice, though, those in power would surely still rig the system and pocket the $aving$ off in the Grand Cayman islands.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 227 of 314 (652851)
02-16-2012 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2012 11:29 AM


Re: Parody Logic
Even if we were to socailize it, it still might cost a lot more than other countries and look unjustifiably expensive.
Again I need to ask who is proposing socializing? Do you understand that Universal healthcare is not the same as socialized medicine. You can keep ignoring me but I will keep pointing out your strawman.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 2:42 PM Theodoric has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 314 (652854)
02-16-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Theodoric
02-16-2012 2:30 PM


Nobody. Yes. Do whatever you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2012 2:30 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2012 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 229 of 314 (652855)
02-16-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2012 11:29 AM


Solutions...
So what would you propose as the fairest, best and most cost effective way of providing healthcare to the citizens of the US? Do you think the present system is fine as it is? If not what would you change? Or if designing a national health policy in a debate forum is an unfair thing to ask (which I admit it might be) what do you think is wrong with the present system? And why do you think the present system has these issues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 02-16-2012 3:26 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 3:44 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 230 of 314 (652861)
02-16-2012 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2012 2:42 PM


???
Then why do you keep bringing up Socialized medicine?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 3:44 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 02-16-2012 6:00 PM Theodoric has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 231 of 314 (652862)
02-16-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Straggler
02-16-2012 2:43 PM


Re: Solutions...
Personally I think certain services should be non-profit enterprises. They would include fire departments, police departments, hospitals, utilities such as electricity, water, trash and garbage, and above all, education.
All of those should be run either as a governmental organization or as limited controlled monopolies.
In health care there should be a single insurer, preferably the federal government and that agency should be the single buyer for services and supplies.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2012 2:43 PM Straggler has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 314 (652864)
02-16-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Straggler
02-16-2012 2:43 PM


Re: Solutions...
The current system is working fine for me. Healthcare is expensive so you need to have insurance for it. I think the problem is that you pretty much have to get health insurance as a benefit from your job, unless you're job is paying you enough money to afford it on your own (like a contract worker). That, or be so poor or old that you get it as a benefit that way. The guy in the middle doesn't have a good option for health insurance: if his job doesn't provide health insurance as a benefit then he probably doesn't make enough to buy it himself.
I don't what the solution is. Its a very complicated system.
Part of the problem is that people aren't good at taking care of themselves and doctors do a lot of guess-and-check work. Too, as the technology advances we seem to keep pushing the latest and greatest (and most expensive) instead of sticking with the old reliables: eat right, exercise, and take good care of yourself. Everyone wants easy-to-take pills to control the symptoms instead of working their ass off to solve the problems.
On the other side, the insurance companies, and pill-makers, are in it to make money. Healthcare is not all about caring for peoples' health. Its quite lucrative and companies are going to take advantage of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2012 2:43 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Warthog, posted 02-16-2012 10:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 240 by saab93f, posted 02-17-2012 3:12 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 314 (652865)
02-16-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Theodoric
02-16-2012 3:13 PM


Re: ???
I'm just talking to people, don't worry about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2012 3:13 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 234 of 314 (652904)
02-16-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Theodoric
02-16-2012 3:13 PM


Re: ???
Then why do you keep bringing up Socialized medicine?
I view universal health coverage as a system where people are treated according to their medical needs and money is collected according to income. As soon as you are denied coverage because you can not afford it it stops being universal health coverage.
I don't know of a single company that would run such a system, nor would higher income individuals willingly enroll into such a system when there was a chance to enter a system where everyone pays the same. Does Ford charge different prices for the same vehicle depending on the buyer's income level? No. Does Blue Cross charge a different fee for the same coverage depending on income level? Again, no. The only entity that is capable of putting this type of system in place is a government, IMHO. This would qualify it as socialized medicine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2012 3:13 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2012 6:36 PM Taq has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 235 of 314 (652912)
02-16-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Taq
02-16-2012 6:00 PM


Re: ???
This would qualify it as socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine would be if the government controls every level. This is much different from Universal healthcare. Eliminating the insurance companies does not make it socialized medicine. It makes it single payer healthcare. Still not socialized medicine. If the government owned and controlled the clinics and hospitals and healthcare providers were government employees then it would be socialized medicine.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 02-16-2012 6:00 PM Taq has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(1)
Message 236 of 314 (652914)
02-16-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2012 11:29 AM


Re: Parody Logic
Maybe I'm looking at it differently. Straggler said the cost of US healthcare was unjustifiably expensive. I was considering the total cost of healthcare in general and thinking that we do a lot of stuff at our hospitals that can drive that cost up (research, etc.). That's going to lead to an increase in cost to the individuals who are paying into it.
Even although medical research may sometimes be performed in hospitals, that does not mean it is part of the normal hospital budget. Funding is normally distributed by national institutes like your National Institute of Health, and only 31% comes from government, the rest coming from the private sector. Also the amount of research is 2.68% of GDP (compared with 1.88% of GDP in the UK) but as far as I can tell this is not included in the 16% of GDP spent on health care. All these fun statistics and more can be found on wikipaedia here and here.
All governments need to spend taxes on the basic infrastructure of a health service i.e. facilities, staff and equipment. However in countries with universal healthcare we also fund everything else, such as the costs of performing procedures, drugs, after treatment care etc. Now as far as I understand your system all these additional costs are covered by your insurance companies. So a large part of the costs universal health care systems have to deal with should not be required under your system. So the question isn't why does US health care cost so much more, it's why isn't so much less than a universal care system? Just where are those insurance premiums going?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 237 of 314 (652929)
02-16-2012 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2012 11:29 AM


Re: Parody Logic
quote:
Even just the total number of people is going to affect the cost of healthcare for an individual... I guess I just don't see any value in comparing another country's cost to ours in considering only one variable: whether its socialized or not.
How about a few variables and a large chunk of the developed world? I've referred to these earlier in Message 187...
Overall cost of healthcare
Life expectancy
Quality of Health Care
There seems to be a pattern that universal health care around the world has resulted in healthier populations at a lower overall cost.
quote:
On the surface, dividing that cost by more people should lower the cost for everyone.
Yes, it does lower the cost for everyone - I believe I have shown that.
quote:
But just because another country's costs is lower, while everyone is paying together, doesn't mean that the cost in the US isn't still going to be a lot higher because of all the other stuff that goes into the costs of the hospitals. Even if we were to socailize it, it still might cost a lot more than other countries and look unjustifiably expensive.
What other stuff? What is it about the US that you think makes it completely different to the rest of the world in this regard? I can't think of anything and I was talking about research because you specifically mentioned it as an example. You haven't given any other suggestions, so I'm stumped. Help me out here.
The US already has the highest cost for health care and this is not reflected by the results. How would it get worse under universal health care?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 238 of 314 (652931)
02-16-2012 10:03 PM


Subtitles
Can we get some meaningful subtitles, please? Thanks.

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(2)
Message 239 of 314 (652933)
02-16-2012 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2012 3:44 PM


Re: Solutions...
quote:
The current system is working fine for me.
You're lucky. Either you have insurance or have never needed it. This is not a universal situation as you did point out...
quote:
Healthcare is expensive so you need to have insurance for it. I think the problem is that you pretty much have to get health insurance as a benefit from your job, unless you're job is paying you enough money to afford it on your own (like a contract worker). That, or be so poor or old that you get it as a benefit that way. The guy in the middle doesn't have a good option for health insurance: if his job doesn't provide health insurance as a benefit then he probably doesn't make enough to buy it himself.
Here's the real problem. When you need medical care for a serious condition, you are rarely in the best position to pay for it yourself. By this, I mean that if you are really sick or injured, it will often mean loss of income. At the same time you need to pay out more than usual, as the medical expenses are on top of the rest of your life (rent etc.) If you do actually lose your job then that employer supplied insurance will dry up and you are in real trouble. The guy in the middle is in trouble right from the start.
The general pattern to this is the slow decline into worse health and high, sometimes astronomical expenses frequently leading to poverty as a self feeding cycle. Only in the US have I heard of people having to sell their homes to afford to stay alive.
As I understand it, what is termed insurance in the US is different to the universal health care loving developed world in that you have to deal with HMOs. It is such a convoluted web of networks and loopholes that it's mind boggling to me - and I'm not easily boggled.
quote:
Part of the problem is that people aren't good at taking care of themselves and doctors do a lot of guess-and-check work. Too, as the technology advances we seem to keep pushing the latest and greatest (and most expensive) instead of sticking with the old reliables: eat right, exercise, and take good care of yourself. Everyone wants easy-to-take pills to control the symptoms instead of working their ass off to solve the problems.
As I have stated before, people not taking care of themselves has nothing to do with universal health care. If there were any correlation, the US most likely wouldn't be the fattest country in the world. Healthy living is an education issue and is preventative in nature. Health care is not the same thing.
A big part of the problem is that because medical care is so expensive, people avoid getting minor complaints seen to until they become a major health issue. With universal care, you still pay for your medical care but getting something minor seen to is not a problem so more people benefit from earlier treatment, lowering the cost and improving results.
quote:
On the other side, the insurance companies, and pill-makers, are in it to make money. Healthcare is not all about caring for peoples' health. Its quite lucrative and companies are going to take advantage of that.
This is exactly the problem with privatised heath care as the US has it. It is really a feeding trough for medical corporations with a captive, often desperate market.
quote:
I don't what the solution is. Its a very complicated system.
The solution to the very complicated system is to look at the rest of the world, see that it is working and adopt an equitable universal health care system. It is simpler, cheaper and more effective.
I don't see what you are afraid of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(2)
Message 240 of 314 (652971)
02-17-2012 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2012 3:44 PM


Re: Solutions...
quote:
The current system is working fine for me. Healthcare is expensive so you need to have insurance for it. I think the problem is that you pretty much have to get health insurance as a benefit from your job, unless you're job is paying you enough money to afford it on your own (like a contract worker). That, or be so poor or old that you get it as a benefit that way. The guy in the middle doesn't have a good option for health insurance: if his job doesn't provide health insurance as a benefit then he probably doesn't make enough to buy it himself.
I don't what the solution is. Its a very complicated system.
Part of the problem is that people aren't good at taking care of themselves and doctors do a lot of guess-and-check work. Too, as the technology advances we seem to keep pushing the latest and greatest (and most expensive) instead of sticking with the old reliables: eat right, exercise, and take good care of yourself. Everyone wants easy-to-take pills to control the symptoms instead of working their ass off to solve the problems.
On the other side, the insurance companies, and pill-makers, are in it to make money. Healthcare is not all about caring for peoples' health. Its quite lucrative and companies are going to take advantage of that.
Did you mean that you are lucky in a sense that your job provides you with the HI or do you think that the American HC system works fine in general?
I just dont get why the HC raises so much debate. Every one of us has the same rights and on top of those rights is a right to survive.
In a country where you dont have to worry about bancrupting your familys economics if you happen to fall ill, the issue is a no-brainer.
Why does the fact that the police or fire departments are "socialized" bother little? Would it not actually be "christian" to give everyone healthcare with everyone chipping in to cover the costs. My heart just breaks when I read about people having lost their homes because a child has ghotten seriously ill. That should not happen to anyone!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2012 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024