Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & Health Care
Yesterday we discussed the war and how foreign policy will matter in your decision next Tuesday. Today our series of election discussion pieces continues with Health Care. With an obesity epidemic, a failing economy, and ballooning health care costs, which candidate has the best answers to making sure that Americans are able to stay healthy without America being bankrupted in the process?
One of the better arguments I've seen for fixing the current health care crisis can be seen here
Of course, the insurance companies (who have very powerful lobbies) will attempt to shoot this plan down as they stand to lose. Though it really can be forcefully argued that insurance companies really do bring nothing to the table in terms of health care. Fundamentally, the idea is a good one when constrained. However, insurance companies have become too powerful and they now function as parasites on the system, making it less efficient and more expensive for the end user. Ask yourself: "what product do insurance companies offer in terms of health care?" What do they create? How do they contribute to health care? When it comes down to it, health insurance companies are not in business to provide health care or help you pay for health care. They are in business to provide insurance, collect money, minimize any payout and answer to their shareholders who expect the system to turn a healthy profit. Any reduction in what they have to pay out is money earned for them.
Which candidate will be better positioned to answer the problem? It will be the one who is able to make some hard decisions and stand up to powerful lobbyists. It will be the candidate who is able to apply creative thought and novel solutions to problems that we've been creating for ourselves for decades now. it will be the candidate who is able to rationally apply logic and recruit, retain and manage in their administration, unbiased and reasoned people who are willing to work hard on solutions that will benefit Americans and the wider global population.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Alright, after reading a bit on both their websites, I'm going to try to state the facts and my opinion.
McCain : Actually puts numbers out there on how much you're going to "save" according to your tax bracket. But it's confusing to me how one column is showing a flat tax credit of $5,000 for this and then another column (after factoring something called "Income Tax Liability") showing what you save. He concentrates on guaranteeing me a "Better than Congressman" health care plan when I have no idea in hell what kind of health care they get. He also spends more time talking about Obama's health care plan than his own--which I would prefer to read myself and draw my own conclusions. I guess he focuses more on "net tax benefit" to each tax payer which sounds very enticing from a utilitarian standpoint.
Obama : First off, his health care page has a lot of really bland generic bullshit slurry--quite different from his Iraq withdrawal plan. While he doesn't spend anytime attacking McCain's plan, I don't see how some of these bullets are going to do anything for Health Care. Every talking point sounds good but nowhere do I see a plan of A) how/when this will be implemented or B) what the net effect will really be. For example: "Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees." What is a "catastrophic illness"? Reduce by how much? Who's footing this bill? What percentage is going to the employer Vs the employee? While he offers some lengthy PDFs on his site (that I don't have a lot of time to read), I'm skeptical he has any objective, measurable, attainable goals.
So that's my quick take on this topic. Honestly, I'm not impressed with either candidate. I give a nod to McCain for actually throwing some numbers out there and wonder where the $2,500 per family figure is coming from in Obama's promises. This isn't going to factor into my voting because the roots of this. I grew up on MinnesotaCare so I'm probably going to lean toward the plan that makes the most of providing basic health care to those who can't afford it. My parents never could have afforded vaccinations and I don't think I ever went to the hospital aside from that. Others aren't so lucky. Call me biased or misinformed but I don't see either candidate really doing anything creative/ingenious with health care to the point of it being worth arguing over.
My work here is dung.
Kodos wants us all healthy, for various reasons.
With an obesity epidemic... which candidate has the best answers?
That isn't something that the government should be dealing with, or even give a damn about. If people (and this includes me, I'm a big guy, so I'm not just picking on others here) are too damn stupid or lazy to manage their weight properly, that's their own fault. Our government has WAY more important issues to deal with than trying to coax some fat Americans into improving themselves.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
All I can really say is the obvious: That people don't believe that government is there mostly to just protect rights anymore (if that ever was really the case), so socialized healthcare will be a reality whether we (or I) like it or not,
and that once you get government in healthcare, the incentives to cut costs in places that aren't immediately visible and to pass laws that limit what we can do (and eat, and so forth) are even more likely to go into effect to keep costs low. Expect more restrictions on things like fast food if this goes into effect. People, apparently, cannot take care of themselves, so we need "Democracy" and mass opinion to do it for us. Some people might get the shaft and lose things they love, but in a democracy you sometimes gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?
Which seems to distill to "We can't risk helping people in case we accidentally help some people we don't like."
Universal Coverage
Cost Containment
Unlimited Services
Pick 2. Period. That's it.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Got some numbers on Cuba's healthcare being a failure?
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Cuba
References the World Health Organisation.
Despite the US embargo on Cuba.
Dude, you just fucked up. Cuba's health system is the best in "Latin" America, and is in many ways better then the USA's. Tell me how that is a failure?
I wank in the shower.
In 2006, BBC flagship news programme Newsnight featured Cuba's Healthcare system as part of a series identifying "the world's best public services". The report noted that "Thanks chiefly to the American economic blockade, but partly also to the web of strange rules and regulations that constrict Cuban life, the economy is in a terrible mess: national income per head is minuscule, and resources are amazingly tight. Healthcare, however, is a top national priority" The report stated that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are pretty much the same as the USA's. Its doctor-to-patient ratios stand comparison to any country in Western Europe. Its annual total health spend per head, however, comes in at $251; just over a tenth of the UK's. The report concluded that the population's admirable health is one of the key reasons why Castro is still in power.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
If we take a look at the costs of manufacturing in the US, there is one expense that manufacturers (such as the auto makers) pay here that they don't pay pretty much anywhere else - health insurance. For every new American-built car sold, a staggering portion of the price of the car goes to cover health insurance.
Yet our country spends more per capita on health care than just about any other country on the planet, thanks at least in part to our for-profit system. In other industrialized countries, the workers are still paying for health care, but it comes out of their paychecks in the same way taxes come out. And in the end those other countries can make similar products at a lower final manufacturing cost (even after paying to export to the US).
If people are so certain that the US system is great, then please answer one question. How can we make American manufacturing competitive on the world market again while paying the highest health care costs in the world?
If you look at our top trading partner (that would be Canada), you'll see that their workers make comparable wages for equivalent jobs to those in the US. Yet numerous auto manufacturing facilities have been moved to Canada to save money. Where is the savings if the workers make similar wages? It is in health care and pensions, both managed by the state.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
There seems to be something of a misconception amongst most Americans that I speak to, that your only options are the current system or some kind of filthy commie healthcare system where government employees carry out open heart surgery with rusty cutlery.
The current system in the UK, for example, offers both private and state healthcare, with the NHS free for all and private healthcare available if you want to pay a bit of money for a TV in your hospital room and a shorter wait for your elective surgery.
If you don't want or can't afford private healthcare then you can use the NHS, which is perfectly adequate for most people and certainly doesn't have huge waiting lists for essential treatment as some people seem to believe. Yes, there are the fringe cases, but for the mostpart the NHS is no worse than any of the private medical services when it comes to patient care.
As a result of this system, the private healthcare providers have to charge reasonable rates, because they know that people will simply abandon them for the NHS if they don't appear to be offering good value for money any more.
Americans seem to be terrfied of any kind of government provided or subsidised healthcare at any level, almost as if they see it as a "gateway drug" to communism - as comical as that appears to the rest of the world.
Disclaimer: I currently contract for the NHS, making me far more cynical about it then I might otherwise be.
Huh? Since when it it a Constitutionally delegated power of the Executive branch to "make sure" that Americans are "able to stay healthy," while also meddling in their finances?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Wow - you criticize Obama for not providing the details, but when you remark that he has lengthy PDFs you don't want to bother to read. Either you've already made up your mind and are just rationalizing your opinion, or you don't really care enough about the topic to do your research.
At least you admit to having bias, but then I fail to see anything meaningful at all in what you wrote. At the very least, you should said that you don't have enough information to make a sound judgment on the topic, which is fine. Unfortunately, the norm is that people don't want to admit that, and would rather just make up some reasons for their opinions rather than admit they don't know.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
nd now I don't have to pay for as much of it because my employer provides...
What you don't realize is that your company doesn't pay for any of it. The money they "pay" for your healthcare is actually money they could've paid to you if the laws did not compel them otherwise. So, in effect, you're still paying for your healthcare coverage, you just don't get much of a choice as to how it gets spent.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Walk into any Emergency Room lobby and you'll see a sign saying "you will be treated regardless of your ability to pay"
Which encourages a mentality of waiting for health problems to become emergencies and discourages any sort of preventive measures to maintain health.
How's privatization and deregulation worked for the stock market? Even Greenspan admits this was doubleplus ungood.
How's privatization and deregulation worked for the public with energy companies? [cough]Enron[/cough].
We are better off trusting Congress than health and insurance companies - because the damage doesn't come from Congressfolk not being "experts" in medicine and medical billing. They can hire experts. No, the damage comes from companies hiring experts in BS to rip us off.
And Congress simply has less of a vested interest in ripping us off on health care. That's the simple reality of it.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Sorry, health care is not a right, keep the government out of it.
Just to make a discussion of it, why not apply the same to fire fighters? Why should the government care if your house is burning down? There's a hose over there.
"Yet, we already spend more money per student in public school than nearly all other Western nations. Specifically, we spend 35% more than the Germans. "
And yet we still fall behind...
It's not a money problem, I'll agree. It's a cultural thing. There are some smart black people (think like Malcolm X and MLK types) around today, it's just that they tend to be the ones who actually lived through the Civil Rights era. I admire any smart person, whether black, white, or whatever.
Modern youth culture is, itself, a detriment to education. Instead of "work hard!" it's "fuck the right people over!"
Speaking as a 19 year old college student.
You just proved that nationalized health care would be better than state-based right after saying state-based would be better.
New York's current problems come from a heavy reliance on NYSE for income. If health care were nationalized rather than localized, New York would be weathering this problem a lot better. It would be nice to have our federal taxes come into our own state rather than go to another state for once.
And FYI, you have to be pretty broke or in trouble to get Medicare.
I deliminate with tabs. Get used to it.
"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the chance of a Cuban child dying at five years of age or younger is 7 per 1000 live births in Cuba, while it's 8 per 1000 in the US. WHO reports that Cuban males have a life expectancy at birth of 75 years and females 79 years. In comparison, the US life expectancy at birth is 75 and 80 years for males and females, respectively. Cuba's infant mortality rate is lower than the US with 5 deaths per thousand in Cuba versus 7 per thousand in the US. Cuba has nearly twice as many physicians as the U.S. -- 5.91 doctors per thousand people compared to 2.56 doctors per thousand, according to WHO."
--
The WHO ignores the distinctly more violent culture we have in the US, worse drug problems, Obesity (not a health care but a cultural problem) and other issues... Life expectancy is a terrible measurement of health care quality.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
I have a friend who told me this week that when she needs to go to the doctor, she goes to the emergency room. I was stunned. She said she did it because she doesn't like to make an appointment and have to wait somewhere. She didn't seem to care about the fact that every time she does this, she's driving up my premiums.
There's this selfishness that seems apparent to me in this regard, a sort of never-ending spiral. People like this don't go to a clinic or make an appointment, those decisions drive up costs for hospitals, drive up premiums for me, rinse, repeat.
What we don't do well in this country is preventative care, which is a shame because if we did, premiums would likely fall as well. Neither candidate really addresses this. This is what I would like to see happen, who can deliver this. Doesn't seem like McCain would promote this as his only approach seems to be a tax credit...which I have always felt is a dodge.
If a candidate can show a plan to provide basic care for all Americans, a reasonable way to promote preventative care and finally classify mental illness as a medical illness, that would be a health plan I can get behind. Unfortunately, with everything else going on, there's not much focus on this issue this year.
Here in Aus we have both nationalised AND privatised healthcare. Yes we are the country of moderation, never going to one extreme or the other.
I've made use of our public hospitals in my life for:
1. A severely broken leg (emergency).
2. A radio frequency ablation (serious but not urgent) in and out in a day, by one of the leading heart specialists in the world.
3. My sons birth...single room for the Mrs, very quiet, great midwives and a nice experience. Funnily my other half is from the UK and MUCH prefers our system and hospitals. Though more stuff is covered over there apparently.
All of these cost me nothing up front, service in all cases was great.
That includes the midwives, the bulk billed GP visits, etc.
Now the cost. I pay ~$600 a year on the 'medicare levy', that's how much it costs me in taxes. That's full cover (except dental, public doesn't cover most of that) for $600 a year for top notch service. There's more than that, but as a tax paying citizen, I'm happy for a portion of my taxes to be alloted to public healthcare.
My mate pays a little more than that for private health insurance. He fell off his ladder a few years ago and totally mangled his wrist, nasty business, many breaks. After years of putting into his private insurance...he ends up in the public system anyway. There was nobody available to operate on him in the private hospital we took him to. Total waste of money.
My father had his ankle fused in the private system, his treatment was no better than the public system. Except he got to pay a $3000 premium for the effort.
I'm happy to pay ~600 a year to the government for 'health insurance', it's money well spent.
I hear of Americans paying in the thousands a year for cover, I have to ask...why? Surely your hospitals can't be that inefficient, or are you all just very sick?
I like our system, it works well. You can have the best of both worlds if you find the right balance point, going to one extreme or the other with total nationalisation or total privatisation seems silly.
Mobility among states is common now. It's not unusual for someone to grow up in one state, go to another for college, go to another to find work, and retire to another. People expect things to be basically the same across states. It's not like it was 200 years ago when few people moved out of their county.
"My personal health is my responsibility. If I want to smoke, drink, and eat fatty foods until I die of a massive heart attack, that's my business. Nobody else should be concerned with it. If it can't afford to pay for the health problems I've brought on myself, nobody else should be required to pay one red cent to cover me."
I agree. But what if the heart condition is hereditary and you can't afford to pay? Then you have a serious problem.
Look, I hate the thought I my money going to people who don't want to work, who don't want to take care of themselves, etc. There will always be people gaming the system because they're deadbeats and lazy and scammers, etc.
The the reality is, if I were to become homeless, I would want food, shelter, treatment until I got back on my feet. If I were unemployed, I would want food, shelter, medical treatment until I found a job. If I got some disease and couldn't afford it, I would want treatment. Just because some people refuse to find a job, or pick themselves up by the bootstraps doesn't mean the system is completely out of the question.
That costs money. At some point, you have to suck up the fact that some people game the system and will get my something for their nothing. That's life. That's taxes. That's school levys. That's fire/police. That's Social Security. In the end, YOU will need those things.
This country, including myself, needs to change it's me me me me me me me me attitude, or we're not going to make it long term. I'm a firm believer that karma is one hateful mistress when you ignore her.
However their governments regulates they must offer a single price without age or pre-existing considition differentials. This pretty much how US employer insurance operates. Seems to work OK.
Side A : Let's give healthcare to all of you so that the tens of millions of you who can't afford one can have one rather than work two jobs while you're dying of a cancer you can barely afford to cure.
Side B : OMG no don't you understand! The world divides in two sides, the capitalist side, and the communist side. Universal healthcare is socialism, and socialism is in our minds some sort of watered-down communism, which is anti-capitalism, therefore universal healthcare = anti-American!
God I'm glad we still get to choose between our Cold war-era ideological remanents of antagonisms vs. black babies dying. God bless our ideological free-for-all that is Capitalism as American conservatives and libertarians see it! The bad guys are commies, and the good guys are capitalists, therefore it's perfectly safe and healthy to be as capitalist as we possibly can!
You just got troll'd!
They are shit holes, in shambles, unsanitary. These are the ones normal Cubans get to visit as opposed to the nice hospital for the party elites and foreigners with cash that you saw in Sicko. Trying to sneak photos of them out of the country can get you arrested, but some have succeeded. I like the guy taking his sick father to the hospital in a wheelbarrow because there were no ambulances. If I go to a pharmacy here I have to pay, but I can get my drugs. There you will see a sign saying there are no prescriptions available.
You forget this is a communist totalitarian state we're talking about. They never tell the truth, just like the Soviet Union was broadcasting about record wheat harvests that'll feed everybody while we were sending them the millions of tons of grain they needed to actually do it.
I'm a health care provider. I've been in the field in various capacities since 1981 and as a licensed professional since 1990.
When we talk about the "health care system" in America we have to be very clear about what we are talking about. There are two halves to this system- health care providers and health care finance. The main problems in the US health care system are in health care finance, since this is what determines access to health care.
National health care insurance is an inevitability and IMHO will be driven from the Right not the Left. The driving force will be lobbying from large businesses (GM, for example) that will be rendered noncompetitive by health care costs; they will either go bust or leave the US for countries with a national health care plan. IIRC nearly $1500 of a GM auto's sticker price is health care costs for current and pensioned employees. The creation of a national health system would allow GM and other large companies to offload much of the cost of health care insurance for current employees but also for retirees. This would be a major gain in the bottom line for companies struggling under these costs and other market forces, and would put them on a more-equal footing with most European and some Asian competitors. It would also be a major gain for small businesses (like my Dad's, like the company I work for, etc.) as it would reduce payroll costs. The losers, of course, would be private insurance companies and their CEOs, employees and shareholders.
For the individual, national health care coverage would mean greater freedom to move between jobs to improve one's lot in life and greater flexibility in managing care for children or dependent adults (e.g., aging parents).
The creation of a national health care finance plan would be able to leverage economies of scale unavailable to private insurance companies. The removal of the profit motive would reduce overhead from an industry average of 10-30% to closer to Medicare's 2%- a savings of hundreds of billions of dollars per year right there. With universal coverage, every person in the US could obtain preventive, clinic based care (which is the least expensive way to receive care) rather than letting problem go unaddressed and eventually seeking care in an emergency room (the most expensive way to receive medical care). With universal coverage, health care providers would not face defaults on payments for services which would allow a reduction in the cost of care. Rationing of health care would be reduced through the elimination of provider networks and access restrictions imposed by insurance companies. And finally, authorizations for services would not be influenced by the need to protect the profit margin.
From the provider side, it costs money to get paid. Someone has to prepare a bill and send it out. For many of my patients, payment comes from two to four sources and I have to send a bill to each in turn according to an order of precedence. Each bill costs $3-5 to send, and then there are the costs of tracking reimbursement to collate all the payments, figuring out who gets money back if the bill gets overpaid (which happens frequently because the insurance companies don't understand their own systems very well). Being able to do single payer billing would save an average of $10 per patient in my clinic, which means either more profit or the ability to lower costs for services. Imagine the cumulative savings if the cost of every health care service in America could be reduced by an average of $10.
That all sounds like a panacea and of course no such thing exists. Every health care finance system would have problems. People worry about where the money would come from and the only possible answer is taxes, since that is the only source of government revenue. However, we already pay that tax and then some. Like most people, I get my insurance through my employer. I chose the cheapest plan, which is a high-deductible plan. It costs $512 per month, 50% out of my po
Insurance companies suck, I'd love to find one that acknowledges that there is a difference between a 2 person family and a 6 person family.
As of right now if I wanted employer healthcare for me and my spouse it would cost me exactly the same as my co-workers healthcare for him, his spouse, and his 3 children.
As two generally healthy adults we cost a lot less to cover than 3 children. But we pay the same amount. That sucks.
Of course, healthcare isn't the governments business any more than housing, cars, or clothes are. If you believe the government should be providing you healthcare then you should also believe that the government should feed, clothe, and house you since those are more fundamental needs than healthcare.
So, please stop your dirty socialist whining.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Based solely on performance: Does anyone want the morons in Washington to have a say in your health care? That is one scary thought and very appropriate on Halloween.
Remember, I have renamed Congress the "Thundering Herd of Dumbass" for a reason (19% approval rating shows I'm not alone).
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I can't tell from your post whether this is your opinion, but I keep hearing this mantra: "the government wants to regulate things and take away your freedom." (I'm a Brit living in the US.) In this case, it's: "the government wants to prevent you from eating the food you like".
Frankly, this argument is weak. Regulation and freedom are not opposed, nor are they aligned - they are different things. Regulation can sometimes lead to loss of freedom, and can sometimes protect and enshrine freedom.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason that many people like fast food is that fast food corporations are currently free to bombard 4-year olds with the message that if they have a Big Mac, they will be happy?
There are many ways to tackle the obesity/fast food conundrum at the supply side. Now there's an argument that should appeal to Reaganites.
This topic is one close to my heart... in several ways. I have very personal experience with Socialized Medicine. You see, I'm Canadian, for those of you not familiar with your neighbours to the north, we have a Socialized Medicine system. I've lived under it's jack boots all my life. I have too many stories to cover in this one post. In Canada socialized medicine is an unmitigated disaster. Unless you live in a large population center or in one of the richer areas in Canada you won't get good care. Myself I live in a rural area in New Brunswick, and the 'health care' that Canada offers hear is unacceptable. I actually got a job in the US 'just' to get health insurance. Where I live the closet Canadian hospital is over an hour and fifteen minutes away, there is 1 medical center in my area, open 2 days a week. Only one of those days does a doctor actually operate out of the clinic. I'll give you my own most recent experiences with that system. I was rushed to the near by US Hospital (thank you US Health Insurance), with heart issues a while back. Treated and released for my condition (Aterial Fib as it's called) a day later. I was instructed to see a Cardiologist ASAP to figure out what causes the issue. I contacted Canadian medicare and was told that the closest appointment they could give me was EIGHT MONTHS away. It would be another SIX MONTHS after the consult to have any testing I needed done then another SIX MONTHS to see the doctor for my results. Realize at this point I had no idea what was wrong with me... I could've been dead the next day from it. I promptly hung up the phone and contacted the nearest Cardiologist in the US. This was a Thursday... I was scheduled for the following Monday @ 8:30. I was taken care of and all prudent testing was done over the span of that week, and the week following. My condition identified and treatment was rendered. I encourage people to debate me on Socialized Medicine, I'm all too well versed in it's use. Frankly I can see how on the surface Socialized Medicine would look appealing to people, but once you get underneath to the meat of the matter... it becomes a scary reality. The simple fact of the matter is in a socialist health care system you are at the mercy of the government in terms of your overall health care. I know too many friends and family that have been mistreated, and some killed by negligence on the part of the state in these matters. It is NOT a good system, in practice.
Americans seem to be terrfied of any kind of government provided or subsidised healthcare at any level, almost as if they see it as a "gateway drug" to communism - as comical as that appears to the rest of the world.
They sure do, yet Medicare (a federal organization) already spends the same $ per capita on health care in the US serving only some of the population as the NHS does on serving an entire country!
Americans might be scared of subsidies, yet they're already wasting as much as we do and get very little for it. At least I don't have to pay a single penny if I get injured in a road traffic accident. Sure, I'm paying in taxes, but UK taxes are barely any higher than those in the US except on VAT.
I think the primary flaw in your thinking is that you are seeing the results of government intervention (well over 50% of healthcare spending is from/through the government, and it is heavily heavily regulated), and instead of understanding that the chaos and dysfunction is a result of government intervention, your conclusion is that more intervention is needed. This is how the snowball got started, and it's still rolling along, crushing anything in its path.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
On July 1, 1966, millions of Americans lost all financial responsibility for their health-care decisions thanks to Medicare and Medicaid. In 1973, Senator Kennedy said 'I believe that the HMO is the best idea put forth so far for containing costs and improving the organization and the delivery of health-care services.' You can see the result of twenty-five years of government intervention into the health insurance/health care market. The 110th Congress just performed the same type of market manipulation on our financial system. You do not have to be a laissez-faire economist to realize that the government should stay out of markets.
Until very recently health care costs were growing at several times the rate of inflation (inflation has increased a lot) and the US is spending much, much more per capita on health care than other western countries while covering a smaller portion of its population. The uninsured still receive care but they get emergency care and that is a very expensive way to treat most conditions. The cost of that is ultimately passed on to the insured and/or taxpayers so we're currently paying for insuring the rest of the country but at an inflated price and getting poor results now.
There are serious problems with care for the insured. Contracts and billing between hospitals and payors are a terrible mess and administrative costs are a big part of hospital bills with private insurance. Medicare and the medicaids cost a lot less to administer so more of the public health care dollar goes to care than the private counterparts.
I don't think the Canadian or British models would fit America very well but the German system with multiple non-profit payors or the Australian system with national health care and an option for a private premium insurance is something I think we should explore as they tend to keep choice in the equation.
Obama's plan seems like it would be expensive but we're already paying for everyone to get health care now in some form so for the most part this is just shifting money around in an effort to provide better care. I think a lot of the savings with this plan from increased efficiency of care and cutting some of the cost of caring for the uninsured that is currently passed on to the insured is going to be eaten up by the hospital and insurance companies. It doesn't fix problems with private insurance but that's too big of a problem to tackle now.
McCain's plan will cause some employers to drop insurance and make modest increases in cash wages for their workers because it will cost more to insure them and they can just let their employees buy insurance with a tax credit paid by other employers who provide insurance to their workers and some of their fake raise. It creates a competitive disadvantage to offer insurance because you'll be paying more to insure your employees and your competitors while they are probably paying a bit less than they were before. The insurance they'll be able to buy probably won't have group risk built into it so you'll see a lot more medical underwriting so healthy people can get good insurance cheaply and sick people will still have problems getting insurance.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
When I go see the doctor, I don't actually see a doctor. I see a Nurse. She's very good. She admits when things are out of her area, and best of all, she listens to ME.
I was on some meds that were making me feel "odd", and I found an obscure article detailing that one of the side effects of the medicine was exactly what I was experiencing. It wasn't a common side effect, only 1 out of 150,000 or so, but there it was.
I broght the article in, and in less than two minutes, had a prescription for another med, that hasn't giving me any side effects.
My solution for medical healthcare insurance hospital crisis is this. Get rid of the stupid monopoly of having to see an MD for sniffles and scrapes.
Start offering NURSES to deal with the daily care of regular patients, directly. Let them prescribe certain classes of meds for common problems.
Second step of my plan is to eliminate insurance "discounts" for proceedures. One price for ALL for everything. By this I mean no pentalty for going to a hospital and paying "cash", and no charging less for insurance companies. We can accomplish this if people getting the services had to fill out the insurance claims based upon the hospital bills, rather than the hospitals and insurance companies being in collusion and hiding the cost from the patients.
Lastly, I recommend changing the TORT laws in regard to medical care. We have to realize that SHIT happens, and even the best care providers screw up from time to time. When OBGYNs are leaving the field due to tort lawsuits (Thanks alot John Edwards) there is a problem not with the doctors, but with the lawyers. First thing I'd do to reform "tort" laws, the punitive portions are not going to the victims, but to the state into a "victims fund". AND lawyers don't get a piece of that either, 100% goes to the state. Tort reform should start at getting rid of the "lottery" effect.
The problem is the inefficiencies being built into, and the "routing around" the problems that are taking place. Insurance companies SKIM off the top, Lawyers scrape the muck at the bottom, and everyone else gets "less" services for what they are paying for in the process.
Government can't help this other than require processes that streamline and produce "fairness" in the market place.
We can fix this, if we toss out the corruption that is causing the problems in the first place. Lawyers and Insurance companies are gaming the system for their gain.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
OK, the infant mortality rate is not comparable. The US does a much better job than the rest of the world at keeping premature babies alive. Different countries use a different method of reporting live births. Many countries do not count deaths of premature babies born before 25 weeks. The US counts it. This throws off the infant mortality comparisons. The US makes efforts to keep alive babies born very early, even with 2 lb birth waits. The chance of survival is very low. The death is counted. Cuba and others don't even try and the deaths are not part of their reported infant mortality rate. Here is one of many links. http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/infant-mortality-and-premature-birth/
Government programs tend to work well in small groups. For example, Canada has about the same number of people in the whole country that the state of California does by itself. I don't have an issue with universal health care but it'd be better it if were administered by the states with minimal federal involvement. However, none of the current politicians seem to want that.
As an example, do any of our Massachusetts readers have experience with their new Commonwealth Care http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/? There's about the same number of people in MA as there is in a single province in Canada so it should be a good example.
Amendment X to the United States Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Federally mandated socialized medicine is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
Since I am right now paying off a $15,000 hospital bill because my appendix had the audacity to attempt to burst 3 months before insurance started at my new job, I'll agree with you here.
The original bill was $39,000 from the hospital, but I got their "assistance" and it was reduced to $15,650. I still had $3,000+ of other bills in addition (surgeon, anesthesiologist, radiologists...).
The part that pisses me off is I used to work in a doctor's office, I saw the fee schedule.
For some MRIs (for example) a patient with no insurance would be charged $1500+. Blue Cross would have to pay $1,000. Medicaid would give us three hundred bucks.
The only reform I want to see is to insist that everyone is charged the same amount for the same services. I don't want the amount to be dictated, but each hospital/doctor can figure out what to charge, and make everyone pay THAT.
Then there could actually be competition and comparison shopping (shocking, I know).
---- Watch out for snakes!
You do understand that the low infant mortality rate in Cuba is also directly tied into their extremly high abortion rates, almost double the US.
Simply put if a fetus is seen to have any defects it is often aborted before birth thereby drastically reducing difficult births and mortality statistics. Of course that doesn't stop the fact that almost 3 times as many women die in childbirth in the health care nirvana of Cuba than the US.
In the US, people try to take care of their children, even if they know they won't be perfect.
So which system do you prefer again?
Numbers don't always mean what you think they mean, and a hospital system in which patients are routinely advised to bring in their own sheets and food to avoid lice and parasite infested 'hospital' bedding is not what I would call a shining example of modern medicine.
Much of the difference in expected living is the fact that when people are free to do what they want, as they are in western societies, they tend to do stupid things; drive fast cars, each unhealthy foods, bungee jump, hang glide, etc..; all types of activities that puts a persons life at risk outside of whatever type of health care you receive. So you could choose to move to Cuba, where those choices really aren't available to you and live till you're 75, or you could remain in the US (presumably) and live however you like.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
The NHS is underfunded, but it's not inefficient, by far. Compared to the US system, it's awesome, ... in that respect.
Of course I'm implying that you mean inefficient when you write inefficient. In physics, it's defined as
efficiency = useful_output / input
Usually input is the raw energy, such as the chemical energy in the gasoline, and the useful_output is the energy you can actually put to use. IIRC a typical gasoline engine is at 0.20 efficiency while a combined cycle gas turbine can reach 0.70.
BTW a heating system (not heat pump) can be seen as having 0 efficiency or 100%, or NaN.
For health care costs, all depends on what you mean exactly. You could define the useful output as the money that gets in the pocket of health professionals and pharmaceutical companies, and the input as the premiums and out of pocket expenses.
With that definition, having no insurance at all is 100% efficient: you pay exactly what gets to the doc/pharmacy. But obviously you probably don't want that. The private US system is at 0.70 efficiency basically, with 30% going to advertising, buying out congresscritters, CEO yachts & country club memberships, suing customers and armies of claims-denying call center drones. Public systems, including the NHS but also Medic(aid|are), are at about 97% efficiency.
That's not the end of the story, obviously. Some advantages can be argued for a private system; such as a more rational allocation of ressource, better handling of fraud and such. (The truth is, the more a health insurance market is regulated, the less the insurers get to waste money on useless advertising and such. ) But that's not part of the efficiency equation.
Parent should be modded up. Many are screaming that any kind of progressive change to the health care system would be socialistic. Yet they all refuse to recognize that nearly the entire system we have is already heavily regulated and in no way represents any kind of free market. I assert that excessive regulation and the insurance companies are a huge part of the problem. Unless a new adminstration is willing and able to tackle these issues nothing will change.
One of my job responsibilities is to support a Home Health Care system's application and I have a lot of experience with supporting them. The percentage of effort and expense put into keeping up with constantly changing regulatory mandates is truly staggering. I personally don't understand why people continue to get in the business anymore because they are constantly squeezed between increasing costs, and shrinking revenues. A major portion of the cost increases are due to administrative overhead a substantial portion of which is dedicated to ensuring regulatory compliance. I'm not generally a proponent of deregulation, but in the case of health care the government and industry both have made a huge complicated mess of the entire system.
The problems with our current 'private' insurance system have already been well articulated in other posts here. There's also the topic of legal liability which I won't even start in on. Bottom line is that we all need to be willing to start rebuilding the system from the ground up if we truly want change.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
America is about individual effort toward success. The federal government's job is to act as the mortar that keeps the states together, and to handle international affairs. The government's job is not to be a charity. Charity is the job of the church and other non-profits. The federal government should do the minimum required, and the leave the rest to the state and local governments, and to private institutions.
Insurance rates are high because people who have the insurance don't use it properly. Why go to the clinic for the ear infection when you can just go to the nearest hospital emergency room and pay the same price? When the individual does not feel the price difference, that person does not make smart financial decisions.
Where is the incentive to go to college for eight years, internship, residency, fellowship, etc., when the prospective doctor knows that he will be told by a bureaucrat for the rest of his career what services he will perform for who, and how much money he will get for it. Where is the incentive to work hard and become the best surgeon alive, when he gets paid the same amount for the procedure as the next doctor? If you think HMOs are bad, just wait until you are dealing with the government!
How many here like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent name in your state)? Long lines, stupid people and rules, little individual attention? That's what your health care would be like, an assembly line. You get the same services as the next guy, unless you happen to know someone important.
For those that think we need a socialized public health care system, just look at the VHA. The federal government can't handle health care for veterans, how would it take care of every American?
Yo this is a shout out to my EBT. You stamps were there for me when I was down and out! Man, nothing takes the edge off of being broke and unemployed like the US government food assistance program. Once you have access to the food you need, you can focus on other things like getting a job.
Start a federal medical training program, wherein college-age students could sign up for a federally funded medical school that would train NP/PA types... a lot like an Army medic or a lightweight DO. The student would get this training for free BUT would sign a chunk of his life away, much like joining the military. After graduation, he would be obligated to work for something like at least 5 to 8 years in a federally run Doc-in-a-Box clinic
At least the veterans' hospital in Fort Wayne, Indiana, already does this for some medical technician positions. The student gets a loan, which the VA repays in full after the technician has worked x years for the VA.
What you do NOT have a right to do is take your Bill, hand it to your neighbors, and force them to pay the bill. That's theft.
It's public good. A sick member of the community is a net drain on it. If you get sick, you're not just dropped out in the middle of the woods, you get cared for, you get medical care even if you don't have insurance. If you can't pay for it personally, they can't reposess that work, it gets paid for by the community AND you.
Even if you don't go to the hospital, your neighbors and family do take care of you, which is a drain on a smaller part of the community, but is still making others pay for your health. Plus there's the net effect on the economy of you not coming into work or failing at your other responsibilites because you were sick.
The point I'm trying to make is that with healthcare, it's ALWAYS the community supporting you. Whether you're paying through an insurance company which screws the patients over and keeps the change, or whether you pay directly to the government and deal with the inefficiencies there, you can't be self-sufficient completely.
Nor should you be. The lexus is a choice. If you can't pay for it, you don't get to keep it. Getting sick is not, you can't choose to get sick or not based on your finances.
So there's no choice, and everyone pays for it anyway. Your black and white picture of healthcare as being the same as buying a car is completely immature.