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.
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.
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.
The obesity epidemic can be partially blamed on government subsidies to the production of high fructose corn syrup, and tariffs on imported (more healthy) roe or cane sugar. On top of that if you nationalize healthcare you also nationalize the costs of obesity, therefore such a lifestyle should be taxed higher to cover their added cost to society.
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.
4/5 may come into existence, but it will ANYWAY. My employer has already started offering $15/mo off for employees who sign a contract (with penalties) stating that they do not smoke. They offer up to $400/yr for people who take a company provided health exam and agree to follow a "health program" prescribed from whatever quack nutritionist they have on staff.
That's how it will go down at the national level too. You can't punish people for being fat or for smoking, but you can offer "incentives".
On the other hand, neither McCain's nor Obama's are any better. McCain's plan will have you get your own insurance, which likely will require a health examination to calculate your premium. If you're fat, it will be higher. If the doctor believes you smoke...it will be higher. etc. Obama's plan basically will boil down to "status quo". Allowing corporations to do as they are presently doing.
So while I agree with your statement, this is not avoidable. Insurance, by nature, is socialist, and insurance, by nature, determines your premium based on risk factors. I hate it, but it's not changing.
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
A similar argument was had a long time ago over automobile safety, wearing seatbelts, crash helmets etc. The bottom line is that what you do has an effect on others. Who will pay for your emergency care when you have a heart attack and no insurance? What is the cost on society of allowing, or even encouraging through fancy adverts, young people to develop all kinds of unhealthy lifestyle related long term illnesses? A libertarian might say that's great, as these people will die earlier, thus requiring less medical care - but the truth is that somebody will end up paying for that medical care, either the tax payer through some government program, or the healthy insurance buyer who never claims.
To paraphrase your answer:
"That isn't something that the government should be dealing with, or even give a damn about. If people (and this includes me, I drive an unsafe car, so I'm not just picking on others here) are too damn stupid or lazy to drive a safe car, that's their own fault. Our government has WAY more important issues to deal with than trying to coax some fat Americans into improving their cars."
Woohoo, car analogy!
It seems to me, and I might be wrong (I'm not)....
That John Mcain, a Navy brat, turned lifetime public servant who has had "socialist" government provided healthcare for his entire 72 years on this planet. Probably doesn't know sweet FA about an the average persons health care, outside of what he reads and the health insurance lobbyists tell him.
It's kind of ironic that the guy who's suckled at the government teat for his entire life, calls other people socialists.
Has he even ever been to a job interview? Or even had to ring an insurance company to get cover?
After a career in the Navy and a career in the Senate, it is doubtful that Senator McCain has interviewed for a job, unless you consider reapplying for his job in the Senate every six years is an interview of sorts.
But, seriously. "Suckled at the government teat"? Really? I'm not voting for McCain, but this is just unfair. Senator McCain's father served in the Navy, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). Senator McCain served in the Navy, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). After serving in the Navy for decades, Senator McCain has served in the Congress, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). C'mon. Suckling at the government teat? That's just not a fair assessment of what Senator McCain has been doing for 72 years. Complain about his inability to offer an coherent, consistent message. Complain about his plan to freeze government spending levels. Complain about his plan to tax health care benefits. I'll even grant you that he doesn't know much about the health care insurance of average folk. Just don't deny that the man has earned his health care for 72 years.
Life is short; think quickly.
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.
This whole post reeks of US FUD.
First off: you don't contact "Canadian medicare", there is no such thing. You contact your doctor who schedules you with a specialist.
Fact:I went to my doctor on a scheduled check up and because of some minor thing he wanted me to see a cardiologist. It wasn't an emergency and I was there in about 2.5 weeks. An emergency (your "ASAP" situation) certainly would have gotten you in faster.
Trolling is a art,