Universal health care would be a good thing

[Autodidact]

What about infant mortality? How are we doing there?
We're around 21st in the world. Not too bad. Except that as the richest country, we should really be #1. Every country ahead of us has universal health care, including Cuba, a poor country. And Canada, at 4.63 (didn't copy with the chart) is doing great. So for every 1000 babies born in the U.S., 2 more die than in Canada. Hmmm. How many of them are caused by lack of health insurance? That is harder still, but as my time permits, will be the next thing I'll try to find out for us.
United States 6.37 Korea, South 6.05 Cuba 6.04 Faroe Islands 6.01 Isle of Man 5.72 Italy 5.72 New Zealand 5.67 Taiwan 5.54 San Marino 5.53 Greece 5.34 Monaco 5.27 Ireland 5.22 Jersey 5.08 United Kingdom 5.01 Gibraltar 4.98 Portugal 4.92 Netherlands 4.88 European Union 4.8 Luxembourg 4.68 Canada

 

[Troublemane]

It all sounds good in theory but who will pay for it? And what about the privately owned hospitals, are they simply to be seized by the govt? Insurance companies are owned by private citizens, will they be outlawed and the stockholders simply lose their money?

Will politicians simply sign a law requiring everyone to have mandatory health insurance, like we have with cars? Ok, that would be fine, as long as we still had the option of coverage---so we could decide how much money to pay, what level of coverage we want. Perhaps a mix of socialized medicine with capitalist innovation is the best route, giving us the best of both worlds.

The problems with a completely socialized system is an overall lower level of quality, and the inability to choose what doctor you can go to. Other countries send their medical students to the US to learn, the reason is because we may not have the best coverage for all people, but our system does allow the greatest innovation. Other countries benefit from our system without having to pay for the innovation themselves, because they get it from us. --Think about it. If we stop developing advancements in drugs and medical technology, what will that mean for the rest of the world?

 

[Storm]

It all sounds good in theory but who will pay for it?

As Autodidact has shown, we already pay vastly more than countries with socialized medicine. Taxes would probably have to be raised, but this should be more than balanced by no longer having to pay $900/ month for private insurance and the additional money of deductibles. The average family's net cost would go down.

And what about the privately owned hospitals, are they simply to be seized by the govt? Insurance companies are owned by private citizens, will they be outlawed and the stockholders simply lose their money?

A transition would have to be made, of course, but to say everything would simply be seized is ludicrous.

Will politicians simply sign a law requiring everyone to have mandatory health insurance, like we have with cars? Ok, that would be fine, as long as we still had the option of coverage---so we could decide how much money to pay, what level of coverage we want.

I think it should be paid for by taxes, so that we pay nothing out-of-pocket.

Perhaps a mix of socialized medicine with capitalist innovation is the best route, giving us the best of both worlds.

That's what we've got now, and it's obviously not the best of any world.

The problems with a completely socialized system is an overall lower level of quality, and the inability to choose what doctor you can go to.

Source?

Other countries send their medical students to the US to learn, the reason is because we may not have the best coverage for all people, but our system does allow the greatest innovation.

I see no reason why socializing health care would negatively impact our educational system.

Other countries benefit from our system without having to pay for the innovation themselves, because they get it from us. --Think about it. If we stop developing advancements in drugs and medical technology, what will that mean for the rest of the world?

Why would we stop?

An end to predatory capitalism is not an end to research.

 

[Troublemane]

IMO the drug companies are the biggest problem in our system. Clearly they exist only to make a profit, and for this reason drugs which may have been useful are passed over for something similar which is "more advanced", so is pushed by the doctors. The drug companies have made our doctors little more than drug pushers. Perhaps if revenues from new prescription drugs were controlled, either remove the tax from them or use the tax money from them to subsidize their purchase by anyone who makes less than $200k per year.

Right now the government considers it poverty if you make less than $20k per year, but the majority of working class americans make a combined income of somewhere around $48k---due to the staggering increase in inflation over the past few decades (a fact obscured by the last few administrations, dems and reps alike, mind you...)----$50k isnt really enough to have a "quality" life, but just to "get by". If there is to be any govt subsidies it should be given to anyone living below $200k, that would adjust for the outrageous inflation we have experienced (which is more like 12%, not the silly numbers they spout now). I would think if you make more than that you would certainly be able to afford it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

IMO the drug companies are the biggest problem in our system. Clearly they exist only to make a profit, and for this reason drugs which may have been useful are passed over for something similar which is "more advanced", so is pushed by the doctors. The drug companies have made our doctors little more than drug pushers. Perhaps if revenues from new prescription drugs were controlled, either remove the tax from them or use the tax money from them to subsidize their purchase by anyone who makes less than $200k per year.

Right now the government considers it poverty if you make less than $20k per year, but the majority of working class americans make a combined income of somewhere around $48k---due to the staggering increase in inflation over the past few decades (a fact obscured by the last few administrations, dems and reps alike, mind you...)----$50k isnt really enough to have a "quality" life, but just to "get by". If there is to be any govt subsidies it should be given to anyone living below $200k, that would adjust for the outrageous inflation we have experienced (which is more like 12%, not the silly numbers they spout now). I would think if you make more than that you would certainly be able to afford it.

I can't argue with your position on the pharmacuetical companies, but I'll throw the managed health care insurance providers as an even bigger contributor to the problem.

 

[Autodidact]

It all sounds good in theory but who will pay for it?

O.K. let's try to answer this question. Remember, we're all paying for what we have right now, and we're paying about twice as much as all the countries with universal coverage. So really, the question is, who will pay less than now, and the answer is: all of us.

So we wouldn't be paying the taxes we pay now to get partial coverage(higher than most countries with universal coverage) and we wouldn't be paying the insurance premiums that we pay now; neither would our employers, nor would we be paying what we're all paying directly and privately now.

Bear in mind, for the portion of our taxes we are paying RIGHT NOW for health care, we could have a universal system. Instead we are choosing a wasteful, expensive, non-universal system that actually costs more in taxes.

How are most universal health care models funded?

There are two main ways to do it. One is by general taxation. Just take the taxes we're paying now, and put it into a single-payer system. It should cost the same or less than we're paying now. The other is a social insurance system, where employees and employers pay premiums. This is more like what we do now, except that everyone pays to the same place, it's mandated, no one can be excluded, and it's cheaper. (The government pays for unemployed people.)

 

[Alceste]

Just to clear up a few more misconceptions (from Starfish and Troublemane) socialised medicine and universal health care are not the same thing. Universal health care is a single payer system. It does not mean the government owns and runs all the hospitals, drug companies, clinics, surgeries etc. It means the government pays all the bills, for everybody, out of public funds collected from everybody. This gives them a great deal of power to keep costs down. Doctors don't work for the government - they own and run their own clinics but their fees are standardised and set by the government. Drug companies own their own patents but are under pressure to supply affordable medicine due to the fact the government (unlike desperate parents of sick children) will not pay an exorbitant price for one company's product when another product is available for less.

Cuba has socialised medicine. Canada and the rest of the industrialised world have universal health coverage.

To Starfish, sick Canadians do not need the help of private health insurance. The people you hear moaning about this unmet need are insurance salesmen, who look miserably to the south where vast fortunes can be accumulated by gouging people who do not have access to care, then limiting their expenses by refusing to cover the cost when their clients are most desperate and in need.

The reason people in countries with universal health coverage consider private insurance "too expensive" is because it's a luxury, not a basic necessity. Their necessities are automatically covered, so the choice they face is "Shall I pay hundreds of dollars a month, forever, for something I don't need, and might never use?" Who would do that? Would you? Of course it seems ridiculously expensive to buy something you've already got.

 

[Troublemane]

U.S. Health spending as part of GDP: 15.3% Average annual per-person spending: Total: $6,402. Breakdown: $2,884 by government; $2,676 for private insurance, with 52% paid by employers, 48% paid by employees; $842 by consumer out-of-pocket*

Britain:
Health spending as part of GDP: 8.3%
Average annual per-person spending: Total: $4,504. Breakdown: $3,800 by government; $704 on supplemental private insurance, OTC drugs, direct payments to doctors.

(from NPR)

This isnt really comparing dollars to donuts, since the health coverage in the US is paid for by employers and private insurers (like those who work as private contractors), and doesnt cover those seniors covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Yet we are here comparing the private sector against the governmentally provided health care system of the UK, which covers everyone (both working and not).

Also, look at the population of the UK: 60 million. Compare this with the population of the US:$300 million. Now if we divide GDP by population:

USA GDP (13,000,000 million dollars) / 300 million people= $46,000 per person
UK GDP (2,000,000 million dollars) / 60 million people= $35,000 per person

..so if we are spending 1/3 more on health care than UK we are also producing 1/3 more GDP per person than they are, so the numbers actually even out. Even though the numbers given to criticize the US system only includes the private sector and does not include medicare/medicaid.

Basically by your own numbers the US private system (which only covers those who pay into it) operates better than the UK's national system (which is supposed to cover the entire country).

 

[Willamena]

Just a point of information -

The portion of anyone's health care that is paid by the employer is MOST definitely coming out of the pocket of the employee.

When someone says "my healthcare plan costs me $95 a month, and my employer pays the other half", the actual cost to the employee is the full amount of $190 per month.

The employer is simply not paying that amount to the employee in salary.

In the instance of my employer, such a thing would be entirely illegal.

 

[Willamena]

It all sounds good in theory but who will pay for it? And what about the privately owned hospitals, are they simply to be seized by the govt? Insurance companies are owned by private citizens, will they be outlawed and the stockholders simply lose their money?

Government (mine, at least) does very little these days as an organization in terms of services; rather, services are outsourced to the private sector. There would not need to be any change in structure or organization.

 

[Troublemane]

To Starfish, sick Canadians do not need the help of private health insurance. The people you hear moaning about this unmet need are insurance salesmen, who look miserably to the south where vast fortunes can be accumulated by gouging people who do not have access to care, then limiting their expenses by refusing to cover the cost when their clients are most desperate and in need.

I can certainly agree that insurance companies are a serious problem when it comes to health care costs. I also never said capitalism was the best system, i just said it was the best for innovation. I advocate a system that provides health coverage for everyone but without raising taxes on the already embattled middle class. That will mean laws will have to be passed that control insurance companies' practices better, with greater oversight, but i dont advocate making the govt the sole means of paying for all health care.

The reason people in countries with universal health coverage consider private insurance "too expensive" is because it's a luxury, not a basic necessity. Their necessities are automatically covered, so the choice they face is "Shall I pay hundreds of dollars a month, forever, for something I don't need, and might never use?" Who would do that? Would you? Of course it seems ridiculously expensive to buy something you've already got.

Of course, because everyone there gets the same basic coverage for everything. But if you need an operation it may take months or years to get in. Money talks, so if you can pay for the service you get the treatment, otherwise you take what is there.

Basically its a gamble you wont need something. Insurance just helps offset that, but there really is no system of medical coverage that is "free"--someone has to pay for it somewhere.

 

[Nessa]

This is a long thread and I'm sorry if this is redundant. But there are many limitations on health insurance and people often acquire a false sense of security. Many policies have limitations on the maximum amount that can be paid in a year or over the duration of the policy. Which can cause disastrous results to your budget when faced with a serious illness.

Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance.

More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

About 500,000 people sought bankruptcy protection in the United States last year because of the crushing burden of medical expenses, says the study, to be published next month in Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser, a specialty periodical for lawyers. The number equals about half the one million Americans who filed for bankruptcy protection last year.

US Study: Medical Bills Main Culprit In Bankruptcies

 

[Autodidact]

This isnt really comparing dollars to donuts, since the health coverage in the US is paid for by employers and private insurers (like those who work as private contractors), and doesnt cover those seniors covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Yet we are here comparing the private sector against the governmentally provided health care system of the UK, which covers everyone (both working and not).

Also, look at the population of the UK: 60 million. Compare this with the population of the US:$300 million. Now if we divide GDP by population:

USA GDP (13,000,000 million dollars) / 300 million people= $46,000 per person
UK GDP (2,000,000 million dollars) / 60 million people= $35,000 per person

..so if we are spending 1/3 more on health care than UK we are also producing 1/3 more GDP per person than they are, so the numbers actually even out. Even though the numbers given to criticize the US system only includes the private sector and does not include medicare/medicaid.

Basically by your own numbers the US private system (which only covers those who pay into it) operates better than the UK's national system (which is supposed to cover the entire country).

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic or what you're saying at all. Why does it matter that U.S. care is private vs. public? Does that make the dollars smaller? Why are you dividing the GDP by the population? What does GDP have to do with it? How is the U.S. private system better than the UK public?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

In the instance of my employer, such a thing would be entirely illegal.

Of course. i was referring to the situation we have here America.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is a survey that compares Canada, the U.S. and Britain in satisfaction re: quality and availability.

The bottom line: all three are about equally satisfied with quality. Canadians and Britons are much more satisfied than Americans with availability.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Doctors don't work for the government - they own and run their own clinics but their fees are standardised and set by the government.

Well La de Da. I don't work for you, but you will tell me how much I can charge? That is bull! What Doctors can do is say, I won't accept your NHP insurance. and believe me, many will do this very thing. They won't accept new patients on medicare either without a supplemental policy.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That is a non-sequitur that begs the question.


Is that apparent because you are trying to justify your position, or because you see a great influx of Canadians into your area that are in dire need of healthcare that they cannot recieve at home (a la Reverend Rick)?

Reading is fundamental. The Canadian I am talking about is an orthopedic surgeon.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you get it now?

You are the one that does not get it. The United States Government would totally screw up a very excellent service industry that does not make folks wait and gives patients options.

And our health care is better.

The results are better because everyone is insured, the level of individual service is not superior.

I hope I've made myself clear enough here.

Crystal. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I "don't get it". You pay your doctors less and work them more. You patients have a lower level of service, but because everyone is insured, the over all level of care for everyone is better.

In America if you don't have insurance it will be a good deal for you. If you have a good insurance program with your company, they will drop it and let you participate in the national system and your level of service will diminish unless you pay more for a supplemental policy which no one can afford if I remember you correctly.

 

[jenni_boo22]

i think it would be a good thing too. its hard enough to afford insurance for your car much less try to raise a family with all the costs! it should be our governments responsibility to help us.

 

[Reverend Rick]

i think it would be a good thing too. its hard enough to afford insurance for your car much less try to raise a family with all the costs! it should be our governments responsibility to help us.

Let me ask you a question? Do you admire John F. Kennedy?