Universal health care would be a good thing

[Troublemane]

The first link I posted was to an article, written by a reporter for a lightweight but major Newspaper. It covered the findings of a study by the Institute of Medicine, a high-standing non-profit, non-governmental organisation that is part of the United States Academy of Sciences. It was based on factual information from a study which is why it is more significant than mere opinion.

And all it said was that out of 40 million people who are uninsured, 18,000 may have died prematurely due to not getting proper health care. The implication is that they could have been saved, had they been insured, but we are left wondering who they were? There are an estimated 30 million illegal immigrants in this country---is it possible that any of them are insured? Yet all of them are able to get free health care. Why?---hmmm...it seems they were not killed for lack of insurance. The report (though delivered by people with degrees) have a political agenda, which is why it was published in USA Today. The report is not unbiased, and for the purposes of this argument, irrelevant. The second link you listed references the first, and makes the vague statement that ---

"Families USA estimates that nearly three working-age North Carolinians die each day due to lack of health insurance (approximately 1,000 people in 2006)."

---again, this is a complete logical fallacy, there is no way someone can be killed through lack of insurance. Lack of oxygen maybe, but not lack of insurance. Its like claiming lack of internet connection would give you paralysis or something.

The second link I was posted was to an article, written by a Families USA spokesperson. It covered the findings of a study by Families USA, a high-standing non-profit consumer healthcare advocacy organisation. It was based on factual information from a study which is why it is more significant than mere opinion

The third link I posted was an opinion piece, written by a reporter dealing with consumer advice on health insurance. It was reacting to the studies by the Institute of Medicine, Families USA and the Urban Institute, a mostly federal funded thinktank that performs a whole bunch of different functions. It drew upon factual information from several studies which is why it is more significant than mere opinion.

Ah....it may be based on research someone did, but the fact remains that nobody can die from lack of insurance. perhaps poor education, perhaps risky health practices, like excessive smoking and drinking/habitual drug use. These things contribute to poor health, not lack of coverage.

What you posted was an opinion piece, written by the vice president of a group funded by pharmaceutical companies and has links to the PR firm Manning, Selvage & Lee. It didn't refer to factual studies at all but cherry picked anecdotal evidence in a clearly politically motivated rant. Because it was entirely selective in its anecdotal evidence, which did not draw upon factual information from studies, it is no more significant than mere opinion.

And so i said it was, but I said it was an opinion from a differing view. Apparently, when someone disagrees with you it's a "rant". Ad Hominem attacks, again.Tch,tch.

Here is a small collection of BBC skillswise factsheets about how to tell the difference between opinion and fact: BBC - Skillswise Words - Fact and Opinion factsheet

Thank you for the lesson in the obvious. Im afraid it does nothing to help your case. The links referred to earlier are still mere statistics being used for political reasons. You will have to do better,...maybe have some real first hand experience with the US's medical system, rather than getting all your information (and your ideas) from the internet! Hey, what a concept!

Hmm. How it should be accomplished isn't our concern. How should we know? Its our government's job to respond to our needs as we democratically elect them to do.

if you can do nothing but "rant" continuously about how complete universal coverage would be ideal, then I dont think you are helping much. I have heard the rhetoric. But without concrete ideas as to how the situation as it exists today could be altered to make a better system, then frankly all the ranting is worthless. my advice is to get some first hand knowledge about the US system so you can offer some useful advice, or at least try not to rely on the internet for all of your information.

 

[Autodidact]

Most of the folks posting that support national health care would also support out right socialism as well. Am I correct?

Not me. I'm all in favor of the free market. But I'm also in favor of my country saving money and lives.

 

[Autodidact]

I understand that people believe a NHP would be better than it actually would be.

1. Alceste lives in a country that has universal health coverage, so what he KNOWS is reality.
2. Your opinion about what MIGHT happen is just your guess. It seems to be completely unrelated to the reality that already exists in 47 countries around the world.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Autodidact, could you please comment on how it will be possible not to have increased waiting times for medical services when more people are chasing the same amount of goods?

Will you please tell me how the government will dictate what the going rate is for these services?

Lastly if you would be so kind, explain to me how you would get around the common practice of doctors not accepting medicare without a supplemental policy by saying they are not accepting any new patients and how a NHP in America would be treated any differently?

Please give me a well thought out answer and not a dismissive remark like you did my links.

 

[Sententia]

Autodidact, could you please comment on how it will be possible not to have increased waiting times for medical services when more people are chasing the same amount of goods?

Will you please tell me how the government will dictate what the going rate is for these services?

Lastly if you would be so kind, explain to me how you would get around the common practice of doctors not accepting medicare without a supplemental policy by saying they are not accepting any new patients and how a NHP in America would be treated any differently?

Please give me a well thought out answer and not a dismissive remark like you did my links.

Instead of thinking and coming together as a country to insure everyone who makes up this country is entitled to the same medical care I am.... should we not resign to kill a large percentage of them even though they could live with more then just emergency care....

Because at the end of day how long do you want to wait to see YOUR doctor that you pay $45 a year in copays...

Gimme a break.

Americans deserve more and this being america we should be able to come together as a country and supply more.

Everyman is created equal.... And woman and child etc... do you believe that or is it just a catchy saying for people who get certain jobs?

What makes the guy who cleans the toilets in a hotel less equal then jack black or the CIO of citigroup?

 

[Alceste]

my advice is to get some first hand knowledge about the US system so you can offer some useful advice...

God forbid! Does a person need to be kicked in the face to be able to tell you it's a bad, bad thing? Neither of us could afford to "get some first hand knowledge" about your system - $800 for a pap smear, even if you're insured? $900 a month for family insurance? And then on top of that the amount of taxes going toward health care is more? You gotta be kidding me. I don't care if doctors have planes down there - I just thank the gods I don't live down there whenever I have a health scare. We all do.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Instead of thinking and coming together as a country to insure everyone who makes up this country is entitled to the same medical care I am.... should we not resign to kill a large percentage of them even though they could live with more then just emergency care....

Because at the end of day how long do you want to wait to see YOUR doctor that you pay $45 a year in copays...

Gimme a break.

Americans deserve more and this being America we should be able to come together as a country and supply more.

Everyman is created equal.... And woman and child etc... do you believe that or is it just a catchy saying for people who get certain jobs?

What makes the guy who cleans the toilets in a hotel less equal then jack black or the CIO of citigroup?

Does the whole world get to vote for our President? I'm sorry, you cannot give anything to everyone especially something as expensive as health care until you qualify who everyone is. People walk into this country illegally every day. This has to stop. Yes, we should let folks into our country, but it should be done legally.

If the United States had socialised health care, the number of folks in this country would double.

Ahhhhhh, that is the plan all along right?

 

[Alceste]

If the United States had socialised health care, the number of folks in this country would double.

Ahhhhhh, that is the plan all along right?

Unlikely, since your economy is collapsing.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Unlikely, since your economy is collapsing.

That could still be part of the plan.

 

[Mathematician]

God forbid! Does a person need to be kicked in the face to be able to tell you it's a bad, bad thing? Neither of us could afford to "get some first hand knowledge" about your system - $800 for a pap smear, even if you're insured? $900 a month for family insurance? And then on top of that the amount of taxes going toward health care is more? You gotta be kidding me. I don't care if doctors have planes down there - I just thank the gods I don't live down there whenever I have a health scare. We all do.

$900 seems like a low-ball to me. My family pays over $1,000 easily for a premium of five people.

 

[Alceste]

$900 seems like a low-ball to me. My family pays over $1,000 easily for a premium of five people.

That's our rent.

 

[Autodidact]

I'll try to take them one at a time, Rick so as to give you the well-thought out answer that you're asking for. Then I have some questions for you.

Autodidact, could you please comment on how it will be possible not to have increased waiting times for medical services when more people are chasing the same amount of goods?

First, I would like to point out that what you are saying is that our current system, where some people get treatment without waiting, and others don't get treatment at all, is better than a system in which everyone has to wait. I disagree with that underlying value system.

Second, I am not an expert on the issue at all, so am giving my opinion/guess.

Universal Health Care is not socialized medicine. When it comes to providing services, the free market still operates to allocate resources and adjust to market conditions. More demand leads to more services being provided, as more people go into various medical fields and learn how to deliver services efficiently.

But the main thing is to provide less care sooner and more effectively. Our current system is penny-wise and pound foolish. Instead of replacing a horse-shoe nail now, we pay for a horse later. I'll give a couple of examples. In France, a nurse visits newborns and their mothers a few days after birth to provide a check-up and, among other things, help breastfeeding. Breastfed babies are healthier throughout their lives and require fewer hospitalizations than bottle-fed. So if a visit costs $100 of nurse's time, and she makes 100 visits, she may save a single hospitalization that would cost $20,000, it's cost effective, and means that fewer hours are used in the long run, and fewer service hours of doctors, nurses, clerks, etc. And of course, many fewer hours of people who currently work for the insurance industry and whose time will not be required.

Here's another example. In Holland, every neighborhood has an after-hours clinic, staffed by a couple of doctors and nurses. If the patient is to sick to come to the clinic, the doctor makes a house call. Labor intensive? The result is that very few patients are admitted to the ER, the most expensive and labor intensive way to treat illness and minor injury. So providing a higher level of care routinely saves resources in the long run.

Because remember, Rick, you're treating everyone now. Everyone gets treated. As the article said, we have socialized medicine right now. But you're paying for them to be treated in the most expensive, inappropriate way--at the emergency room. Because emergency rooms can't turn anyone away. Universal health coverage would make it possible to provide care to the same number of people in an intelligent, not stupid, expensive, wasteful way.

I could go on, but that will do for now on the first question.

 

[Reverend Rick]

First, I would like to point out that what you are saying is that our current system, where some people get treatment without waiting, and others don't get treatment at all, is better than a system in which everyone has to wait. I disagree with that underlying value system.

I'm not saying you are wrong that everyone deserves health care. At least you admit that the NHP will reduce the level of service that people that do have health insurance experience now.

IN TIME, this may improve as we address the stitch in time saves nine mindset that would be more cost efficient.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not saying you are wrong that everyone deserves health care. At least you admit that the NHP will reduce the level of service that people that do have health insurance experience now.

IN TIME, this may improve as we address the stitch in time saves nine mindset that would be more cost efficient.

No, I have not admitted this and don't know whether it's true or not. I'm just pointing out that if you assume for the purpose of argument that it is true, it still expresses a value system that it's better overall for some people to get care without waits than for everyone to get care with a wait. Whether there would actually be any significant wait I don't know. Obviously, waiting some time for whatever is much better than not getting it at all.

Are you saying that in our current system, somehow this is going to magically improve just by waiting? Why would TIME change this, if you don't change the system. The idea is that instead of passively waiting while we all go broke, it's better to take some action to change the system so that it works. And yes, a stitch in time does in fact save nine, and universal coverage allows people to take that stitch in time. Right now we're paying for nine stitches for every alcoholic homeless guy in New York City, some of whom (from an article I read in the New Yorker) cost the tax payer $1 million, that's right, one million dollars to see one homeless guy in the ER in Manhattan for one year. Anything else would be cheaper--anything. It's moronic. You could put the bum up in a home a provide round the clock nursing care for that cost.

What I'm saying, Rick, is that what we're doing now is stupid, illogical, wasteful and unhealthy. We could be providing better care to more people for less money. Why would you not want to do that?

 

[Reverend Rick]

What I am saying is the NHP would not be the end all be all of heath care plans and many doctors would not honor the insurance plan saying they are not accepting new patients at this time like they do the folks on medicare without a supplemental policy.

From the very beginning I admitted that any insurance is better than no insurance. Why am I against this? Because for many, their employers would stop participating in insurance plans and let their employees join the NHP instead. For these families, their health care would be reduced and may cause them to search for a new doctor.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let me ask you this, How do you think the average middle class family with health insurance will be affected? Do you care about these folks at all? Will their health care be better or worse? How much will they have to pay for this inferior insurance?

Let's leave the rich and the poor out of this for a moment.

 

[Alceste]

Let me ask you this, How do you think the average middle class family with health insurance will be affected? Do you care about these folks at all? Will their health care be better or worse? How much will they have to pay for this inferior insurance?

Let's leave the rich and the poor out of this for a moment.

The middle classes are the ones who are going bankrupt with your current system - mostly middle class families with children. They often think they have coverage but when push comes to shove the insurance companies refuse to green-light their claims. Or they are covered but the deductibles devastate their finances. So I would say better. What about you?

Study

 

[Autodidact]

What I am saying is the NHP would not be the end all be all of heath care plans and many doctors would not honor the insurance plan saying they are not accepting new patients at this time like they do the folks on medicare without a supplemental policy.

I haven't gotten to that point yet. I only responded to your first question, which is how more customers don't drive up demand, creating wait times. Now I'll move on to your second question.

Remember, under Universal Coverage, everyone is in the plan. A tiny number, like 1-2%, buy supplemental insurance. If a doctor wants to limit her practice to 2% of the patients, that is her prerogative. Otherwise, if she wants to make a living, she serves everyone else; that's her only option.

From the very beginning I admitted that any insurance is better than no insurance. Why am I against this? Because for many, their employers would stop participating in insurance plans and let their employees join the NHP instead. For these families, their health care would be reduced and may cause them to search for a new doctor.

Of course they would; they wouldn't need it. Why spend $1000 a month for something you don't need. I don't agree that the quality of what they get would necessarily be reduced. On the contrary, many millions of Americans are not under-insured, and if they get very sick, they go bankrupt. With Universal Coverage, this would not happen. This is what Alceste is describing in Canada.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., Rick, here's my question for you:

Why do you think the U.S. experience would be substantially different from all the other countries that have some form of Universal Health Care? What I mean is, every country that has it spends less on health care than we do, and gets better results. But you keep saying that if we had it, we would spend more than we do now (15% of our GDP!!!) and the quality would go down. Do you think Americans are less competent than Dutch or Australian people?

And, just to make it clear, your position is that even if it saves us billions of dollars and thousands of lives, you're still opposed to universal coverage because it conflicts with your political beliefs, is that right?

 

[Reverend Rick]

And, just to make it clear, your position is that even if it saves us billions of dollars and thousands of lives, you're still opposed to universal coverage because it conflicts with your political beliefs, is that right?

Not exactly. I don't believe it will save us that much because although each person will have less spent on them, too many people will tax the system but not pay the taxes.