Universal health care would be a good thing

[Starfish]

Isn't it true that most people don't have health insurance by choice? Meaning, if they made sacrifices, they could have it, but are not willing to make sacrifices? If those people did purchase insurance like many of us (I don't have an employer who provides it), then only the truly poor would need help, reducing the overall burden on the system.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rather than rely on ideology and speculation, I think it's helpful to look at what actually happens when countries adopt universal health care, do you agree? And in doing that, I would look not at a few anecdotes or isolated incidents, but try to get a picture of the overall systems and how they're working. So what I will do is look at:
1. Cost per person.
2. Mortality statistics.
3. Data on satisfaction, from the people receiving care.

As we go along, we might come across some other useful measure, but I think these ones would be a start--do you agree?

I have looked at this only a bit in the past, since you raised it with me, but not extensively. Let's pick a couple of countries that have universal care, and a couple that don't, and see what we find out about how the systems are working for the people there. I haven't done the research yet, so let's agree in advance on some representative countries. I want to include the U.S. as a country w/o universal health care, since that's what we're comparing to. I nominate Canada, since they resemble us in many ways. What other countries should we use? Netherlands? Spain? Israel? France? New Zealand? Japan would be a good one, I think, since it is populous, industrialized and wealthy, like us. And let's have one other country that doesn't have universal health care, such as Mexico, Egypt or Pakistan. Unfortunately, there are not many wealthy, modernized countries that don't have it. All sound logical to you, Rick?

Sure, if you also consider their tax rate and what happens to people who sneak across their borders? Can I sneak into France and live there and be treated? What is their tax rate?

 

[Starfish]

Many of the best doctors are beginning to refuse to take Medicare patients because of the low reimbursement rates and bureaucracy involved, and I think that's a microcosm of what would likely result system-wide.

This list of doctors is growing.

 

[Storm]

Many of the best doctors are beginning to refuse to take Medicare patients because of the low reimbursement rates and bureaucracy involved, and I think that's a microcosm of what would likely result system-wide.

The problem is greed....

 

[Reverend Rick]

As a Canadian I think Americans who don't support socialised medicine are clinically insane. I mean, really, certifiable. You pay twice as much per capita for health care as countries with socialised medicine, and the service you receive for this exorbitant sum is worse by any measure you could consider. (High infant mortality, low life expectancy, etc). On top of that HALF of all bankruptcies in the USA are the direct result of inability to pay medical bills. HALF.

But, not only are you insane, you're also dangerous to the rest of us, because our own governments are (regrettably) full of fanboys who want to privatise medicine because they have been exposed to too much of your propaganda claiming that private business is more efficient, innovative and cost-effective at everything, including public services.

But I don't pay my effing taxes so that the gov't can contract public services out to private businesses who always crank up prices while reducing the quality of service, no matter what they get their hands on. I pay my taxes to the government so that a democratically accountable organisation that I personally have a stake in can provide vital public services in a fair and open manner.

Anyway, the point of all this is that if Americans would just rally around the cause of socialised medicine, we'd all breathe a lot easier in Canada and the UK. Our own health care systems are being eroded because your crap system is very, very profitable. All that extra money from your paying double for worse service is going into somebody's pocket, which is "good for the economy", which is like cocaine to governments in Canada and the UK.

Perhaps being a patient in Canada is a good deal for you. Being a doctor there sucks. I know, a good friend of mine is Canadian and has a practice in the States. He has a nice medical building which he owns and his family is well off. When he first came to Kentucky he was driving a crap car, renting a dump and borrowed some money from me.

 

[Storm]

Isn't it true that most people don't have health insurance by choice? Meaning, if they made sacrifices, they could have it, but are not willing to make sacrifices? If those people did purchase insurance like many of us (I don't have an employer who provides it), then only the truly poor would need help, reducing the overall burden on the system.

That's a valid point, and one of the reasons I'd be willing to compromise as stated upthread.

 

[Wandered Off]

Not wanting to deal with bureaucracy if it's optional and wanting to provide better for your own family may not always be greed.

 

[Autodidact]

The U.S. system is FAR from perfect. It has it's problems too. But what if it wasn't available to this woman?
Cancer survivor battles OHIP

So as I was saying, rather than looking at individual anecdotes (like say the millions of Americans who don't have any medical insurance; you can imagine what their individual anecdotes would look like) let's try to step back and make a scientific comparison of the two options, which one looks better overall. Starfish: would you agree that would be a good way to answer the question?

Starfish: This is another good example of what I was talking about in our other thread about viewing the world scientifically vs. not. Rather than just "knowing" the answer, based on ideology, prejudice or speculation, I like to try to get the best possible, most objective DATA and then draw a conclusion from the data. Did you read my earlier post in this thread about what I thought would be good comparative data to look at? Do you agree those would be the right questions to ask? Or do you prefer to just post individual horror stories? Cuz this thread would be buried in American horror stories, don't you agree?

 

[Autodidact]

If the U.S. had socialized medicine, would she, a Canadian, have received help here? I don't know.
Are there examples of a U.S. citizen being turned away, from a U.S. hospital, from receiving life-saving medical help, due to lack of money?

I think what happens is that they provide the care, then they bill you, then they sue you, then you declare bankruptcy, like 27% of U.S. bankruptcy petitions. So I guess the rest of us end up bearing the cost, but at inflated rates.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, unfortunately there are victims. Our system is run by imperfect doctors and administrators who can make mistakes.

I visited with several Canadians recently who gave mixed reviews of their system. The usual consensus was that the healthy liked it. Some said the quality was going down. Other's thought it was fine, again the healthy ones.
My friend's mother lives in New Zealand. She has to wait months for cataract surgery.

I'm not AGAINST the Canadian system. I'm just showing the other side as I see it. It apparently isn't the answer to all problems.

That's not the question. The question is, is it better or worse than our system. Are Canadians more or less satisfied than Americans? Is Canada spending more or less per capita than we are. You agree those are the relevant questions?

 

[Autodidact]

Everybody favors improvement. The issue is that some of us don't think turning it over to the government would be an improvement.

O.K., why not?

 

[Autodidact]

Agreed. We all want improvement. Believe me as owner of a business with employees, I'd love to not have to pay out every month for their insurance.

I guess we need more convincing that socialized medicine is the answer.

What factors would influence your decision?

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you want to be more European, I can understand this. They have better insurance, but they have less well fare. They have better paying jobs, but they are better educated. They pay higher taxes but are better taken care of.

One thing they don't have is open borders. We cannot have it both ways. We will have to work harder and become smarter and pay more taxes.

 

[Autodidact]

That would depend on how providing coverage to those who don't have it affects the overall cost and/or quality of healthcare in general.

So if the cost went down, and the quality went up, then it would be beneficial, right?

 

[Autodidact]

If the former is possible, then probably.

Well to find out, how about if we look at the countries that have it? That is, every modern wealthy industrialized nation on earth except us?

 

[Autodidact]

Many of the best doctors are beginning to refuse to take Medicare patients because of the low reimbursement rates and bureaucracy involved, and I think that's a microcosm of what would likely result system-wide.

How about if we look at some actual systems and find out, what do you think?

 

[Autodidact]

I rest my case. People who have a NHS do receive a lower caliber of care.

Than Americans with no health insurance?

I would like to make another point. Could I sneak across your border into your country and work and live and be treated by you medical facility if my condition was not life threatening?

relevance?

 

[Autodidact]

Sure, if you also consider their tax rate and what happens to people who sneak across their borders? Can I sneak into France and live there and be treated? What is their tax rate?

Well I figure we're counting any taxes paid toward the system (in tax funded systems) as costs in the cost part of the question.

So you agree that if countries with universal health coverage have lower cost per capita, higher satisfaction and better mortality rates, that universal health coverage would be a good thing? If so, I will go research it. If not, why not?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The problem is greed....

I agree. It is greedy to expect something for nothing. My 22 year old son pays 900 a month for his health care coverage. His employer pays 1200 a month in matching funds for his family of four.

I know a heart surgeon who has over one million dollars of student debt. He did not make a penny until he was 40 years old and studied his butt off and lived a very modest life.

He has a ranch with an airstrip and pilots his own plane now. Is he greedy or did he delay his satisfaction in life and earn everything he has?

Wanting doctors to sacrifice half their life perfecting their art only to work for very little is greedy and selfish too don't you think?

This country gives health care to the elderly, disabled and poor. We expect the rest of us to pay our way. No one is turned away from the hospital for a life threatening medical condition regardless of whether they have insurance or not.

How many people have a job but refuse to buy insurance but have a motorcycle, boat, car or a home instead?

One last question Storm. Who should pay for your health insurance? If you say someone else, your the greedy one.

 

[Starfish]

One possible problem is that no other country close to the size of the U.S. has a satifactory system. Canada is much smaller by population. As are the European countries.

So we don't have a good comparative model. And most of us just don't want to take on something that hasn't been well-proven, because once it's here, it'll never go away, good or bad.