Governement Healthcare...

[ladymoreta]

I also feel that if we have nationalized health care, everyone should be responsible for paying for it. I see nothing wrong with asking people to live within their means and pay for the services that government provides. A flat tax gives everyone the "same" stake in the changes, and I feel like it would give everyone an equal say in policy decisions.

And for my ideas about why people do not support the proposed health care reform...

The theory behind government providing services is that they are able to do things for the majority's benefit that we can not provide for ourselves. We give up certain rights for these benefits. As we know from history, governments are not always good stewards of these rights. When this is the case, it is the duty of the citizens to demand that the government make necessary changes.

I believe that the public's strong reaction to health care reform is a natural progression of our distrust in government that has been building for decades. Citizens have seen money spent unwisely on political wars, social "wars", political favors, bailouts, and acquisition of industry leaders. If people truly believed that the reform would benefit them more than the rights they would give up to receive it, they would be behind this 100%. The unfortunate result of so many expensive, failed actions by the government has led us to believe that this reform simply will not work. The government has been a poor steward of our money, and now we are expressing disinterest in letting them have more of it and more control over our lives, and our leaders are sitting around scratching their heads and wondering why.

[SuzySunshine]

I think a lot of people's disagreement with the health care plans out there now versus the election is that we're back to the same partisan BS - even worse then that the democratic senators can't agree with the democratic president. I have friends that have NO stake in the health care field and still aren't happy with the options for many reasons.

Like most things I don't think there is a right or agreeable answer, so people will complain and either a half assed solution will happen or nothing will happen. I still think the fact that congress and the president won't be participating speaks VOLUMES!

[oceanchild]

I still think the fact that congress and the president won't be participating speaks VOLUMES!

I don't get this. My job gets me the same health coverage Congress uses. It's private insurance like everyone else's (several options, including PPOs and HMOs, with varying costs). The government pays a pretty big chunk of the premiums, but DH's residency program actually pays more.

(I totally agree with you, though, that we are currently looking at a half-assed solution or no solution at all.)

[Sheherezade]

I think in this debate it's "damned if you do and damned if you don't". If Congress was going to pull the plug on their own private insurance company and enroll all government employees in a "public option", you could say that this represented the first step towards the destruction of the private insurance industry a la the "companies will just drop their own plans and make all the employees enroll in the public plan -- and drive private insurance out of business" argument.

I think the public plan would just offer an insurance pool to the uninsured. If you already have insurance (as Congress does) you don't need to join a "pool" of people to defray costs.

[iddoc]

As one who has worked in the British (a completely public) the German (a mandatory employer/employee financed) and the US (a semi-private) system it is interesting to watch this discussion.
Just a few facts the British NHS is by far the cheapest version totally tax based but also with the cheapest service,rationing is clearly the pillar on which the NHS rests.I remember very well how I couldn't get a bypass for patients ,no joint replacements etc etc.Whoever can afford it buys private supplemental insurance.Also the entire primary care system is GP based (6 months of medicine 6 months of pediatrics 6 months elective and 1 1/2 apprentice of a GP).Needless to say that they are commonly overwhelmed with complex cases and the referral process is very cumbersome to say the least.
Just had our former Irish babysitter visiting us who was told by her GP (no Dermatology training) that she has melanoma and needs a biopsy which was scheduled in 4 months, here a Dermatologist friend of mine could see her immediately and tell her this was benign skin tumor.
In Germany one pays a certain percentage of the paycheck before taxes for health care currently roughly 14 %.As healthcare costs are rising this percentage is projected to rise considerably.
As a saving grace there is an opt out clause once the monthly income is more than 4000 Euro which allows to purchase a private police (which is as good or better (as it includes excellent dental care also) as any US private insurance.My brother who works as a well paid board member of an insurance company has such a private plan, when he needs to see a specialist it usually happens that day or the next.His fiance who works as a secretary has the mandatory plan and to get an appointment with a specialist takes often 3 months or longer.
Needless to say that his premium which is risk based is much cheaper than hers which is a fixed percentage of her income.
That might change as he gets older (higher risk) but will probably still remain cheaper.
By the way physicians in Germany can traditionally purchase private insurance even if they not hitting the 4000 Euro target (during training years) and almost all do.
The US has already a public option medicare and medicaid and they have failed terribly.
If one be honest about saving money then one has to also mention rationing which is common in every public system .
Also I haven't heard anything about abolishing malpractice suits.
Only in the US can physicians be suit like that.
Of course that has no impact in weeding out bad physicians (scientific facts are usually not what drives US Jury decisions)but creates very expensive defensive medicine.
In summary I don't think there is a perfect system and there will never be,the US system allowed a large majority to have access to the by far best system .Is it really worth sacrifing that to offer a basic health care for everyone.
Why not the following option.We abolish malpractice suits as well as futile care and coverage for lifestyle associated diseases and use the saved money to offer basic health care to the poor.So nobody has to die from leukemia because they have no money for a transplant but won't get a gastric bypass because they became fat beyond imagination.
While others who pay for it can still enjoy a premium health care.

[poky]

In summary I don't think there is a perfect system and there will never be,the US system allowed a large majority to have access to the by far best system .Is it really worth sacrifing that to offer a basic health care for everyone.

In a word, yes. It's not the best system if it can't take care of everybody, and I'm not willing to sacrifice a minority just because they're a minority that I'm not part of (at the moment).

If I wasn't lucky enough to be employed by a company with a decent insurance plan, right now I would be *completely* screwed. I can't get individual coverage for *any* price, because of a pre-existing condition. And god forbid I come down with something like pancreatic cancer, because then my employer would be under pressure from my insurance company to fire me, so avoid having their costs jump up. The company I work for is relatively small, and wouldn't be able to absorb that cost. And then I'd be back to having no coverage at all...and not qualifying for assistance meant for the poor, until I became poor by paying for necessary health care.

But for now, I do have halfway decent insurance...and I have an appointment with a shoulder specialist this week. That I made two months ago. This was the very first appointment available. In Cleveland, a city that is absolutely lousy with physicians.

I agree that the other steps you mention would also help. Without universal coverage, though (preferably not tied to employment), it's not enough.

[McPants]

Just a few facts the British NHS is by far the cheapest version totally tax based but also with the cheapest service,rationing is clearly the pillar on which the NHS rests.I remember very well how I couldn't get a bypass for patients ,no joint replacements etc etc.Whoever can afford it buys private supplemental insurance.Also the entire primary care system is GP based (6 months of medicine 6 months of pediatrics 6 months elective and 1 1/2 apprentice of a GP).Needless to say that they are commonly overwhelmed with complex cases and the referral process is very cumbersome to say the least.
Just had our former Irish babysitter visiting us who was told by her GP (no Dermatology training) that she has melanoma and needs a biopsy which was scheduled in 4 months, here a Dermatologist friend of mine could see her immediately and tell her this was benign skin tumor.

In the UK, yearly health care spending per capita is 2760 USD whereas in the U.S. it is 7290 USD. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._in_comparison) Of course U.S. doctors don't have to ration the way they sometimes do over here. That said, people generally do get good health care in the UK and they are generally very happy with the service provided (GPs included). People may occasionally complain about it, but deep down an overwhelming majority of Brits are strongly in favor of the NHS.

Approximately 8% of Brits have private health insurance. Given that even full coverage isn't extortionately expensive, the claim that everyone who can afford it gets it is entirely incorrect. For instance I and the gf could easily afford it but we simply see no reason to get it.

I'm sorry to hear about your babysitter's experience with one UK GP.

[GrayMatterWife]

A short answer will suffice, Abigail.

Please do not give me directions as to what length I may respond. I don't inflict limits on you or anyone else here. Maybe you meant your remark as a gentle joke, given my proclivity prattling on, on occasion. Or maybe you were being sneering. To any degree, I would prefer to default to the most respectful tone, so that there are no misunderstandings. Thanks.

I was not looking for an argument as to whether Obama is a fascist. I think he is, others think he isn't. My point was (I thought) somewhat less controversial: I find it outrageous that some people are equating Obama's initiatives to the racial-fascist Nazi Germany government. There are many different forms of fascism; Nazism was just one...very sick...version of it. You can consider Obama a fascist and NOT believe that he is a Nazi. In fact, I think that the suggestion that the Administration's efforts to increase State power are based on racial superiority notions (as they were in Germany) shows a shocking ignorance about both the Administration and Nazi Germany.

I had no idea that my comment would set off another McPants/Rapunzel firestorm. I guess I thought that noting that Obama is NOT a Nazi was fairly obvious and uncontroversial.

[PrincessFiona]

LOL We Finally got Thomas to chime in....

[Pollyanna]

LOL We Finally got Thomas to chime in....

And a great post at that!

[McPants]

Please do not give me directions as to what length I may respond. I don't inflict limits on you or anyone else here. Maybe you meant your remark as a gentle joke, given my proclivity prattling on, on occasion. Or maybe you were being sneering. To any degree, I would prefer to default to the most respectful tone, so that there are no misunderstandings. Thanks.

My comment belonged to the former category. As you're aware of, you have a tendency to make somewhat lengthy posts and in this case I perceived the question posed to be rather facile. The venom involved in the exchange between myself and Rapunzel should not extend to you.

[GrayMatterWife]

My comment belonged to the former category. As you're aware of, you have a tendency to make somewhat lengthy posts and in this case I perceived the question posed to be rather facile. The venom involved in the exchange between myself and Rapunzel should not extend to you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I thought my "Obama's not a Nazi, even if one can argue he's a fascist" argument was facile, but then...I thought there was a chance that someone by respond with a devil's advocate counter. Obama attended a church for 20 years that advocated a radical race-based view of the world. So, I could see someone making the argument that Obama has a race-based view of the purpose of the State, as well. Personally, I don't agree with that dime-store psychological analysis of Obama. I suspect that he went to that church, in part, because it was the "right" place to worship if you are black and want to get into liberal Chicago politics. It's a player-maker church. I don't think he subscribes to black liberation theology. But, if someone wanted to suggest he was like Hitler, that'd be the way to do it: argue that his adoption/endorsement of black liberation theology underlies his interpretation of the role of the State--resulting in a racist-fascism.

But, again, I think that's ridiculous. I don't think he believes that. And, in the end, I think he's just a politician. He'll say or do whatever he needs to say or do to get and remain in power. And in America, in this day and age, racism just doesn't fly as a broadly popular policy, regardless of who is coming from.

[MrsC]

Just had our former Irish babysitter visiting us who was told by her GP (no Dermatology training) that she has melanoma and needs a biopsy which was scheduled in 4 months, here a Dermatologist friend of mine could see her immediately and tell her this was benign skin tumor.

I am sorry to to hear about this one case. On the contrary, here are some other examples of how the Irish healthcare system does work. My father had a heart attack three weeks ago, at 51. He went first to a GP, as he wasn't sure what was wrong. He was sent directly to the hospital, where an angiogram was performed and a stent was placed the same day.
Not to mention my two elderly grandparents who have both had cancer and have other health problems, an uncle with cancer, a 22 year cousin with a heart condition...the list goes on. And they were all treated under the Public Health System.

My point being that there are cases such as this all over the world. If the girl lived in the U.S and didn't have insurance, she couldn't have paid for a visit to the Dermatologist, never mind a biopsy.

I don't think a single-payer program would work in the U.S but there has to be something for the uninsured to fall back on. A work colleague has just had to drop her insurance because the premium went up to $200 per month. Now she has nothing to fall back on.

Insurance companies can be regulated and premiums brought down to reasonable levels. Costs for procedures can be brought down to what they actually cost, not 5 times that, which is what we're paying now. But there has to be a safety net for those who find themselves suddenly unemployed, living on food stamps, people who have contributed to society same as the rest of us. Why should they live in fear of them or their kids getting sick and going bankrupt?

When you look at the arguments for and against a government run option, they're largely situational. Many of the people who are against it have good healthcare, and haven't had the misfortune of suffering from a chronic illness/accident etc. It can happen to anyone and not enough people realize that. Any of us could be a year away from hitting the limit on our health insurance because of a life-threatening illness, going bankrupt, and any of the endless of possibilities that so many people out there have run into and are now wondering, why me!

[Vishenka69]

There are so many different discussions going on here that I don't even know where to start responding.

I do believe that most Brits are happy with NHS but many Americans who live in UK and have to use it aren't. A number of our American friends take care of their non-essential medical problems on their short visits back to US.

As for other European countries with nationalized healthcare, I can't speak for all but in Russia and Ukraine it doesn't work. There is severe rationing and those who can't afford private care or to bribe doctors barely get any care at all. I won't even mention that Russian and Ukrainian lifespans are decades shorter than US one.

Furthermore, all the countries cited in the previous 4 pages as having a successful nationalized healthcare are significantly smaller in size and population than the US. Their demographics are completely different. Also all of them practice rationing to some degree, which would never fly here. All of these factor into the success or failure of the scheme but many if not all are omitted in current discussions.

In terms of the tax issue, I don't mind a 1% tax increase but I don't want it to go toward others getting a refund. Those who make more are already taxed more to subsidize services they don't use (i.e. paying for public schools while sending kids to private ones or not even having children). If we're going to insure everyone than everyone (or at least those who pay taxes) should chip in. With the current proposal I also feel singled out for choosing to better myself and earn a higher salary. I also feel that the current proposal screams "entitlement."

[Sheherezade]

Having just returned from the UK, I'm liking the idea of a VAT. Everything is more expensive -- but it is a tax on everyone AND it is based on consumption. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy as much. I'd imagine that brings in a good deal of revenue. I'd much prefer a consumption tax to an income tax.