Governement Healthcare...

[McPants]

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.

If you don't mind me asking, how many of these Americans that return for healthcare would have belong to the approximately 45 million that do not have health insurance if they hadn't left the country?

[Vishenka69]

If you don't mind me asking, how many of these Americans that return for healthcare would have belong to the approximately 45 million that do not have health insurance if they hadn't left the country?

How many illegal immigrants are you including in the 45 million? And how many of those choose not to get healthcare?

[poky]

How many illegal immigrants are you including in the 45 million? And how many of those choose not to get healthcare?

He was using a 2 year old conservative estimate of number of uninsured (numbers I've seen for 2007 in several places range from 46 to 56 million), and this page claims 85% of the uninsured are citizens (and has sources listed).
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
So that's still at least 40 million.

There's no way to know how many of those are 20-somethings who are too healthy and stupid to want health coverage, but my guess is it's not a huge percentage.

[MrsC]

There's no way to know how many of those are 20-somethings who are too healthy and stupid to want health coverage, but my guess is it's not a huge percentage.

There are probably some who are too stupid to want coverage but I think there are a lot of twenty somethings who simply can't afford it. Just out of college, earning a basic salary and paying student loans along with rent and utilities, how could they!

The population in most of the European countries mentioned are smaller but that doesn't mean it can't be done on a greater scale. The main point is that there is nobody left behind. The systems don't just cater to those Medicaid/Medicare eligiblie and half of working middle class and above, it caters to everyone. They don't mind rationing or waiting on elective procedures because their "socialist" system also gets them free college tuition, higher unemployment benefits, single mother benefits, paid maternity leave, child benefits, higher pensions for the elderly etc.

There's a whole chunk of the population being left out here. Those who earn above $18K and below $50K, many who have college degrees.

The system in the Netherlands is actually something that could be done here. Private insurance is mandatory but it is monitored by the Government. Nobody pays more than $1500 a year in premiums. This amount is reduced, based on your salary so that the unemployed and the elderly pay almost nothing in premiums. They can go to any hospital and have a choice of insurance companies. I think it's doable but there has to be Government involvement to keep insurance companies in check.

[poky]

There are probably some who are too stupid to want coverage but I think there are a lot of twenty somethings who simply can't afford it. Just out of college, earning a basic salary and paying student loans along with rent and utilities, how could they!

Right. The question, though, was how many *chose* to not get health care; to my mind that means people who don't WANT it (hence, stupid), and doesn't include those who would get it but can't afford it.

[GrayMatterWife]

Slight change of focus of the thread, but it seems relevant and current (given the developments over the past couple of days...):

what do folks think about the whole "government-seeded co-ops" as versus the "public option"? A change in pitch and packaging but no substantive difference, or an important change in direction? And, if a change in direction, the right way or the wrong way?

Slight change of focus of the thread, but it seems relevant and current (given the developments over the past couple of days...):

what do folks think about the whole "government-seeded co-ops" as versus the "public option"? A change in pitch and packaging but no substantive difference, or an important change in direction? And, if a change in direction, the right way or the wrong way?

I need to know more about how the co-ops would function before forming an opinion. I like the public option for one reason only: as a safety net for those denied reasonable private insurance coverage. If there is another way to make sure we are not leaving the pre-existing condition folks out in the cold, I suppose we could do without a public option.

However, I'm not clear on how that's possible. I don't really like the idea of mandating that private insurance companies cannot deny coverage. I think we need to accept the insurance companies for what they are. They are for-profit corporations. Attempts to require them to ensure social welfare and/or take on bad risks are only going to incentivize them to find new and different ways to get around regulations and squeeze revenues out of somewhere else.

Can a co-op survive in the current market? I don't think there's a lot of precedent. In addition, I would assume the co-ops would be insuring a pool with a slight adverse selection bias (since at least some of the people in the co-op are going to be participating because they were too high-risk to obtain other coverage). A public option could of couse absorb the additional risk, but can a co-op? I don't know. Very curious what others think.

I think the co-ops merit more consideration.

I'm fuzzy on my recollection of this but Colorado allowed for insurance co-ops for small businesses, I think. I don't think it was a huge success, partly because of cost. They might not have hit an optimum number of insureds to look like a big corporation or other big group. I'm not sure if it is still operating. There might have been some legislative fixes that would help them along but I can't recall the specifics.

There is also the Group Health Cooperative in WA state that seems pretty popular.

[bokelley]

I am also wondering about the co-op, I am sure I will not like it either.. But I at least want to learn about it, before I dislike it.

[PrincessFiona]

If you don't mind me asking, how many of these Americans that return for healthcare would have belong to the approximately 45 million that do not have health insurance if they hadn't left the country?

Hmmm. I don't want to get into any other -country bashing, because I honestly am not opposed to some form of universal health coverage and my international as well as US health care experiences have been mixed. I truly believe that there is good and bad within each system.

Something McPants that I think has to be addressed in the US is our complete and utter unwillingness to want to be responsible for our own health care. When I lived and worked in Germany, I paid quite a bit for my AOK (govt) healthcare plan in tax dollars every paycheck. I had a blue collar job for sure and wasn't making a lot of money, but I had no problem at ALL with paying for my healthcare insurance. I truly felt like I was not getting something for free and that I was contributing.

And here is where we hit the wall with the American mindset. "What? You want ME to pay? It should be free...look at all of those other countries with free health care. I don't make enough money and I shouldn't have to pay."

Unlike my husband, I have no problem at all with the idea of tax dollars going to fund things like social programs and health care and I'm on board with paying...but I alreayd pay at the 50% mark and because we are subject to the AMT we can't deduct anything...even the interest on our home. Still, I'm ok with it...as long as I'm not being looked at the bad guy who has to pay for someone else.

My mom chose to go without healthcare insurance for several years when she was between jobs. She didn't want to pay the money to stay covered...but she had the money for trips, clothes and eating out...a lot.

My brother didn't want to fork out the meager $200/month for his healthcare premium so my dad is doing it for him. He thinks it shoudl be "free" like in the UK and Canada and that the "rich people should pay for it". He goes out and spends money at pool and poker tournaments every weekend and has plenty of cash for cigarettes and anything else.

This to me is a problem...because my healthcare in Germany and the UK was never free and I paid quite a bit in taxes and health care premium taxes for the privilege of being insured there. That desire to contribute seems to be missing here.

[McPants]

Hmmm. I don't want to get into any other -country bashing, because I honestly am not opposed to some form of universal health coverage and my international as well as US health care experiences have been mixed. I truly believe that there is good and bad within each system.

Something McPants that I think has to be addressed in the US is our complete and utter unwillingness to want to be responsible for our own health care. When I lived and worked in Germany, I paid quite a bit for my AOK (govt) healthcare plan in tax dollars every paycheck. I had a blue collar job for sure and wasn't making a lot of money, but I had no problem at ALL with paying for my healthcare insurance. I truly felt like I was not getting something for free and that I was contributing.

Hmm, I'm curious as to why you adress this post to me, given that I haven't really prescribed socialized healthcare for the U.S. in this thread. I fully acknowledge that the mindset of many Americans makes socialized healthcare very difficult to implement in your country. I've mainly addressed the way socialized healthcare in foreign countries has been portrayed in the media and in this forum.

[DCJenn]

McPants-

She's saying that you have a valid point. That's all.

Jenn

[PrincessFiona]

McPants-

She's saying that you have a valid point. That's all.

Jenn

Yup. Sorry if I didn't relay that clearly. For the most part, I agree with your comments.

Kris