Nationalizing Healthcare

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
My brother is a doc in the UK, and for the life of me you have to like the way they have achieved a balance:

1) you need free healthcare? Good, you can get it. It won't be too bad, it WILL treat you well, and frankly many of the best doctors in Britain work for the NHS, so competency abounds. You WILL be limited to the time a doctor has to spend with you, it won't be as posh as some suburban US medical centers, but it will be OK...

2) If you want better care, then the private option is available too. Many employers offer private health insurance, which covers private hospitals and doctors, and proceedures that are either not covered by the NHS, or have a long waiting time.

This really does give the best of both worlds - no one lacks for basic medical care (which includes drug rehab, HIV/AIDS treatments, most chronic diseases, home healthcare when needed, etc.), but those that want to buy (or have their companies buy) more personalized care always can.

The trick is to strike the right balance - funding the NHS so that it is affordable in taxes, but still provides basic coverage. It can be fairly controversial - but at least it's a political debate in which no one denies the need for universal coverage for basic medical care...and the free market is left to provide value added services...

FS

I would be interested in such a two-tiered system in the US.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Almost anything would be better than the current four-tiered system in America:

Tier 1: Old with money . . . sky's the limit . . . all of the benefits of Medicare plus platinum-plated private plans.

Tier 2: Not old with money . . . all the benefits of Tier 1 except premiums are much lower and typically paid by employer. Individual plans are quite reasonable as well depending on pre-existing conditions.

Tier 3: Old without money . . . combination of Medicare/Medicaid was quite potent before the Bush economy. The combination of leaner state budgets and the Medicare reform act will likely move many of these people closer to Tier 4.

Tier 4: (New Orleans before the storm) Real poor (Medicaid) if you can find a provider that will take the government dime then care is often decent to exemplary. In essence, the primary problem is year to year penny pinching by government and availability of care in a given area.

Tier 5: (Walmart) Working poor . . . not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but not enough cheddar for private insurance premiums.

The bottom three tiers are quite large and are growing much faster in membership than Tiers 1/2.

 

[5LiterMustang]

One problem that makes me think socialized medicine is inevitible is the fact that the government already shells out 800billion dollars per year of the countries 1.7 trillion in med expenses.

 

[zendari]

There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

you think socialized medicine is an anti freedom scheme?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

you think socialized medicine is an anti freedom scheme?

If it was socialized medicine with a generally outlawed private medicine, then I would say it's an anti-freedom scheme and is a crime against humanity.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Here's are two great quotes from the article, assuming that they are true:

"Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world?s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries.

The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year?or close to four hundred billion dollars?on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita.

private industry is already fixing the paperwork problem

there are also proposals for a central database of medical records, but a lot of people are fighting it on privacy grounds

Hillary and Newt Gingrich are proposing a bill requiring them to dump their outdated system. If hillary and newt both agree they must be on to something.

GE, caremark, allscripts and quality systems are way ahead of them

but then again private industry is always ahead of government

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
My brother is a doc in the UK, and for the life of me you have to like the way they have achieved a balance:

1) you need free healthcare? Good, you can get it. It won't be too bad, it WILL treat you well, and frankly many of the best doctors in Britain work for the NHS, so competency abounds. You WILL be limited to the time a doctor has to spend with you, it won't be as posh as some suburban US medical centers, but it will be OK...

2) If you want better care, then the private option is available too. Many employers offer private health insurance, which covers private hospitals and doctors, and proceedures that are either not covered by the NHS, or have a long waiting time.

This really does give the best of both worlds - no one lacks for basic medical care (which includes drug rehab, HIV/AIDS treatments, most chronic diseases, home healthcare when needed, etc.), but those that want to buy (or have their companies buy) more personalized care always can.

The trick is to strike the right balance - funding the NHS so that it is affordable in taxes, but still provides basic coverage. It can be fairly controversial - but at least it's a political debate in which no one denies the need for universal coverage for basic medical care...and the free market is left to provide value added services...

FS

what a fantastic idea

the rich get choice and the poor are stuck at the mercy of the government

all i want to do is pay taxes for socialized medicine and than pay more money for my healthcare

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
One problem that makes me think socialized medicine is inevitible is the fact that the government already shells out 800billion dollars per year of the countries 1.7 trillion in med expenses.

Maybe it's just a matter of time. As voters arcoss america find themselves uninsured, unable to afford insurance a ground swell will enact it.

Another factor is that busniess seem to want it, that article mention firms moving to canada because of it. Hard to argue with half price medical care.

I think the only reason we don't have it already is programs like medicare and medicaid take care of health needs for millions of poor mothers and children and elderly. In effect we already have national health care. Then there's the oath Drs and hospitals are obiged to serve people without regaurd to payment.. I'm sure sure if they have to by law but they do anyway it seems.

So I don't believe those tear jerking stories in the beginning of that article about plyers guy extracting his rotten teeth.

We have national heathcare just not exactly like those other countries.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

You're an idiot as usual. You think one thing makes people want to move? Not to mention , get this I know it may be impossible to believe for you, but many people have family, friends, preists, business accociates they actually care about and don't want to leave other wise known as emotional ties. Third it's a bit chicken-sh1t to always run from your problems instead of making them better. Oh and four, many of those people in NO could'nt even afford/manage to leave to city how are they going to travel and take root halfway around the world or canada?

In essense your "solution" is far fetched at best.

 

[TheSlamma]

I love how heathcare and anti-freedom/communism some how find their way into the same paragraph.

My family is FULL of people in the medical field and they don't see it as that way, I find that kinda funny.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

You can't choose the country of your birth. Unfortunately, both my parents are Americans of European descent (3rd generation), so moving to a different country isn't that easy.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
You can't choose the country of your birth. Unfortunately, both my parents are Americans of European descent (3rd generation), so moving to a different country isn't that easy.

I love when people think it is some easy task to just "Get out"

If these people ever owned a passport in their lives they would understand that other countries have immagration laws (and many of theirs actually WORK)

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: EatSpam
You can't choose the country of your birth. Unfortunately, both my parents are Americans of European descent (3rd generation), so moving to a different country isn't that easy.

I love when people think it is some easy task to just "Get out"

If these people ever owned a passport in their lives they would understand that other countries have immagration laws (and many of theirs actually WORK)

If you ask the Bush-loving-fanatics on this board, that isn't possible. There's no way to enforce those kinds of laws! :roll:

 

[Zebo]

If you guys want some sort of governmental care why not fight at the state level for it?

Nationwide will only further increase the Red states dependency on rich blues. I wish we would discontinue all federal funding of education, SS, medicare, farms and whatever other socialist programs are out there.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

After seeing how people complain about the Government regarding the hurricane - what makes people think that getting the Government involved(more, or in total) is the right answer? Because you think it's "free"? Because you want someone else to subsidize your health? You want someone else to take over your own responsibilities?

I swear sometime people don't understand what they are asking for when they yap Nationalizing healthcare. It just won't work.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
After seeing how people complain about the Government regarding the hurricane - what makes people think that getting the Government involved(more, or in total) is the right answer? Because you think it's "free"? Because you want someone else to subsidize your health? You want someone else to take over your own responsibilities?

I swear sometime people don't understand what they are asking for when they yap Nationalizing healthcare. It just won't work.

I just don't want it to be looked upon for Things like this

it's a lot cheaper for big business to go to places like Canada because they have heathcare there, but then again the hillbilly thing is also mentioned in there as a problem too LOL

Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.

 

[Zebo]

LOL what I nice way to put stupid.

"The level of the workforce in general is so high that the training program you need for people, even for people who have not worked in a Toyota plant before, is minimal compared to what you have to go through in the southeastern United States," said Gerry Fedchun, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, whose members will see increased business with the new plant.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out either.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Zebo
If you guys want some sort of governmental care why not fight at the state level for it?

Nationwide will only further increase the Red states dependency on rich blues. I wish we would discontinue all federal funding of education, SS, medicare, farms and whatever other socialist programs are out there.

I'd love to see that happen, but I know it never will. While everybody loves to talk about smaller goverment, they only want smaller goverment for other people. They talk tough, but when they chips are down they're the one who complain the loudest.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: zendari
There are dozens of other countries with these anti-freedom socialist schemes. I wonder why all the libs chose to live in this one.

On the contrary, a national healthcare insurance system with universal coverage would be one of most liberating policies in the history of our nation. It would unleash a creative/entrepenuerial wave as folks who feel chained to employers who provide healthcare benefits feel liberated to strike out on their own, knowing their healthcare is covered. By removing the fear of medical bankruptcy or denial of care folks will be free to strike out on their own.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ironwing

On the contrary, a national healthcare insurance system with universal coverage would be one of most liberating policies in the history of our nation. It would unleash a creative/entrepenuerial wave as folks who feel chained to employers who provide healthcare benefits feel liberated to strike out on their own, knowing their healthcare is covered. By removing the fear of medical bankruptcy or denial of care folks will be free to strike out on their own.

Absolutely. Businesses wouldn't have to spend time and money worrying about it either and it might also cut down in age discrimination in employment. How often do you hear people say that they aren't real thrilled with their job and that the pay isn't great but the benefits are keeping them from moving to a better job? As you said, it would also make it so much easier for people to start their own small businesses.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Smaug
There is a piece in the New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell, that discusses how broken our healthcare system is, and how nationalizing it is in fact a much better choice. He also debunks my favorite myth, that healthcare is just like every other good or service.

THE MORAL-HAZARD MYTH : The bad idea behind our failed health-care system.

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
First some definitions . . .

Healthcare: the provision of goods and services related to the maintenance of health/fitness (cheap, highly effective) and intervention in the natural history of existing disease

Health insurance: 3rd party or otherwise circuitous means of paying for healthcare

The fundamental problems in the system:
1) Emphasis on interventional care - healthcare plans pay out the nose for CABG (look it up) but until recently wouldn't even consider paying for diet/nutrition/exercise.

2) Essentially no emphasis on keeping people healthy.

3) Arguably should be #1, many patients/people appear to take minimal interest in the maintenance of good health and then have wholly unrealistic expectations about how to use healthcare and how much it costs.

4) Public (but moreso private) interests add a level of bureaucracy that extracts anywhere from 6% (Medicare) to 25% (private insurer) from the system.

5) Aging, sickly population with high per capita utilization. Even our kids are sicker . . . asthma rates in kids 0-4 years old has TRIPLED in the past two decades. Don't even get me started on frickin' childhood obesity.

6) Government meddling to pick winners and losers (extending drug patents, accelerated approval for marginally useful drugs, annual tinkering with Medicare that invariably makes the program worse).

7) Medical education (pre and postgrad) that hasn't kept pace with best evidence.

8) Medical malpractice . . . but not what you think. It's the insurance. The Bush economy made it difficult for insurers to make money on their investments. Unfortunately, for them . . . they rarely made money off MD premiums. Companies that couldn't jack up rates fast enough on their small, captive market stopped offering coverage. As the number of providers decreased, rates went through the roof.

9) Medical malpractice . . . yeah, what you think. Physicians often make mistakes. Most are inconsequential . . . some are quite important. On the otherhand, sometimes sh!t happens. Regardless of the scenario, there's rarely a dearth of blood sucking lawyers waiting in the wings to sue somebody . . . typically everybody. It may be less than two pennies on the dollar but that's some serious $$$$.

:thumbsup:

i think this may be the first time i've ever fully agreed with everything BBD says. the first few are particularly important. we live in a very unhealthy society that expects medicine to fix all that ails us. just look at the word in the topic - 'healthcare'. is what you really get 'healthcare'? or is it 'medicalcare?' it is most definitely the latter, yet we expect doctors to provide us with the former. this simply cannot be the case. doctors can't ensure that you eat right, exercise, stop smoking, drink very moderately (or not at all), etc. they have far many other important things to do, so they can't take time out of their day, every day, to ask if you've eaten enough vegetables and run 3 miles. real healthcare starts at home, not in the doctor's office.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: Future Shock
My brother is a doc in the UK, and for the life of me you have to like the way they have achieved a balance:

1) you need free healthcare? Good, you can get it. It won't be too bad, it WILL treat you well, and frankly many of the best doctors in Britain work for the NHS, so competency abounds. You WILL be limited to the time a doctor has to spend with you, it won't be as posh as some suburban US medical centers, but it will be OK...

2) If you want better care, then the private option is available too. Many employers offer private health insurance, which covers private hospitals and doctors, and proceedures that are either not covered by the NHS, or have a long waiting time.

This really does give the best of both worlds - no one lacks for basic medical care (which includes drug rehab, HIV/AIDS treatments, most chronic diseases, home healthcare when needed, etc.), but those that want to buy (or have their companies buy) more personalized care always can.

The trick is to strike the right balance - funding the NHS so that it is affordable in taxes, but still provides basic coverage. It can be fairly controversial - but at least it's a political debate in which no one denies the need for universal coverage for basic medical care...and the free market is left to provide value added services...

FS

what a fantastic idea

the rich get choice and the poor are stuck at the mercy of the government

all i want to do is pay taxes for socialized medicine and than pay more money for my healthcare

What, you don't think you pay NOW? How much do you think it costs YOU when a person without job-funded healthcare decides that the easiest way to get treated is to simply walk into the emergency room? Which happens to cost 5 times what a doctor's visit would cost, but he knows that they have to treat him, and that he can simply ignore the bills and the hospital will eventually write it off as bad debt? Who do you think pays that cost? Not the hosipital - you do, eventually. What the NHS does is provide a safety net of medical care that avoids the 5x-priced emergency medical treatments for the poor, and instead puts in place a structured, well-regulated, and well-negotiated care system that in the end costs less.

That's the main point - we all end up covering the health costs of the uninsured - they either avail themselves of hospital services and then don't pay (meaning we do), or they serve as disease vectors into the rest of the population, or they simply become ever larger drains on society (disability, crime, etc.). And unless you want your very own Brazilain barrios set up in this country, we always WILL end up eating that cost. Nationalized healthcare is just a way of negotiating treatment standards and bargaining good prices for pharmaceuticals to lessen the impact.

FS