Link
The United States was given a grade of 66/100 by the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund. Here are some exceperts from the article.






So there's the problem...Fix it.

Questions for Debate:
Is healthcare a right?
How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?

On edit: This probably belongs in Domestic Policy, my bad.

CP

this particular debate is such that can not be popular with an American audience as the American people have been brutalized by their govts

clearly America can be number 1 in healthcare across the world if they chose to be they just do not choose to do so
the proof of this is that america is number 1 in power
because it spends 5 times the amount of its next 10 closest countries in terms of amount spent on military
the imbalance is clear for anyone to see
whether or not this is what americans want or if that even matters is another matter

currently America is spending on health care trying to rectify the problem from the north east across
country and down into the south it is health care services that is drivng the new job growth
the old drivers of job growth which was the Auto industry and its affiliates are gone or going away
from ford to GM to chrysler they are all disappearing and /or becoming obsolete

Is healthcare a right?

No.

How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?

We need to divorce health insurance from employment. That means eliminating the tax break that businesses get for "providing" health insurance to their employees (in reality, diverting their employees' salaries toward health insurance), so that instead, people would pay for insurance the same way they pay for anything else. That would force a necessary downward pressure on insurance rates, as people are faced with the full cost of it, and that would make it more affordable generally. Too much money gets wasted on frivolous coverage that's more of a psychological crutch than a medical necessity.

I also think that hospitals need to be able to exercise more discretion over whom they agree to treat or not to treat. Having worked in hospitals, I can tell you that there are those who get admitted perennially who shouldn't, but are just either seeking attention or drugs or are just hypochondriac. And invariably, these are people who aren't covered by any insurance, which means that the hospital has to absorb the cost and pass it on to everyone else who comes in.

Blackstone, I do agree wtih you that private companies should not have to provide health insurance to their employees, but I also have to say that there's no way that alone will better the health care system of this country. That wouldn't do much of anything to help the millions of Americans who don't have insurance [some of whom rely on their employers to provide for them]. Nothing at all. In my opinion yes, health care is a right, if you're ill, you deserve to be cured, it's a basic human right. Personally, I believe that the government needs to adopt a health care system similar to the one that is being implemented here in Mass. Basically, the government is forcing people who can buy health insurance to buy it by a given date or face a fine [which I'm not a fan of, but here's the redeeming quality] in addition to subsidizing other insurance companies so they can sell insurance at more affordable prices to the poor. This plan is not universal health care, it's simply subsidizing, and it's a great compromise, it's practical and a great idea...Oh and it will reduce the amount of uninsured people by 95% in something like four years. That's what I would prefer, and it, unlike, in my opinion, Blackstone's solution would really fix the uninsured problem which in my opinion is the biggest flaw in our current system [or lack thereof].

CP

To me its math really. If we say that an average cost for healthcare is x amount of money, can across the board Americans on a whole afford that x. If say a percentage of them, say 10% cannot, then yes i would agree something should be done. People have to work within the confines of a system, and that system of course does not have to be fair but on that note I don’t think that system really should just let people die, and more often then not emergency room medicine either costs a lot more then preventive would or simply is not in time for that person. Catching a blood clot prior to it becoming a major health issue costs very little to reacting to it after it has become a major health problem, and regardless an emergency room really cannot deny that person so we simply end up paying just so much more in that respect.

Basically if the environment does not provide the means for people to obtain healthcare for whatever extent that holds true, which I heard is the truth for literally millions of Americans, then yes something should be done. We are not talking about socialism here to me as much as we may simply be talking about natural reality really, not that I am associating the two but everything costs money in our system and maybe some people just do not make enough even though they are doing all the right things, to say you cannot have healthcare is simply retarded to me, it would be like if it cost money per mile on every person to use roads and if some simply did not have enough o afford it they could not own a car, taking the car away basically cripples them simply because again it comes back to the environment or system in which we do not live totally independent of regardless of nation or culture.

So i guess the problem is what is the right way to fix this? I imagine if the government and the private sector actually gave in to really wanting to fix the issue they could, but more often then not i think it gets bogged down by selfish desires across the board.

To do nothing is simply to not care for what I expect to be a growing problem along with populations and resource demands overall, to only allow for emergency room visits for some really is poor care of American citizens and actually bloating costs, to make medicine cost out of reach means people get on a bus and goto Canada for such, which I found disturbing really. Basically I support tax breaks for companies that push green technology and I would accept tax breaks for companies that install and keep good healthcare for employees, regardless if you are a ceo or work at fast-food, I think that would be the best overall, but then again I guess America would need jobs.


Is healthcare a right?

I don’t know, I don’t think America should let its people go without.


How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?

Tax breaks and support for companies that will offer it, either intrinsic to a companies or an independent healthcare insurance provider, basically I think it would have to bracket in terms of family or individual gdp.

Is healthcare a right?

It's not what I think of as a "natural right," which roughly corresponds to what are sometimes called negative rights:


I'm not sure health care deserves to be a right more than other essentials of life, like food, shelter, or clothing. I suppose health care is different because the need for it comes up sporadically and unexpectedly, while food, shelter, and clothing are needed more or less continuously. There's more of a need for risk-sharing (i.e., insurance) in health care. (I haven't noticed a market for "food insurance.")

Regardless of my philosophical notion of rights, health care will be treated as a right if the majority decides it is one.

How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?

I would start with a national catastrophic risk pool. This would be a mandatory payroll deduction like FICA, and it would cover large medical expenses: let's say a $5,000 deductible. I would also make it easier for people to self-insure by putting aside pre-tax money in medical savings accounts, to cover medical expenses that are less than the catastrophic deductible. In the U.S. today, about 30% of health care spending goes to feed the insurance companies' paperwork machine. Moving to a single-payer for catastrophic needs, and self-insurance for ordinary day-to-day needs should eliminate a lot of that waste.

I don't really believe this will happen, though. Between the inability of the average person to navigate our current semi-private health-care system, and the insurance lobby opposing all reforms, I think things will get worse before they get better. And when "better" comes, it will be in the form of European-style nationalized health care, with all its own drawbacks: a bad idea whose time has come.

Your post leaves me with more questions than answers.

1. Would employees who currently have company insurance be grandfathered in or cut off cold turkey?

2. Would cutting everyone off at the same time be too much of a shock to the system?

3. Would this even be possible? Many companies provide insurance as part of a union contract.

4. Groups currently get better insurance rates than individuals. How do you conclude that individuals buying for themselves would drive down costs? Do you have a link or other corroborating evidence to support this assertion?

5. What would you do with retirees who are covered by state or government plans other than Medicare?



Please provide some examples of "frivilous" coverage.

Questions for Debate:
Is healthcare a right?
No, it is not a right. You have a right to an equal opportunity to secure, by whatever legal means possible, whatever healthcare you feel is necessary and prudent. You do not have the right to demand that others provide the healthcare for you. If you cannot secure adequate healthcare, tough.

How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?
By all dying. Until that happens, we will always have a "healthcare problem" in this country, because somebody, somewhere will be sick and/or injured. Until then, we can at least fix the "whining about a healthcare problem problem" by beeeitch slapping those who think they have a right to the time and resources of other people when they have the sniffles. "Healthcare problem" my keester. Compared to 99 percent of the people who have ever lived, we got it GREAT.

WE ALL WILL DIE, get over it and start living.

Ironically, the link to the article has expired.

On rights: We only have those for which we fight. Nobody gives us rights, but many want to take whatever we have away.

On fixing healthcare woes: Looks pretty impossible when the attitude is that you get born and you die, and what happens between these two necessary events doesn't matter.

Healthcare is tied tightly to employment, no matter how you slice it. No employment, no healthcare -- that's the desire expressed here, and by gosh if that isn't how it works out. Well, you can get emergency care, which is highly wasteful, and apparently some like to live with the waste. Or they want to do away with the waste and simply ignore the problem.

So, ignore the problem or fix the problem, but how to fix it?

More employment would help, but that doesn't seem to be working in most sectors except healthcare. Seems pretty ironic, doesn't it. Is our economy becoming dependent on sick people processing? If so, do we want to increase the number of sick people in this country to feed the economy?

Certain things start to make sense if we go with that assumption. Promote diabetes through processed foods containing high sugar contents; reduce food inspections (E. coli in spinach comes to mind); worsen conditions by denying preventative medicine (happens indirectly, again through low or no income); deny euthanasia, thus extending healthcare costs; keep the tubes plugged in, thus extending healthcare costs.

Oh, and make lots and lots of babies who won't get healthcare, including the mothers! Wow, it's almost as if this was all planned out ahead of time.

Bottom line: Do we, or do we not, have a right to life? What does it mean if we have a right to life? Would that include the right to life maintenance? Would we also have the right to terminate our lives if we so desire? Does this include the right to control whether or not we have babies, and if so, how many?

Well, we have no rights other than those for which we are willing to fight. The answer thus becomes that we will have a right to healthcare once enough people desire it strongly enough to fight for it.

This fight can take a few different forms. People can vote for politicians who have clear and workable plans to fix the healthcare system. People can hit the streets, and with high unemployment, they got the time to do so. Employers can be shunned for not having health insurance in the benefit packages, but this won't happen until the supply of labor is lower than the demand. Clearly, the easiest thing to do is to seek out those politicians who have clear and workable plans to fix the healthcare system.

That is, if enough people think the problem should be fixed. So, maybe a quick way to bring this about is to eliminate all healthcare other than free market for a year or two. This will do two things. First, a wave of layoffs will hit the healthcare industry, since fewer people will be able to afford the services. Second, a wave of layoffs will hit the government sector, as we won't need the armies of healthcare money distributors. Offsetting this is that those remaining employed will have more money to spend on healthcare. Another offset that might happen is that the sectors other than healthcare and government could employ more people, but I'm not so sure of this in the world economy. The employment might increase overseas just as well, with little impact domestically.

At the end of this experiment, many more people will be going without healthcare. The demand will be there, but not the supply due to lack of income.

So, we're back to seeking out those politicians who have clear and workable plans to fix the problem. Or, simply ignore it and see what happens.

Yeah, I mean what the hell's wrong with those...sick people anyway, they've got a lot of nerve being sick in a first world country and then thinking they have the right to be cured [you know...like in every other first world country]. They should just die so we don't have to hear their complaining. Oh and especially the kids, after all, there the loudest...I mean, who cares if their parents don't have health insurance and there's nothing they can do to "secure it" for themselves...that's no excuse to be a drain on society...After all, a perceived fiscal responsibility is much more important than human life. Excellent solution, slap those who think that when they're sick in a modern country, that they should be cured.


That's right we do...So I don't think we should improve anything anymore. Since we have already eclisped any other civilization to ever live, we shouldn't strive to do any better. So why stop at health care, I say we get rid of the Dept. of Homeland Security, I mean, even if we get attacked every now and then we'll still have it better than 99 percent of the people who have ever lived...I mean, that's pretty good.

CP

I think you're under the impression that I'm somehow advocating mandating that people stop getting health insurance through businesses. All I'm saying is that the government needs to stop encouraging it. Once they do, it would be up to the businesses themselves to decide how to proceed from there. Within some period of time, I'm thinking that most of them will have largely discontinued the practice.


I thought I explained how. Individual faced with the full cost would revolt against such costs. Insurance companies would have to lower them in order to stay in business.

By the way, do we get fire insurance, flood insurance, or car insurance through our employers (to say nothing of all the other necessities of life)? What is it about the economics of health insurance that somehow makes it an exception? If there's no reason for it to be any different, then I'd have to conclude that the reason it's so much more expensive for individuals is that the government (inadvertently, I'd suppose) has set up the system that way.


I don't see how they would be affected by my proposal.


People bringing their kids into the doctor's office for every sniffle, just to get filled up with antibiotics. When I was growing up, unless we had something that truly needed medical attention, we stayed home, rested, and made sure we got plenty of fluids. Miraculously, we recovered each time.

You know I taught severe to profound mentally retarded and multi handicapped kids for 25 years. Parents tended to send kids to school sick, to be a bit graphic - with green and yellow mucus flying everywhere.

The reslts of all this was that other kids and the staff got sick. I had upper respiratory infections several times a year. I've had one mild one since I retired.

We are in partial agreement. I have no problem with staying home, drinking fluids and resting until an infection is cleared. Antibiotics aren't supposed to work against viral infetions. Unfortunately people don't do this. They go to school and work and infect other people.

There were times when kids were sent to school so sick that nurses would send them home with instructions not to return without a doctor's note indicating that the infection was clear.

I've actually changed my stance on this issue over the years...

When it come's to social service's there's the universal question that comes to mind for me.

How often does the average joe use this to justify chipping in for everyone including him/herself?

There's the obvious things such as roads, stop lights, water, sewage, police, firemen, and various other infrastructure items that most of us use frequently. You also have to factor in capitalism for other items such as telephone cables, cable lines, techno clubs, and as is the case in the US... health care.

Now health care is something that most if not all of us use... even for people such as myself that haven't been to a doctor in years (other than standard military care for enlistments).

So does capitalism work better for health care? Well that is the big question... and given our health care record to whats affordable vs the quality of care compared to other countries such as Canada... i'm leaning more toward a singular govt ran program. Sure maybe our country may give the impression of sometimes "better" health care but look at how much those that get it pay for it. So should we have better health care for the few or general health care for the masses? I understand there is health care available for those that can't afford it but it doesn't cover major ailments that require surgery unless you meet stringent requirements.

I believe we should implement a health care system such as Canada's but altered as to not accept people with minor ailments such as colds and other common minor sicknesses (i'm not entirely sure if Canada's system is setup like this so correct me if i'm wrong but I have researched it and find it attractive).



That seems a bit suspicious as to how they could have just stayed at home and purchased a $10 bottle of Nyquil. It's this type of ailment's that we shouldn't have to pay for. More of a bad parenting decision than an argument for health coverage. Our system is backwards, you can get free coverage .... if you meet the requirements for minor ailments but to get coverage for major ailments you might as well tie a rope around your tooth and tie the other end to a doorhandle... If we could somehow flip this aroud or show me a good capitalist alternative that would work in the US I might be content to change my stance (not necessarily directed at you BoF).

As far as the first question is concerned. No I do not believe it is a right, however it is on the lower rung of a benefit and in a country with a GDP double of the next closest country in the world I believe that's it's a privilege that should be afforded to all it's citizens... so as far as the US is concerned... yes it should be a right.

Yes, bad parenting is often ivolved, but ...

You have to remember Vampiel that these kids have systems that are often compromised. Downs Syndrome children, for example, are prone to respiratory infections. Treatment is probably more important with this group than the general population.


Here is a quote and link to American Family Physician:



http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/381.html

Here's another link about non-infant Downs Syndrome victims.



http://www.drfeely.com/Osteopathy/cd_downsyndrome_2.htm

At some point life and quality of life have to win out over a rigid adherence to "conservative" ideology.

The US healthcare system sucks. Sucks big time. And eventually- if not taken care of, will have US security ramifications. Lots and lots of sick poeple are very desperate poeple, and will do crazy desperate things.

We need to end private health insurance except for things NOT convered in a universal health insurance system.

One area that is 180* in mission is the mission of health care and the idea of health care for profit. The profit motive and health care are mutually exclusive.

We go down to an "F" in healthcare, and some of those disease vectors may even kill republicans you know!

Is healthcare a right?

The link on the opening page wasn't working. I think this is what is is supposed to connect to.

original link?

I think it is today. And by this I mean primarily that under existing policy all Americans, and I believe anyone in the country, will receive medical treatment when they are ill.

Additionally, I believe that it is a responsibility of the medical profession to help sick people. It is a burden upon doctors to use their skills to help their society.

A democracy that has tiers of health distinguished by class is a democracy in name only. Like access to education, a modern democracy should provide access to health care. And while this is seen like a far left socialist idea, it is already a reality in this country.

The problem lies in our systems of providing health coverage.

How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?

link
The above link shows how, despite the United States advantage in scale (nearly 300 million popple) the cost per capita of health care in the United States is dramatically higher in the United States. This, combined with the poor results, is something that would be recognized in any other United States industry as an abject failure in international competition. Although there is a continuing chorus that the American system is superior and socialized medicine is everywhere else a failure, the real numbers seem clear.

The United States health care system is too expensive and it is producing inferior results by almost every measure.

The system is broken and it needs to be fixed.

I agree with some above posters that a large part of the problem is that health coverage is tied to our employers. This breaks us all into small groups. It makes it harder to employ people and it makes it harder on Americans to move jobs. It gives large companies a competitive advantage over smaller companies that have to do with size instead of efficiency.

if all Americans were part of a national healthcare market then we could use our buying power the way we always do and get companies competing more effectively for efficient healthcare systems.

Additionally, the way we use insurance does not use the advantages of a market economy. In fact it is an un-market economy. We try to get the maximum amount of service for a limited amount of insurance. After we are insured we rarely see our bills and ask for the more expensive pills and tests because it doesn't affect out pocketbook proportionately to the real cost differences. We want the best and most expensive doctors and treatments we can get. We rarely see the costs when we are asking for service we only see our out of pocket costs and it is truly difficult to get the paperwork that shows the real costs of our services.

I prefer a national healthcare service because I think the results clearly show that these systems, adopted in all other countries provide tremendous healthcare advantages and give those countries and overall economic competitive edge. We have the advantage of coming to this last and can use the lessons of other countries to try to make this care a best case possible system.

I would think that we could create a baseline health package that all Americans would pay for after a health credit equal to that baseline. From that coverage level private insurers and even public packages could offer upgrades to suit the desires of Americans that want a higher level of coverage.

I would love to see the American hospital system go back to being predominantly non-profit. I see no advantages from the recent trend of privatizing the nation's non-profit health systems. To me, for profit hospitals seems a little obscene, and the tax advantages of non-profit hospitals in a reasonably competitive environment seem like another collective benefit that Americans should be able to reap.

Yeah, well I guess dropping dead of some disease that could have been prevented or cured is one way to address the "healthcare problem."

Healthcare is a human right. A healthy country is a strong country and if America put more resources into preventive medicine it would go a long way in solving the healthcare crisis.

The deal is, it's kinda cruel to tell a single mom working as a cashier at Wal-Mart has her ashmatic daughter who has a empty inhaler to stop "whining" and just suck it up. When someone is sick---not just the sniffles or a upset tummy--but honestly sick, they shouldn't have to wait until a runny nose and sore throat turns into a case of pneumonia or strep throat before staggering into a hospital emergency room where the costs of care at that point soar into the hundreds and thousands.

The Census Bureau reports that in 2005, the number of uninsured Americans rose 1.3 million to 46.6 million or 15.9% of the population. Those 46 million Americans are not all lazy layabouts who need to be slapped for getting sick. Among those 46 million Americans are working people, middle class, men, women and children who aren't blessed with the benefit of a health insurance plan. As much as it irks you Bikerdad the fact is the uninsured get sick too and sometimes they can't just tough it out and ignore the blood they're coughing up.

Which means ALL of us end up coughing up the cash to cover their need for healthcare. Saying people shouldn't get sick is not an option. Whenever there's a natural disaster or a war to be fought, America finds the money for it. There's always cash for bridges to nowhere and weapon systems that don't work. There is money to provide for every American citizen to have decent healthcare coverage. If some sort of national plan that provides a minimum standard of healthcare strikes some as socialism (horrors!) then what is your solution?

"Suffer and die" is not an option. Not in any country that presumes to call itself civilized and compassionate.

Sure, just so we can wind up like Canada:


Honestly, I don't know what it is that drives people to radical solutions, especially ones that have shown themselves to be utter failures, instead of trying to take an objective look at the problem to see what aspects of it can be improved.

Blackstone, while I don't agree with Cruising Ram's solution, I'm still puzzled as to how simply "divorcing" insurance from employers would help anything. What is the alternative to what we're doing and what CR suggests, and what's wrong with what Massachusetts is doing right now, subsidizing private coporations so they can lower prices for the uninsured, that idea seems ideal to me.

CP

Ok, so lets play the "pull random extreme examples out of the air to prove a point" game.



All pretty horrific. What's really interesting in my providing these examples is that I have not even attempted to link them to the privatized health-care system in the United States. Are they endemic of the system? I guess we'll never know. I mean, context isn't nearly as important as demonstrating your point by highlighting extreme examples and not engaging in an in-depth exploration of the system itself... right? I'm just playing by your rules here, so stop me if I'm getting it wrong.

Thanks for making the most hate filled, unnecessary, puerile, and useless comment ever said on .

Health care is not a right but I also don't think the health care system should be the monstrous profit center it has become.

The way I see the US fixing the health care system is that of a very very large insurance plan. Ever notice the larger the company the lower the insurance costs? Well what would happen if a plan included everyone in the United States. Instead of being eligible for this plan by working for a certain company. You would be eligible by being a citizen of the US.

Sleeper,

I don't understnd why you are so upset. You are no longer a "consevative Republican", but a "very conservative independent."

Put another way, perhaps gentler, there are diseases that are equal opportunity in selecting their victims - that is, they cross economic, gender, ethnic and even party lines. It might be that the very people opposing certain types of coverage are the ones who will eventually need and benefit from it.

I think this is what CR was saying. He can correct me, if I'm wrong.

I saw his comments in hopes that republicans die as a result...

Politics don't matter when it comes about hoping people die

So are you saying I shouldn't be upset about somebody wishing ill upon people?

I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the subject content of my post but rather pick on my comment, do you agree or disagree with what was really important about my post?

This is absurd. I can think of no better word for it, utterly absurd. What it pitiful is that there are a number of far right wing commentators in the US SO attached to their 'our way id the only way' type of thinking that they have to INVENT tall tales about the failure of the Canadian health care system.

However, appart from picking random unsourced 'facts' out for public display, I prefer to go with official statistics, and according to those the Canadian health care system is in EVETY MEASURABLE WAY better then that of the US. The ONLY exception to that is if you compare waiting times for non-essential surgury, in which case waiting times in Canada are slightly longer.

But listing this tripe and then telling people to take an 'objective look at the situation' is disingenuous at best.

What I find astonishing is how they can be in a country which has proven by every measurable standard to have a health care system inferior to a well funded socialised health system, and yet though ignorance, misplaced nationalism or fear of change refuse to even consider the reality of cold hard facts.


Argument by anecdote is of course always weak, but I am forced to use a couple of 'examples' to counter the random ones you pulled out.

When my appendix burst, I went to the hospital, and was in surgury within 35 minutes of walking through the door.

My father, recently diagnosed with Cancer, had his first radiation treatment 2 days after the diagnosis, first Chemo a week later, and that delay only because other tests were necessary. For essential surgury or medical care I have never met anyone who waited at all, let alone the rediculous 'five months' you describe.

My old boss who needed hip replacement surgury (a non-essential surgury) had to wait two weeks for her operation, the longest delay I have ever heard of. It's not like we live in ignorance on the topic, the Medical system in Canada is the subject of intense scrutiny and navel gazing all the time. And unlike in the US, we do not have a small but vocal portion of the media dedicated to lying about the subject.

On the other hand, none of these people had to pay for their health problems. None had to settle for less (or no) treatment based on their financial status. Did you know that in the United States, more than half of ALL personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills? People who have insurance through work lose their insurance if a chronic illness leaves them unable to work, and thus are unable to pay medical bills. In other words, you can have insurance through work UNLESS you get really sick.


That's the 'better system' you refer to? If you like, I can pull out a few random, unsources, undated horror stories about the medical system in the US, and then pretend that is illustrative of the entire system. Would that be fun?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/briefs...r/hb050202c.htm

I have to agree with Vermillion that it is pointless to point out horror stories, as you could do so from both sides and paint a pretty gloomy picture. Mistakes and things can happen at any given time in any hospital regardless of who is paying the bills whether it be the government, insurance companies, or the patient.

As i stated in a different thread to answer the tenets of a universal health care system:


I still hold this view in light of the recent data that has been brought forth. What we have to do is understand the consequences of our actions and realize that as with every issue, there are pros/cons. It may seem harsh, but it is probably in the interest of all that under a free system those with full earning capacity shouldt often be rapidly cured of a temporary and not dangerous disablement at the expense of some neglect of the aged and moratlly ill. Where systems of state medicine operate, we generally find that those who could be promptly restored to ful activity have to wait for long periods because all the hospital facilities are taken up by people who will never again contribute to the needs of the rest. (Hayek, 1960)

But this is not the only problem that we must decipher through. In my mind, the most important factor that deters me from buying into this nationalized health care business is the fact that the doctor, who as of right now is an agent of the patient, would be transformed into an agent of the state. Officials who are subject to instruction and direct authority of the state. As technological and medical progress increases, the more knowledge and thus more power, these agents would have over the individual. We would be dependent on a unified organization under single direction and be guided by the same reasons of state that generally govern policy. How will our medical and psychological secrets be kept private when it is the state who controls our healthcare? Those records will be available to any state official who wants them.

The introduction of a nationalized health service is not the answer to having better healthcare for the people of the United States. The government cannot run the Department of Motor Vehicles well and people want them to have control over their healthcare. I don't have the answers and I won't make believe that I do. But the nationalized medicine proposed by many is most certainly not the answer.

Sleeper- my quote you picked out- it is in response to bikerdad's "let them die because they are poor and don't have a right to any kind of life of health if they can't afford it" comment- but, even if the republicans don't want to pay for the poor, they are going to pay eventually- by an untended disease vector, or, as is hte case now- everyone pays for the uninsured- intentionally or not. Lost productivity in the US alone due to untreated illness and disease is much higher than all the other developed countires- and that means you pay through increased cost of goods and services.

The only poeple that stand to really lose in a single payer insurance system is the insurance industry- otherwise, there would be no down side AT ALL.

Also, I would disband the AMA immediately, and completely purge the FDA of most of its upper and mid level managers. Our coziness with the drug industry and our lack of will power to stand up to them as a nation is the reason we have high costs of drugs. It is NOT R&D costs- most of our large drug companies are not even US companies (Merk, Bayer etc)- they simply patent a drug here, and then apply for frivolous patent renewels, or slightly mod the drug, to no real benefit, and then re-introduce the drug, etc etc.

US healthcare is needlessly corrupt and mismanaged, and if we don't do something about it, fairly soon, considering the disease vectors we have coming over everyday in legal and illegal immigration from third world nations, and then, since we don't see our poor unless they come into some overworked and understaffed county hospital- and then, on top of that, the Dr may very well miss the signs of a new contagion due to the work load, well, yes, those , like Bikerdad, that just want them to "die off"- will find themselves with a contagion out of control, that will kill republicans along with the poor.


I am fairly lucky at my hospital- we do have, on a monthly basis or so, some foreign person, that is mentally ill, usually from the far east, as we are a "hub" for transport from places like india or china or Korea- that comes in, both mentally ill and physically sick, with some disease, that we send over to providence, and then ends up in quarintine with "virus of unknown origin"- and a fair amount of them die- it is a very scary thing. All it takes is for something like this to incubate in the homeless population, and move into the working poor population, and then boom- you have an untreatable disease, or one, that had it been recognized earlier, might have been taken care of sooner, and perhaps even not allowed to spread.

It would open up the system to more competition, as individuals would have more of a choice. And by having individuals see the full cost of the premiums, it would lead to demands for lowering them. This may be accomplished by higher co-pays and higher deductibles, but if it means lower premiums and therefore more people covered for serious calamities, it would be worth it. Insurance, by its nature, shouldn't be for routine care. The whole point of insurance (at least in every other context besides health) is to cover things you don't plan on. Otherwise, it just becomes a middleman. If it truly limited itself to the unforeseeable, it would be a lot less expensive. Of a random population of 10,000, how many will have serious unforeseen problems arise over the course of a given year that would require expensive treatment? Divide that number by 10,000, and you're almost guaranteed to have a much lower number than what most insurance companies charge currently.


It's like Hippocrates said, First do no harm. If something about the system is doing harm (such as the tax policy I described), then the first thing that should be done is to remove that policy, before proceeding with new experimentation that could have more unforeseen consequences. As regards Massachusetts specifically, its laws (scroll down to Section 47) require insurance companies to cover a whole litany of services, whether their customers want to pay for that kind of coverage or not. That inevitably causes insurance rates to rise, causing more people to be priced out of it. If the state feels for some reason that these things need to be supported, then let it do so though public funds. But to force policy holders to pay for them, whether they have any interest in them or not, is really just regressive taxation at its worst.

Ultimatejoe, if you look at the examples I provided, and the ones you provided, you should notice a very stark difference. Yours are just individual, isolated incidents, usually as a result of some kind of incompetence, which could plague any system. Mine show much more general trends. And these trends simply do not exist in the U.S.

And on that note, one of the more laughable objections raised in Vermillion's post is that my examples are "anecdotal" (even though they encompassed far more than just individual incidents). And then he rebuts these with (drumroll, please) personal anecdotes! Yeah, that'll show me.

By the way, as my link to the "unsourced" facts shows, the source for them is a New York Times article from 2000. That article, and I do recommend reading it, is hosted in its entirety here (scroll way down, second article from the bottom, entitled "Full Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South"). Maybe an NYT article is some people's idea of "far right wing commentary", but probably not many's.

lederuvdapac, I totally reject this "survival of the fittest" mentality. If healthcare isn't a right, neither is it a privilege reserved for only the most fit and functional members of a society. Typically, older people are less healthy and require more services than younger people, but just because a person has entered their sunset years does not mean they are less deserving of the best care possible.

It isn't harsh, it's engaging in a form of natural selection to say "those with full earning capacity" should get top priority while the very young, very old and very ill have to move to the back of the line because they aren't as economically productive.

Ok UJ, I can understand your objection, however you fail to consider the alternative. I am saying that by resorting to universal health insurance, that in the long run we negatively affect the healthcare of all. It is comparable to a wealth redistribution plan. The wealthy will need to be taxed more heavily in order to bear the burden for having better healthcare for all. It also means that people who could be easily cured of minor disabling virus or disease will be less likely to receive the care they need because hospitals will be so overwhelmed with patients. Further, you fail to counter my point of doctors becoming agents of the state...in my opinion a very scary thing indeed.

The wealth that pays for universal healthcare has to come from somewhere. You can call it "natural selection" if you want but its the reality of the situation. In my view, providing this free healthcare you propose decreases the quality of healthcare for all.

Medical personal already and will always have that "power" over the people in regards to the position they hold simply because not everyone is in the position or cares to go to medical school for untold years, so for whatever point of abuse the could make of that they very well could be doing that right now, and I would not doubt that some do. To take the idea that anything in a society that can come to control or influence you detracts from the idea of having anything period in the form of government, its not a logical leap to make that connection, under that light every form of power that comes from the state is then corrupt, which I will agree with to a certain extent but that’s probably more of competition and survival of the fittest or what not, you know lying is a possibly rewarded behavior.

So in that light, one should possibly except the idea of basic communistic thought taking away any form of government possibly, I don’t know.

People tend to get hurt, and get ill, all through life you are open to this. Say at work you slip on a spill someone did not clean up, and when falling you make an instinctual reaction, and boom, broken fingers, now that person cant really work like that unless the company wants to make room or burden themselves for him or her, at that point the other option is that person happens to have enough money to pay for whatever medical expenses might come along, and maybe they do, then they also have to have enough resources stashed away to survive until they can go back to work, but what if the company did not hold the persons job. The reality to me is its impossible for people in total to never get sick or hurt, so what do you do with that reality. Now many companies offer medical insurance to the employee, full medical coverage many times that’s not only open to the employee but the family. I think this is a positive move, as in the fact that people have to work to live correctly in regards to our system, unless they win the lotto or find that elusive big break or whatever. Now of course the company or no one has to pick up the bill, it could all be individual, but with the giving reality I think you might find many problems one finds in the third world washing up on our shores and streets, not like that does not happen anyways though.

Now from an individual aspect it becomes more of a struggle having to provide medical for a household of people or a family. To make realistically medical insurance for the millions that currently do not hold it I would no doubt provides possibly not the most favorable business option for people in the private sector, being if they had the money the might simply buy medical insurance.

The last time I checked a simple thing such as an ambulance ride can run you around 800$, that’s just to get to the hospital if you happen to need to take that route. Medical costs are typically enormous, and more so depending on the severity of the injury or ailment. To practice social or state medicine for the masses that go without at the emergency room will in no doubt only bloat associated costs for the state. Many things of course relate to healthcare, such as simple healthcare education for the individual and family, but of course it comes down to the money, I support the idea that healthcare should be accessible to Americans, maybe not simply giving away, but at some point it should be something anyone could obtain if needed, they could simply tier the system to simply put in a screening process, like regular checkups along with someone being able to go in a get checked up on if they want to. I mean if my foot started hurting for some reason, and weeks later it still was like that, I would like to see what the issue is rather then pushing it to the point that one day I stand up and simply am not to be able to support my own weight on it anymore, and that’s what happens when you let medical issues get worse and worse, that’s what they typically do, and then they end up at the emergency room. Preventative medicine costs less, a lot less that medicine after the fact.

Human nature such as being able to walk upright and of course evolution is far from the realm of 100% empirical understanding, to use such as a basis for an argument will share in that, just wanted to toss that one in there, also species extinction does not help.

Is healthcare a right?
Yeah and not necessarily for charitable reasons. Disease and the conditions for disease disperse themselves into the general population. It's a matter of self-protection of the group. You don't want too many vectors running around or too many preventable or curable traumas that turn into permanent disabilities and become a greater cost for all of us. Of course this also gets into healthy environments and neighborhoods.

How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?
1. You start off by accepting the triage principle. As Lincoln might have put it you can bring all of the people healthcare for most medical conditions, you can bring some of the people healthcare for all medical conditions, but you can't bring all of the people healthcare for all medical conditions. We can't afford it.

You need a comprehensive federal system that brings healthcare and prevention to everyone at a certain predetermined general cost, say 10% of the gnp. Then a body of independent medical professionals, insulated from pressure groups, would be appointed, who would then create a ladder of priorities of what would be covered and what wouldn't within that funding limitation. Presumably getting 1000 kids inoculated would take priority over giving a 90 year old a triple bypass, assuming equivalent costs. For those not covered - private insurance, locally taxed enhancements and charitable help would be potentially available as add-ons. The important point is to get us all covered for most things in a manner that won't generate an out-of-control escalation of costs and then take it from there.

2. As for the source of money, it should be out of federal taxes like everything else. I see no reason for a special payroll tax although I think companies should contribute to a job related sickness-disability fund. Not sure on how the specifics of that would work.

3. As for the details on how to set up a medical system, look at the very best medical performances for the money all over the world and in this country and try to incorporate them where possible.

Nation states are set up to be in the citizen protection business as in "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". Otherwise they have no reason to exist. If you don't like the sound of that, stone age tribal existence is always an option. We have millions of years of practice. Once you get into the nation state business it's a package deal. Your life is bound up with a lot of others. We might as well put it on as orderly and mutually beneficial basis as possible, with economies of scale. When the so called libertarian conservatives announce they will assume their own policing and defense needs then I will take their laissez faire notions a little more seriously. It's not going to happen and medical problems are just as much in the foreign threat category as a guy up in a cave planning our destruction.

Everything you just said is refuted by all those first world countries that have much better care than the US and have a much healthier population- because they have universal health care.

In order to make your point- America would have to have the best health care system in the world- which it is obvious we do not!

Okay, let's start with the objective look at this situation. You have linked to an individual's web site that apparently hasn't been updated in 5 years and have taken a string of unattributed quotations to prove that universal health coverage does not work. Then, although every other industrialized nation has a much more developed national health system than the United States, you take the approach of deciding to label a change to the American system a radical solution that is not being looked at objectively.

Objectively I found a site and linked to it that shows that the United States is paying much more per capita for health care than any other nation.


link

This study took an average of the top three nations results on any category and made that score a 100 and then compared the results of the United States health care system. Although the United States clearly outspends every other country, our results in the major categories (actually all of the ones depicted) do not rate in the top three. They average a score of 71. We fall short in infant mortality, mortality, and life expectancy after 65. Our system is clearly falling short of the national healthcare model by these objective standards.

To refute these statistics objectively you responded with unattributed anecdotal information and defended the proactive when some objected to the arbitrariness of this and provided counter examples chosen arbitrarily.







To the first highlighted quotation, I only wonder how safe you think our health secrets are in today's climate. To the first paragraph, I believe you are hitting on quite legitimate issues that can be resolved with a more nationalized healthcare system by addressing the independence of doctors and the legal protections of our privacy, and most importantly IMO, retaining decentralization of medical authority. By this I mean taking care to not have a command economy model for healthcare in which a bureaucratic agency made all relevant decisions.

As to the second highlight. This is another rhetorical device on this issue that gets under my skin. The government is never the solution so everything else must be better.

In an era where Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom and other scandals resonate through our economy and while we have seen a steady decline in many of our industries including textiles, steel, and the automobile. I mean do we really want to state in a blanket fashion that corporate approaches are always better than one provided by the government. I still buy American cars out of loyalty to the economy, but I am not certain that I want a GM CEO to try to do anything with my dollars.

The government has carried out a lot of duties in our history. Dismissing the government as a solution to anything out of hand is IMO Begging the question.

To follow from the governmental failure to run the DMV then we can't use the government to do anything else and the failures of the DMV are simply assumed.

From here, we must then, to save our society divest government from all things because it is a failure. No taxing, no warring, no intelligence gathering, no lawmaking etc.

End of rant.

Not that my ego is involved, but Post #29 that both lederuvdacpac and Cruising Ram have referenced was not written by my Canadian colleague, Ultimatejoe, but by yours truly. Accuracy and all that, you know...

Could we get a Moderator to tweak that, please?



leder, I've read this "wealth distribution" spiel before and I find it no more convincing now than before. The taxes we currently pay for social programs don't seem to be having an adverse effect on the rich. For the first time, Forbes magazine's list of the 400 Richest Americans were made up only of billionaires, so pardon me if I'm not terribly concerned about the well-being of the wealthy.

It's the rest of America that is suffering from a crisis in health care.

Nearly 16 percent of non-elderly Americans -- 46 million people -- were without health insurance coverage in 2004. That is nearly one in every six people.

In 2005, employer health insurance premiums increased by 9.2 percent - nearly three times the rate of inflation.

Average out-of-pocket costs for co-payments, such as for prescriptions, deductibles and coinsurance for doctor visits, rose 115 percent since 2000.

It is estimated that 600,000 patients have died in hospitals due to medical errors since 2000.

Recent studies show that only a little more than 50% of adult patients receive recommended care for their medical conditions.

In 2004, 27 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.

The number of uninsured children in 2004 was 8.3 million - or 11.2 percent of all children in the U.S.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

The American health care system isn't just malfunctioning; it's broken. Glib remarks that we enjoy the best standard of medical treatment in this country isn't even close to being accurate.

As to the point about doctors becoming "agents of the state" they already are agents of the HMO's and insurance companies. It's the bean-counters, not the physicians making many decisions as to what illness will be treated and what surgery will be performed. Have you ever gone to a dentist,leder for a routine cleaning and found out you needed a filling replaced or a root canal? Before the dentist can prep you for the procedure they have to check to see if the insurance company will authorize the procedure and how much your co-payment will be.

I don't know about the physicians you see leder, but the days where a doctor's office was made up of the doctor, a receptionist and maybe a nurse or physician assistant are pretty much over. Today they have several employees whose job is to handle the paperwork and process forms. Forms that are already required by government and insurance bureaucrats before care is dispensed or a doctor gets paid. As busy as many doctors are, heaven only knows how or if they can keep up with advances in medicine.



I don't believe you'd made a substantive case as how universal healthcare decreases the quality of healthcare for all. The medical community already triages how care is dispensed. If you don't believe that, just walk into any urban emergency room on a Saturday night. Unless you're about to die you'll probably be told to take a seat and wait to be called.

And even if you're about to die if you don't have the means to pay for treatment you'd better die slower.

If you read my follow-up posts enough to know that I "defended the proactive" (whatever that's supposed to mean) from challenges to my initial post, then you'd know that these facts are not unattributed. They're from a New York Times article, and here it is again (second article from bottom).


Going from our system to one of theirs, yes, would be a radical change, no matter how prevalent their model is. The fact that so few people are even willing to consider looking at less radical ways to improve it is indeed disturbing. When they say things like, "the profit motive is utterly incompatible with health care," they're not looking at the situation objectively.


The reason why there aren't media scandals surrounding government finances isn't that the government's much better with its finances. It's because the media prefer, for whatever reason, to focus on corporate misdeeds. But the fact remains, if any private company were to set up an "Old age and survivors insurance" program along the model of Social Security, its executives would be in jail faster than you could say "Ponzi scheme". Private companies may commit misdeeds, but they're also far more likely to get caught for it than government officials. And the consequences of misbehavior by individual corporations would be much less severe than the consequences of government corruption and mismanagement.



And HMO's themselves are creations of the state. Anybody want to join me in calling for the repeal of that piece of corporate-welfare legislation?

As to point number one. Yes I did miss the reference. Thanks for the re-link and sorry for missing it.

I however have tried to track down the John Q sounding story because the article doesn't provide much detail. I have not been able to confirm that anecdotal story.

I stand by my concern that this anecdote based article does not affirm the superiority of the American healthcare system over a nationalized system.

On point number two I see an attempt here to change your point while trying to make it look like are not. I think the context of your use of radical changes dramatically from one post to the next.

We go from

to


In the former a national health care system is a radical system and it is a solution that has been proven to be an utter failure.

In the second it is simply a radical change and that people who advocate a switch to the system are advocating for a radical change in the sense that it would be a dramatic revision of our health care system.

Now to revisit the issue of objectivity. Are you objectively looking at the information provided in the initial report, that by multiple measures the US system is falling short. Is the point that by objective standards the United States system has been proven to be better or worse than the Canadian one?

I agree that objectivity is an important ingredient to this and all other threads at . I hope you are not seeing me as one of those not willing to consider less than revolutionary methods in reforming the American healthcare system. I am simply frustrated that many people seem to disregard the studies that show that the American health care system is both more expensive and more expensive than those in comparable nations to the United States. Arguing that government is inefficient and/or that nationalized systems have "shown themselves to be utter failures" seem to be positions from which objectivity is not being entertained but convictions are simply being expressed. I am not dismissing the profit motive entirely (although I do have areas of healthcare in which I wish it was removed as in the case of hospitals, but I am open to seeing documented evidence that shows that privatized hospitals are better than non-profit ones)

I think the evidence presented in this thread clearly shows that the healthcare systems of other nations have at least some advantages compared the United States.

If the concern about objectivity was not a blanket straw man and it was directed at me, I pointed out in my first post in this thread, that I feel that one of the biggest problems with healthcare is that it does not always use the supply and demand of the market system, and that in particular I agree with you point that greater choice among healthcare consumers will allow for a better system than the one we have.

As to the third quotation, I find it fairly astonishing that you think that government fiscal scandals are not highly publicized. Be it $500 hammers or very expensive toilet seats, or the Alaskan highway to nowhere the woes of government expenditures are often visited.

Also government contracts are often public fodder. Be it Halliburton (sp?), Boeing, or misspent money for hurricane Katrina. Government does not get a pass and it often very appropriately so is called to task for misusing our tax money. My counter point is that too often the private sector is seen as by default a better solution when we all know that business can squander funds as well. So I contend that private does not always mean superior than public.

Blackstone, please. The only thing laughable about this is your bizarre twisted take on my response. NONE of your interpretation above is even remotely true. Seriously man, why would you do that? Were you not off and running in a previous thread about how annoyed you were at people deliberatley misinterpreting your posts?

Firstly, your examples ARE anecdotal. Unsourced, undated, and completely unspecific in nature. The fact that they came from a news article (in which they were just as anecdotal) does not in any way help your case. If your deliberate misinterpretation was an attempt to distract from that basic fact, it failed.

Secondly, I responded (VERY CLEARLY I might add) that I prefer using statistics and confirmable numbers to absurdist unsourced anecdotes, and THEY are what demonstrates that overall medical care in Canada is superior to that os the US. Funny how you chose to ignore that point completely.

Thirdly, I stated MYSELF in that VERY POST the limitations of anecdotal debate, they were simply provided as illustrations. I stated this openly. I mean come on Blackstone, did you just read only one word out of ten in my post, then put the most misleading spin on those few words you could think of?



In a 2005 JCUSH survey, Both Americans and Canadians were sked if in the past year they had a health care need that was not met. Among all Canadians and Insured Americans it was about the same, 11%. Among uninsured Americans, it was over 40%.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf


In 2003, the US spent $2548 dollars per person on health care, while Canada spent $1886, over 25% less per capita. Canada also has more hospital beds available per capita than the Unites States.

Yet Canadians live on average 2.5 years longer than Americans (2005 numbers) and have a lower infant mortality and child mortality rates than Americans. (CIA world factbook)

Your chances of surviving cancer are better in Canada than they are in the United States. (http://www-depdb.iarc.fr/who/menu.htm)


Every study ever done on the topic demonstrates that Canadian health care works better (though in some areas, only marginally better) than that of the United States.

http://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/index.html

In terms of overall performance for the entire population, the World Health Organisation health care is much better in Canada than the US; Canada ranks 7th in the world in overall performace, while the USA ranks 70th.


So, what were you saying again?

I'm one of the last people that would jump on the more socialist idea bandwagon for anything... but I wont blind myself from these type's of alternatives ... im not that partisan nor do I believe that "socialist" is a dirty word (you know who you are) . We are creating even more of a gap between the rich, middle class, and poor. It's no longer just the poor that can't afford health insurance in the US, it's becoming more and more the middle class as well. Increasingly hard working Americans are not able to afford health insurance.

This type of research is what made me really see the writing on the wall, not to mention my own personal experiences. I supported capitalist alternative's for years, some of which have been introduced but nothing seems to work and it's only getting worse. Just look at the numbers nighttimer posted above.

That's seriously ridiculous. That seems like more inflation than gas prices! I was actually able to dig up this old thread with alot of information in it.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...7343&st=220

At the time it seemed Health Savings Accounts seemed to be a good idea. They haven't come to fruit as well as I had hoped and I believe it is because of our already well established system greatly impacts any new capitalist idea's that are introduced. It also relies on current insurance companies that are set in their ways and also pay for other types of insurance plans wich completely defeats the purpose.

This isn't about "divorcing health insurance" from companies... heck that's the only way alot of people can afford it. If you were to take that away it wouldn't create "more competition" thus lowering prices, the competition is already huge. Have you ever looked for out of work health insurance? There's tons of companies that offer it at insane prices. The key is bulk purchasing, thats why company insurance cost less overall (even with the company paying for some of it).

It's time we have to take a radical change and analyze examples from other countries to attempt to take the best from each one and formulate our own.

I didn't say it was a radical "system" (I'm not entirely sure how a system can be radical), I said it was a radical solution. That's the same as saying it's a radical change. But I would like to amend (or clarify) one thing. I'm not saying that all those other countries' systems you mention were utter failures, because they had enough sense to allow a certain degree of private-sector involvement. Canada seems rather unique in stubbornly refusing to do so. I brought it up in reply to CruisingRam's statement that private coverage should be illegal, and I stand by my position that that would result in a large, unequivocal detriment to our system. It would fail to improve it at all.


Those standards involve mostly things like life expectancy and other measures of general health. Considering that we have a worse problem with crime, as well as much less healthy lifestyles all around (centered as they are on fast food and fast-paced schedules), I'd have to conclude that these data are of very limited value in comparing the two systems.