Health Care in the US

[Spinaroonie]

From what I've learned in Sociology (I swear I'm gonna change majors) one theory is that groups act like organs, and the social system would be the human body. When an organ becomes dysfuctional other groups come in to take up for it.

Enron was a great showing of that theory, Enron became dysfunctional, it's dysfunction spread to the stock market, the accounting industry, and other corporations (Scrutiny from public, I'm not saying WorldCom was because of Enron). However, Enron was functional for some as an energy provider and for Ken Lay.

So, taking that theory and applying it to the US health care system we see that the system is functional for Insurance Companies, investors and pharmaseudical manufacturers. Currently the health care system is not functional for those who pay for insurance, those who need to see a non-emergency doctor, and basically patients.

So taking a look at the Canadian system, I see a low yearly expense for people to join into the health care plan (something like 2-300/year) and reduced prices on prescription drugs and free hospital visits (as needed).

So, what is wrong with socializing the health care system?

 

[Spinaroonie]

I am bumping this so that I can see the other viewpoint.

 

[Guest]

We have an NHS in the UK. It's not the best healthcare system in the world, granted, but at least it's free if you disinclude the taxes we pay to get it.

 

[Spinaroonie]

We have an NHS in the UK. It's not the best healthcare system in the world, granted, but at least it's free if you disinclude the taxes we pay to get it.

Right, I'm wondering why shouldn't America adopt this practice?

 

[Guest]

It's the age old "taxes = bad" complex people have. Personally, I don't see how paying a couple of pennies tax on chocolate bars is worse than forking out a big medical bill, but clearly some people don't like the thought of paying for others. Well, they're paying too.

 

[Spinaroonie]

It's the age old "taxes = bad" complex people have. Personally, I don't see how paying a couple of pennies tax on chocolate bars is worse than forking out a big medical bill, but clearly some people don't like the thought of paying for others. Well, they're paying too.

ahhhhh there's taxes from other sources....

 

[Freya]

We pay through our taxes for health care in Canada - not a yearly fee. Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?

It is a great system - I would think that what we pay in taxes yearly would work out to what you guys pay in insurance benefits - those that pay themselves of course. The only downfall to our system that I can see, is the wait for tests. You guys can have an MRI at the drop of a hat in the US, whereas people have been known to die here before they can get in for that test.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Spin, the way I see it is that we have the best health care in the world.

Doctors, nurses and hospitals are unsurpassed. Our pharmacology industry leads the world. Our research and teaching institutions are looked up to by all who come to take advantage of places like Mayo and Cleveland.

The problems only arise when "Little Johnny" gets sick or hurt and Mommy and Daddy don't want to pay for "Medical Care" 'cause it might make them late on their Z 28 payment, or cut into the beer and cigarette budget.

Medical care for people in this country is only so expensive for some people; those who pay the bills for themselves and for the 30% or 40% who don't pay anything.

Rhumb

 

[Freya]

But isn't it the ones who pay the bills themselves who would benefit by socialized health care the most? Those lower income families, with the 4 or 5 kids and the basic house, who live paycheque to paycheque and maybe can't afford insurance, and for whom a $20,000 medical bill would bankrupt them? The average American - the one who wont' go to a hospital with a broken bone because they can't afford it, the ones who let their child stay sick a little longer because it costs too much to see a doctor?

 

[Guest]

What about the forty million-odd people without medical insurance? What are they to do? not get sick?

 

[RhumbRunner13]

But isn't it the ones who pay the bills themselves who would benefit by socialized health care the most? Those lower income families, with the 4 or 5 kids and the basic house, who live paycheque to paycheque and maybe can't afford insurance, and for whom a $20,000 medical bill would bankrupt them? The average American - the one who wont' go to a hospital with a broken bone because they can't afford it, the ones who let their child stay sick a little longer because it costs too much to see a doctor?

If socialized health care worked, then theoretically maybe, Freya.

The examples we see, GB and Canada just don't seem to prove the point. Many of GB's good Doctors now work in the US. You know how many Canadians finally get fed up and come here to pay for medical attention.

Gotta go eat! I'll look in on this a little later.

Rhumb

 

[Freya]

Well a lot of our best doctors also have moved to the States, but that really is somehwat secondary to the issue of the form of healthcare in our country. It's more due to the government placing a salary cap on physicians - which I suppose can be traced back to the fact that the government is paying for health care, and wants to save money - but it's not as a resistance to the form of health care practiced here (if that made any friggin sense whatsoever). What I mean is, our doctors would probably much rather practice in their own country but with financial restraints placed by the government combined with a lucrative salary and school bills paid off for them, which is offered in the US - they follow the dollar.

Actually, our biggest downfall, like I said, is the wait for tests and such - which is due to the cost of placing more machines in hospitals. The US has those machines already in place, so it would not be as big of an issue as it is here. Implementing socialized medicine in a country that has the facilities already in place would not be a bad thing - in fact, it would benefit those Americans who simply can't afford insurance.

 

[Ishmael]

Socialized medicine is like socialized anything. It's mediocre at best and dangerous at it's worst.

Those countties with socialized medicine provide less than the best as far as care is concerned. The doctors are not the best, nor is the research.

If your illness is not life threatening you get on a waiting list. A list that may not allow you to see a physician for months.

The citizens of both Canada and Britian spend a great deal of money in the US for health care. Even in countries with socialized medicine people vote with their dollar.

The primary reason for the health care problem in the US is the intrusion of the government into the system to begin with. Back in the 60's there was this politician from Arkansas by the name of Wilbur Mills that had his eye on the presidency. Being a powerful politician, he pushed medicare through inorder to have a 'notch' on his accomplishments. In short, he tried to by the votes with medicare. Up until that time, medicine was run pretty much as any other business. Prices were set based on competition. Well, the fact that medicare was a national program fixed that right proper. Medicare had to decide what it was going to pay for what particular treatments. So, prices were fixed on a national scale instead of local scale. The one size fits all theory.

As the system became more complex and some doctors and hospitals tried to 'work' the system, various checks and balaces and requirements were set. The cost of medicine further increased because now doctors had to hire one or more person's just to make sure the proper medicare code was used for the proper procedure so that they could get paid.

This in turn created a 'medical' lobby that periodically demands that higher reimbursements be paid for the procedures.

Yes, the insurance companies are in the loop, but more from a standpoint of cost containment. They are in competition with on another and are attempting to provide an attractive package at an affordable price. But trying to blame the insurance companies for the high cost of medical care is so far removed from the reality of the situation as to be beyond consideration. Quite the opposite is true.

It is interesting to note that the most fervent advocates of socialized medicine are the younger generation. Those that have the least contact with the system.

Ishmael

 

[Freya]

I won't argue with any of your points on medicare since I know nothing about it - but I do strongly disagree with your claim that our doctors and medical care up here is less than anywhere else. Our physicians are just as competent as any one in the US - the fact is, their hands are tied by the lack of certain machines to run tests. While there are some waits for appointments to see specialists - it is only in the cases of totally non life threatening problems - at anytime there is a serious threat to one's health or life, the results and reactions are immediate. For example, when I had a tubal ligation done, it took me about 4 months to get the first appointment to see the Gynecologist and 1 month after that to have the surgery done - to me this is not an unfair wait, seeing as it was a personal choice and in no way hindered my activities nor harmed my health. On the other hand, had I needed to see her for something that was a health risk, I could have got into see her almost immediately. Our hospital emergency rooms triage patients, just as yours do, but nobody is turned away due to inability to pay, and you dont' get any better or worse treatment based on your lifestyle or income.

Some things need to be prioritized based on degrees of seriousness, and at times people have suffered due to maybe mistakes in judgements made on that level of seriousness, but on the whole I'd prefer knowing that, if needed, me, my child or any other member of my family will always receive quality medical care when it is needed, and wouldn't have to worry about being turned away or saddled with a bill that would bankrupt us.

 

[Lasher]

For example, when I had a tubal ligation done, it took me about 4 months to get the first appointment to see the Gynecologist and 1 month after that to have the surgery done - to me this is not an unfair wait, seeing as it was a personal choice and in no way hindered my activities nor harmed my health.

When I had my vasectomy done I saw the urologist for the consult on a Thursday and had the procedure done the following Friday. The only reason we waited that long was because he only does surgery on Fridays and it just wouldn't have been possible to arrange the day off with my employer that quick.

My only out of pocket expense for the procedure was my $5 copay for the office visit.

My employer charges me nothing for my health insurance benefits, and one of the major reasons why I am employed where I am now is because of the outstanding benefit package they offer.

Free enterprise tends to work when people let it.

 

[Guest]

Functionalism is 30 years out of date.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: Re: Health Care in the US

Functionalism is 30 years out of date.

Still has merit, you want to be a marxist conflict theorist?

 

[Ishmael]

I won't argue with any of your points on medicare since I know nothing about it - but I do strongly disagree with your claim that our doctors and medical care up here is less than anywhere else. Our physicians are just as competent as any one in the US -

I didn't question their competentacy. The issue of their dedication has been questioned by patients in your own country and their colleagues in mine.

the fact is, their hands are tied by the lack of certain machines to run tests.

Yes, that is true. And where are these machines manufactured and why aren't they available?

While there are some waits for appointments to see specialists - it is only in the cases of totally non life threatening problems -

I agree. But cataract surgery is NOT life threatening and it isn't really an elective either. But there are several months of waiting for this sort of surgery. I would say that someone crossing the street while vision impaired could be a life threatening experience. Let alone driving. There are other examples.

On the other hand, had I needed to see her for something that was a health risk, I could have got into see her almost immediately. Our hospital emergency rooms triage patients, just as yours do, but nobody is turned away due to inability to pay, and you dont' get any better or worse treatment based on your lifestyle or income.

The turning away myth is just that, a myth. There have been isolated instances in the past, much to the detriment of the hospital that turned the patient away.

Some things need to be prioritized based on degrees of seriousness, and at times people have suffered due to maybe mistakes in judgements made on that level of seriousness, but on the whole I'd prefer knowing that, if needed, me, my child or any other member of my family will always receive quality medical care when it is needed, and wouldn't have to worry about being turned away or saddled with a bill that would bankrupt us.

The issue is really very simple. There are some that percieve health care as a 'right'. It isn't. It is a service that has to be provided at some cost to someone. The concept that someone else should be forced to pay for your medical expenses is beyond the pale. That is extortion by any other name.

It is the individual that has to make the decision as to the amount of medical care and to what extremes this care will be provided. If that is the case, then the individual has NO right to make that decision with others tax reciepts. If it is the government that makes these decisions, then the situation is even worse. In times of tight money the decision as to who recieves treatment or not and what level of treatment will be based on financial considerations of a bureaucrat. And that may be the reason that so many of your fellow countrymen come to the US for treatment.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Health Care in the US

Still has merit, you want to be a marxist conflict theorist?

I'm a post-modern neo Marxist-Lennonist monk.

My celibacy is not by choice.

 

[miles]

But isn't it the ones who pay the bills themselves who would benefit by socialized health care the most? Those lower income families, with the 4 or 5 kids and the basic house, who live paycheque to paycheque and maybe can't afford insurance,doctor?

That begs the question: Why would someone have 4 or 5 kids if they are living paycheck to paycheck?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

If a patient goes to an emergency room and needs attention, they can't be turned away in the US either. The hospital simply absorbs the cost.

When the system isn't socialized, people can pick and choose the types of benefits that they want. When I was younger, I always chose the lowest cost options.

I don't know much about healthcare either, but from what I understand, the UK has two systems.. the socialized one and the other for people who are willing to pay separately for more immediate care.

Freya, I think part of the discussion is also the access to the high-tech machines and the ready access for elective procedures. While we may have the high-tech equipment, a lot of people worry that under a "socialized" system, the money for the next generation of innovative high-tech equipment won't be there.

I think the Doctors in Canada are just as skilled, there are just much fewer of them and they don't have access to as much equipment.

 

[miles]

The "government" doesn't pay for health care in Canada. Taxpayers do.

Someone mentioned having to wait four months for an elective procedure in Canada. A classic example of gving up freedom for security.

 

[Freya]

Actually I technically waited a month for the surgery after my initial visit - but regardless, how is that giving up freedom for security? And while the government doesn't actually pay, they do run the medical system - which includes paying doctors, and purchasing equipment.


And LTGR - I know. Like I said, that's the biggest downfall to our medical system here. The wait for some of those tests is just absurd, but they cost so much to purchase that the government can't afford to place as many as you guys do. So, if a hospital absorbs the cost of an uninsured patient, do you honestly believe they get the same quality of care as one who can afford to pay?

 

[Freya]

That begs the question: Why would someone have 4 or 5 kids if they are living paycheck to paycheck?

Well, I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is a fact of life is it not?

 

[Freya]

When I had my vasectomy done I saw the urologist for the consult on a Thursday and had the procedure done the following Friday. The only reason we waited that long was because he only does surgery on Fridays and it just wouldn't have been possible to arrange the day off with my employer that quick.

My only out of pocket expense for the procedure was my $5 copay for the office visit.

My employer charges me nothing for my health insurance benefits, and one of the major reasons why I am employed where I am now is because of the outstanding benefit package they offer.

Free enterprise tends to work when people let it.

Lasher - vasectomies are in office procedures - tubal ligations are day surgeries performed in a hostpital under anaesthetic. Granted our waits are longer, but neither are life threatening cases.