The Future of US Healthcare

[synaesthetic]

While it'd be nice if everyone could have healthcare as a right, the realist in me asks, "How is the government going to pay for it?" We're already borrowing insane amounts of money from China.

Face it, the US is broke. Not just broke, but so far in the red it's not even funny. If the US were an individual, it'd have been cut off and forced to declare bankruptcy decades ago.

The reason a lot of Republicans are blocking any attempts at healthcare legislation is this. We're broke. We can't pay for it. There is no free lunch, and significantly raising taxes in the middle of a recession with 12.5% unemployment rates is economic and political suicide.

Thanks to this recession, I've been a member of that 12.5% for over a year now. If there's one thing that unemployment, poverty and homelessness has taught me, it's this: Money doesn't buy happiness. Money purchases control; if you can pay your own way, you control your life. If someone else pays your way, they control your life.

I'm not really too fond of a less-than-friendly nation controlling our lives. Already the government controls my life to a certain extent, and I hate it with such a black fury I surprise myself.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

#1. No, it is not splitting hairs. Whoever funds the system, it does not operate without funding. Ask a Cuban. Regardless of how one thinks it should be fixed, if you are not aware of how it is funded, how can you make an informed voting decision?

Voting decision? I wasn't aware that people would be able to vote about it at all, and even less so in an "informed" form. Obama campaigned on universal healthcare. McCain campaigned on tort reform and "emergency care is fine". And even now, the details of healthcare reform are murky at best. By the way, Obama won. Does that mean you get universal healthcare now?

#2. You will not be denied emergency medical service at a hospital in the United States. Emergency medicine is not at issue. The poor handling of the "in between" situations (which in itself puts undue burden on emergency medicine, increasing costs overall) is the issue.

Correct. As I've written before, I've seen US healthcare in action. Having a girlfriend of mine puking her heart out on the floor while forcing her to go through paperwork before she was even admitted to wait. It's not only unnecessarily cruel, it's sometimes _dangerous_ (there are examples where people are dying in ER waiting rooms with cleaners vacuuming AROUND them lying on the floor). In countries with universal healthcare people don't care about paperwork and sh*t, but help FIRST and sort out the paperwork later.

#3. Please, please, please note that 99% of people who oppose the health care reforms facing congress right now are NOT in opposition of health care reform. They are in opposition of the method currently being pushed for. So many people insist on describing socialized health care as if it were the only reform possible. So many MORE people seem to not realize that the health care proposals in front of congress are not socialized health care.

Oh really? Now that's a romantic view. I assume that you're referring to polls which show that those opposing health reform are split in the middle between "goes too far" and "doesn't go far enough"?

Have you seen coverage of Tea Party events, for example? Where people were asked "what would be your positive suggetions on how to do health care reform", and the vast majority would be completely stumped? Take away their "STOP SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" and they realize they have no f*cking clue what they're talking about? And who embarrass themselves with idiocies like "keep government out of my medicare" (which happens to be governmenr-sponsored in the first place).

I don't doubt that there will be reaonable and rational opposition to the current healthcare proposals. However, I'd say that 99% (to take your number) don't really know how the current suggestion really looks like. I sure don't, and I consider myself reasonably well-informed. But the "anti" faction is simply much better organized - it stuck a "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" label on it and is now burning the effigies. The pro-side, on the other hand, is hampered by the lobbyist fights, the fact that a positive message is always much harder to coordinate, and a sad case of cowardice before the enemy.

#4. Yes, many people do have an issue with social security being a permanently tax-funded welfare system.

Undoubtedly. I know no other civilized country where the needs of the less fortunate are more openly spit on than the US.

#1. Nobody is railing against affordable health care. People disagree on how to achieve it.

Please. Look me in the eye and tell me that there is a debate on how to achieve affordable health care best. This is a witchhunt against the enemy usurper in the White House. The Republican health plan can be summed up by "tort reform", totally non-serious.

#2. "Eliminating social security" and "against taking care of old people" are not synonymous. People disagree on how old people should be taken care of.

Same here.

The rest of your post is class warfare. I wish I could share some perspective with you. There are plenty of extremely wealthy people who have spent a lot of time and money ensuring that arguments are framed exactly like you have described them. In short, you are being manipulated exactly like you accuse others of being.

This is fascinating. Isn't the truth rather that the content-free class warfare is currently waged by the venomous melange of tea party, birthers and other rabid elements of the right fringe? At least I don't see unions and other more "leftist" organizations out on the street.

The manipulation you mentioned happened indeed. By the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, Sarah Palins and the combined media power of the Foxnews conglomerate. They successfully whipped nutcases into a white rage which is just amazing. It not only causes people to openly act against their own interests (most people opposing the HCR are those who would benefit the most from it), but rather to fight to convince others to shoot their own feet too. In other words, they're amazingly successful. Just like I'm flabbergasted how badly the Democrats dropped the ball in the public opinion management.

I respectfully suggest researching the numbers on the wealthy. You will find that the vast majority of the wealthy actually came from humbler beginnings (which is the vast majority of wealthy people). I also suggest researching which of the highly politically connected wealthy are self-made and which come from the elite, high class families that are disconnected from the rest of society, and where the vast majority of personal donations to charity come from... and see where these groups tend to fall across the political lines.

I believe you will be very surprised.

Sure. And there are also people winning in the lottery and all of a sudden are millionaires too. Compare the number of the "made it big" to those who "tried, but failed" and you'll reach comparable numbers. Will you be very surprised about that, too? I guess that means that you simply need more lotteries

Do you honestly think that the current playing field is REMOTELY fair? That those with connections to the hyper-wealthy have no astronomical advantages? The truth is that over the past decade the wealth concentration continues to progress in a dangerous way. The hyper-wealthy just get even wealthier quick, the American middle class is DYING (one can even see this from the outside), and those below the line are just to be pitied. Or locked away in private jails after they turn criminal.

So, the hope for the lucky lottery ticket should be enough to convince American citizens that all is fine and not to consider other ways to balance things out to some degree?

Your argument carries the inherent assumption that "Republican policies benefit the rich while Democratic policies benefit the majority of the population".

In general, that's undoubtedly so. But feel free to explain to me how tort reform will help those without health insurance. Or how lavish tax breaks for the rich pay for themselves (outside of the Foxnews bubble, no noteworthy share of rational people could possibly be convinced of this idiocy, and it's flabbergasting to us how this could possibly work in the US).

Yes, that is the common belief. It cannot be argued as a given fact without supporting evidence for specific policies (as opposed to policies in general).

Just FYI: In Germany I'm a moderate conservative. I'm all for keeping business-friendly policies in place, as long as a certain degree of balance is maintained. But the "I don't want to pay YOUR benefits" selfishness which is glorified as the American Way is going to cause some REAL trouble eventually, I'm sure.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

So you say before listing a bunch of Republican talking points. If you`re going to take a side admit it; don't pretend to be objectively correcting 'flaws in reasoning'.

I did not list "Republican talking points". The majority of the Republican Congressbeings do not represent my views nor the views I was describing (nor are my views properly described by my explanations). What I argued against were the unfounded assumptions and accusations in your argument that mischaracterize the opposition ("strawman"). Taking you to task for that is NOT the same as supporting Republican party policies.

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

#1. Yes they are. The Republicans are trying to prevent legislation regardless of the content. Many of the 'means to achieve' were adopted from Republican proposals, so the disagreement is not over how, but over whether. That is why the Republicans in Congress and their scaremongers in the media are concentrating on stopping the legislation -- not improving it. This is why the poor, foolish people that support the Republicans believed that eliminating the anti-trust exemption for the Health Insurance industry was a government takeover of medical care, and thus it was dropped from the bill. (Et cetera).

The reasoning for much of the opposition to present proposed reform is NOT summed up by the stances of the Republican party. It is not simply made up of "foolish people that blindly follow those evil Republicans".

And the anti-trust exemption was, rightfully, repealed... almost unanimously across party lines. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6239739.shtml
Which sort of disproves your whole argument, even if the repeal itself is largely symbolic (since the states already regulate health care--although there is some room for repair here I hope is made use of).

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

#2. So you agree that the people who oppose health care reform also want to get rid of Social Security. I however disagree that leaving people to fend for themselves is a means of taking care of old people.

I never said that. There is much overlap, though, yes.

And, for the record, while I believe we need a safety net, I also believe that in any sustainable system people should be providing for their own well-being.

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

With regard to the "perspective" you offered to share, rich people are spending money to ensure the debate is framed as you are presenting it. What I said, which was not class warfare, is that unless social problems are addressed by the political system, social upheaval is inevitable, and that that is just fine with many of those on the side blocking healthcare reform, because they have a millenialist fantasy that they can bring back the Christ by creating geo-political chaos and preventing action on any of the challenges we face.

The fact that you treat "rich people" as a single group is quite telling. Rockefeller and (any prominent Democratic politician) are not destitute. Simply put, the numbers do not agree with your generalization.

The fact that you lump together anyone protesting these issues in with a tiny, tiny notably radical sliver of religious people is more telling.

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

You forget the little detail that rich people donate to charity out of financial reason
-They can write it off their taxforms

donating to charity gives rich people more control over where money goes, (Or don't you find it weird many set up their OWN charity)
instead of blindly handing it over to the IRS
With the added bonus of patting themselves on the back of how philantropic they are

As some one who has donated large portions of my income to charity, I can tell you that it's simply not that simple. Still, it boils down to the fact that if you reduce your tax burden by donating to charity (and there are limits on how much you can do so)... you still don't have the money because you donated it to charity. The exceptions to this would be fraud.

And there's not really anything wrong with deciding where your charity money goes or having your own charity if there's no fraud going on, is there? The vast majority of genuine charity work is performed just this way.

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

Yeah, rich people have a big party where they sip champagne and chat up ballerinas and they get to deduct that from their income taxes. I'm not impressed.

I find such things ridiculous, myself, but they do tend to turn out to generate cash flow for charities that would otherwise go ungiven. It's sad but true. And yes, such wasteful events are enjoyed by people of all political color.

But discussing "the rich" in this manner is far outside the scope of a healthcare discussion, and I won't continue it in this thread.

Edited to add: Mentar, you are reading far too much of what you believe my opinion to be in my words, and most of it falls outside the scope of the thread. I'm not following up on it except to say that there are perfectly good examples of countries with "universal health care" where you can be delayed by nonsense and perfectly good examples of hospitals in countries without universal health care that will see to the problem first and the paperwork later. It makes the argument (mostly) irrelevant in terms of public versus private funding as a whole.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

While it'd be nice if everyone could have healthcare as a right, the realist in me asks, "How is the government going to pay for it?" We're already borrowing insane amounts of money from China.

Face it, the US is broke. Not just broke, but so far in the red it's not even funny. If the US were an individual, it'd have been cut off and forced to declare bankruptcy decades ago.

The reason a lot of Republicans are blocking any attempts at healthcare legislation is this. We're broke. We can't pay for it. There is no free lunch, and significantly raising taxes in the middle of a recession with 12.5% unemployment rates is economic and political suicide.

Of course the Republicans can say the US is broke. They spent eight years making sure of it, and they didn't seem to care so much then. I'm half convinced that they wanted to make sure that the US wouldn't be able to afford social service spending.

Anyway, more on topic, I really think the US needs to look at why its health system costs so much. There's only about four countries in the world where health spending exceeded $4000 per capita in 2007. Spending in the US exceeded $7000 per capita. That, to me, is a much bigger reason why the US can't afford a public health system than anything else, since the US government spends as much taxpayer money per capita on health care as pretty much any other government does.

I wouldn't say the US is too broke to afford public health care. I mi

[Joojoobees]

First you say this:

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I did not list "Republican talking points".

Then you say this:

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

And the anti-trust exemption was, rightfully, repealed... almost unanimously across party lines. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6239739.shtml
Which sort of disproves your whole argument, even if the repeal itself is largely symbolic (since the states already regulate health care--although there is some room for repair here I hope is made use of).

In the linked article the claim you make about the repeal being "symbolic" is attributed to the Republicans. So, yes, you just listed a Republican talking point.

It should also be noticed that the article states that the prospect for passing a similar measure in the Senate (where cooperation from Republicans to avert a filibuster is required) is "dim", so, no, contrary to your assertion, the Health Insurance industry still has an outrageous exemption to anti-trust legislation. Even Adam Smith decried cartels.

You also repeat the Republican talking point (check the article) about the states already regulating healthcare, but the Republicans are pushing to strip the states of this capability; they call this, "being able to buy insurance across state lines."

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

The fact that you treat "rich people" as a single group is quite telling. Rockefeller and (any prominent Democratic politician) are not destitute. Simply put, the numbers do not agree with your generalization.

The fact that you think anyone not rich must be "destitute" is quite telling. In the America of ages past there was a group between the rich and the poor, they even had a snappy name; they were called the "Middle Class". At the time of the country's founding such people were bakers and cobblers, humble craftsmen who worked for a living, but who had enough capital to own and operate a business. Unfortunately the Middle Class has all but disappeared in America today. Wealth has been concentrated into a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population ("the rich") and their proxy, the large corporations.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

And there's not really anything wrong with deciding where your charity money goes or having your own charity if there's no fraud going on, is there? The vast majority of genuine charity work is performed just this way.

The problem is that it gives wealthy individuals yet another unfair advantage in controlling society's agenda. The democratic procedure for determining society's priorities should be One Person = One Vote. These charities siphon money off from the tax revenues which is where they would be subject to collective decision making. As a result the rich have more votes than others for deciding how tax dollars are spent. Give to charity if you want, but it shouldn't be tax deductible.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

In the linked article the claim you make about the repeal being "symbolic" is attributed to the Republicans. So, yes, you just listed a Republican talking point.

It should also be noticed that the article states that the prospect for passing a similar measure in the Senate (where cooperation from Republicans to avert a filibuster is required) is "dim", so, no, contrary to your assertion, the Health Insurance industry still has an outrageous exemption to anti-trust legislation. Even Adam Smith decried cartels.

I contradicted your interpretation of my previous post, and you argue my contradiction by bringing up words from a later post. That doesn't make much sense.

My post was calling out your generalizations and straw man arguments. Regardless of the prospects in the Senate (which I would not call "dim" for that particular bill), your generalizations were handily proven incorrect. When you argue based on incorrect facts and unfounded assumptions, you poison the discourse.

You also don't need to argue the need for repealing the anti-trust exemption. I don't disagree with that. (If you'd been reading my posts properly, you would know that. But instead you seem to simply assume that I am what you envision a Republican to be. I am neither that, nor am I an actual Republican.)

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

You also repeat the Republican talking point (check the article) about the states already regulating healthcare, but the Republicans are pushing to strip the states of this capability; they call this, "being able to buy insurance across state lines."

This has nothing to do with anything since, at present, they cannot sell across state lines.

Do you know why the anti-trust exemption was put in place to begin with? It was because Congress disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that placed the intra-state only sales of insurance under federal regulation. It was a disagreement on the constitutionality of the ruling. The choice of creating an exemption was a poor one, I believe, but there was a particular reason for it to be done. In this day and age, insurance companies are by and large owned by umbrella corporations that simply have branch entities in different states. This was formerly not the case due to impracticality and, frequently, state law.

But the "selling across state lines" thing hasn't changed. Why on earth would you assume that I would be a proponent of selling across state lines without repealing the anti-trust exemption, especially when I just implied that I agree with its repeal?

The fact that you think anyone not rich must be "destitute" is quite telling. In the America of ages past there was a group between the rich and the poor, they even had a snappy name; they were called the "Middle Class". At the time of the country's founding such people were bakers and cobblers, humble craftsmen who worked for a living, but who had enough capital to own and operate a business. Unfortunately the Middle Class has all but disappeared in America today. Wealth has been concentrated into a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population ("the rich") and their proxy, the large corporations.

I didn't say that. Go back and read. While you're at it, please read up on the actual numbers regarding wealth distribution in the US.

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

The problem is that it gives wealthy individuals yet another unfair advantage in controlling society's agenda. The democratic procedure for determining society's priorities should be One Person = One Vote. These charities siphon money off from the tax revenues which is where they would be subject to collective decision making. As a result the rich have more votes than others for deciding how tax dollars are spent. Give to charity if you want, but it shouldn't be tax deductible.

The rich and the poor both have the ability to give to charity and reduce their tax deficit.

But to accept your argument, you would first have to prove that the collective has any right to the fruit of another's labor. It is a vastly different concept than that of being required to contribute to society in order to participate.

[Joojoobees]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Go back and read. While you're at it, please read up on the actual numbers regarding wealth distribution in the US.

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%." Source

Look, if I offended you by saying you sounded like a Republican, then I'm sorry.

[Cinocard]

Income inequality between the upper, lower middle class and the dirt poor are by no mean the largest in the world, though it's undeniable that the top 1% are insanely rich.

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

#1. Yes they are. The Republicans are trying to prevent legislation regardless of the content. Many of the 'means to achieve' were adopted from Republican proposals, so the disagreement is not over how, but over whether.

Most of them are against UNIVERSAL health care. Most of them are for health care reform. Well, now, it would be suicidal if they ain't, but don't lump the two together.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I wouldn't say the US is too broke to afford public health care

Except that next year Obama himself will put spending freeze in action, EXCEPT military expenditure (not that I blame him for this).

Try to push the $950 billions universal health care through, and educational/environmental spending will fall even more. Expect unemployment to soar. It doesn't matter if one is left or right in economic anymore. The U.S is broke. CANNOT and SHOULD NOT make no difference.

Originally Posted by Mentar

In countries with universal healthcare people don't care about paperwork and sh*t, but help FIRST and sort out the paperwork later.

That has little to do with health care being universal or not.

In the U.S the legal and financial risks are too much, there's virtually no supply of bad health care. "Good" health care is a must. But you cannot chunk out good doctors and good nurse like chunking out cars. Simply, the scarcity of supply ups the price, and downs the quality.

[Lio]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Face it, the US is broke. Not just broke, but so far in the red it's not even funny. If the US were an individual, it'd have been cut off and forced to declare bankruptcy decades ago.

I've always been under the impression that the US is already over. It's just circling the drain, playing out what's left of it before the system collapses.

It's a country owned by corporate giants who want more for themselves and less for everybody else. Not to sound cynical, but the US government doesn't care about its citizens. They just want your money.

My solution to the future of US healthcare?

Move to a different country (like up here in Canada where everyone gets free healthcare)... if you have any money left to relocate. Honestly, the US is not a good place to live anymore.


@syn: I really wish something could be done about your situation. Don't feel guilty about "leeching off society." You're not - it couldn't possibly be farther than the truth. It's the rich fucks of America (government included) who are willfully trying to screw you and millions of other Americans over.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%." Source

Look, if I offended you by saying you sounded like a Republican, then I'm sorry.

It's really OK. I've been called worse.

The numbers you present are very good at describing some things (especially in comparison to tax burden), but it does not say anything about this mysterious "the rich" you describe. The graph lumps together that 1%, but that's where all the interesting differences are--that 1% ranges from just a hair above "upper middle class" to the "super rich". My point is that "the rich" cannot be generalized as you describe. Observing the data points on how wealth is divided tells a different story. If you add into that data on how these different types of wealthy people became wealthy and compare all this to how these different types of wealthy people vote and who they support politically... Well, the image is quite different. Something that might be a bit easier to do with hard numbers and could provide more directly applicable conclusions would be to compare wealth levels of individual senators and congresspersons and cross-reference it with where they received their money and what their political affiliations are.

This kind of subject deserves its own thread rather than cluttering this one up, though. I made a liar of myself by continuing it, but I'll really stop here.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

That has little to do with health care being universal or not.

Yes, it does. Bigtime.

If you're in need of immediate treatment in countries with universal healthcare, people don't CARE about the paperwork. Since they know for sure that they will be reimbursed SOMEHOW (since 99% of people are insured), they will simply wave you through to the doctors and do the paperwork when the patient is feeling fine again. If ever.

For example, during a vacation in Sweden, a friend of mine fell and smacked his head, resulting in a bleeding head wound. We rushed him to a hospital, and they disinfected it, sutured it and gave him a proper head bandage. Afterwards we asked for the paperwork, and they just waved us off and told us not to lose more time in a hospital and rather enjoy the trip.

That's how it should be in my book. And how it usually is in universal healthcare countries.

In the U.S the legal and financial risks are too much, there's virtually no supply of bad health care.

I wonder what you base this on. No health care is the worst health care of all. And belated healthcare seems to be not uncommon at all.

"Good" health care is a must. But you cannot chunk out good doctors and good nurse like chunking out cars. Simply, the scarcity of supply ups the price, and downs the quality.

Look at international statistics. On the absolute top (the cutting edge), America offers the best healthcare. On average (the level that most people reach), the quality of American healthcare is average too, for around twice the price. And for a western industrialized nation, America has a huge percentage of people that are completely uninsured.

If you rate "bang for the buck", as in quality received for cash paid, the American system is absolutely horrible. The reasons for that are well-known (see one of my postings above)

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Mentar

If you're in need of immediate treatment in countries with universal healthcare, people don't CARE about the paperwork. Since they know for sure that they will be reimbursed SOMEHOW (since 99% of people are insured), they will simply wave you through to the doctors and do the paperwork when the patient is feeling fine again. If ever.

For example, during a vacation in Sweden, a friend of mine fell and smacked his head, resulting in a bleeding head wound. We rushed him to a hospital, and they disinfected it, sutured it and gave him a proper head bandage. Afterwards we asked for the paperwork, and they just waved us off and told us not to lose more time in a hospital and rather enjoy the trip.

That's how it should be in my book. And how it usually is in universal healthcare countries.

I do think you make a very fair point that these tendencies (of prioritizing billing paperwork over patient without universal healthcare, and vice versa with it) can exist. However, just as you can provide legitimate examples where these are observed, people can provide counter-examples for both cases proving that even if such prioritizations are likely, they are not absolute.

Even with certain tendencies, states already have laws mandating the provision of emergency care. It would not be hard to extend them to cover admittance procedures.

Originally Posted by Mentar

Look at international statistics. On the absolute top (the cutting edge), America offers the best healthcare. On average (the level that most people reach), the quality of American healthcare is average too, for around twice the price. And for a western industrialized nation, America has a huge percentage of people that are completely uninsured.

If you rate "bang for the buck", as in quality received for cash paid, the American system is absolutely horrible. The reasons for that are well-known (see one of my postings above)

You're right on the "bang for the buck" principle, but it wasn't always this way. US health care wasn't always this much more expensive than the rest of the world. Few people are interested in looking back at how the US put itself into the situation its in now and just want to adopt another system wholesale... and that's what bothers me.

Having quality and availability of cutting edge healthcare available, even if it is only received by those who can afford it (ie, commercially), is important as long its existence does not lower the quality of healthcare available to the rest of the populace. In fact, its existence is important for the continuation of improvement of healthcare for the rest of society. Having people with the means to purchase higher levels of care and a system with the means to provide it is much like early adopters with electronics devices, as profit on the front end turns into subsidization on the back end. Commercial health care often exists beside universal health care (the question of "why" is still there, of course), but such markets don't typically spur the same advancement or availability of highest-end care.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I do think you make a very fair point that these tendencies (of prioritizing billing paperwork over patient without universal healthcare, and vice versa with it) can exist. However, just as you can provide legitimate examples where these are observed, people can provide counter-examples for both cases proving that even if such prioritizations are likely, they are not absolute.

Isolated examples, maybe. But as a general rule, I'm positively sure that countries with universal healthcare are indeed much more inclined to help you FIRST, and worry about paperwork later.

Even with certain tendencies, states already have laws mandating the provision of emergency care. It would not be hard to extend them to cover admittance procedures.

But would that be a proper solution? Essentially, this only puts financial extra strain on the various hospitals instead of properly fixing the underlying problem. And besides, it's unreasonable to optimize saving the kid that has just fallen into the well. I'm sure you'll agree that the smarter approach is PREVENTION, not efficiency in the ER.

You're right on the "bang for the buck" principle, but it wasn't always this way. US health care wasn't always this much more expensive than the rest of the world. Few people are interested in looking back at how the US put itself into the situation its in now and just want to adopt another system wholesale... and that's what bothers me.

But your political system and especially political climate is totally unsuited to create reasonable baby-steps. It's near impossible to start with some measures to then see if they yield the desired result. Anytime a measure is introduced with which the government could make a REAL difference (like negotiating drug prices directly, or like removing the ridiculous "only in-state insurances" monopoly protections), it's immediately shouted down as the coming of the antichrist, leading to behavior like perpetual civil war, and enough senators that had been bought with contributions have their balls squeezed until it's dead again. Unless there are true paradigm changes, there can't be a reasonable step-by-step approach because your system PRECLUDES reason. And the media are complicit in the cover-up, before people start wondering what the hell is going on because nothing ever gets done.

No, every once in a few decades, you have a chance to force an entire new block through. Or you fail.

Having quality and availability of cutting edge healthcare available, even if it is only received by those who can afford it (ie, commercially), is important as long its existence does not lower the quality of healthcare available to the rest of the populace. In fact, its existence is important for the continuation of improvement of healthcare for the rest of society. Having people with the means to purchase higher levels of care and a system with the means to provide it is much like early adopters with electronics devices, as profit on the front end turns into subsidization on the back end. Commercial health care often exists beside universal health care (the question of "why" is still there, of course), but such markets don't typically spur the same advancement or availability of highest-end care.

Says who? With all due respect, but medical advancements are made throughout the world, not just in America. Many of them in countries with universal healthcare. In fact, I see little to no correlation between healthcare _insurances_ and medical science. Advancements are made in leading clinics, universities, medical societies and the likes. A smaller part from drug companies, maybe. But insurances, no way.

And I consider this an ethically troublesome train of thought, at least when it's being used as a pretext to deny coverage to the poor. So the development of top-of-the-list prosthetics is supposed to be prioritized over life-saving/prolonging treatment of someone who lost his job and can't pay his health insurance anymore?

Really?

[Joojoobees]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Most of them are against UNIVERSAL health care. Most of them are for health care reform. Well, now, it would be suicidal if they ain't, but don't lump the two together.

And yet the healthcare reform proposals that they have been voting against and filibustering are NOT aimed at providing universal coverage. Since universal care isn't being debated, their opposition to it shouldn't be an issue.

Here's the problem: healthcare costs too much in the US. It is also on a trend to consume more and more of the nation's resources (both public and private). What's worse, private health insurance companies are adding fuel to the fire.

Originally Posted by Cinocard

But you cannot chunk out good doctors and good nurse like chunking out cars. Simply, the scarcity of supply ups the price, and downs the quality.

Now, once you have identified a societal problem (too few doctors) do we just throw our hands in the air, and give up, or do we find concrete steps that lead to a resolution of the problem? It may not be as easy as chunking out cars, but to say humans are collectively incapable of affecting the number of doctors produced by society is too much, right? That is where Congress needs to get involved.

[Nosauz]

Universal Health Care is never going to happen, because congressmen need that lobby money and that fuel for the industrial military complex to 'support' their constituents with insurance supplier jobs. Again Bush Tax cuts clearly show a shift of wealth from the middle class to the upper echelons of wealthy America, that's fine because when this happens it tends to breed revolution. In a country where individualism no longer is the individual important but the corporate hive mind complex is. Universal health care works, it's just that the health insurance industry is completely strangling any will power left in the people we elect to do anything. This notion of overspending yet unwilling to cut military spending is asinine, if America wants to succeed it needs to reel in the imperialism machine and fix the problems at home.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

Now, once you have identified a societal problem (too few doctors) do we just throw our hands in the air, and give up, or do we find concrete steps that lead to a resolution of the problem? It may not be as easy as chunking out cars, but to say humans are collectively incapable of affecting the number of doctors produced by society is too much, right? That is where Congress needs to get involved.

So you want the government to force people to become doctors?

That's about the only way it'll happen short of reducing malpractice suit frequency and lowering the cost of medical school.

Hey, if the government wants to force me to become a doctor, I'm all for it. I need a fucking job and I'd probably die from shock if I had one that paid so well.

[Cinocard]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

Here's the problem: healthcare costs too much in the US. It is also on a trend to consume more and more of the nation's resources (both public and private). What's worse, private health insurance companies are adding fuel to the fire.


Now, once you have identified a societal problem (too few doctors) do we just throw our hands in the air, and give up, or do we find concrete steps that lead to a resolution of the problem? It may not be as easy as chunking out cars, but to say humans are collectively incapable of affecting the number of doctors produced by society is too much, right? That is where Congress needs to get involved.

And universal health care doesn't help bringing down the cost. Rather, it may even go up. As we all know, government control never controls prices. It inflates prices instead.

Originally Posted by Mentar

Look at international statistics. On the absolute top (the cutting edge), America offers the best healthcare. On average (the level that most people reach), the quality of American healthcare is average too, for around twice the price. And for a western industrialized nation, America has a huge percentage of people that are completely uninsured.

Don't you see it? There's a great gap of income within the U.S population. Yet, there is virtually no price differentiation in medical services. It can't be clearer that there's an untouched market of low quality health care for lower middle class. Everyone is forced to consume the same quality of goods, even though their incomes are much different. It creates scarcity, and pushes the price up even higher.

Isolated examples, maybe. But as a general rule, I'm positively sure that countries with universal healthcare are indeed much more inclined to help you FIRST, and worry about paperwork later.

It's about money, sure. But it's even much more about protections for firms in the court when something happens.

And I consider this an ethically troublesome train of thought, at least when it's being used as a pretext to deny coverage to the poor. So the development of top-of-the-list prosthetics is supposed to be prioritized over life-saving/prolonging treatment of someone who lost his job and can't pay his health insurance anymore?

Really?

Really. As long as we are not in a socialism world. The market doesn't function according to ethics and morality. But this is off-topic, since there's no way the government can change it.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

And universal health care doesn't bring down the cost. Rather, it may even go up. As we all know, government control never controls prices. It inflates prices instead.

SOURCE PLEASE. There are countless systems that have universal health care, and they pay a FRACTION of what we do. Point to the numbers before making off hand remarks that are just talking points supplied by the corporate party of america.

why are conservatives so allergic to the truth.

[Cinocard]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

SOURCE PLEASE. There are countless systems that have universal health care, and they pay a FRACTION of what we do. Point to the numbers before making off hand remarks that are just talking points supplied by the corporate party of america.

BECAUSE their social, economic, legal, political conditions are different from the U.S. If you want to compare, you have to take a country with the same conditions as the U.S.

They may pay a fraction of what you do because of subsidies, of lower living costs, of lower medical quality, of more supply of doctors, of fewer legal risks involve, of medical universities there are cheaper...Because of tons of things that require case studies to clarify.

Now, tell me instead, how does forcing everyone to get insurance bring down the price?

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

why are conservatives so allergic to the truth.

Why are leftists so willing to be rude assholes whenever they hear an argument they don't agree with?

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Now, tell me instead, how does forcing everyone to get insurance bring down the price?

It doesn't. If anything it'll increase the price.