Would Socialist Healthcare Be Acceptable If...

[Saxon]

Are you serious??? You even group all citizens of your own country together and tell us they think alike. I'm not a Canadian, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are WRONG! Canadians are not as simple-minded and shallow as you'd have us believe! The biggest complaint I've heard from Canadian friends is the long waiting times they often experience for healthcare in Canada.

As for your attack on Dr. Who, he was right and you were wrong. America's healthcare remains the finest in the world from the perspectives of both quality and availability. Much of the costs associated with US healthcare is not the fault of doctors, hospitals, nor insurance companies. Much of the costs result from outrageous government regulations and out-of-control trial-lawyers. Costs are also elevated some in the US due to the higher-tech, higher-cost treatments available. As for Dr. Who's comment about "profit motive", he is right on that count too. You're quick to tell us that you and those like you aren't being fairly compensated for your superior skills and hard work. Apparently you believe doctors don't work as hard as you do?? Once doctors are no longer profitable, watch how rapidly the nations' healthcare system goes to hell in a handbasket. Why work 18 hours a day, pay enormous malpractice insurance premiums, and be critized by folks like you because you think they're rich bastards, when you could quit and plant a garden instead. It's much less stressful!

Alright... here we go...

http://dailyinfographic.com/why-americas-healthcare-sucks-infographic

I pay $89 per paycheck for insurance that covers just me. My company covers 50%, so they also pay $89 per paycheck. I get paid every 2 weeks, so that means I'm personally paying $2,314 out of my pocket every year. I've been covered at this job for six years, so I estimate that I've paid over $13,000 in premiums.
I am a young(ish) (32) healthy person who doesn't see the doctor too often. I think I've probably been to the doctor maybe 3 times in the past six years and haven't really needed anything.
I went to the doctor yesterday simply to have what I thought was a rash looked at. After a $40 co-pay, I spent about 4 minutes with the doctor who told me I have rosacea and gave me a prescription for Metrogel.
I went to the pharmacy, where I was informed that (a) the tube of cream I need is $270 (!!!) (b) my insurance has a $250 prescription deductible, and (c) for some reason the final cost to me to get this tube of cream right now would be $199.84. I told the nice lady at the pharmacy that that I didn't have a $200 budget for cream at the moment and left with my hands shaking.
Too-long story somewhat shortened... I went home and found an online pharmacy in Canada that was completely legit and they sold me a tube that was TWICE the size of the other tube for $70 including shipping.
FUCK. THIS. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

You were saying...? Believe anything an insurance company will tell you, right? Your own country's propaganda is making you Americans even dumber than you already are.

 

[Saxon]

Are you serious??? You even group all citizens of your own country together and tell us they think alike. I'm not a Canadian, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are WRONG! Canadians are not as simple-minded and shallow as you'd have us believe! The biggest complaint I've heard from Canadian friends is the long waiting times they often experience for healthcare in Canada.

As for your attack on Dr. Who, he was right and you were wrong. America's healthcare remains the finest in the world from the perspectives of both quality and availability. Much of the costs associated with US healthcare is not the fault of doctors, hospitals, nor insurance companies. Much of the costs result from outrageous government regulations and out-of-control trial-lawyers. Costs are also elevated some in the US due to the higher-tech, higher-cost treatments available. As for Dr. Who's comment about "profit motive", he is right on that count too. You're quick to tell us that you and those like you aren't being fairly compensated for your superior skills and hard work. Apparently you believe doctors don't work as hard as you do?? Once doctors are no longer profitable, watch how rapidly the nations' healthcare system goes to hell in a handbasket. Why work 18 hours a day, pay enormous malpractice insurance premiums, and be critized by folks like you because you think they're rich bastards, when you could quit and plant a garden instead. It's much less stressful!

Odd that our 'higher-tech' treatments cost far, far less than your own, yet we share the same technology. Hmmm?

Uh, US doctors are the highest-paid doctors on the planet. What are you smoking? Our doctor's earnings are CAPPED. They go over the cap, they had better have a good explanation as to why.

I never said doctors do not work hard. That was entirely you.

 

[Saxon]

What’s the public good got to do with it? The purpose of a public health care system, you may be surprised to learn, is to serve the public good not the good of health insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, or the very wealthy. The public good is likely to be the last thing served by our health care system.

 

[Saxon]

Why don’t Americans get the health care they pay for?Because the money we pay for health care goes to insurance companies. Administrative expenses for health care, costs us almost 12 times more than they cost the French. Out of every $100 Americans pay for health care, $35 goes to administrative expenses. What do Americans get for all that money? You get a system of competing insurance carriers paying big salaries to insurance executives to sell policies and you get staffs of lawyers to fight insurance claims and devise contracts that shift health care costs back to the public. “According to Mike Franc of the politically conservative Heritage Foundation, “People have horror stories about insurance companies for a reason.”

 

[Saxon]

What is the best way to ration medical care? All countries ration health care. Medical doctors in the U.S. ration it based on price. If you can’t pay you don’t get it. Other countries ration health care based on waiting lists. Love and Resh believe that rationing health care based on a waiting list makes some sense because most illnesses resolve themselves with time and eliminate the need for costly medical procedures. Dr. Love believes comparative effectiveness research is as good a way to ration health care as any. “So really,” she says, “look at what’s been shown to work and what doesn’t. A lot of what we do as surgeons has been shown not to work, but that doesn’t stop us.”

 

[Hobo1]

It seems no solution is possible. The health system before ObamaCare was pretty bad too. High insurance premiums, exclusion for per-existing problems, one employer gives health insurance, the next employer does not, limits of coverage on all sorts of treatments, on and on.

I don't want a government program either. But I do envy my Canadian relatives and their health care system - they seem to be doing something right.

Are all you guys happy with the old system?

 

[Cruella]

It seems no solution is possible. The health system before ObamaCare was pretty bad too. High insurance premiums, exclusion for per-existing problems, one employer gives health insurance, the next employer does not, limits of coverage on
all sorts of treatments, on and on.

Then why is insurance going to cost twice as much with Obamacare? Your going to have more people paying the penalty and not buy coverage until they get something catastrophic.

And what if they don't have the money to get the insurance if that happens? Are they NOT going to get treatment and just die?

 

[TheJPRD]

Alright... here we go...

http://dailyinfographic.com/why-americas-healthcare-sucks-infographic

You should try thinking before you open your mouth. The article to which you linked is virtually meaningless. I couldn't even find an attribution. More importantly, the article stated with words expressing "concern" that 40 million Americans had no healthcare. Good God, there are more than 40 million Americans who are 9 years old or younger. http://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2011comp.html. In the USA, nobody is turned away from emergency rooms if they need medical attention, regardless of the ability to pay. My earlier statement is 100% correct, that the US has the best healthcare (meaning doctors and treatments) and the best accessability to healthcare of any nation on earth! You never look past the end of your nose when you say things. Hate for the US clouds every statement you make. Hate is a worthless basis upon which to form your every conclusion.

 

[Hobo1]

Then why is insurance going to cost twice as much with Obamacare? Your going to have more people paying the penalty and not buy coverage until they get something catastrophic.

And what if they don't have the money to get the insurance if that happens? Are they NOT going to get treatment and just die?

Hey, I hate ObamaCare as much as you do. Honestly, I can't tell you the best system, but I do remember before - the insurance companies (like banks) always had the biggest buildings in the city. Maybe you thought it worked great - I don't think so. As I said, a lot of other countries have experimented with different health care systems. If we can't find some other system that works better than either ObamaCare, or the old system, then I guess we are just screwed!

 

[dogtowner]

Hey, I hate ObamaCare as much as you do. Honestly, I can't tell you the best system, but I do remember before - the insurance companies (like banks) always had the biggest buildings in the city. Maybe you thought it worked great - I don't think so. As I said, a lot of other countries have experimented with different health care systems. If we can't find some other system that works better than either ObamaCare, or the old system, then I guess we are just screwed!

Insurance is a labor intensive business even today, you.need the.space.

irs been documented.here that health insurers.have a.pretty small margin. you need to understand where the sources of the high costs are if you seek to remedy them.

heres a start: why does a polivy for a family of four in Wisconcin cost a third of one for.New Yawk.state ?
requited coverages mandated by the insurance commissioner in NY far excede that of Wis.

as you might expect there are.a number of factors in play but insurance companies are not the boogieman here.

 

[TheJPRD]

Insurance is a labor intensive business even today, you.need the.space.

irs been documented.here that health insurers.have a.pretty small margin. you need to understand where the sources of the high costs are if you seek to remedy them.

heres a start: why does a polivy for a family of four in Wisconcin cost a third of one for.New Yawk.state ?
requited coverages mandated by the insurance commissioner in NY far excede that of Wis.

as you might expect there are.a number of factors in play but insurance companies are not the boogieman here.

Good points, DT! For many years now, Conservatives have pointed-out that individual, State controls of the insurance industries restricts competition. We've argued that insurance Companies be allowed to compete across State borders, and that insurance policies be transportable across State borders and when changing jobs. I'm certain that we could get control of our healthcare-insurance costs if the right minds were making the decisions.

You're right on-target about Insurance being a "labor intensive business" too. In such businesses, there are very few ways in which to increase productivity. Productivity lives or dies in accordance with the skills and efficiencies of employees, and the technical advances embraced by management. If Insurance companies were allowed to compete nationwide, the potential sales for each Company should increase, the need to improve productivity would become critical for each Company, and the costs for policies would defnitely go down. Some insurance companies would expire due to their inability to compete, and monopolization could become an issue. At the same time, opportunities would arise for smaller companies to pursue sales within specific, geographical areas.

Add to the above some well-considered legislation aimed at eliminating frivolous lawsuits, and we'd be on the road to major reductions in insurance costs. Thought-provoking post, DT, thanks!

 

[Dr.Who]

Insurance is a labor intensive business even today, you.need the.space.

irs been documented.here that health insurers.have a.pretty small margin. you need to understand where the sources of the high costs are if you seek to remedy them.

heres a start: why does a polivy for a family of four in Wisconcin cost a third of one for.New Yawk.state ?
requited coverages mandated by the insurance commissioner in NY far excede that of Wis.

as you might expect there are.a number of factors in play but insurance companies are not the boogieman here.

Required coverage does indeed drive up the costs quite a bit. What we need is the freedom to buy minimal coverage only when that is what is needed and wanted. Obviously insurance companies do not want to sell small policies and that completely explains why Obamacare makes small policies obsolete.

 

[dogtowner]

Good points, DT! For many years now, Conservatives have pointed-out that individual, State controls of the insurance industries restricts competition. We've argued that insurance Companies be allowed to compete across State borders, and that insurance policies be transportable across State borders and when changing jobs. I'm certain that we could get control of our healthcare-insurance costs if the right minds were making the decisions.

You're right on-target about Insurance being a "labor intensive business" too. In such businesses, there are very few ways in which to increase productivity. Productivity lives or dies in accordance with the skills and efficiencies of employees, and the technical advances embraced by management. If Insurance companies were allowed to compete nationwide, the potential sales for each Company should increase, the need to improve productivity would become critical for each Company, and the costs for policies would defnitely go down. Some insurance companies would expire due to their inability to compete, and monopolization could become an issue. At the same time, opportunities would arise for smaller companies to pursue sales within specific, geographical areas.

Add to the above some well-considered legislation aimed at eliminating frivolous lawsuits, and we'd be on the road to major reductions in insurance costs. Thought-provoking post, DT, thanks!

I have a different view on the role of the stste ins commish's perhpas having worked in insurance.

these guys are generally elected and under restriction by state laws. in this sense they are operating at.the will of the people. that being said, most people are ignorant of all this and do not generally appreciate the effect these actions have on their premiums.

in short we have an education problem.

i think if you asked most people if folks should have the freedom to buy a bare bones ins policy (becsuse they are of modest means or enjoy good health and are looking for catesttrophic coverage) they would day 'you bet'.

if you told them the reason they cant is regulation their pols set in place they might just be receptive to pols suggesting it be done. i feel thats the right way and all before thinking of the state's rights implications.

i really dislike the argument of "selling across state lines" as it means surrendering authority to the feds that they should not have. imo of course.

 

[Hobo1]

I can certainly see where the private medical care sector is anything but cost conscious. Lawyers force doctors and medical facilities to own and use expensive medical tests to the max. If you have a broken arm, you are forced to go to hospitals that are equally equipped to remove brain tumors as treat your broken arm... but both treatments pay the same hospital high overhead. I support "no fault" medical treatment - even doctors make mistakes.

The problem is trying to regulate the health care systems on a State level, so medical facilities have incentives to save money. If someone were to regulate without outsider influence, I am sure hospital bills could be cut significantly.

 

[Dr.Who]

The problem is trying to regulate the health care systems on a State level, so medical facilities have incentives to save money. If someone were to regulate without outsider influence, I am sure hospital bills could be cut significantly.

It seems that you start from the position of needing regulation and then move on in your thinking from there. Why assume that the first place to start if you want to save money is in creating regulation at the state level? how about we start from the place where the way to save money is with no regulations then move on from there.