Universal vs. Market-Based Health Care

[HenryReardon]

A numerical list without any other data hardly proves anything.

 

[bankside]

A numerical list without any other data hardly proves anything.

It proves a great deal more than you saying the USA has the best health care in the world.

 

[andysayshi]

Here's an excerpt from a post I made in this Forum last year:

On my last trip to to New York 4 years ago, I came down with strep throat - we call it tonsillitis in Australia. I realized it was happening on Sat afternoon, and asked the concierge of my hotel where to go. He told me I could go to an horrific emergency room for a lot of hours, or stick it out till Monday.

Thank God for the internet, I found a doctor on the upper east side open on a Sunday and got seen. I had travel insurance, but it required I payed for anything under a thousand dollars myself, to be reimbursed later. To be seen by a GP and buy basic antibiotics cost me almost $1000 US! Because I had limited cash, I had no choice but to cut my trip short and go straight home - if I had been hospitalized, I simply couldn't afford to pay.

I have needed to see a doctor in Australia, England, Amsterdam, Denmark and the US. (God, that's not as bad as it sounds...) The only time I've truly feared for my medical well-being was in the US, and purely because of finances. I am a reasonably affluent person in the scheme of the world. When I felt I had no recourse in the States, I knew I could find my way home to Australia and be medically looked after. But I can only imagine the horror that a sick and financially poor American citizen must feel when they know they are sick and cannot afford quality treatment.

In all the other nations I've needed to see a doctor, I paid an affordable fee for consultation and medication. In the UK and Denmark it was free.

The next couple of years will really show US citizens the potential cost benefits that Universal healthcare provides through economy of scale. As unemployment skyrockets, more and more Americans will be without health insurance, placing enormous strain on the Medicaid and welfare systems.

 

[naked gent]

Actually, the USA has the best health care in the world. The only point of contention is over how it is delivered.

Actually Henry I think the real point of contention is its cost. When you spend far more than anyone else for a product its not much of a boast to say you've got the best.

Republicans currently like to point out that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world but never mention the huge disadvantage our corporations operate under because they are the only ones in a global economy who provide their employees with healthcare.

If you asked any corporate head which he would rather have a 15% tax rate or removing the burden of providing their employees with healthcare I'd bet they would take the latter.

Valid arguments aside if the private sector does not adequately address the constant rising cost of healthcare it will be solved in the public sector.

 

[HenryReardon]

Valid arguments aside if the private sector does not adequately address the constant rising cost of healthcare it will be solved in the public sector.

That's a noble sentiment, but the public sector has a poor record of solving problems either efficiently or effectively.

 

[naked gent]

That's a noble sentiment, but the public sector has a poor record of solving problems either efficiently or effectively.

I didn't say they would do it in an efficient or effective manner just that when the private sector fails the public one steps in......like today with the banking crisis. Washington's solutions don't currently appear to be efficient or effective but they are still the ones who are expected to solve the problem.

If healthcare expenses continue to increase by 10% + a yr sooner or later the government will do what the private sector has failed to do.

Its not such a leap Henry. Currently the government spends around 45 cents out of every healthcare dollar and those they cover are the sick, old and poor a group private insurance companies have little interest in covering.

Private insurance covers the mostly healthy remainder and still can't control costs.....thats not a good sign.

 

[HenryReardon]

Here in America they only treat you properly if you're rich. If you're poor you get rubber stamped and sent home with "take asprin" scribbled on a piece of scrap paper.

That is a dump truck load of Bovine Excreta.

There are plenty of hospitals and clinics that provide excellent, perhaps even better than average care to the poor and the indigent.

I happen to live with someone who has passed two kidney stones in the not too distant past - than which there is almost nothing more painful.

With the first one, I took him to the nearest hospital, a major hospital. They never even properly diagnosed it, nor did they run any tests. In the ER he was fussing about the pain and a nurse told him to 'stop being such a baby.'

The second time, I took him to a teaching hospital - the bulk of whose ER patients are indigent and/or poor. They did a scan - and discovered not only what was happening, but they found the trail left by the first stone when it passed. Kidney stones have sharp little spines on them that leave scars behind.

The care he received was both compassionate and caring.

BTW he had no insurance. Still got needed care, especially in the latter instance.

 

[jJoEd77]

so can Canadians see a specialist without a referral?

 

[iman]

The care he received was both compassionate and caring.

BTW he had no insurance. Still got needed care, especially in the latter instance.

So, the rest of us paid for this guys treatment under the most expensive (ER) system we have.

I would have thought that a good conservative would have had the personal sense of responsibility to have Health Insurance instead of depending on the rest of society to pay for his problems. I think Ayn Rand would have let this guy rot in the gutter.

Maybe your really a socialist at heart Henry!

 

[naked gent]

BTW he had no insurance. Still got needed care, especially in the latter instance.

Henry I'd like to know more. First was he given a bill for the services he received and second you say he got the care he needed was that because the stone in this case was a small one which would pass itself?

In other words had the stone been sufficiently large would they have done a procedure to either remove it or, using a laser, break it up?

 

[HenryReardon]

So, the rest of us paid for this guys treatment under the most expensive (ER) system we have.

I would have thought that a good conservative would have had the personal sense of responsibility to have Health Insurance instead of depending on the rest of society to pay for his problems. I think Ayn Rand would have let this guy rot in the gutter.

Maybe your really a socialist at heart Henry!

Clearly you neither read nor understood. I had insurance. He did not.

 

[HenryReardon]

Henry I'd like to know more. First was he given a bill for the services he received and second you say he got the care he needed was that because the stone in this case was a small one which would pass itself?

In other words had the stone been sufficiently large would they have done a procedure to either remove it or, using a laser, break it up?

Yes a bill was submitted in both cases.

At the teaching hospital, whatever needed to have been done would have been done. That's what they're there for. That's why low income people go there.

That is also why employees at a certain pay grade in that, and I suspect other, cities keep their pay below a certain level - turning down overtime etc etc. They know full well how much they are allowed to show as income and still keep their access to free medical care. That is why a lot of employees at lower pay grades turn down health insurance, even when the employer pays a portion of it. They know they can get what they need for free, so why buy insurance. No, we're not talking about minimum wage people.



I suspect in the first instance that, if it had been properly diagnosed, and needed surgery or laser treatment, he would have been shipped to the teaching hospital.
Not sure about this, but I suspect it is true.

 

[naked gent]

Yes a bill was submitted in both cases.


That is also why employees at a certain pay grade in that, and I suspect other, cities keep their pay below a certain level - turning down overtime etc etc. They know full well how much they are allowed to show as income and still keep their access to free medical care. That is why a lot of employees at lower pay grades turn down health insurance, even when the employer pays a portion of it. They know they can get what they need for free, so why buy insurance. No, we're not talking about minimum wage people.

So you're saying people refuse overtime or health insurance which the employer will pay a portion of so they can take advantage of "free care" that they will still receive a bill for.

I'm not sure that is good financial thinking. At best they would have to make sure they never obtain a higher level of living because of the medical debt which they have run up.

I believe during the bankruptcy bill debates back in 05 or 06 it was often said that the number one reason people declared bankruptcy was because of unpaid medical bills yet you say people refuse insurance to get that "free care"

I dunno but something here just doesn't add up.

 

[HenryReardon]

So you're saying people refuse overtime or health insurance which the employer will pay a portion of so they can take advantage of "free care" that they will still receive a bill for.

I'm not sure that is good financial thinking. At best they would have to make sure they never obtain a higher level of living because of the medical debt which they have run up.

I believe during the bankruptcy bill debates back in 05 or 06 it was often said that the number one reason people declared bankruptcy was because of unpaid medical bills yet you say people refuse insurance to get that "free care"

I dunno but something here just doesn't add up.

I saw it first hand for years. The payroll guy was kept very busy fielding phone calls from social services at the clinic or hospital to "verify income."

There is a class of people that will milk that sort of thing to the bone, given the chance - and, after all, it is a free society.

The company paid one-half of the employee health insurance and one-fourth of the cost of dependent coverage. All they had to do was sign up - to a man, they did not.

Granted a small company with a workforce of 125 employees is not a statistical universe, but it surely is an indicator.

I get more than a little cynical when bleeding hearts and liberal bedwetters start crying about the 'uninsured.' None of them take into account how many people are 'uninsured' by choice.

BTW when they qualified for the services they did not get a bill. You are confusing one scenario with another.

 

[HenryReardon]

I believe during the bankruptcy bill debates back in 05 or 06 it was often said that the number one reason people declared bankruptcy was because of unpaid medical bills yet you say people refuse insurance to get that "free care"

I dunno but something here just doesn't add up.

You're talking about two distinctly different demographic groups.

And, apparently you don't understand human nature.

 

[naked gent]

I get more than a little cynical when bleeding hearts and liberal bedwetters start crying about the 'uninsured.' None of them take into account how many people are 'uninsured' by choice.

I am aware of that group Henry. I live in Massachusetts which has a health insurance mandate and when it started many of the uninsured were young, healthy people who didn't want to pay for a policy because its dammed expensive.

Knowing that the state here determined that the best way to bring down the cost of insurance was to force those who don't access the system to pay into it so that those who do access it can maybe pay less.

Be aware boys this is the model the Obama administration will be looking at when they get around to "fixing" healthcare.

 

[naked gent]

And, apparently you don't understand human nature.

I concede its always been a mystery to me.

 

[HenryReardon]

So Henry supports public health care for people who can't afford it so long as he knows them.

.

So you're saying if you don't support something you should refuse to help someone else take advantage of it? That's not very logical.

 

[HenryReardon]

I dont' support drug abuse but I should help someone buy crack?

Where's the logic in that?

If you don't support public heath care, then no.. you shouldn't help your friend who was too lazy get get insurance get free care.

You should have reminded him that his situation was his fault and tell him it's not your problem. Why should your friend get better treatment than anyone else in your world?

Can't decide whether you are engaging in sophistry or just being disingenuous. In any case, it's yet more bovine excreta.

 

[HenryReardon]

It's really funny when someone pretty much trumps every one of your arguments

.

We all know you're a legend in your own mind. That being said, you haven't trumped anything - all you've done is regurgitated the same old tired lefty crap.

If that makes you feel all smug and superior, knock yourself out. Self-delusion has its uses.