s/o Why is your universal healthcare a love?

[JessieC]

I know that's the argument for UHC... I just don't understand how that's going to work. It's already hard to find a doctor that accepts Medicare. Why? Because Medicare reimbursement rates are too low and there's too much paperwork involved. How is that going to work when all the patients have that same reimbursement rate?

 

Patients are still going to sue. They will still want the top-of-the-line experimental treatments that are super expensive. They will still want private rooms in the hospital, etc. We're entitled Americans, after all. :tongue_smilie:

 

So while I really, really hope that the new healthcare law (and potentially UHC, should we ever go there) helps make things better for everyone, I just can't see how that is possible. UHC works great in other countries, I see that. I just don't believe it would work here the same way.

 

Have you heard the stories of some of the families on this thread? The current system is not working for so many. There is a plan in place now that has been a long time in the works and can't possibly be any worse than the mess we have now. We can't keep going on as we are, so I say let's give this a chance. What else can we do? I think if anything, it won't go far enough, but hopefully it will help give families some relief and peace of mind.

[Impish]

Well, since we are getting personal now, I also do not understand how people can say "I hardly pay anything for my [socialized] health benefits" like that's a good thing - knowing that means someone else is picking up the responsibility for their family's basic health needs.

 

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with spreading the risk of catastrophic illnesses/injuries, nor with providing a safety net for folks between jobs and folks who are disabled. However, I think that basic health needs are a personal / family responsibility, kinda like basic hygiene. Everyone who is able to work should feel responsible to budget for basic health needs.

 

I notice that often the folks most pro-national healthcare are the ones who would, under such a system, pay a smaller share of the cost than their family's share of the services. Perhaps they'd feel differently if they'd be out of pocket an extra $10k or so per year under such system.

I have UHC, and honestly don't understand your comment. Everyone pays into the same pot, everyone gets covered. And, it costs LESS than what I hear Americans pay for insurance.

 

I truly, honestly, no snark intended, do not understand what it is your comment is trying to illustrate.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, since we are getting personal now, I also do not understand how people can say "I hardly pay anything for my [socialized] health benefits" like that's a good thing - knowing that means someone else is picking up the responsibility for their family's basic health needs.

 

We are already paying for people who cannot pay.

 

Why are American's expenses for procedures higher than other countries? Why does it cost me a LOT more for an MRI than it does for someone in Canada, France or the UK? Because we are paying for people who cannot pay. My family has insurance and our medical expenses are high.

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with spreading the risk of catastrophic illnesses/injuries, nor with providing a safety net for folks between jobs and folks who are disabled. However, I think that basic health needs are a personal / family responsibility, kinda like basic hygiene. Everyone who is able to work should feel responsible to budget for basic health needs.

 

 

I notice that often the folks most pro-national healthcare are the ones who would, under such a system, pay a smaller share of the cost than their family's share of the services. Perhaps they'd feel differently if they'd be out of pocket an extra $10k or so per year under such system.

 

I think it is offensive and ignorant to state that the people who are for national healthcare are the ones who will benefit.

 

I already pay 10K+ a year on healthcare. I will be happy/thrilled/delighted to have some of the burden of those who cannot pay off my shoulders.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Sis

[Haiku]

However, I think that basic health needs are a personal / family responsibility, kinda like basic hygiene. Everyone who is able to work should feel responsible to budget for basic health needs.

 

Ok, sure. My kids' healthcare needs cost more than my husband and I (we both work) make every year. Hell, just ONE of ONE of my kids' monthly medications costs more than our combined salaries. (I got a job specifically so we could afford healthcare costs.) I'll budget for that. Ok. Done. :confused:

 

Love the idea that people who want reasonable, affordable care are trying to shirk their responsibilities. Love it.

 

Tara

[SKL]

Oh, and as far as people not trusting the government with their healthcare -- you'd rather trust the CEO and board of a company whose job is to make money for its shareholders? I trust the government to treat people fairly and equally far more than I do a profit-driven corporation.

 

Tara

 

Competition makes a difference, though. If you have many to choose from, they will have an incentive to keep costs and prices competitive. We've all seen what happens when there's a single payer in, say, the military, where everyday generic hardware has been shown to "cost" hundreds of times what it should.

 

It ain't perfect, but that's partly because the government's already been meddling too much.

[Haiku]

Competition makes a difference, though. If you have many to choose from, they will have an incentive to keep costs and prices competitive.

 

I don't have many to choose from. My husband's company offers Cigna. Take it, or leave it.

 

Tara

[Slartibartfast]

Competition makes a difference, though. If you have many to choose from, they will have an incentive to keep costs and prices competitive. We've all seen what happens when there's a single payer in, say, the military, where everyday generic hardware has been shown to "cost" hundreds of times what it should.

 

It ain't perfect, but that's partly because the government's already been meddling too much.

 

There is not currently competition. This bill is requiring that hospitals publish their prices.

[SKL]

Ok, sure. My kids' healthcare needs cost more than my husband and I (we both work) make every year. Hell, just ONE of ONE of my kids' monthly medications costs more than our combined salaries. (I got a job specifically so we could afford healthcare costs.) I'll budget for that. Ok. Done. :confused:

 

Love the idea that people who want reasonable, affordable care are trying to shirk their responsibilities. Love it.

 

Tara

 

Apparently the term "basic" is not understood on this board.

[QueenCat]

It all just gets me so angry. I think about Adrian...whom I have never met, or seen and Joanne and I want to spit darts!!! It is JUST NOT FAIR.

 

Me too. What they have gone through is ABSURD.

[Guest]

There are subsidies for lower income people.

 

But taxpayers are paying for those already. Paying for additional care for additional people - that will mean still more taxes, no? How can it not?

[Haiku]

And ya know what else? I am not in the least bit embarrassed to be for a system that would guarantee that my child's lifesaving medication isn't withheld due to a simple billing error. That would never happen with UHC. So yup, we sure as hell would benefit from UHC. That's NOTHING to be ashamed of.

 

Tara

[SKL]

I don't have many to choose from. My husband's company offers Cigna. Take it, or leave it.

 

Tara

 

But (a) your husband's company had a choice between competitors; (b) you could choose a HSA or direct pay instead; © you or your husband could choose another employer with a different health plan.

[QueenCat]

I think the reality in the USA is that half of the people will be paying little to none of their share of the health costs, with the other half footing nearly all of the bill. And on top of that, the "universal" benefits will probably phase out if you make more than $x. So folks paying the largest chunk of the bill won't even get the same benefit as those who don't pay. That's just the way our politics work. Maybe it's different in other countries.

 

The Affordable Health Care Act is not a universal plan, with universal benefits.

[Haiku]

Apparently the term "basic" is not understood on this board.

 

I don't know what you are getting at, but in my family, medications and healthcare that run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is basic, because without it my child would die.

 

Tara

[SKL]

And ya know what else? I am not in the least bit embarrassed to be for a system that would guarantee that my child's lifesaving medication isn't withheld due to a simple billing error. That would never happen with UHC. So yup, we sure as hell would benefit from UHC. That's NOTHING to be ashamed of.

 

Tara

 

I have friends on Medicare who have had services and payments refused over billing errors. This is not something that government control will eliminate.

[Slartibartfast]

Apparently the term "basic" is not understood on this board.

 

Because many know all too well how very lacking "basic" is.

[Haiku]

But (a) your husband's company had a choice between competitors; (b) you could choose a HSA or direct pay instead; © you or your husband could choose another employer with a different health plan.

 

Option 1 means we don't have the vaunted free choice that everyone says is so completely amazing in the free market. The employer chooses our coverage. Option 2 means our kid dies, because we can't afford the care. Option 3 ... my husband looked for a job for over a year. In case you haven't noticed, the economy is bad and jobs are not plentiful.

 

Tara

[Guest]

Competition makes a difference, though. If you have many to choose from, they will have an incentive to keep costs and prices competitive. We've all seen what happens when there's a single payer in, say, the military, where everyday generic hardware has been shown to "cost" hundreds of times what it should.

 

It ain't perfect, but that's partly because the government's already been meddling too much.

 

This is what I think. There was a time when I went to the dr. and he wanted to prescribe Product A. I said, "I pay out-of-pocket for prescriptions. How much will this be?" He said, "Oh, well it's $300+ a month...try Product B. It will still probably be effective." It was. It was $40. I worry that you take that out of the equation if it's all covered.

 

And...now I think this thread is taking a downward trend that I had wanted to avoid. It's time for bed anyway. Have a good night, everybody.

[Dealea86]

Have you heard the stories of some of the families on this thread? The current system is not working for so many. There is a plan in place now that has been a long time in the works and can't possibly be any worse than the mess we have now. We can't keep going on as we are, so I say let's give this a chance. What else can we do? I think if anything, it won't go far enough, but hopefully it will help give families some relief and peace of mind.

 

Oh dear, I didn't mean to come off sounding like I don't care about the pain of the people who are dealing with health care problems now. I do! And I am going to give the new system a chance. I said in my post that I "really, really hope" it will work. I mean that.

 

What I'm afraid will happen is that we'll trade 20 million* Americans whose health care situation is horrible for 30 or 40 million Americans with horrible health care situations. There's nothing inherently kind about helping one group of people at the expense of another group of people (FTR, I'm don't mean taxing the wealthy here).

 

And I know that proponents of UHC don't believe for a second that it would come to that. I appreciate that that's where you're coming from. But as for me, this whole thing worries me. If I could be sure it wouldn't backfire on us as a country, I would absolutely support it. What's not to love?

 

*I totally made that number up. I have no idea what the real number is... but the point I'm trying to make is the same regardless of the numbers.

[SKL]

I don't know what you are getting at, but in my family, medications and healthcare that run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is basic, because without it my child would die.

 

Tara

 

Well I would categorize that under "catastrophic illness" and I said I have no problem spreading the risk of that.

 

I would categorize as "basic" the costs of routine well visits, minor sick/injury visits, common medicines, consultations for behavior-related matters such as weight loss, smoking cessation, nutrition, birth control, blood pressure/diabetes management, etc.

[Slartibartfast]

But taxpayers are paying for those already. Paying for additional care for additional people - that will mean still more taxes, no? How can it not?

 

No, taxpayers are not. There are quite a few people who would be covered for the first time under this bill. Many of those people have never been eligible for insurance or couldn't afford it due to preexisting conditions.

 

The tax information is spelled out in the bill.

 

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html

[Haiku]

I have friends on Medicare who have had services and payments refused over billing errors. This is not something that government control will eliminate.

 

We have never, not once, had a problem getting medication for our child who has state-covered medication. For our other child on maintenance medication, it's a monthly hassle.

 

Besides, if we had UHC, we could utilize our local pharmacy, where they know us and actually care about us. They loaned us medication, free of charge, because the mail-order pharmacy effed up so bad and they knew our child's situation was life-or-death. If we had UHC, our local people would be familiar with our situation and would know that we are covered and would prevent something like what happened with the mail-order pharmacy from happening.

 

SKL, does anyone in your household have a life-threatening illness? Because I have noticed that, almost without fail, the people who have all the answers to our healthcare woes are people who don't live with healthcare nightmares.

 

Tara

[Dealea86]

And...now I think this thread is taking a downward trend that I had wanted to avoid. It's time for bed anyway. Have a good night, everybody.

 

Yes, I think I'm done, too. :-)

[SKL]

Option 1 means we don't have the vaunted free choice that everyone says is so completely amazing in the free market. The employer chooses our coverage. Option 2 means our kid dies, because we can't afford the care. Option 3 ... my husband looked for a job for over a year. In case you haven't noticed, the economy is bad and jobs are not plentiful.

 

Tara

 

What is your point? What does the above have to do with my comment that insurers have an incentive to be competitive?

 

Life isn't perfect, I know that. But you know, the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

[Slartibartfast]

Well I would categorize that under "catastrophic illness" and I said I have no problem spreading the risk of that.

 

I would categorize as "basic" the costs of routine well visits, minor sick/injury visits, common medicines, consultations for behavior-related matters such as weight loss, smoking cessation, nutrition, birth control, blood pressure/diabetes management, etc.

 

But the people with catastrophic illnesses are the ones who are affected the most by this bill. One cannot make allowances for catastrophic illnesses while not supporting healthcare reformation. They must go hand in hand or the costs would be too high. My son's healthcare bills are already in the hundreds of thousands and he is only four.

[justasque]

I've always seen those threads more about posters wondering if they're over reacting, or if there is something they could do on their own without having to get their child out. It also seems that when most say to take the child in that there isn't a long wait. They usually post back that their child was seen, which probably plays into me finding it surprising so many have to wait weeks.

That doesn't mean I don't understand many wait because of money, but I've read those threads differently, I guess.

 

I think many, if not most, of those posts are about money. I don't hesitate to take my kids to the doc when they are sick, because my insurance covers it and/or we can afford the deductible.

 

They will still want the top-of-the-line experimental treatments that are super expensive. They will still want private rooms in the hospital, etc. We're entitled Americans, after all. :tongue_smilie:

 

In the UK, my poor relatives use the National Health system, which I think has been in place since the '40's, just after the war. My wealthy relatives "go private", either using their personal funds or an employer's "extra" coverage plan to pay for it. It's a two-tier system, but both groups seem quite pleased with it.

 

I notice that often the folks most pro-national healthcare are the ones who would, under such a system, pay a smaller share of the cost than their family's share of the services. Perhaps they'd feel differently if they'd be out of pocket an extra $10k or so per year under such system.

 

My feeling is that 1) we are healthy, and grateful for it, and willing to help those who aren't, but also 2) we are one car crash, one cancer diagnosis, one premature baby away from being very, very much on the other side of things. I'm willing to pay more now, to know that if my circumstances change, I'm covered.

[justamouse]

Universal would free up business owners, too. And even *with* our deplorable (which some would call good) insurance that we can afford, if something like a long term illness happened to any of us-we'd be bankrupt. Small business can't afford the ever increasing cost of basic healthcare. And we can't buy into larger pools unless we have 75 employees and a *majority* make a certain amount of $. So they priced us out of a PPO.

 

My dad has diabetes and not the kind from weight-I forget which one-but let me tell you, the insurance company is making him *pay* for it. THey have an all out war on diabetics (granted, the care cost in total is up because of the amount of them) but he has *three* insurances so that he's cared for in case he is debilitated because of it. Now, he can pay for it--but what about the person who can't?

Edited July 16, 2012 by justamouse

[Frances]

I know that's the argument for UHC... I just don't understand how that's going to work. It's already hard to find a doctor that accepts Medicare. Why? Because Medicare reimbursement rates are too low and there's too much paperwork involved. How is that going to work when all the patients have that same reimbursement rate?

 

Because under universal health care, virtually all of a doctor's business will come from the government. The doctors will have to accept patients to stay in practice and the government will have to set reasonable reimbursement rates to keep doctors practicing. Right now doctors make far more money from privately insured patients than medicare and medicaid patients, so they have no financial incentive to take medicare/medicaid patients. Of course there will always be the wealthy minority who can go outside the system and pay for whatever they want, including the private hospital room and the top-of-the-line experimental treatments.

Patients are still going to sue. They will still want the top-of-the-line experimental treatments that are super expensive. They will still want private rooms in the hospital, etc. We're entitled Americans, after all. :tongue_smilie:

Most countries with UHC have vastly different medical malpractice laws from the US and malpractice reform is always part of the discussion when UHC is considered.

 

So while I really, really hope that the new healthcare law (and potentially UHC, should we ever go there) helps make things better for everyone, I just can't see how that is possible. UHC works great in other countries, I see that. I just don't believe it would work here the same way.

 

And except for having a segment of the population that believes UHC is socialistic and therefore bad and that access to affordable and quality healthcare is not a basic human right, I really don't see how the US is so different from other industrialized nations with UHC. Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel when we already know what works?

[DianeW88]

Well, obviously I can only speak for myself. Our health insurance is excellent, and I've been very happy with our coverage. I am not interested in a mandatory government health plan.

 

I guess maybe it depends on where you live, but we have NEVER had to wait more than a day or two for a doctor's appointment with a specialist, and I can get in with my GP or my pediatrician on the same day I call.

 

Our pediatric practice is open 24/7, 365 days a week. I can see a board certified pediatrician in the middle of the night if I need one. My GP's office is open until 8 PM every night and on Saturdays and Sundays as well. We know all of the doctors well and we're comfortable with all of them.

 

We have many hospitals to choose from, including a top notch children's hospital, a fabulous teaching hospital, a cancer research hospital, an orthopedic hospital, an eye hospital, and many others. I am less than five minutes away from one of our hospitals and ten minutes from two others.

 

I can choose to see any doctor I want and I don't need permission or a referral to see a specialist. If I think my ballerina dd needs to see her orthopedic surgeon for an injury, I call his office directly and make an appointment. It will usually be for the next day.

 

I live in the Salt Lake City area.

[Incognito]

FWIW, I have been on both sides (born and raised in the US, living in Canada). Neither way is perfect. I prefer UHC as we are young and relatively healthy and have kids. When I'm old and need a hip replacement and have to wait 6-9 months AFTER it's finally gotten to the point I NEED surgery on it, ask me again...

 

I think that the main negatives of the Canadian UHC system are issues inherent in bureaucracy. There isn't the incentive to get things done in a timely manner. There isn't usually incentive for innovation. And I cannot figure out why they have long term care wards in hospitals.

 

One thing that is in some ways a negativel, and in some ways a positive, is the approach to testing and use of technology. For instance, my current baby (now 4 mo) has what *might* be some fused sutures in her head. If we were in the US, and had decent insurance, I'd bet you we'd have had an MRI by now and know. As it stands, we have been to a pediatrician, who ordered X rays. X rays are not perfect for diagnosing this, but can rule it out. The X rays said she had it, but the doc doesn't think so. So we're waiting 2 more months and will go back and re-assess. Ultimately, either way will work for this issue. An MRI costs more, and if there still does seem to be a problem, we'll eventually get one. And surgery for this isn't generally done until they are at least 8 months old anyways. BUT it would be nice for me to know one way or the other and stop looking at the shape of her head!

 

Accessing services takes so much longer and there are so many more hoops to jump through, and there is no benefit for the doctors or anyone in the system to spend money, so they generally don't do it in a hurry.

[Haiku]

What is your point? What does the above have to do with my comment that insurers have an incentive to be competitive?

 

 

Well, for one, it's not working because we have the highest healthcare costs in the world.

 

And for two, everyone who says that the free market will take care of things is wrong because the way insurance is set up now, people don't actually have the power to make purchasing decisions that are in their best interest. They are stuck with what they are handed through their employer. So health insurance companies are not actually responsive to the consumers, unless your definition of consumer is the company that contracts for health insurance and not the individuals who actually use it.

 

And I don't believe that getting a job should be about shopping for health insurance.

 

Obviously we will never agree. Our fundamental views are too divergent.

 

Tara

[justasque]

I've got a few questions about how UHC deals with system abusers.

Many people are on medicaid in America, and use it responsibly. But there are a few who abuse it. They don't care how much they're costing the government because they don't pay for it. They are the diabetics who make no effort to take care of themselves and go to the ER on a regular basis. Or the folks who don't have anything really wrong with them but like the attention and free food they get from the hospital. There are thousands of ways to abuse free health care.

Again - the vast majority of folks on medicaid don't do this - but those who do really rack up the bill. They don't take any responsibility because there is no cost to them. How does UHC handle this sort of situation? This is one argument I've heard against UHC, and I'm curious how it is solved.

 

 

My impression is that it is very hard to handle "frequent flyers" in this country, because our system is so fragmented. The EMS crew works for a different company than the ER nurses, and different still from the social services folks. The UK and Canada have more integrated services, so they are more able to 1) provide point-of-service care (rather than taking everyone to the ER to either get paid or CYA), 2) connect the "frequent flyer" with the support services they need to break the cycle. It's not easy in any country; it's something ER folks struggle with all the time. The other piece is that it's simply (financially and otherwise) easier for low-income folks to access a lower level of care than the ER in countries with UHC, so the frequent flyer may still be using resources, but ones that aren't as expensive.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is what I think. There was a time when I went to the dr. and he wanted to prescribe Product A. I said, "I pay out-of-pocket for prescriptions. How much will this be?" He said, "Oh, well it's $300+ a month...try Product B. It will still probably be effective." It was. It was $40. I worry that you take that out of the equation if it's all covered.

 

And...now I think this thread is taking a downward trend that I had wanted to avoid. It's time for bed anyway. Have a good night, everybody.

 

That is great that there was a cheaper option for your prescription because there often is not a cheaper alternative or the cheaper alternative may be ineffective or cause side effects in your particular case. I have been on many different blood pressure pills and have tried generics before. Some have worked for a time and then became ineffective or caused side effects. Currently I can only tolerate one that only comes in a brand name and not generic and consequently it costs a lot of money. I cannot imagine paying out of pocket for the meds I take for blood pressure and asthma which would cost about $700/month:glare: My co-pay is already high for these meds. I have already investigated any cheaper alternatives and there are none. So I guess if we were uninsured, then we would be in for tough times or out of luck.

[justasque]

You'all might enjoy taking this quiz on the new healthcare law, from the Kaiser foundation -

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

It's quite interesting. See how you do!

[Slartibartfast]

That is great that there was a cheaper option for your prescription because there often is not a cheaper alternative or the cheaper alternative may be ineffective or cause side effects in your particular case. I have been on many different blood pressure pills and have tried generics before. Some have worked for a time and then became ineffective or caused side effects. Currently I can only tolerate one that only comes in a brand name and not generic and consequently it costs a lot of money. I cannot imagine paying out of pocket for the meds I take for blood pressure and asthma which would cost about $700/month:glare: My co-pay is already high for these meds. I have already investigated any cheaper alternatives and there are none. So I guess if we were uninsured, then we would be in for tough times or out of luck.

 

:iagree:

 

There is no generic for my medication. It is specific to my illness. It is $400 a month without insurance, there is little motivation for companies to produce generics of "orphan" medications since there are fewer people who need them.

[Embassy]

I notice that often the folks most pro-national healthcare are the ones who would, under such a system, pay a smaller share of the cost than their family's share of the services. Perhaps they'd feel differently if they'd be out of pocket an extra $10k or so per year under such system.

 

This shouldn't be about money or personal responsibility. It is about a person's right to live. When we look at the numbers we don't see the people. How many of us would deny help to a dying child at our front door?

[Joanne]

Well, since we are getting personal now, I also do not understand how people can say "I hardly pay anything for my [socialized] health benefits" like that's a good thing - knowing that means someone else is picking up the responsibility for their family's basic health needs.

 

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with spreading the risk of catastrophic illnesses/injuries, nor with providing a safety net for folks between jobs and folks who are disabled. However, I think that basic health needs are a personal / family responsibility, kinda like basic hygiene. Everyone who is able to work should feel responsible to budget for basic health needs.

 

I notice that often the folks most pro-national healthcare are the ones who would, under such a system, pay a smaller share of the cost than their family's share of the services. Perhaps they'd feel differently if they'd be out of pocket an extra $10k or so per year under such system.

 

:confused: How? How? And what is basic?

 

My DH has non alcoholic cirrhosis. He is not diabetic, not in renal failure, has never even tried/experiemented with a street drug, worked and paid taxes until he could not anymore. He lives in a nursing home, tries to buy/use fresh foods and walks around the back fence of the property for exercise. He's pre-existing ~ I could not get him covered if I tried.

 

My daughter has a moderate disease of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. It has not, as we had hoped, gone away with puberty. Pre-existing for children does not exist anymore in the US, but it did 6 years ago when her dad dropped coverage.

 

Even so, the cost of adding her (and her siblings) to my insurance would mean I could not pay rent, utilities, car payment and groceries.

 

Basic? WT hell do you consider basic?

 

Oh, and I've *been* one of the higher payees into the system. I wish with every fiber of my being I could go back and apologize to people for my viewpoints and pontifications from that time frame.

[Impish]

I have friends on Medicare who have had services and payments refused over billing errors. This is not something that government control will eliminate.

Ummm...as someone that has UHC, I can tell you that I've NEVER, EVER been refused any medical care at all due to a billing issue. E.V.E.R.

 

The question was put to those that *have* experience w/UHC. I really don't see how Medicare has any validity in this convo. It's not UHC.

 

Here, bill payments have ZERO to do w/accessing medical treatment. Thank God.

[Embassy]

I have friends on Medicare who have had services and payments refused over billing errors. This is not something that government control will eliminate.

 

Here in Canada the patient has nothing to do with the billing. You show your health card and get care.

[SKL]

SKL, does anyone in your household have a life-threatening illness? Because I have noticed that, almost without fail, the people who have all the answers to our healthcare woes are people who don't live with healthcare nightmares.

 

Tara

 

Of course, everyone has family members or close friends with life-threatening illnesses. The ones in my family have various kinds of insurance and none of them have resulted in death or aggravated medical problems. I will never deny that there are sometimes issues over approvals and payments, but that's not exclusive to the USA.

 

Sorry to say that people die in Canada, Japan, UK, and Australia despite universal health coverage. They also suffer frustrations, delays, mistakes, cold responses, and so on. I have friends in Canada. One of them had to wait 4 years for a necessary surgery for her daughter's painful condition. I've heard of people dying waiting for treatment in both kinds of systems. I've heard of Canadians saying parents of high-needs babies should have aborted rather than cost the system money. I've heard of a Canadian woman having to drive 8 hours to a US hospital to give birth, because no Canadian hospital could handle the expected complications. You sound like you think having a system like Canada's is going to make your life all rosy or something. I'm thinking not.

 

I'm glad to hear you have had good luck with the safety net that already exists. Thanks for acknowledging that we do have systems in place for situations like that. I am sure they could be improved too, but it's good to hear they are working well at some level.

[QueenCat]

You'all might enjoy taking this quiz on the new healthcare law, from the Kaiser foundation -

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

It's quite interesting. See how you do!

 

Thank you for sharing this link!!!

[Frances]

But taxpayers are paying for those already. Paying for additional care for additional people - that will mean still more taxes, no? How can it not?

 

It's true that at first some of us may have to pay higher taxes in order to get UHC going. But no one will have to pay for private insurance or part of the costs of their employer-provided insurance. And employers will not have to pay for coverage for their employees and so may choose to instead shift that part of their compensation packages to higher wages. So those of who currently have good insurance will see higher wages and/or lower insurance costs to off-set the possible higher taxes.

 

And in the long run, for all of the reasons already discussed, and proven by empirical evidence in numerous industrialized nations, health care costs under UHC will decrease for everyone and therefore take fewer tax dollars.

[Slartibartfast]

You'all might enjoy taking this quiz on the new healthcare law, from the Kaiser foundation -

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

It's quite interesting. See how you do!

 

You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans.

 

Woot!

[Dealea86]

You'all might enjoy taking this quiz on the new healthcare law, from the Kaiser foundation -

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

It's quite interesting. See how you do!

 

Hey, what do you know? I scored 100%! :D

 

(Okay, I lied... I stuck around and read more replies... Now it's really time for bed!)

[Impish]

Of course, everyone has family members or close friends with life-threatening illnesses. The ones in my family have various kinds of insurance and none of them have resulted in death or aggravated medical problems. I will never deny that there are sometimes issues over approvals and payments, but that's not exclusive to the USA.

 

Sorry to say that people die in Canada, Japan, UK, and Australia despite universal health coverage. They also suffer frustrations, delays, mistakes, cold responses, and so on. I have friends in Canada. One of them had to wait 4 years for a necessary surgery for her daughter's painful condition. I've heard of people dying waiting for treatment in both kinds of systems. I've heard of Canadians saying parents of high-needs babies should have aborted rather than cost the system money. I've heard of a Canadian woman having to drive 8 hours to a US hospital to give birth, because no Canadian hospital could handle the expected complications. You sound like you think having a system like Canada's is going to make your life all rosy or something. I'm thinking not.

 

I'm glad to hear you have had good luck with the safety net that already exists. Thanks for acknowledging that we do have systems in place for situations like that. I am sure they could be improved too, but it's good to hear they are working well at some level.

Seriously? Sick Kids in Toronto is one of the world's bests, right across from Mt Sinai, which specializes in high risk pregnancies.

 

Not to mention here in AB, there are hospitals that also specialize in neonate, high risk pregnancies, where ppl are flown in from all over the country.

 

I've never, in all my life, heard of someone going to the States for birth purposes. Ever.

 

I've heard rumours of it, but when pressed, it's always a friend of a friend's cousin's sister's dh's ex sil new bf's gf situation.

 

And I've never heard of anyone advocating abortion based on potential costs to the medical system. Not saying that ppl aren't complete a$$wipes, but to present it as an argument against UHC, as a flaw, is ridiculous.

 

I DO know that nobody here goes w/out appropriate medical care due to their finances. I DO know that nobody is going to DIE from not getting chemo, surgery, appropriate medical treatment for a life threatening illness b/c they don't have insurance or $.

 

No health care system is perfect. But I feel far more comfortable knowing that everyone who needs medical treatment can get it in Canada, regardless of if they are flat broke, or worth millions.

 

I guess it's the idea that all ppl in Canada actually are equal. There's nobody going to die b/c they can't afford medical care. Have or Have Not, you're not going to die of an illness that can be treated.

[MistyMountain]

And employers will not have to pay for coverage for their employees and so may choose to instead shift that part of their compensation packages to higher wages.

 

My husband's company already said they would do this. If they did not have to pay the high health insurance costs they would shift that to paying employees more wages.

[SKL]

Well, for one, it's not working because we have the highest healthcare costs in the world.

 

And for two, everyone who says that the free market will take care of things is wrong because the way insurance is set up now, people don't actually have the power to make purchasing decisions that are in their best interest. They are stuck with what they are handed through their employer. So health insurance companies are not actually responsive to the consumers, unless your definition of consumer is the company that contracts for health insurance and not the individuals who actually use it.

 

And I don't believe that getting a job should be about shopping for health insurance.

 

Obviously we will never agree. Our fundamental views are too divergent.

 

Tara

 

Actually I agree that employer-provided health care is part of the problem. The tax incentive that encourages that has incentivized the "insuring" of routine health services, which adds administrative costs and red tape without improving services or delivery (in fact, probably making them worse). It also makes it difficult for individuals to directly negotiate with doctors. The practice of charging a much lower fee ("discount") for members of group plans seems completely unethical to me. However, all of these issues could be addressed without mandating health insurance or implementing a single payor or legislating a transfer of wealth.

 

I never said I didn't want health insurance reform. I do. My plan, however, would look a lot different from those of any of the countries we're discussing here.

[Haiku]

Of course, everyone has family members or close friends with life-threatening illnesses.

 

I asked whether you have anyone specifically in your household. Of course you don't have to answer, because that's personal. But it's different when it's someone in your household, for whom you are responsible, and not just a friend or outside-the-household family member. My uncle had liver cancer. It was awful. But he didn't live with me, so it was different than if I were responsible for him.

 

I'm glad to hear you have had good luck with the safety net that already exists. Thanks for acknowledging that we do have systems in place for situations like that. I am sure they could be improved too, but it's good to hear they are working well at some level.

 

And they are run just like UHC would be. Taxpayer funded, guaranteed coverage.

 

For the record, I'm not demanding only free healthcare. That's one option I would be fine with. I'd also be fine with single-payer healthcare that I pay for. I just want the care to be accessible and affordable. I don't want anyone cut out, and I don't want insurance people trying to make money off my family's health needs.

 

Tara

[DianeW88]

It's true that at first some of us may have to pay higher taxes in order to get UHC going. But no one will have to pay for private insurance or part of the costs of their employer-provided insurance. And employers will not have to pay for coverage for their employees and so may choose to instead shift that part of their compensation packages to higher wages. So those of who currently have good insurance will see higher wages and/or lower insurance costs to off-set the possible higher taxes.

 

And in the long run, for all of the reasons already discussed, and proven by empirical evidence in numerous industrialized nations, health care costs under UHC will decrease for everyone and therefore take fewer tax dollars.

 

Interesting. My dh's company was told that they will need to foot the health insurance bill for all employees working thirty hours per week or more. All those employees have now had their hours cut to twenty five per week.

[lewelma]

NZ has UHC but it also has private hospitals paid for by private insurance.

 

All citizens and permanent residents have access to the public hospitals but there are some wait times for depending on how serious your problem is. But if you want to pay for insurance, you can go to the private hospitals and avoid the wait. My insurance company is non-profit.

 

The government decides how much money will be spent on public health care each year and the elected health boards decide how it will be allocated. More for neonates, less for the elderly, etc. if you don't like it, you can vote your board member off.

 

The same doctors work in both the public and private systems.

 

I personally pay $180 per month for surgery insurance for my family of 4 (there is no employer portion). I have to pay the full cost of GP visits at $60 per appointment. GPs are the gate keepers for access to specialists in both the public and private system.

 

Because of UHC, our car insurance is very cheap (no medical). Also, there is no paperwork when you go to the emergency room or hospital.

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited July 16, 2012 by lewelma