s/o Why is your universal healthcare a love?

[Embassy]

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.

 

 

(Bolding mine)

 

I live in Canada now. I lived in the USA for over 30 years. All my children were born in the USA. UHC has made life much rosier for my family:001_smile: We should have moved here long ago.

[Joker]

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!

 

I missed one because it was about expanding Medicaid. It read like the new law says it will, but I thought the Supreme Court said that was up to individual states. Am I reading that wrong? I know our state said it will not opt in so I'm just curious.

[Frances]

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.

 

You don't say whether you have private insurance or you are covered through an employer. But in the first case, what if you or someone in your family developed a very serious medical condition or was in a terrible accident and therefore your rates increased to the point where you could no longer afford them? Perhaps the illness or accident even affects your families ability to pay for any insurance. Then what?

 

In the second case, what if you lose that job and can't find another one for an extended period of time, find another one that provides health insurance, or have a family member with a serious and expensive pre-existing condition that isn't covered under your new employer-provided insurance?

 

These are the situations that millions of Americans face everyday. You are very blessed to have excellent health insurance, but many others, through no fault of their own, are not. What are they supposed to do?

[Audrey]

 

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

 

I think you mean "thank Tommy Douglas." ;)

[Impish]

I think you mean "thank Tommy Douglas." ;)

Well, Tommy got the idea from somewhere ;)

 

:lol:

[SKL]

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.

 

 

Actually that's the case here too. I can name people very close to me who have had their lives saved in world-class hospitals despite being indigent, uninsured, and too young for Medicare. And because they were indigent, they did not have to pay one penny. By contrast, I know nobody who died because treatment was denied or unavailable in the USA.

 

Not to say we are perfect either. We have room for improvement. But it's not like we kick people into the street like road kill. People who aren't in favor of a single payor aren't heartless jerks, we just have other ideas of how to make targeted improvements. You know, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when every disagreement is equated to heartlessness.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I missed one because it was about expanding Medicaid. It read like the new law says it will, but I thought the Supreme Court said that was up to individual states. Am I reading that wrong? I know our state said it will not opt in so I'm just curious.

 

Honestly, I think a lot of these states will eventually agree to expand medicare since there will be a lot of pressure from hospitals who have to foot the bill for all of the uninsured patients to expand medicare. Plus these states would be passing up a lot of money too.

[Frances]

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.

 

But that's because Obamacare is not UHC. The democrats wanted UHC, but had to compromise with Obamacare to get any change to the current broken system.

[justamouse]

Actually that's the case here too. I can name people very close to me who have had their lives saved in world-class hospitals despite being indigent, uninsured, and too young for Medicare. And because they were indigent, they did not have to pay one penny. By contrast, I know nobody who died because treatment was denied or unavailable in the USA.

 

Not to say we are perfect either. We have room for improvement. But it's not like we kick people into the street like road kill. People who aren't in favor of a single payor aren't heartless jerks, we just have other ideas of how to make targeted improvements. You know, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when every disagreement is equated to heartlessness.

 

 

People SAY that, but it's not like there was *ongoing* care provided. No chemo, no rehabilitation, nothing that cost $ longterm. We *do* kick people to the street. We do. To bad, so sad, we'll help you in the hospital if you show up at our door... but then there's nothing.

 

Case in point? Joanne's husband.

[Impish]

Actually that's the case here too. I can name people very close to me who have had their lives saved in world-class hospitals despite being indigent, uninsured, and too young for Medicare. And because they were indigent, they did not have to pay one penny. By contrast, I know nobody who died because treatment was denied or unavailable in the USA.

 

Not to say we are perfect either. We have room for improvement. But it's not like we kick people into the street like road kill. People who aren't in favor of a single payor aren't heartless jerks, we just have other ideas of how to make targeted improvements. You know, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when every disagreement is equated to heartlessness.

Really? Talk to Joanne. instead of treating her dh, he was merely stabilized and sent home...until the next time toxins built up in his blood and he had to be readmitted. And I'm sure Joanne can correct me if I'm wrong, but it directly impacts his longevity. And, since they refuse to actually treat him, he's now had to be admitted to a nursing home, b/c his condition has now become unmanagable at home.

 

I've also read here how ppl who don't have ins have been unable to get chemo, and have died. Family members of Hive members.

No, not like road kill...more like, slap some duct tape out and send them back into oncoming traffic, though.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Actually that's the case here too. I can name people very close to me who have had their lives saved in world-class hospitals despite being indigent, uninsured, and too young for Medicare. And because they were indigent, they did not have to pay one penny. By contrast, I know nobody who died because treatment was denied or unavailable in the USA.

 

Not to say we are perfect either. We have room for improvement. But it's not like we kick people into the street like road kill. People who aren't in favor of a single payor aren't heartless jerks, we just have other ideas of how to make targeted improvements. You know, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when every disagreement is equated to heartlessness.

 

Hospitals and emergencies rooms will only provide care to stabilize someone in an emergency. They will not provide you chemotherapy, radiation, or provide you with your necessary medications that may costs hundreds and hundreds of dollars each month (which are necessary to maintain health for many people). My mom was told if she could not pay her bill that she would not get her chemotherapy:glare:. This was before she had medicare when she did have private insurance for a while.Chemotherapy is not an emergency nor is radiation according to hospitals.

 

 

FTR medicare has been life saving for both of may parents and they have been able to get the care they need.

[Colleen in NS]

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.

 

I suspect that any abuse that exists just doesn't cost as much in Canada as it would in the States. Also, the mentality is just different here - people assume health care is a basic right.

 

Also - one of many things driving up the cost of health care is litigation. Doctors run all sorts of unnecessary tests because they're afraid of being sued. Is there some way countries with UHC deal with this?

 

When I first moved to Canada in 1993, I saw a doctor for a problem. The problem began just weeks before I moved here. I saw a doctor in the States about it, and he wanted to do a whole bunch of tests - I couldn't afford them, so I walked out, scared. When I discovered that I'd be able to see a doctor in Canada, and have my visit/tests covered, I went. That doctor examined me and referred me for one test. I asked him about why didn't he refer me for all the other tests the American doctor wanted to do - he basically said, "We're not worried about suing here, so we just take medical decisions one step at a time." He was so calm, reasonable, and matter-of-fact about it. And his one test diagnosed my problem, which he then treated me for. It was such a relief to encounter a whole different mentality about people's lives and health.

 

Every time I read a "should I take my child to the doctor" thread, I always know it is an American mom asking. The natural answer to any mom in a UHC country is "of course! If they're ill, why wouldn't you take them?" Those threads are sad to me. So unnecessarily sad.

 

:iagree: And most of the ones I read, I read them believing there are $$$ issues behind the questions.

 

I don't see how that could work in practice (I understand the theory). Aren't the people who cannot pay for the healthcare the same people who would not pay taxes (or more in taxes)?

 

We would not be able to pay for healthcare or health insurance in the States. Yet we do pay taxes here.

 

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

 

I think "basic" is having a different meaning for different people on this board.

 

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.

 

Choose an employer? It seems to me that those who cannot choose their employers are also the ones who have a very difficult time with paying for health care or insurance.

 

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.

 

In my province, prescriptions are not covered unless you are on a very low income (and that is a fairly new program, which is regulated to prevent abuse - doctors know which meds are covered and which are not - and if a more expensive Rx was not covered but required, the doctor has to ask for special permission).

 

Oh, and about the Canadian woman driving to the States for *expected* complications - just echoing Impish's post - I also live near the best women's/children's hospital in Maritime Canada. It also serves as just one of the teaching hospitals for the local medical school. They are certainly very well prepared for expected complications. Furthermore, we have a helicopter ambulance service that flies women and children here from all over the Maritimes, if smaller hospitals cannot handle the medical issues.

[justamouse]

But that's because Obamacare is not UHC. The democrats wanted UHC, but had to compromise with Obamacare to get any change to the current broken system.

 

Hey, Obama sold us out completely on this one. He made 'transparent' back room deals with the insurance companies and

 

pharma. I wish single payer or universal had gotten pushed through, but what we're getting ain't it.

[Haiku]

Actually that's the case here too. I can name people very close to me who have had their lives saved in world-class hospitals despite being indigent, uninsured, and too young for Medicare. And because they were indigent, they did not have to pay one penny. By contrast, I know nobody who died because treatment was denied or unavailable in the USA.

 

 

Indigent care is not available on an ongoing basis.

 

And the news is full of stories of people who died because they couldn't afford necessary care or because their insurance company declined to cover it.

 

We had to sue our insurance company to force them to provide contractually obligated care. Some would say, "Yay, the system worked. You got your care." I say, "I should not have to sue someone to force them to provide the service they contracted to provide and that I pay for."

 

Tara

[SKL]

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?

 

It isn't really about the right to live. It's about the right to not be billed for the cost of medical treatment. Peace of mind, yes. Life or death, not really. Or more accurately, in the rare case when it could be a life or death issue, I agree that it should not be.

[Joker]

Really? Talk to Joanne. instead of treating her dh, he was merely stabilized and sent home...until the next time toxins built up in his blood and he had to be readmitted. And I'm sure Joanne can correct me if I'm wrong, but it directly impacts his longevity. And, since they refuse to actually treat him, he's now had to be admitted to a nursing home, b/c his condition has now become unmanagable at home.

 

I've also read here how ppl who don't have ins have been unable to get chemo, and have died. Family members of Hive members.

No, not like road kill...more like, slap some duct tape out and send them back into oncoming traffic, though.

 

 

I'm not saying what Joanne has gone through isn't wrong (because it is) or that it doesn't happen, but there are some of us who know people who have been treated for serious illnesses and do not have insurance. One can't make a blanket statement that the US turns all of those away. I know there are many turned away because I read about them, but those I've known with such serious illnesses have been treated even without insurance. Some are still living and some were treated even though they had a terminal diagnosis. I like much about the new healthcare plan because I have two dds with pre-existing conditions, but my experiences with healthcare has definitely not been what I see here.

[Haiku]

I find it interesting that people are saying, essentially, "UHC might work for you, but it won't work for us." Is there something so awful about Americans that we will destroy a system that's proven effective?

 

Tara

[Frances]

Actually that's the case here too. I can name people very close to me who have had their lives saved in world-class hospitals despite being indigent, uninsured, and too young for Medicare. And because they were indigent, they did not have to pay one penny.

 

But under the current system, health care costs increase for all of us when the indigent and uninsured get that world class treatment. Under UHC, everyone still has access to high quality care, and health care costs are lower for everyone.

 

By contrast, I know nobody who died because treatment was denied or unavailable in the USA.

 

While I don't know anyone who was turned away at a hospital when they were dying or in need of care and were not insured, I know several people who have declared bankruptcy due to health care bills, are not able to change jobs or become self-employed due to pre-existing conditions, or who have suffered life threatening complications due to not getting preventive care while uninsured.

 

 

Not to say we are perfect either. We have room for improvement. But it's not like we kick people into the street like road kill. People who aren't in favor of a single payor aren't heartless jerks, we just have other ideas of how to make targeted improvements. You know, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when every disagreement is equated to heartlessness.

 

But I guess I just don't understand when we have empirical proof that UHC works in numerous other industrialized nations by both lowering health care costs and improving health care delivery, why we just don't adopt that proven system in the US? Why do patchwork experimentation?

[Impish]

I'm not saying what Joanne has gone through isn't wrong (because it is) or that it doesn't happen, but there are some of us who know people who have been treated for serious illnesses and do not have insurance. One can't make a blanket statement that the US turns all of those away. I know there are many turned away because I read about them, but those I've known with such serious illnesses have been treated even without insurance. Some are still living and some were treated even though they had a terminal diagnosis. I like much about the new healthcare plan because I have two dds with pre-existing conditions, but my experiences with healthcare has definitely not been what I see here.

To me, one person, one family going through it is one too many. To not get needed treatment due to financial ability to pay is completely deplorable.

 

We're not talking a 3rd world country where the medical treatment isn't available. We're talking ppl being REFUSED treatment due to their finances.

 

It's flat out wrong.

[SKL]

People SAY that, but it's not like there was *ongoing* care provided. No chemo, no rehabilitation, nothing that cost $ longterm. We *do* kick people to the street. We do. To bad, so sad, we'll help you in the hospital if you show up at our door... but then there's nothing.

 

Case in point? Joanne's husband.

 

Actually, you're wrong about all the three people I personally know in this situation. (Two were in catastrophic car accidents where they very nearly died. The third had a massive heart attack.) They were all medically supported through a full recovery (or to the extent possible - one guy is blind as a result of his accident, but he swims and golfs etc.).

 

You can always find a story to prove the exception to the rule. We're talking a lot about personal anecdotes here (myself included). And some of us are talking in extremes that are just not true. It serves a purpose to get emotional reactions, but it doesn't further the discussion of what is really going to fix the actual problems.

[DianeW88]

You don't say whether you have private insurance or you are covered through an employer. But in the first case, what if you or someone in your family developed a very serious medical condition or was in a terrible accident and therefore your rates increased to the point where you could no longer afford them? Perhaps the illness or accident even affects your families ability to pay for any insurance. Then what?

 

In the second case, what if you lose that job and can't find another one for an extended period of time, find another one that provides health insurance, or have a family member with a serious and expensive pre-existing condition that isn't covered under your new employer-provided insurance?

 

These are the situations that millions of Americans face everyday. You are very blessed to have excellent health insurance, but many others, through no fault of their own, are not. What are they supposed to do?

 

I said I am not in favor of mandatory government health care. I want a plan that allows me all the options I currently have without a ridiculous increase in my premium or taxes to continue with it.

[Haiku]

it doesn't further the discussion of what is really going to fix the actual problems.

 

Honestly, I don't believe the problems will be fixed until all Americans truly believe and agree that we all deserve access to top-notch healthcare, regardless of our financial situations. I have met/talked with precious few people who oppose significant healthcare reform, reform targeted at actually making healthcare access easier for people and not just better for corporations, who actually believe that all people deserve this. I have met/talked to far too many people who believe that if you don't have adequate health care access, you are simply getting what you deserve. It's the whole "the unfortunate are in that situation through personal failing" mentality.

 

Tara

[justamouse]

Actually, you're wrong about all the three people I personally know in this situation. (Two were in catastrophic car accidents where they very nearly died. The third had a massive heart attack.) They were all medically supported through a full recovery (or to the extent possible - one guy is blind as a result of his accident, but he swims and golfs etc.).

 

You can always find a story to prove the exception to the rule. We're talking a lot about personal anecdotes here (myself included). And some of us are talking in extremes that are just not true. It serves a purpose to get emotional reactions, but it doesn't further the discussion of what is really going to fix the actual problems.

 

Then stick around the boards and cry with posters who go though it. I used to think like you, too.

[Joker]

To me, one person, one family going through it is one too many. To not get needed treatment due to financial ability to pay is completely deplorable.

 

We're not talking a 3rd world country where the medical treatment isn't available. We're talking ppl being REFUSED treatment due to their finances.

 

It's flat out wrong.

 

I'm not really disagreeing, but I've never known anyone who was flat out refused. I've known several without insurance and they received care. I read about it happening and think it's horrible, but when someone in my real life has had this problem they have always received care. I honestly wonder if every single person in Canada (or any place with UHC) receives the care they think they should 100% of the time. Again, there are many reasons I am for UHC, but I get why some don't understand the bigger problem. I've never faced it, and I've never known anyone (with or without insurance) to face it.

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, you're wrong about all the three people I personally know in this situation. (Two were in catastrophic car accidents where they very nearly died. The third had a massive heart attack.) They were all medically supported through a full recovery (or to the extent possible - one guy is blind as a result of his accident, but he swims and golfs etc.).

 

You can always find a story to prove the exception to the rule. We're talking a lot about personal anecdotes here (myself included). And some of us are talking in extremes that are just not true. It serves a purpose to get emotional reactions, but it doesn't further the discussion of what is really going to fix the actual problems.

 

Ok, let's set the anecdotes aside.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/health/deaths.health.insurance_1_health-insurance-david-himmelstein-debate-over-health-care?_s=PM:HEALTH

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSBRE85J15720120620

[Aggie]

:iagree:What gets me is that so many ppl have to wait, b/c of financial reasons, that it can end up costing far more. ie someone goes to see the Dr w/a cold, it's actually broncitis. They get meds, get well.

 

Someone else, financially tight, puts off going the Dr. By the time they finally get seen, they've got pneumonia.

 

The other thing that boggles my brain is, it seems like so much info seems to be coming from those w/a vested interest in the current US system...ie insurnace cos, or those associated w/them. How can you possibly trust that info? I've seen threads here, time and again, making claims about UHC in Canada that are nowhere near the truth...but where are these stories coming from? By ppl who have a vested, economic profit in things staying exactly how they are.

 

I mean...if *Canada* can figure a way out to afford UHC, I genuinely don't see why the US cannot, when you guys are spending more $$ than we do right now!

 

Basically, Americans won't be able to afford gasoline at $7-8/gal. That will kill the middle class. Our rich won't be phased by high gas prices, and our low-income won't feel the pinch as much, either.

 

Canada drills and the US buys their oil. The US won't drill, but we do pay other countries to drill, AND we have to buy oil from other countries.

 

Also, how do UHC countries deal with druggies who use the ER to get their fix?

[SKL]

But I guess I just don't understand when we have empirical proof that UHC works in numerous other industrialized nations by both lowering health care costs and improving health care delivery, why we just don't adopt that proven system in the US? Why do patchwork experimentation?

 

Because, like I said in my first comment (or second?), US politics will result in an outcome that isn't fair, effective, or efficient. You can't simply transplant stuff from one country to another. The system isn't the same UK, Canada, Japan and Australia, right? Right.

 

Look at the other thread about the 14yo who could not read. Or any case of an exceptional child's parent trying to get him/her the services s/he needs. Peace of mind? I don't think so. And US laws are supposed to guarantee every child an appropriate education. Sure, I trust the government to care about my life.

[Frances]

I'm not really disagreeing, but I've never known anyone who was flat out refused. I've known several without insurance and they received care. I read about it happening and think it's horrible, but when someone in my real life has had this problem they have always received care. I honestly wonder if every single person in Canada (or any place with UHC) receives the care they think they should 100% of the time. Again, there are many reasons I am for UHC, but I get why some don't understand the bigger problem. I've never faced it, and I've never known anyone (with or without insurance) to face it.

 

But caring for the uninsured and passing the costs on to the insured is one of the reasons health care costs are spiraling out of control for everyone in the US and consuming a larger portion of our GDP than any other industrialized nation.

[Joker]

But caring for the uninsured and passing the costs on to the insured is one of the reasons health care costs are spiraling out of control for everyone in the US and consuming a larger portion of our GDP than any other industrialized nation.

 

The uninsured I'm talking about that received treatment couldn't have afforded insurance. I'm not against a lot of the UHC that will be taking place, but I don't think it's going to fix anything. Those I know would still be treated and still be unable to contribute. Costs are too high for everything and I don't think the existing plan will fix it.

[Frances]

The uninsured I'm talking about that received treatment couldn't have afforded insurance. I'm not against a lot of the UHC that will be taking place, but I don't think it's going to fix anything. Those I know would still be treated and still be unable to contribute. Costs are too high for everything and I don't think the existing plan will fix it.

 

I agree that the existing plan is definitely not the perfect fix and it is not UHC. I'm arguing for UHC like they have in Canada, Australia, and other industrialized countries. We don't need a patchwork of fixes, we need all out reform in the US. And this may be too political, but I see a better chance of that from the left than from the right, although I doubt it will ever actually happen in the US. And that makes me very sad.

[Haiku]

The system isn't the same UK, Canada, Japan and Australia, right? Right.

 

But the common denominator in all these countries is that people believe that their fellow countrymen deserve healthcare regardless of their financial situation. They start with that basic premise and craft a system that works for that country. Unless people in the US believe this, it will be very hard to change the system. As long as people continue in the (disproven) belief that for-profit companies are the best healthcare delivery system, any attempt to craft a workable solution will be opposed and hindered.

 

America, number 1 in healthcare expenditures, number 37 in performance. Outranked by Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, among others.

 

Tara

[Dory]

Basically, Americans won't be able to afford gasoline at $7-8/gal. That will kill the middle class. Our rich won't be phased by high gas prices, and our low-income won't feel the pinch as much, either.

 

Canada drills and the US buys their oil. The US won't drill, but we do pay other countries to drill, AND we have to buy oil from other countries.

 

Also, how do UHC countries deal with druggies who use the ER to get their fix?

 

You can't just get a drug because you are going through withdrawal. If they have something legitimately wrong with them, then they would get what they need regardless of their dependency. If there's nothing legitimately wrong though, than they will be denied the medication. I know with some doctors if they think a patient is becoming too dependent on a medication, they will usually switch them to something else.

[Haiku]

I'm not against a lot of the UHC that will be taking place

 

We have no UHC that will be taking place.

 

Tara

[TranquilMind]

Dory: I love it because I know that no matter where we are financially, or what has happened, I have access to medical care. I went in just this past weekend because of a persistent cough and it won't cost me a dime. I have never had to pay for hospital care to have a baby, or have stitches, or anything else for that matter. Well, not really, I did have to pay for my boys circumcisions.

I would hate to worry about insurance, or if I'm covered or how much insurance costs per month. My SIL's family couldn't afford insurance and as a result she has a lot of health problems that would've been easier to deal with if they had been cared for earlier.

 

This is the way it should be. I don't know how we got into this system, or how it went south so fast. I found a bill that my Mom had for giving birth in the 50's. It was $158, if I recall correctly. Today, it is what, 10 grand, with wages actually being lower (correcting for inflation and all that) than they were then.

 

It's just ridiculous. I do think if we removed the insurance company billion dollar racket and went direct, that it could be improved, but care for everyone would certainly be best, so I understand why those who have it love it.

 

BTW, I had an appendix blowout late last year. The charge was $45,000 for six days, excluding the $6500 for IV meds afterward!

[Audrey]

I find it interesting that people are saying, essentially, "UHC might work for you, but it won't work for us." Is there something so awful about Americans that we will destroy a system that's proven effective?

 

Tara

Sadly, yes.

 

It's already happened. You aren't getting UHC. You're getting some pre-compromised placebo.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Audrey

[Frances]

But the common denominator in all these countries is that people believe that their fellow countrymen deserve healthcare regardless of their financial situation. They start with that basic premise and craft a system that works for that country. Unless people in the US believe this, it will be very hard to change the system. As long as people continue in the (disproven) belief that for-profit companies are the best healthcare delivery system, any attempt to craft a workable solution will be opposed and hindered.

 

America, number 1 in healthcare expenditures, number 37 in performance. Outranked by Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, among others.

 

Tara

 

:iagree::iagree:

[fraidycat]

The uninsured I'm talking about that received treatment couldn't have afforded insurance. I'm not against a lot of the UHC that will be taking place, but I don't think it's going to fix anything. Those I know would still be treated and still be unable to contribute. Costs are too high for everything and I don't think the existing plan will fix it.

 

Were all of these people completely unemployed? Because being able to afford insurance and being employed are two different things. If any of the three were employed, they would have already contributed through taxes.

 

Also, costs would go down. Why? Because a single insurer would set the rate that they would pay. Period. End of story. A doctor visit would be maxed at a certain rate. How it stands now there are different rates to visit a doctor. Fully insured = $$. Insured w/co-pay = $$$. Cash = $$$$. Uninsured = all of the above paying.

[justamouse]

But the common denominator in all these countries is that people believe that their fellow countrymen deserve healthcare regardless of their financial situation. They start with that basic premise and craft a system that works for that country. Unless people in the US believe this, it will be very hard to change the system. As long as people continue in the (disproven) belief that for-profit companies are the best healthcare delivery system, any attempt to craft a workable solution will be opposed and hindered.

 

America, number 1 in healthcare expenditures, number 37 in performance. Outranked by Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, among others.

 

Tara

 

Ugh, that is a national embarrassment.

[Carpe]

I'm also in Canada. From what I've heard of the US system, I would join a violent revolt to avoid that type of system in Canada.

 

Our system has issues, true, and I would like for our health care to cover more prevention, and dental care, but ultimately I have not known anyone to be denied any care that they needed to be healthy, not just to be alive.

 

I do know 4 or 5 people who went to the US for elective surgery, because they could afford it. None of them were anywhere close to necessary though, and the wait would have been less than a year.

[Joker]

We have no UHC that will be taking place.

 

Tara

 

 

I know. I started using abb. and they weren't right. Sorry.

 

What we have now isn't right, and what has been newly passed isn't going to cut it. We need something that not only covers everyone but does something about the costs. I do get it, my point is that I just don't see it ~ anywhere. I only read about it and I think that is the problem with many. I wonder why. I just recently started a new medicine and I pay only $40 dollars/month for it. The info I get from pharmacy says I saved over $300 on that one Rx. It's crazy and I see it's true online when I research. I'm upset many don't get coverage and confused as to why some that I know do get it without insurance. It seems so inconsistent. I was simply stating that I understand why some may not understand because all of the things you're stating are in direct opposition to what they're seeing.

[SKL]

Ok, let's set the anecdotes aside.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/health/deaths.health.insurance_1_health-insurance-david-himmelstein-debate-over-health-care?_s=PM:HEALTH

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSBRE85J15720120620

 

So setting aside the anecdotes, the research shows that people without insurance are 25% more likely to die than those with.

 

How much you wanna bet that demographically, people without insurance are also more likely to engage in behaviors that increase their risk of death, or have mental health issues that impact their health? Because people without insurance are less likely to have a steady job, which could be because they abuse drugs or alcohol, live in low-employment/high crime areas, are too depressed to get out of bed in the morning, etc. We know some are uninsurable because they are already sick (not saying that's OK, but it puts the 25% statistic in a different light; those folks didn't get sick because of no insurance, they have no insurance because they are sick).

 

I'm trying to remember anyone I know who has died without health insurance. The only ones I can think of died instantly in car accidents. Having health insurance would not have saved them.

[Aggie]

You can't just get a drug because you are going through withdrawal. If they have something legitimately wrong with them, then they would get what they need regardless of their dependency. If there's nothing legitimately wrong though, than they will be denied the medication. I know with some doctors if they think a patient is becoming too dependent on a medication, they will usually switch them to something else.

 

Drug addicts take up a lot of time and money in the US emergency departments.

 

This is the way it should be. I don't know how we got into this system, or how it went south so fast. I found a bill that my Mom had for giving birth in the 50's. It was $158, if I recall correctly. Today, it is what, 10 grand, with wages actually being lower (correcting for inflation and all that) than they were then.

 

It's just ridiculous. I do think if we removed the insurance company billion dollar racket and went direct, that it could be improved, but care for everyone would certainly be best, so I understand why those who have it love it.

 

BTW, I had an appendix blowout late last year. The charge was $45,000 for six days, excluding the $6500 for IV meds afterward!

 

Do you know how many physicians are sued annually? Do you know what OB/GYNs pay for malpractice insurance? NY (IIRC) almost chased all the OBs out of the state because malpractice insurance was so high. Ask your anesthesiologist what his/her malpractice insurance is per year. These costs have to be factored into their fees.

[SKL]

America, number 1 in healthcare expenditures, number 37 in performance. Outranked by Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, among others.

 

Tara

 

Sounds like our education system. But wait - that's run by the government.

[Haiku]

Sounds like our education system. But wait - that's run by the government.

 

Yup. And government-run healthcare systems in other countries outrank our private system. Are governments in other countries better managed and more efficient than ours? Or is private industry simply not the best method of healthcare delivery?

 

Tara

[Frances]

Sounds like our education system. But wait - that's run by the government.

 

As is the education system in all of the countries that outrank us in education. And comparing UHC to our current public education is comparing apples to oranges. Our publication education system is not directly controlled by or run by the federal government. While there are federal mandates and some federal money, there is much more state and local government control and money involved in our public education system. It is definitely not a one provider system.

[SKL]

As is the education system in all of the countries that outrank us in education. And comparing UHC to our current public education is comparing apples to oranges. Our publication education system is not directly controlled by or run by the federal government. While there are federal mandates and some federal money, there is much more state and local government control and money involved in our public education system. It is definitely not a one provider system.

 

And you think that if we had universal government-run healthcare in the US, the states would not be involved in it? That's not how things work in the USA. We don't have "central government" functions other than a few which are not that prominent in our daily lives. States already have their hands way into the health insurance status quo, with regulations etc. Under Obamacare, it's the states that are supposed to set up insurance pools or whatever it is. (:lol: If you lived in my state you and I could share a good laugh over that.) One of the suggestions to improve the "status quo" system (rejected by Congress) was to allow folks in state A to buy insurance from a carrier in state B.

 

As you can see from the recent lawsuits, states aren't going to sit back and let the feds take over.

 

That's just one reason we can't just transplant or copy another country's national law.

[Haiku]

That's just one reason we can't just transplant or copy another country's national law.

 

Has anyone on this thread suggested that we do that? Being in favor of UHC doesn't equal being in favor of wholesale appropriation of another country's system.

 

Tara

[SKL]

Has anyone on this thread suggested that we do that? Being in favor of UHC doesn't equal being in favor of wholesale appropriation of another country's system.

 

Tara

 

Yes, more or less. See post 176 for example.

[Laura Corin]

It's the fact that it's always there. Husband is out of work. I am working part time. Without the NHS, we would be dreading illness, just one more thing to be scared of. As it is, it's there for us in just the same way as always: Husband has had scans, several appointments, blood tests, a nurse come to the house for investigations..... all without our paying anything extra at this difficult time.

 

My mother is 88. She is a rather shut in and depressed person. She finds it hard to deal with strangers. The NHS is a comfort to her: it is a structure that she understands with a local clinic that she has been attending without worry for thirty years.

 

As I mentioned, Husband is a complete fan, despite having grown up in the US.

 

Laura

[Amazed]

This is somewhat of a s/o from the "love about your country" thread. I'm curious about the Canadians and Australians and others who listed universal health care as one of their loves. Why is this your love? What is it that you love about it? Any stories you want to share about why you love it?

 

I'm hoping this will not turn into an inflammatory topic. I am an American of the Libertarian stripe. I'm not a big fan of the move to universal healthcare here, but at the same time, I'm open to hearing the experiences of those who have been utilizing universal health for...a long time? Always?

 

I didn't read through the whole thread...it's way too long! But, one concern I have about medical care in the US in the future, is how that will affect medical training. I've not ever had UHC, as a US citizen, but I've lived in Asia for the past 15 years. A large percentage of doctors, especially at the big hospitals/teaching hospitals, have been trained in the US. I'm not sure if that's true of Canada and Britain and Australia, however. But much of the world looks to the US for medical training. Even in our remote city in a big Asian country, some of the doctors have been able to go overseas and get some medical training.

 

So, a concern is how the changes in the US medical insurance system will affect medical schools and the training that is provided there for much much of the worlds medical doctors. I have NO idea what effect there will be, but it is an important consideration!