s/o Why is your universal healthcare a love?

[Slartibartfast]

And going out your door could be a death sentence because a tree branch might fall on your head. There's sensationalism and then there's logic.

 

It costs money to live. It costs money to raise kids. Everyday, non-catastrophic health costs are simply a part of the equation. Some people aren't equipped to budget well etc., but that should not mean the whole population needs to hand over the rights and responsibilities of everyday health choices.

 

How are people giving up rights of health care choices? We aren't getting UHC. How are rights involved?

 

She's right, there are things that might be discovered in a check up that could be life threatening.

 

The situation is far beyond budgeting, I don't even know why you would say that. My husband and I both had decent jobs when I was pregnant with ds. We knew we could "afford" another child. It was a complicated pregnancy and we have a baby with a heart condition, suddenly we are struggling.

 

Everyone is one medical crisis away from serious financial problems. You cannot budget for that. The number ONE reason people go bankrupt is medical bills.

 

We do have insurance. That doesn't mean it covers every dime.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Sis

[SKL]

My examples of type 1 diabetes, asthma, and fused skull bones are not senationalism. I know a child with each of these, in my small circle of friends. These are not rare one in a million things. If my friend's child with diabetes wasn't being managed very very very carefully with expensive monitors and such he would be dead. My sister and I both had asthma as children,and my niece has it now. If my parents had delayed too long with treating it she could have died. My friend's daughter's skull bones fused too early...and it was not obvious and was only caught because she could afford regular well baby visits. If it hadn't been caught she might have lived, but with permanent brain damage. These are all in my very small circle of friends/family. These are EVERYDAY issues, not sensational stories. You say, well, they parents should have budgeted better. So you are willing to let these children DIE if their parents can't get better paying jobs or budget better???????

 

I didn't say people shouldn't take their kids to the doctor or treat everyday issues. I'm saying these are part of being a parent. Would you argue that food should be "nationalized" because kids could die if parents failed to feed them? If I'm OK with people having to pay for food at the grocery store, does that mean I think it's OK if some parents starve their children to death?

 

There are programs (both government and charitable) to subsidize health care for needy kids, just as there are food stamp programs for hungry kids. I"m sure they are not perfect, but let's target the solutions to the specific problems. The fact that my family had strep throat last year should not be your problem. The fact that someone's kid has a common illness for which drugs and monitoring are easily accessible is not a national catastrophe. Every family has its burdens, financial and otherwise. It's part of being human. As we raise our kids, we need to make them understand that being an adult and having a family is big stuff. They need to prepare to earn money and use it wisely. They also can learn that you can make a mistake in this country and still survive it. It may not be pleasant, but since when does life on Earth come with a full satisfaction guarantee?

[SKL]

How are people giving up rights of health care choices? We aren't getting UHC. How are rights involved?

 

She's right, there are things that might be discovered in a check up that could be life threatening.

 

The situation is far beyond budgeting, I don't even know why you would say that. My husband and I both had decent jobs when I was pregnant with ds. We knew we could "afford" another child. It was a complicated pregnancy and we have a baby with a heart condition, suddenly we are struggling.

 

Everyone is one medical crisis away from serious financial problems. You cannot budget for that. The number ONE reason people go bankrupt is medical bills.

 

We do have insurance. That doesn't mean it covers every dime.

 

I think this discussion is getting too long and fragmented for me to continue. I feel like I'm saying the same things repeatedly and not being heard / understood. In response to your question, I repeat that people need insurance for things that go beyond a reasonable level of risk tolerance, and not for everything else. What a "reasonable level of risk tolerance" is may be up for debate. If you're willing to pay thousands per capita to fund administrative costs for what most people could do themselves, your opinion will be different from mine.

 

It's true that health issues can create financial problems in the current structure. (This could be fixed, but nobody seems interested in a targeted fix.) But lots of folks have financial issues regardless of health issues. Americans need to get more responsible financially, not less. If your kid is spilling his milk too often, you don't give up and have him drink from a bottle for the rest of his life. I mean, yeah, that would solve the problem of spilled milk, but at what cost?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Honestly that scares the ever lovin crap out of me. I have seen the care many people on Medicare get and it sucks. Why the heck anyone would wish that nightmare for everyone is beyond me.

 

In my mind, Medicare is what the desperate who have no other choice use. And it's that way for a reason. Everyone I've ever met on Medicare want a job with affordable private insurance so they can access better care.

 

I don't know if it would make a difference to the drs that I know who don't take any insurance at all, including state Medicaid. They don't want to deal with the overhead of paying someone to file claims and such. That wouldn't change.

 

Both of my parents have gotten world class care with medicare and are alive because of it. My dad had open heart surgery and my mom has seen cancer specialists and treatment at U of Penn and Sloan Kettering without any problems despite having to travel to these specialists. They have received cutting edge care without any problems all thanks to medicare.

 

OTOH, when they had no insurance or private insurance it was a nightmare:(.

Edited July 16, 2012 by priscilla

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't say people shouldn't take their kids to the doctor or treat everyday issues. I'm saying these are part of being a parent. Would you argue that food should be "nationalized" because kids could die if parents failed to feed them? If I'm OK with people having to pay for food at the grocery store, does that mean I think it's OK if some parents starve their children to death?

 

There are programs (both government and charitable) to subsidize health care for needy kids, just as there are food stamp programs for hungry kids. I"m sure they are not perfect, but let's target the solutions to the specific problems. The fact that my family had strep throat last year should not be your problem. The fact that someone's kid has a common illness for which drugs and monitoring are easily accessible is not a national catastrophe. Every family has its burdens, financial and otherwise. It's part of being human. As we raise our kids, we need to make them understand that being an adult and having a family is big stuff. They need to prepare to earn money and use it wisely. They also can learn that you can make a mistake in this country and still survive it. It may not be pleasant, but since when does life on Earth come with a full satisfaction guarantee?

 

It isn't the parents of needy kids who are struggling, it is the middle class people who don't qualify for services.

 

You don't have to care about other people's kids. I am sure that isn't something some people are capable of but middle class parents shouldn't be going broke because their kids get sick. It most certainly IS a crisis. Telling people they should "be adults" over hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills is so extreme I cannot even fathom it.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Sis

[nmoira]

The mechanism by which it's determined what's "needed" is what I'm talking about when I say "approval of services."

If a procedure is covered (i.e. not excluded) under the plan, it's covered. It's that simple. No pre-authorization or prior approval is necessary except for optional (i.e. non-emergency) out-of-country services.

 

I'm from Ontario, Canada, and can only speak to coverage there. A number of procedures are not covered, such as non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery, and procedures deemed experimental (the Ministry reviews this regularly). Some items are not covered completely, such as durable medical equipment and private hospital rooms. However, each of my parents had 75% of the costs of a wheelchair covered (nice ones... they got to choose according to the "25%" they could afford), and my mother had two good-quality walkers covered.

Edited July 16, 2012 by nmoira

[SKL]

It isn't the parents of needy kids who are struggling, it is the middle class people who don't qualify for services.

 

You don't have to care about other people's kids. I am sure that isn't something some people are capable of but middle class parents shouldn't be going broke because their kids get sick. It most certainly IS a crisis.

 

Again with the personal attacks.

 

Like I said, thousands per capita for unnecessary administration. I'm sure that makes the pie bigger for all parents and children.

[Slartibartfast]

I think this discussion is getting too long and fragmented for me to continue. I feel like I'm saying the same things repeatedly and not being heard / understood. In response to your question, I repeat that people need insurance for things that go beyond a reasonable level of risk tolerance, and not for everything else. What a "reasonable level of risk tolerance" is may be up for debate. If you're willing to pay thousands per capita to fund administrative costs for what most people could do themselves, your opinion will be different from mine.

 

It's true that health issues can create financial problems in the current structure. (This could be fixed, but nobody seems interested in a targeted fix.) But lots of folks have financial issues regardless of health issues. Americans need to get more responsible financially, not less. If your kid is spilling his milk too often, you don't give up and have him drink from a bottle for the rest of his life. I mean, yeah, that would solve the problem of spilled milk, but at what cost?

 

So my son with heart condition is spilled milk? He will be uninsurable for his entire life. I would appreciate a write up for how he can pay for the heart transplant he may need when he grows older and incapable of obtaining insurance. He will need to pay for that out of pocket.

 

You are being heard, you are being disagreed with. You keep discussing financial planning and budgeting with people whose medical bills cost more than their homes. I don't understand where you are coming from at all. My family is not low income and has never received medicaid/welfare/foodstamps/wic

Edited July 16, 2012 by Sis

[bcnlvr]

IMO, It boils down to whether or not one believes healthcare is a right. One cannot espouse fundamental and sweeping change without a fundamental change in worldview.

 

It also ties into a couple of other big things:

 

~Fear: of losing control, losing something you have, or not getting something you want. Trying something new, change, etc. The fear-mongering in this country is astonishing.

 

~Pervasive and Extreme Individualism (ecocentrism): NOT to be confused with freedom.

 

I am American and currently live in the US. I pay very little for health insurance ($460/year family plan). I have a healthy family. HOWEVER, I *AM* a proponent of UHC AND even NHC. To me, it's the next step of a civilized society. I hope I live to see the day. I certainly vote toward that end.

 

I also grew up in a country that had socialized healthcare (Ministry of Health provided ALL services). Health as a basic need (see Maslow) is a different animal from healthcare as a business with a profit to be made. Completely different animal, indeed.

 

I truly believe that healthcare should be divorced from making a profit.

Edited July 16, 2012 by bcnlvr

[SKL]

So my son with heart condition is spilled milk? He will be uninsurable for his entire life. I would appreciate a write up for how he can pay for the heart transplant he may need when he grows older and incapable of obtaining insurance. He will need to pay for that out of pocket.

 

You are being heard, you are being disagreed with. You keep discussing financial planning and budgeting with people whose medical bills cost more than their homes.

 

Obviously you are not understanding me if you think I am saying that "medical bills that cost more than their homes" are not risks that should be spread/shared.

 

It's a lost cause, I am not coming back to this thread.

[justLisa]

The problem is there just is not enough money to go around. If you try to pass it out to everyone, everyone has very, very little. Not saying I know how to solve it.

 

OTOH, my MIL suffered a horrible accident in ON, Canada, and she spent far too long on the waiting list for the procedures she needed. There were just so many people waiting for the same thing.

 

It just stinks. I think everyone should be able to receive care they need, I just don't see how it's possible.

 

My sis is lucky enough to have received some pro bono dental work. But it is because my mom is at the top of the administration for the community health center and asked a dentist friend. But that is charity. It came out of his pocket/time.

[Slartibartfast]

Obviously you are not understanding me if you think I am saying that "medical bills that cost more than their homes" are not risks that should be spread/shared.

 

It's a lost cause, I am not coming back to this thread.

 

But it isn't unusual. A lot of people are in the same boat.

[LittleIzumi]

It isn't the parents of needy kids who are struggling, it is the middle class people who don't qualify for services.

 

You don't have to care about other people's kids. I am sure that isn't something some people are capable of but middle class parents shouldn't be going broke because their kids get sick. It most certainly IS a crisis. Telling people they should "be adults" over hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills is so extreme I cannot even fathom it.

 

Or the actual parents of the needy kids. Kids get Medicaid. I don't. Hubby has insurance through work but to add me would multiply the premium exponentially. We don't have hundreds of dollars sitting around that could be rebudgeted. I do like having the lights on. And eating. :tongue_smilie:

[Slartibartfast]

Or the actual parents of the needy kids. Kids get Medicaid. I don't. Hubby has insurance through work but to add me would multiply the premium exponentially. We don't have hundreds of dollars sitting around that could be rebudgeted. I do like having the lights on. And eating. :tongue_smilie:

 

That too. :(

[Cassy]

IMO, It boils down to whether or not one believes healthcare is a right. One cannot espouse fundamental and sweeping change without a fundamental change in worldview.

 

It also ties into a couple of other big things:

 

~Fear: of losing control, losing something you have, or not getting something you want. Trying something new, change, etc. The fear-mongering in this country is astonishing.

 

~Pervasive and Extreme Individualism (ecocentrism): NOT to be confused with freedom.

 

I am American and currently live in the US. I pay very little for health insurance ($460/year family plan). I have a healthy family. HOWEVER, I *AM* a proponent of UHC AND even NHC. To me, it's the next step of a civilized society. I hope I live to see the day. I certainly vote toward that end.

 

I also grew up in a country that had socialized healthcare (Ministry of Health provided ALL services). Health as a basic need (see Maslow) is a different animal from healthcare as a business with a profit to be made. Completely different animal, indeed.

 

I truly believe that health should be divorced from making a profit.

 

:iagree: Yes, this, absolutely.

[Impish]

I think for me, I truly, in my heart of hearts, believe that health care is a fundamental right.

 

I also believe that all ppl are created equal.

 

The idea, therefore, that not all ppl can have the same access to medical treatment is mind boggling.

 

It's saying that if you have more $, you are more valuable than those w/out.

 

It's a gross inequality. I don't see how ppl can ignore that, or discount it, or whatever.

[Brilliant]

Are there really people in the US who truly get to choose their own doctors?

 

Yes. I don't understand why you think there aren't?

 

I have had different PPOs over the last 24 years. We have always managed to find primary doctors, as well as specialists, that we like and who are on the plan. Last year I decided to go to a specialist who wasn't on the plan. It wasn't life threatening and it was a choice I made to go to a recommended dr. I had to pay more out of pocket. Don't we make cost/benefit decisions in everyday life about everything?

[nmoira]

OTOH, my MIL suffered a horrible accident in ON, Canada, and she spent far too long on the waiting list for the procedures she needed. There were just so many people waiting for the same thing.

Could you give an example of what she was waiting for and how long?

[justLisa]

Could you give an example of what she was waiting for and how long?

 

I don't know exactly. She needed an MRI in the beginning. She had a box fall from a high shelf on her neck/shoulder. She was pretty much immobile for 2 weeks I know waiting, but I don't know how long after that. I think it was an ongoing issue. She needed some PT after that, and had a hard time scheduling. I of course do not know all the details but it is not the first time they have ran in to this type of problem with prolonged waiting because they could not find the needed services.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I don't know exactly. She needed an MRI in the beginning. She had a box fall from a high shelf on her neck/shoulder. She was pretty much immobile for 2 weeks I know waiting, but I don't know how long after that. I think it was an ongoing issue. She needed some PT after that, and had a hard time scheduling. I of course do not know all the details but it is not the first time they have ran in to this type of problem with prolonged waiting because they could not find the needed services.

 

It took a family member over a month to get a ordered PT appointment in a major US city. Another went to a specialist who is booked for 6 months to a year out. I went to one who to get an appointment took 6 months. All in the US and all in big cities. These stories of waiting happen here too and I often think it may be a function of where you live instead of being the fault of Canadian insurance.

[justLisa]

It took a family member over a month to get a ordered PT appointment in a major US city. Another went to a specialist who is booked for 6 months to a year out. I went to one who to get an appointment took 6 months. All in the US and all in big cities. These stories of waiting happen here too and I often think it may be a function of where you live instead of being the fault of Canadian insurance.

 

Yeah I have no idea. I don' t live there and don't really know enough about each of their medical needs. I do know however, that when my FIL had a serious condition (it was hush so not saying what) he did get the treatment he needed. They came to Ca as immigrants with nothing and over 40, so it would have broke them :(

[Trez]

There does seem to be a different mindset amongst some who believe that people should plan or only pay for what they use. Taken to the extreme with other services should our tax payments be reduced if we don`t make as much use of police/fire/educational/public infrastructure as others? I guess I see healthcare in the same way as police/fire services. They are essential services. We may not all need them to the same extent but if I need them, I know I can count on being able to receive care.

 

The inital post asked if those of us with UHC where happy/proud of our healthcare and reading through this thread so far, I don't believe anyone from a country with UHC has replied negatively.

[BinahYeteirah]

Many members of my family are dual American-Australian citizens. My in-laws can choose freely whether to live here in the US or in Australia. They have family in both locations and homes in both locations. They choose to live in Australia in part because of the availability, affordability, and quality of healthcare in Australia, despite having Medicare coverage in the US. There have been times when they have needed to wait for some services, but they've never been tempted to come back to the US for healthcare-related reasons. They travel here regularly to visit family and take care of business/investment responsibilities, but they always seem to return to Australia if they have anything beyond the most minor health needs. They are getting older and do have some health concerns, so it's not that they just don't need much. Their choices speak volumes to me.

[MSNative]

There does seem to be a different mindset amongst some who believe that people should plan or only pay for what they use. Taken to the extreme with other services should our tax payments be reduced if we don`t make as much use of police/fire/educational/public infrastructure as others? I guess I see healthcare in the same way as police/fire services. They are essential services. We may not all need them to the same extent but if I need them, I know I can count on being able to receive care.

 

The inital post asked if those of us with UHC where happy/proud of our healthcare and reading through this thread so far, I don't believe anyone from a country with UHC has replied negatively.

 

Yes, because the post asked for replies from people who loved their UHC. I have bad stories about living under UHC in England but didn't post 'cause that didn't seem to be the point of this thread.

 

As far as UHC/NHS or whatever you want to call it, people can be against it for many reasons. I may want better healthcare for all but I don't think that adding thousands more IRS agents is the way to achieve that goal. I am displeased with public education in my area, long waits and unhelpful people at the DMV, poor roads and crumbling bridges, etc. Given all of this, I don't want more government involvement in healthcare. That doesn't mean that I think that people should die in the streets or go bankrupt because of medical bills. Just means I think there are many other ways that ought to have been explored.

[Colleen in NS]

Maybe we are defining "approval of services" differently. How are you defining it? I'm talking about being able to go and request a service (or have your doctor recommend a specialized service) and having it be up to someone else whether and when you get to have that service.

 

Again, I think the mentality is different in Canada. We don't see medical care as a service to be purchased. We see it as a need to be taken care of. If we have medical need, we seek it out. We tell the doctor what our problem is, we listen to what the doctor has to say about it, we sometimes discuss other options if we've done some research, we come to a conclusion about what course of treatment to do.

 

I know that people on this board are intelligent enough to understand that "more likely to" does not mean "everyone in this group does."

 

But not being able to afford basic checkups or a sick visit could be a death sentence for those kids.

 

And going out your door could be a death sentence because a tree branch might fall on your head. There's sensationalism and then there's logic.

 

People on this board are also intelligent enough to understand that "could be a death sentence" does not mean "is a death sentence." She is not being sensational - she is talking about the reality of MANY people in the States - people who keep putting off intuition that they need to seek medical care, and don't because of not being able to afford it. I bet for most of those people, this not being able to afford it has nothing to do with stupid budgeting choices or laziness in preparing to earn a living.

 

The mechanism by which it's determined what's "needed" is what I'm talking about when I say "approval of services."

 

Not to give too much weight to anecdotes, but we all know about the baby who was refused treatment in Canada for a brain condition and came to the US for treatment. Clearly that there is some mechanism approving and rejecting coverage for requested services. I'm not saying there should not be, but you seemed to be claiming that in Canada, that does not happen (as a reason why it's better up there).

 

My experience here has been that if a doctor decides something is "needed," then it is approved/covered. For example, my daughter once went to a local Emerg dept. because of swallowing a ring - x-ray showed it was still in her neck area. She then needed to go to the specialized children's hospital I previously mentioned, to have it extracted. But there was danger of it sliding into a lung, so we could not transport her. The Emerg doctor ordered an ambulance for her. Normally, one pays for ambulance services, but because the doc deemed it medically necessary, it was covered by our provincial health plan. (incidentally, a second x-ray at the children's hospital showed that the ring had moved into her intestine, so she didn't need to have it extracted)

 

I feel like I'm saying the same things repeatedly and not being heard / understood.

 

You *are* saying the same things repeatedly, and many of us understand the things you are saying - we just don't agree with your mentality.

 

I think for me, I truly, in my heart of hearts, believe that health care is a fundamental right.

 

I also believe that all ppl are created equal.

 

The idea, therefore, that not all ppl can have the same access to medical treatment is mind boggling.

 

It's saying that if you have more $, you are more valuable than those w/out.

 

It's a gross inequality. I don't see how ppl can ignore that, or discount it, or whatever.

 

And THIS illustrates my answer to the thread question "why is my universal health care a love" - because the entire mentality is different from the one I grew up with. It puts emphasis on human beings, not dollars.

[Bluegoat]

Somebody must be billing someone, or how are services compensated? I'm not even talking about billing the end user. I'm talking about providers billing the Medicare system, for example.

 

But even if that's truly never an issue, there's still the issue of being approved for services, which is related to billing in the US but still exists on its own elsewhere.

 

I think it's great that they have the catastrophic piece figured out. We need to get that figured out too. But for everyday stuff, what is the big problem with having a bill? Are humans so "evolved" now that we can't deal with bills for everyday expenses? Why don't we also cover all food, housing and everything else because someone someday might have difficulty planning or recovering from an unexpected minor bump in the road? I just had to buy my kids a bunch of school clothes and shoes, and now I have a big bill that I'd rather not have. Oh well! I could have chosen cheaper clothes or fewer kids or a school with a more budget-friendly dress code.

 

I think we should be going in the opposite direction where an individual can directly make choices and pay the logical costs of those choices within a reasonable range of expectations. I do not appreciate having to pay higher insurance rates because state law requires my insurance to cover things I will never use. As much as I think family size, fertility treatments, etc. are each family's business, I don't think it should hit my pocketbook if the next-door neighbors want to try for number five or want to go on the pill to avoid number two. And I don't want to pay for their drug rehab either. And no, I don't think people should go to the doctor for every sniffle, but if they do, they should pay for that. The point of insurance is to spread risks, not to shift responsibility and not to transfer wealth, either. Funny thing about US politics, every government program that claims to promote overall human welfare ends up being a wealth-shifting mechanism.

 

I have a kid who is very healthy but has learning issues that are not covered by insurance. I don't need to take her to the doctor as often as the average kid goes, so I think I should be able to direct that part of my budget to her therapies. Instead I pay for both and only use one. That's not ideal. (And if our HMO is any indication, my kid would not even qualify for a referral to be tested if I had to rely on insurance / government payments to support the vision stuff. Because she hasn't bombed in school yet. :glare:)

 

I don't think it's wrong that people consider money when deciding to treat at home or go to a doctor for minor stuff. (It isn't always about money, either. In my case it is more likely to be about time limitations.) That's like saying vegetables should be free because nobody should have to consider money when choosing between beans and asparagus. I do think it's wrong that the cost of a quick office visit to rule out dangerous illness is so high in the USA. But as has been discussed before, this is really because we use "insurance" for everyday stuff, running up costs and removing the end user's reasoning from the equation.

 

And there's also been a threat that if we don't use the "preventative" services that are covered, we may not get coverage for major illnesses, even though we pay into the system. So there would be less room for making a personal decision, e.g., choosing not to go for "well visits" or get pap tests.

 

 

I can't speak for other countries, but in Canada the doctor or his staff bills the health insurer - the province, for whatever care you've received (unless it is something not covered like an elective circumcision. Then the individual or occasionally a private plan is billed.)

 

The fee for each service is set in negotiations between the doctors and the province every few years.

 

This system for billing is actually pretty important for the system because it is very simple - it is done the same way in every office or clinic or hospital in each province, records are kept in the same sort of formats, and so on. It is a significant source of savings for the system, the number of people involved in the billing and accounting system is much smaller than in a system with many private insurers and many different plans. (In fact IIRC it may be one of the largest single sources of savings.)

 

People in UHS are not, statistically, more likely to go to the doctor for frivolous reasons.

[Sun]

I've lived in both the US and a country with UHC. I've always had excellent insurance coverage in the US, and I still much preferred UHC. While living where I had UHC, I went to the doctor once and the clerk mentioned that the government health system hadn't paid for a previous visit of mine, about a year earlier. I immediately got worried because I'd had that happen when I had insurance, and it was usually bad news--late fees, negative credit reports, etc. I asked what I needed to do, and the clerk said, "Nothing. We'll just resubmit. No worries!" That's when I realized how different the two systems were.

 

With UHC, I never had to worry about whether insurance had paid or not or whether they had paid the correct amount. I didn't have to worry about what my share of a bill would be and whether I'd be able to afford it (ever try to figure out what some medical visit or procedure will actually cost you in the US? It's not easy!). I didn't have to worry about my insurance paying but doing it so slowly that the medical office reports my account to a credit agency as delinquent first. It was just much, much easier.

 

I have older relatives who are US citizens but choose to live in a UHC country.This is despite them being old enough to be eligible for Medicare. They've experienced both systems and much prefer the UHC--to the extent that they will not move back to the US.

[Sun]

I must say, I love all the comments coming out here about how UHC countries like Canada review procedures and determine who is eligible. This happens in the US all the time. There are very, very few insurance programs in the US that allow you to see any provider for any service at any time. Insurers decide all the time which procedures and visits they will cover. Their contracts determine which providers they will cover, which in turn determines who you can see without paying for it all yourself.

 

So a Canadian family brought their child to the US for a procedure. So what? I can walk into the bank in my neighborhood or a random gas station pretty much anywhere, and there's a pretty good chance I'll see a can soliciting donations for some sick American child who needs some sort of expensive health care that his family can't afford. You've heard a few apocryphal stories of Canadians coming to the US for health care--what about the much more common stories in your own state of people who need treatment they can't afford?

[Bluegoat]

As ar as my answer to the OP - I like UHC because of the peace of mind it gives us. I like it because it is an expression of love. I like it because it does not view people as commodities.

 

And, despite the fears of some, I like it because it makes more economic sense. Bankruptcies are not bad only for those actually going through them, and fear of loss of health coverage can negatively impact new and small business and those who want to try experimental or innovative businesses.

 

It also allows for people to take low-paying or sometimes non-paying roles in society that contribute in important ways.

[Mrs Mungo]

Obviously you are not understanding me if you think I am saying that "medical bills that cost more than their homes" are not risks that should be spread/shared.

 

 

What ARE you saying, then? What is *your suggestion* for how such situations should be handled? Kids with life threatening conditions who cannot be insured as adults and will not be able to simply pay for their healthcare out of pocket-what do you suggest?

 

Adults who develop life threatening illnesses (such as Joanne's husband) and need regular health care and expensive maintenance medications to keep them stable, but lose their insurance due to job loss and cannot possibly pay out of pocket because it is too expensive-what do you suggest?

 

I do not see any actual suggestions from you on how those situations should be handled. I only see you discussing budgeting and such. What is your plan for those situations where budgeting is a laughable suggestion?

[Bluegoat]

Something else I'd like to point out, UHC doesn't have to be run federally. Here the federal government has a relatively small role in mandating a certain level of care by provinces and in transferring funds to some poorer regions so they can accomplish that.

 

Provinces are the insurer and negotiate with care providers for fees and are involved in arms reach panels to decide on insurable services and such. They provide some hospital funding.

 

Hospitals and coordinating services are run by health regions and they get additional funds from municipalities, the community, charity, etc. Health clinics may be run by local communities.

 

Doctors and many other service providers are private businesses.

 

I would expect the US, if they adopted a UHS system, would have the state as the insurer, just based on the size of the population. But the whole system doesn't have to be run or legislated at one level and probably it shouldn't be in most situations.

[Paige]

I must say, I love all the comments coming out here about how UHC countries like Canada review procedures and determine who is eligible. This happens in the US all the time. There are very, very few insurance programs in the US that allow you to see any provider for any service at any time. Insurers decide all the time which procedures and visits they will cover. Their contracts determine which providers they will cover, which in turn determines who you can see without paying for it all yourself.

 

So a Canadian family brought their child to the US for a procedure. So what? I can walk into the bank in my neighborhood or a random gas station pretty much anywhere, and there's a pretty good chance I'll see a can soliciting donations for some sick American child who needs some sort of expensive health care that his family can't afford. You've heard a few apocryphal stories of Canadians coming to the US for health care--what about the much more common stories in your own state of people who need treatment they can't afford?

 

These people (that I know) are coming to the US because even if they could afford it, they couldn't have the procedure in their country. Either it isn't done there or the doctors will not see them even if they paid out of pocket. At least in the US if your insurance denies you, the doctors will still see you if you can come up with the money. Most of the time, doctors here will try to work with you to help you afford things too. No amount of money will allow these other kids to have the surgery in their own country once the universal healthcare people turn them down.

 

FWIW, most of the people I know who have had such trouble in their own country have been in the UK. We have patients from other countries too, but mostly with other countries it is just that there aren't even any surgeons who can do it the way it is done here.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Paige

[justLisa]

I wonder what health care providers think about it? Has anyone talked or asked? My mom works admin for a community health center and I know all of them are supportive, but they are just one group I know of.

[QueenCat]

So my son with heart condition is spilled milk? He will be uninsurable for his entire life. I would appreciate a write up for how he can pay for the heart transplant he may need when he grows older and incapable of obtaining insurance. He will need to pay for that out of pocket.

 

You are being heard, you are being disagreed with. You keep discussing financial planning and budgeting with people whose medical bills cost more than their homes. I don't understand where you are coming from at all. My family is not low income and has never received medicaid/welfare/foodstamps/wic

 

Well said. My son's medical issues are different.... but the similar, disastrous outcomes without the health care reforms.

Edited July 16, 2012 by CathieC

[Lady Florida.]

Again, I think the mentality is different in Canada. We don't see medical care as a service to be purchased. We see it as a need to be taken care of.

And THIS illustrates my answer to the thread question "why is my universal health care a love" - because the entire mentality is different from the one I grew up with. It puts emphasis on human beings, not dollars.

 

Many of us here in the US have that mentality, but apparently not enough to make something happen. I do wish more people saw health care as a basic human need in today's world.

 

I find it interesting that the OP asked a question of those who live in countries with UHC, yet nearly everyone (maybe everyone, I didn't read all of the responses) who is against it does NOT live in a country with UHC.

[Paige]

I want to add, I'm sorry if I come across as argumentative. My point was just that UHC systems do deny needed procedures, but try to make it seem as if the services are not beneficial. And I do think it is about rationing and money. I've actually been in favor of UHC for a long time and I think it can be great. This past year I've seen the other side of it, however, and it does scare me a little. I think a hybrid system where doctors can still see people outside of the UHC system would be good. I think having health insurance linked to employers is horrible and the primary cause of our problems. :)

[QueenCat]

Many of us here in the US have that mentality, but apparently not enough to make something happen. I do wish more people saw health care as a basic human need in today's world.

 

I find it interesting that the OP asked a question of those who live in countries with UHC, yet nearly everyone (maybe everyone, I didn't read all of the responses) who is against it does NOT live in a country with UHC.

 

:iagree:With all of the above. It's sad when you hear people truly not care about their fellow man.

[kalanamak]

 

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!

 

I don't know the stats now, but in the recent past Russia had many students/house staff from other countries. India for one. I've worked with docs trained in Germany and the UK, too.

[bcnlvr]

I want to add, I'm sorry if I come across as argumentative. My point was just that UHC systems do deny needed procedures, but try to make it seem as if the services are not beneficial. And I do think it is about rationing and money. I've actually been in favor of UHC for a long time and I think it can be great. This past year I've seen the other side of it, however, and it does scare me a little. I think a hybrid system where doctors can still see people outside of the UHC system would be good. I think having health insurance linked to employers is horrible and the primary cause of our problems. :)

 

:iagree:

 

*A* primary cause.

[Sevilla]

I want to add, I'm sorry if I come across as argumentative. My point was just that UHC systems do deny needed procedures, but try to make it seem as if the services are not beneficial. And I do think it is about rationing and money. I've actually been in favor of UHC for a long time and I think it can be great. This past year I've seen the other side of it, however, and it does scare me a little. I think a hybrid system where doctors can still see people outside of the UHC system would be good. I think having health insurance linked to employers is horrible and the primary cause of our problems. :)

AFAIK in Australia there is UHC and then you can elect to buy additional private insurance that offers coverage for things not covered under UHC. I like the idea of that system and it makes a lot of sense to me. People with more money/resources will always have it better than those with less - but at least this way there is a more basic care available for EVERYONE instead of the dramatic 'i cannot afford to get abx for this infection b/c the dr.'s visit is too $$' divide we have right now (and then the person winds up in the ER which costs everyone more in the long run).

[Colleen in NS]

Many of us here in the US have that mentality,

 

Oops, I think I miscommunicated. Yes, I agree. I guess I was just trying to communicate that I think most (as compared to "many") Canadians have the mentality that humans come before dollar amounts. But yes, many people living in the States think the same.

 

I find it interesting that the OP asked a question of those who live in countries with UHC, yet nearly everyone (maybe everyone, I didn't read all of the responses) who is against it does NOT live in a country with UHC.

 

Me, too.

 

And you know, having spent the first 25 years of my life in the States, it took me quite a few years to adjust to the different mentality here in Canada. I mean, I was soooooooo grateful to be able to get medical care without financial worries - but it took living here for years for me to see the viewpoint and to not feel like I was being looked down upon for not having to worry about the finances of medical care. I guess it's hard for some to understand the mentality here, if they haven't lived it.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Colleen in NS

[EKS]

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 think it's great that you have excellent coverage. Now how would you feel if you were, for whatever reason, to lose that coverage?

[Mergath]

I don't know that it is that people don't care, but I don't know how else to interpret it. I'm trying not to interpret it that way. I have a hard time believing it's that. But again, I don't know what it is. I can't understand why people don't want better access to healthcare for more people. Maybe they don't like the current plan/idea. But they don't offer anything else, or they offer solutions that only people with plenty of money can take advantage of.

 

I'm sure they care about the needs of others to some extent. They just care about their own wants a heck of a lot more.

[EKS]

Apparently Medicare seems to work quite well... I have not heard from seniors who rally to have their socialist, government-facilitated health care abolished. They seem quite comfortable with it

 

I know. I think it's so bizarre how people claim that government healthcare won't work in the US and yet it has been working just fine for years.

 

The infrastructure is in place for government healthcare already. Just extend Medicare to everyone.

[celticmom]

 

And there's also been a threat that if we don't use the "preventative" services that are covered, we may not get coverage for major illnesses, even though we pay into the system. So there would be less room for making a personal decision, e.g., choosing not to go for "well visits" or get pap tests.

 

This is what frightens me most about a single-payer system. I have been without insurance and I sprained my ankle very badly while uninsured. I did not choose to go to the doctor and probably would not have even if I had had insurance(obviously this is probably not the sort of care that would be required). I recently acquired insurance and have not been to the doctor and will probably not go unless I absolutely have to. I have not been to a doctor's office in at least 7 years. There are certain tests that I will not consent to and I have never had a flu shot and have no intention of starting to take one annually either now or in the future.

[Kari C in SC]

It simply isn't true that 90% of Americans had coverage previously. I'm an economist that works with lots of health and medical related data and that is not the reality. My training is in statistics and as we all know, you can always find statistics somewhere to support your claims.

 

Also, simply because you have insurance in the US does not mean that you can afford to use or access the care you need or that pre-existing conditions will be covered when you need it. Here's an example from my own life. Good friends of ours spent three years in Australia and when they returned to the US, the husband immediately starting working for his old company and signed up and started paying for the group health insurance offered by his employer. One month later he was diagnosed with liver cancer and immediately started treatment. Unfortunately, he died three months later, leaving a wife and three young children. The insurance company did not pay a dime. Why? Because they said it was a pre-existing condition, and he had not been insured for the one year required to cover that particular pre-existing condition. Even though he didn't know he had liver cancer when he started his job, they determined it must have existed prior to his diagnosis given the advanced stage of the disease.

 

Someone mentioned they don't trust the government running the health insurance program and believe in free markets. But insurance companies have every incentive to insure healthy people and not insurance sick people in order to keep profits up. What happens when you lose your job (and insurance) when pregnant with a child who turns out to have multiple medical needs. Now try buying health insurance in the open market. Why would any insurance company sell it to you for a reasonable price? Your only hope is to find another job with health insurance that will at some point cover your child's pre-existing conditions. Or if you start running through all of your savings and assets, eventually you will probably be poor enough to qualify for government insurance.

 

All of us with insurance and paying for both that and cop-pays and non-covered care are already paying for those that don't have insurance and that is one of the reasons the cost is so high. My husband works in a hospital and EVERY SINGLE DAY treats uninsured patients. Someone has to pay, the hospital can only absorb so many lost $$$. So they pass the costs on to those with insurance and the insured all pay more. And when people don't have access to free or affordable primary care, the consequences of long neglected conditions costs a lot more than good preventive care.

 

Also, part of our health care expense comes from the insurance companies. Removing them from the equations removes part of the cost. Finally, if we had true universal health care, the costs would go down because just like for medicaid and medicare, reimbursement rates would be set by the government. The profit incentive in medicine would be removed. Health care workers would still be paid reasonable salaries to compensate for their training and work, but they wouldn't be compensated for doing things like ordering unnecessary procedures to improve their bottom line or ordering numerous diagnostic tests because they are afraid of being sued.

 

Health care costs less in countries with universal health care and that is why the government can afford to pay for it while still charging less in taxes. I wish we had universal health care instead of the new system, but the democrats had to compromise or we would have been where we ended up when Clinton tried to reform healthcare - right where we started.

 

I so wish we had LIKE buttons on here.

[ktgrok]

This is what frightens me most about a single-payer system. I have been without insurance and I sprained my ankle very badly while uninsured. I did not choose to go to the doctor and probably would not have even if I had had insurance(obviously this is probably not the sort of care that would be required). I recently acquired insurance and have not been to the doctor and will probably not go unless I absolutely have to. I have not been to a doctor's office in at least 7 years. There are certain tests that I will not consent to and I have never had a flu shot and have no intention of starting to take one annually either now or in the future.

 

I've never heard of people in countries with UHC not getting medical care they need because they turn down flu shots or tests or what not.

[astrid]

I've never heard of people in countries with UHC not getting medical care they need because they turn down flu shots or tests or what not.

 

Me neither. How about it, those of you who live with UHC..... if you dont' get a flu shot, are you refused an appointment to see a doctor when you call because you're experiencing flu-like symptoms?

 

astrid

[Laura Corin]

Me neither. How about it, those of you who live with UHC..... if you dont' get a flu shot, are you refused an appointment to see a doctor when you call because you're experiencing flu-like symptoms?

 

astrid

 

My husband (asthmatic) and my mother (old) are called in for flu shots each year, but there's no compulsion.

 

My mother has high blood pressure but has refused medication. There's no suggestion that this will cause her to lose any services.

 

Laura

[SwallowTail]

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.

 

I know multiple people who have died because their insurance company refused treatments for life-threatening illnesses. One was a brilliant scientist who was only 25 years old.

 

I have insurance, I have not received medical care for multiple problems in my body, because it would be too expensive (10k deductible). I know when I did seek treatment for torn ligaments in my ankle, the doctor would not do an MRI because insurance wouldn't "want him to do so", and the ankle never healed properly, and now I have multiple problems with my feet and legs and live in debilitating pain. I almost died of pneumonia a few months ago, because I would not go to the ER due to the thousands of dollars it would have cost me. I waited three dangerous days until I could get into an urgent care center, where he treated me the best he could do, because I refused to be admitted to the hospital due to costs, again.

 

My husband just had a horrible bout with kidney stones that required an ambulance. I seriously had to walk around the house debating and trying to talk to him about whether we should spend the money for an ambulance and ER trip. We shouldn't have to make judgements like that while someone is screaming in pain thinking they are dying. It was a nightmare. :( This will definitely run us up to our deductible, and wipe out our HSA for next year too. The scary thing is that now that we know he has this tendency to form stones, it could happen again and again.

 

The lower middle class in the US gets totally shut out of medical care if they don't work for a large company. Look at Joanne's family. :(

 

In the United States, the average middle and upper class family pays more in income taxes, property taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, and insurance and medical costs than any other country in the world, and has less access to care than any other "first world" country.

 

They used to scare us out of wanting universal health care here by saying that people in Europe paid up to 40% income taxes to cover all of thes programs. Americans would never stand for such a thing. I totally bought into this line of thought, until I worked for a European company (Dutch) and spent time in The Netherlands and got to know my colleagues and observed their quality of life (awesome country!).

 

Also, currently in the US, most pay far more than 40% in all of the things I listed above. Before sales tax and property taxes, my family is at about 50-55% of our income going to taxes and insurance/medical.

 

I have completely reversed my position from previous years to basically be 100% in favor of UHC.

Edited July 16, 2012 by SwallowTail