This is Why Healthcare for Profit is Wrong

[Pawz4me]

35 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

 

I don't have any friends in Canada (nothing against Canadians, just no way to run into them smack dab in the USA, so I can't speak to that. But my mother lived in a camper and traveled the USA for 4 or 5 years before settling down in Florida for her retirement. She ran into and still runs into a lot of snowbirds from Canada. She has not found one who prefers the US medical system; they are all EXTREMELY careful to live 6 months and 1 day in Canada to retain their healthcare benefits.

We're RV'ers and over the years have talked with many Canadian snowbirding RV'ers. And we've heard the same thing as your mom over and over and over. We spoke to one man who had dual citizenship and said he'd like to live in the U.S. but health care was THE factor that kept him living in Canada.

[Paige]

7 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I've always found it interesting how many "friends" American opponents of single mayors have in Canada and other countries with a single payor, i.e. the rest of the world. I'm not sure there are enough Canadians to go around so every American can be friends with a few of them. And not only are there all of these "friends" who live in single payor countries, they all seem to have needed healthcare services. Call me skeptical...

It's a bit odd that these "friends" have horror stories about being denied care when the vast majority of the citizens of countries with single payors like their healthcare system and have no desire to have anything even remotely like the American system. ISTM that if you add the "friends" who were denied care to the "friends" who had to come to the US to receive treatment (the other claim that is often made during these discussions), that would constitute a majority of Canada. Given that Canada is a democracy, surely all of these "friends" would have gotten rid of their single payor by now if it was really all that bad. 

 

It's probably that those of us with kids with complex special needs network with other parents with similar needs. It's the special needs kids who have the most issues overseas and we hear their complaints. I can recognize that my daughter had a much easier time getting care in the US system than she would have if we were from the UK or Canada. She's lucky. I can still recognize that our system is not serving the majority of kids as well as Canada's or the UK's systems. 

But actually, in the 10yrs or so that I've been communicating with other parents and seeing how things work, I've seen a lot of positive changes in their systems. They can now get the procedure done in the UK instead of having to come here, although there is a waiting list and they are more selective with which children can have it. The parents are advocating to have the criteria expanded and there's a good chance it will be, and hopefully more doctors will be trained so more kids can be served. Parental pressure works there because the system is supposed to be for the citizens' benefit. Over here, I doubt we can convince hospitals to allow people who can't pay to just have the surgery because it's life changing. If we'd been one state over, our insurance wouldn't have covered the surgeon either, nobody else would operate on her, and we'd have to decide if she wouldn't get it or if we could self pay. It's also not really fair to compare because the surgeon who pioneered the surgery is from here- of course he's the most experienced and best and has been doing it longer than anyone. We have Americans taking their kids to Mexico and China for pioneering surgeries/treatments too. 

 

[SKL]

7 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

...

There are issues; it is not perfect.

However, I rarely recognise from my own experience what is often claimed. 

 

Same here, from a US perspective.  I have never had the problems nor has anyone I know had the problems said to be so rampant in the USA. 

Since people are probably not really informed of the actual situation in any country outside their own experience, discussions like this one tend to be futile.

That said ... I know many people from India and China (and other locations), and not one of them would prefer the non-private systems there to the US system.  Not even remotely on the same planet.  "Care for all" (just like children's rights, maternity pay, etc.) on paper is one thing - in practice is a whole other world.  However, you can go to India and get private procedures done more cheaply.  Of course, if it turns out the doc is a quack, you are SOL.  We pay a lot here for the ability to sue our doctors - and that obviously has its pros and cons.  I would love to see sensible reform in that area.  But that's off topic for a pharma thread.

[moonflower]

I am an American who has not had significant problems with health insurance, but I am pretty healthy so it is hard to say.

 

When I was poor, I was on Medicaid (when pregnant) and the kids were on Medicaid. I didn't need health care otherwise as I am fairly healthy.  If I got sick I just lived through it.  For a while when we were poor we qualified for a free health clinic care sliding scale thing at the local teaching hospital and DH got a mole biospied there for free.  Also when pregnant I got free dental care, which was great.

Then we made money and now I pay OOP for all health care except catastrophic, which I haven't used.  So I just pay $100 or so (usually less) to see a PCP if I feel it's really necessary.  Vaccinations are still free.  I think between all the kids, we've only had one emergency room situation (knee stitches, $1k or so) and everything else has been either fix at home or see the NP at a walk-in clinic or PCP at cash rate for $100 or so and the cost of the (generic) prescription. 

 

But that said, I'd totally support single payer, and I say that as a conservative. Single payer or totally private market make sense to me as viable options.  The mix of them is what is killer - government money, so no profit motive in giving out money, but private providers/insurers, so a profit motive in procuring money.  Not a great combo.  IMO same problem afflicts higher ed to some degree.  

[moonflower]

Anecdotally, I had a root canal in NZ when we lived there.  Of course I had no insurance, but no one (I was told) in NZ carries dental.  It was $600 NZD for the whole root canal.  About $450 USD at the time.  I paid cash.

Here in the US that would be $2k or so.

[Murphy101]

Our current healthcare policy is to just let people die while giving them the middle finger for not having thousands of dollars to stay alive on a daily/weekly basis.

So screw the whole rationing bs. 

Rationing would be better than this. And more equitable than this too.

And yeah, my husband has traveled internationally. We have friends all over. None of them ever want to trade for US medical. Ever.

Single payer isn’t the end of the solution, but it’s absolutley a good start. 

We also need genuine pharma reform and caps. And I’m not listening about how they need continue as they are to have R&D and profit.  That’s complete BS.  They sell the exact same things all over the world for literally pennies on the dollar compared to here.  The only reason they do that is because of our system let’s them.

 

[sweet2ndchance]

I have no idea what the answer to everything is, all I know is dh is physically disabled, on disability so we don't have much money to begin with and he has Medicaid because of his disability so we can't afford to buy better health care (oh how I wish we could). Medicaid will not pay for the $300/month medication he needs and his doctor has tried and tried to get them to approve but it is not on their preferred list. The medication they suggest she prescribe instead costs $1200/month and we have trouble finding a pharmacy willing to order it for him without at least $600 upfront which will be returned to us when Medicaid pays them... because yeah we have $600 lying around every month that we can just give to the pharmacy and wait to be paid back!

So we make due with a slightly less effective medication that Medicaid will only pay for 75 pills per month and we pay out of pocket for the 15 additional pills since dh needs to take it 3 times a day. On 31 day months, we have to pay for 18 pills. Oh and they will only pay for 3 prescriptions per month which we can get upped to 6 for dh but we have to do it, every 3 - 6 months and we don't know when they need reupped until we go to get his meds and find out they were denied. Then it takes a day or two to get them re-upped. Meanwhile dh is without meds because they will not let us refill until the day he refilled the previous month so we never know until he is out whether or not his meds are covered We've tried asking how we can know in advance so we can get his meds on time each month and they (Medicaid) claims there is no way to know until the day of the refill. If dh needs more than 6 meds in a month or a medication that can be obtained over the counter (like the stool softeners he needs because his meds cause constipation) we are out of luck and have to pay OOP. All together, we pay between $100 - $150 per month for medications just for dh between copays, OOP and OTC. Oh and every time we've looked into drug company programs for those who can't afford their medications, they are not open to Medicaid recipients, sigh. 

I wish we could have Tricare again. They only seemed like a pain to deal with but I never worried about whether or not we could afford medications or specialists. I would deal with Tricare again any day before dealing with Medicaid. If we could afford it, I would get us an Aetna plan. That's what we had when my ex-husband got out of the military. They were hands down the best and easiest insurance company I've ever dealt with.

I wish there was an easy answer to the health care problem world wide but there just isn't. Every system has it's own dark side. Ex husband's family lives in England and his grandmother was deemed "too old" for an organ transplant that would have saved her life. I don't remember how old she was, sixties or seventies maybe? Not terribly old at all, just past her prime in the government's eyes. Every system has room for improvement but I have no real ideas on how to go about it.

 

[Faith-manor]

12 minutes ago, sweet2ndchance said:

I have no idea what the answer to everything is, all I know is dh is physically disabled, on disability so we don't have much money to begin with and he has Medicaid because of his disability so we can't afford to buy better health care (oh how I wish we could). Medicaid will not pay for the $300/month medication he needs and his doctor has tried and tried to get them to approve but it is not on their preferred list. The medication they suggest she prescribe instead costs $1200/month and we have trouble finding a pharmacy willing to order it for him without at least $600 upfront which will be returned to us when Medicaid pays them... because yeah we have $600 lying around every month that we can just give to the pharmacy and wait to be paid back!

So we make due with a slightly less effective medication that Medicaid will only pay for 75 pills per month and we pay out of pocket for the 15 additional pills since dh needs to take it 3 times a day. On 31 day months, we have to pay for 18 pills. Oh and they will only pay for 3 prescriptions per month which we can get upped to 6 for dh but we have to do it, every 3 - 6 months and we don't know when they need reupped until we go to get his meds and find out they were denied. Then it takes a day or two to get them re-upped. Meanwhile dh is without meds because they will not let us refill until the day he refilled the previous month so we never know until he is out whether or not his meds are covered We've tried asking how we can know in advance so we can get his meds on time each month and they (Medicaid) claims there is no way to know until the day of the refill. If dh needs more than 6 meds in a month or a medication that can be obtained over the counter (like the stool softeners he needs because his meds cause constipation) we are out of luck and have to pay OOP. All together, we pay between $100 - $150 per month for medications just for dh between copays, OOP and OTC. Oh and every time we've looked into drug company programs for those who can't afford their medications, they are not open to Medicaid recipients, sigh. 

I wish we could have Tricare again. They only seemed like a pain to deal with but I never worried about whether or not we could afford medications or specialists. I would deal with Tricare again any day before dealing with Medicaid. If we could afford it, I would get us an Aetna plan. That's what we had when my ex-husband got out of the military. They were hands down the best and easiest insurance company I've ever dealt with.

I wish there was an easy answer to the health care problem world wide but there just isn't. Every system has it's own dark side. Ex husband's family lives in England and his grandmother was deemed "too old" for an organ transplant that would have saved her life. I don't remember how old she was, sixties or seventies maybe? Not terribly old at all, just past her prime in the government's eyes. Every system has room for improvement but I have no real ideas on how to go about it.

 

In terms of the organ transplant, we have that here. They have to be rationed because there are so many people on the wait-list and so few organs available on any given day. So they take into account all kinds of things...other health issues that may cause the person to not live at least five years, ability to care for self given the anti-rejection med routine is not forgiving, immune system function, etc. People die in this country all.the.time. when an organ match comes available but that organ has a better chance of saving someone else's life on the transplant list, or because the patient came down with a cold, an infection, anything that ramps up the immune system, is diagnosed with another issue, shows sign of other system failures, etc. So yes, it is unfortunate, but unless they can start growing a plethora of organs off stem tissue in labs, made to order to be perfect matches for everyone on the wait lists, people die. They aren't being cruel. The transplant team doesn't even make the choice of who gets it. That goes to a transplant committee of experts in the field who discuss and vote so that this life and death decision is not on the shoulders of a single person.

 

The UK didn't deny grandma just because they want to kill off old people. The reality is that past 60, the chances of surviving the surgery, managing the med routine, not rejecting,  etc. goes way down as other systems of the body start having issues. 

[sweet2ndchance]

28 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

In terms of the organ transplant, we have that here. They have to be rationed because there are so many people on the wait-list and so few organs available on any given day. So they take into account all kinds of things...other health issues that may cause the person to not live at least five years, ability to care for self given the anti-rejection med routine is not forgiving, immune system function, etc. People die in this country all.the.time. when an organ match comes available but that organ has a better chance of saving someone else's life on the transplant list, or because the patient came down with a cold, an infection, anything that ramps up the immune system, is diagnosed with another issue, shows sign of other system failures, etc. So yes, it is unfortunate, but unless they can start growing a plethora of organs off stem tissue in labs, made to order to be perfect matches for everyone on the wait lists, people die. They aren't being cruel. The transplant team doesn't even make the choice of who gets it. That goes to a transplant committee of experts in the field who discuss and vote so that this life and death decision is not on the shoulders of a single person.

 

The UK didn't deny grandma just because they want to kill off old people. The reality is that past 60, the chances of surviving the surgery, managing the med routine, not rejecting,  etc. goes way down as other systems of the body start having issues. 

 

I wasn't saying they were wrong at all. Just that she wasn't even given the chance to be on a waiting list because she didn't have the money to private pay. A lot of people assume, or at least a lot of people I've met anyways, that socialized health care means never paying privately for health care. That's just not true. If you don't agree with the government's decision for your health, you will still have to pay privately. I personally think she should have been allowed to be on the list but maybe given a low priority spot due to age, not denied all together unless she could afford to pay for her spot. She still may have died before receiving the transplant but it seems more fair to me. But that's neither here nor there, my point was socialized medicine does not mean not ever paying privately. Sorry that wasn't clear.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

Our current healthcare policy is to just let people die while giving them the middle finger for not having thousands of dollars to stay alive on a daily/weekly basis.

So screw the whole rationing bs. 

Rationing would be better than this. And more equitable than this too.

And yeah, my husband has traveled internationally. We have friends all over. None of them ever want to trade for US medical. Ever.

Single payer isn’t the end of the solution, but it’s absolutley a good start. 

We also need genuine pharma reform and caps. And I’m not listening about how they need continue as they are to have R&D and profit.  That’s complete BS.  They sell the exact same things all over the world for literally pennies on the dollar compared to here.  The only reason they do that is because of our system let’s them.

 

This. We are basically subsidizing drug development for the rest of the world because countries with universal healthcare negotiate on a grand scale for lower drug prices. So guess who is left paying whatever the drug companies can get from insurance companies or individuals? 

When our previous dog needed a chemotherapy drug commonly used by humans, our vet told us to order it directly from Canada. 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

This. We are basically subsidizing drug development for the rest of the world because countries with universal healthcare negotiate on a grand scale for lower drug prices. So guess who is left paying whatever the drug companies can get from insurance companies or individuals? 

When our previous dog needed a chemotherapy drug commonly used by humans, our vet told us to order it directly from Canada. 

 

We get our insulin from Canada. Even with insurance, it’s less than a 10th of the cost of buying here.  We pay $800 a month for insurance that we can’t afford to use. His insulin pump broke. After insurance we still owe $3800.00. They sell the exact same pump to Canadians for less than $500.  20-30% of crazy is still crazy, so I have no idea why people keep yapping that insurance = affordable or accessible healthcare. 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

Please people. If you can’t afford your meds at least try to order from out of the country. There are very reputable places to do so.  We have never had a bad batch or even bad service. The service with Marine Pharmacy of Canada has always been top notch.  Seriously. It is not an exaggeration to say we’d be homeless and dh would be at risk of death every week if we couldn’t order from Canada. 

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

Same here, from a US perspective.  I have never had the problems nor has anyone I know had the problems said to be so rampant in the USA. 

 

You don't know anyone who can't afford health insurance or has to sit and decide if they should take their sick kid to the doctor based on finances not on medical need, or anyone who has gone without needed care because they can't afford it, or who can't switch jobs because they need the health insurance or can't start up their own business because they need a group health insurance policy or ANYTHING? Either you don't know very many people at all or live in some kind of bubble. Because MOST people I know have those issues. 

3 hours ago, sweet2ndchance said:

 

I wasn't saying they were wrong at all. Just that she wasn't even given the chance to be on a waiting list because she didn't have the money to private pay.

Um, so she couldn't get it on the NHS, but had the option to pay but couldn't afford it. You realize here that she still wouldn't be able to afford it, right? Surgery there, the private kind you pay out of pocket for, is still WAY cheaper than here in the USA. 

[sweet2ndchance]

25 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Um, so she couldn't get it on the NHS, but had the option to pay but couldn't afford it. You realize here that she still wouldn't be able to afford it, right? Surgery there, the private kind you pay out of pocket for, is still WAY cheaper than here in the USA. 

 

Like I said, I have no idea what the right answer is or how to fix things, just pointing out that from my perspective, having seen the grass on both sides, neither side is greener. I can see the faults with socialized medicine and I can see the faults with our American system and I can't honestly say I would want one over the other. They both have problems since "affordable" is a very subjective term. The $100-$150 we pay for just dh's prescriptions every month would sound like a great deal to some who pay much more than that but for us, it's a lot and causes us to have to make choices every month as to what gets paid for every month. It would be nice if the medications helped dh enough to allow him to work, but they don't. We are hoping he will be approved for a charity program that will allow him to have surgery that might help but if he doesn't, we will probably have to set up a Go Fund Me for his surgery because it is ridiculously expensive and traveling to where it is less expensive, in his condition, just isn't an option physically or financially.

[SKL]

40 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

You don't know anyone who can't afford health insurance or has to sit and decide if they should take their sick kid to the doctor based on finances not on medical need, or anyone who has gone without needed care because they can't afford it, or who can't switch jobs because they need the health insurance or can't start up their own business because they need a group health insurance policy or ANYTHING? Either you don't know very many people at all or live in some kind of bubble. Because MOST people I know have those issues.

Until recent legislation, yes, it was temporarily costly for SOME people with pre-existing conditions to pay for gap insurance until their new company's insurance kicked in.  But that problem has been legislated away.

I have always advocated for a fix for that particular gap problem (and a few others).  It has nothing to do with whether or not we have a single-payer system.

Are there people who have to consider finances before deciding whether to take a kid to the doctor?  Well of course.  That is true in every country.  For many of us it's more a consideration of whether to take off work than whether we can pay.  We certainly weigh the costs, risks, benefits.  That said, people in the US tend to take their kids to the doc more than people in countries with nationalized health systems.  I actually think we do too much of it - and we give kids too many meds as well.

Edited September 14, 2018 by SKL

[Selkie]

I have relatives by marriage who are from a country with socialized medicine. They talk about the long waits for appointments, even for fairly alarming problems. For example, one of them -a postmenopausal woman- started having abnormal bleeding. She had to wait it out and bleed for three months before she could get the necessary tests.

They also say it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get permission to see specialists.

[Catwoman]

4 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

In terms of the organ transplant, we have that here. They have to be rationed because there are so many people on the wait-list and so few organs available on any given day. So they take into account all kinds of things...other health issues that may cause the person to not live at least five years, ability to care for self given the anti-rejection med routine is not forgiving, immune system function, etc. People die in this country all.the.time. when an organ match comes available but that organ has a better chance of saving someone else's life on the transplant list, or because the patient came down with a cold, an infection, anything that ramps up the immune system, is diagnosed with another issue, shows sign of other system failures, etc. So yes, it is unfortunate, but unless they can start growing a plethora of organs off stem tissue in labs, made to order to be perfect matches for everyone on the wait lists, people die. They aren't being cruel. The transplant team doesn't even make the choice of who gets it. That goes to a transplant committee of experts in the field who discuss and vote so that this life and death decision is not on the shoulders of a single person.

 

The UK didn't deny grandma just because they want to kill off old people. The reality is that past 60, the chances of surviving the surgery, managing the med routine, not rejecting,  etc. goes way down as other systems of the body start having issues. 

 

Please cite your sources for this statement. You are over-generalizing and inaccurate. 

People over 60 can and do survive several types of organ transplants, often at rates close to that of their younger counterparts. Much depends on which organ(s) are involved.

Everyone who needs an organ transplant must pass a whole battery of tests to ensure that they are likely to survive the surgery and make a good recovery. Certainly, some people over 60 aren’t able to meet those requirements due to other health issues, but there are also many younger patients who won’t qualify, either. There are some transplant centers that still have age limits, but even those centers are increasing their age limits, not decreasing them, and many centers have no age limits at all, and base their decisions on the condition of each individual patient.

I don’t know how old Sweet2ndChance’s grandma was when it was discovered that she needed a transplant, but depending on the organ she needed and her overall health at the time, she may very well have qualified to be placed on one or more transplant lists in the US. It simply isn’t something we can generalize about without considerably more information.

 

[Catwoman]

57 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Um, so she couldn't get it on the NHS, but had the option to pay but couldn't afford it. You realize here that she still wouldn't be able to afford it, right? Surgery there, the private kind you pay out of pocket for, is still WAY cheaper than here in the USA. 

 

Actually, if Grandma was over 65, Medicare and a basic secondary insurance policy would have covered 100% of the cost of her transplant surgery, hospital stay, and subsequent doctor visits. 

As odd as it may sound, in the case of transplant surgeries, being over 65 can be a big advantage from a financial standpoint.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Until recent legislation, yes, it was temporarily costly for SOME people with pre-existing conditions to pay for gap insurance until their new company's insurance kicked in.  But that problem has been legislated away.

I have always advocated for a fix for that particular gap problem (and a few others).  It has nothing to do with whether or not we have a single-payer system.

Are there people who have to consider finances before deciding whether to take a kid to the doctor?  Well of course.  That is true in every country.  For many of us it's more a consideration of whether to take off work than whether we can pay.  We certainly weigh the costs, risks, benefits.  That said, people in the US tend to take their kids to the doc more than people in countries with nationalized health systems.  I actually think we do too much of it - and we give kids too many meds as well.

No, if you have socialized medicine there is no cost to take the child to the doctor, so that is not a factor. Often here, I end up going on a Friday even when I'm not sure I need to, because if it gets worse over the weekend it will cost 5 times as much (looking at you, $200 bill for a freaking diaper rash visit on the weekend - and yes, it DID need a prescription, it was a staph infection that needed a particular antibiotic and was at the point of bleeding and could have caused cellulitis or sepsis if not treated). So my choices are go in during the week or during the day, even if not sure it is needed, or risk going at night or the weekend, when it will cost an arm and a leg, or not go. 

And I still can't believe that you no no one who has actual issues with our system, as far as not being able to afford insurance premiums plus copays, or what not. 

Your example showed that in a socialized medicine country most people would get what they needed at no out of pocket cost. Others may choose to go private, and still pay less than what it would cost pretty much everyone here. (and yes, they pay higher taxes but not higher than my premiums - I have checked as we have considered moving.)

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, Selkie said:

I have relatives by marriage who are from a country with socialized medicine. They talk about the long waits for appointments, even for fairly alarming problems. For example, one of them -a postmenopausal woman- started having abnormal bleeding. She had to wait it out and bleed for three months before she could get the necessary tests.

They also say it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get permission to see specialists.

The only socialized medical system countries I’m aware of like that are not first world countries. Every first world country and most second world countries are not nearly that bad as their norm. 

Don’t even get me started on maternal care. America sucks at providing adequate and appropriate obstetric care.  We are dead last among industrialized nations in morbity. There are literally a few second and third world countries with better maternal outcomes than in the United States. 

No one thinks we are ever going to get a perfect system or that any other country has a perfect system. 

But the bottom line is our system is broken to the point it is actually a detriment to getting healthcare to our citizens at growing numbers every year. 

And more and more it seems like those with the power to change that have simply decided the most affordable smart thing to do is let all the poor and expensive ill people die off. As long as they are doing okay and can get what they need, to hell with everyone else. 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Murphy101

[liber]

34 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

The only socialized medical system countries I’m aware of like that are not first world countries. Every first world country and most second world countries are not nearly that bad as their norm. 

Don’t even get me started on maternal care. America sucks at providing adequate and appropriate obstetric care.  We are dead last among industrialized nations in morbity. There are literally a few second and third world countries with better maternal outcomes than in the United States. 

No one thinks we are ever going to get a perfect system or that any other country has a perfect system. 

But the bottom line is our system is broken to the point it is actually a detriment to getting healthcare to our citizens at growing numbers every year. 

And more and more it seems like those with the power to change that have simply decided the most affordable smart thing to do is let all the poor and expensive ill people die off. As long as they are doing okay and can get what they need, to hell with everyone else. 

Living in Canada, I can tell you that I and my relatives have experienced what Selkie mentions.  

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, liber said:

Living in Canada, I can tell you that I and my relatives have experienced what Selkie mentions.  

Long waits are common in many areas of the USA as well. A for profit system doesn't fix that. More doctors fixes that. And here, like in Canada, it really varies depending on where you are located. 

[SKL]

The extreme language implying that most sick Americans are dying in the gutter is not likely to promote rational discussion.

I do wish people would not use such hyperbole, as it is misleading to those who don't live here, but I know those who do it are not going to stop.

[Selkie]

57 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

The only socialized medical system countries I’m aware of like that are not first world countries. Every first world country and most second world countries are not nearly that bad as their norm. 

Don’t even get me started on maternal care. America sucks at providing adequate and appropriate obstetric care.  We are dead last among industrialized nations in morbity. There are literally a few second and third world countries with better maternal outcomes than in the United States. 

No one thinks we are ever going to get a perfect system or that any other country has a perfect system. 

But the bottom line is our system is broken to the point it is actually a detriment to getting healthcare to our citizens at growing numbers every year. 

And more and more it seems like those with the power to change that have simply decided the most affordable smart thing to do is let all the poor and expensive ill people die off. As long as they are doing okay and can get what they need, to hell with everyone else. 

They live in a first world country in Europe.

[Catwoman]

6 hours ago, sweet2ndchance said:

 

I wasn't saying they were wrong at all. Just that she wasn't even given the chance to be on a waiting list because she didn't have the money to private pay. A lot of people assume, or at least a lot of people I've met anyways, that socialized health care means never paying privately for health care. That's just not true. If you don't agree with the government's decision for your health, you will still have to pay privately. I personally think she should have been allowed to be on the list but maybe given a low priority spot due to age, not denied all together unless she could afford to pay for her spot. She still may have died before receiving the transplant but it seems more fair to me. But that's neither here nor there, my point was socialized medicine does not mean not ever paying privately. Sorry that wasn't clear.

 

I’m so sorry about your grandmother.

It’s bad enough that she became so ill, but knowing that she might have lived had she been given an opportunity to receive a transplant makes her death all the more tragic and upsetting. 

Again, I’m so very sorry. ?

[sweet2ndchance]

Thanks @Catwoman It wasn't my grandmother but my ex-husband's and it was a long time ago. Over ten years ago now that I think about it. I only met her once before she passed away.

I know my ex-mother-in-law was pretty upset that they paid in all these taxes for healthcare only to be told that her mum was too old to be helped unless they could come up with thousands of pounds, on top of what they paid already in taxes, to pay for a spot on the wait list. The whole situation changed how I looked at socialized health care. It definitely has its merits but it has its own issues too, just like our healthcare system. I have no idea what a good fix would be, there really seems to be nothing that would be a good fit for everyone and make everyone happy.

 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

The extreme language implying that most sick Americans are dying in the gutter is not likely to promote rational discussion.

I do wish people would not use such hyperbole, as it is misleading to those who don't live here, but I know those who do it are not going to stop.

No one has said anything close to that. 

But yes, people die here for lack of money to pay. Period. Regularly. 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

The extreme language implying that mostsick Americans are dying in the gutter is not likely to promote rational discussion.

I do wish people would not use such hyperbole, as it is misleading to those who don't live here, but I know those who do it are not going to stop.

 

It is not hyperbole dammit. 

I never said most Americans. That’s your hyperbole, not mine. Why in Sam hell do we have to wait until it is most? How many is okay to you? 

And I never said they were in gutters. Again, that’s your hyperbole, not mine. 

The vast majority go much quieter in the night than that.  But I should note homelessness is on the rise, I guess if we fretfully wring our hands long enough that won’t be hyperbole anymore.

46% of insulin dependent diabetics report they have to ration their insulin because they can’t afford it. It doesn’t take long to die without insulin. They rarely make it to the gutter. 

The NIH estimates 300,000-500,000 Americans have insulin dependent diabetes. That is 138,000 - 230,000 that have to ration their insulin because it’s ridiculously priced. Must we not take that serious until it’s 51%?

And this is just diabetes. The stats for other completely treatable issues are not much better. 

I’m not angry things aren’t perfect here and I have no delusions that it’s perfect somewhere else either. 

I’m angry because no one seems to give a damn about making things better here. Because I firmly believe our nation can do better and that it’s flat out immoral to continue to refuse to do so. 

People read stories about how horrible it’s getting and they react with an emoji and continue on same as always. 

We can vote. We can go on strike. We can March. But the people with the most power to do those things and do them effectively aren’t going to be the ones who have to ration their meds or get turned away for appointments because they don’t have funds. It’s going to be the people who can currently afford their care deciding that no one should have to choose between food/shelter and medical care.  I’m angry they seem really comfortable not stepping up to do that. 

Eta:  And also, I wonder what Sam did to earn Sam hell... off to goggle origin...

Eta2: ha. Google says it’s supposed to be Sam Hill is a euphemism for devil/hell.  I’ve never in my life heard it as Sam Hill, always Hell, but my family origins accents may just mean Hill and Hell sound the same anyways. Still curious what Sam Hill did to earn that...

Edited September 14, 2018 by Murphy101

[Frances]

5 hours ago, Selkie said:

I have relatives by marriage who are from a country with socialized medicine. They talk about the long waits for appointments, even for fairly alarming problems. For example, one of them -a postmenopausal woman- started having abnormal bleeding. She had to wait it out and bleed for three months before she could get the necessary tests.

They also say it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get permission to see specialists.

My son did not experience anything like this when he lived in Germany for one year recently. He could get same day appointments for routine problems every time. And he saw several specialists for a knee problem and had several very expensive and specialized tests done on his knee. And it wasn’t even effecting his ability to walk or work, just to do intensive athletics. 

Wait times, seeing specialists, covered medications and procedures, etc. are all going to be affected by what amount of funding taxpayers are willing to pay for the system. Unless there is unlimited money, no system will ever provide everything to everyone who needs or wants it. At least in countries with universal healthcare, more money is going directly to providing healthcare rather than to corporate profits and to deal with thousands of different insurance plans.

[Murphy101]

This. People faint over the taxes for healthcare services in other countries, but we are paying far more than that and not delivering anywhere near as much actual healthcare. 

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Long waits are common in many areas of the USA as well. A for profit system doesn't fix that. More doctors fixes that. And here, like in Canada, it really varies depending on where you are located. 

And despite the need for more doctors and other health professionals and an abundance of qualified, interested young people, the US does an abysmal job of educating enough of our own doctors, and instead relies on importing many of them. We rank quite low among developed countries in the number of doctors we educate here per capita, and it’s been an issue for a very long time. And then many people graduate US medical schools with very high debt, and so want to pursue more lucrative specialties.

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Temporarily costly for some people before the ACA? OMG - I don't even know how to respond to that. 

Millions lacked health insurance. Either because they could not afford it or they were denied due to having a pre-existing condition. In the 'old days,' many people with serious conditions had their plans rescinded because the doctor had checked a box on a claims form years ago. 

I knew people who could never leave their jobs because they could lose their insurance. I know someone who had a great idea for a business but could not start her own business because she knew she would not be able to afford insurance herself. 

 

And it could easily be that way again. Recent proposals would allow companies to charge more for those with pre-existing conditions. 

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

No one has said anything close to that. 

But yes, people die here for lack of money to pay. Period. Regularly. 

I read an article just this week about a young,Type I diabetic who aged out of his mom’s insurance and couldn’t afford his own plus the copays and deductibles and died a few days before his next paycheck due to rationing insulin. I’d be very surprised if that kind of thing is happening in any other developed country in the world.

[PerfectFifth]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

 

Murphy101, thank you!! You helped my blood pressure return to normal. Look some us have health issues, some of us have kids with health issues, some of us have no health issues. That's life. I have been shocked by how much fighting I have to do for supplies/meds for my T1 Son. It's a fairly known disease. It's not that rare. What a T1 needs to stay alive is pretty obvious. But I have had to fight with the insurance company, then with our medical group and finally with a third party distributor of medical equipment. When one finally gives in after I and the doctor provide reams of evidence, the next one steps in and says NO, so I start again....and so on and so on. It's ridiculous. Again, this is a fairly well known disease. But yes I have had to fight for the right amount of INSULIN and the right amount of NEEDLES. Don't get me started on CGM's and pumps. But I think I've said all this before. So I know what I'm about to say is inflammatory. I have a raging headache and my kids are driving me crazy. I certainly am not addressing this to all of the people on this thread in fact it's how I've been feeling towards society at large.

 

If you are someone who rejects single-payer or ACA or anything but what you have, why is there no compassion for people who are stating they are struggling with the system we all live with. When someone like me comes on here and says this is screwed up, I'm frustrated, tired, scared for my son's prospects once he's an adult, broke....why is the first response SINGLE PAYER WOULD BE A DISASTER!!! For those people whom the  current health system works well/great/good enough, why can't you find a way to have a discussion regarding the issue without completely discounting our suffering either blatantly or passively. Where is the compassion? This is what I hear....."this works fine for me. It probably works fine for you to. I don't believe that its as bad as you say."   And my conclusion is you only give a darn for yourselves. 

I'm not fully convinced that single-payer is the answer, but responses like some of the ones in this thread are only pushing me towards single-payer. The responses say you're a liar...its not bad for me so it's not bad for you. Shut up and drop it. 

 

 

[PerfectFifth]

9 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

It’s because the second some people think they’re going to lose their beloved capitalistic society, they flip out.   We’ve been conditioned in the US to think the US excels at everything.   It doesn’t. Not even close.    

I hate to sound like POTUS...really i do......but that's SAD. I also know how true it is

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Or it's because people know the other way isn't necessarily better. My friends from other countries laugh at the fact that so many Americans seem to think that single payer is some panacea.

Not a panacea - just more fair, and more economical, and better able to provide a decent level of care to the most people. 

[Murphy101]

48 minutes ago, PerfectFifth said:

Murphy101, thank you!! You helped my blood pressure return to normal. Look some us have health issues, some of us have kids with health issues, some of us have no health issues. That's life. I have been shocked by how much fighting I have to do for supplies/meds for my T1 Son. It's a fairly known disease. It's not that rare. What a T1 needs to stay alive is pretty obvious. But I have had to fight with the insurance company, then with our medical group and finally with a third party distributor of medical equipment. When one finally gives in after I and the doctor provide reams of evidence, the next one steps in and says NO, so I start again....and so on and so on. It's ridiculous. Again, this is a fairly well known disease. But yes I have had to fight for the right amount of INSULIN and the right amount of NEEDLES. Don't get me started on CGM's and pumps. But I think I've said all this before. So I know what I'm about to say is inflammatory. I have a raging headache and my kids are driving me crazy. I certainly am not addressing this to all of the people on this thread in fact it's how I've been feeling towards society at large.

 

If you are someone who rejects single-payer or ACA or anything but what you have, why is there no compassion for people who are stating they are struggling with the system we all live with. When someone like me comes on here and says this is screwed up, I'm frustrated, tired, scared for my son's prospects once he's an adult, broke....why is the first response SINGLE PAYER WOULD BE A DISASTER!!! For those people whom the  current health system works well/great/good enough, why can't you find a way to have a discussion regarding the issue without completely discounting our suffering either blatantly or passively. Where is the compassion? This is what I hear....."this works fine for me. It probably works fine for you to. I don't believe that its as bad as you say."   And my conclusion is you only give a darn for yourselves. 

I'm not fully convinced that single-payer is the answer, but responses like some of the ones in this thread are only pushing me towards single-payer. The responses say you're a liar...its not bad for me so it's not bad for you. Shut up and drop it. 

 

 

I hear you.  Exactly what makes my anger spike too.  The "oh you've got it better here than elsewhere!", the "OMG it'd be so much worse if we had to pay more taxes" .... it's all simply selfish efforts at distraction and disconnect.

You cannot get worse than an insulin dependent diabetic that can't get insulin or a pump without forgoing your mortgage payment every month, unless you're the insulin dependent diabetic who can't find affordable rent and can't afford insulin.*

*Substitute any number of people who need genuine modern basic healthcare and do without it every day.

The only thing that can possibly be worse in the USA medical system, is being a parent who has to watch their child suffer the same for no other reason than because our generation didn't step up to change things.

[Selkie]

54 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

It’s because the second some people think they’re going to lose their beloved capitalistic society, they flip out.   We’ve been conditioned in the US to think the US excels at everything.   It doesn’t. Not even close.    

Or it's because people who've dealt with the incompetence of the postal service, the IRS, and the DMV shudder at the thought of how much worse health care will be under government control...

[HomeAgain]

Just now, Selkie said:

Or it's because people who've dealt with the incompetence of the postal service, the IRS, and the DMV shudder at the thought of how much worse health care will be under government control...

Yes, because insurance companies have shown us how they quickly cut through the red tape and make things less burdensome on the patients.  Totally.  They are so much better.

[Selkie]

2 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

Yes, because insurance companies have shown us how they quickly cut through the red tape and make things less burdensome on the patients.  Totally.  They are so much better.

I deal with insurance companies and government agencies every day as part of my job, and sadly enough, insurance companies are much better. Which is not to say they are great or even good, but they are not as awful to deal with as anything that is government-run.

[HomeAgain]

1 minute ago, Selkie said:

I deal with insurance companies and government agencies every day as part of my job, and sadly enough, insurance companies are much better. Which is not to say they are great or even good, but they are not as awful to deal with as anything that is government-run.

You deal with them in healthcare?

 

[Selkie]

1 minute ago, HomeAgain said:

You deal with them in healthcare?

 

If you mean insurance companies, then yes.

[ktgrok]

18 minutes ago, Selkie said:

I deal with insurance companies and government agencies every day as part of my job, and sadly enough, insurance companies are much better. Which is not to say they are great or even good, but they are not as awful to deal with as anything that is government-run.

I got my tag renewed at the DMV this week with a 2 minute wait, priced exactly as expected, no issues. 

I get mail every single day, right to my house, and if I want to send something it costs me some loose change and my letter will arrive anywhere in the country within a few days. 

I file taxes with the IRS every year, and have for almost 30 years, often for both business and personal taxes, and only once has their been a problem and it was MY mistake. (actually, it was my husband's mistake...but I should have checked rather than rely on him.) 

Insurance, on the other hand, I have to fight with at least several times a year. I get paperwork asking if my toddler's injury is work related. I get claims that are denied over errors they made on a regular basis. I have spent countless hours on the phone dealing with problems only to be told it is fine, only to have to call back and spend more hours on the phone. And I pay more than my mortgage payment each month, PLUS a deductible, PLUS copays, for that. And that's AFTER my doctor's office pays someone full time to deal with them as well. 

So yeah, I'd say the IRS, post office, and DMV are doing a heck of a lot better job than my insurance company. 

[Murphy101]

10 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Or it's because people know the other way isn't necessarily better. My friends from other countries laugh at the fact that so many Americans seem to think that single payer is some panacea.

 

This is just condescending. Not one single person here has claimed any one thing, single payer or otherwise, is any kind of panacea. Not one person has suggested it even has to be all one concept or nothing.

It's dismissive and heartless and do-nothing hand wringing to suggest otherwise.

And why? To avoid paying more taxes or getting the same medical care as everyone else?

[SereneHome]

Anytime I ever want to say anything about healthcare, whether on here or another message board I frequent, I never seem to be able to make it coherent enough, but what the heck...

I wasn't born in US.  We had socialism and govt healthcare, which was 100% free to everyone.  Of course, it wasn't really free, but it was free on paper.  It was horrible.  So, anytime I hear "affordable" healthcare, I just shudder.

I am very much against single payer, but that's not even the biggest problem.  The problem is that regardless of the number of "payers", NO ONE addressing actual medical costs.  With anything else we deal in life, costs are always addressed.  But not with health care.  Except for the drugs.  But what about all other costs?  Doctor's appts, procedures, hospital stays, ER visits, blood work, ultra-sounds and X-rays.  All those costs are never discussed. 

I also wanted to comment on someone's post about how "unique" we are.  I don't know if I would say "unique", but there is certainly a number of factors that play into a more complex system.   First of all, we have large divervese areas in terms of access and income and distance to services.  Second, I think mentality in this country is different in terms of expectations and rights.  And third, I think there is a large discrepancy between people who are actually paying for services and people using them.

anywhooo, I am an accountant, so I always think that the first thing to do is to actually decrease expenses, instead of trying to figure out who is paying for what and how ?

[Murphy101]

8 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Anytime I ever want to say anything about healthcare, whether on here or another message board I frequent, I never seem to be able to make it coherent enough, but what the heck...

I wasn't born in US.  We had socialism and govt healthcare, which was 100% free to everyone.  Of course, it wasn't really free, but it was free on paper.  It was horrible.  So, anytime I hear "affordable" healthcare, I just shudder.

I am very much against single payer, but that's not even the biggest problem.  The problem is that regardless of the number of "payers", NO ONE addressing actual medical costs.  With anything else we deal in life, costs are always addressed.  But not with health care.  Except for the drugs.  But what about all other costs?  Doctor's appts, procedures, hospital stays, ER visits, blood work, ultra-sounds and X-rays.  All those costs are never discussed. 

I also wanted to comment on someone's post about how "unique" we are.  I don't know if I would say "unique", but there is certainly a number of factors that play into a more complex system.   First of all, we have large divervese areas in terms of access and income and distance to services.  Second, I think mentality in this country is different in terms of expectations and rights.  And third, I think there is a large discrepancy between people who are actually paying for services and people using them.

anywhooo, I am an accountant, so I always think that the first thing to do is to actually decrease expenses, instead of trying to figure out who is paying for what and how ?

 

I don't think it's an either or option.  We absolutely need to look at reducing the costs and frankly I think we can do that without affecting those served bc a lot of them are third party bloat or simple greed.

[SereneHome]

4 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I got my tag renewed at the DMV this week with a 2 minute wait, priced exactly as expected, no issues. 

I get mail every single day, right to my house, and if I want to send something it costs me some loose change and my letter will arrive anywhere in the country within a few days. 

I file taxes with the IRS every year, and have for almost 30 years, often for both business and personal taxes, and only once has their been a problem and it was MY mistake. (actually, it was my husband's mistake...but I should have checked rather than rely on him.) 

Insurance, on the other hand, I have to fight with at least several times a year. I get paperwork asking if my toddler's injury is work related. I get claims that are denied over errors they made on a regular basis. I have spent countless hours on the phone dealing with problems only to be told it is fine, only to have to call back and spend more hours on the phone. And I pay more than my mortgage payment each month, PLUS a deductible, PLUS copays, for that. And that's AFTER my doctor's office pays someone full time to deal with them as well. 

So yeah, I'd say the IRS, post office, and DMV are doing a heck of a lot better job than my insurance company. 

OK, so from one anecdotal experience to another

I've lived in 3 different states over the last decade, in various places and there were problems with post office in every single one of them.  So much so, that I actually tried contacting their big bosses in DC.

I've also had to deal with DL and registrations in all those states and I have never spent less than an hour getting it done.

I've dealt with IRS and all 50 states when it comes to taxes for years (it was my job in my previous life)  - and I can not even even tell you how much time spent  on the phone, writing letters, responding to their letters, finding the right person to talk to, being put on hold and then hung up, etc etc etc

In my personal life, we got audited from one of the states we lived in.  Here is the direct quote from a person I tried speaking to in order to find out the status of our audit : "I don't have to tell you anything.  I am the boss here"  Click.  

When we lived in MD, I lived very close to DC and had a lot of friends and family members either work in various govt agencies or know people who do.  The stories of waste and disorganization were just outrageous.  And yet,  no one ever got fired, there were no accountability. 

[EKS]

13 hours ago, SKL said:

Same here, from a US perspective.  I have never had the problems nor has anyone I know had the problems said to be so rampant in the USA. 

Have you ever had to obtain and pay for individual health insurance?  I did (before ACA, so I don't know if things are better), and it was totally frightening.  30% increase each year and that was with me dropping as many benefits as I could.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

I read an article just this week about a young,Type I diabetic who aged out of his mom’s insurance and couldn’t afford his own plus the copays and deductibles and died a few days before his next paycheck due to rationing insulin. I’d be very surprised if that kind of thing is happening in any other developed country in the world.

 

We have a 13yo nephew who is Type 1.  I worry about what his options will be down the road. We are fortunate that it is *likely* someone in the family will be able to assist him financially but it is so scary.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Or it's because people know the other way isn't necessarily better. My friends from other countries laugh at the fact that so many Americans seem to think that single payer is some panacea.

 

Really?  I run into more people from other countries who seem appalled by our current system.

Other western nations with various forms of socialized healthcare all spend less per capita and have better overall health outcomes.