Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We sure as heck can't afford it how with the deficit suddenly tripled. We have maxed out our creit card to foreign lenders.Many be when we get the principal and interest paid offf in 2090.
So answer a couple of simple questions:
#1 Does the U.S. have the best healthcare outcomes in the world as a society?
#2 Does the U.S. spend more as % of GDP than any country in the world on healthcare?
The answer to #1 is No the answer to #2 is Yes. So, we know that other societies are getting, as a society (and I"m not talking about all the exotic treatment we offer at great expense), superior health outcomes for a lot less money (both absolute and as % of GDP).
So I guess I'd have to argue to the opposite, with all the financial stressors on the U.S., more money could be saved and better health outcomes occur with going to a mixed private/public system in which there is universal care.
There is a lot of variance in what is available, from systems like U.K. that are quite limited and congested, to other systems that are pretty good. However, even U.K. has better health outcomes as a society.
The issue is, that universal coverage would be for basic things -- you would however have to pay a bit out of pocket to go and see a really great Family Doctor; you would have to have additional private insurance to get a routine surgery done immediately and you would have to pay out of pocket 100% for that exotic unproven cancer treatment.
If you mother is deeply demented, not even knowing her own name, and 70 years old and gets and infection and you so desire to treat her with fluids and antibiotics, and critical care -- hat's off to you (for making such a bad decision) -- but you can also pay the costs of such a foolish decision or this is not covered care.
The current problem which has rolled through all of western society (especially the U.S.) -- is the sense of unlimited resources and a lack of having to make decisions that limit ones choices. Thus we end up doing things that cost a lot of money and have essentially no overall health benefit.
Once people are willing to face that decisions have costs; then we'll be one big step along. Currently, with many types of insurance, and especially with public programs like medicare or medicaid -- choices have no costs and thus they are made without respect to the rest of society that has to pay for these choices. This doesn't mean in anyway that there is no quality healthcare for people with terminal illnesses or the extremes of age or those will little mental function; it instead means that society has to be aware that there are limited resources and spending it on those who would most benefit from it is an example of sanity.
Currently, there is an insane system, that costs more and delivers less to the society than in other western countries. Why not demand value for the dollar in this area. A well designed universal health system would accomplish this -- a poorly designed one that just extends the same level of care available under private insurance, freely to all, with no limitations and no personal responsibility would be a horrible mistake. People have to get real with a balance of personal responsibility for exotic levels of care vs. what a society (or insurance) should be responsible for.
Hard decisions; but as with so many other hard decisions, the longer we wait, the deeper a financial hole is dug to get out of.
Because our government is run by idiots. Their idiocy is not the reason for lack of national healthcare, but rather, it's because of their stupidity that we don't trust them not to FUBAR everything.
I don't trust politicians any further than I could pull five thousand pounds of bricks. Remember, politician = worst scum on the face of the earth.
Well, the government must be run by idiots due to the idiotic voters who put them in office and keep them there at reelection time.
I've read a lot of post's saying how bad UHC is, all I can say is it saved my life.
Two years ago I was diagnosed with heart disease, the doctor told me that I would need a triple heart by-pass,
I had, through my company, access to private medical care, but when I had my angiogram it was discovered through the bloodtests that I had CLL, in my case low grade.
Because of this diagnosis, the insurer, a large american company (now in trouble) said that they would'nt sanction my by-pass surgery.
The NHS how ever did'nt turn me down, I am now fully recovered, and I'm told that I may never need treatment for the Leukemia.
The fact is if not for UHC I would probably be dead. As far as I'm concerned the insurance company took my, and employers money, and when I needed them, they left me to die.
I'll take the NHS over private medecine every time.
I've read a lot of post's saying how bad UHC is, all I can say is it saved my life.
Two years ago I was diagnosed with heart disease, the doctor told me that I would need a triple heart by-pass,
I had, through my company, access to private medical care, but when I had my angiogram it was discovered through the bloodtests that I had CLL, in my case low grade.
Because of this diagnosis, the insurer, a large american company (now in trouble) said that they would'nt sanction my by-pass surgery.
The NHS how ever did'nt turn me down, I am now fully recovered, and I'm told that I may never need treatment for the Leukemia.
The fact is if not for UHC I would probably be dead. As far as I'm concerned the insurance company took my, and employers money, and when I needed them, they left me to die.
I'll take the NHS over private medecine every time.
You are very fortunate to be so young and eligible for this level of care.
We are now facing 17%+ of GDP on healthcare -- 2.5 trillion dollars.
Is there value for the money? Does it produce anything more good for society than a system that costs 10% of GDP?
I believe not -- what it provides is exotic and ineffectual care to very few at great cost and leaves a substantial segment of society without care, even at this great expense.
Without doubt it is the healthcare system that can provide the best and the greatest treatments -- but at what cost and what benefit and also at what inequity?
This is part of the equation of that will take down the U.S. if it continues to consume out of control.
A society where the productive must carry the non-productive, and where the healthy must cure the sick is doomed to be a sick unproductive commune headed towards extinction.
A society where the productive must carry the non-productive, and where the healthy must cure the sick is doomed to be a sick unproductive commune headed towards extinction.
No, that is called a just, enlightened society; a society where this occurs has the potential to reduce the numbers of the unproductive and the sick. And that can only increase the living standards (quantifiable and nonquantifiable) for everyone.
Because it's a stupid communist idea that is completely detached from economic reality?
I didn't know that England,Ireland,and Canada were communists! We haven't figured out how to properly fund it and the major corporations and drug companies are fighting it,thats why we don't have it!
France was actually rated previously as the #1 heathcare system in the world and NO I am not French.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
