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.
I don't believe universal health care is the answer. We see what has happened in other countries that have it - people who have cancer have to wait too long to have a CT scan or surgery or whatever. There are long waiting lists to see a doctor. What if the government started to think if they were paying your doctor bills, they had a right to tell you how much you could weigh, how often you have to exercise, what you can eat, whether you can smoke and how much alcohol you can drink, who you can have sex with - the list could potentially be endless. If nothing else, they could tell you if you don't fit their profiles for good health, you won't be covered. What if you had to pay more if you lived in an area where you were more likely to be a victim of violent crime? What if you had a family history of cancer? Would they start checking your driving record and deny you coverage if you are a risky driver? Or make you pay more?
Actually, the points you make here (with acception to the wait times) are all being done in the private health care sector. There are plans that are medically underwritten. Often times if you are obese, a smoker or have a health condition or conditions they can deny you coverage (although it varies from state to state) or charge you significantly more by throwing you into a high risk pool. The point of UHC is to have one large pool so that each offsets the other and evens it out driving down the cost.
Wait times, in a UHC hypothetical, are questionable. I think it would truly depend on what region you live in and the population density. I am having trouble wrapping my brain around the idea that we're suddenly going to find ourselves with large wait times simply by having everyone covered under a one payer system? As if we're all going tofind ourselves sicker, etc. We're I'm currently living wait times for Dr's exist. I tried to get my mother in law visiting from Europe an appointment with my family doctor for a pink eye infection she picked up from my two year old son so that she could get drops. Since she was a "new patient" the wait time to get an appointment was 3 weeks!! I mean by then she could have been blind.
The other option would be to take her to an ER for her pink eye.. which is pretty ridiculous as it costs much more for that. It turned out that since itwasn't such a dire thing my Dr. called in a prescription for her to my pharmacy without seeing her.
We are already paying for healthcare and education for illegal immigrants. I think we need to put an end to that. Why should illegal immigrants get free health care when our own citizens don't?
I completely agree with this. It's not like they go to their doctors on a regular basis, but when someone walks into an ER with a complaint they must be seen. It's against the law for anyone to be turned away for lack of insurance. If that persons dies the consequences for the hospital could be immense. They do only go to the ER if they absolutely have to .. but do end up going if they have .. say an ear infection or something that needs a simple antibiotic. It becomes a moral and humane issue .. do you not try to save someones life because they are not citizens. It's a very difficult and murky area.
For my own experience, we have always had health insurance either through me or my husband. When I carried the insurance and was quitting my job to start a business, my husband found a job with insurance that would cover us. I didn't leave my job until we were covered under his plan.
Almost 2 years ago I started going to a new doctor. I have always thought that doctors cared first and foremost about the patient. But this new doctor ordered all kinds of tests and I went along with it, thinking she was just being thorough. But after a while I decided NO MORE because I started to think she was on one hand doing tests, giving shots, etc. to rack up more revenue for her own office, and also referring me to her doctor friends for consultations and more testing to increase their revenue. I definitely think she does whatever she can to make the bill higher, since I have insurance that will cover it. I was supposed to go back to her a year ago and haven't been back. I'm going to look for a new doctor.
I think we have to be active participants in our health care. If I think there is a valid reason for testing, I will do it and pay out of pocket for expenses not covered by my insurance. But I'm not trusting doctors to be only looking out for my health anymore because now some of them are more concerned about profit.
Actually, I like the quote by Thomas Edison - The doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease.
I think some doctors now are thinking more in terms of wellness and staying healthy, eating right and exercising, and concerned about the whole patient, including their physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health. I need to find one of those doctors.
I agree with most of the last sections of your posts.
I think what we see here is that there is no "silver bullet" solution.
For some who have access to healthcare at work, that works well. For others, a more universal approach (with it's limitations) works best. For others, government programs get the job done. For yet others, managed healthcare works best.
Hence the debate.
Also, each of these ideas have their own inherent good & bad points. Some are really helped and others really hurt.
So what to do?
I think we need to determine who really qualifies as "uninsured" and then set up a menu system whereby some people take what they can get and others may be fortunate enough to have a choice to maximize their benefits.
One thing I feel passionatly about is that we need to approach this with a "no new taxes" approach. With our current over taxation problems and government debt, we will need some creative ideas.
I think what we see here is that there is no "silver bullet" solution.
For some who have access to healthcare at work, that works well. For others, a more universal approach (with it's limitations) works best. For others, government programs get the job done. For yet others, managed healthcare works best.
Hence the debate.
Also, each of these ideas have their own inherent good & bad points. Some are really helped and others really hurt.
So what to do?
I think we need to determine who really qualifies as "uninsured" and then set up a menu system whereby some people take what they can get and others may be fortunate enough to have a choice to maximize their benefits.
One thing I feel passionatly about is that we need to approach this with a "no new taxes" approach. With our current over taxation problems and government debt, we will need some creative ideas.
I have to agree, there is no one solution. I am very Leary about any changes to my current coverage. I need to be very very careful, and know the outcome as it affects me greatly. As of now, I have NO disability, I am not progressing, or progressing very slowly. This can change in a moments notice however since MS is different for each person and very unpredictable. I must look at things very carefully, I have a 2 year old daughter that I want to be able to chase around and play with as long as I passably can.
I would also want a "no new taxes" system for this as well. I currently pay enough taxes to keep a couple of people in ahouse very comfortably, as I am very close to the edge myself. Maybe the answer is something of a hybrid system.
I have to agree, there is no one solution. I am very Leary about any changes to my current coverage. I need to be very very careful, and know the outcome as it affects me greatly. As of now, I have NO disability, I am not progressing, or progressing very slowly. This can change in a moments notice however since MS is different for each person and very unpredictable. I must look at things very carefully, I have a 2 year old daughter that I want to be able to chase around and play with as long as I passably can.
I would also want a "no new taxes" system for this as well. I currently pay enough taxes to keep a couple of people in ahouse very comfortably, as I am very close to the edge myself. Maybe the answer is something of a hybrid system.
As a former state & federal social services worker, the most realistic figures are that 40-60% of government social spending goes purely for fraud, waste & abuse (FW&A). I realize that government is never completely efficient, but if we could control the FW&A to 10-15% there would easily be more than enough for assisting those less fortunate with healthcare.
hey Stan,
A lot of raised an argument to a UHC in the past about paying for "other's poor lifestyle choices" as a reason to oppose a UHC.
I'm not about someone dictating to another how to live their life. There are some instances of diseases that are unpreventable.. like my Juvenile Diabetes NOT brought on by any poor lifestyle choices.. but there are problems that do arise for those individuals who .. munch on horrible foods and allow themselves to get unhealthy and obese as a result. (there are instances of obesity, however that are NOT caused by lifestyle choices). Smokers too run the risk of cancer.
In a private health care system people do get dinged for their poor lifestyle choices already.. for example, you can be turned down for insurance if you are overweight (it depends on laws in each state) or forced into a guaranteed issue plan with a higher premium if you have been denied from a medically underwritten plan. Worse yet, those that have no control over their conditions are forced into a plan that is more expensive as a guaranteed issue.
I don't think pinging people for their poor lifestyle choices would neccesarily be a bad thing. It might hold people more accountable for their own health. In the current system an unhealthy person doesn't feel the financial effects of their poor health choices because they are not paying the premiums if they are covered by their employer. If they effect is felt differently for them they would then have to make smarter choices to avoid the consequences financially of those poor choices.
I wouldn't even be opposed to having to answer to how well I manage my diabetes in a UHC system and being pinged if I am not managing it properly with my physicians etc.
It might actually make America a lot healthier as a result
You got no argument from me, but I don't think this is a country that would put up with "judgements" made on lifestyle. Try to deny a heart transplant to a smoker. Wouldn't fly.
Heck, we can't even enact real drinking/driving laws. People in this country want to do whatever they want to do and then have the rest of us pay for the consequences. It's cultural.
This is an item that strikes at home with me. I have Multiple Sclerosis. This disease is not deadly, but progresses and can lead to permanent and severe disability. The cause is not known, and there is NO cure. Up until 15 years ago there were no treatments for MS. People were Diagnosed with it, and told to go home, or find a nursing home to move into. The new drugs they have available have helped greatly in making sure patients with MS are able to keep working, and slow the progression of the disease. The drugs themselves are all injectable with one being an IV infusion. Copaxone, Betaseron, Avonex, Rebif, and Tysabri. Two pharma companies make these drugs, and well you pay handsomely for the treatments. The injectable are roughly 2100.00 per month, and tysabri is 12,000.00 per month. Here is where the Health insurance comes into my story. My wife is the person that has our HS, we have wonderful coverage and I only have to pay 75.00 per month for my treatment. Others are not so fortunate. Medicare is a government run health care. The treatments under Medicare are considered "Orphan drug" which means that there is not a considerable amount of people with MS to call the drug main stream. (the last study they did on patients with MS was done in 1976, which is where they are basing the numbers on currently) When a drug is called an "orphan drug" they move it into a Tier 4 part of the coverage, this allows them to charge a percentage of the total cost. Where does this play in in terms of UHC and private insurance? Most private health insurance companies have the MS drugs listed under Tier2 (name brand) status, allowing for a normal co-pay. Medicare has it listed under Tier 4 status requiring a 30% copay for the treatment. Many people with MS end up retiring early due to the chronic fatigue that is associated with this disease, they end up using SSDI (social security disability) The amount they get from the SSDI is not enough to cover the Medicare co-pay for the treatment, so... The person has to make a decision, do we eat? or do I go with a treatment. I do not want the government to have control over my health care, I would end up paying a percentage for my treatment in which I cannot afford, a percentage that is derived of a 30 year old count of people with MS. Government works too slow for this disease that can move very quickly, and lead to permanent disability. The other reason is wait lists. With the attacks that come with the MS, i have maybe 24-48 hours to get in to see my Neurologist and get on IV steroids or the attack can permanently disable me. Time is of the essence, and getting into see a doctor on a list that is maybe 2-6 months out is NOT good for my health, nor is it good for anyones health. I did see that Nightline show, and there were some things that were quite compelling. The UK system is moving more and more to a private type system due to the cost that is having to be spent by the government. The swiss system (if i remember correctly) was having similar problems as well as Taiwan's system. Japan's system was failing the other way. Doctors are hard to find due to the price caps that the government has on them, they just cant live on the wages. The only system that seemed to be "working" albeit slowly going broke was Germany's system, which has a mix of private and government coverage.
Which makes me ask again - why couldn't we have two systems to help cover everyones' needs?
As a former state & federal social services worker, the most realistic figures are that 40-60% of government social spending goes purely for fraud, waste & abuse (FW&A). I realize that government is never completely efficient, but if we could control the FW&A to 10-15% there would easily be more than enough for assisting those less fortunate with healthcare.
If that's one of the biggest problems we face in making improvements, let's address it.
A while back, NPR did a series on Universal coverage in different countries. Netherlands really resonated. If I remember correctly, federal law stipulates everyone must purchase health care insurance. The government also stipulates that insurer cannot decline and must accept those with pre-exisiting conditions and cannot charge higher premiums for those with pre-exisiting conditions. There is government aid for those who do not have the income to purchase. So the government embraces price control but otherwise steps out of the administration of the plans. The insurers need to profit from law of averages instead of maximizing profits on every single client.
I also would love to see Congress lose their health insurance and have to pay for insurance out of pocket through the private sector. I have a hunch they would quickly find ways to lower the costs of health insurance for many or make universal coverage work.
I Absolutly Agree! If congress had to "abide" by the same type of health care provisions that prevail in other employment situations, things would change FAST! I am of a divided mind about whether they just don't "get it", or whether they just don't care!
the sister of a dear friend, a longtime resident of Italy (married to an Italian man) recently died of cancer. My friend told me that had she been in the United States, the entire family would have been "bankrupt" from paying for her care. Something to "think about". . . this could happen to any of us!
[quote=Frankie117;5211869]A very complicated and troubling issue.
As for universal coverage. I say no. Here in the US we have far too many illegals and unemployed individuals for it to cover everyone. Plus, have you even seen how the universal system works in Socialized countries? If you aren't about to drop dead be prepared to wait weeks or months to even get into the doctors office.}
'Frankie117' I don't know where your information is from, but you are completely wrong about how the system works in Europe. I live in the UK and also in France, have many relatives all over both countries and can speak with much experience. It is absolutely not the case that you wait 'weeks or months to even get into the doctors' office.' With respect to the high standards of this forum, what utter nonsense! If I or any of my family want to see a doctor, we telephone at 8.30 am and we are always seen the same day - we have had the same family doctors for 17 years, and they are wonderful. The only time I have ever had to wait is when I have been in the waiting room and a sick child has come in - they always give babies priority, and rightly so.
When it comes to more serious ailments, when my DH had a kidney stone, not only was he seen at once in the ER, but the routine follow-up visits were arranged for the following week, and a check up three weks later. I have had routine surgery with a wait of eleven days.
As for prescription drugs - wow, the differences between US and UK! I am on 6 medications (mostly for stuff like high BP) and I pre-pay yearly - the whole lot costs me £92 (about $160) - and that also covers any other meds I might need such as antibiotics. All are free if you are under 18 or over 60.
And that is just as it ought to be. People often say that they can't think of anything to be proud of about their country - well, I am proud of our National Health service. Yes, you pay a bit more in tax - but you are never one illness away from financial ruin,as so many in the US seem to be, you don't need to work beyond 65 just to be sure of your health care, and you can bet your life that nowhere in the UK or in France will you see those sad pleas for money which seem to be on every second shop counter in the US - a recent one I saw was asking for help to fund the care of desperately premature twins. All are humanely cared for here, as they ought to be - no one, young or old, is turned away for lack of funds.
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.
Misconceptions about European Health Coverage
