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.
Though I'm not a betting person I'd take this one, unless you've also betted you won't need a Dr and have a high deductible,pay everything out of pocket and see the vet for minor injuries, plan. Seriously, go online and get some quotes. Not just for a health person > 30 a variety of them, different places, etc. If you can't see the problem you are so blind that you probably don't realize YOU have a problem too. And you daughter is doomed when she's on her own and daddy stops paying and oh, maybe she gets diabeties or something.
It is ABSOLUTELY the job of the government to protect it's citizens. That doesn't just mean from guns and tanks. I'd rather see a universal health plan instead of most of the programs and/or groups that provide social services and outreach crap. It would be half paid for by eliminating funding for all those other things.
please leave my daughters out of this, they are my concern and not yours or the goverments. if you want to attack me then fine, but attacking my family when you dont even know them is wrong.
Yet another wrong statement. As was already pointed out by .highnlight and others in the thread:
America has the most expensive healthcare costs in the world, consuming 17% of our GDP, and in most modern advanced countries the cost is less than 10% of GDP.
The other industrialized nations all have more government intervention, lower costs and Universal Coverage such as Canada. I think you only want to believe these lies to support your personal fear of governments in general. Unfortunately they are simply not true. Insurance companies set the costs of healthcare in America, not the Gov't. And they are the ones out of control. Efficiency has nothing to do with greed and inflated prices. It doesn't matter how efficient they are if they can set their own prices (price fixing) without any oversight - the skies the limit. Its already way over priced which is why Americans voted to change it.
you talk of canadas health care. I do in fact work with former citizens from canada, and they could not stand the health care system there, and it always seemed to run out of money in october or november. if you needed a life saving procedure in november, you were sol until janurary, unless you were willing to fork out the money yourself.
also, americans did not vote to change it, a minority did. congress made the choice of what the minority wanted. if congress wanted to be fair about it, they should have put into a bill for everyone to vote on.
They died from lack of access to cheap health care - which was caused BY GOVERNMENT.
By making health care EXPENSIVE, via inflation, via administrative overhead, via malpractice tort abuse, by criminalizing unlicensed care (thus eliminating the RIGHT to it), by requiring all aspects of the vocation to get permission (which adds more red tape and expense), and empowering a monopoly that drove up the costs even further.
Other nations have far less expensive healthcare - and it's good - yet lack the intrusive overbearing meddling of their governments.
I think the facts support getting government OUT OF HEALTHCARE, if we want inexpensive and widely accessible healthcare.
Flexner sought to shrink the number of medical schools in the USA...
In 1904, there were 160 M.D. granting institutions with more than 28,000 students. By 1920, there were only 85 M.D. granting institution, educating only 13,800 students. By 1935, there were only 66 medical schools operating in the USA.
....
Each state branch of the American Medical Association has oversight over the conventional medical schools located within the state.
....
One of the consequences of Flexner's advocacy of university-based medical education was that medical education became much more expensive, putting such education out of reach of all but upper-class white males.
In the nineteenth century, there were over four hundred medical schools in the United States. By 1910, the number was reduced to one hundred and forty-eight medical schools and by 1930 the number totaled only seventy-six.
In 2010, the Association of American Medical Colleges and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine listed 133 accredited MD-granting and 28 accredited DO-granting medical schools in the United States, respectively.
------------------
[In contrast] In Saudi Arabia medical education is free for all Saudi citizens.
Physicians per capita
USA ranks 52nd - 2.3 per 1,000 people
Belarus has over twice as many - 4.55 per 1,000 people
Cuba is ranked #2 - 5.91 per 1,000 people - almost THREE TIMES as many physicians per capita as the USA. Which might explain how Cuba can provide more inexpensive health care to more people.
THE BOTTOM LINE :
If you want UNIVERSAL access to inexpensive and plentiful HEALTHCARE, you have to :
[] Expand access to medical training and education (triple the number of physicians, as well as other professionals)
[] Reduce the cost for acquiring training and education (more medical schools, apprenticeships, alternate ways to get credentials - perhaps by national examination)
[] Eliminate useless overhead expenses and regulations imposed by a mindless bureaucracy or a monopolistic trade association
[] Incorporate automation and mass production techniques where appropriate (can't be any worse than the current "office visit" where the patient is shuttled into a brief and perfunctory consultation and swiftly passed out the door).
None of these aspects are addressed by "Gov't / Single Payer" reform. And the current system of "licensed" practitioners has not eliminated physician error - as evidenced by the glut of malpractice claims - or the oft repeated tale of going from one doctor to the next (at our own expense), seeking an accurate diagnosis.
In short, "regulation" of medical care hasn't really helped the patient, as much as it enriched those who dispense it, and who control it. Giving more power to government will be a disaster.
MthSufer"So are you saying you are opposed to Obamacare or Universal Coverage or both? "
The former-absolutely. The latter, open to it, only after MANY years of small local betas where we take the best results ONLY and gradually expand them. Against any UNTESTED NHC rollout that is done before results of various portions and economic affects have been felt.
PS, Our Canadian employees do cross into the US for good care on their dime, rather than wait far longer under this system. Ones' very ill spouse might not survive without US care. So while helping the 12 million uninsured not of their own volition is a good cause, it is vital to do so not to expand gov't power, and following the old mantra "First do no harm". I have been insured under several different employer plans, and all have been excellent, at low cost to me. Most employer plans are very good. My only complaint is they should charge employee a straight percentage, as opposed to the first X dollars per procedure, across the board, in order to promote awareness of cost bfeore every procedure on the part of the one getting the benefit.
No idea. I simply stated that someone on page one had mentioned it. I'm an engineer, not a medical administrator.
This is what is so problematic tough. What might work for a smaller population does not necessarily translate to a vastly larger population. This is why I get concerned when people talk about England's NHS. Maybe it does works there, though I have to say that when I was stationed in the UK in the 80s, an awful lot of my English neighbors and friends seemed to complain about it a lot. A lot of negative articles in the British papers as well. Nevertheless, pretending for a moment that it is incredibly efficient and wonderful system, what might work in a country of 80 million may not work so well in a country of 310 million. Plus, of course, there is the specter of this government which pretty much mucks up most programs it is in charge of, well, I'm skeptical of it's success.
Whatever is done, reform/replacement/whatever, it needs to be thought out carefully, slowly and deliberately.I am wary of people advocating simple solutions to complicated problems. If relatively snap decisions are made for the purpose of political expediency, then everyone will lose.
Can't rep you any more. Have a family member who is a physician for IHS and would agree with every word you said - it's horrible.
I have no love for the insurance industry in the U.S., believe me, and I've worked for them so I know a bit about the subject myself. But I've also lived in Israel, which has national healthcare, and it's a nightmare. NIGHTMARE. I have known numerous people from Canada and the UK who hate their national healthcare and they all have horror stories to tell about waiting months to see specialists, and then waiting some more months for a necessary surgery, and being stuck with a primary doctor they hate, and being denied care, and on it goes.
Unfortunately, Americans who support national healthcare think that what they will get is top notch medical care for free. It won't work that way. But I agree with them that the current system is not working very well either. Honestly I don't know what the solution is.
I have to admit I laugh when posters say AETNA mde X in profit, all those dollars could be saved-LOL!. I'm no fan of Health Insurance companies, but the laws of unintended consequences do apply. Meaning can we afford losing their jobs? Plus, your insurance company almost NEVER denies you treatment, your employer DOES, and uses them as the bad guy,as any medium size or larger entity self-insures. When they do, and your insurance 800 # says No to you, they LOSE money,as they get paid per claim or dollar spent,and bear NO risk in the transaction.
you talk of canadas health care. I do in fact work with former citizens from canada, and they could not stand the health care system there, and it always seemed to run out of money in october or november. if you needed a life saving procedure in november, you were sol until janurary, unless you were willing to fork out the money yourself.
also, americans did not vote to change it, a minority did. congress made the choice of what the minority wanted. if congress wanted to be fair about it, they should have put into a bill for everyone to vote on.
I AM a citizen of Canada, and you have absolutely no freaking idea of what you are talking about, either that or your idea of a discussion is to just make things up and lie about it...
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.
