Only The Rich & The Welfare Poor Get Good Health Care (salary, stats)

[texdav]

No it si teh fact that we also want to be able to afford owning a house and not be in governamnt housing or projects. You obvious have never thought about just waht we pay for here that the world benefits fro, Like 70% of the new medcines and research inot cures.But tehn even in eurpope ther is still private medicne for thsoe whoc an affors iot andthe medical care isn't what most amerivans expect from healthcare. Lokig at conditions in many fo teh UK hospiatls and the priorites its dountful americans will settle for that any more than living in small carmped governamnt housing and having a 20% unemployeknt rate below the age of 30. Many be you just don't know as much about american heathcare as you think really from supposed living here for awhile. The US makes europe look fairly small in relation to waht it spends on research ;medicines and how and when a person gets treated.But i agree euope has been too use to tohers providing other things like their defesne and having them settle european problems like Bosnia because they bascially can't.That is where we need to get the money for wahtever type of healthcare changes we decide to do.Let euope and oher provide for their own defense and equal cost for the UN etc.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by LIS123

I agree with this. If Healthcare providers (not just Physicians, but hospitals, outpatient centers, etc) are squeezed, they are less likely to stay in business.

Explain why would they be "squeezed"? And whatever you're dreaming up, doesn't exist right now.

Originally Posted by geeoro

Why do some idiots fight so hard against a uhc system that has been proven to work in every kind of culture...

Because they are, starting with the politicians who actually have "socialist coverage" for life and love it.

[geeoro]

Originally Posted by LIS123
I agree with this. If Healthcare providers (not just Physicians, but hospitals, outpatient centers, etc) are squeezed, they are less likely to stay in business.
If that is truly the case why hasn't that happened in any country that has a UHC? Private health companies in the UK still do well but cannot charge the rediculous premiums that they charge in America. They even have to give you certain perks. E.G. Most Private health companies pay you for every day that you recieve treatment in a NHS Hospital, this can be around $100 per day just because you didn't use their insurance to get treated. So you get your free operation or whatever treatment you require from the NHS and the Insurance pays you $100 a day.. not bad huh?

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Blind Sniper

I'm not taking an R or D stance on this. The system is broke, period. Only the rich and the welfare poor get good health care while the middle class covers the cost for others while we do not "qualify" for good care ourselves. What good is health insurance and why does it exist? I pay in thousands per year so they can exclude or deny anything that I might need them for in the first place. I'm having to back off of my "it's socialism" views on this one. Health care should be a right not a priveledge. The left wants to nationalize and the right only wants to prove the left is wrong. What is the solution?

Please do not use the word "right" and "health care" in the same sentence.
Because if you feel it's your right to treatment, your demand on the government really means: who is going to pay for your treatment? Obviously, you can't, if you feel it should be provided for you. And are you equally happy to contribute to the "right" of someone else to get their health care?

Would you be happy to volunteer your life's work so that those who are self abusive and suffer more medical complications can be treated at your expense?
I doubt it.

Most people want their cake and eat yours, too.

There is a very reasonable solution to the health care dilemma - get government out of the way... and outlaw "health insurance".

There is a solution to the skyrocketing costs - eliminate the monopoly - change the laws.

[] Universal health care - by everyone.
[] Eliminate criminal penalties for giving medical care.
[] Open medical education to all.
[] Allow anyone to take examinations to establish skills in the health care field.
[] Only allow the government to maintain a "Credentials bank" where practitioners' skills and test scores are listed and available to the public. ( You might get a bigger discount from a "2.0" GPA medical practitioner.)
[] End malpractice tort - if you don't like the treatment or the results, you get a refund. Nothing more.
[] Free choice, competition, and freedom will be superior to NO choice, no competition, and bureaucratic regulation of health care.


National Health Care is a mistake

Let's be clear - government imposed national health care is not universal health care. Universal Health care should only mean that EVERYONE can give treatment to the best of their ability, without fear of arrest, with any substance. Anything less is not true universal health care, and will create pain and suffering.

Under the current regulated scheme, there is a deliberate scarcity of care givers, and deliberate scarcity of training facilities. The "Status Quo" restricts the number of candidates for medical training, and inflates the cost of such training.

To compound the problem, 'medical insurance' skims a portion of monies that normally would go to pay for treatment, medicine, and caregivers. That means higher costs - not only for the profit to the insurance companies - but for the administrative overhead.

If national health care was ever imposed, as a 'right' to insurance, it will be doubly expensive. If paid from the public treasury, there shall be an unresolvable problem - misdiagnosis.

Due to the increased demand for medical treatment, no longer deterred by the price barrier, prospective patients who are deemed to not have a problem will face a dilemma. Will the system pay for a second opinion?

In such situations, there are many possibilities -
the patient is not ill, and is wasting the limited resources of the public health system;
the patient IS ill, but the diagnosis was incorrect; or was missed entirely.

Who is ultimately responsible in such a situation?
Should unlimited public funds be expended on ONE mystery illness?
Even if it denies others their 'fair share'?
What about terminally ill patients?
Should the system divert huge sums to cure them at all costs, or just make them comfortable until they die?

I think you're starting to see the problem - any national health care is a socialist health care system. And socialism imposes the burden on the healthy for the benefit of the ill.

What's wrong with that?
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.

Via government force, workers are burdened with the unlimited demands of the beneficiaries, as defined by the bureaucracy and politicians. (And you can be sure that the insiders will grant themselves superior benefits at your expense! That's well documented in the U.K. - and mocked in their Television programs.)

And to prevent chaos and inappropriate use of the system, triage, drug rationing, and limited access will have to be imposed. Worse, there may be criminal penalties levied against those deemed to be "medical care cheats". And the most nasty aspect is a maximum monetary value assigned to each patient's life, that once exhausted, ends further treatment.

What about those who are diagnosed, given medications, and refuse to comply with their doctor's instructions? Should they be banned from future access, since they're making their condition worse? Should the public be forced to pay for their repeated access to the medical care system when they won't comply? Should those who fail to comply with the instructions of their physician be charged with criminal negligence? You can't have it both ways - either you have to submit and surrender your free choice - or you have to forgo public health care.

Finally, if you or your loved one is not receiving enough medical care, and you can't afford more, because you're paying so much of your earnings for everyone else, you have no option.

If this is what you truly want, a bureaucrat bloated entitlement system, be forewarned that it won't be an improvement on the quality of life, but a burden, and a loss of freedom and liberty. It is mathematically impossible to resolve the indeterminate medical needs of a people with a top down authoritarian system. Once imposed, the chains of obedience and servitude will weigh down upon you and yours.

see: Conservatives for Patients' Rights

[seamusnh]

Originally Posted by hotair2

Who pays the 12,000? You, or does the employer pay 80% of the 12,000?

The employer pays 80% of the insurance costs and I pay 20% as a payroll deduction. Family plan. There are other costs for me - co-pays, items not covered, etc.

[hotair2]

Originally Posted by seamusnh

The employer pays 80% of the insurance costs and I pay 20% as a payroll deduction. Family plan. There are other costs for me - co-pays, items not covered, etc.

That means you only pay $200 a month for health insurance for a family. I can see why you are not complaining. I was paying $700 a month for health insurance, which did not pay for everything. I would rather pay $200 a month in additional taxes and have the govt. pay for everything. Economically it is the best choice.

[AONE]

The government employees and military also get good health care.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Please do not use the word "right" and "health care" in the same sentence.
Because if you feel it's your right to treatment, your demand on the government really means: who is going to pay for your treatment? Obviously, you can't, if you feel it should be provided for you. And are you equally happy to contribute to the "right" of someone else to get their health care?

Would you be happy to volunteer your life's work so that those who are self abusive and suffer more medical complications can be treated at your expense?
I doubt it.

Most people want their cake and eat yours, too.

<snip>


see: Conservatives for Patients' Rights

Edited due to copyright concerns.

Your rant, focused as it is on supposed abuse of the system by consumers, is off-base. It is not over-use by consumers that is causing costs to rise. Whenever one hears about insurance fraud being committed, it is not the lowly consumer who is asking for too many services. It's usually a scam within an office.

This diatribe, which I am certain is lifted from somewhere, shows a complete lack of knowledge of the health care professions.

[] Eliminate criminal penalties for giving medical care.
[] Open medical education to all.
[] Allow anyone to take examinations to establish skills in the health care field.
[] Only allow the government to maintain a "Credentials bank" where practitioners' skills and test scores are listed and available to the public. ( You might get a bigger discount from a "2.0" GPA medical practitioner.)
[] End malpractice tort - if you don't like the treatment or the results, you get a refund. Nothing more

You want to go back to the days of snake-oil salesmen? Fine. Go to any third-world country. You'll get most of the above there. Of course, your life expectancy may drop, you may die in childbirth, your kids might die before adutlhood, by by gosh, there'd be no 'government interference'.

[EinsteinsGhost]

I find it amusing to see that Americans fought a war for independence to have a government that the people can call its own and now we've come a long way to see a few claiming that government should stay out and let businesses rule. That government "interferes" even as it acts in the interest of the people and is to be held accountable by the people.

[Greatday]

If the actual goal is to make access to health insurance more affordable, there are actions that can (and will) be taken to accomplish this goal. Some of these changes include:

Allowing Health Insurance to be marketed across state lines. This is not allowed now. By doing so, there will be an immediate expansion of the risk pool.

Allow for the creation of new insurance risk pools by professional groups. There has been legislation in the Senate for several years to allow this but, the Democratic leadership (Harry Reid) will not allow it to come up for a floor vote.

There are a lot more changes that will come about - but the key is, premiums will get cheaper - and more people will be able to acquire quality health insurance