That medicaid is widely available to those of us without insurance is a myth. The eligibility rules vary by state but for the most part, if you are a working adult, you won’t get covered unless you have a high-cost emergency (cancer doesn’t count), and often not even then.
In Pennsylvania, as a single woman without any children and, thankfully, without a qualifying disability, I am automatically ineligible for non-emergency coverage, regardless of my income, so long as I own a car, regardless of the age or value of the car, if someone else co-owns the car or if how much money may be owed against my interest in said car. If I lose my job tomorrow, and have $0 income, until I sell my only means of transportation and have no more than $250 (I believe) in the bank, I won’t even get beyond the initial screening.
The idea that Medicaid is universally available to the uninsured, even the low income uninsured, is feel-good nonsense passed around by those who have a vested interest in pretending that the “safety net” is stronger and wider than it really is or ever was. But 80% of uninsured Americans are in families where there is at least one wage-earner, and often more than one. If there is income, there is no Medicaid. 14,000 Americans are losing their health care coverage every single day because of job losses and COBRA expirations, and the majority will never have Medicaid coverage.
True. And having spent 28 years with the US system and 11 years with the Canadian, I’d take the latter over the former any day. I’d much rather live where medical decisions, triage and necessity trump wealth when it comes to health care.
Exactly. And what opponents to “government run” health care don’t seem to realise is that the government in places like Canada doesn’t RUN the health care, it just pays for it.
It is my understanding that the so called “Death Panels” we so named because it gave a person to decide what they wanted to have done at the end of their life. The person decided it him or her self, not the Government, that was just a suggestion for them to decide? Did they want an operation etc. or not. No matter what is proposed some will object.
How can the insurance system be reformed without being dismantled? Under the current system, you can pay an insurance company for years for the privilege of denying you needed services.
I was born in 1930, I had no health care until I was in my 30’s. I cut my foot off at age 8 the doctors and hospital made it so my parents could pay a little at a time. We saved ahead for our first 3 children, we payed the doctor a few dollars each visit until it was payed for, when our child was sick the doctor came to our home if the child had a high fever.
After we had Insurance the doctor would put us in the hospital for a test because the Insurance would only pay if one was in the hospital. that caused the insurance to go up. When some of my children were born, the hospital padded the bill (like charging $150 dollars for medication which was 2 aspirins) when I called the hospital on it they said they needed the money to pay for those who had no insurance!
Now the cost of health care has soared because people use any excuse to sue, as a result the rates go up, the docotrs have to pay a lot for insurance and the lawyers advertise to get people to sue. Doctors charge a lot so they can pay their insurance, plus make money, it is a domino effect.
Sadly it seems, there are many people who want to get rich either by winning the lottery or sueing some one. The American dream used to be that a person could work hard and get ahead, now, the one’s who do work are asked to pay for the ones who want to get rich quick. Each time a person sues the cost is added to the rest of the public in one way or another.
The simple fact of the matter is that our health care system is clearly and obviously wildly inefficent – we pay more than twice what Canada does for health care, and that means that those of us who are insured get less effective health care than people in Canada. Now if you factored in the American uninsured and calculated the quality of their health care (only fair, since all are covered in Canada) the figures would be even more skewed in favor of Canada.
The reason for that is that insurance companies are doing a VERY poor job of managing health care. They deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they refuse treatment on technicalities, they spend huge amounts on executive compensation and stockholder payouts that could be spent on health care, and in general do everything they can to profit off the suffering of their clients.
The post about the poor coverage offered by Medicare is also true. I have read many stories about people being forced to live like paupers to satisfy Medicare requirements. (The problem here of course is that conservatives who don’t like Medicare in some states have done everything they can to create it as a system that covers virtually no one.)
I have ALSO read many stories of financially comfortable people with catastrophic illnesses who have been driven to bankruptcy by the present system of coverage.
Guys, the system is broke. It doesnt’ work at all well. Fixing it will be easy – deep-six the insurance companies, create a single-payer system where ALL are included in the insured pool (thus spreading the risk instead of concentrating on coverage of only those who don’t need it, as insurance companies presently attempt to do (see, denial of pre-existing conditions) and get everybody covered.
Do you conservatives really LIKE to see hard-working, decent Americans being driven to bankruptcy by catastrophic illness? YOU might be next … if so, please don’t bother us by complaining … it’s what you wanted, after all.
Again, you cannot discount the health disparities between the people of two different nations. A better comparison may be to look at cost and outcomes of individuals who live in states that have tried a state version of UHC. Even then, you cannot discount the health disparity between people living in Mississippi versus those in Vermont.
Is insurance overpriced? Look at what is covered in the highest markets. We, as a country, have somehow bastardized the term “insurance” with regard to health insurance. Health insurance is no longer about covering risks and is much more about having a third party pay for any checkup or medical procedure performed. Maybe some reform in this area would benefit those who cannot afford insurance.
Also, I am not dismissing those without insurance. I don’t see a point, though, is dismantling our entire system. There are ways around this problem without putting us on the road to UHC. If the Liberals were honest about the public option the bill could have been 20 pages instead of 2000.
Obviously it would have to be very generous at first. But, when it is the only option left it can then be as nightmarishly stingy and rationed as it pleases.
You are assuming that the government is willing to let the plan fail. I submit that government would not want their brand damaged any more than a company would and, therefore, will spare no expense to make is successful at the start.
What kind of question is that? I should ask how can we reform insurance by dismantling it? You DO realize that reforming something does not requre destroying it…don’t you?
Many people never consider the regulations placed on insurance companies in certain states. Deregulating and/or allowing people to buy coverage across state lines would be a start. Limiting medical malpractice amounts would lower the price of insurance and reduce the cost of care by removing a huge incentive for doctors to use defensive medicine.
What common thread links Canada, Britain, Japan and various other countries? They all have UHC, lower costs and better outcomes then the US. It works in every other rich industrial democracy. Why do you feel Americans are soley incompetent in that regard?
How do you explain the fact that this hasn’t happened in Canada, a single payer system?
Could you describe some specific aspects of actual existing single payer systems that you particularly object to, and explain why the concept in general is not a viable alternative to the current insurance mess? And offer alternative solutions if you have any in mind?
This is simply an American Exceptionalism argument; The US is exceptionally in poor health, and nothing can be done about it. Did you ever stop to think that the health disparities you mention may be DUE TO the single payer system in Canada, and the fact that it does not cost a Canadian money to get preventative health care (checkups, shots, pre-natal care, etc)
Also, Canada is not a monolithic culture either. People in Quebec smoke more, People in BC drink more.
Actually, it turns out that instances of many diseases are higher in Europe; they smoke more for instance. But with UHC the outcome is better. In fact the only demographic in the US that has comparable or better outcomes than Europe are those over 65 which have UHC through Medicaire.
It must be frustrating that all the facts are against you, I know you’d love your argument of “government is bad” to be supported by reality, but it just isn’t so.
No culture is monolithic but averages are used within countries to get a snapshot of that culture. It’s very difficult to compare two different countries. Have you considered the higher homicide rate and traffic fatalities in the US. How about all those war fatalities. It is overly simplistic to to list life expectancy as proof that UHC results in a longer life.
This statistic should tell you something. When you look at an older cohort they fare as well or better in the US. This number is important because most homicides, war related deaths, traffic fatalities ect. have already occurred.
What’s frustrating is the simplistic arguments and supposed correlations that are trotted out with no understanding of what they really mean.
Medical tourism is especially popular for Americans who can get adequate treatment for far less in Thailand or India than at home, even with travel costs.