Healthcare - The More I Learn the More Disgusted I Become

I disagree. Illegal immigration is not forcing thousands and millions of people into bankruptcy. Our health system is. The number of illegal immigrants who use our health care system is a fraction of the whole.

You fix illegal immigration by ‘going after employers and drying up jobs’. You fix health care by universal coverage.

If we completely overhaul health care, illegal immigrants will be able to go into an ER for treatment. If we do nothing about overhauling health care (i.e., maintain the status quo), illegal immigrants will be able to go into an ER for treatment. There’s no way in hell we’re going to kick people out of the ER just because they are not here legally. But if we don’t overhaul the system, then more and more people will be forced into bankruptcy, the next generation will be raised in poverty, and tomorrow’s workers will be sick and uneducated. And people will still use the ER. If changing or not changing the system does not affect the immigration problem, doesn’t it make sense to tackle the health care issue?

Well said.

Starving Artist, in a system under which everybody is covered, nobody needs to apply for normal benefits.

Under UHC systems, people just can’t be rejected for normal SS coverage.

I find that very difficult to believe. One CAT scan costing 20,000 dollars? Where did that money go?
Can you get an itemized account from your doctor?

I have yet to see a credible reason for not overhauling health care. The OP presented a bunch of data showing we need to overhaul health care. Those who are opposed to it have have not presented anything that I can see.

Help me out here. Magellan01, how does stopping illegal immigration fix the health care problem? Starving Artist opined that government sucks at dispersing benefits with regards to social security disability (though he did not link to any studies of this). Wel,l maybe, but so what? Everyone I know with Medicare loves it. I think this fact is more relevant. I could even link to studies which show that the overwhelming majority of Medicare recipients are very happy with it. This, to me at least, demolishes Starving Artist’s reason to be against health care reform. What other reasons are there? Death panels? Well, we seem to already have them and there is no evidence that passing reform will create more. Tax increases for all? No evidence for this either, nor is there any evidence that trading a higher tax burden for universal coverage would be a bad thing. If there is evidence, I have not seen it, have you? How about the stifling of innovation and the burdening of small business with health care costs? I saw a study that showed that socialized medicine actually increased the creation of small businesses as people were less likely to be afraid of starting them because they did not have to worry about health care. Golden handcuffs and all that… So magellan01, Starving Artist, Sam Stone, Shodan, etc…, can you present any hard data showing that reform would be a bad thing, because I have not seen it yet…

Isamu, in 1995 I detected a small bump on one of my breasts. I didn’t think it was anything but since the protocol is “go to the doctor,” I hied myself to one.

The doctor sent me to a “specialist,” which wasn’t a gynecologist
or a radiologist
or a dermatologist
or an oncologist.

It was a surgeon.

The surgeon completely ignored the small bump and focused on the fact that I’ve got cysts (which have been there for as long as the breasts). He made me come back the next day to take a sample for an analysis.

I had to fight the insurance (I did win) because I hadn’t been able to go back to the GP in between both surgeon visits, to get the analysis approved (no physical time). And I still remember the bill for the analysis:

  • Doctor extracting sample with a syringe: 150$
  • 5 minute visit: 118$
  • Actual analysis: 50$

My brother works in a hospital as an interpreter for Spanish speakers. He tells some really interesting stories about it. He’ll interpret for someone who is at death’s door…

Doc: Who is your primary doctor?
Patient: Dr. Gonzalez
Doc: OK, which one?
Patient: The one in Mexico City.
Doc: Mexico City?
Patient: Yes. He said I need [very expensive treatment]
Doc: Ah. When did you arrive in the US?
Patient: This morning.

Short story long, they come here for free treatment. The hospital can’t turn them away in that condition, but the hospital gets reimbursed by the Feds I guess so… Plus the illegals know how to work the system as far as responding to questions about whether they’re married, living with family, and so on so as to make sure they pay nothing.

Here’s a good story about interpreting for a couple who say they’re not married. The one who is “NOT” the husband doesn’t like the interpreter—no special reason, it seemed. The one who is “NOT” the wife liked the interpreter fine, no complaints whatsoever. Now, the non-husband isn’t paying a cent for it, and his name isn’t even on the dotted line as far as being possibly subject to fraud or anything, so what legal right does he have to say ANYTHING? Still, the hospital just got them a different interpreter. They probably figured he’d work on her until she asked for one. Geez.

Also, say the doctor tells them, “Give the child OTC Robitussin three times a day. A bottle will cost about $3,” the patient will reply that they don’t have money for it. The hospital will end up giving it to them (and probably billing the govt 3x what you could get it for at the local drug store).

The M.O. is to use the emergency room, which anybody will tell you is VERY expensive in the US. Nobody would dream of paying those rates for a simple problem like a cough. They weasel their way in, acting like it’s so serious. The doctor sees them and of course it isn’t, but they’re rewarded with medical care anyway.

And the thing is, they won’t report illegals. My WAG is that if you went to most countries, all the agencies cooperate. They might not be 100% efficient but if I went to Mexico looking for a handout, it wouldn’t matter whom I asked…if it was trying to use to services of a school, a hospital, the police, whoever, when that agency found out I’d be reported, then deported. Here there seems to be legal obstacles to that. IANAL but I’d guess it’s a confidentiality issue.

Apart from philosophical concerns regarding freedom from government control over our lives and the benefits of individual responsibility and a free market, I would be far less concerned about government participation in the country’s health care if I thought it would remain stagnant and not grow to eventually take over everyone’s health care. Look at what has happened over the last century to the deductions we taken from our paychecks. A hundred years ago we didn’t even have an income tax and now even middle to low income people pay roughly 50% of their income in fed, state, Medicare/Medicaid, and sales taxes.

Social Security, as it was originally sold to the public, has grown to the point that it requires roughly 16% of every person’s salary (half paid by employers unless self-employed, but money still that it costs to employ someone and which could otherwise go to the employee him or herself). For that matter, look at how virtually every government agency and program since the 1930s has grown from what was originally proposed.

Government, above all, seeks to grow. Politicians these days get elected by promising to take money from one group of people and giving it to those whose votes they wish to gain. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a Democratic president, less than just fifty years ago, was heartily applauded for stating in his inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” That certainly isn’t the Democratic philosophy of today, is it?

So what it boils down to for me is that every likelihood is that it would only be a matter of time until the U.S. government took over virtually all of its citizens’ health care. And given its history of inefficiency, bureaucracy, and underfunded social programs providing scant benefit to its intended recipients, I do not want the U.S. government in charge of peoples’ health care. This is not Germany or the U.K. or Canada. Plus, those governments are not stagnant either. Who knows the extent of government control or how much it will be costing them 50 years from now?

There is no limit to the human capacity for want, and there is no limit to politicians’ desire to pander to these wants in order to gain votes. Thus democratic government social programs tend to grow and grow until they collapse under their own weight, some of which is already happening in Canada and the U.K., and most likely to one degree or another in the majority of the other countries that provide government health care.

Ridiculously long waits and lack of sufficient funding has become the hallmark of UHC virtually everyplace it’s been tried, and my opinion is that many more deaths and much more needless suffering will be the order of the day once the government gets its hands on our health care.

Yes, we have a system now in which a minority of the population gets inferior to no care. But the majority are happy with their coverage and the speed with which they get treatment. There are solutions other than government take-over that are not even being looked at because so many people on the left simply want the government to be in charge things, period. “Companies bad; government good” seems to be the prevailing sentiment of the left. Why not pass legislation and regulate the way insurance companies operate if they are cheating people out of coverage they should rightly have? Why not have a program similar to food stamps for people who are truly needy and temporarily require health care without trying to bring everyone else under the government umbrella? Etc., etc., etc.

There is not a single government funded social program that provides more than scant benefit to its recipients, and that can only get worse if the government tries to take on the huge burden of paying for everyones’ health care, and as I said just above, IMO it will be only a matter of time until that become the case, and I don’t want no steenkin’ government bureaucrat deciding what care I’m entitled to or what it will or won’t pay for. With the current system people at least have options. They can go to work elsewhere to get better coverage, they can purchase coverage independently on their own, and/or they can pay for the care they need out of pocket. Once the government takes over – and once again, in my mind that will be only a matter of time – there will be no such options. You get what the government says you get, and you have no recourse otherwise.

That’s funny. I don’t anyone who’s on Medicare that even likes it. I do know some who are glad they have it, but that’s only because they’d have nothing otherwise and to me “It’s better than nothing” is hardly a ringing endorsement. And absolutely everyone I know who is on it and who had health insurance through their employer prior to retirement hates it.

I call bullshit on this claim.

I have a ‘middle income’, and my total payroll deductions (including 5% 401k deductions) are 25%. Sales tax in this state are nowhere near 25% of my income.

In Spain at least, no. A hospital won’t call the cops on someone because he can’t provide a SSN and his passport (if he has one) isn’t listed in SS’s system.

Can you provide any cites about wait times of other countries versus the United States?

Did you read my link about German health care? Do you have any comments about it?

The more I learn about US American healthcare, the more disgusted I become, too; many times in my nine years here, I have been shocked at what you people take as a matter of course. My bottom line on things like healthcare and insurance (and the unholy marriage of these two that US Americans have) is that a little socialism goes a long way.

I am on Medicare and I like it. I have been pretty healthy but I was borderline diabetic a couple years ago. I Lost 50 lbs and it is gone. But I go to the doc every 3 months and do not pay a dime. They ask if you need help with drugs, smoking or weight loss. They have a counselor who will go over everything with you. When I turned 66 they sent me an email telling me what preventative tests were available to me . What is not to like/ They are trying to keep me healthy so I don’t get expensive. Health care tries to get rid of me and deny payments. What is to like?
I suppose every body knows what an anti-government nut you are, and they would not waste time telling you how well they are pleased with Medicare. They would be beaten down by your bad attitude.
Just knowing you have coverage ,no matter what happens ,gives a comforting and healthy frame of mind. Americans don’t have that.

Unfortunately I have to leave for work now, but I’ve cited several times around here where in Canada waits have gotten so bad that the Supreme Court ruled exceptions could be made in the case of unreasonably long waits so as to allow private care for conditions covered by the Canadian system, something that is otherwise illegal. I’ve posted cites showing that the incoming president of the Canadian system says that most Canadians have no idea how bad things are in Canada with regard to its health care system, and I’ve provided cites as to cutbacks in necessary surgeries are being mulled in Vancouver due to lack of funding. I’ve also read and posted a couple of cites regarding wait times in the U.K. A search of this keywords and my user name should reveal them, but I can tell you from experience that the typical Doper response is “So? They don’t recommend changing to the U.S. system, do they?”, which of course has nothing at all to do with the fact that their systems are barely working, or the fact that our system works very well and in a timely fashion for the majority of our citizens.

Yes, I read it. That’s why I said: “This is not Germany or the U.K. or Canada. Plus, those governments are not stagnant either. Who knows the extent of government control or how much it will be costing them 50 years from now?”

And I know what a pro-government nut you are and so it comes as no surprise that you would be happy with it.

Still, unlike here, I don’t tend to get involved much in political discussions with my family and friends. I honestly cannot think of a single instance where someone has complained to me about Medicare in response to a politically-oriented query from me. They have always, to the best of my recollection, been offered voluntarily and usually as a result of some problem with limited coverage, good doctors who will not accept it, or what it will (or won’t) pay for. Plus the fact that some of these people are trying to exist on SS of only $1,000 a month or less but still have to pay $100 a month out of pocket for the coverage – this after paying through the nose for most of their working life to support it.

Let’s see if I understand, Starving Artist.

It is OK to use other countries as examples if it’s you doing it, but not when others do it. Is that right? Because it seems to be what you’re doing in post 55.

IMO it’s okay to use other countries’ problems in response to allegations that things are better in other countries, but it is not okay to point to other countries as examples of successful UHC when they have such problems, nor is it okay IMO to assume that to whatever degree they are functioning well now, they will continue to do so in the future. Their systems will grow and grow and eventually become unworkable. Just because they are working well now (to whatever degree they actually are, that is), is absolutely no guarantee that they will still be doing so 20, 30 or 50 years from now.

Yep I paid a long time to get it. Then I pay 100 bucks a month. Do realize what peace of mind about health care issues is worth. Then of course people bitch. I know a lot of Canadians, some are relatives. They bitch about their system. But none of them would trade for ours. When I suggest it, they act like I am nuts. People bitch. You think that is proof of systemic failure. It is not. As long as I have it, i don’t have to worry about severe illness destroying my family. That is a nice load off my back. If I get cancer. my family won’t land in the street. If you get sick, your depending on whether an insurance company feels like paying. If they don’t ,you face hassles and worries while you are sick. If that sounds better to you, then opt out when your time comes.

That exact same argument could be made about the current U.S. healthcare system. Except substitute “20, 30 or 50 years from now” to “right now”, because it’s already insanely expensive as well as broken.

Bwuh?

Does military health insurance not count? Damn, I miss Tricare. I didn’t appreciate it until I had to pay over $15,000 to break up a kidney stone. I was barely making that much in a year at the time.

Starv, old buddy, what we have doesn’t work too well. Most people are happy with it, you say? Well, at any given time most people are pretty healthy. We’re well fed here, our air and water are pretty clean, and even people who eat badly, who become malnourished, don’t have too many big problems.

But when you’re working class, even when you’re lower-middle class, one disaster can wipe out your savings – if you had any to get wiped out in the first place. If my house burns down and I lose everything, I can couch surf and stay in cheap hotels and work to rebuild. If my car is destroyed, I can get a clunker or take the bus. If my computer dies, I can go to the library or use the one in my office.

If my health deteriorates, though, I am low on options. I may not be able to work. I may not be able to function without medicines. If I wait until the point of furthest extremity, my life and future health are both in danger. I am a drag on society rather than a contributor. It costs so much more to bring a person back from the brink than it does to keep them healthy, and it is not in the best interests of most health insurance companies to provide non-emergency services: if they pay for gym memberships or dietitians their patrons will be healthier, but since most health insurance is employment-based and few people stick to one job for more than a few years anymore, it’s a waste of investment for them.

And if my house burns down, I must have homeowner’s insurance – it’s required by my mortgage company. I’m required to have car insurance, too, even if it’s paid off. My possessions are valued, it seems, but I am not.

Even if you don’t believe universal healthcare is a good idea, do you think this incredible disparity in price is any better? Do you think it’s right to charge $1500 for a bag of saline? Do you care as long as it isn’t happening to you?