No, UHC will be a massive and total clusterfuck, of that I am sure.
And it will still be better and cheaper than the current system.
But if we kill all those jobs who will be able to afford to buy stuff? Those people have families and houses and stuff.
On a personal level? It’s not a priority. Transplants affect a small percent of the population, are extremely expensive and require a ton of maintenance. I don’t really see any need to change from our current system. There may be one that I’m not aware of, but as far as systemic health issues, this one seems minor.
My understanding is that the US system works by identifying closest match and greatest need, as well as ability to pay. Others here probably know more about exactly how this works.
Obviously, if there were UHC, ability to pay would be removed as a factor… if the health insurance covered that sort of treatment.
Anyways, I don’t get the relevance of this line of discussion to rights. Certainly, no one claims a right to an organ transplant?
There is nothing free market about insurance paid healthcare so the question is; is this an area where the US government can help?
I think it is. Healthcare is analogis to the US postal service where volume overcomes the outliers without loss of efficiency (even being a bureaucracy) and the group benefits as a whole.
Is it a right? No.
So no need for change? OK, that means the poor are less likely to get access to transplants. At least you are consistent. I think it is an horrific view but you are welcome to it.
UHC doesn’t necessarily need to act as health insurer would (perhaps you are blinded by your system to the point of not seeing this). You don’t have to go to the government to see if they cover a transplant. They do, the only judgement to be made is one of tissue matching, medical priority and likelihood of success.
You really don’t think that is an improvement?
And no-one has a “right” to a transplant, but most other countries have decided that they do have a right of equal access to a transplant and that ability to pay plays no part in that.
I’m very proud of that, and very proud that my tax money goes to help those who need it, and bolsters a system that is there for me if/when I need it. It is one less thing to worry about.
They couldn’t “fix” Medicare with a Democrat in the White House, and control of both houses of Congress. But it’s not their fault, just like it won’t be their fault when Congress fails to make the Medicare cuts to pay for Obamacare.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
That’s completely opposite to my experience of a NICU. Most of the babies there left healthy after a few weeks (some less, some more); the majority of those babies had nothing that would cause them to not be able to work as an adult, and even the long-term problems were usually fairly minor ones, like asthma or needing glasses at a very young age.
Here’s one cite among many:
It then goes on to talk about some of the problems for premature babies, varying in severity and how common they are, but still, 60% is pretty high.
Prematurity is only one of the reasons for a baby being in a NICU - my daughter was there due to the cord depriving her of oxygen at birth - but it is an extremely common one, though weighing less than 1lb 12oz is still extremely rare and even they often still have good long-term outcomes.
I know I’m in the UK with UHC and you’re in the US, but I wouldn’t have expected the disparity to be great when it comes to NICUs.
Are you sure you’re not misremembering because your cousin would mainly talk about the severe or unusual cases?
Only 15% of the population is without health insurance, and quite of few of those by choice. About 60% get it through an employer, 9% buy it privately, leaving around 27% getting it from the government (there is overlap).
62 percent of bankruptcies are due to health costs . Of those 80 percent have insurance.
Our system is a mess.
The appliances in Medicare are very overpriced. There have been several attempts to make them compete ,to lower prices, but congressmen vote it down due to pressure from the lobbyists.
Health insurance companies have 5 lobbyists for every politician. They inundate the pols when a potential vote is coming up.
Medicare would be much better if we had control over it. But allow those who profit to run it, and costs will soar. That lesson is never learned.
So if you increase the size and scope of Medicare, will you expect that lesson to be learned or exacerbated?
Increasing the incarceration rate increased the drive for private-for-profit prisons. Increasing the size of the military increased the drive for private military contracts.
Private business would be stupid to not go after massive amounts of tax payer money. If you can’t learn to understand that it will continue to cripple you.
Tell you what, when the heath care bubble burst (and it is a bubble*) just like in the housing burst, many will wonder why we did not do much to prevent what it was patently and historically obvious. Many jobs will end once that takes place, I would rather have them lost by planning ahead rather than waiting for the disaster, but somehow many conservatives think that it would never happen for some reason.
*A big red one. 
Video of statistician Hans Rosling showing how insane our expenses are. (Link goes right away to the relevant question #7)
But the kicker is that he is reporting data from up to 2006, more recent reports shows that the already insane bubble is growing more. (from around $5000 per person in 2006 to around $7000 now)
I think that is the progressive line, private business already learned that to protect their access to the government teat, that politicians that are friends of private business get help to get elected.
The problem nowadays is that the Republicans are in the pockets of industry, the bigger problem IMHO is that a good number of Democrats are also.
Why is it a horrific view that if people have no way to pay for transplants that they not receive them? I think it’s a realistic view- until there is a system by which everyone has an ability to pay (such as universal health care). As I pointed out, I don’t really care about transplants as a specific health issue. If I were to design a system, I probably would eliminate income/ability to pay, but I would also eliminate greatest need, and determine transplant recipients based on QALYs or some other form of quantitative assessment.
What do you mean by the bolded portion?
Creating for profit prisons resulted in more prisoners. If there is a profit, they will go after it regardless if they harm people.
But how far will they go?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-15-skid-row_x.htm
How about dumping patients who are poor on the street?
Emergency care has to stabilize a person in trouble, They do not have to continue treating them.
That’s right, and consistent across all government provided contracts. See a trend?
Hospitals and doctors are not for profit institutions where you live?
I live in the US, hospitals and doctors are for profit institutions.
Well, ignoring the nature of doctors’ practices (individual proprietorships, professional partnerships, and PLLCs), typically a hospital is a NFP corporation. (Note that this does not describe whether they should "run in the black, not the red), but rather whether their primary goal is turning a profit or not.
errr…because they will die, or at best live in pain and misery. Your comments reveal a fundamental difference between us I think.
Actually it is a combination of exactly that type that is used in the UK. Ability to pay is never an issue.
That it is possible for UHC to operate differently to that of a health insurance company.
The NHS doesn’t look for ways to avoid treating you, they look for the way to give the best care they can to those most in need.
It may be that such a concept is very alien to you.
The giveaway happened during the Bush administration under a Republican Congress. That and the giveaway to the companies administering Medicare, which did get eliminated.