Depending on the type of surgery it is, it might be elective. Bypass surgery, in general, is a treatment of symptoms (angina) rather than a life-saving procedure. That’s something that heart doctors often don’t share with their patients, touting that horrifically invasive surgery as medically necessary.
No, it does not. I get one at my annual physical, for which I can make an appointment less than a month in advance. I’m sure if I just wanted just the pap I could get it within the week, as I have with any other service I need from my doctor.
I do not have dental insurance, so the wait for an appointment is indefinite - until I can find a job that will pay for it. As far as I’m concerned, then, dental care here is completely ineffective.
It is also facing enormous pressure to not allow private treatment. Which pressure is more enormous will be left for history to decide, but in the mean time, please do not misrepresent the commitment held by many Canadians to public health care.
The problem in the US is that people don’t realize how much they actually pay for health care.
For example, at my workplace, the family plan costs employees $120 every two weeks. But this is only 40% of the cost as our company pays the other 60%, so health insurance is actually costing $300 bi-weekly, or $7800 a year.
Median income in the US is between 35k and 40k, let’s call it $40k for arguments sake, plus the approximate $5k that the employer is kicking in for health insurance. $7800 of $45000 is 17.3% of gross income. And that’s just the insurance!
So if taxes were raised 7% to pay for nationalised health care, that’s still half of what most people would be paying now for insurance.
Additionally, i’m trapped in a sytem where i’m paying for health insurance, but don’t actually have it. Because i opt not to be in the system, i’m losing out on the $5000 that my company is giving everyone else. Finding a good job is hard enough, you shouldn’t also have to narrow down your choices by choosing one with a health benefits plan that meets your needs.
The system as it is, is horrible. It needs to change. Nationalised health care isn’t perfect, but i believe it’s the best way.
You would be amazed how many people with health insurance are indignant at being asked to pay a bill.
I work in the billing office of a specialist physician practice. I think most people would agree with me that it’s pretty much common practice that when you go see a doctor, you’re going to owe some kind of co-pay (unless you’re on Medicaid or have Medicare with other supplemental insurance.) However, you would be AMAZED at how many people refuse to pay their co-pay at time of service, and/or get indignant about being billed for this amount.
Is there any other business in the US (or anywhere else) where you can walk in, receive a service, and not expect to pay anything? We (my co-workers & I) have been called liars, con-artists, incompetent, and “full of shit” by patients when we have asked for the balance due on their bill.
We have been told to rebill deductable amounts to the insurance company because the patient “shouldn’t really owe that”. We’ve been told we billed items wrong when the insurance denies something as a non-covered benefit.
Yes, the insurance companies make mistakes - and I’m VERY good at making them fix them whenever I can. However, thanks to “managed care”, we are contracted with multiple insurance companies/HMO’s/PPO networks…we have to accept the fee schedule from the insurance company, and WE HAVE TO BILL THE PATIENT for what the INSURANCE COMPANY decides is patient responsibility. Along with that, we have to WRITE OFF whatever is over the fee schedule amount…and if the insurance decides something is “inclusive”, we have to write that off, too (if we can’t appeal it.)
I’m not entirely in favor of a totally socialized health care system, but something has to be done. Currently, the major insurance companies (Anthem, United Healthcare, et.al.) have been reporting substantial profit increases. However, each year, the amount we can get paid by their fee schedule is reduced. The amount of premium the patient pays is increased. What is covered by the insurance is reduced.
I don’t have a solution, but it damn sure needs fixing. And until patients realize that both the doctors and the patients are being shafted by the insurance companies (and it’s not the doctors who are “out to get them”) it’s not going to get any better.
[/soapbox]
Well, yes, but socialized health care gives more for less. Our current healthcare system is so extremely broken that the prices we pay no longer reflect any sort of reality. We are getting a small percentage of better healthcare for an exponentially greater cost. And in this case we don’t have any choice about it- it’s either all or nothing, and nothing is such a bad risk that nobody who has the option chooses it.
Some of the greatest technology in the world is a result of US government research- from velcro to the Internet. Perhaps we won’t see quite the proliferation of drugs, but perhaps we will also avoid situations like the current “children’s behavoir disorder of the month”.
In any case, all the drugs in the world won’t help the millions of Americans that can’t afford them.
Do you think those choices arn’t being made in America? HMOs make all kinds of choices about what they will cover and what they will not. There are people out there going without the health care they need because their plan chose not to cover it. Beyond that, there are millions who never even had the chance to be a tough choice- they are dying because they can’t afford the health care that would save their lives. But instead of deciding how care gets distributed based on prognosis, etc. we decide based on whos got the most cash. I understand some people think that is reasonable, but it seems like a fucking tragety to me.
Stipulated that a portion of what is sold as pharmaceuticals are little more than cosmetics. However, money is an incentive for companies to make new drugs (of all kinds). And I also say that what may be cosmetic to you or I may be necessary to someone else. An anti-fungal that rids a nail of infection may be a convienience for some, but the story could be different if said nails discomforted you.
Not necessarily. That’s the problem: it sounds great, but has implimentation issues. Like I said in my point 2.), I don’t think our government could do a good job at it. Too many partisan issues, too many my state vs your state issues.
Stipulated. But I would like to see some comparisons of rate. Can you tell me that the government creates more breakthroughs with less money? I don’t believe the incentive is as high to create new technology if you are working for “the betterment of fellow citizens” alone. If your working for the betterment of fellow citizens and the possiblity of making more money, I see that as a better incentive.
The choices I was refering to are that basically, in the UK, if you’re a pensioner (over 65, I believe), the national health system is less and less willing to spend even tiny amounts of money on you.
My point is merely that socializing medicine is not an easy answer. It could work well, but there is no garuntee. Especially if we remove an incentive for future R&D.
And BTW, I am not for just trusting in HMO’s, either. I do completely agree that they need a major over-haul. I do not agree that turning the problem completely over to the government is the answer, though. Intervention, yes. Socialization, no.
I actually believe (in an ideal world) that all people should pay the same percentage of their salary for healthcare (maybe with some idiot taxes on dangerous habits like smoking, driving, rock-climbing, etc.). We are all prone to the same illnesses and should all have the same benefits of medicine to cure said illnesses; and should all be thankful of the technology and people who restore that portion of our lives. I simply do not have enough faith in our governement to create a fair, competant system to regulate our healthcare.
-Geek
No, there are no guarantees. Yes, there would be problems.
But what else do you have to offer? Is the status quo better?
My point isn’t simply that there will be problems, but that, yes, the status quo is better than what we will have. We would wind up curing the disease but killing the patient. Again, tho: I’m not happy with where we are; I just don’t agree that socializing medicine will have the effect sought.
I would agree to socialize medicine immediately after the entire legal system were socialized. From para-legals on up.
.
.
.
Sounds kind of odd, doesn’t it? But it’s like saying that in order to affect tort reform, all lawyers must be civil servents, hired through the same process as police officers, and made to be “professional jurors” and clerks for four years before they have the right to practice.
And to the lawyers out there: I’m just using your craft as an example; I’m not advocating this.
But what are you basing that on?
Pro universal healthcare people can point to models that offer the same or better care than the US offers for less money. Such models may not be revealed as perfect. I’ve never seen a perfect system.
Anti-universal healthcare people offer some statistics that contradict other statistical sources and tend to rely on a general unease about the government.
Surely you wouldn’t want to make big decisions based on unsupported statistics and a Bad Feeling.
Our system in the US is really bad. Ten years ago, I had no idea how bad it was, and I was pretty damned glib about people “paying their own way” and “don’t want the gubmint involved” and “damned slackers are trying to take my money from me!”
Now I realize that I am paying for all of it, no matter what spin someone tries to put on it. I pay when people miss work. I pay when they can’t pay their bills. I pay when they default on their loans. I pay when they go bankrupt. I pay when people drop out of school. I pay when people become disabled. I pay when people die early. I pay when emergency rooms are clogged with people with colds. I pay when ambulances are used for non-emergency purposes. I pay when drug companies subsidize people who can’t afford their drugs. I pay when doctors hire more staff to deal with paperwork. I pay when my insurance company mandates a 10% profit. I pay when my company goes out of business. I pay. I pay. I pay.
And for all that I pay, still some people are getting fucked out of their houses or their life-savings. Still some people get no care until it’s too late–not because they are foolish or worthless or lazy or too stupid to go to the doctor but because they couldn’t afford to pay the ransoms on their lives.
I don’t, in other words, give a fuck about your Bad Feeling.
And besides the fact that their only goal is to make money, without regard for the social consequnces, as many of us know quite well, considering how efficient corporations are, not according to the beloved free market theory, but to the way they really work, as essentially everybody who worked in a major private company knows, I shudder to think what would happen if they got their nose in my healthcare.
Err…actually, I don’t need to think about it. I’ve the excellent example of the USA in front of my eyes. It would cost me vastly more, in taxes and pivate insurances for an equivalent level of service, I would be drowned under paperwork, my insurance would do everything it could in order to avoid paying, I would have a huge deductible, I would be competely screwed if I had a preexisting condition, I couldn’t anymore choose my doctor without the approval stamp of my insurance company, I would have no coverage beyond emergency care if I lost my job (and if receive emergency care for a serious condition, I could become bankrupt), and so on…
And did I mention that in order to be so privileged, I would have to pay vastly more in taxes and insurance?
I’m fed up with this bullshit about the lack of efficiency of public healthare. The US healthcare system is a major failure on all accounts. But I’m sure it won’t deter you from regurgitating the “free market party” line…
Oh! And " ** Liberal ** " , I’m fed up with your libertarian stance too. I thought we would get rid of political theoricians who couldn’t care less about the real world (or rather would dismiss reality if it’s not in accord with their theory of choice) with the fall and discredit of communism. But I guess I was wrong.
But I can point (and have pointed to) socialized systems that do not offer the same or better.
And I have also pointed out one consequence of lowering the price of drugs in the US. Just as you are paying for the consequences of other, the US is paying for the other countries to have lower drug prices. If we socialize medicine and lower drug prices to the point where the world market is no longer profitable, what to you think will happen to the drug supply to Somalia, South Africa, etc.?
You also have no good model of a world-wide healthcare economy if the one remaining profitable market turns to a socialized medicine system. Neither do I. All I can do is look at what is known and make a prediction.
I am not saying and have not said that what we have is perfect. It needs work. **A lot of work. ** I am saying that as one of the last profitable markets for healthcare industries, if we socialize, things will not go * in the long run * as well as we would like.
I want the same effects as most posters here do. It is a joke that in one of the world’s richest countries that people don’t get enough healthcare. And I freely admit that the insurance companies are not telling us the whole story about their finances. But saying the healthcare system will be better if completely run by the government is like saying the legal system would be completely better if all lawyers were civil servents.
You’ve made a claim about the UK system lowering the amount of care to elderly people. That has been the extent of your pointing.
And surely you wouldn’t claim that lowered care to the elderly is worse than no care at all for elderly and non-elderly alike?
Well, he actually made an assertion without backing it up with any eveidence. Yes there may be tough choices to me made in the NHS regarding all forms of chronic illness. But these are the kinds of cases that private health insurance is loathe to take on anyway. That is the problem I have with private health insurance, they only pay for your medical for a certain amount of time or for a certain amount of money. What happens when that runs out? You stop taking your medicine? You get kicked out of hospital? Or you or your relatives keep paying and run up masses of debt? I would prefer to pay a set amount to the government and have them provide it for as long as I need it than trust a profit making company to provide the best care for me as long as the insurance holds out.
I actually lost my night job last year because the business unit I was in was offshored. To Canada. An employer bears enormous healthcare costs in the US, and very little (included in corporate taxes) in Canada. If the commercials that are on over here a couple dozen times a day are to be believed, all with lower corporate taxes (than New York, granted, but still).
If a person has completely maxed out on private medical insurance, and he does not have the means to pay on his own, he is a candidate for federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. His family is not AFAIK required to fund his care. Hospitals cannot throw you out due to financial issues if you still need care. Hospitals by me have big signs in them about this, including who to contact for help with the process. If you’re in the U.S., you’re already paying money to support these and other programs, including ones to help the elderly and the needy to obtain prescription medicine, dental care and eyeglasses.
And therein lies the nature of this debate. Some people trust government more than corporations, and some corporations more than governments.
unless you want a copy of their chart, you’re going to have to take my word on it.
I should point out that it may sound like someone prescribed medicine for the patients, and NHS doctors prevented that medicine from being administered, which is, of course, absurd. What I meant was: if they had been in this country, they would have been prescribed medicine to extend their life. By being over a certain age in the NHS, the doctors did not prescribe the drugs.
However, I know these boards are frequented by some british folks. I haven’t heard anyone coming out and accusing me of lying or distorting the facts. Might that back up (or at least give evidence of) my claim?
Of course not. Surely you can’t say that there is no care at all for elderly and non-ederly alike in this country?
I think, maybe, that I’m not getting my views across.
Lemme try again.
1.) If we socialize to try to force the cost of healthcare in this country down, we run the risk of jeopardizing the future of healthcare. The reason why I say this: The US is the single largest profitable market for healthcare companies (represents over half of the profit for companies). Other countries forcing their own wishes on the prices of pharmaceuticals have forced prices here in the US to rise.
2.) Our government is (or at least many branches are) is a towering example of how to screw things up. Congress uses any money it can, regardless of what that money was acquisitioned for (ala the currrent SS system fiasco); congress of happy to continue to fund projects that are billions of dollars over budget and not likely to be very useful (ala the Big Dig). Although company leadership can screw up as well (ala Enron), long standing companies must be able to survive by their practices.
3.) I don’t want things to stay as they are. I want to see an overhaul of the insurance companies and their practices. I do believe it will take government intervention (but not control).
4.) Many folks (myself included) claim that our legal system needs work too. Think of all of the lawyer jokes you have heard about (and, probably, told). Yet no one ever says: let’s force lawyers to be a part of government; yeah that’ll solve everything! Why do you assume that forcing healthcare to be a part of the government will solve everything?
I don’t understand your logic. You’ve pointed out your loss of wages through the negligence of others yet you want to accelerate the process.
There is already a Government medical system for people caught in the cycle of poverty. If this program is forced on everyone than it will alter his or her dependency on government. There are 3 possible outcomes to this. People will be less dependent, experience no change, or will be more dependent on government. If the outcome is an increased dependency (loss of spending income through increased taxes) then any shortfalls in the medical system will be felt by a larger percentage of the populace.
Your description of people losing their house falls into the category of the consequences of poor choices. While I hate to see this happen there is no constitutional guarantee of a house at the end of the retirement rainbow. Trading insurance for housing is a risk and it is covered under the individual freedom (the right) to make bad choices.
If you want to complain about HMO’s then consider these institutions as a precursor of things to come. HMO’s are privately held companies that manage finite health care funds. The concept is no different than a national health care system. Consumer responsibility for health care decisions are relinquished to doctors who in turn respond to HMO demands and insurance concerns (lawsuits). There is little incentive (for the consumer) to spend money wisely in either an HMO or a national health care system. The difference is personal choice. The only way to reverse this trend is to offer alternatives to HMO’s in the form of insurance policies and increased wages (the remaining difference that would have been spent on HMO’s). When individuals regain the responsibility of managing their own money then the cost of health care will stabilize through competition. Doctors can offer direct reductions in office visits to patients who pay cash.
There are a number of ideas that governments have used to control costs. Canada extended the length of patents for name-brand drugs to 20 years. The United States has, at least on some State levels, limited the size of malpractice lawsuits. Such ideas cost nothing in the form of increased taxes or reduced benefits. I believe the role of government should always be aimed at empowering individuals to provide for their own needs and a nationalized health care system will ultimately reduce either personal wealth or desired benefits.
That’s not an accurate statement. Your choice also involved paying for an office visit out-of-pocket which would probably be less than a month’s worth of cell phone and cable (pick any other non-essential that you are currently paying for).
You could have combined your out-of-pocket expense with your HMO coverage by then accepting whatever treatment/diagnostics are allowed for by the HMO. Any organization I’ve dealt with has provisions for immediate needs.
BTW, I hope things go well for you, regardless of the choices you make. I understand your feelings toward HMO’s because I share them. Since HMO’s are a government directed incentive I would like to see a mandate that allows people to choose a wage increase and **medical insurance ** as a breakeven alternative.
This thread is intended to argue the merits of various scheme to fund medical services, not to voice personal opinions regarding the general nature of other posters’ political, economic, or philosophical beliefs. Let’s keep the personal comments out of this, please.
[ /Moderator Mode ]