[QUOTE=mks57]
You’re assuming that full-time employment is widely available. Many of the employers that I see offering entry-level and low-end jobs, go to a great deal of trouble to offer as few full-time jobs as possible.
[/QUOTE]
I’m assuming someone with no job skills has to work more hours to compensate for the lack of skills until those skills are aquired. It’s the same in many jobs. My new job is salaried and I work much more than 40 hrs/week as part of that process.
Maybe they ought to do what I did when I couldn’t afford the bells and whistles: pony up the 70$ or so for a doctor visit once a year.
So it’s not that they can’t afford any type of coverage, it’s that they can’t afford the best coverage, and I should pay for it?
And you chose to give up your health insurance. Why should I foot the bill for your choice?
Prove to me that I will pay less in taxes and for my own health insurance, and that the level of service I get now is not going to go down, under your plan where I pay for you. Your camp keeps saying that’s what will happen, and I have yet to see any actual evidence that your claim is true.
Believe me, if I could opt out of a system I get no benefit from, I would.
I can get one the same day at my primary care doctor’s office if he thinks it’s that important.
[QUOTE=catsix]
So it’s not that they can’t afford any type of coverage, it’s that they can’t afford the best coverage, and I should pay for it?
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say ‘the best coverage’. I’m talking about basic health care – which includes doctor’s visits. And yes, you should pay for it. Not just you; all of us. Because we all get the benefits of having a healthier society. I don’t have kids. I probably never will have kids. But I’m paying for other people’s issue. Why should I have to pay for other people’s children to go to school, when I don’t have any myself? Let people who have children pay for private schools! If they can’t afford private schools, let the parents stay home and teach them themselves! Yeah, right. We have public education because at least a basic level of education is beneficial to our society and our economy. We should provide basic health care to all citizens for the same reason.
You keep saying that you like your plan, you can afford your plan, and you don’t want to change your plan. How do propose to cover people who are not in such a fortunate situation as yourself, and can’t afford the coverage you so enjoy?
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
For example, the U.S. has 38 MRI machines per million population. Canada has 1.7.
[/QUOTE]
Cite?
Vast excesses of MRI capacity are also an expensive waste of resources. If you can get one done tomorrow for a trivial matter, the machine is obviously not being used at capacity. Unless it’s important, you should be on a waiting list.
And again, yes, our system has some real and significant problems. But can you please stop spouting uncited, outdated, and inaccurate data to exaggerate the situation?
[QUOTE=catsix]
And you chose to give up your health insurance. Why should I foot the bill for your choice?
[/quote]
If I was sick now and had to go to the ER you would have to regardless. But since I am not, I had to choose to help my family in which one of my members has a wife in disability.
It is not just me, and people right now are costing you and me in the near future (I have just a few months to graduate) when I begin to work full time again, (funny thing that the workplace were I am decided for me that working part time does not get you coverage)
There is no need, I always see the US spending 15% or more in GDP compared to 10%-12 other countries do; incidentally, I don’t agree with the Canadian system that did not allow private health care (however, it seems a recent court case allowed the appearance of private services) Point being that you may had no change if you keep your good plan, but finally all people will have coverage.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Cite?
Vast excesses of MRI capacity are also an expensive waste of resources. If you can get one done tomorrow for a trivial matter, the machine is obviously not being used at capacity. Unless it’s important, you should be on a waiting list.
And again, yes, our system has some real and significant problems. But can you please stop spouting uncited, outdated, and inaccurate data to exaggerate the situation?
[/QUOTE]
Government of Canada Report on the Health Industry:
There’s the cite for the Canada number. I figured that cite is about as good as they get. The study is for 2005.
I just did another search, and found other cites that had numbers closer to yours. I have no idea why there’s a discrepancy. But my cites were fine. If you can’t quote the numbers coming directly from agencies of the governments involved, what can you quote from?
By the way, as food for the other side of the argument, it may be that the U.S. has far too many MRI machines. It seems that for a while there was an epidemic of doctors buying MRI machines, and then recommending too many MRI scans to their patients to justify the machine and/or create an extra profit center for the clinic. The government passed a law to prevent those kinds of self-referrals because of the problem.
[QUOTE=Snag]
What benefit is there in requiring most people to get their health insurance through their workplace? Why should it be an employer’s responsibility in the first place? How does this help business? Some places will compete for labor by offering better benefits but wouldn’t they rather not need to bother at all? Why should an employer have to go search for and buy insurance for their employees? What sense is there in having a business plunk down a bunch of money for it and then have someone in the human resources department have to spend all kinds of time managing it? How is this more efficient than universal health care?
[QUOTE=catsix]
I never said ‘through their workplace’.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you had me confused with someone who’d addressed a question to you in one of your previous posts. Nevertheless, are you kidding? The vast majority of Americans get their health care plans through work because it’s the only way most people can afford it. It’s a lot cheaper than the COBRA I was paying for a few months ago and I get better coverage now for less money. And the vast majority of businesses provide health care because they can’t hold on to quality workers otherwise. Thus they’re forced into it. Are you denying that the employer/employee insurance system isn’t how most Americans mostly acquire their health coverage?
And you think this makes sense to make employers be responsible for their employees health care?? Maybe they should also be responsible for their weddings, housekeeping and funerals too? Why should it be business’s burden?
[QUOTE=Snag]
Furthermore, what benefit do we get by having insurance companies involved in providing health care in the first case? They are simply a middleman which would likely not be needed under universal health coverage. They generally do not add any value other than you might save a little money on a competing plan, often with a lesser benefit as well. But they do not compete with one another on providing far better care - that is basically up to the health care provider. In fact, to be profitable, they must DENY claims. The less they need to pay out the more they make, thus there is an incentive for them to restrict us from getting the level of health care that doctors want to provide but are not always able to…etc.
[QUOTE=catsix]
Again, you may call waiting lists efficient, but I don’t.
My health insurance is worth every penny.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I had a co-worker who injured his arm on the job and he spent the better part of a year having doctors want to run tests on him and the insurers kept refusing to pay for them. That wasn’t a waiting list? In fact, he usually had to wait a couple weeks or more per visits to specialist between being turned down for testing. He had no choice but to wait, and he was put on a part time schedule because his job required a lot of lifting and there was only so much work they could find for him to do. Ultimately nothing they could do worked for him, his arm kept going numb and he was force to find work elsewhere.
Or if you’d ever been with a Kaiser HMO you’d know all about waiting and waiting lists.
I’m glad you like the insurance you carry and I hope nothing seriously catastrophic happens to your health. Because if your bills start getting up to half a million or so, you probably won’t be covered. One of the major causes of bankruptcy in the US is catastrophic health issues despite people having a standard insurance policy.
And if you do have a plan that pays well enough where the sky’s the limit, it’s likely that the plan you have is probably more expensive than what the majority of Americans can afford. If not, I wish you well.
Because you’d choose to go there rather than a place like MedExpress and pay for the office visit yourself. Why is that?
You chose to work part time. They didn’t decide anything for you. You knew what options were available and made a choice.
And how does that prove my taxes would go down?
So I’ll pay more for no change in service? I don’t see any reason why I should want to.
How is that different for the government? Shouldn’t they pay for weddings, housekeeping, groceries, and funerals too? I’d just love to fork over more of my paycheck to those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
The fact that someone can’t afford the plan that I have is no excuse for failing to buy any insurance at all. It’s not an all or nothing deal.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
There’s the cite for the Canada number. I figured that cite is about as good as they get. The study is for 2005.
[/QUOTE]
If you look in the footnotes you’ll see the data they’re using is from the late 90s.
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
It’s all about you, then?..
[/QUOTE]
Having read numerous posts from the source you reference, I’d have to say YES.
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Having read numerous posts from the source you reference, I’d have to say YES.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it was I who referenced a source. At least, I didn’t link to any.
[QUOTE=catsix]
How is that different for the government? Shouldn’t they pay for weddings, housekeeping, groceries, and funerals too? I’d just love to fork over more of my paycheck to those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Duh. Because the whole point of government is to have representative body that serves us and provides the infrustructure for our society, including the environment in which business operates. It’s the most logical body to provide for that need, in part because citizens are allowed to manage it via our democratic system. Go tell your insurance company that their premiums are excessively high and they can tell you to take a hike as they line their pockets in collusion with other insurance companies in the ‘market’. Tell your governement they are charging too much and if they don’t fix it and those responsible will likely be out of a job next election day. You have a say how govt. is run, you don’t with private industry.
Taxes are an investment in that infrustructure. Compared to most industrialized nations our tax rates are low. Can you name me one other country that gets a better return on their taxes than the US? Do you actually think the US doesn’t have the resources to put together a better than average single payer health system than most other countries, especially since we have the benefit of examining what’s worked best among two dozen other nations that use such a system?
And based on the low overhead costs of programs like Medicare, the VA & Social Security, all under 5% as compared to private insurance, I think the onus is on you to prove it wouldn’t be cheaper. Also, currently the VA is just about the best health care system in America. They have a modern database, built on your tax dollars, that is so good a few countries that have single payer health care license the system and use it for their own citizens. If it’s managed right, like NASA’s Apollo program with all it’s technological spin-offs, the govt. can give you a positive return into the public sector on the investment.
It’s short sighted to think that the govt. only takes money and never creates wealth in return for the taxes paid. Any govt. would be in shambles (Soviet Russia) if it doesn’t produce wealth for the nation.
Some people believe this ‘from each according to his means to each according to his needs.’ I don’t. I don’t think it’s the government’s job to provide me with the things I need to survive. I think that’s my job.
I don’t live in another country. Given the opportunity, I wouldn’t move to one. I don’t like the way that other countries tax the hell out of those who work hard in order to carry the weight of those who don’t.
I have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to want a single-payer (which is bullshit, because it’s the tax payers who shoulder teh burden) system that increases my taxes and then forces me to buy additional insurance on top of it in order to get the same service I already have. No incentive at all. Zip, zero, zilch.
This is pretty idealistic, actually, given that the same gripes consistently come up no matter who’s in office, and that some of the most griped about politicians have made 20 and 30 year careers out of sitting in Congress. The apathetic American public doesn’t vote, so why would the government give a damn about making them happy?
Having seen the care that people I know get under Medicare and the VA, I don’t want anything even resembling that.
It’s so good that one friend of mine has to travel a couple hundred miles to see the only doctor the VA will let him see for one of his chronic health problems.
No thanks.
Governments don’t create wealth, they redistribute it. And I’m not in for any more redistribution than is absolutely necessary. I don’t like Marxism.
This seems timely. A three-year-old child suffers from hemophilia. The father makes $100,000/year and has insurance through his employer. But since his son requires medication that can cost $3,600 every few hours when he is bleeding, the insurance company found they were receiving a lot of claims. They have imposed a $1 million lifetime cap on benefits, and raised the premium for everyone in the company. Because of the high number of claims, no other insurance company will touch them, so the company is ‘trapped’ with the company they have.
That’s right. Delay treatment and he gets worse. But taking care of the emergency is less expensive than treating him when the problem first appears, right? :dubious:
So what happens when the insurance runs out?
Quit his job. Divorce his wife. I wonder if anyone has suggested euthanasia? Kill the kid. That’ll solve the problem.
Or, if people do not have insurance they can go to the ER.
That’s what people have been saying: The uninsured have to go to the ER for basic care, which causes people with real emergencies to wait.
There’s a solution. Unfortunately, Global Warming is depriving us of our ice floes.
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
This seems timely. A three-year-old child suffers from hemophilia. The father makes $100,000/year and has insurance through his employer. But since his son requires medication that can cost $3,600 every few hours when he is bleeding, the insurance company found they were receiving a lot of claims.
[/QUOTE]
Missing from your post is any question as to why it should be generally accepted that the medication should cost $3,600 every few hours in the first place?
I would guess the only reason the drug actually exists is that there is enough incentive to invest in developing drugs with potentially lucrative payoffs precisely because there is a big target market not on UHC.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
It really is very simple, and not at all emotional. We pay more in the US and receive a lesser value product. And then we die faster.
[/QUOTE]
Not entirely true. You are making a statement for all, when in truth we all analyze what we personally receive.
I personally do NOT pay that much more than in other nations (my employer pays the majority).
I get superior care than what I received in England while a student and worker.
Based on my demographics (top percentile eduction, upper middle class, safe city, etc.) my estimated life expectancy is well in line with my the nations of my ancestry.
This is part of the problem with HC reform of any sort in the US - those who vote and control the debate (through campaign donations and connections) do NOT feel the pain.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
But you DO have “socialist health care.” The United States pay more public money, and takes more in in taxes, to support public health care than any other country in the world. If I am not mistaken, it’s also #1 in per capita expenditures. And yet, in a feat of almost Olympian incompetence, all that money covers health care for only a fraction of the population.
How many times does it have to be explained before you’ll get the message? You’re paying for a completely separate “socialist” (what the heck is socialist health care, anyway? Vaccinations given by political officers?) NOW.
You’re talking about this as if it’s just a theoretical state. **But that’s what you’re already doing. **
[/QUOTE]
Hold it - is the US paying more for elderly care per capita through Medicare than, say, the UK? Is that what you are saying? Cite, por favor (just because I am interested - that is not a challenge).
Here is another problem with UHC in the US, as seen by the electorate:
-
Poor quality of care for the elderly through Medicare. Many docs will NOT take medicare patients due to the poor reimbursement levels.
-
Poor quality of care for veterans through tricare.
-
Poor quality of care in many VA hospitals (an example of how the US would run government health care).
I look at those 3, and think to myself that there is no way I want to be forced into that type of system.
[QUOTE=Algher]
3) Poor quality of care in many VA hospitals (an example of how the US would run government health care).
[/QUOTE]
The VA hospitals and system are the best in the country.
Not according to any veteran I’ve ever asked.
[QUOTE=Snag]
. Also, currently the VA is just about the best health care system in America. They have a modern database, built on your tax dollars, that is so good a few countries that have single payer health care license the system and use it for their own citizens. If it’s managed right, like NASA’s Apollo program with all it’s technological spin-offs, the govt. can give you a positive return into the public sector on the investment.
[/QUOTE]
The VA where my anesthesia for surgery would be handled by a nurse instead of a doctor? Where waiting lists are legion? Where drugs are not the latest or the greatest? I could use the VA, and choose not to. My options through my employer is far superior and worth every extra cent.
Now, the VA database IS great! Of course, it helps when the docs can’t be sued for malpractice so that there is no dis-incentive to providing all of the information about care, including mistakes. If the same database existed at a regular hospital it would be subpeoned daily by the plaintiff’s bar fishing for malpractice lawuit opportunities.