American Way of Birth, Costliest in the World

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The entire point of insurance is that you HOPE you never need it. But we can never know this for sure, we don't know what lies in the future. Even the most healthy people can still get in accidents, or get cancer. Even if you minimizez the risks, there's still a chance. Sure, I bitch sometimes about paying for insurance I don't use. But then I think how goddamn lucky I am that I don't NEED to use it. It means I'm still healthy.

True and I think it's also related to the monthly HI premium we have to pay. The monthly premium for the basic (mandatory) coverage is about $125 - $150, on top of my head without using a currency converter. It differs a bit between which insurance company you're with, but that's about it. On top of that there's the yearly co-pay of $400 - $450 (I think) for specialist procedures and medicines. But anything higher and it's all covered by the insurance. This is mostly about 'necessary' procedures. Like when you need surgery for a broken bone, appendicites, cancer, etc.
I believe these costs are significantly lower than they are in the US. Hence, there's probably also less of an 'entitlement issue' (though some probably still feel like it).
 
Very good question.

I really won't call those "socialized" services. Historically, police and fire are core services provided by any form of government. They provide a benefit to society as a whole rather than to the individual. We actually have similar elements within healthcare such as mandatory vaccinations.

Healthcare has traditionally been an individual responsibility. I don't see a cross over between the two.

nbcrusader, I'm interested to know how a healthy population doesn't benefit society as a whole. I'm willing to admit that American medicine is deeply fucked- no arguements here- but in fact national health insurance works a lot like a fire department. Everybody pays. Not everybody uses it all the time, but everybody can rely on the ability to use it when they need it. Everybody benefits from the increased safety and is protected from the errors and mishaps of their neighbors as well as their own, whether it's a fire spreading from one house to another or controlling the spread of an epidemic.

I would also like to understand this better. Where is the difference? And 'tradition' isn't a reasonable answer in my book.
 
I would also like to understand this better. Where is the difference? And 'tradition' isn't a reasonable answer in my book.

The healthcare equivalent of police and fire services is the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC, coupled with mandatory vaccination programs, protects society as a whole where it would be difficult, if not impossible, to protect oneself.

The Affordable Care Act, on the other hand, covers a wide range of non-catastrophic conditions. No need for government protection of society, as it is government protection of the individual (sometimes from themselves).
 
Fire service wasn't always a government run service.

Just sayin.
 
A friend of mine on Facebook has been really upset about a medical procedure that is proving to be extremely expensive even with insurance. She's also not able to get it done when she'd like to and she's just really upset about it. I don't fault her for it, and I feel really bad for her situation.

The ironic thing is that a lot of her friends, who are conservative and very anti-Obamacare (she is too) are writing in sympathasizing and talking about how in other countries you wouldn't have to pay so much and or even get the procedure done for free and how Obama has really messed up our health care. The irony is just unbelievable. But I didn't have the heart to point it out, considering how distraught she is.

England and Australia were mentioned by name.
 
To be clear, people who favor national health care do not consider the Affordable Care act to be a solution to all our problems. To my mind it's a rather half-assed fix that fails to address the real problems that make American medicine so expensive. It's better than before, but not great. I doubt America will ever have the balls to do a European style overhaul.
 
I doubt America will ever have the balls to do a European style overhaul.

How about ANY kind of overhaul.

I am a conservative, and I think that health care is basic human right. It goes right to core of our national values of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

My desire to "heal" every human being on US soil (well, the entire world - but we are talking about the US for now) as much a possible stems from my faith, which motivates me to love, which works through modern technology and medicine (as well as prayer, of course).

Health care is not, and never should be, considered a business enterprise.

The good news is that as technology improves - I believe you will see a return of the house doctor and small local clinics to treat the minor aches and pains at a very low cost. Hopefully the more expensive items will come down the same way IT costs have come down (price per performance cost).
 
To be clear, people who favor national health care do not consider the Affordable Care act to be a solution to all our problems. To my mind it's a rather half-assed fix that fails to address the real problems that make American medicine so expensive. It's better than before, but not great. I doubt America will ever have the balls to do a European style overhaul.

I think the ACA is a pretty crappy piece of legislation, mostly because it tries to suck and blow at the same time, so to speak.

What is important about it is that it brought to the forefront a discussion of the standard of American healthcare, how America is singularly different from every other western democracy, the stories about bankruptcies, appalling behaviour by insurance companies, etc.

The ACA is (an arguably bad) starting point, that's all.
 
I am a conservative, and I think that health care is basic human right. It goes right to core of our national values of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

My desire to "heal" every human being on US soil (well, the entire world - but we are talking about the US for now) as much a possible stems from my faith, which motivates me to love, which works through modern technology and medicine (as well as prayer, of course).

Health care is not, and never should be, considered a business enterprise.

That's lovely. I'm glad to hear that some conservative Christians interpret things in this way.
 
How about ANY kind of overhaul.

Well, that's what we got with the ACA and that's pretty much a bust as far as I'm concerned. Essentially all it's done is ensure that every American will have to deal with high premiums and deductibles they can't afford.

Okay, I grant that is a gross oversimplification, but you get my drift.
 
what happens if you get cancer?
this might not answer your question as some don't consider skin cancer to be cancer, but my mom is in this situation right now. had she been able to see the usual doctor she'd go to last year, it wouldn't be an issue right now.

however, they no longer accept her insurance, and from these procedures in the past, she's seen invoices of how much insurance covered and couldn't afford $20k+.

it took her six months to find a doctor on her insurance plan who would work on her, while the area spread. it went from needing stitches to needing a graft. then the graft didn't take. she just had the second graft put on a week and a half ago, hopefully this time it took. all because of insurance crap. i'm not posting this for anyone to sympathise, just to point out this bullshit with insurance. i don't expect everything to be free (thanks to taxes it wouldn't be anyway), but being able to see a doctor one day and not the next is infuriating.

and before anyone says it, it's not just because she laid out in the sun too much.
 
Well, that's what we got with the ACA and that's pretty much a bust as far as I'm concerned. Essentially all it's done is ensure that every American will have to deal with high premiums and deductibles they can't afford.

Okay, I grant that is a gross oversimplification, but you get my drift.

My hope is that the ACA is a first step in the right direction, I think we were so f##ked that it would have taken a full reboot and everyone knows that would have been impossible. It's going to take decades, insurance companies, drug companies, and yes lawyers have manipulated the system for so long now that it's like a fishing line that had been getting knotted up for years and now you're trying to untangle it.
 
this might not answer your question as some don't consider skin cancer to be cancer, but my mom is in this situation right now. had she been able to see the usual doctor she'd go to last year, it wouldn't be an issue right now.

however, they no longer accept her insurance, and from these procedures in the past, she's seen invoices of how much insurance covered and couldn't afford $20k+.

it took her six months to find a doctor on her insurance plan who would work on her, while the area spread. it went from needing stitches to needing a graft. then the graft didn't take. she just had the second graft put on a week and a half ago, hopefully this time it took. all because of insurance crap. i'm not posting this for anyone to sympathise, just to point out this bullshit with insurance. i don't expect everything to be free (thanks to taxes it wouldn't be anyway), but being able to see a doctor one day and not the next is infuriating.

and before anyone says it, it's not just because she laid out in the sun too much.

I hope she recovers well and that the second graft works. That sounds like a truly awful situation. Very similar to what my friend was describing.
 
My hope is that the ACA is a first step in the right direction, I think we were so f##ked that it would have taken a full reboot and everyone knows that would have been impossible. It's going to take decades, insurance companies, drug companies, and yes lawyers have manipulated the system for so long now that it's like a fishing line that had been getting knotted up for years and now you're trying to untangle it.

In my opinion nationalized health care, yes, the dreaded "socialized medicine" is the best bet.

But of course it'll never happen.

Maybe if it was socialized at the state level, it might have a chance?

But I doubt it.
 
How about ANY kind of overhaul.

I am a conservative, and I think that health care is basic human right. It goes right to core of our national values of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

My desire to "heal" every human being on US soil (well, the entire world - but we are talking about the US for now) as much a possible stems from my faith, which motivates me to love, which works through modern technology and medicine (as well as prayer, of course).

Health care is not, and never should be, considered a business enterprise.

The good news is that as technology improves - I believe you will see a return of the house doctor and small local clinics to treat the minor aches and pains at a very low cost. Hopefully the more expensive items will come down the same way IT costs have come down (price per performance cost).

If only all Christian Conservatives would follow this lead. Nicely put, man
 
I just want to say, it's really great to see FYM be active again in a way it used to be a long time ago. Old faces, same faces - we're all having great discussions, finding some common ground and having healthy debates. FYM as it should be!
 
I just want to say, it's really great to see FYM be active again in a way it used to be a long time ago. Old faces, same faces - we're all having great discussions, finding some common ground and having healthy debates. FYM as it should be!

Seconded. :up:
 
If only all Christian Conservatives would follow this lead. Nicely put, man

Thanks, Jive.

Yes - I find it confusing that the so many Christians are against universal healthcare when the modern hospital system was invented by the Church for Pete's sake!

At some point in time - greed took over and now we have this wonderful mess. But at it's heart, healthcare is about charity for our brothers and sisters that fall sick.

Perhaps everyone should get together and bypass the government - and fund hospitals through our own giving, make it a true non-profit; also knowing that one day we will all be on the receiving end of that charity.

The current quasi-regulated-maximize-profit system is simply a crime.
 
Thanks, Jive.

Yes - I find it confusing that the so many Christians are against universal healthcare when the modern hospital system was invented by the Church for Pete's sake!

At some point in time - greed took over and now we have this wonderful mess. But at it's heart, healthcare is about charity for our brothers and sisters that fall sick.

Perhaps everyone should get together and bypass the government - and fund hospitals through our own giving, make it a true non-profit; also knowing that one day we will all be on the receiving end of that charity.

The current quasi-regulated-maximize-profit system is simply a crime.

:up:
 
In my opinion nationalized health care, yes, the dreaded "socialized medicine" is the best bet.

But of course it'll never happen.

Maybe if it was socialized at the state level, it might have a chance?

But I doubt it.

I think we actually would have stood a better chance of getting there if the ACA had not passed.
 
The healthcare equivalent of police and fire services is the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC, coupled with mandatory vaccination programs, protects society as a whole where it would be difficult, if not impossible, to protect oneself.

That is pretty thin, and I think you know it. Fire services protect society as a whole, yes, but also individuals in the event of disaster. Why should society pay to help one individual as their house burns down, but not as their liver fails? Society is simply a gathering of individuals.

From what I gather, there are some procedures that you do not see fit for a public healthcare system. That's fine (and a totally different debate), but it does not mean that the entire system should be thrown out the window.
 
Yes - I find it confusing that the so many Christians are against universal healthcare when the modern hospital system was invented by the Church for Pete's sake!

At some point in time - greed took over and now we have this wonderful mess. But at it's heart, healthcare is about charity for our brothers and sisters that fall sick.

Perhaps everyone should get together and bypass the government - and fund hospitals through our own giving, make it a true non-profit; also knowing that one day we will all be on the receiving end of that charity.

The current quasi-regulated-maximize-profit system is simply a crime.

:up:

Frankly, any other stance from an avowed Christian is simply incoherent.
 
I think we actually would have stood a better chance of getting there if the ACA had not passed.

That is quite possible. It would have been much more elegant - but politically charged - to propose to extend Medicare to all. "Medicare for All" has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
 
That is pretty thin, and I think you know it.

Yes. A better comparison may have been to compare the CDC to the FBI as a national service. They gather and aggregate information, they have really great research techniques, they keep track of national trends and they ride into town when there's a crisis, but they don't actually provide much in the way of direct care. The FBI is not in any way a substitution for local law enforcement, and the CDC has very little to do with actual health care that's delivered to sick people.
 
I just want to say, it's really great to see FYM be active again in a way it used to be a long time ago. Old faces, same faces - we're all having great discussions, finding some common ground and having healthy debates. FYM as it should be!

Agreed. Despite the disparity of our political predilections, it's certainly been a week of robust discussion. (It almost makes up for the lack of any new album news. Almost.)
 
That is pretty thin, and I think you know it. Fire services protect society as a whole, yes, but also individuals in the event of disaster. Why should society pay to help one individual as their house burns down, but not as their liver fails? Society is simply a gathering of individuals.
The question was: police and fire are "socialized" services, shouldn't healthcare be fully socialized as well. I tried to point out it was apples to oranges, not suggest the CDC should function as our healthcare system. I would reject the notion that “if government provides (a), then it should provide (b), (c) and (d).

To be clear, people who favor national health care do not consider the Affordable Care act to be a solution to all our problems. To my mind it's a rather half-assed fix that fails to address the real problems that make American medicine so expensive. It's better than before, but not great. I doubt America will ever have the balls to do a European style overhaul.

To the contrary, the ACA is poorly written legislation (apparently, not worth even reading before Congress voted on the law), that enlarges an already broken system.
The US had a long standing system of true healthcare insurance. As the government continued to pass mandates, the insurance morphed into coverage. With every mandate, the costs increased. Just about every core promise regarding the ACA has proven to be false. Costs will soar, the scope of coverage will not go as far as promised, and the quality of healthcare will decline.
A European-style overhaul would require answering some basic, tough questions.
 
The question was: police and fire are "socialized" services, shouldn't healthcare be fully socialized as well. I tried to point out it was apples to oranges, not suggest the CDC should function as our healthcare system. I would reject the notion that “if government provides (a), then it should provide (b), (c) and (d).


No you didn't. You set up an entirely false analogy and were called out on it.



To the contrary, the ACA is poorly written legislation (apparently, not worth even reading before Congress voted on the law), that enlarges an already broken system.
The US had a long standing system of true healthcare insurance. As the government continued to pass mandates, the insurance morphed into coverage. With every mandate, the costs increased. Just about every core promise regarding the ACA has proven to be false. Costs will soar, the scope of coverage will not go as far as promised, and the quality of healthcare will decline.
A European-style overhaul would require answering some basic, tough questions.



Seems CA has had a different experience than the horrors you describe, where insurers expect to chat significantly lower than expected premiums.

GOP run states can refuse to set up exchanges and expand Medicare all they want, their own citizens will suffer so they can be used as "examples" of a supposed failure -- meanwhile states like CA, and MA, will enjoy full medical coverage and the declining costs associated with a citizenry 100% insured.
 
Back
Top Bottom