Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Swan269

noted, and sarcasim is quite hurtful. just because i want the govt to take care of me in all aspects doesn't make it wrong. if we just gave the govt all of our money, we would have no deficit, then we could move on with fairness, price controls, and heavy regulation.

This is what absolutely no one in this thread is advocating, and the slippery slope argument is absurd. Please drop your own sarcasm and make attacks against the actual arguments rather then rely on a sarcastic slippery slope.

[popshopper]

For all the negativity you sometimes get about it, the NHS here in the UK is (or should I say in England was) actually a very good system. 79% of respondents here say they have next day access to a Doctor, compared to around 53% in the US.

It's cheaper than pretty much any other comparable system, and the results are excellent on most measures with some notable exceptions (mainly the 30 day survival results for stroke victims which aren't very good, although they've unleashed an advertisement campaign about recognizing the symptoms of strokes and emphasizing the need to call 999). Pound for pound it's probably the most effective healthcare system in the world (outside those crafty Singaporeans), while the likes of Switzerland (spend over 10% of GDP on healthcare), France (9%) and Germany (10%) get better overall results in some measures, they do so at far greater cost. The NHS accounts for 7.5% to 8% of GDP in any given year.

Funny enough the country which spends most of it's GDP on healthcare is the US (13%), and it's overall results tend to be terrible.

I always have to laugh when I hear the US media talk about the NHS. They paint an almost Dickensian nightmare about it. Talk of death panels* and such, the while the system has it's faults it's relatively cheap and pretty much works. I can see a Doctor next day, and the only thing I've ever had to wait more than a couple of weeks on was an elective procedure to clean out my knee.

My Father is an illustrative example. In his late 20's he developed kidney problems leading to his requiring dialysis 3 times a week. He's received this free of charge, along with a kidney transplant which worked for 12 years and sadly has now failed, so he's back on dialysis and in line for another transplant. Outside of the actual pressure and worry of being ill, the administrative and financial side of his medical care is not a factor to him or my Mother. He simply needs to get himself to dialysis on his set days, and if he's unable to do so they'll send transport.

*this is in reference to NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) which governs which drugs and treatments can be used in the NHS in England. NICE sometimes rejects drugs on the basis of their efficacy in end of life situation not being worth the money. i.e if you have Drug X which would on average give a terminal patient an extra 3 months at a cost of £300,000 pounds it might be rejected. But surely in the US, in a similar situation you'd be looking for someone to pay for the drug anyway?

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by digitize

This is what absolutely no one in this thread is advocating, and the slippery slope argument is absurd. Please drop your own sarcasm and make attacks against the actual arguments rather then rely on a sarcastic slippery slope.

i'm not, my feelings are valid. i haven't been sarcastic at all yet. much of scandanavia is very socialistic and there societies seem so much better than ours its laughable.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by Swan269

i'm not, my feelings are valid. i haven't been sarcastic at all yet. much of scandanavia is very socialistic and there societies seem so much better than ours its laughable.

But there's still a big difference between countries that are more socialistic and communism.

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

But there's still a big difference between countries that are more socialistic and communism.

agreed, socialism IMO for me, is the happiest and easiest way to go.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by Swan269

agreed, socialism IMO for me, is the happiest and easiest way to go.

That is not what your comments are suggesting. They sound like communism (in theory).

[Swan269]

well, i didn't say give the govt everything, just between 80-90%. i want all of my living costs covered. easliy the 10-20 would be enough to make me happy with a vacation every now and then. what else would i want?

[Swan269]

************************

sorry everyone, my brother got onto my lap-top. He is visiting from Illinois and thought he would have some fun on it while at work. I should have logged off at home but I didn't and this happened. He told me he started this a couple of days ago. My brother and I do NOT share the same opinions about life and he admits to being a trolling a-hole. Many of you have seen me on this forum for years and I have rarely if ever really discussed any of my views other than the band.

again my sincerest apologies for derailing a very serious topic.


Swan

[Canadiens1131]

Nice try, Swan

[INDY500]

I don't care what it costs because the government will figure out how to spend our money wisely, it always does

Just let Medicare take care of the older folks for now, and let the rest of us get into a government program where I don't need to think about this anymore. The more the govt does for me the better.

i spend it as i make it knowing the govt will bail me out if i get into any real emergency, and this health care plan will take care of that.

i personally feel that rich persons are the evil behind all of our troubles so we should just take everything they have and give it to the downtrodden and unemployed. they don't deserve to live a better life than we do just because they have greed on there side.

Europe is a great model for us and we refuse to look at there programs of efficiency and fairness.

taxes are the best. in all honesty, i wish i could give the govt 80-90% of what I make then I wouldn't have to worry about much. I trust them to make the best decesioins for me.

and my favorite.

just because i want the govt to take care of me in all aspects doesn't make it wrong. if we just gave the govt all of our money, we would have no deficit, then we could move on with fairness, price controls, and heavy regulation.

What a brilliant satire on dependency, the Welfare State and the deteriorating virtue of personal responsibility. Outside of Mark Steyn I can't remember reading a funnier or more insightful bit of writing and chainpulling. Well done whoever you are.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

How does that do anything to combat rising costs?

It makes us health care shoppers, aware of prices. It removes much of the price distortions and cost-shifting caused by third-party payers and much of the insurance paperwork and bureaucracy as well.

Do you mandate an amount of $ that people have to put in an HSA?

no

What about people who don't bother saving any (given how leveraged your average US citizen is, they're not saving for anything much less healthcare)? What happens when people run out? Just back to square one (declare bankruptcy, get into further unmanageable debt)?

No, no no. HSAs are simply a lower premium, high-deductible insurance plan. Instead of pocketing the extra money not paid in premiums you agree to have that amount (pre-tax ) taken from your check and put into a health savings account. You then draw on this account to pay for routine health costs. If you spend less than you contribute the account will grow year by year (and the money is always yours) but if you reach your deductible in a given year then you are insured in the same way as a low-deducible plan would. No more chance of bankruptcy than with any other plan.

Very simple. Great idea for single, young, healthy people or the self-insured. Probably a wash for most other people.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by ryancoke71

Of course we do pay taxes, but I cannot even imagine the outcome of my situation if I did not live in Canada.

There are people here who will suggest that we have some kind of third world healthcare, that we're all flocking to the US for good care (because the odd person here or there going to the Mayo Clinic is representative), that we are forced to see doctors that the government mandates (I have been asked by a poster here how I got "assigned" my doctors or specialist, no joke), and so on. All without ever having lived a day here or ever made use of the system. Because some right winger on Fox News told them that's what it's like.

Don't even bother with bringing up the NHS in the UK else you'll be told that this is why the British have bad teeth. I joke, but only a little bit.

Remove the very few Americans on Cadillac healthcare plans (these are your executives and so on) and the ultra-wealthy who can afford the best of the best, and all of the rest of you are worse off than everyone living north of the border. But heaven forbid hordes of Republican voters accepted the idea that anyone can do it better.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

No, no no. HSAs are simply a lower premium, high-deductible insurance plan. Instead of pocketing the extra money not paid in premiums you agree to have that amount (pre-tax ) taken from your check and put into a health savings account. You then draw on this account to pay for routine health costs. If you spend less than you contribute the account will grow year by year (and the money is always yours) but if you reach your deductible in a given year then you are insured in the same way as a low-deducible plan would. No more chance of bankruptcy than with any other plan.

Very simple. Great idea for single, young, healthy people or the self-insured. Probably a wash for most other people.

So, basically, it is the status quo but where insurance companies don't cover routine stuff and have lower premiums, and people are told to put the money saved by lower premiums into a savings account? I'm not sure how this really fixes any of the problems were talking about. Making people aware of prices =/= doing anything to combat them, and cutting down on paperwork? Negligible.

For the record, I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, but it seems like something that would have a fairly minimal effect overall, since it doesn't really touch where the big bills come from.

[Moonlit_Angel]

So to those who are opposed to the universal healthcare thing-you've heard from people from other countries talking about its benefits and how good it can be and how it can actually work as a system. Why, then, do you keep insisting otherwise?

Honestly, this should not be that hard. At this point I don't care WHO it is that's providing the healthcare coverage. All I want is to be able to go to a doctor, or a dentist, and be able to pay for my care/treatment/checkups/etc. and NOT go into debt doing so. I want to pay a reasonable price for it and be good to go. I would like to have proper health insurance that covers all the things it should cover. That's all I'm asking for. I don't think this is too difficult a request.

[intedomine]

Seriously USA, if a country's government isn't allowed to provide for it's citizens when they require health assistance, what the hell is the point in being a citizen of a country?

What's the point of being part of a United body if everyone is only going to reap privileges based on their own personal wealth (of which in many cases is unearned an dependent on who your mum and dad are)?

Why be a citizen in a nation when the nation you belong in is happy to let you suffer poor health based on how much money you just so happen to have?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

So to those who are opposed to the universal healthcare thing-you've heard from people from other countries talking about its benefits and how good it can be and how it can actually work as a system. Why, then, do you keep insisting otherwise?

1) How many of those counties have 300 million people to insure? What works in Canada or Sweden does not necessarily work here.

2) How many of those countries have the extra $ GDP to spend on health care because the USA picks up most of the tab to defend them and the world? Who defends us if we slash our military budget to spend on social programs?

3) How many of those countries rely on the expensive new innovations in medicine, medical procedures and equipment developed and funded by the US health care system?

In short, are all these exemplary healthcare systems even possible minus the US private healthcare system, US defense budget and US economy?

And so as not to come off as just pounding my chest, much of what makes our healthcare system so great is that people come from all around the world to study and to work and to do research and to practice here because they want the freedom, the cutting edge technology and to be rewarded for their work and talent.

[ryancoke71]

If you have 300 million people to insure, you'd have 300 million people paying taxes to help finance healthcare.

USA is so much bigger, that of course you would pick up more of the tab. I'm actually a bit offended that you suggest that no other countries help.

I am sure you are not implying that the US is the only country to be innovative when it comes to medicine.

Of course our health care system is possible minus the US healthcare system. Are you implying that we rely on you when our care isn't enough, or am I misunderstanding? I have yet to have any member of my immediate or extended family ever seek any type of medical treatment outside of Canada.

I have no problem with national pride, but that whole post was a bit offensive to me.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by digitize

So, basically, it is the status quo but where insurance companies don't cover routine stuff and have lower premiums, and people are told to put the money saved by lower premiums into a savings account? I'm not sure how this really fixes any of the problems were talking about. Making people aware of prices =/= doing anything to combat them, and cutting down on paperwork? Negligible.

For the record, I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, but it seems like something that would have a fairly minimal effect overall, since it doesn't really touch where the big bills come from.

For one thing it allows people into the insurance market that can't afford -- or don't need so don't see the point of -- the low-deductible-high-premium, heavily-mandated, one-size-fits-all insurance being offered in O'care.

For another it evens out the tax advantage that employee-sponsored health plans enjoy.

I could go on. Are they the cure-all. No. Medicare, Medicaid and tort reform is what's really needed.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

1) How many of those counties have 300 million people to insure? What works in Canada or Sweden does not necessarily work here.

2) How many of those countries have the extra $ GDP to spend on health care because the USA picks up most of the tab to defend them and the world? Who defends us if we slash our military budget to spend on social programs?

3) How many of those countries rely on the expensive new innovations in medicine, medical procedures and equipment developed and funded by the US health care system?

In short, are all these exemplary healthcare systems even possible minus the US private healthcare system, US defense budget and US economy?

And not to come off as just pounding my chest, much of what makes our healthcare system so great is that people come from all around the world to study and to work and to do research and to practice here because they want the freedom, the cutting edge technology and to be rewarded for their work and talent.

1) That's irrelevant, for the reasons explained above.

2) Then we'll be putting that portion of our GDP to use much more wisely than we have been in the past.

2) Health care research would still happen, because money would still flow to pharmaceuticals from the US, just as it does from the rest of the world, including countries with universal health care.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

For one thing it allows people into the insurance market that can't afford -- or don't need so don't see the point of -- the low-deductible-high-premium, heavily-mandated, one-size-fits-all insurance being offered in O'care.

But insurance under your model is available now. It's easily possible for one to go out and get minimal coverage and put money for routine incidents into a savings account. I'm just not sure what benefit "switching" to this offers. Maybe a sociological switch is needed?