Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

The only real complaint I have about the NHS is not with the actue care, but the out-patient stuff. There appears to be no regard that you might actually work for a living. It's greeted with shock and amazement that, no, I can't come along to an appointment at 2 in the afternoon, as I'm at work. Can't I have an appointment at 5.30pm or on Saturday? No :|

Anything outside of 9-5 Mon-Fri is out of the question it seems.

---

I completely agree.

I agreed to undertake a course of CBT for an anxiety problem, which involved a weekly appointment, but they could only ever give me 1pm or 2pm slots, which was utterly unworkable. I had to knock it on the head and go down the self-help route.

I must say though, that I'm under a specialist at the RVI for a long-standing genetic health problem (nowt too serious) and the care is absolutely brilliant. I still can't get an appointment at a convenient time, but as it's only twice a year it's okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Socialized healthcare (where practised) is pretty much available to everyone. And everyone who is gainfully employed pays for it through taxes. They pay for everybody who receives any benefits. In some places this means that people who have never contributed to the system at all receive all the care they need. That's true some places in the US too - see California. The drawback here is when those who don't pay and get care reach a certain percentage of those who do pay. The system becomes unstable then and costs go up, a lot. There is also no incentive for living a healthier life style if you're riding the gravy train provided by Joe or Helmut or Carlos who actually does work for a living.

The US system expects YOU to be responsible for your own healthcare - as in YOU pay for it. It's called personal responsibility. You pay either directly or as part of a group. The groups are mostly benefit packages of employers and it is part of your compensation package just like your salary, vacation, etc. Insurance companies do make nice profits. That's what much of the US is about. It's still a capitalist system (mostly) and not a socialist one. We like it just fine that way. I for one don't mind them making a profit. I expect to make a profit in my own line of work, else why would I do it? There are mechanisms for the truly poor here, so you can let that one alone. There are few here who can't get any care at all.

Socialism sounds like a wonderfull idea until you factor human nature into the equation. Communism sounds even better - on paper. It's been put into practice before...and we all know how that little experiment turned out.

---

Of course the US has a different mindset to Europe and it is inevitable that healthcare provision will differ too, reform or no reform to reflect that. This is how it should be.

However the points you raise don't really make sense to me. You say that the system gets unstable when there are more non-payers, I presume you mean unemployed or other people who do not contribute significantly to tax. I suspect what you mean is that government provided healthcare is dependent on tax revenue which is correct, however in line with other types of government spending, the government simply borrows in the lean years and uses excess revenue during productive years whilst healthcare spending stays relatively stable.

As for improving lifestyle, as you say there's a difference between reality and what things look like on paper. The US population has one of the highest rates of cardiac disease and obesity in the world, more so than Europe and thats down to two simple lifestyle factors, unhealthy overeating and lack of exercise. In reality the US health insurance system has done little to encourage its users to improve their lifestyle has it? In fact the healthiest lifestyles and diets are found in areas which happen to have socialised medicine in place, Scandinavia, Japan and the Mediterranean states. There's no point in claiming a link between the fact that they have socialised medicine and that they live healthy lifestyles, thats just a coincidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Yet the very same people who are against the bill are the ones whom have not even read it themselves, yet take what the likes of Fox News, S Palin and co say and believe that to be the truth...

Its a government option, not a bill to have everyone put on the government plan. They have said if you want to keep your HMO then thats fine. Its for the people who cannot get covered by the greedy selfish companies whom put profit before life

---

I think we need to discriminate between the extreme right wing propaganda rubbish thrown out by the likes of Fox news and look at the genuine concerns about the healthcare reforms Obama is suggesting.

The fact is that these reforms are going to be staggeringly important and there is a need in such circumstances to have serious open debate. Whatever reform he enacts will likely take the rest of Obama's tenure to put in place (regardless of whether he's a two term President) so will likely dictate the tone of his Presidency in a similar way that Bush's response to 9/11 did.

I don't think its clear to the public and even to many politicians exactly what the proposals are and how they are to be executed, let alone the myriad side effects that can't be predicted. It isn't helped that Obama didn't say much beyond 'I'm going to reform healthcare' before he got on the case.

Still, I prefer the way Obama is going about reforming US healthcare than the way its been done in the UK where major changes have been made without any public debate whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Still, I prefer the way Obama is going about reforming US healthcare than the way its been done in the UK where major changes have been made without any public debate whatsoever.

---

See that's the problem, Obama (and Congress) tried to ram this down our throats "by the August recess". It was only on the massive outcry of the public that slowed it down. Now they are wanting to do it (have the vote) in the first two weeks of September. Do you really think that two weeks is enough time for debating the actual language of the bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

I would generally agree, but some research may indicate it's not the panacea some might hope it to be.




http://medicaleconomics.modernmedici....jsp?id=111474

A very interesting article if you get a chance to read it.

---

Alex, the clip from the article is totally un-readable (too many "color" texts). I don't know if it's a problem with my computer or something. I'll follow the link though and see if it's better.

But anyway, I'm not proposing tort reform will solve all the problems, it won't. But it will go quite a ways to reducing costs, and isn't that the whole point?

It just seems strange that pretty much every industrialised country has 'socialised' health care apart from the US. They can't all be wrong can they? Especially when the W H O ranks American health care down in 37th place in the world, below countries like Morocco and Columbia.

As I mentioned in my opening post, most of the arguments against a health reform seem to just play on a hostility to any form of socialism in America, rather than actually debating health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

I would generally agree, but some research may indicate it's not the panacea some might hope it to be.




http://medicaleconomics.modernmedici....jsp?id=111474

A very interesting article if you get a chance to read it.

---

Ok went to the link and read most of it, skimed some. It sounds pretty much like what I'm saying. Fixing lawsuits will do a lot to help lowering costs. It won't solve everything, but it will help. So why not do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

It just seems strange that pretty much every industrialised country has 'socialised' health care apart from the US. They can't all be wrong can they? Especially when the W H O ranks American health care down in 37th place in the world, below countries like Morocco and Columbia.

As I mentioned in my opening post, most of the arguments against a health reform seem to just play on a hostility to any form of socialism in America, rather than actually debating health care.

---

Like it or not, for better or worse, Americans (for the most part) do not like government control over any part of our lives. That has served us fairly well throughout our history.

I don't get this argument about how every other country does it so why not the US. Didn't your mother ever tell you that "just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you have to"? Perhaps we wish to do things our way.

And which WHO report are you speaking of? I saw one that ranked us, I think it was 37th so maybe the same report, but that was for mortality. Mortality does not necessarily relate to healthcare because it factors in things like murder, car crashes, and the like. Those factors are more related to culture than healthcare.

You want to debate healthcare, lets debate healthcare IN THIS COUNTRY, not the rest of the world. Most people here are at least somewhat satisfied with their coverage. They may not think it's awesome or anything, but it's good enough. I'm one of those people. Sure things could be better, but I don't believe what they have proposed will be any better.

Why would anyone believe anything that comes from the government will be better? This is the same government that said Medicare/Medicaid would be funded ... now broke. This is the same government that said Social Security would be fully funded ... now broke. This is the same government that said $1billion would be enough to last "Cash for Clunkers" for 3 months ... it lasted 4 days. Why do you believe that "Healthcare reform" will only cost $1trillion and improve the quality of care? This is just completely illogical to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Like it or not, for better or worse, Americans (for the most part) do not like government control over any part of our lives. That has served us fairly well throughout our history.

I don't get this argument about how every other country does it so why not the US. Didn't your mother ever tell you that "just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you have to"? Perhaps we wish to do things our way.

---

It seems to me that America would still be the only kid jumping off the bridge because they don't like being told what to what to do from above. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

It just seems strange that pretty much every industrialised country has 'socialised' health care apart from the US. They can't all be wrong can they? Especially when the W H O ranks American health care down in 37th place in the world, below countries like Morocco and Columbia.

As I mentioned in my opening post, most of the arguments against a health reform seem to just play on a hostility to any form of socialism in America, rather than actually debating health care.

---

Jon, Americans just love to live the good life. No medical system saves you from THAT. Fatty foods and the like are a staple for too many. Go into a US grocery store and you realized processed crap fills the shelves. There isn't enough of a market for whole foods and simpler fare. You end up with a population always fighting its weight. THAT has nothing to do with the quality of doctors and healthcare system.

The Reform debate I have said a million times is more about Obama playing a socialist play for healthcare rather than any honest debate on making things better. There hasn't been any debate to the questions of the opponents. It has been just one big denial while trying to ram through the bill. I think there is some room for a properly funded and run government run healthcare system in the US, but they have that. There is state run Medicare/Medicaid programs in most states, and it is quite extensive in places like Mass or NY. What's the common problem? Both programs are going broke. Now in the middle of the recession Obama wants to create a national version of this.

Damn right this is a contentious issue about the evils of socialism because only a socialist would be so dogmatic in the face of a reality that the US is BROKE. B R O K E. There...spelled it out for you. THis like saying we need a new car in the family but Dad just lost his job and Mom had to take a job in the coffee shop. Lets go to the BMW dealer and check out an M5. What Americans want is reform they can afford.

Obama promised the American public not to raise their taxes unless they made over 225000 dollars. A lot of Americans would like to make that much and they wont pay extra taxes to pay for a healthcare system that wont help them any more than the current one. Furthermore, they are not getting any one representing them explaining exactly what they are getting.

We have beat this to death but the simple fact is while the US may need some reform for the public healthcare system to exist, what they are being asked to do is give blind trust in Obama to get it right. I don't think that blind trust is there for any American President.

Obama is going to waste all his political capital on a project that will require a lot of public dollars at a time when the economy is still broke and the government is broke. It is just silly.