Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

Well say the figures are actually half of that, 20 -25 million, is that still not alot?!

What would happen to a woman like this in America then? Imagine she has no insurance, lived across the road and phone up for an ambulance. What would happen, would she have been taken care of and then left with a massive bill afterwards?

Btw she wasn't refused care as such, just refused an ambulance.

---

I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it. No matter what the number is, no one is refused care in the United States of America, period, end of sentence. In fact we already have programs called Medicare and Medicaid that will take care of anyone that can not afford healthcare currently.

That system is broken. It does not work well. And has no money. Why don't we concentrate on fixing the systems we have before we go mucking up everyone else's system?

I seriously doubt anyone in the US would be denied an Ambulance ride if they were in labor. I have never heard of anything like that.

I was at an accident scene on the Penn Turnpike last Friday. The accident was about 300 yards ahead of me when it happened and a woman lost control and flipped. I stopped as a witness and helped direct traffic around her vehicle until the troopers and ambulance got there. The volunteer FD EMTs got there first and the ambulance shortly after. AT no point did anyone ask her about her coverage and health provider. She got care, pretty decent care by anyone's standard and she was hustled off to the hospital to be checked over and not once did anyone ask her about her coverage.

Chuck is right on this one, they look after you, and then in the aftermath, someone asks you how you are going to pay for it. I have been told that by friends of mine who have been hurt skiing or doing something in the US. Being Canadians, we apply to our provincial system to pay the American fee's but they wont always cover all of it...so just about everyone I know buys insurance for going south to cover what our nationalized plan doesn't cover. Apparently that can be a lot. That said, no one in need is refused care that I have seen or heard; and believe me, if a Canadian in the US was refused care, our papers would be all over it because they just LOVE to show those mean ole nasty American's abusing poor innocent Canadians..lol

Listen, I think we are getting bogged down in the details here. Not that the details aren't important to the discussion. It's just that this is a much simpiler issue.

In order to add millions more people, who by definition are not currently, nor will they, pay into the sytem (the number doesn't matter 20 or 50 or even 10 is an increase). You must raise taxes (even on those making less than $250,000 because even if you tax those over at 100% you can not raise enough, $1,000,000,000,000 according to the CBO), and you must ration services.

I can not see any other way. Obama keeps claiming that he'll be able to save X money by doing this, that, and the other thing. Maybe that's true, maybe that's not. I say let's inact the cost saving measures now so that we can truly evaluate the savings, and base things on actual numbers, not theoretical.

I think there's a fine line between saying that people in the U.S. are not refused (initial) care and people are not denied care.

People are denied care. I thought that became common knowledge when stories began appearing that patients without insurance were being forcibly discharged from hospitals in California, some even left on the side of the street or in homeless shelters. Many of these people were still wearing their hospital bracelets. I've never in my life heard of anyone who had money or insurance being dumped like a sack of potatoes on the side of the road. If you have insurance or money, the doctors generally want you to hang around as long as possible - order 10 more tests and schedule 5 more consultation visits (where they might poke their head in your room as they're headed for lunch).

I don't know what would have happened to this pregnant woman in the U.S. Mistakes and accidents happen everywhere (like people who have died in the ER before being seen), whether here or in the UK. But my local news carried a story last night about a woman whose husband was a contractor, and they had private insurance (non group). Her pregnancy was NOT covered by the insurance company because she got pregnant before he bought the policy. So it was considered a pre-existing condition, and they didn't have to cover her. I know from personal experience, even with a group policy, if something happens that takes you past your lifetime coverage limit, neither you nor your family has coverage (with that company). How often these things happen, I have absolutely no idea. But I know that it happens.

From insurance to pharma to doctors to lawyers, there are certainly a lot of opportunities to fix the broken parts of our system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

From insurance to pharma to doctors to lawyers, there are certainly a lot of opportunities to fix the broken parts of our system.

---

Exaclty. No one is saying that there aren't problem. NO ONE. But why must the government take over healthcare in order to fix the problems?

Chuck...I think at some point tho, it is inevitable that the government will get involved. I just think it has to be a very carefully thought out and limited plan to cover the 10 to 20% of legal citizens who are not covered and who may NEED coverage. I think they have to couple it with some legislation for private insurers to have less ways to weasel out of covering people with policies, and to fix the malpractice/tort issue.

You do all of that, and I think some form of government insurance in a restricted income bracket for the poor and indigent is doable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Exaclty. No one is saying that there aren't problem. NO ONE. But why must the government take over healthcare in order to fix the problems?

---

To piggyback on what Mark just said, I don't know that the government must "take over" (all of) healthcare to fix these issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Chuck...

1) I think at some point tho, it is inevitable that the government will get involved.

2) I just think it has to be a very carefully thought out and limited plan to cover the 10 to 20% of legal citizens who are not covered and who may NEED coverage.

3) I think they have to couple it with some legislation for private insurers to have less ways to weasel out of covering people with policies, and to fix the malpractice/tort issue.

4) You do all of that, and I think some form of government insurance in a restricted income bracket for the poor and indigent is doable.

---

1) In an expanded role over what they already control? Why?

2) That already exists with Medicare/Medicaid. It may not be a perfect system. So why not fix it? Obama has actually proposed to take money away from those plans. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...edicaid_m.html

3) I am in 100% agreement with you that something should be done about the denial for "pre-existing" conditions, malpractice law, tort reform, the cost of drugs, etc. But NO ONE is talking about any of that outside of the "Public Option".

4) Again, we have that in Medicare/Medicaid. Let's fix those programs so that they are run more effectively and in a more cost effective manner.

While I'm still undecided on the options for healthcare, I question how effectively an individual in the U.S., with pre-existing conditions, can purchase medical insurance as things stand now. If you've had cancer, diabetes, heart problems, polio or any sort of chronic condition, it's quite likely that those pre-existing conditions are going to prevent you from getting any sort of (affordable) coverage that will cover anything important.

A friend of mine had poliio as a kid and he was recently laid off from his job of 40+years. He and his wife are covered under COBRA right now. When that runs out, as he's explained his situation to me, he's sh## outta luck. He'll have to roll the dice and try to make it to 62, when I guess he can get on Social Security and Medicare. If he or his wife get sick in the mean time (and she has health problems too), everything they've worked for over the past 40 some years will be in jeopardy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

1) In an expanded role over what they already control? Why?

2) That already exists with Medicare/Medicaid. It may not be a perfect system. So why not fix it? Obama has actually proposed to take money away from those plans. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...edicaid_m.html

3) I am in 100% agreement with you that something should be done about the denial for "pre-existing" conditions, malpractice law, tort reform, the cost of drugs, etc. But NO ONE is talking about any of that outside of the "Public Option".

4) Again, we have that in Medicare/Medicaid. Let's fix those programs so that they are run more effectively and in a more cost effective manner.

---

Bingo - But the liars and cheating politicians won't address the attorney problem because most of them are one. Attorneys insurance companies and accountants have played a big part in ruining this country. Malpractice insurance has turned into a huge part of the cost health care. This is like putting a bandaid over cancer - it won't work. you have to cut out the disease.

If the gov takes it over the rich will take the basic service and then purchase insurance for thing over and above the national coverage. This will obviously create a two tier system with rationing to the unfortunate.

I think we are out of control in many areas and until we have a solid third party to come in and make the repubs and dems accountable we will continue on in turmoil. As I said Attorneys, accountants, insurance companies, and IrS = Cancer