Universal Health Care

[Paulie]

Because there's no such thing as a government program that's cost-effective, that's why.

While I agree with you, some people might prefer to see facts and numbers, beyond your opinion.

 

[pfife]

Because there's no such thing as a government program that's cost-effective, that's why.

I asked why its broke, not why it isn't cost effective.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While I agree with you, some people might prefer to see facts and numbers, beyond your opinion.

You need facts and numbers to tell you that no government program is EVER cost-effective? Do you also need a computerized color analysis to tell you that the sky is blue?

Feel free to name me the government program or department that is free of fraud and waste.

 

[Chris]

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company and that would be the government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I asked why its broke, not why it isn't cost effective.

It's broke because it isn't cost-effective. Duhhh.

Okay, Economics 101 for the kindergarten crowd. In a private business, the incentive is to make a profit. You do this by providing a product or service that people need or want, at a lower cost to you than you are charging them. The more you can cut the expense of producing the good or service, the higher your profit margin and the more money you make. If the cost of doing business becomes more than you take in, you go broke and your business closes.

In the government, they don't make a profit. Budgets are decided basically by how much money the department submitting the budget would like to have. In fact, one of the major no-nos in government budgeting is to EVER ask for less money than you asked for the previous year. Another big no-no is to spend less money than you got, because that might lead people to believe you need less money, and they might cut your next budget appropriation. So there's always a big push to spend as much as possible, rather than to cut spending.

Now, by any reasonable standard, a government that spends much, MUCH more than it takes in - as ours does - could be said to be broke. Yes, in this case it doesn't mean they're going to go out of business, as a private business would, but if the government is heavily in debt - and it is - then that would mean that the programs it runs are ALSO in debt and broke, particularly when the programs in question are entitlement spending, which takes up the bulk of our federal budget to begin with. In other words, they are among the major reasons the government is into the red ink.

 

[pfife]

It's broke because it isn't cost-effective. Duhhh.

So by your own admission, you answered the question "why is it broke" with "because its broke, duhh"?

Care to answer why its broke without merely rephrasing my question as a statement? And I'm asking about Medicare and Medicaid, not all government programs, thanks in advance.

 

[Diuretic]

What do you think about it? Personally i think it will take away the incentive to make more money because the government will be paying the doctors bills and the government will not pay much. Why? Because its the government for Christs sake. There will be no reason to pay more to go through college to be a doctor because whats the point in spending more time and money to be a doctor if a school teacher is making just as much?

I know it works, that's what I think about it.

 

[Diuretic]

Please show me where in the constitution it says every american deserves government provided healthcare.

Healthcare is a responsibility not a right.

Or somewhere in the constitution that says government is not able to do it.

The status of healthcare, right or not a right, isn't germane to the argument. If government chooses to do it then, unless it's specifically prohibited, government can go right ahead and organise it.

 

[Diuretic]

You're an idiot.

MEdicare and Medicaid work? Are you out of your fucking mind? THEY ARE GOING BROKE.

Thank god you don't work in healthcare anymore.

Our quality of care is top fucking notch if you have the adequate coverage...whyd o you think that fat fuck Kennedy didn't go to Venezuela, Canada or Cuba to go get treated for his tumor...he got treated here and got seen by the best doctors in the world. If there was universal health he would probably be dead right now.

Who the fuck is healthcare unreachable for? Yeah, you hear the number 40 million people in this country without insurance, yet over 60% of that number is illegal aliens.

Perhaps healthcare in this country is so expensive because everyone is so god damn sue happy and people don't take care of themselves and stuff their face with mcdonalds everyday and are 200 pounds over weight.

I agree goverment needs to help make healthcare more attainable, but they should do it in the way to make it more lucrative for employers to offer it to their employees...not doing it themselves.


I can not fucking believe people actually want the government to run their hospitals and doctors. It is mind boggling

You have incompetent government then. Get a competent one.

 

[pfife]

You're an idiot.

Our quality of care is top fucking notch if you have the adequate coverage...whyd o you think that fat fuck Kennedy didn't go to Venezuela, Canada or Cuba to go get treated for his tumor...he got treated here and got seen by the best doctors in the world. If there was universal health he would probably be dead right now.

Why would he travel for health care when he has health insurance in the US because he's a Senator?

 

[Diuretic]

Just one example of a cost-effective government programme:

BioMed Central | Full text | Cost-effectiveness analysis of a state funded programme for control of severe asthma

Extract:

Background

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases and a major economical burden to families and health systems. Whereas efficacy of current therapeutical options has been clearly established, cost-effectiveness analysis of public health interventions for asthma control are scarce.


Methods

81 patients with severe asthma (12–75 years) joining a programme in a reference clinic providing free asthma medication were asked retrospectively about costs and events in the previous 12 months. During 12 months after joining the programme, information on direct and indirect costs, asthma control by lung function, symptoms and quality of life were collected. The information obtained was used to estimate cost-effectiveness of the intervention as compared to usual public health asthma management. Sensitivity analysis was conducted.


Results

64 patients concluded the study. During the 12-months follow-up within the programme, patients had 5 fewer days of hospitalization and 68 fewer visits to emergency/non scheduled medical visits per year, on average. Asthma control scores improved by 50% and quality of life by 74%. The annual saving in public resources was US$387 per patient. Family annual income increased US$512, and family costs were reduced by US$733.


Conclusion

A programme for control of severe asthma in a developing country can reduce morbidity, improve quality of life and save resources from the health system and patients families.

It can be done, it just requires competent government.

 

[Chris]

It's broke because it isn't cost-effective. Duhhh.

Okay, Economics 101 for the kindergarten crowd. In a private business, the incentive is to make a profit. You do this by providing a product or service that people need or want, at a lower cost to you than you are charging them. The more you can cut the expense of producing the good or service, the higher your profit margin and the more money you make. If the cost of doing business becomes more than you take in, you go broke and your business closes.

In the government, they don't make a profit. Budgets are decided basically by how much money the department submitting the budget would like to have. In fact, one of the major no-nos in government budgeting is to EVER ask for less money than you asked for the previous year. Another big no-no is to spend less money than you got, because that might lead people to believe you need less money, and they might cut your next budget appropriation. So there's always a big push to spend as much as possible, rather than to cut spending.

Now, by any reasonable standard, a government that spends much, MUCH more than it takes in - as ours does - could be said to be broke. Yes, in this case it doesn't mean they're going to go out of business, as a private business would, but if the government is heavily in debt - and it is - then that would mean that the programs it runs are ALSO in debt and broke, particularly when the programs in question are entitlement spending, which takes up the bulk of our federal budget to begin with. In other words, they are among the major reasons the government is into the red ink.

Wrong.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system.

The Germans have had one since 1886!

 

[garyd]

Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.

 

[pfife]

Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.

So does the US. Most often penalized are the poor and those without insurance.

 

[Chris]

Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.

Bullshit.

When Canadians were asked in a poll to vote for the greatest Canadian in history, they voted for the man who developed their healthcare system. A single payer system is cheaper because you don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. Every other Western democracy uses a single payer system because it is better and more fair. Only Americans are too stupid to see that our system is expensive, bloated, and unfair.

 

[Chris]

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

US doctors support universal health care - survey | Reuters

 

[garyd]

Yes, the French routinely do not provide kidney transplants and possibly dialysis to people over 67.

Of course the doctors are supporting it but what they envision will not be what they get. It never is. They are supporting it largely because it will get the legal monkey of their back, which is where ninety percent of the cost is.

So basically your argument is that you think several thousand more bureaucrats with in the medical establishment will be cheaper long term that paying lawyers to go away.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So by your own admission, you answered the question "why is it broke" with "because its broke, duhh"?

Care to answer why its broke without merely rephrasing my question as a statement? And I'm asking about Medicare and Medicaid, not all government programs, thanks in advance.

I did not say, "It's broken because it's broken". I said it's broken because it's designed to be broken. By any reasonable standard, it's not INTENDED to work well, and it doesn't.

Care to read the post and try to understand it without sounding like a dumbass?

 

[Andrew2382]

My first post on these boards when I first joined-


"A lot of people are on the bandwagon thinking that Universal Healthcare will be the greatest thing to happen to this country since the industrial revolution. It is just one step closer to be a socialistic society and taking a step that has known massive failures all around the world.

There are many countries that use this sort of socialistic health program however; they have their problems as well. Once we are in a society that has a Universal healthcare program established, you will see many things change in the things we were accustomed too.
Let's take a good look to the best example our wonderful tundra to the north, Canada.

http://www.fraserinstitut...newsrelease.aspx?nID=4967


"Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment), at 15 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada"

25 weeks to see your MD. We complain about having to wait 45 minutes in the doctor's office.

How about the wait tile from the MD to a specialist?
"The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation
The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks), and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).
The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland (13.5 weeks), and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks)."

I can also site examples of cases where people have gone to their MD about let's say a
"Headache" and have to wait 3 months to see a specialist and in those 3 months die.

It isn't pretty.

Let's say you finally get to that specialist and you need to get an MRI or a CAT scan...Well, I know I myself won't have to wait more then a few days here to get one. Go to Canada.

"The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks)."

8 weeks for a cat scan? 20 weeks for an MRI? Are you serious? Is this what people actually want for our great country, having to wait 5 months to receive an MRI?

If Universal healthcare is so great, why didn't Ted Kennedy receive his treatment in Canada or Cuba? He didn't, he received the best treatment money can buy.

Let's take a swim across the ocean to our wonderful allies in England.

How many people have died because the government won't pay for a certain type of medication because it is

A- Too Expensive
B- Only meant to extend life.


Look at these examples:
http://www.nypost.com/sev...would_kill_ted_114032.htm
"Problem is, governments that promise to "cover everyone" always wind up cutting corners simply to save money. People with Kennedy's condition are dying or dead as a result.
Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.
Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.
Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.
Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.
Barack Obama - and other Democrats - have been pushing a Senate bill to set up a similar US "review board" for Medicare and any future government health-care plan.
After denying this treatment completely for seven years, the NICE (did whoever named it intend the irony?) relented - partly. Even today, only a handful of Brits with brain tumors can get Temodar.
And if you want to pay for Temodar out of your own pocket, the British system forces you to pay for all of your cancer care - about $30,000 a month. "

30 grand a month, just to be able to live a little longer. God Save The Queen, I hope God has his own personal PPO.

Here is another example from that article from Canada again-

"Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.
And Health Canada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.
Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.
His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But Health Canada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.
Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21."

There is a new term going around these days, perhaps many people are not familiar with it. It is called "Medical Tourism". Basically it means a person from Canada, England etc... come to a country like the United States and on their 'vacation', BOOM I need a knee replacement. Happens constantly.

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"While much attention has been given to the growing trend of U.S. citizens seeking health care in other countries, other evidence points out that the largest segment of medical travelers are headed stateside.["

Now, the main argument is everyone deserves insurance and to be covered and we have something like 45 million uninsured.

Well let us take a look at that a little more closely...
HOW COVERAGE VARIES



Illegal immigrants are less likely to have health coverage than others:
Adults
Type
Uninsured



U.S. citizens
14%



Legal immigrants
25%



Illegal immigrants
59%



Children
Type
Uninsured



U.S. citizens
9%



Citizens whose parents are legal immigrants
13%



Foreign-born children of legal immigrants
25%



Citizens with illegal immigrant parents
25%



Foreign-born children of illegal immigrants
53%



Source: Pew Hispanic Center, 2005


So, to sum it up
in Adults you have 59% of the uninsured are illegal immigrants compared to 14% US citizens

Children- 53% Foreign born children of Illegal Immigrants and 25% of citizens with illegal immigrants. Compared to 9% US citizens.

Seems to me we have an immigration problem, not so much a healthcare problem.

And when it comes to premiums, I have said this many times myself, premiums are individually based. I am in the Insurance business (not medical). However, if you smoke and weigh 300 pounds then yes you are going to pay more. The problem in this country is obesity and quite frankly no one takes care of themselves anymore, and the insurance companies are on the hook. You know a lot of companies out there, Humana being one of them will pay your gym membership.

Say NO to Universal Healthcare! "

 

[Chris]

My first post on these boards when I first joined-


"A lot of people are on the bandwagon thinking that Universal Healthcare will be the greatest thing to happen to this country since the industrial revolution. It is just one step closer to be a socialistic society and taking a step that has known massive failures all around the world.

There are many countries that use this sort of socialistic health program however; they have their problems as well. Once we are in a society that has a Universal healthcare program established, you will see many things change in the things we were accustomed too.
Let's take a good look to the best example our wonderful tundra to the north, Canada.

http://www.fraserinstitut...newsrelease.aspx?nID=4967


"Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment), at 15 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada"

25 weeks to see your MD. We complain about having to wait 45 minutes in the doctor's office.

How about the wait tile from the MD to a specialist?
"The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation
The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks), and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).
The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland (13.5 weeks), and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks)."

I can also site examples of cases where people have gone to their MD about let's say a
"Headache" and have to wait 3 months to see a specialist and in those 3 months die.

It isn't pretty.

Let's say you finally get to that specialist and you need to get an MRI or a CAT scan...Well, I know I myself won't have to wait more then a few days here to get one. Go to Canada.

"The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks)."

8 weeks for a cat scan? 20 weeks for an MRI? Are you serious? Is this what people actually want for our great country, having to wait 5 months to receive an MRI?

If Universal healthcare is so great, why didn't Ted Kennedy receive his treatment in Canada or Cuba? He didn't, he received the best treatment money can buy.

Let's take a swim across the ocean to our wonderful allies in England.

How many people have died because the government won't pay for a certain type of medication because it is

A- Too Expensive
B- Only meant to extend life.


Look at these examples:
http://www.nypost.com/sev...would_kill_ted_114032.htm
"Problem is, governments that promise to "cover everyone" always wind up cutting corners simply to save money. People with Kennedy's condition are dying or dead as a result.
Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.
Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.
Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.
Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.
Barack Obama - and other Democrats - have been pushing a Senate bill to set up a similar US "review board" for Medicare and any future government health-care plan.
After denying this treatment completely for seven years, the NICE (did whoever named it intend the irony?) relented - partly. Even today, only a handful of Brits with brain tumors can get Temodar.
And if you want to pay for Temodar out of your own pocket, the British system forces you to pay for all of your cancer care - about $30,000 a month. "

30 grand a month, just to be able to live a little longer. God Save The Queen, I hope God has his own personal PPO.

Here is another example from that article from Canada again-

"Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.
And Health Canada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.
Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.
His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But Health Canada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.
Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21."

There is a new term going around these days, perhaps many people are not familiar with it. It is called "Medical Tourism". Basically it means a person from Canada, England etc... come to a country like the United States and on their 'vacation', BOOM I need a knee replacement. Happens constantly.

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"While much attention has been given to the growing trend of U.S. citizens seeking health care in other countries, other evidence points out that the largest segment of medical travelers are headed stateside.["

Now, the main argument is everyone deserves insurance and to be covered and we have something like 45 million uninsured.

Well let us take a look at that a little more closely...
HOW COVERAGE VARIES



Illegal immigrants are less likely to have health coverage than others:
Adults
Type
Uninsured



U.S. citizens
14%



Legal immigrants
25%



Illegal immigrants
59%



Children
Type
Uninsured



U.S. citizens
9%



Citizens whose parents are legal immigrants
13%



Foreign-born children of legal immigrants
25%



Citizens with illegal immigrant parents
25%



Foreign-born children of illegal immigrants
53%



Source: Pew Hispanic Center, 2005


So, to sum it up
in Adults you have 59% of the uninsured are illegal immigrants compared to 14% US citizens

Children- 53% Foreign born children of Illegal Immigrants and 25% of citizens with illegal immigrants. Compared to 9% US citizens.

Seems to me we have an immigration problem, not so much a healthcare problem.

And when it comes to premiums, I have said this many times myself, premiums are individually based. I am in the Insurance business (not medical). However, if you smoke and weigh 300 pounds then yes you are going to pay more. The problem in this country is obesity and quite frankly no one takes care of themselves anymore, and the insurance companies are on the hook. You know a lot of companies out there, Humana being one of them will pay your gym membership.

Say NO to Universal Healthcare! "

We already have universal healthcare. It's called the emergency room.

Every other Western country in the world has a single payer system except for us. Why? Because it works better and cheaper. Our system is expensive, bloated, and unfair. It also makes our companies less competitive worldwide. Toyota recently located a plant in Canada because healthcare costs here are too high. So, guess what? We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really, bad version of it.