How SHOULD Health Care Work?

[Al_Masetti]

Here’s a little something about the Canadian health care system:

onthefencefilms.com/video/brainsurgery.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

Who opts for single-payer health care sells himself to the single-payer, who will keep him alive only as long as it is economically profitable.

 

[emily47017]

Who opts for single-payer health care sells himself to the single-payer, who will keep him alive only as long as it is economically profitable.

replace that with “private insurance companies” and we are in perfect agreement.

 

[vern_humphrey]

replace that with “private insurance companies” and we are in perfect agreement.

And now comes the moment of truth!

With private insurance companies, if I don’t like the way I’m treated, I have a powerful control at my fingertips. I just say, “I’ll take my business elsewhere.”

If I don’t like the cars produced by a private automobile company, I just buy from their competitors. If I don’t like the produce department in a local grocery store, I buy from their competitors. If I don’t like the food, or the sanitation at McDonalds, I go to Wendys.

But if we had a single-supplier automobile company, a single-supplier grocery company, a single-supplier fast food company, I couldn’t do that, now could I?

And quality in those single-supplier products would drop like a stone, wouldn’t it?

 

[emily47017]

With private insurance companies, if I don’t like the way I’m treated, I have a powerful control at my fingertips. I just say, “I’ll take my business elsewhere.”

with single payer insurance, if i don’t like the way i’m treated, i make a stink and sell my story to the newspapers and get everyone i know to vote out any politician who isn’t committed to fixing the problem. (like what happened in britain when voters found out about the no-dialysis-if-over-55 policy)

But if we had a single-supplier automobile company, a single-supplier grocery company, a single-supplier fast food company, I couldn’t do that, now could I?

you’ve confused single-supplier with single-payer. your single supplier scenario assumes that doctors are government employees. single payer pays; it doesn’t dispense services.

ack, what happened to my vow not to argue with a brick wall?? :doh2:

 

[vern_humphrey]

with single payer insurance, if i don’t like the way i’m treated, i make a stink and sell my story to the newspapers and get everyone i know to vote out any politician who isn’t committed to fixing the problem. (like what happened in britain when voters found out about the no-dialysis-if-over-55 policy)

And if enough people do that, they may make some changes – but by then, most of the complaining patients will be dead.

On the other hand, with private insurance, I don’t need to “make a stink and sell my story to the newspapers and get everyone i know to vote out any politician who isn’t committed to fixing the problem.” I just take my business elsewhere.

you’ve confused single-supplier with single-payer. your single supplier scenario assumes that doctors are government employees. single payer pays; it doesn’t dispense services.

Who pays the piper calls the tune.

The single payer system dictates what treatments you can have and can not have. It decides what threshholds you must meet to be treated, when you will be treated, and so on.

And, short of completely replacing your elected representatives, there’s not a doggone thing you can do about it.

ack, what happened to my vow not to argue with a brick wall?? :doh2:

Been arguing with the man in the mirror again, have you?

 

[cynic]

Yes, I can:

1. They can’t opt out. They must pay the taxes, regardless if they use the system or notl.
2. Even in countries with single payer systems that allow private pay or insurance, the high taxes (to pay for the single payer system) leave them fewer choices for an alternative.
3. Persons trapped in the single payer system can only get what the system allows, at the system’s convenience.

.

I am paying 21% income tax and am a middle earner. I suspect that that’s similiar to, or less than you. In Australia where tax in lower and they’ve had 5 years of successive tax cuts and tax bracket shifts, they still have a public health system. We don’t spend billions on a military.

I take your last point however, those on low incomes have to use the public system (which is better than nothing, it did treat my single-parent mother for cancer when I was a kid) , but what’s your suggestion, vouchers again? A pitifully small tax rebate?

No. I gladly provide assistance to others in need.

.

Yet in your last statement you object to paying taxes for a sytem you do not use. It seems like those on the conservative end of the politcal spectrum are ok with helping others on a voluntary, charitable basis, but charity won’t provide ongoing treatment for cancer, or heart disease.

What I object to is creating a monopoly/monopsony system, run by a vast wasteful government bureaucracy, which will control the most intimate and personal parts of our lives.

As opposed to the insurance industry and hospitals run purely for profit, without even a facade of altruistic concern for our fellow man, who take every opportunity to withold or dispute payment on claims, who will collude to set prices at the highest level possible… which is easy because there’s no free option. You have 40 million of your citizens uninsured, presumably because they just can’t afford it. Any of them get cancer, they die, game over. What do you have to say to them?

 

[mary_bobo]

welp…i agree with vern in this thread…is there a full moon out? seriously…i don’t believe with one size fits all insurance. the problem can be fixed…it just takes effort. (and time)

It does take effort and time and someway to get the politicians out of the mix.

 

[mary_bobo]

excellent points, mary…i think there needs to be tort reform, then you’ll see more changes…and more opportunities for everyone to have healthcare–in a fair and equitable way.

And every time someone suggests tort reform, the lawyers in Congress (and there are far too many of them) squeal like stuffed pigs. We can’t have reform that would benefit us if it cuts down on the lawyers money grab, now can we?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am paying 21% income tax and am a middle earner. I suspect that that’s similiar to, or less than you. In Australia where tax in lower and they’ve had 5 years of successive tax cuts and tax bracket shifts, they still have a public health system. We don’t spend billions on a military.

And you point is?

I take your last point however, those on low incomes have to use the public system (which is better than nothing, it did treat my single-parent mother for cancer when I was a kid) , but what’s your suggestion, vouchers again? A pitifully small tax rebate?

Do I have to keep posting my answers, over and over?

I propose a multi-facited system, which includes MSAs, with provisions for the poor, making it legal to shop for insurance across state lines, making it legal for non-affiliated businesses to band together to bargain for employee health care, discount drug cards and attacking foreign price-fixing in the drug industry as a fair trade issue.

Yet in your last statement you object to paying taxes for a sytem you do not use. It seems like those on the conservative end of the politcal spectrum are ok with helping others on a voluntary, charitable basis, but charity won’t provide ongoing treatment for cancer, or heart disease.

Why not?

As opposed to the insurance industry and hospitals run purely for profit, without even a facade of altruistic concern for our fellow man, who take every opportunity to withold or dispute payment on claims, who will collude to set prices at the highest level possible… which is easy because there’s no free option. You have 40 million of your citizens uninsured, presumably because they just can’t afford it. Any of them get cancer, they die, game over. What do you have to say to them?

You spend a lot of time telling us that private industry is the boogie man.

 

[Trader]

Not all of us uninsured are uninsured because we can’t afford it. I have not been insured since I retired seven years ago because I refuse to pay unfairly high rates to cover the bad risks that get lumped in with good risks. I find it more cost effective to pay my own way and save a substatial portion of my income toward future medical costs. Since I earn a higher rate of return on my own investments than the insurance companies do, this can make sense.

There are some other factors that allow me to do this:

1. I have no dependents. I would not do this if I had the responsiblity for several children.
2. I am very healthy. My last prescription was in 1972. I think it cost about $8 and I decided it would be cheaper to stay healthy.
   Is it all luck? Well, I have never smoked, rarely drink, and lived through the 60’s and 70’s entirely drug free.(It was possible then and is possible today ) I still weigh the same as I did when I graduated from college in 1971. I am 6’2’ and weigh 170 lbs. My blood pressure was tested as a possible kidney donor at 102/68. I have NEVER had a traffic ticket and would not consider driving without a seat belt.

While all the debate seems to be about who should pay the cost of healthcare, there is very little debate about how those costs can be actually lowered rather than shifted to someone else.

BETTER BEHAVIOR=LOWER COSTS

 

[emily47017]

Been arguing with the man in the mirror again, have you?

bodacious babe, i think you mean.

 

[vern_humphrey]

bodacious babe, i think you mean.

Very apt.

For those who don’t know, Bodacious was a cross-bred Bramah and Charolette rodeo bull who developed a technique to kill or maim his riders. He would come flying out of the gate, do a stutter-step, which would throw the rider forwart, while Bodacious threw back his head and smashed the rider’s skull with his own enormous skull.

 

[emily47017]

Very apt.

For those who don’t know, Bodacious was a cross-bred Bramah and Charolette rodeo bull who developed a technique to kill or maim his riders. He would come flying out of the gate, do a stutter-step, which would throw the rider forwart, while Bodacious threw back his head and smashed the rider’s skull with his own enormous skull.

wahoo! there’s also this:

“Among older users and before its recent surge to popularity, the word seems to have been most common in the American South, though not among African-Americans. One of the earliest examples is from Georgia, dated 1845: “She’s so bowdacious unreasonable when she’s riled”.”

 

[boppaid]

Vern, I am not picking on you, b ut I honestly think you need to take a step back and rethink how you are posting. While I understand that you aren’t in any violation, you have a very uncharitable, snippy, tone to your post which is quite unflattering at best, and unkind as well.

And you point is?

Do I have to keep posting my answers, over and over?

I’m sure you don’t mean to come off that way, which is why I’m pointing it out to you. In the written word, we often don’t realize how our tone comes across.

I understand what you are saying about the single-payer system, and state funded health care. I think others who don’t share your view understand it as well. We just don’t agree.

EDITED I just reread my post and I want to make sure you understand that I wasn’t trying to nitpick you. I just felt that I’m sure you’re a pretty nice person, and I am fairly positive you wouldn’t want to come across as unkind. I know that sometimes when I am posting, my tone sounds different than I mean it to, and I appreciate when others point it out to me.

 

[boppaid]

Vern, I am not picking on you, b ut I honestly think you need to take a step back and rethink how you are posting. While I understand that you aren’t in any violation, you have a very uncharitable, snippy, tone to your post which is quite unflattering at best, and unkind as well.

And you point is?

Do I have to keep posting my answers, over and over?

I’m sure you don’t mean to come off that way, which is why I’m pointing it out to you. In the written word, we often don’t realize how our tone comes across.

I understand what you are saying about the single-payer system, and state funded health care. I think others who don’t share your view understand it as well. We just don’t agree.

 

[boppaid]

Not all of us uninsured are uninsured because we can’t afford it. I have not been insured since I retired seven years ago because I refuse to pay unfairly high rates to cover the bad risks that get lumped in with good risks. I find it more cost effective to pay my own way and save a substatial portion of my income toward future medical costs. Since I earn a higher rate of return on my own investments than the insurance companies do, this can make sense.

There are some other factors that allow me to do this:

1. I have no dependents. I would not do this if I had the responsiblity for several children.
2. I am very healthy. My last prescription was in 1972. I think it cost about $8 and I decided it would be cheaper to stay healthy.
   Is it all luck? Well, I have never smoked, rarely drink, and lived through the 60’s and 70’s entirely drug free.(It was possible then and is possible today ) I still weigh the same as I did when I graduated from college in 1971. I am 6’2’ and weigh 170 lbs. My blood pressure was tested as a possible kidney donor at 102/68. I have NEVER had a traffic ticket and would not consider driving without a seat belt.

While all the debate seems to be about who should pay the cost of healthcare, there is very little debate about how those costs can be actually lowered rather than shifted to someone else.

BETTER BEHAVIOR=LOWER COSTS

What an inspiring post! I have considered this, too, as sometimes we just cannot afford health care premiums. Can I ask y ou a few questions?

• Do you have enough money saved if you came down with a catestrophic illness, such as cancer? My friend got lung cancer, and never smoked a day in her life. Treatments cost a fortune, even with her deductibles, and she lost her house.

*Do you get your cholestoral and sugar checked annually with an exam? I know that will also prevent more serious illness down the road as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I am not picking on you, b ut I honestly think you need to take a step back and rethink how you are posting. While I understand that you aren’t in any violation, you have a very uncharitable, snippy, tone to your post which is quite unflattering at best, and unkind as well.

I’m sure you don’t mean to come off that way, which is why I’m pointing it out to you. In the written word, we often don’t realize how our tone comes across.

I understand what you are saying about the single-payer system, and state funded health care. I think others who don’t share your view understand it as well. We just don’t agree.

I just went through the entire thread – and found things like this

What would the people who are not part of the Church do?

The person making that post was advancing the nasty insinuation that Catholics only care for other Catholics.

So more than one person comes off as being very uncharitable and snippy

 

[LumenGentium]

We have a lot of smart folks around here, certainly smarter than those who are likely to ACTUALLY make law on health care in the near future. Let’s hear some ideas about how to make health care work properly.

Some ground rules:

1. Have some sense of reality. There has never been a society that could afford to give everyone everything they want.
2. Try to structurally include catholic values. I’m sure jesus wouldn’t approve of “Pay your way or die and get it over with.”
3. Discuss ideas without reference to political party or controversial public figures. This is a hard enough issue without bringing in political prejudice.

Here are a few of my thoughts and concerns.

1. There needs to be a basic safety net level of coverage for everybody. We effectively have that now in hospital ERs, but that really isn’t very fair to the hospitals, is it? Why not 'fess up to the problem and develop policy to handle it? Perhaps expand Medicare to provide universal BASIC care to all Americans who can’t afford a private plan. As a starting place, we can define Basic health care to be anything currently done in a Gen Practice office or available in a hospital prior to say 1955. Yes, this means transplants and open heart surgey are ‘denied’ to the poor. Gotta afford this somehow. As medical science advances and todays cutting edge care become routine and cheap, the definition of BASIC can be revised upwards.
2. Drug research and approval costs a fortune, so the drugs that result costs a fortune. Does anybody know of ANY company or NGO that develops drugs from scratch, but doesn’t market them in the US or charges the same prices in the US as elsewhere? I don’t think so. Much as drug companies are corrupt beasts, I fear that if there is NO profit to be made there will be precious little advancement in the future. Right now, the rest of the world acts as a medical parasite on the US (They get the drugs that were developed for the US profit market). As a start, how about we BAN all advertising of prescription drugs and the use of drug reps? In return, the drug companies get immunity from lawuits in excess of actual economic damages (No, you can’t put a price on a lost life, just lost wages).
3. Same tort reform for doctors and hospitals. CYA policies currently drive millions of dollars in extra tests and possibly uneeded procedures. I’ve seen it happen in my own family.
4. No free lunch. Nobody values anything that doesn’t cost them anything. Every procedure except maybe a yearly physical should have a copay. Copays should increase with the overall cost of the procedure, but not necessarily in a direct proportion. When people know they won’t be footing the bill, they don’t care what it costs. The consumer will ALWAYS be the best front line of defense against price gouging. Offer medical savings plans that can be used to pay the copay and allow major procedure copays to be paid over a period of years.

Sound off.

ok you might not like my idea but i think its a good one:

ABOLISH INSURANCE COMPANIES

they are the ones that are blocking care. they are not doctors and should not have the authority to decide a procedure is unnecessary.
a person should be able to just walk into a doctor’s office and get cared for. move the insurance company out of the healthcare system.
they are the reason that medical costs have skyrocketed. they are always looking for a way of getting out of paying for the care that they contracted to do. some contracts do not include some procedures. they write exclusions into contracts as well. so what are you paying for insurance for if they aren’t going to provide the service to begin with. save your money and give it to the doctor yourself when you are sick.

the only time you really need insurance is when you are in a terrible car accident. that is how i feel about insurance.

 

[LumenGentium]

also why should i pay for insurance if they aren’t going to cover me when i need a certain procedure?

because they deny service they deem unnecessary they are actually failing to provide care and treatment they said they would.

i am against socialized medicince because of the damage the insurance companies will do to the american public. they aren’t going to provide service to the people who need it if they arbitrarily decide the service isn’t necessary. all they want to do is get the money and run.

also because euthanasia is a growing concern i am against socialized medicine because i know that it is in the insurance companies best interest that people die so they don’t have to pay to keep them alive. all they want to do is get the money and run.

if i could be assured that there would be no exclusions on medical procedures i would be all for socialized medicine. but since i know how insurance companies operate and how ruthless and uncaring they are…i am against the national health plan that would require all taxpayers to contribute by paying for more insurance premiums. all they want to do is get the money and run

ABOLISH INSURANCE COMPANIES
all they want to do is get the money and run.