Now that the White House is pushing to have healthcare reform, I'm wondering how many of you here is in favor of a public option and whether your for it or against it state why.
Healthcare Reforn
- Thread starter GiannaIsMyGod
- Start date
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
I'm hardly educated in the complexities of this issue, one way or the other, so I'll refrain from the poll. I will say that right now some of the cheapest insurance available to me offers me almost nothing for a pretty hefty monthly fee - catastrophic insurance. It's something I can barely afford, all for a gamble (it's a good thing I'm healthy and stay in shape anyway).
That is to say, I don't know what the best course of action is, but what we've got now's got to change. But who am I to complain? I'm moving to the UK in a few months, and I'll be damned glad for the coverage there.
That is to say, I don't know what the best course of action is, but what we've got now's got to change. But who am I to complain? I'm moving to the UK in a few months, and I'll be damned glad for the coverage there.
The Paulinator
Spreading the seed
"Learn from other countries' example" does not always mean you should follow them. As a veteran, I know what government healthcare is capable of through an experience at a VA hospital. That is why I have private insurance. If they will maltreat their "respected" veterans, I can only imagine how others such as the elderly would be treated. If you truly desire the government to raise you from cradle to grave, you deserve the way you are treated when they hand you one of a zillion excuses for non-treatment. This may be good enough for some, but not for me.
I agree with you here. This free/cheap insurance from the gov't is not going to be the savior of people that think it will be. If it's not cost effective for the gov't to pay for someone to be treated, then that person will not get treatment. People using it will no be able to choose what medical procedures they want done, the gov't will decide that for them.
This is the quandry ...
Obama is trying to cut healthcare costs, to be "fiscally responsible." He's cutting benefits for veterans and the elderly, although he has worked in some deals with private medical. The question is, are they going to be compatible? In all honesty, I don't think so, and his recent moves show that "reform" is not really going to happen in a way people like -- not faulting Obama, just pointing out the reality (and maybe he is too).
That's why I'm still willing to pay through the nose for good healthcare, as long as it is an option. I know people who make a crapload more than me that don't pay what I do, but then turn around and complain. I know my neighbors that make around what I do and don't pay for their PPO upgrade option with their employer, and only go for the HMO.
The same people then turn around and complain about Mitt -- who pushed for it in -- MA taxing them for choosing the "cheaper" HMO option because it doesn't cover what the PPO does. It's sad that the government has to tax people to spend more on healthcare who can afford it. I mean, com'mon, it's pro-rated to those who make 3x the poverty level!
In reality, we all got ourselves into the mess. Heck, Ted Kennedy was largely behind HMOs in the first place. That fact alone makes me wonder what his newer moves are really going to do for us, which has nothing to do with Obama. It has far more to do with Hillary, Ted and others. And removing the pre-tax benefit is still the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but even Republicans are giving into that.
And they complained about McCain's plan (up to $5K tax credit to pay for private insurance)? I guess that's why I wasn't hopeful in the last election. Both were pushing rhetoric agendas, instead of trying to find common ground to solve the same problem. In the end, we're seeing similar things anyway.
im against it because i feel the system would be abused by ignorant people. thus causing the noble effort to fail. thats all im going to say, as i don't feel like arguing.
I haven't followed the development of this project in the US since several months so i am not sure how the healthcare system is thinked and planned.
For sure, if the governement decides what medical procedures to do (or not do), it makes me sick (pun intended) just to think about how it will work for citizens.
On the other hand, if the doctors are still the decision-maker, it won't make a difference if its private or public.
Also if, as Paulinator said, the governement don't care about the treatments offered to their veterans, it's not the fault of the social system in place but ... the lack of will of that very government to treat veterans decently (which is sadly often the case in the US i think?).
I dont want to push the see-how-it-works-in-Canada-and-do-the-same-thing speach here (so don't hear it that way) but there is no veterans unsatisfied with the healthcare in Canada, and no one get refused to be treated here. The doctors are the decision-maker, the state isnt interfering there. So basically, instead of each individual paying for private insurances, we just pay taxes which includes a full and complete private insurance that will never refuses to cover citizens treatments...
It's far to be perfect. But it works pretty well.
*EDIT: I haven't voted in the poll: it's an american question that americans should answer, not foreigners IMO*
For sure, if the governement decides what medical procedures to do (or not do), it makes me sick (pun intended) just to think about how it will work for citizens.
On the other hand, if the doctors are still the decision-maker, it won't make a difference if its private or public.
Also if, as Paulinator said, the governement don't care about the treatments offered to their veterans, it's not the fault of the social system in place but ... the lack of will of that very government to treat veterans decently (which is sadly often the case in the US i think?).
I dont want to push the see-how-it-works-in-Canada-and-do-the-same-thing speach here (so don't hear it that way) but there is no veterans unsatisfied with the healthcare in Canada, and no one get refused to be treated here. The doctors are the decision-maker, the state isnt interfering there. So basically, instead of each individual paying for private insurances, we just pay taxes which includes a full and complete private insurance that will never refuses to cover citizens treatments...
It's far to be perfect. But it works pretty well.
*EDIT: I haven't voted in the poll: it's an american question that americans should answer, not foreigners IMO*
And yet the irony is that one of the people who have been pushing this, Ted Kennedy, was also one of the chief architects of the HMO system that came about from the '60s on-ward. That's what bothers me the most.
FYI, I have never had a HMO plan. I have always been willing to go outside of my employer to get a PPO, even post-tax, with insurance premiums being 33% of my income one year (and I honestly couldn't afford it that year, but did it anyway), to ensure I had good insurance.
I do what I have to in order to insure have have good health coverage. I live poor, drive my old, original vehicle, live in a small house that was a fixer, etc... I know other people don't like to do that, make those sacrifices (including traveling away from my wife -- how do you factor that in for taxes?), but I do.
That's why I honestly believe people behind these efforts have always been completely out-of-touch with reality. And the people will be as disappointed with these changes, as much as HMOs, social security, etc...
I agree with several of your statements, except two ...
The greater British Commonwealth has not required the military to secure resources since the Suez Incident of 1956 and, correspondingly, reduced their forces through the '60s (and was even considering further reductions in the '80s with the Reagan build-up before the Falkland's). Since 1956, the US has become the defacto protectorate of resources outside of the Americas for the greater British Commonwealth and other EU and select Asia-Pacific nations. That has lead to greatly and I mean greatly increased costs than prior to 1956.
Canada has its own resources, but it hardly has to service the protectorate outside of its own mainstay, other than select international efforts. Just saying, that's a bit of a difference.
I would argue that having the US as a neighbor provides for Canada the "two-level public-private" system that the UK has on its own. I.e., with the US next door, US health insurance provides the private option for Canada that the UK system ends up offering since it does not have a neighbor with a private option.
Canada does not have the defense costs of the US.
The greater British Commonwealth has not required the military to secure resources since the Suez Incident of 1956 and, correspondingly, reduced their forces through the '60s (and was even considering further reductions in the '80s with the Reagan build-up before the Falkland's). Since 1956, the US has become the defacto protectorate of resources outside of the Americas for the greater British Commonwealth and other EU and select Asia-Pacific nations. That has lead to greatly and I mean greatly increased costs than prior to 1956.
Canada has its own resources, but it hardly has to service the protectorate outside of its own mainstay, other than select international efforts. Just saying, that's a bit of a difference.
At the same time, I have several Canadian colleagues that have American PPO plans and utilize American doctors for procedures not offered in or covered by Canadian public insurance.
I would argue that having the US as a neighbor provides for Canada the "two-level public-private" system that the UK has on its own. I.e., with the US next door, US health insurance provides the private option for Canada that the UK system ends up offering since it does not have a neighbor with a private option.
I agree with several of your statements, except two ...
Canada does not have the defense costs of the US.
(...)
Canada has its own resources, but it hardly has to service the protectorate outside of its own mainstay, other than select international efforts. Just saying, that's a bit of a difference.
You speak the truth there.
By the way, you should see canadians whining when 1$ is spent for defense! :1orglaugh
For most canadians, 1$ in defense is a waste and 1$ in healthcare is a good investment. Different countries, different mentalities, different priorities.
True again - minus two little things.
First, everything is covered in Canada (thought, it might varies from a province to another; here, in Quebec, everything is covered). People using the US private system are those who can afford it and, most importantly, people who don't want to wait to get treated... because, as you might know, the biggest issue with the canadian healthcare system are the waiting lists for treatments.
Imagine when you learn you have a cancer... but you won't be treated before 4-5 months... (That's the nightmare of our system, really)
Second, we have an unofficial two-level system. Canadians who don't want to wait can find easily private health services in Canada. So people who are going to be treated in the US are *shopping* to either get the lowest costly services or to get the better services (US being 10 times bigger than Canada, for many illness, we just can't rival your specialists).
I'm one of the 50 or so estimated Americans that doesn’t have health insurance. I don't mean just poor health insurance. I mean I have nothing. I haven't had health insurance in about 10 years, and it's not by choice. If anything medically serious were to happen to me I would most likely be in bankruptcy my entire life if not worse. I would also cost society a lot more at that point. I stay in great shape but someday if do to nothing more than age, or an unforeseen accident or medical condition I will need healthcare. I even had a scare a few months ago that luckily turned out to be nothing, but I couldn't go get it checked out like I wanted to. My family has a history of cancer among other things on top of it. None of that is even accounting for the fact that I have been able to get my eyes or teeth checked in that time either other than to just have some teeth pulled completely out because I couldn't afford anything else.
The people that don't want government run health insurance have never come up with a reasonable solution for people like me other than some of them that will admit that people like me should just be thrown to the wolves because it would inconvenience them. Considering I think having the government give you as reasonable healthcare as it can is a human right, what were doing right now isn't working. Treating healthcare as a business or a function of the market is stupid. It can never be treated as a normal business. The free market system has failed. It's failure is blatantly obvious at this point.
What also needs to be remembered is that as expensive as health care is getting more and more people will be left without it either literally or in a practical sense. Then you have to add in all the people that technically have health care but it's so poor or inadequate it might as well not exist for them. The way it's currently going is unsustainable. That's what has happened for letting market forces dictate healthcare. It also drags down other business that have to help flip the bill for it because at some time we got the stupid idea in our heads that it was a good thing to get health care though our employers. All the technological advances or great care we can give don't mean shit if more and more people continually can't receive it. It's better to have adequate care for everybody than great care for a few and the rest get screwed.
If anything, all proposals that have been suggested are inadequate. It's just a bunch of play baby half-assed measures that probably won't work that good and will prolong the inadequacies of the system while the people that might loose a profit from it fight it as much as possible. The government just needs to socialize everything about medicine. If that means taking over hospitals, drug manufactures, laboratories, research facilities, medical branches of places of higher learning, making all medical doctors employees of the government, and strictly regulating cost and regulating everything about it short of things like unneeded elective plastic surgery then so be it. Whatever it takes to get reasonable health care to as many people as possible and constrain the cost of it as much as reasonably possible. Maybe if anything they can let insurance companies continue to exist only provide people with insurance for very very exceptional or unneeded treatment if they so choose to pay them for it.
While I don't trust the government to run things efficiently or to always do what's in the best interest of society, I trust businesses, especially businesses in the medical industry a lot less.
The people that don't want government run health insurance have never come up with a reasonable solution for people like me other than some of them that will admit that people like me should just be thrown to the wolves because it would inconvenience them. Considering I think having the government give you as reasonable healthcare as it can is a human right, what were doing right now isn't working. Treating healthcare as a business or a function of the market is stupid. It can never be treated as a normal business. The free market system has failed. It's failure is blatantly obvious at this point.
What also needs to be remembered is that as expensive as health care is getting more and more people will be left without it either literally or in a practical sense. Then you have to add in all the people that technically have health care but it's so poor or inadequate it might as well not exist for them. The way it's currently going is unsustainable. That's what has happened for letting market forces dictate healthcare. It also drags down other business that have to help flip the bill for it because at some time we got the stupid idea in our heads that it was a good thing to get health care though our employers. All the technological advances or great care we can give don't mean shit if more and more people continually can't receive it. It's better to have adequate care for everybody than great care for a few and the rest get screwed.
If anything, all proposals that have been suggested are inadequate. It's just a bunch of play baby half-assed measures that probably won't work that good and will prolong the inadequacies of the system while the people that might loose a profit from it fight it as much as possible. The government just needs to socialize everything about medicine. If that means taking over hospitals, drug manufactures, laboratories, research facilities, medical branches of places of higher learning, making all medical doctors employees of the government, and strictly regulating cost and regulating everything about it short of things like unneeded elective plastic surgery then so be it. Whatever it takes to get reasonable health care to as many people as possible and constrain the cost of it as much as reasonably possible. Maybe if anything they can let insurance companies continue to exist only provide people with insurance for very very exceptional or unneeded treatment if they so choose to pay them for it.
While I don't trust the government to run things efficiently or to always do what's in the best interest of society, I trust businesses, especially businesses in the medical industry a lot less.
Are you sure about Ted Kennedy, Prof? Wouldn't that info warrant inclusion in the ol' wiki page?:dunno: A quick glance of the HMO wiki page does not mention Ted Kennedy. It mentions this Act -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973
I don't know a single person that has been disappointed with Social Security. Not even moronic Republicans would try to take that down. I know plenty of people disappointed with Medicare but only because what Medicare "pays for" and what it doesn't is very confusing and, often times, backwards.
Everything is covered that is offered.
The wife of a good colleague of mine (a Canadian working in Minnesota) underwent a procedure here in the US that was not offered in Canada -- anywhere. It was costly, new and was not covered "in network" (i.e., no insurance program covered it at all), but his PPO had to pay their 80% "out of network" after his $2,000 deductible because she (c/o his insurance) had the choice to undergo it.
That's what a PPO gives you in the US, the option to go "out-of-network" for a procedure. No referral required. If you want to pay your out-of-network deductible and increased percentage (up to the maximum out-of-pocket, typically $5,000 or so), you can. His wife's life was literally saved by that option, and the procedure (now 5 years later) is becoming more commonplace.
At the time, both the Canadian doctors and in-network doctors had no options for her. They got that "second opinion" out-of-network and it saved her life. Today it's now a better understood cancer, but back then, they had trouble identifying it at all, and the symptoms were considered nothing to do with a cancer (long story).
There are different types of private insurance in the US. This joke of "who can afford it" really gets to me. There is cheap insurance and then there is more expensive options. Even HMOs are dirt cheap, whereas PPOs are quite expensive.
Now some companies refuse to cover their employees with even basic HMOs, and their locales/states overlook that *COUGH*Walmart*COUGH*. That's an exception to the rule for large corporations.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Insurance of any kind is a complete joke and is a blatant rape of our wallets. So, why not go through with healthcare reform? It's not like things can get any worse, you know?
Umm, you don understand that when you pay for it via taxes, it's still "insurance," correct? There are still debits and credits and there's a "cost-over-time" aspect, correct?
Or do you see the government as a bottomless pit of money, like some do? That it can run negative, like on everything else, subsidizing things?
Weren't HMOs pitched to solve this some 4 decades ago? Again, who was involved with that as well?
The man has been working on healthcare for decades, but it hasn't turned out too well each time he's been involved. PPOs came about for a reason.
I pay through the nose for a PPO, even post-tax if need be from someone other than my employer, to ensure I can get that "second opinion" and "other procedure" if necessary. I've always had this attitude, but seeing what a Canadian college of mine went through with his wife many years ago, I utterly believe in that option.
In any case, here in the US, we're going to end up with the 2-level system. And there will be no end of complaints about that. The problem is that too many Americans believe that any public system will let them get access to any doctor or procedure. Sorry, not going to happen.
Of course, some are pushing for the outlaw of private insurance, to prevent people who can afford better options from opting for them. Of course, I'll be damned if that I'll agree to that, and might move to the UK or somewhere else where I can have another option.
God knows I'm uniquely qualified enough and have enough contacts to immigrate to the UK or somewhere else. I can eat my own expenses for a year or two to work out the right to work as a foreign national.
Technically, it varies from a province to another.
If she was in Quebec, and her illness was not treatable in Canada, she would be 100% covered (including fees for transport, hotel and food) to be treated anywhere in the world where a proven treatment (and often experimentals too) is offered.
But, again, this takes a long time as we have humongous waiting lists.
Prof, i was talking about canadian citizens heading south of the frontier, not US citizens there. Most canadian citizens don't have US insurances so they have to be able to afford it, really. Hell, i can't even pay to travel in US so i obviously couldn't afford traveling to get treated!
Sadly Prof, according to this:
Do the Corporate-run HMOs and PPOs deserve any blame in this poor performance?
Only 15%? That's lower than I thought. And separate HMOs from PPOs. They are wholly different. Don't pick'n choose what you want to argue with, debate my entire set of details as they are part of the same whole.
Remember, my entire point in this thread is pointing out one of the architects of HMOs being one of the architects of this new, universal healthcare. The HMO was supposed to be the "solution" for adequate healthcare for everyone.
As I've always said ... we need Europeans to come over and do socialized medicine for us. Americans suck at socializing medicine.
Whatever we'll get, we'll get an answer like the PPOs that will give people more options for a price. People who are willing to give up more of their pay check for good coverage will do so. To me, even if I only make the poverty level in income in one year (like I did in 2002 and 2004), I'm still paid out the money for the PPO from someone else than my employer, post-tax.
