Should The US Start Some Sort Of Universal Health Care System?

[Phoenix44]

People bandy around the phrase "We have the best healthcare in the world!" as if it were true. Actually, we only have the most EXPENSIVE healthcare in the world.

We have lower life expectancy at birth than Canada, France, Germany and Spain. We have higher infant, child and adult mortality rates. We have a higher incidence of measles, mumps and other preventable diseases than Canada. And we have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. Yet we spend nearly 15% of our GDP on healthcare...WAY more than any of those countries. (World Health Organization)

 

[arnisador]

Yeah, but where else would you want to have surgery? Be treated for cancer? We do a lot of things better than others, and develop a great many new techniques and treatments.

Part of the expense is that our pharmaceutical companies sell drugs developed here at a discount to other countries that can't afford the U.S. prices.

 

[CanuckMA]

The difference, my Canadian friend, is that I can get world class health care, I don't have to wait months for surgery, and I can get ALL this...JUST BY MAINTAINING A JOB. I have no concerns with health care...because I pay for healthcare insurance. If someone is too lazy to work, why I should pay for theirs as well (As pointed out above, this does NOT include people who can't work, because they are ALREADY covered).

2000 report from the WHO ranks the US 1 in terms of cost and 37th in terms of quality, lagging behind Canada (30th) and most European countries.

 

[Marginal]

Sweden and many countries of Europe may not be doing as well right, but this is because these countries are over the edge socialist. Better example would be Canada as it is in between Europe (socialist) and USA (capitalist).

Actually the point was that Sweeden hadn't failed miserably. Someone was just confusing socialized medicine with socialism, and them going one better by confusing both with communism.

 

[sgtmac_46]

so just let the ones that cant afford healthcare die....to make room for the ones that can?

The point, my friend, is that those who "can't afford healthcare" already have it...we call it medicare and medicaid. The plan being bandied about here is to provide universal health coverage. This is where this argument becomes purely an emotional one, when someone makes the above statement about "letting people die". That's really a bit disingenuous.

 

[sgtmac_46]

2000 report from the WHO ranks the US 1 in terms of cost and 37th in terms of quality, lagging behind Canada (30th) and most European countries.

Nice try, but the WHO's asinine criteria is based on percentage of people covered, not actual medical care available. Big difference. All this does is do what is being done by some other folks here....distort the difference between quality of care and the medical insurance issue. The WHO uses some wacky numerical system whereby quality of care is figured along with number of people it's available to. It's nothing but a backhanded way for proponents of socialized medicine to attack the US system.

What they still haven't been able to show is what large numbers of people around the world who come to the US for healthcare understand....If cost isn't an object, the US is where you want to be treated. Why? Because the quality of treatment (not the number of people covered by "socialized medicine") in the US is far superior.

Come on, folks, this fallacious arguments are getting ridiculous.

At least in the US, if I want to have surgery, I can have it this week...In Canada, I get the privelege of waiting a couple of months or more....Great system...I'll keep paying for mine. If others want health insurance, they should pay for it like I do....P.S. i'm not "Rich".

 

[Marginal]

Nice try, but the WHO's asinine criteria is based on percentage of people covered, not actual medical care available.

By what scale is that quantified?

 

[Brother John]

No.

I don't think that's the answer.

Your Brother
John

 

[sgtmac_46]

By what scale is that quantified?

What scale should it be quantified? An honest one would be on actual quality of available medical service. The issue of medical insurance and coverage is another issue, and can be dealt with honestly by at least seperating it as such. To make the claim that the US ranks where it did on the WHO's ranking, and then have to dig for the fact that the criteria was heavily weighted toward socialized medicine because it used total percentage of people covered as a huge deciding factor, is a bit disingenuous and seems very manipulative. I simply don't like when someone uses "rankings" and distorted numbers to try and manipulate my opinion, that's what I take issue with....color me critical.

 

[Makalakumu]

I waited four months for surgury.

My mother and father went bankrupt because of medical bills. They were insured.

 

[michaeledward]

Robert Reich had an interesting commentary on the public broadcasting program Marketplace last evening (or perhaps two nights ago).

His premise is that employer sponsored health care amounts to a 126 Billion dollar a year tax break for businesses. Further, the majority of this health care tax break benefits the most wealthy in society, leaving those with the less, the least amount of benefit.

He states that changing paradigm of employer sponsored health care, and eliminating the tax benefit would go a long way down the path of Universal Health care.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/11/16/PM200511166.html

 

[arnisador]

An interesting thought. However, I wouldn't want to do anything at this stage that might result in fewer people covered.

As upnorthkyosa indicates, it's not uncommon for the insured to suffer under the burden of medical debt...the situation is bad enough as is.

 

[Kane]

Actually the point was that Sweeden hadn't failed miserably. Someone was just confusing socialized medicine with socialism, and them going one better by confusing both with communism.

I was pointing out that Sweden and many other European countries have a decreasing economoy because they are too socialist. Canada on the other hand is in between socialist and capitalist, and isn't doing that bad in economic growth.

 

[CanuckMA]

At least in the US, if I want to have surgery, I can have it this week...In Canada, I get the privelege of waiting a couple of months or more....Great system...I'll keep paying for mine. If others want health insurance, they should pay for it like I do....P.S. i'm not "Rich".

When I needed surgery for an herniated disc, I had it in a week. At no cost.

Last August, while visiting family in NYC, I went to a hospital for waht looked like a knee infection. A 3 hour wait in emerg, 36 hours in the hospital, a few blood tests and IV antibiotic. Turned out to be nothing. The bill came to $12.6K.

How often do we read in these forums about people describing injuries needing medical attention, but they won't go because they can't afford it. It is a crime that nearly 10% of your population can't afford medical coverage.

 

[sgtmac_46]

When I needed surgery for an herniated disc, I had it in a week. At no cost.

Last August, while visiting family in NYC, I went to a hospital for waht looked like a knee infection. A 3 hour wait in emerg, 36 hours in the hospital, a few blood tests and IV antibiotic. Turned out to be nothing. The bill came to $12.6K.

How often do we read in these forums about people describing injuries needing medical attention, but they won't go because they can't afford it. It is a crime that nearly 10% of your population can't afford medical coverage.

A little disingenuous to use an NYC ER as a representative of the entire US medical system.

 

[Phoenix44]

The point, my friend, is that those who "can't afford healthcare" already have it...we call it medicare and medicaid.

Medicare only covers senior citizens, and some disabled individuals, and Medicaid only covers those who are extremely poor: For example, in New York State, a family of 4 must have a monthly income of less than $992/month.

That leaves the ineligible and the uninsured, for example a working poor family of 4 with an annual income of, lets say, $12,000--you know, the Walmart worker. Definitely can't afford private insurance, but not eligible for Medicaid. College students. Workers without employer-sponsored plans. That amounts to about 45 million Americans.

Personally, I believe that if we cut out the waste and duplicative bureaucracy of multiple insurance plans, we could easily afford universal healthcare. But, I find it really hard to argue for universal healthcare with people who simply believe that if you're lucky you can afford healthcare and if not, tough. Look, that's what they believe, period. Social Darwinism.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Medicare only covers senior citizens, and some disabled individuals, and Medicaid only covers those who are extremely poor: For example, in New York State, a family of 4 must have a monthly income of less than $992/month.

That leaves the ineligible and the uninsured, for example a working poor family of 4 with an annual income of, lets say, $12,000--you know, the Walmart worker. Definitely can't afford private insurance, but not eligible for Medicaid. College students. Workers without employer-sponsored plans. That amounts to about 45 million Americans.

Personally, I believe that if we cut out the waste and duplicative bureaucracy of multiple insurance plans, we could easily afford universal healthcare. But, I find it really hard to argue for universal healthcare with people who simply believe that if you're lucky you can afford healthcare and if not, tough. Look, that's what they believe, period. Social Darwinism.

I always find it interesting when people refer to success as "pure luck" as if hard work and determination had nothing to do with it....people are just walking along one day and the success fairy said "Poof...you're now making money".

Again, I proposed a plan up-thread that would solve the problem for those 45 million workers without investing in some confiscatory scheme to make others pay. Many don't like it because it doesn't punish those who work hard enough for their tastes.

I proposed allowing the $12,000 per year employee to buy in to a US government run insurance program, that would benefit from not having to make a profit. All those who are without insurance or who are underinsured would be able to buy in to this plan at a nominal monthly fee (far lower than many private plans). The government would then provide insurance for them with the idea that those who are using the plan, are also those who are paying for it.

This plan seems fair, it seems reasonable, and it seems like it would work, and all this without engaging in the "class warfare, others should pay for it" rhetoric we've heard too much of....which is exactly why we won't try it. Too many people would rather sit around talking about how the rich "should get theirs" than actually solve the problem.

 

[CanuckMA]

A little disingenuous to use an NYC ER as a representative of the entire US medical system.

It was Jersey City actually. The point is that waiting times exist everywhere. And had been one the those 30 million without coverage, that little visit would have bankrupted me.

The Canadian system is not perfect, but universl coverage is absolutely worth it.

 

[Andrew Green]

The Canadian system is not perfect, but universl coverage is absolutely worth it.

Ditto.

Getting medical attention when you need it is a must for everyone, not just those that can afford it.

 

[Lisa]

It was Jersey City actually. The point is that waiting times exist everywhere. And had been one the those 30 million without coverage, that little visit would have bankrupted me.

The Canadian system is not perfect, but universl coverage is absolutely worth it.

Lots of things are wrong with the Canadian system too, I have become frustrated and upset with some things that have happened in my families past, but not having to worry about having coverage to get my sick child the help they need is such a comfort, something I wouldn't give up for anything.