11-15-2013 08:18 PM
419 ... 89101112 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    Why does the government have to get involved? It does not work anywhere tried.

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4


    Sorry? National health insurance doesn't work? Or the government is inefficient at other projects and thus can't be expected to be competent on this one?

    If it's the former:

    This FAQ is provided by a coalition of doctors who are in favor of a nationalized insurance plan (so it's obviously from their point of view espousing the benefits) explains the details of how such a system would work. Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

    Keep in mind, the US has one of the highest cost per capita of civilized countries, one of the lowest 5 of costs paid by the government, one of the lowest life expectancy rates, highest infant mortality rate, highest healthcare costs as a % of GDP and highest % of government revenue spent on healthcare.

    So we're paying for much more than a nationalized insurance plan already (in taxes, etc) AND THEN we're paying huge amounts out of pocket, only to receive some of the worst healthcare available in civilized countries.

    Obviously what we are doing is wrong. Nationalized healthcare might not be right, but they're systems clearly work much better than ours do at providing quality care and managing costs.

    As for the latter, I'm inclined to agree intuitively, that is until we consider how inefficient our current program is. It's one of the most bureaucratic systems on the planet due to the insane quantity of different plans with different coverage amounts, different rules, different payment systems, etc. That's one of the reasons it's the most expensive. All that waste and red tape creates giant holes for making away with piles of cash.

    The ACA doesn't fix that problem, it actually might exasperate it by increasing the involvement of health insurance companies and adding government activity atop that waste. What we needed was a foundational rewrite. I don't know what that solution looks like, but it almost certainly has to remove insurance companies entirely from the equation if we want to focuses to be on efficiency and quality care.
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-23-2013 12:53 AM
  2. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    We so much disagree and there are doctors on the other side very much against it. If the quality is so much better, why do they come here?

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4
    08-23-2013 12:55 AM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    I have a hard time believing you read my post and the FAQ and understood it all in 90 seconds.

    there are doctors on the other side very much against it
    Of course there are. What are the arguments they're making? And the counter points to those arguments? What's the actual best way? Who knows in theory.. all we can look at are the results.

    We're the worst in all but two of the categories displayed and best in none. These are costs and quality of care measurements, the lagging indicators. If we're wondering what steps to take next, perhaps we should ask Japan. With the lowest cost system and highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality rate... maybe they're on to something.

    If the quality is so much better, why do they come here?
    Why does who come here? Patients or doctors or what does this mean? And do you mean from Canada or are you saying that people are flying in from across the oceans to practice or receive health care insurance? Generally people are not coming here, buying health insurance and then going to a general practice MD here. People do come from Canada for specific surgeries, treatments, etc and typically pay out of pocket for them. Remember, we're saying the insurance program is broken and not the capabilities of the doctors. We can have the best doctors, a broken system and still fail. But do we know that we do have the best doctors?

    I'm not looking for propaganda based responses; I'm seeking substantive qualitative (component and root cause) and quantitative (modeled or perceived measurable) analysis based solution oriented proposals for how to fix our unsustainable system. Suggesting it isn't broken doesn't substitute for critical thinking.
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-23-2013 01:16 AM
  4. Fairclough's Avatar
    Matt, we may disagree on guns buy thank-you for driving home the point about health care I mentioned before. The fact is the US gov is spending more than any other country and in the end the citizens receive less fruits of those benefits which are reaped by other countries for less.

    My own isn't perfect, but its a good start. We have a dual system as such. Public and private insurance schemes, health care etc. I believe its a myth about our doctors are poorer quality as of it over here, as first of all they do the 10+ years at university it requires, they have high expectations and the government is keen for high quality doctors. Under our government study allowance normal students are allowed a $100,000 allowance, medicine $115,000 on a already government subsidised course.

    Ive never had an issue with my doctor. Never after 18 years, he knows my health back to front. His even done quick stitch jobs in his gp room as I cracked my scull open, chopped my finger tip off twice, had a large wire impale through my foot, etc to avoid queuing in a public hospital line.

    I have rarely been charged for his usage, besides for x-rays by the office next door which was only about $10 out of pocket. Money doesn't mean great doctors, the widow of Australians most known miner and the mother of Australia's richest women uses him and his free. He also takes clients off the street. Thus because an doctor is pricey doesn't mean his any better than the free one. His private, expect he just charges to the point gov health care covers for.

    I believe the reason the U.S health care is so pricey is because its a profit based system. If a country can grow their economy by war. They can grow it by helping their people. Even if it does cost a bit more initially to set up, the benefits flow through. Through both economic and externalities.

    Posted via Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-23-2013 05:51 AM
  5. SteveISU's Avatar
    Infant mortality and life expectancy are not gold standard measures of the quality of healthcare. LIfe expectancy can be skewed by suicide and murder rates, neither are a reflection of healthcare. I suggest you research how infant mortality is measured, as it varies greatly from country to country. What constitutes a "live birth" is not the same between the US and Japan. Same goes with Germany and Australia. I can guarantee you though our hospitals and facilities have more resources and fight harder than anywhere in the world to try and keep a baby alive.

    We pay more per capita because private plans don't have the leveraging power to negotiate with providers and drug companies to lower costs the way national governments do. We also have high litigation costs and medical costs driven by fear. We also live in a society that requires instant gratification. Fix it now, give me a pill, I don't want to wait. Go try and get an MRI in Canada and see how long you wait. I had a drug rep put it to me this way, "The high cost of drugs in the US is partly due to the billions it costs to get a drug FDA approved and because the US is an open market, as such it practically subsidizes the medications for the rest of the world."

    Everyone wants to pile on our system, while it isn't perfect, it's still the best in the world. People from all four corners of the world come here when they are faced with their darkest hour. They do so because at that point in time, their health is the most important thing to them. Can a single payer system work? Not in a country of 330+ million people in which half fail to pay a single cent in federal income tax. We live in a country that has become entitled, people have no problems taking as much as they can and have someone else frip the bill. Everyone wants to keep dumping expenses on the rich. "Everyone should be granted "X', we'll get the top 5% to pay for it." They already flip the bill for 90% of the revenue and for two failing entitlement programs in this country. When everyone can contribute, then we should talk, but until then it would be nothing but a train wreck.
    08-23-2013 07:41 AM
  6. Fairclough's Avatar
    If their skewed by suicide etc wouldn't that just show that the US has mental health issues too?
    08-23-2013 09:15 AM
  7. Fairclough's Avatar
    Fight harder than anywhere in the world to try and keep a baby alive? Sure about that, In my town, earlier this week was the first birthday of a baby. It marked the first day that baby was allowed out of the hospital. Why? Because for 1 year the nurses and doctors cared for this child, to make sure she survived, developed normally Should I also tell you that this was public hospital too. I can guarantee that most doctors will fight as hard as another doctor in another country to keep a child alive.

    leveraging power to negotiate with providers and drug companies. Actually Australia bulk buys it - as they realized if one child isn't immune its a national risk, secondly they appear cheaper on the shelf because the pharmacy discounts it as the government pays for this discount.

    Go try and get an MRI in Canada and see how long you wait. Actually its based on priority in the public sector, if you in a life threatening injury you go in straight away, I am on a similar health care system in Australia. If your not in a life threatening position you can wait till the person who is dying has used it. I view this is fair or you could get health care which isn't expensive here and go to a private hospital without a wait.

    it's still the best in the world. Any source of that, because last time I checked its the most expensive, while people go to Cuba from America for better service. YES CUBA!

    FYI, I would gladly pay the highest tax bracket - if my income fell I know that I would move down and get entitlements i might need to support myself. I am speaking this from experience. I was relatively well off, during the GFC my family got hit hard and well I am now glad that there are different tax brackets. I am glad the government can help out, because along with 8000 other engineers, draftsman etc my brother lost his job there was 6 available positions national wide available. That mean 7994 people had mortgages to pay without a job, I think thats fair to allow some gov assistance as they paid for it in their tax's while they worked.
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-23-2013 09:28 AM
  8. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Aside from the horrible financial implications that will further drag this country down, people like me who have personal experience with government run medical will not be swayed by people's thoughts on how good it is. My uncle lives in Canada and come to the United States to take care of his medical. Waiting months for doctors appointment, being declined for procedure he needed , and the list goes on. We definitely have problems with our medical system and all our expenses are high . But our level of health care is great. You can quote this and that to make it look like the United States healthcare system is below average but it is not. People like to claim mortality rates and such while not factoring in peoples decision making. So much of health can be managed by intelligent decision making. If people want a nationalized healthcare system let it be offered and let people go sign up for it and have it taken out in taxes through payroll by those who elect to participate. This should not be a mandate. Mandates are followed by everyone and the president has already allowed congress and the IRS to be exempt from obamacare. The captain isn't willing to go down with his ship. What does that tell you? If the proposed 28th amendment was law I highly doubt this legislation would have got passed.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-23-2013 09:54 AM
  9. SteveISU's Avatar
    Sorry? National health insurance doesn't work? Or the government is inefficient at other projects and thus can't be expected to be competent on this one?

    If it's the former:

    This FAQ is provided by a coalition of doctors who are in favor of a nationalized insurance plan (so it's obviously from their point of view espousing the benefits) explains the details of how such a system would work. Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

    Keep in mind, the US has one of the highest cost per capita of civilized countries, one of the lowest 5 of costs paid by the government, one of the lowest life expectancy rates, highest infant mortality rate, highest healthcare costs as a % of GDP and highest % of government revenue spent on healthcare.

    So we're paying for much more than a nationalized insurance plan already (in taxes, etc) AND THEN we're paying huge amounts out of pocket, only to receive some of the worst healthcare available in civilized countries.

    Obviously what we are doing is wrong. Nationalized healthcare might not be right, but they're systems clearly work much better than ours do at providing quality care and managing costs.

    As for the latter, I'm inclined to agree intuitively, that is until we consider how inefficient our current program is. It's one of the most bureaucratic systems on the planet due to the insane quantity of different plans with different coverage amounts, different rules, different payment systems, etc. That's one of the reasons it's the most expensive. All that waste and red tape creates giant holes for making away with piles of cash.

    The ACA doesn't fix that problem, it actually might exasperate it by increasing the involvement of health insurance companies and adding government activity atop that waste. What we needed was a foundational rewrite. I don't know what that solution looks like, but it almost certainly has to remove insurance companies entirely from the equation if we want to focuses to be on efficiency and quality care.
    General doctors are about the only ones who would be in favor of single payer because that would mean EVERYONE goes through them, much like an HMO. It also creates shortages of specialists, which is exactly what is occurring in Canada.
    08-23-2013 02:21 PM
  10. SteveISU's Avatar
    Fight harder than anywhere in the world to try and keep a baby alive? Sure about that, In my town, earlier this week was the first birthday of a baby. It marked the first day that baby was allowed out of the hospital. Why? Because for 1 year the nurses and doctors cared for this child, to make sure she survived, developed normally Should I also tell you that this was public hospital too. I can guarantee that most doctors will fight as hard as another doctor in another country to keep a child alive.

    leveraging power to negotiate with providers and drug companies. Actually Australia bulk buys it - as they realized if one child isn't immune its a national risk, secondly they appear cheaper on the shelf because the pharmacy discounts it as the government pays for this discount.

    Go try and get an MRI in Canada and see how long you wait. Actually its based on priority in the public sector, if you in a life threatening injury you go in straight away, I am on a similar health care system in Australia. If your not in a life threatening position you can wait till the person who is dying has used it. I view this is fair or you could get health care which isn't expensive here and go to a private hospital without a wait.

    it's still the best in the world. Any source of that, because last time I checked its the most expensive, while people go to Cuba from America for better service. YES CUBA!

    FYI, I would gladly pay the highest tax bracket - if my income fell I know that I would move down and get entitlements i might need to support myself. I am speaking this from experience. I was relatively well off, during the GFC my family got hit hard and well I am now glad that there are different tax brackets. I am glad the government can help out, because along with 8000 other engineers, draftsman etc my brother lost his job there was 6 available positions national wide available. That mean 7994 people had mortgages to pay without a job, I think thats fair to allow some gov assistance as they paid for it in their tax's while they worked.
    1. Doctors will go the lengths they are able to go based on a number of factors, one of them being what they have at their disposal

    2. Americans have a hard time swallowing the notion that they will be prioritized by someone as to when they can have treatment outside of an ER. Who decides who's pain is greater and how much it's affecting their life. I had an uncle walk in pain for 6 months waiting for a hip, you know how miserable he was?

    3. There are restrictions on Americans going to Cuba, seeking medical treatment isn't an exception. You need a tour operator with a People-to-People license granted to them by the US government to even get to Cuba. No one goes to Cuba from American for better service, don't believe everything Michael Moore tells you. I have a colleague and his Uncle, both who are Cuban and physicians. Both will tell you that documentary was full of so many lies it was unreal.
    08-23-2013 02:41 PM
  11. Fairclough's Avatar
    If your uncle bothered to have private health care he wouldn't have a wait! My mother has the same thing buy got it straight away.

    My mate is rugby snapped both parts of the bone in his forearm where is just dangled.... Under public health care... Guess who got surgery that day.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-23-2013 09:15 PM
  12. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    My biggest problem with (our) government ran healthcare is just that. Its government ran. I've never seen anything the government has ran that has worked. That and when our representatives don't have to use it due to their own plan, I really have a problem with that. Its good enough for us but not the ones that impose it on us. Even the left leaning Huffington post is stating that it is going to cost more than advertised.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Fairclough and Live2ride883 like this.
    08-25-2013 08:57 PM
  13. SteveISU's Avatar
    If your uncle bothered to have private health care he wouldn't have a wait! My mother has the same thing buy got it straight away.

    My mate is rugby snapped both parts of the bone in his forearm where is just dangled.... Under public health care... Guess who got surgery that day.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Generally compound fractures are treated immediately. Anyone in the US with or without insurance would have had surgery same day. There's a difference between emergencies and elective care, let's not blend the two into one.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-03-2013 10:05 AM
  14. Fairclough's Avatar
    Those with elective care, can wait for those who are in an emergency.
    I don't see why they should put the person in an shouldn't emergency go first? Please justify, because this is the wait everyones banging a drum about.
    09-03-2013 07:11 PM
  15. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Those with elective care, can wait for those who are in an emergency.
    I don't see why they should put the person in an shouldn't emergency go first? Please justify, because this is the wait everyones banging a drum about.
    He is saying we treat people here based on their needs too. Emergiencies go first reguardless of who your provider is.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Fairclough likes this.
    09-03-2013 08:55 PM
  16. SteveISU's Avatar
    Those with elective care, can wait for those who are in an emergency.
    I don't see why they should put the person in an shouldn't emergency go first? Please justify, because this is the wait everyones banging a drum about.
    Remove the emergency room from the equation. It's a different story and no one gets denied care, period. The wait people have issues with is for both acute and chronic non-life threatening issues. A CT scan for chronic sinusitis, ect. This country went through a period of HMO's being shoved down their throats in the 80's and 90's. They hated the restrictions and they hated the bureaucratic BS they had to cut through in order to get treatment. This is exactly what nationalized healthcare is akin to.
    09-04-2013 10:07 AM
  17. Fairclough's Avatar
    Have you ever dealt with free health care?
    Its not as great, the rumours have as much validity as monsters under the bed.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    09-05-2013 06:51 AM
  18. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Have you ever dealt with free health care?
    Its not as great, the rumours have as much validity as monsters under the bed.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    My uncle has and hates it to the point he comes to the states for care. ( he lives in Canada)

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-05-2013 08:16 AM
  19. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Have you ever dealt with free health care?
    Its not as great, the rumours have as much validity as monsters under the bed.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    I agree. My wife works at a Baptist health hospital. No one gets turned away for care. Yet I hear all of these stories saying they do.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    09-05-2013 05:55 PM
  20. SteveISU's Avatar
    Have you ever dealt with free health care?
    Its not as great, the rumours have as much validity as monsters under the bed.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    There is no such thing as "Free Healthcare", someone is paying for it. Whether you do in taxes, someone else's taxes, or insurance premiums/deductibles, ect, it's not free.
    09-06-2013 11:24 AM
  21. SteveISU's Avatar
    I agree. My wife works at a Baptist health hospital. No one gets turned away for care. Yet I hear all of these stories saying they do.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    If a patient is not stable or in active labor a hospital cannot turn anyone away. EMTALA laws prohibit them from doing so.
    09-06-2013 11:25 AM
  22. Fairclough's Avatar
    There is no such thing as "Free Healthcare", someone is paying for it. Whether you do in taxes, someone else's taxes, or insurance premiums/deductibles, ect, it's not free.
    And yet there is no such thing as a free military but is seen as an essential.

    Than we have firefighters, police, politicians etc someone pays for them even though they might not be the one using them

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    09-07-2013 07:17 PM
  23. SteveISU's Avatar
    And yet there is no such thing as a free military but is seen as an essential.

    Than we have firefighters, police, politicians etc someone pays for them even though they might not be the one using them

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.

    I'm not the one who used the term "free healthcare system". The necessity of a system can be argued, but lets classify the system correctly.

    Government has no role in healthcare because everything government touches gets too expensive and too out of control. Every time healthcare reform comes up on the national level the regular parties run to the table to protect their bottom line. The AMA, insurance lobby, Pharma, ect. The only people who aren't represented are the patients and their bottom lines. I would make insurance mandatory for everyone, I would remove it out of our current employer based system and place it in the hands of the individual. Your boss pays 15K for insurance for you per year, they hand you 15k tax free for you to buy your own plan. If you decide to buy a 10K policy, you get taxed on the other 5k. I would devise a "national standard" to the healthcare plan that everyone must have and make it 100% non-profitable. If insurance companies want to make money they can do so off supplemental coverage that anyone can purchase on their own free will. When people start appreciating and understanding REAL healthcare dollars they will become better consumers. Switzerland has 97 health insurance companies, competition is fierce. I would create reinsurance pools. Meaning if Insurance company A gets lucky and insures more healthy people than Insurance company B did that year, they obviously have netted a profit, that profit is transferred to B. It stops insurance companies from denying the people who really need coverage and only trying to insure health people.

    There are better ways then government intervention. Things generally get more expensive when the government gets involved unless they artificially restrict things. AKA the UK. The UK, a wealthy nation by European standards imports as many new cancer saving drugs as the Czech Republic, that's pitiful. But hey if the death rate in the UK for breast cancer is 26 out of 100 vs. 20/100 in the US it's only 6 women, so what if one of the 6 is your mother, sister, wife, daughter right? That's what government run healthcare gives you unless it's citizens are OK with being taxed to the hilt.
    09-09-2013 05:12 PM
  24. Fairclough's Avatar
    The US pays a higher percentage of total government revenue than the UK, so it is given the US system is more costly to your own government than the UK. Secondly allocating profits to lets say B, would than allow collusion between the parties - where than prices would increase. Fortunately for us, one of our insurance companies is a not for profit organisation (well this is car insurance though) where any profits they make gets directed into awareness campaigns about safety.

    I would like to point out your breast cancer issue, it can be more cultural with the decease. By Cultural, I mean, over here its VERY big on getting it checked and often. While other cancer's which aren't advertised have higher rates as well, you know people don't get a check up.
    09-10-2013 07:36 PM
  25. SteveISU's Avatar
    The US pays a higher percentage of total government revenue than the UK, so it is given the US system is more costly to your own government than the UK. Secondly allocating profits to lets say B, would than allow collusion between the parties - where than prices would increase. Fortunately for us, one of our insurance companies is a not for profit organisation (well this is car insurance though) where any profits they make gets directed into awareness campaigns about safety.

    I would like to point out your breast cancer issue, it can be more cultural with the decease. By Cultural, I mean, over here its VERY big on getting it checked and often. While other cancer's which aren't advertised have higher rates as well, you know people don't get a check up.

    Not a thing that you just stated relates to anything I just said.
    09-13-2013 11:50 AM
419 ... 89101112 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Any way to use TMobile LTE on the note?
    By apeterson93 in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-10-2016, 10:33 AM
  2. The good, the bad...and the brick
    By CarlosSpiceyW in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-18-2013, 03:22 PM
  3. Handcent SMS and other recipients of a message
    By dlfreeland3665 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 07:37 PM
  4. First Pics and Probable Release Date of New Nexus 7
    By RichardRight in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2012)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 07:01 PM
  5. Loss of connection with no signs of failure?
    By Rcrdude64 in forum Sprint
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 04:11 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD