The Health Care Debate

[Highlander]

and the really funny thing is, it works in other countries. strange, isnt it?

I'm not against providing some type of health care for all citizens but to say that Nationalized Health Care works in other countries is like saying Kentucky Fried Chicken works for food.  Yes, everyone gets health care in Europe and other industrialized nations (it's not free, but it's not as costly as in the states), but the quality of the health care is noticably poorer than in the US.  I've been through both systems and there is no comparison.  In the UK, I put up with inferior medicine for an asthma condition that I know I would be easily handled in the states.  Disease often goes undiagnosed here because they do not aggressively investigate symptoms.  There is only so much health care wealth to go around so it is essentially rationed....want a routine colonoscopy after 50?  Forget it.  They will, however, check your poop for blood.

You basically get what you pay for.  We pay a lot but we get a lot in return, but not everyone is covered.  In western Europe, you play less and everyone is covered but you get much much less in return.  That's the trade-off and there is no getting around it whether you are in  Namibia, France, the UK or the US.     

[mean]

Ultimately, as a reasonably well-off dude who can easily afford coverage in the states, that is about the attitude I'd expect you to have. If you were poor, on the other hand, maybe not so much. I have friends who are your standard hard-working types that simply are not in fields where they make much money, and they can not afford coverage. It's depressing to watch their teeth rot out of their heads, and their psychological and physiological problems to go undiagnosed and untreated because they just can't afford to do anything about it. It's not like these are people making ridiculous life-choices, they're mostly creative types who just don't get paid a lot for their work, and it really bothers me to see them struggle.

[Highlander]

Ultimately, as a reasonably well-off dude who can easily afford coverage in the states, that is about the attitude I'd expect you to have. If you were poor, on the other hand, maybe not so much. I have friends who are your standard hard-working types that simply are not in fields where they make much money, and they can not afford coverage. It's depressing to watch their teeth rot out of their heads, and their psychological and physiological problems to go undiagnosed and untreated because they just can't afford to do anything about it. It's not like these are people making ridiculous life-choices, they're mostly creative types who just don't get paid a lot for their work, and it really bothers me to see them struggle.

I'm not sure what attitude I exhibited in my post, I thought it was just a statement of what the options are.  I can afford insurance, you are correct, but I also want a system that allows everyone to have access to health care without compromising the quality of health care that 71% of Americans have through insurance (and I realize that a lot of people struggle to stay insured).  I don't think the program proposed by Obama is going to get us there.  I think a lot of people posting here are naive to believe that the government is going to provide health care to all at the same level of service we now have.  I don't think it is possible judging from the fact that other western nations fail to providing anything close to what we have in the US in terms of quality. 

My preference would be a relatively low level of service provided by the government (like Medicaid and Medicaire) for those who either cannot afford health insurance or do not want to purchase it but otherwise continuing on with the current system with an emphasis on controlling costs.  At least that way, 70% of the people have the option of not risking the quality of their health care while the other 30% can get at least UK-quality health care which is better than they had before but not as good as a private insurer.  That would probably increase the tax burden of many of us a bit to pay for it but that would be much better than having to increase the tax burden a lot and then still have to buy supplemental insurance which is the case in the UK where many companies are starting to provide private insurance because of the problems with the NHS. 

[nota]

Just a question about something I really don't understand. Please leave the personal attacks and

I'm wondering why Natasha Richardson (wife of Liam Neeson {sp?}) has been transferred to a NYC (American) hospital when she was in a perfectly good top of the line hospital in Montreal? I'm wondering why because many many many tout Canada's medical care as being quite superior to the USA's.Correct me if I'm wrong but I think both husband and wife are Brits. I'm wondering why she wasn't transferred to a British hospital since UK's medical care is also touted as far superior to the USA's.

Is it because more people have more confidence in American care or is it something else?

[chrizow]

Is it because more people have more confidence in American care or is it something else?

NYC is the couple's home, as well as the home of much of their friends and family.  i doubt it's much more than that. 

[nota]

I guess I wasn't fully in the know. The only report I had heard was that she was moved to NYC from Montreal. Today, I've heard that the family is having to make some horrible decisions about life support, etc. They all need to be together for sure.

I hope the paparazzi gives them some privacy.

[Highlander]

Just a question about something I really don't understand. Please leave the personal attacks and

I'm wondering why Natasha Richardson (wife of Liam Neeson {sp?}) has been transferred to a NYC (American) hospital when she was in a perfectly good top of the line hospital in Montreal? I'm wondering why because many many many tout Canada's medical care as being quite superior to the USA's.Correct me if I'm wrong but I think both husband and wife are Brits. I'm wondering why she wasn't transferred to a British hospital since UK's medical care is also touted as far superior to the USA's.

Is it because more people have more confidence in American care or is it something else?

I wonder who the many many people who tout Canadian and British health care over American health care are?  While the Canadians and Brits offer comprehensive health care at a cost that won't break you, the actual QUALITY of the health care is relatively poor compared to the US.  I've dealt with the UK health care system more than I wanted to over the last 5 years and getting improved health care is probably the one thing I look forward to as I contemplate moving back to the US.   

[LenexatoKCMO]

I wonder who the many many people who tout Canadian and British health care over American health care are?  While the Canadians and Brits offer comprehensive health care at a cost that won't break you, the actual QUALITY of the health care is relatively poor compared to the US.  I've dealt with the UK health care system more than I wanted to over the last 5 years and getting improved health care is probably the one thing I look forward to as I contemplate moving back to the US.     

I always thought the British reputation was more for the education of doctors than the actual health system itself.  I have heard that the British do the best job of training medical doctors from the academic perspective - of course that doesn't necessarily gaurantee the best system in and of itself. 

[Highlander]

I always thought the British reputation was more for the education of doctors than the actual health system itself.  I have heard that the British do the best job of training medical doctors from the academic perspective - of course that doesn't necessarily gaurantee the best system in and of itself. 

The doctors are fine. Some are very good, they have to be when they don't have routine access to the kind of diagnostic tools their American counterparts have access to.  It's just that the system is so cash strapped that it's difficult for them to be very effective because there is no money to aggressively investigate symptons which basically results in  alot of undiagnosed problems and the rationing of health care.

[DaveKCMO]

all this talk about britain and canada is fine, but the #1 goal is to cover the uninsured. there are 1,000 ways to approach this without copying either one of those systems whole cloth.

[lock+load]

^Exactly.  What we have for the insured is good, we just need to find a way to cover the rest of the country.  That doesn't mean we have to gut coverage for those who already have it.

[mean]

I'm not sure what attitude I exhibited in my post, I thought it was just a statement of what the options are.  I can afford insurance, you are correct, but I also want a system that allows everyone to have access to health care without compromising the quality of health care that 71% of Americans have through insurance (and I realize that a lot of people struggle to stay insured).  I don't think the program proposed by Obama is going to get us there.  I think a lot of people posting here are naive to believe that the government is going to provide health care to all at the same level of service we now have.  I don't think it is possible judging from the fact that other western nations fail to providing anything close to what we have in the US in terms of quality.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything by commenting on "your attitude." Sorry if I came off that way. I was just trying to say I can understand why you might feel that way...clumsily.

I don't know whether it is possible for the government to provide health care to all at the same level of service we now have. I tend to doubt it, and I don't really want to see a completely nationalized system with no private alternatives. But I am intrigued by the arguments from Congressional Republicans which say from one side of the mouth that let citizens buy into a government-sponsored health plan is a bad idea because it can't possibly provide the same level of service as private insurers, and from the other side say it is a bad idea because it's would unfairly compete with private insurers and put them out of business.

Huh? Which is it? It can't be bad for both reasons.

[Highlander]

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything by commenting on "your attitude." Sorry if I came off that way. I was just trying to say I can understand why you might feel that way...clumsily.

No offense was taken, just was trying to point out that I was trying to look at the situation objectively.  I'm would not want to be making the decisions on this issue because there is no simple solution and large segments of the population are going to be upset regardless of the selected way forward.  I am in a position, however, of knowing the difference between socialized medicine in Europe and insured health care in the US and I am more than eager to point out that socialized health care, at least as I have experienced in two European countries, is not necassarily a good model for the US.  What I have not experienced, however, for the last 25 years at least, is being un-insured in the US.  Clearly, that is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue but I am at a lost to suggest a way to cover eveyone and NOT experience an overall drop in the quality of health care.  Contrary to other posters, I do not think it can be done via a government sponsered program.  We do not have the collective resources for that level of service for everyone in the nation.     

[phna]

No offense was taken, just was trying to point out that I was trying to look at the situation objectively.  I'm would not want to be making the decisions on this issue because there is no simple solution and large segments of the population are going to be upset regardless of the selected way forward.  I am in a position, however, of knowing the difference between socialized medicine in Europe and insured health care in the US and I am more than eager to point out that socialized health care, at least as I have experienced in two European countries, is not necassarily a good model for the US.  What I have not experienced, however, for the last 25 years at least, is being un-insured in the US.  Clearly, that is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue but I am at a lost to suggest a way to cover eveyone and NOT experience an overall drop in the quality of health care.  Contrary to other posters, I do not think it can be done via a government sponsered program.  We do not have the collective resources for that level of service for everyone in the nation.       

Please don't extrapolate an anecdotal, singular experience to a broader conclusion with consequences that could affect 250 to 300 million people.

[Highlander]

Please don't extrapolate an anecdotal, singular experience to a broader conclusion with consequences that could affect 250 to 300 million people.

I will make whatever comments I deem appropriate.  My experiences are hardly singular and there are obviously broader conclusions to be drawn for anyone with an ounce of common sense.  The effectiveness of national health care systems around the world and the experiences of those in their care are certainly pertinent in the health care debate. 

By the way, I'm not here to participate in the high school debate team antics that you seem to enjoy turning most  discussions you get involved with into.  If you want to discuss something with me, fine, but be a little more civil and a little less dismissive. 

[phna]

I will make whatever comments I deem appropriate.  My experiences are hardly singular and there are obviously broader conclusions to be drawn for anyone with an ounce of common sense.  The effectiveness of national health care systems around the world and the experiences of those in their care are certainly pertinent in the health care debate.   

By the way, I'm not here to participate in the high school debate team antics that you seem to enjoy turning most  discussions you get involved with into.  If you want to discuss something with me, fine, but be a little more civil and a little less dismissive. 

This discussion deserves more than anecdotal evidence--which is all that was offered--and broad unsubstantiated conclusions. You may deem it appropriate, but that doesn't make it a valid argument. Saying that is not uncivil, it's just blunt.

10 years ago it there was "health care crisis", that was when objective evidence said Health care was 11% of GDP and recent numbers point to US Health care expenditures being at 17% of GDP*. 

What are the consequences of that?

"About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs."

Based on you're experience you "... it is possible for the government to provide health care to all at the same level of service we now have."  Thanks for the enlightenment, how civil of you.  Maybe you should move to a third European country and get broader experience and state something less obvious.

Say what you deem is appropriate and I'll be as blunt and brusk as I have to be to be called a high school prankster. But at least I'll offer something more objective and less biased. 

Here is a source on Health care expenditures that I quoted. Apparently a very good source too, an unbiased, apolitical, broad coalition with health care reform as its sole concern. 

*http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

[Highlander]

This discussion deserves more than anecdotal evidence--which is all that was offered--and broad unsubstantiated conclusions. You may deem it appropriate, but that doesn't make it a valid argument. Saying that is not uncivil, it's just blunt.

10 years ago it there was "health care crisis", that was when objective evidence said Health care was 11% of GDP and recent numbers point to US Health care expenditures being at 17% of GDP*. 

What are the consequences of that?

"About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs."

Based on you're experience you "... it is possible for the government to provide health care to all at the same level of service we now have."  Thanks for the enlightenment, how civil of you.  Maybe you should move to a third European country and get broader experience and state something less obvious.

Say what you deem is appropriate and I'll be as blunt and brusk as I have to be to be called a high school prankster. But at least I'll offer something more objective and less biased.   

Here is a source on Health care expenditures that I quoted. Apparently a very good source too, an unbiased, apolitical, broad coalition with health care reform as its sole concern. 

*http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Blunt?  More like inattentive.  If you were actually paying attention to the discussion, you would find that most my post on the subject are fairly neutral and point out two things:

1)  That health care quality will drop the more people that are brought into coverage.  Based on your post, you think this is an obvious conclusion also.  But it is not obvious to everyone because there are posters and others who believe a government run health care system could offer the same quality of coverage as private industry does to the insured without a drop in the overall quality of health care.  I don't believe I have ever espoused the view that the US system is not broken or that coverage should not be extended to all people, I just think that when it comes, it will come with a consequence.  And I suspect that it will come as a bit of a shock to a significant portion of the population.

2) I disagree and will continue to disagree with those who state that the quality of service offered by national health care systems is as good as what INSURED Americans receive.  I am actually pretty careful with my wording here because quality does not mean efficiency or whether it is the right or wrong system.  I also am pretty careful to only include INSURED Americans as those receiving quality health care (although that is roughly 70% of the population).  If we are going to have a health care debate, it would be good to dispel with the myths that national health care in the UK and other places offer the same QUALITY on a per patient basis as INSURED patients get in the US, they don't. 

As far as offering something objective, I really don't know where you are coming from with your link; the weakness of our health care system from a societal point of view is something I have long acknowledged on this forum.  I make no assertions about the relative morality of our health care system or its efficiency or even it's cost or even whether the current system should be continued.  I am just pointing out the quality of health care for the US insured vs national health care systems.  Yes, it's truly too bad that so many Americans suffered financial ruin as a result of our system but that is not really a health care quality issue; it's a societal issue.  Continue being as blunt and bursk as you wish but I would suggest you are in the wrong argument because nothing you have pointed out has any relevance to anything I have said.         

[Tosspot]

Can we let us poor people with no coverage have government coverage, while the monied may opt for their insured plans?

If that's been covered upthread already, sorry, I haven't been following the whole thing.

[DaveKCMO]

Can we let us poor people with no coverage have government coverage, while the monied may opt for their insured plans?

If that's been covered upthread already, sorry, I haven't been following the whole thing.

it was mentioned, but patently ignored by those who wish to scare everyone away from government intervention into this costly matter. the states will get around to doing this anyway (some sooner than others... don't hold your breath missouri!), so why not make the poll larger and thus more cost effective?

[aknowledgeableperson]

It isn't a matter of scaring everyone away from government intervention but more a matter of being scared of what government intervention may get us.  Will government intervention give us a solution that is in many ways worse than the situation we are in now?

Some solutions that should be explored would be a standardization of contract language used by insurance companies with some sort of step coverage an individual or business could choose, such as amount of deductible, co-pays, level of coverage, freedom-of-choice of providers, etc.  Appeals of coverage should be handled by an independent panel instead of the insurance provider.  Claims of malpractice to be handled by a arbitration panel instead of the court system with payments standardized country-wide.

Single-payer is not a way to approach the solution.