KMA-628

Another interesting fact:

8.2% of the total uninsured (the 15.2% quoted above) make.....

more than $75,000 per year. Plenty of money to afford insurance.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

oops, my mistake.

16.6% of the 15.2% uninsured make more than $75,000/year.

Twice what I posted above.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

wonderwench

Only if you do not understand what created equal means. You continue to try to mash it into equivalency of condition and situation.

I also dipute your assessment that I only view rights as belonging to the wealthy. You are wrong. As I've said before, the SS and Medicare entitlement systems are the mugging of the working poor / young by the relatively more affluent old. Perhaps the parents of the uninsured children could better afford to support them if their earnings were not seized by the government to support total strangers.

roachboy

kma--it is late and i am tired, so only this: if you are going to look at canada and the uk, you shold also take a look at france--their system is an interesting in-between version of universal health care. the oecd is a goo dplace for neoliberal-type overviews/analyses....their model is too often left out of discussions of universal health care in the states, and it is the best in the world, according to the un--the americans are 37th.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

brianna

i'd be a bit more careful here, such things are open to interpretation and you are verging on insulting others just for having a different opinion than you.

brianna

i admire your fact checking and your ability to admit that a source that you origonally saw as scewed really did have accurate info.


I don't think this is true. health insurance is very expensive and has jumped immensely in the last few years "By 2006 the average family health insurance premium will exceed $14,500; premium costs will have increased by more than $5,000 in just three years." (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml) -- considering how high the cost of living can also be now along with the fact that health insurance rarely covers all expenses any more (for instances i had to pay $100 for my scheduled doctors appointment last month because the insurance company decided that my doctor charges too much, never mind that for the area i live in the fee is completely average) and the cost of health care quickly become prohibitive. it's also, unfortunately, not a cost that 20 year old kids are often able to see as worth the large amount of money -- i suppose once could argue that this is their choice, but considering the consequences should something awful happen i'm not comfortable with allowing such a practice to continue (ie saddling people with sub par health care and/or extreme debt is not ok with me regardless of their sometimes poor decision making skills).


i'm not sure why you're assuming that these people are not paying taxes -- they are most likely not paying as much as you but the're paying something.

i still don't see you providing any suggestion to solve this problem (nor any evidence that it is not a problem). No one wants to pay more taxes, but i don't think any of us want a health care crisis either. I'm not trying to just pull at people's hearth strings with my arguments (see my entire post devoted to how universal health care would help all of society not just those who are uninsured now). i honestly believe that everyone would be better off under a state sponsored program that provides basic health care. under such a program businesses would stand to save money, malpractice suits would decrease, the health care system could become more streamlined and more accessible to all and no one would have to risk their lives and their financial security because they can't afford health care.

I also think that a health care program could be developed that would not be cost prohibitive. in the same way that insurance companies get a break on certain perscriptions and health care needs because the represent a large group of people (ie buying in bulk) the federal government could also save vast sums of money. also, when viewed on a societal scale personal debt contributes to government debt. when individuals are saddled with enormous bills they cannot contribute financially to society.

matthew330

......whew, he'd of been alot more stressed had he been say...6 hours from the hospital. Tell him to count his blessings. You're family is super nice....spreading out a $120,000 ihospital bill to help some "college kid who doesn't deserve the stress."

The story by itself just isn't believable on many many levels, but even if it was true, resorting to referencing some ridiculously uncommon situation to justifiy some "universal" law, well...fuck that.

brianna

not my family *HIS* family.


the story is completely true and it's not an uncommon situation. i hardly think we need to argue about *IF* medical costs can be insanly high -- this is pretty well documented fact.

KMA-628

Brianna,

As I mentioned before, my abilities do not really fall under the "fix" column, I fall more into the "analyst" category. I have the ability to interpret and analyze data. Ideas abound and may take this thread in a totally different direction.

-Most "non-citizens" do not pay much in taxes, if any. It may sound crude, but they are the ones making out in the deal. i.e. I pay a lot in taxes, but I use private insurance and I rarely use the "system" (police, fire, etc). In terms of a "share" I pay for more than I receive and the "non-citizens" receive much, much more than they pay for.

There is no way their taxes, if they pay any, will be increased, so if you want them to have "free" insurance, I (and all of the other taxpayers) will foot the bill. I am not willing to do that because of the reason I have gone over in detail (i.e. per capita spending on healthcare).

REMEMBER: What you are asking is for me to bring home even less of my pay. So, in effect, you are trying to take money from my family.


-I could lose my membership card over this, but.....

I would seriously consider a "universal healthplan" if the per capita cost were more in line with other countries that offer this type of service. If the per capita cost was less, my tax burden would be less and I would be happy.

However, I require:

1. The ability to have and pay for my own healthcare. I am a free-market/private sector individual. I will always believe that the private sector can do certain things (i.e. private goods vs. public goods) better, more efficiently and with better quality.

2. A "rebate" or a deduction to cover the amount I am spending on my own healthcare (very similar to a voucher program).

**Side note: Just so you know where I am coming from. In order to save my daughter's life, I authorized the use of "experimental" procedures on her. These experimental procedures saved her life and were not covered by insurance. There is no need to go into the amount, but it put me into serious, six-figure debt. Because I am not poor and did not qualify for gov't aid (i.e. medacaid) I have to foot the bill myself. I am still paying for this and will be for a long time. My daughter's life was worth it.

That being said....

This may not be the right answer, but I think healthcare needs to be competitive and 100% private. There is a natural effect in the marketplace when there is competition and no gov't interference.

1. Prices stay low and competitive

2. Quality usually goes up, not in every case, but usually.

Right now, healthcare is so heavily subsidized that there is no "natural" price control. Healthcare needs to be treated as a product.

Why? Because then the system has to answer to us (who are not lobbied nor are we in anybody's "pocket"). We don't like the plan, we go elsewhere. This forces the system into competition which brings price controls, etc into the picture.

Granted, this will never happen.

We also tend to forget that "healthcare" and "health insurance" is a relatively new phenomena (same goes with SS and medicare)

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Zeld2.0

Healthcare / health insurance, IMO, is way too early to see. This wasn't even a big issue 10 years ago and suddenly its at the forefront of everything it seems.

I'm in the wait and see then analyze column. Way too early to tell what will happen if we have or don't have it.

KMA-628

Personal responsibilty has to come into play at some point.


From your source:

"Simplified Adminstration, less complex, more efficient, user-friendly, not bureaucracy"--none of these terms are synonymous with "government".

Universal Healthcare that is controlled by the government and funded by taxpayers would be nothing like this "wish".

Name one part of the gov't where these terms can be used. It is a walking paradox. Nothing gets better once the gov't gets involved and takes charge.

Classic example: In 1986 (I am going from memory here) the tax code was re-written. It was supposed to be simplier and there were not supposed to be any more changes (or very little changes) to the tax code. The complete opposite has happened. There have been more changes to the tax code than I can count and it is far from "simplified".

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

brianna

ok... but do you agree that having such a larger portion of the population with a very limited access to health care is a problem? with all due respect it is somewhat difficult to accept an analysis of a situation that concludes "yup, we have a problem, i don't like your idea, and i'm not going to attempt to think of an alternative." I am perfectly willing to admit that health care is a very complicated issue that I am not solely qualified to fix, but i'm, open to new ideas, thus far I don't see any coming from the anti-state sponsor health care side. (ie not just you or others on this bored by politicians and their representatives).

1. why would non-citizens have access to state healthcare? i can't get free health care if i'm visiting canada, this seems like a non issue.

2. most people are not aware of how much of their daily life is affected by things that are paid for with tax money. when you buy produce you are in contact with farm subsides, when you drive to work you are using a state built road, when you or your children go to school or a park that's tax money. and these examples are just things that you come into direct contact with, we all benefit from other tax programs in less direct ways, i'm safer because we have a police and fire system and my way of life would be much different if laws weren't established by a court system and our way of life defended by the military. i don't agree with all tax programs, but as a member of society i am directly affected by many of them everyday.

3. a state healthcare program is not something that will be only available to the poor, it would be available to all and everyone would benefit both directly and indirectly -- this is not a gift that you'd be giving to the poor and middle class it's a program that will benefit our society as a whole (including you.).

i don't see any reason why a USA system wouldn't be modeled upon one of the successful foreign systems. no one is going to take away your access to a private healthcare system, in fact most countries with state sponsored healthcare still have plenty of private options (usually to cover elective treatments or luxuries such as a private room during a hospital stay). giving you your money back is a different issue... i would have no problem with providing those who choose to opt out of thew state system with some sort of tax rebate, but i doubt it could be a large enough amount to completely cover the cost of private insurance since the state program is likely to be much cheaper on a pre-capita basis than a private program.


most parents are willing to go into debt for the sake of their childrens health, thank god for compassion and parental love. people shouldn't have to do this.

It's not possible for health care to be completely private without excluding large portions of the population from the health care system. a government system would also have to "answer to us", after all, this is a democracy.

ok, so let's talk about more feasible solutions.

as are hospitals and medical science. new solutions to new problems.

brianna

I would have no real problem with this assessment if we were discussing maybe a few thousand dollars as punishment for not getting health care. but the reality is that we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars and people's lives. such a punishment would surely outweigh the crime of feeling invincible at 20 years old.


this sort of assessment borders on cliche. some things *DO* get better when the state controls them, particularly things in which valuables less tangible than money and goods are at stake (ie lives). corporations are famous for being led by greed often to the detriment of their customers and the world as a whole (enron anyone?). when profit is the most important thing other factors are neglected, this is why we have such a deluge of corporate scandals as of late. The government isn't perfect, corporations are not perfect but they each serve their own purpose incredibly well, if you want to make money go with a corporation every time, if you want things like quality of life and care to be more important than profit then the government is often a better choice.

wonderwench

This situation begs the question as to why a week in a hospital and a few anti-venom shots costs $120,000.

Locobot

Infant Mortality Rates:
(per 1000 babies born)
Cuba---6.3
USA---7.0

KMA-628

I have had a lot of experience working for and with the gov't.

I cannot honestly think of one instance where the gov't controlling something that could be privately controlled turned out better.

Not one.....

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

Even if we were to use your examples (i.e. Enron), you are probably looking at less than 1% of private enterprise.

"led by greed" to you means "motivated by profit" to me. Why else would I be in business if I didn't want to make money? You may refer to it as greed but I am motivated to make more and more money, I have no desire to stop or accept status quo.

Gov't has its place and serves its purposes, I am not arging that. But when a system is failing, even after increasing the budget over and over again, you have to conclude that gov't isn't handling it. It's time to look at other options other than throwing money at it again and again.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

Here is how the private sector would handle healthcare better than the gov't.

One of the problems right now leading to our problems and our discussion is rising costs. Companies are making millions by overselling to the gov't and making the U.S. gov't cover foreign losses. These increases in costs are sometimes exponential and completely out of control.

People see free money from the gov't and they go and take it.

You can't really pull this stunt in the private sector (there are exceptions, i.e. Microsoft).

I deal with hundreds of vendors and hundreds more that would like to become a vendor for me. There are very few cases where I can't replace a vendor if I want to.

All it takes is a few phone calls and a couple mentions of competitors names and the negotiating begins.

The gov't, in the case of healthcare, doesn't do this.

That is why we have monopoly laws, to help contain prices and keep the market "fair".

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

Immigration Rates:

U.S.: 3.42/1000 people
Cuba: -1.58/1000 people

1) If this were a relevant comparison, why does Cuba have a negative immigration rate? The answer is simple. People will risk their lives to leave Cuba/People risk their lives to come to the U.S. Obviously our "rate" isn't bad enough to warrant moving to another country.

2) The most current information regarding infant mortality:

U.S.: 6.63/1000 births
Cuba: 6.41/1000 births

A difference of 0.22 is hardly worth pointing out.

You could also compare the U.S. to the eighteen countries that have an infant mortality rate of 10% or higher which would make our rate, of less than 0.663%, look really good.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

tecoyah

The sad reality of this issue, is the underlying focus on money. The amount of funding needed for a workable universal healthcare system is simply not there at this point. This country would need a fundamental overhaul of allocation priorities, were it to even consider going this route.
At this point we are engaged in an attempt to colonialize, without the landgrab, and that takes an enormous amount of resources out of the nations coffers, setting domestic issues that require funding on the backburner. While we can attempt to create a system on paper, we will likely wait several decades to see any action taken.
I doubt very much our country can take dramatic changes seriously, as far as domestic reform, until we can stabalize our foreign policy, as the current "Wars" are using most of the availible funding we have.
Just my opinion.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

highthief

1) That has no bearing on this discussion. Why people leave a country for political reasons or human rights has ZERO relevance to a discussion of whether or not their health care system is any good or not.

2) http://www.aneki.com/lowest_mortality.html

Attached is a table of infant mortality - as can be seen, the US is doing far worse than nations like Canada, Australia, and dozens of others. 3.44/1000 versus 6.63/1000 is a huge difference.

Now, before you say "Well, the US has a lot of immigrants and that skews our results" well I offer this:

"General Facts about Recent US immigration

The total number of immigrants per year (including illegal and refugees) is somewhat less than it was in the peak years at the start of the 20th century, when the US population was less half as large its current population. The rate of US immigration relative to the population is low rather than high. US immigration as a proportion of population is about a third of what is was in the peak years.

The foreign-born population of the US is 9.5 percent of the total population (in 2000). This can be compared to the 2000's proportions of 22.7 in Australia; 16 percent in Canada; 6.3 in France; 7.3 in Germany; 3.9 percent in Great Britain; and 5.7 in Sweden."

I can tell you, as a Canadian living in Toronto, the majority of our immigrants are now coming from places like Jamaica, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Central America along with China - not places well known for their great health care.

kutulu

Back on the story about the kid and the rattlesnake bite costing 120k there is another important thing to consider.

Insurance companies set up contracts with the doctors, hospitals, etc that they work with that establish limits on how much the doc or hospital can charge for certain goods and services. For example, they might have an agreement that x-rays will cost $50. If I go get an x-ray, the original bill sent to my insurance company might be $75. My insurance company takes that and checks it with their contracts and the bill gets adjusted down to $50. That's great for me and my insurance company, but what about the uninsured guy? If he gets charged the full $75. WTF? He gets screwed twice. If the kid's insurance would have covered it, chances are the bill would have been a LOT cheaper overall.

Laws requiring employers to offer employees coverage also have plenty of loopholes that can be exploited. Before we were married, my wife lost her covereage because she got sick. She couldn't work for a month and therefore she average hr/wk was reduced below the minimum amount needed to have coverage. What the fuck is right about that?

highthief

I've heard a few stories like that - someone is working hard, good employee, etc - they get sick and insurance gets pulled out from under them, even people with cancer.

brianna

kma -- i'm going to attempt to reply to all of your statements without quoting as to avoid overly long entries, sorry in advance if i miss something.

the idea that government never manages anything better than the private sector can is an opinion, i happen to feel otherwise. I'm not going to attempt to argue that the private sector might produce produces a cheaper product -- i think arguments against this can be made but I find them somewhat pointless, when people's lives are at stake I don't want the cheapest product, i want the best product. I think that there are institutes where profit should not be the main motivator. I don't want the fire dept distracted by how much money they'll be making if they put out my house fire. I don't want educators worrying about how much profit teaching my child could bring in and i don't want health care professionals worry about weather saving my life is worth it from an economic stand point. I think people in general deserve a right to safety, education and good health regardless of economic status and I worry that when such institutes are privatized their function becomes a secondary concern after profit. the advantage of government institutions is that profit is not a main motivator. note that I am not arguing that the private sector won't give us a cheaper product, they probably would, but i feel that the product will be lesser in quality and not universally available. I think we can see this in the health care programs that we have now.

KMA-628

You're right, we differ greatly on these opinions.

BTW - I do not put Fire/Police/Military/etc under the "should be private column". Those are considered "public goods" and are impossible to privatize (i.e. who would you charge and how much, etc).

I put education under both columns. There are many cases where private schools outperform public schools (such is the case here in Colorado).

I also don't think that you will be given "the best product" with universal healthcare. From my understanding, you don't have a lot of choice when it comes to a universal system.

"Britain's National Health Service generally will not provide kidney dialysis for people over 55. Yet Medicare subsidizes dialysis for more than 200,000 people, whose average age is 63." - Roger LeRoy Miller, Economist

Socialized Medicine Leaves A Bad Taste in Patient's Mouths

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

but we could go on and on and on about this.

Bottom Line: I will always oppose Universal Healthcare in the U.S. (unless someone designs a better mousetrap--which isn't available now) and I will always vote against any candidate that supports this idea.

I am, and will always be, against "socializing" anything.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

highthief,

That information is two years old. There is more current information available (my link).

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

kutulu

Actually, privatized fire departments are becoming quite common. In southern Scottsdale the fire department is run by Rural/Metro. They are a private firm that has a contract with the city and other cities.

http://www.ruralmetro.com

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7623/v33.html

KMA-628

I see your point, but that sounds like ambulance service not Fire/Rescue.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

kutulu

They are mostly ambulance but in many places they are fire/rescue also

highthief

What link? I gave the same mortality stats you did of 6.63/1000...

Mehoni

An interesting link: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2...4_complete.pdf

Norway, Sweden, Canada and Australia ranks above the US in many places there.

__________________
There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

KMA-628

I was looking at your link (2002 data) and didn't read the next sentence close enough.

I would like to find (been looking-can't find it) a breakdown of the causes of death. I think that would be very telling, but highly off-topic.

In a way, I sort-of question the Cuba statistics because they are derived from the Cuba Ministry of Health. Past performance tells me to be wary of information released as factual by Castro's regime. That being said, I cannot say for certain, if they are correct or not.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

highthief

Fair enough but even disregarding Cuba (having been there, they do take care of their citizens basic needs of health care and education about 10 times better than any other Caribean island but yeah, their information isn't always solid )- other nations comparable to the US (industrialized, even higher immigration rates and with socialized medicine) are doing considerably better in terms of infant mortality than the US is.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

highthief

Dude! That's 300 pages long!

Any chance of a bit of cut and paste to get to the point?

highthief

Information on US infant mortality causes. Congenital problems such as heart defects are number 1. Low birthweight is number 2 and SIDs is number 3.

White and hispanic women have roughly the same odds of having their infant survive to childhood, black women somewhat less so with low birthweight being the main difference (though black women with equal educations to white women have roughly the same odds of having a low birthweight baby).

Obviously, contributing factors to low birthweight imay nclude drug use and poor nutrition.

http://www.acu.edu:9090/~armstrongl/...y/inf_mort.htm

ubertuber

Sidenote - it costs that much because anti-venom is terrifically expensive to make. There is not a synthetic compound that can replace the snake venom portion. Each time a snake is milked, you don't even get enough venom to account for a dose of anti-venom. Then the venom is injected into a horse and antibodies are produced. It takes a long time. A snake bite and weekend in the hospital is not just a shot or two of anti-venom. It is many shots over several days, each costing thousands of dollers. Add to that the possibility of intensive care unit quality life support because your heart and lungs may also have been paralyzed and a probably medivac since time is such an issue, not to mention profits for insurance. So, it's really expensive. God bless the Discovery Channel for teaching me this.

On the main topic, there was a huge discussion about this (state-sponsored health care) on another forum. A poster there pointed out that one reason health care costs are soaring and quality is not rising at the same pace is that there is an inherent difficulty in systems in which the consumer is not directly billed. Meaning, when a third party (like your HMO) gets involved and the care provider is responsible to that third party and not to the consumer, value (quality to cost) will suffer. This jives well with my experience of the world. I regret that the man who posted this orignially is both much smarter than I and a better writer, so I am sure I haven't done his idea justice.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Mehoni

Page 139 and forward has the interesting bits.

__________________
There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.