Society Universal Healthcare

[redcometfm]

Well, for one, there's only so much you can do to cap malpractice. Bad things are still going to happen. And to do so would take a lot of money, wouldn't it?

From what I understand, the reason unnecessary procedures are done is to avoid malpractice suits, however - to rule out every possibility so that something isn't overlooked and the patient sues. "Capping malpractice" doesn't really fit with this concept. As long as people are willing to sue the doctors for everything that goes wrong, whether it was malpractice, a mistake, or something the doctors had no control over (and don't get me wrong, I believe doctors should be responsible for what they actually do wrong), it won't reduce the number of otherwise unnecessary tests. To do that, you'd need to change the entire system to make it so that people have more confidence - doctors and patients alike.

I'm also pretty sure the pay system for doctors has something to do with this, but I can't remember how right now, so here's hoping someone else can elaborate on that.

I disagree. Capping malpractice is quite an effective solution, one supported by many medical experts Ive talked with from my family's work and others.

I'm nineteen, not twelve.

By the way, since one is granted voting rights at the age of eighteen, would that mean that you, as you feel a nineteen-year-old is unable to comprehend such issues, believe that the age of majority, and therefore the age at which one is able to vote (since how could a nation deny any legal adult the right to vote), be raised? =P

Yes, actually. Education standards are organized to not constructively or creatively challenge youth in their teen years in an effective manner, thus many are very ignorant of many truths of the world. But this is what the politicians count on to take advantage of their ignorance, stupidity and gullibility to win their support and, more importantly, their vote. None of us have a truly decent amount of education until age 21 (most likely 22, pretty much after college).

The whole point of having the 18 yr old age limit for certain things such as voting or military recruitment is take advantage of the uneducated, ignorant and susceptible, which pretty much encompasses 98% of the youth that age. Otherwise, theyd be giving us alcohol and other rights much earlier than that. Its all about economics and bureacracy/power grabs.

Id think by age 22, a person has quite a decent amount of life experience and education to the extent that they may make a sound, independent judgment. Unless theyre a ****ing idiot and tool.

 

[thsv]

I disagree. Capping malpractice is quite an effective solution, one supported by many medical experts Ive talked with from my family's work and others.

Well of course medical experts would agree that capping malpractice is effective. It saves them money on their malpractice protection.

Id think by age 22, a person has quite a decent amount of life experience and education to the extent that they may make a sound, independent judgment. Unless theyre a ****ing idiot and tool.

So based on your previous replies to my posts am I to take that as an insult?

What you need to realise is that the public option is a good concept badly executed. The fact of the matter is the argument has come down to cost. Because calling it socialised doesn't really matter when you step on a nail and need a tetanus shot. Or if you suddenly come down with a chest infection and need antibiotics. It's not about political theory or ideology, its about making sure that if someone needs care they can get it. It wouldn't have to be the best care in the world. But as long as it keeps a person alive that's all that matters. As I've said before the NHS never denied care to someone because they inherited a condition from their parents. Can you say the same about private insurance companies

 

[redcometfm]

But people DONT NEED private insurance to receive care!! Why cant you understand that?? People DO NOT get turned away at hospitals and clinics because they dont have health insurance, they STILL GET TREATED. And they get good care!
I dont know what youre media tells you, but the medical care is quite good in the US (of course theres the occassional shitty hospital that screws up or has a long wait line but thats few and far).
Keeping people alive is not all that matters, its improving them too.

It may not be political theory or ideology to you, but it is to the US politicians because they realize how unnecessary this reform is but they only want it so they can expand government. Surely you in the UK can understand what pieces of shit the majority of politicians are.

And I dont think some bastard idiot bureaucrat who doesnt know a damn thing about the industry should organize laws and regulations for how I should be treated medically, that should be between me and my doctor.

 

[Drmke]

But people DONT NEED private insurance to receive care!! Why cant you understand that?? People DO NOT get turned away at hospitals and clinics because they dont have health insurance, they STILL GET TREATED. And they get good care!
I dont know what youre media tells you, but the medical care is quite good in the US (of course theres the occassional shitty hospital that screws up or has a long wait line but thats few and far).
Keeping people alive is not all that matters, its improving them too.

Yeah they get treated, but they still get charged for it. And its much more expensive without healthcare. And if they don't have healthcare, it usually means they can't afford it, so I doubt they could really afford many hospital bills especially if they have a condition that forces them to go often.

 

[Franckie]

Yeah they get treated, but they still get charged for it. And its much more expensive without healthcare. And if they don't have healthcare, it usually means they can't afford it, so I doubt they could really afford many hospital bills especially if they have a condition that forces them to go often.

This is true. I've remember reading an article a while back in the Times magazine which explained this fact about the U.S. healtchare system. An example the article used was a Canadian woman. Several years ago, she suffered a stroke and went to the hospital. She didn't have to pay a thing. When she came to the U.S., she fainted and feared it was a stroke. Although she lacked insurance, she was only in the hospital for a few days. When she was discharged, she had about $8000 in medical fees, and she complained the staff had consistantly hounded her about her ability to pay.

This is also not including the downsides of medical insurance. Insurance companies are notorious for underhanded tactics when it comes to money. One example is unexpectedly raising a person's premium. Another example which has come under public scrutiny here recently is insurance companies dropping a person's coverage because of a small technicality. If I remember right, CNN had a story about this issue where they reported how a man with cancer lost his coverage because he forgot to report to his insurance company a visit to the dentist. It just shows people that HMOs don't care. They just want your money, and they'll drop you in a heartbeat if you turn into a potential liability to them.

 

[redcometfm]

Yeah they get treated, but they still get charged for it. And its much more expensive without healthcare. And if they don't have healthcare, it usually means they can't afford it, so I doubt they could really afford many hospital bills especially if they have a condition that forces them to go often.

That's a lie. I have family who work in the medical industry. It costs no more than if you had insurance.

Im sure that woman went to a shitty hospital then. It does happen. (Though that scenario would make sense since the woman was Canadian, coming across the border, and there are plenty of people like that who try to skip out on the bill. So if that northern-located hospital did hound her about the bill, it has a reason to)

 

[Unproductive]

I'm sure companies can engage in a lot of unscrupulous tactics when it comes to making money. But it's not like that those tactics don't happen in a public system either. It just takes a different form like long lines, incomplete diagnostics, red tape of mandatory multiple visits to the doctors, sub-standard customer service, and difficulty of accessibility. There's a continuum along time and money that unscrupulous people will go about to hound customers to deny them service. The public options greatly favor wasting people's time. The private options resort to nickel and dime their customers. It always sucks.

Capping malpractice is not a good idea. But it would be good to have guidance for the penalties in pain and suffering settlements, and they should severely cut down medical expert witness requirements for most malpractice cases. Hell the medical profession should provide its own arbitration courts for most malpractice claims. The real travesty in medical malpractice is that many obvious instances of medical malpractice are not viable in court because of the legal expenses associated with filing and fighting a case.

 

[Drmke]

That's a lie. I have family who work in the medical industry. It costs no more than if you had insurance.

I have family in it too...

And the whole idea behind insurance for anything is "you pay us so much a month and we will cover the costs of your (health bills, car repairs, etc.).

So if you have a medical problem that causes you to go to the doctor often, then yes, it would be cheaper with insurance.

 

[redcometfm]

Yes, but not as drastically as youre implying.

 

[Unproductive]

The provide-care-before-payment mandate provides a business dilemma for most hospital and medical care providers. They end up providing a service without any guarantees that they will be paid. There will be people that skip out on the bill. There will be people that can't afford to pay. To offset the risk of taking on an unsecured debt transaction, the hospitals jack up the price and charge those who can pay to offset those who can't or won't.

The pricing models for uninsured care has less to do with the cost of the service and the price that people are willing to pay. It's more about the risks of taking on a deadbeat. If prepaid arrangements were an option, uninsured care would not be such a big problems. In fact, cash-based medical providers are competitive with insurance in many areas of medicine regardless of the frequency of needing health care.

In some areas of medicine, it's not true. A small percentage of the population will end up consuming the vast majority of medical care. It's not even risky. It's entirely predictable how much certain demographics will end up costing the insurance companies. The state mandates for uniform group rates through employees creates massive moral hazards. Activities like smoking, overeating, and ignoring everyday precautions which would be massively punished by individualized insurance rates are not deterred under uniform group rates.

 

[Drmke]

So just to bring up more conversation, what do you guys think about the House passes the Health Care Bill here in the U.S. yesterday?

 

[Akiyama]

Re: President Obama Wins! Now What?

I would like to see President Obama push for some alternative power resources and global warming issues after he takes care of the health care overhaul.

I can't believe I posted in this thread, and was surprised when it popped up as a new thread. I said my quote 8 months ago tomorrow. I'm glad that the bill passed and I believe it's a step forward in better health care for all Americans. I'm hoping that it will do what it says and cut the deficit as much as possible. Now what will he do?

 

[Koen]

Re: President Obama Wins! Now What?

I can't believe I posted in this thread, and was surprised when it popped up as a new thread. I said my quote 8 months ago tomorrow. I'm glad that the bill passed and I believe it's a step forward in better health care for all Americans. I'm hoping that it will do what it says and cut the deficit as much as possible. Now what will he do?

Well, I am not an American but I am glad that people like Aki are so reasonable to see the positive thing in it. I think it'll really give a positive input to your health care system. America needed this and allow me to give an example which is not the same but quite similar.

Belgium is the only country who doesn't pay back a certain hart operation. We are the only European country not paying back that specific operation (forgot which one it is. Iirc it's to widen your aorta). Doctors in the hospital of Antwerp decided to pay for the very expensive operation of the patients who can't pay it. Why? Because health > money, the life of patient should always be a priority. These doctors ask for a change because this is dramatic

So this is something common. Every American (and I am definitely not talking about illegal people, believe me in good organised universal health care system, they won't benefit from national input) should have the right for a decent service of health care (insurance, etc...). I think this (public) system will help out a lot of people whom you can't leave alone

 

[Kusachu]

But people DONT NEED private insurance to receive care!! Why cant you understand that?? People DO NOT get turned away at hospitals and clinics because they dont have health insurance, they STILL GET TREATED. And they get good care!
I dont know what youre media tells you, but the medical care is quite good in the US (of course theres the occassional shitty hospital that screws up or has a long wait line but thats few and far).
Keeping people alive is not all that matters, its improving them too.

It may not be political theory or ideology to you, but it is to the US politicians because they realize how unnecessary this reform is but they only want it so they can expand government. Surely you in the UK can understand what pieces of shit the majority of politicians are.

And I dont think some bastard idiot bureaucrat who doesnt know a damn thing about the industry should organize laws and regulations for how I should be treated medically, that should be between me and my doctor.

A one night stay in the hospital for an uninsured person is probably over $5,000. This happened to me like 15 years ago while my father was laid off from his job and did not have insurance, therefore I did not have insurance. They cannot turn you away, no, but if your yearly income is $15,000 dollars (as mine was last year since I was unemployed for the last 9 months of it, and without health insurance), then that hospital bill is 1/3 of your gross income. How do you expect people to pay for a bill like that? Or God forbid have to have some kind of surgery? Heart surgery in the US is something upawards of $200,000 dollars when the same procedure costs about $10,000 in India. Why is that? And why are prescription drugs that are manufactured in America and shipped elsewhere cheaper there than in the country that produced them?

I'm 100% for universal healthcare. Why? Because last year I was sick, running a high fever for a week and could not be seen by a doctor at the reduced cost clinic because they are constantly full and I kept getting told to call back the next day for an appointment the day after. They suggested I go to the immediate care clinic where I would have had to pay $160 up front just to be seen (when my unemployment check is $200 a week and doesn't even cover my monthly bills). I could have went to the emergency room, but I still owe them a ton of money from an accident that I was in when I HAD good insurance. One ER visit could run upwards of $1000 just to be seen, treated, and sent on your way if used for a basic outpatient treatment and WAY more if you are seriously injured.

I ended up having to pay $85 for an office visit at my regular doctor (which I have not yet been able to pay) and another $45 dollars for the medicine he prescribed which didn't work and two weeks later the symptoms came back worse than they had been in the first place. Lucky for me I found that my community has a free clinic for 4 hours on Saturdays inside a church downtown. They gave me a prescription for the right kind of antibiotics, which were free, and which had me well within 3 days.

And by the way, I'm a college grad with a BA and a BFA and huge loans to repay. I can't find a job in my town or anywhere in the surrounding area, which has about 30% of the population either completely unemployed or working crappy minimum wage jobs a couple of days a week, and my health insurance went the way of my job. Cobra insurance? Oh yeah, like can I afford to buy $600 a month insurance when my monthly income is $800.

The way you talk sounds like you really don't know what it is like to struggle.

---

That's a lie. I have family who work in the medical industry. It costs no more than if you had insurance.

Im sure that woman went to a shitty hospital then. It does happen. (Though that scenario would make sense since the woman was Canadian, coming across the border, and there are plenty of people like that who try to skip out on the bill. So if that northern-located hospital did hound her about the bill, it has a reason to)

You are 100% wrong. If the cost of some treatment is $1000 dollars and your insurance is 80/20, you insurance provider is required to pay 80% of the cost, while the person pays 20%. If you don't have insurance, you pay 100% if you can even get that treatment at all. Do the math.

My sister in law just had surgery which was necessary or she could have died, it cost her nothing because her insurance covered it 100%, but if she didn't have that insurance? $14,000. Hell, I couldn't even afford to pay 20% of that!

Try reading this:
http://www.mybudget360.com/24-milli...ession-feels-much-worse-to-average-americans/

or this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy/21unemployed.html

Or maybe try growing some compassion for other human beings.

 

[redcometfm]

Look past your compassion and idealism (both of which I do share actually) and see the bigger picture. We've been scammed and Americans like you bought it hook-line-and-sinker.

*I only say "Americans like you" because you support it. Its not an insult fyi.

 

[Drmke]

My biggest issue with the current bill is that there is no public option. Whether you are for or against this bill, its easy to see how completely useless this bill is without it. It does nothing but hurt the people it is supposed to be helping.

It fines people for not having health care, but the people who don't have health care are people who can't afford it. Forcing them to buy it doesn't increase their ability to afford it. The public option was supposed to be in place for people in this situation so that they would have a free choice if they couldn't afford health insurance from the private sector.

 

[redcometfm]

Im the glad the public option isnt in there. Now, because of said fees and the resulting legal problems, itll be that much quicker and easier to repeal this bullshit.