Destroying Healthcare in America

[bclinger]

What is the difference between your wife being paid for providing healthcare services and a company providing it? Profit or non-profit, I do not understand.

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

There is nothing wrong with being compensated for providing healthcare services. Such as my wife receives monthly compensation for her duties as the medical director of a hospital microbiology laboratory.

But IMO a corporation (or similar) profiting from healthcare is wrong. Naturally this point of view comes from my background of living most of my life in another country. Your point of view may differ :-)

[bclinger]

If a nurse owns a health providing company, then she is an investor.

Originally Posted by daThomas

A nurse is a laborer. Not an investor.

[bclinger]

Oh these polls.

I am positive you are aware that on 6-16 there was a Fox released poll "Most Americans feel that universal healthcare shouldn't be universal."

On 6-24 there was another Fox poll.

And the war continues: POLL: Universal Health Care : News : WLUC TV6

So really, your poll holds no more water than those cited above. For me, I am more than satisfied with the insurance I have. No problem at all.

Originally Posted by Bujin

Sure: Public Favors Obama's Health-Care Plan - ABC News

Now can you offer a shred of data to support your position regarding why our system is superior to those other countries with a public option? You've discounted citizen surveys, and believe that infant mortality isn't valid, then what is a valid measure of health care quality? "Degree of American-ness?"

[groovy]

Originally Posted by bclinger

Goodness, we have been busy today. Of the 40-50 million listed below, I sort of wonder what the number is of those people who do not want insurance because they do not need insurance. Why have something if there is no need for it. If it were not for my wife's condition, I would not have insurance because I do not need it. When the need for it arises, I may consider it.

That number is very misleading and it takes no more than a quick glance at the Census Bureau website to prove it. First of all, the claim that 46 million Americans are without insurance is a flat out lie. The Census Bureau website states that 46 million "persons" are without insurance coverage. The same website states that there are 37 million foreign-born persons in America (which includes migrant workers and those here illegally). Further, the same website claims 11 million persons in the country without authorization.

Now, some may claim that we should cover those here illegally as well (because we're such a "rich and privileged" country). Okay, if that's what they believe then fine. Just be honest about it.

http://www.census.gov/

[theog]

I'm reading the little remarks about the VA here and there... the VA saved my life last year. Even before that, I was provided adequate health care from the VA. This year, I had a situation (that turned out to be nothing) but I was in another state. The va in the state I was in was able to pull up my medical records from two other states in a matter of 10 to 15 minutes. They were on the ball and I felt very comfortable.

They set me up with appoints within a day to a week (multiple appointments).

Of course when you run an operation as large as the VA, I'm sure you can find fault. Not everyone will be happy. Matter of fact, major issues will arise. But that is with ANY system... I'm sure you could point to any major hospital and find multiple complaints/lawsuits and things that were done wrong.

Far as this health care system obama wants... I'm still on the fence. I've not personally read all the details (I'm not one to repeat republican/dem talk radio, as I see some are). What I have read of the plan, I'm a bit worried about how we will pay for it... I already know the general "dem talking points," so don't bother. What I'm waiting for is real information.

Far as the private sector... they will work it out. Personally, I do see many paying for medical care... I get FREE* medical care trough the VA, but I also pay for a medical plan.

I'm tired of seeing friends and relatives not doing so well financially, have to make sacrifices with their health care. In general, I think we all know the private health sector is in need of (lol) change. What type of change, is the discussion...

*not really "free" but that is a long story.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Bujin

The system has a for-profit structure, with those elements you cite as exceptions.

There are other 'exceptions' as well. At what point do those 'exceptions' become part of the system?

I'm perfectly content to state that it's not purely for-profit, if it makes you feel better.

It has nothing to do with how I feel. It has to do with how it affects some of the statements being advanced.

However, I don't think the issue of "purely" vs. "mostly" for-profit has been a real bone of contention in this thread.

Sure it has. If one is advancing that the system is irrevocably broken because all the system cares about is making money instead of fighting illness, that is a fairly major bone of contention.

The point is that other countries have made a public option work,

And my point is that one cannot say that there are not public options already in place in the system.

and that (despite political rhetoric that states other countries have far worse health systems than ours) the data shows that our system is far less functional than numerous others.

Considering that there isn't really such a thing as a US system, but rather a hodgepodge of federal, state, local, and private systems, it shouldn't be surprising. There aren't many nations structured like the US.

You can call that ignorant if it makes you feel better,

Again, it has nothing to do with how I feel. If you aren't aware of the public options already in place and cast the 'health care system' as greedy profiteers, that's just the definition of ignorant. If you are aware of the 'exceptions' and are casting them as greedy profiteers to advance the idea that we need to do something about the system, that's pretty disingenuous. Note that those "you"s are in the general sense.

but the data clearly doesn't support the statements that public options will "destroy health care".

I don't know about 'destroy', but depending on the execution, it could certainly cause harm.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by palandri

This whole thread is turning into an ideological debate rather than a factual debate.

Turning into?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by groovy

Those organizations report what the local health ministries tell them to report. Also, the method of recording infant mortality is not standardized and the care for at risk infants varies widely. For example, hospitals in the US take extensive measures to save newborns with a very low birth-weight or who are otherwise at risk. This means a very low birth-weight baby who is born in the US will undergo several procedures to attempt to save that babies life (procedures they might not get in other countries, such as Cuba). However, if that baby dies, it will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In Cuba, this same baby would likely be recorded as a fetal death and would not be included in infant mortality statistics.

All of these issues make for very unreliable statistics.

I don't know if I have much to add, but I can personally attest to how much time, money, and effort is thrown at low birth weight infants, most of which are preemies and could easily be statistically ignored as live births since they're not to term and would not survive without 'heroic' measures.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Bujin

I'm also sorry if you don't feel that I'm welcome on this thread.

It has nothing to do with being welcome. I may even agree with your position more than some of the others, but you can venture into straw man territory sometimes (please don't tell me that you thought the 'if I only had a brain' post title was implying that _you_ didn't have one), as well as resorting to the same snarkiness that you say you don't welcome from others.

I guess I didn't realize that this thread was only for your ill-conceived, fact-less conclusions.

To use one of your stock responses, "Sure, his conclusions are ill-conceived and fact-less simply because he disagrees with you."

I snarkily apologize.

FYP

[theog]

Originally Posted by bclinger

Goodness, we have been busy today. Of the 40-50 million listed below, I sort of wonder what the number is of those people who do not want insurance because they do not need insurance. Why have something if there is no need for it. If it were not for my wife's condition, I would not have insurance because I do not need it. When the need for it arises, I may consider it.

Oh, wow...

So you think it is okay to not pay for insurance until you need it? How do the insurance companies get paid?

Guess you can't wait for obama to bust in with his free insurance... that way you won't have to pay those insurance companies a dime.

[bclinger]

Theog, I personally have not had a need for health insurance and do not support government based health insurance at all. Like you, how are we going to pay for it? Again, the only reason I currently have it is due to my wife's condition. Why pay for something not needed? There are lots of people who do not need or want it at various stages of life.

[theog]

Originally Posted by bclinger

Theog, I personally have not had a need for health insurance and do not support government based health insurance at all. Like you, how are we going to pay for it? Again, the only reason I currently have it is due to my wife's condition. Why pay for something not needed? There are lots of people who do not need or want it at various stages of life.

I do not understand your thinking... "why have something that is not needed."

You would be the same person complaining when your prostate falls apart and no insurance company will pick you up.

I have never been without insurance, and hopefully never will. Insurance is ALWAYS needed since you cannot predict when something of a serious nature will strike you down. Just because you "feel" healthy and "think" you are fine, is not a reason to not have health insurance. Matter of fact, how you feel or what you think is a bit irrelevant.

People who do not want or need insurance are the same people making hospital visits and can't pay at the end of the day. They are actually (helping) the rise in premiums for everyone else... so at the end of the day, we end up paying for those losers anyway (if you really think about it).

I understand what is said about health insurance... it is stated that the program will fund itself. Obviously, no details have emerge (far as I know... outside of the 850 page beta plan).

[bclinger]

Why is it so hard to believe there are SOME people that just do not need or want it? If I cannot pay cash, then arranging a payment plan is really not that difficult. The 3rd party involved in this mess is not a necessity.

[gksmithlcw]

Originally Posted by bclinger

If I cannot pay cash, then arranging a payment plan is really not that difficult.

Most doctors won't even see you without payment up front... LOL

Hell, they won't even let you in the door without your insurance copay BEFORE the visit most of the time...

[Don'tPanic]

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

I think most Americans would not like the Canadian model as it is more about the greater good and less about the individual.

Until Americans are forced (kicking and screaming) to look at whole ugly health care problem with utilitarianism in mind, we'll continue with spiraling costs. For Americans it's all about "me", "right now", and "best available care". Our current model has resulted in a system with costs nearly double that of socialized medical systems in other countries who have better outcome metrics across the board.

Utilitarianism - learn it, love it, or watch the US of A continue to implode. Don't believe me? Health care insurance is the most expensive "raw ingredient" in your Ford/Chevy/Chrysler vehicle. Not steel, not aluminum or anything else.

[Don'tPanic]

Originally Posted by jewel

The government runs things so well. Just look at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac. How well and how efficient they are being run. Now let's give Healthcare to them too.

GM & Chrysler are in Chapter 11 largely due to health care expenses for their employees (see my post above). Health care expenses are the most expensive part of a US made car to the tune of approximately $1000 per car.

[Don'tPanic]

Originally Posted by zhackwyatt

I think we need to put more focus on health prevention. The fattest nation on earth we are called. I have a friend who is 400 pounds and has sleep apnea because of it. If he didn't have out of control weight, many of his other health issues would go away.

We do not need govt run healthcare. I'm sorry, but the govts role shouldn't be providing health care to people who frankly don't deserve it. (i.e. People who do whatever they want and then want some sort of bailout, and btw this pertains to more than healthcare). What we need is personal responsibility.

It is not my responsibility to take care of every other person in the country. It is out of my goodwill that I donate to charity, etc, not because it is a requirement. Its my hard earned cash and if I want to spend it on me and the people I love or perfect strangers it should be my choice.

Just my 2 cents.

I like this guy! Take a quick walk through most any adult PACU (post-anesthesia care unit), i.e. surgical recovery, and try to find a non-obese patient. Good luck with that...

[detective]

Is anyone here old enough to remember the old Blue Cross insurance plans? They were the only employer-provided insurance and the patient was responsible for 20% of the bill. My father carried separate cancer insurance because he knew that 20% of large medical bills would wipe out his savings. In those days, there was still a significant population in the US with no health care at all. Many uninsured today are have income over poverty levels and do not have employer-provided insurance or cannot afford the catastrophic coverage their employers offer.

I'm in a HMO that runs its own hospitals and has been using EMR for a number of years. While the waiting areas are much larger and less private than that of my old MD from the Blue Cross days (used him for over 30 years), the level of medical care is very good. I am working on a relationship with my PCP and use email for my questions rather than a visit. If he feels he should see me or refer me to a specialist he lets me know.

Starting July 1 I will receive receipts indicating what customary charges would be for the services I receive (appendectomy last year, colonoscopy and other checkups, flu shots, allergy shots, physical therapy and therapy devices for elbow injury) rather than just my co-pay. My prior health plan would expect me to purchase the PT materials separately.

Medical consumers have no idea what costs are. My appendectomy, which included 5 hours in ER, many tests as my pain was not lower right quadrant, surgery, post-op, and 6 days inpatient due to complications, cost $0. I'm certain the total tab exceeded $20,000. Using the old system I would have been on the hook for $4,000.

I believe what is trying to be accomplished is to get the entire American population basic medical care and to provide alternatives to the for-profit holding companies of the "non-profit" insurers. For those accustomed to private waiting rooms and coverage of cosmetic tweaks, you might have to purchase those separately, just as there are choices in your employers plans for levels of coverage. I am fortunate to be covered under my spouse's employer's plan. I cannot get reasonably priced insurance on the open market because I got tuberculosis in public high school and have allergies, plus I visited a therapist to process my father's death. These diagnoses deem me a dangerous risk.

A lot of Americans expectations of medicine have been distorted ever since the pharmaceutical manufacturers have been permitted to advertise. Many patients don't follow directions, skimp on dosages, ignore diet and exercise, or are too prideful to say they don't understand or can't afford the doctor's recommendations.

For those of you on corporate plans, try to get a copy of the full legal document to see what is actually covered. If you are successful you will see lots of restrictions. Then talk to your doctor about his increased costs and lost time having to do battle with various insurers to ensure you get appropriate care. I had many a lunch with my now retired PCP and we discussed capitation, treatment options that were not permitted to be discussed by different insurers and the like. He enjoyed practicing medicine, not business management and politics.

Given that Congress is bought and paid for by special interests, I am not optimistic we will come to a good solution for everyone unless there is a revolution.

[Don'tPanic]

Originally Posted by Micael

...and we all know how well the rest of the industrialized world's healthcare systems run. Not.

So who will decide when and how your mother will die, daThomas? You? Your mother? Or some government hack?

I don't believe we're in the top ten of any health care metric you care to name. Put differently, the rest of the industrialized world's healthcare systems are BETTER for the people.

We're the only 1st world country that can afford to spend over $500,000 on the initial hospitalization of somebody with a Grade V subarachnoid hemorrhage. What that is isn't so important as the 95+% mortality rate, i.e. 19 out of 20 of these patients are pushing up daisies in less than a year. I've done anesthetics for two of these patients this year alone. That's easily $1,000,000 saved by providing hospice care to folks who aren't waking back up, and are very unlikely to simply live another year.

[Don'tPanic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
That's all we want.

There's no such thing.... we can dream though.


There is - see Britain's offerings. There's the government system for all (which almost certainly ranks higher than our own in outcomes) and a 2nd tier of insurance for those willing to pay more. It's a more explicit version of what we already have here, i.e. a two-tier system, albeit one in which *everyone* is insured.