Health Care -- To each his own or an entitlement?
Quote: boymimboSo, I will maintain that health care should be in the same bucket as say, education, or roads.
School isn't an entitlement, you can be kicked out. You can
be banned from driving on public roads. Good health care isn't
owed to anybody, you earn it. The more you can afford, the
better it gets. If you can't afford any, you get what you can
find. Life isn't fair, and try as you will, legislating fairness
eventually bankrupts the system.
Quote: NareedBut there's no need to make use of government force in medicine.
First why not?
Secondly it already is. Health Insurance companies are already protected by the government. They are exempt from many anti trust laws. Why should government be there to protect the insurance industry but not the consumer. They have made it so bankruptcy won't alleviate a person of medical bills
The the most well run and cost effective arm of the US government is Medicare. US doctors love medicare patients since they get paid easily unlike with insurance companies.
Quote: EvenBobSchool isn't an entitlement, you can be kicked out. You can
be banned from driving on public roads. Good health care isn't
owed to anybody, you earn it. The more you can afford, the
better it gets. If you can't afford any, you get what you can
find. Life isn't fair, and try as you will, legislating fairness
eventually bankrupts the system.
But no one earned Medicare why do you accept it? Don't you feel a tad hypocritical?
Quote: rdw4potusbut government run health care works in Canada (less dense than the US) and in Western Europe (more dense than the US).
Thats why really sick Canadians still come here for treatment.
Like my sister in law who is a native Canadian married to an
American minister. They live in Canada and she has a disease
that has very expensive treatment that isn't covered under
the wonderful Canadian system. But is is covered under the
insurance he has here under the ministry program he's a member
of. So they come here every 6 weeks so she doesn't die in
Canada. And don't get cancer in CA, their survival rates suck
compared to the US. Look it up. But it is is 'free' in CA, everybody
gets the same shitty care, so its 'fair'.
Quote: Wavy70But no one earned Medicare why do you accept it? Don't you feel a tad hypocritical?
I don't get Medicare, what are you talking about.
Quote: EvenBobNobody is entitled to ANYTHING, period
Do you feel the same way about freedom of speech, freedom of religion or right to bear arms?
Further, even if we aren't entitled to it, having access to a more efficient healthcare system makes our communities better places
I agree, if you can't afford it, you get what you can find. And a lot of people think that making it possible for people without much money to find adequate healthcare is a good thing
Quote: EvenBobI don't get Medicare, what are you talking about.
Just by reading your posts I assume you are 65 or older. My mistake.
Quote: EvenBobThats why really sick Canadians still come here for treatment.
Like my sister in law who is a native Canadian married to an
American minister. They live in Canada and she has a disease
that has very expensive treatment that isn't covered under
the wonderful Canadian system. But is is covered under the
insurance he has here under the ministry program he's a member
of. So they come here every 6 weeks so she doesn't die in
Canada. And don't get cancer in CA, their survival rates suck
compared to the US. Look it up. But it is is 'free' in CA, everybody
gets the same shitty care, so its 'fair'.
You repeat this "fact" over and over can you cite some sources?
Quote: Wavy70First why not?
No, first why? Should the government draft people into medical schools when there' s a shortage of doctors? Furhter, do youw ant a regulation and a bureaucrat deciding what kind of care you get and when?
Quote:Secondly it already is.
True.
Quote:Why should government be there to protect the insurance industry but not the consumer.
It shouldn't, beyond providing reasonable law enforcement and arbitrating contractual disputes.
Quote: TomGDo you feel the same way about freedom of speech, freedom of religion or right to bear arms?
Those are rights, not entitlements. Big difference. Your neighbor
doesn't pay for your rights, like he does with your entitlements.
Look, I never claimed the Canadian system was perfect. Far from it. It is, however, far more equitable. There are certain treatments that just aren't covered and other treatments with long wait lists. Impatient and rich Canadians will jump the queue and go to the states. It isn't perfect. Our costs are 35% cheaper though.
Quote: NareedNo, first why? Should the government draft people into medical schools when there' s a shortage of doctors? Furhter, do youw ant a regulation and a bureaucrat deciding what kind of care you get and when?
True.
It shouldn't, beyond providing reasonable law enforcement and arbitrating contractual disputes.
Well in the USA the government does not draft people into the medical schools it does the exact opposite. The AMA has paid the federal government to limit the amount of seats the NIH grants to medical universities. Keeping doctors in short supply insuring high cost.
In the USA Nareed who do you think is the ultimate decider in your health care? Your physician? No it is an actuary at the insurance company. The insurance industry has teams of researcher whose sole job is to deny claims. You develop skin cancer and are denied since they found out 30 years ago you saw a dermatologist for acne but failed to disclose that. Additionally they get paid comensurate to the amount of claims they deny.
Everyone who is saying no to Universal Health Care is oddly quiet to the monopolistic and highly government protected health care industry. But since one Justice on the SC lives off the insurance industry I think BCBS is safe.
Quote: boymimboI'm glad that your Canadian friend is covered in the United States. How would the Canadian do if she just went to the United States and asked for whatever the normal treatment is for the disease at any American hospital. How much would it cost? Would just have to declare bankruptcy just to survive?
.
No in the USA bankruptcy no longer protects you from health care costs. That was a big boon for the Health Care biz.
Quote: boymimboThere are certain treatments that just aren't covered and other treatments with long wait lists. .
It reduces everybody down to the same shitty care. And
we're supposed to want that. Oh boy.
Quote: boymimboThere are certain treatments that just aren't covered and other treatments with long wait lists.
It is the exact same here with private insurance the only difference is in The USA these decisions are made in regards to corporate profit. Where in Canada the decision maker has no monetary gain from it.
EDIT additionally here insurance companies have "lifetime maximums" where even if you are still covered if you have reached your max you will be denied. Some as low as 500k. Compound that with some meds costing over 100k a year it will only be a few short years before the insurance drops you.
Canadians want great care. We complain alot about our health care system. But not a one want the American system, because most, if not all Canadians believe that health care *is* an entitlement that should be provided regardless of who you are (well, you do have to be a resident).
Quote: boymimbo
Canadians want great care. We complain alot about our health care system. .
Canadian health care is wonderful for those
that are healthy. Just don't get real sick or
you're screwed.
Quote: EvenBobCanadian health care is wonderful for those
that are healthy. Just don't get real sick or
you're screwed.
Must be luck they have a longer life expectancy with worse health care.
Quote: boymimbo
Canadians want great care. We complain alot about our health care system. But not a one want the American system, because most, if not all Canadians believe that health care *is* an entitlement that should be provided regardless of who you are (well, you do have to be a resident).
Similar could be said of people in Australia. And I would dare speculate, just about every other nation where universal health care exists; that they believe a basic level of medical care should be universal. And it's not shitty, by any standards. You can only say that if you haven't actually experienced it. We get great care here in Australia. Nobody I know would swap it for the American system. Nobody!
Have a look at this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Canadian
Check out who is Number 1, and why. If anyone here truly believes that Canadians think their universal health care sucks so much and they would rather the American system, then I believe you are sadly mistaken. And I'd be equally certain that you could ask/poll citizens of Australia (I know that one from my own personal experience), UK, France, Sweden (to name just a few of many) about whether they would prefer their own universal health care or the American system and universal health care would win handsomely. If there was a way of conducting a wager on such a vote, I would gladly put my money in. It's a sure bet, imo.
Quote: mickpkWe get great care here in Australia. Nobody I know would swap it for the American system. Nobody!
Australia has 22mil population. US has 330mil. We have
states with more people than the whole of Auatralia.
Population is everything with 'free' health care.
Quote: EvenBobAustralia has 22mil population. US has 330mil. We have
states with more people than the whole of Auatralia.
Population is everything with 'free' health care.
Explain how citing facts. please.
EDIT the USA already admins close to 50 million people in socialized health care. Quite well too
Quote: Wavy70Explain how citing facts. please.
Cost, what else...
Homeless are limited as to their healthcare? Limits to healthcare exist for the poor everywhere.
The question becomes, what kind of health care system should we have? How about one that reduces the costs?
Quote: odiousgambitC'mon, we have universal health care in the US already. Point out to me the person who would be left to die in the gutter.
Not the gutter but close.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7BNrJLPxFg
Quote: EvenBobCost, what else...
No I mean you toss out a lot of "Facts" but you never seem to post any information to back it up and I truly want to edify myself.. On a gambling site we are all fact based so I was just wondering where you got these stats from.
When you say it is easy for smaller countries to provide health care than the USA I just want to educate myself on how. Normally when you have a larger pool of people contributing the cost balances out better.
You seem to know a lot of facts that I can't find and I want to learn.
Quote: boymimbo
Look, I never claimed the Canadian system was perfect. Far from it. It is, however, far more equitable. There are certain treatments that just aren't covered and other treatments with long wait lists. Impatient and rich Canadians will jump the queue and go to the states. It isn't perfect. Our costs are 35% cheaper though.
So you woud be happier if everyone had to drive a subcompact car and live in a 1,000 square foor apartment no matter if they could afford to park an SUV in the garage of their suburban house because "equitable" is better?
"Equitable" usually ends up meaning most are worse off.
Why do so many people think everything should be "equitable?"
Quote: EvenBobIt reduces everybody down to the same shitty care. And
we're supposed to want that. Oh boy.
But EB you are frogetting that they get the satifaction that the "greedy" providers don't get to make what amounts to an average rate of profit for a private business. So they can laugh about that. Laughter is the best medicine.........hey, I may be on to something!
Quote: EvenBobSchool isn't an entitlement, you can be kicked out.
No. You can be kicked out of a particular school, you cannot be barred from getting the primary education.
Quote:You can be banned from driving on public roads.
You can be barred from driving, but not from using public roads.
Quote:Good health care isn't owed to anybody, you earn it.
Are you sure? How about yourself? Aren't you using your Medicare?
I see you wrote elsewhere you don't get it ... How come? If you are eligible for Social Security, you should be eligible for Medicare as well. Are you just not getting it on principle? Well, it might be honorable, but irrelevant - Social Security is an entitlement program too, and you are admittedly using that ...
Quote: boymimboIThere are certain treatments that just aren't covered and other treatments with long wait lists. Impatient and rich Canadians will jump the queue and go to the states..
Just like impatient and rich Americans routinely go for treatment to Europe and Israel to avoid having to deal with the "best health care system in the world". It (the quoted part) is just a myth, created by propaganda. Has been for a long time. Anyone who has experience with US health care more than getting a flu shot and a routine physical, and one or two data points to compare it with, knows it.
Quote: EvenBobCanadian health care is wonderful for those
that are healthy. Just don't get real sick or
you're screwed.
Try getting real sick in US. You collect Social Security, and don't have Medicare, right? Good luck ...
Quote: AZDuffmanSo you woud be happier if everyone had to drive a subcompact car and live in a 1,000 square foor apartment no matter if they could afford to park an SUV in the garage of their suburban house because "equitable" is better?
Who said that? If you can afford better care, you can buy better care, what is stopping you?
Quote: boymimbo
What about the roadway outside of your house? Did you pay for that road? Why should you pay for that road if you don't drive on it?
Yes, by virtue of taxes on gasoline and other taxes directed to that source.
Quote:So, I will maintain that health care should be in the same bucket as say, education, or roads.
Why would health care equate to roads or education? Roads are for a public need, transportation. It is not practical to build your own road nor is it practical to have an individual charge for different roads or different kinds of roads (ie: state, county, local.) The utility one vehicle takes from a road is so small it cannot really be measured or metered. Duplication for competition is nearly imnpossible. Hence public funding here makes sense, and even here some are indeed going private.
Education funding and providing is messed up in the USA but is a subject for another thread.
Health care, OTOH, is for individual good, not public good. What one person uses can be easily measured. The use benefits only the user when you ignore the "if we give free flu shots nobody will ever call off work" scenerios supporters of socialized medicine like to cite. And competition is easily set up, as little as a small office.
So I ask, what-the-fudge do roads have to do with health care.
Oh, and anyone who lives in PA knows if they take care of health care with the same efficiency as they do roads.....well, SS will not be underfuded for long!
Quote: AZDuffmanHealth care, OTOH, is for individual good, not public good.
This is simply not true. First of all, consider the health care for children. Obviously, the entire society benefits from having healthy children (arguably, even more than from having educated ones). How about pregnant women? The society benefits from them being healthy as well. Women that are not (yet) pregnant come next. Healthy men are needed to make healthy children just as much. An so on, and on. Health of an individual is directly related to the health of the society.
Come to think of it, the only class of people whose health does not really benefit the society is the one that already is getting free health care - the elderly. There is no economic benefit to the society for caring about the old, but we just still do it, because we believe that is what makes us a (civilized) society in the first place.
Quote: weaselmanThis is simply not true. First of all, consider the health care for children. Obviously, the entire society benefits from having healthy children (arguably, even more than from having educated ones). How about pregnant women? The society benefits from them being healthy as well. Women that are not (yet) pregnant come next. Healthy men are needed to make healthy children just as much. An so on, and on. Health of an individual is directly related to the health of the society.
Come to think of it, the only class of people whose health does not really benefit the society is the one that already is getting free health care - the elderly. There is no economic benefit to the society for caring about the old, but we just still do it, because we believe that is what makes us a (civilized) society in the first place.
I think I will see how you rectify this with your own claim that:
Quote: weaselmanSlippery Slope is a fallacy, not an argument.
If the individual is not healthy the individual is affected but society not much if at all. We are not talking about the Black Death. But since you brought it up, we care for the elderly because they are least able to take care of themselves. Children have parents who are supposed to pay for their care. Adults can make arrangements for care should they choose to use it. But an older person can end up in bad shape, which is why we choose to provide their care. Although even that needs to be scaled back to a voucher system like the Ryan Plan is proposing.
-45.7 million uninsured Americans.
-16% of GDP spent on health care, highest in the world.
-All health statistics are middle of the road (life expectancy, mortality, cancer rates, compared to all western countries with socialized medicine. Name a health category where the United States is #1 in health care besides expenses.
-Because it's for profit it's more efficient than the backwards and incredibly inefficient government system. Show me a statistic that shows that health care is doing better than other western countries to prove its efficiency.
Quote: Wiki, I'm lazyOn March 1, 2010, billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees’ health care put them at a competitive disadvantage. He compared the roughly 17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with the 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, “[t]hat kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.”
So go ahead, keep your health system. Try to compete with the rest of the world. Spend that extra 6% of GDP on health care. Let me know how it works out for you.
You spend the bucks. Where's the bang?
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/09/large-american-pharmaceutical-companies-ways.html
Quote: AZDuffmanI think I will see how you rectify this with your own claim that: <Slipper Slope>
I am not asserting slippery slope. Just the opposite, I was saying that health care for *all* those groups is public good, and *should* be provided.
Quote:If the individual is not healthy the individual is affected but society not much if at all.
Only in the same sense in which an armed robbery or a murder only affects the victim. Or a fire only affects the owner of the property that is destroyed.
If health care does not benefit society than neither does police force or fire fighting.
Quote:But since you brought it up, we care for the elderly because they are least able to take care of themselves.
Yes, I know that. I am saying that caring for them only benefits them, and not the society, and therefore, by your logic, should not have place.
Quote:Children have parents who are supposed to pay for their care.
Likewise, elders have children, who are ... blah blah blah ...
Yes, children have parents, who are supposed to ... But this is irrelevant. The point is that healthy children benefit society as a whole, not just themselves, and not just their parents.
Quote:Adults can make arrangements for care should they choose to use it.
Yes, they can. But that is irrelevant too.
The question at hand is whether health care only benefits individual receiving it or if it is beneficial to the public. What in the world does that question have to do with who can or cannot make what arrangements?
Medicare is not a free, full healthcare system for us old folks. In addition to having paid into Medicare from the time the program was created until I retired, I have been paying premiums on a monthly basis from the time I became eligible for benefits. Those premiums are currently $99.90/month, and I pay a similar premium for my wife's Medicare benefits. If I don't keep paying those premiums, we don't draw Medicare benefits.
In addition, Medicare does not provide full coverage. There are both supplemental medical insurance programs and drug-coverage programs that most of us consider necessary and that cost extra, sometimes a lot extra. I have a Blue Cross Blue Shield group benefit program and a drug benefit program through my previous employer as my Medicare supplements. The cost of these supplemental programs is subsidized substantially by my former employer as an employee/retiree benefit, so one perspective is that I paid for that portion by working for them all those years. Still, my share of the cost for the supplemental programs is currently $197.98/month for a retiree/spouse coverage. If I don't pay that premium, we don't draw the supplemental benefits.
Medicare does not provide dental benefits, so I also have dental coverage through my former employer. My cost for that dental benefit for my wife and myself is $61.66/month.
When my wife or I have medical or dental expenses, they are sometimes fully paid by these insurance coverages, and sometimes there are additional expenses left for me to pay out of pocket.
I am very glad to have these insurance coverages. I am also delighted that my previous employer is contributing to help cover the costs as a retirement benefit, and I am willing to pay my share of the Medicare, BCBS, drug benefit, and dental insurance premiums, as well as the co-payments and deductibles. But no one should get the idea that someone who is old enough to be Medicare eligible didn't contribute to the program for years in advance, isn't paying appropriate premiums, and is somehow just on the dole for free medical care.
Quote:no one should get the idea that someone who is old enough to be Medicare eligible didn't contribute to the program for years in advance, isn't paying appropriate premiums, and is somehow just on the dole for free medical care.
Nothing is really "free" in this sense. If there is ever a universal health care system implemented in one form or another, we (the people) are going to be paying for it through our taxes just like we are now paying for Medicare.
Regarding you monthly premiums ... $200/month for a family of two qualifies to be called "free" in my book :)
Don't get me wrong - I am not blaming you for getting the "free" coverage. I do believe, that you deserve it (in fact, I think, that *everyone* does).
Quote: Wavy70Well in the USA the government does not draft people into the medical schools it does the exact opposite. The AMA has paid the federal government to limit the amount of seats the NIH grants to medical universities. Keeping doctors in short supply insuring high cost.
So therefore we need more government meddling in the market?
Quote:In the USA Nareed who do you think is the ultimate decider in your health care? Your physician? No it is an actuary at the insurance company.
So we need more government meddling in the market?
You overlook one thing. in the current system you do NOT have to be limited by what your insurance will pay, but to what you can afford to pay. In a single payer system, you're screwed if the government actuary says you can't get X drug or procedure.
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " - Hubert H. Humphrey
Quote: weaselmanRegarding you monthly premiums ... $200/month for a family of two qualifies to be called "free" in my book
Perhaps you missed the points that the $200/month I pay to Medicare is for partial coverage, is by far just a minority of my medical premium expenses (consider my supplemental premiums and what my former employee is putting in), and is the residual premium after my having contributed to the program for decades in advance. I don't see how that qualifies as free coverage from anyone's perspective.
What I was trying to explain is that drawing Medicare coverage is a voluntary program with direct, current-year expense to the individuals who are receiving the benefit. If you don't pay, you don't get the benefits, and even if you do pay, you only get partial benefits. It is quite different from Medicaid.
Quote: FrGambleI don't want to get involved in this debate too much either, but I do want to state that I believe that adequate and affordable health care is a basic human right.
How much of a right do you ahve to someone else's labor and wealth?
See here, and I'm saying this because you might get it, a right is a condition of existence. For your rights to life and liberty, all you require from others is that they deal with you voluntarily, not through coercion, and that you deal with others on the same basis. But healthcare is a concrete thing made up of a vast infrastructure, manufactured goods and trained personnel. None of that is or can ever be "free." Someone must invest wealth, capital and labor to build the hospitals, to build the factories that turn out equipment, supplies and drugs, to build the universities that teach doctors, to build the schools that teach nurses and technicians.
To claim their labor and wealth should be provided to you, or anyone, for no cost, is to claim you are entitled to their time, their labor and their wealth.
I'll say it again, the average cost for those receiving MediCare to the recipient is about $9,500 / year. Anyone doing their retirement planning, take that into account.
In comparison, Canada's per capita health care costs is $5,052 as of 2009. For those between 65-69, it's about 5,500; 70-74 7,500; 75-79 10,200, and over 80 $17,000. At age 85 they go to death camps.
Quote: Nareed
You overlook one thing. in the current system you do NOT have to be limited by what your insurance will pay, but to what you can afford to pay. In a single payer system, you're screwed if the government actuary says you can't get X drug or procedure.
What makes you think that? You should still be able to pay out of pocket, and buy whatever you want. You should even be able to get a private insurance if you don't like the public option. Much like having access to public schools does not stop your kids from getting private education if you prefer that.
Quote: DocPerhaps you missed the points that the $200/month I pay to Medicare is for partial coverage, is by far just a minority of my medical premium expenses
No, I did not miss that. It's just that I have to pay about $1500 per month for a comparable partial coverage.
I do understand what you are saying though. Medicare is indeed a pretty crappy option. It should be included into any kind of a sensible health care reform, there is no assumption that those on Medicare are all set.
Quote: NareedSo therefore we need more government meddling in the market?
So we need more government meddling in the market?
You overlook one thing. in the current system you do NOT have to be limited by what your insurance will pay, but to what you can afford to pay. In a single payer system, you're screwed if the government actuary says you cant X drug or procedure.
As I have said before. The anti health care crowd only seems to care if an individual gets free health care however they are ok with that insurance industry is run in a way no other business can legally run in the USA. So how about getting government to stop protecting and exempting the health care industry from laws. The government should protect people not corporations.
Doc on the open market what do you think your subsidized Medicare would cost monthly?
Quote: weaselmanWhat makes you think that? You should still be able to pay out of pocket, and buy whatever you want. You should even be able to get a private insurance if you don't like the public option. Much like having access to public schools does not stop your kids from getting private education if you prefer that.
Maybe for now. In Canada you can't. In other countries with socialized medicine you can't, either.
I know slippery-slope can be a falalcy, but the ultimate purpose of middle-class welfare is to have the middle-class dependent on government. So for now there are options, yes, but those will be done away quickly. There is a provision in Obamacare that forces people into the public option if they lose their insurance already. Why do you think that is?
Quote: Wavy70So how about getting government to stop protecting and exempting the health care industry from laws.
I agree. let's get governmetn out of the health care business altogether. Let's stop mandating insurance cover everything, let's stop preventing insurers from workign across state lines, let's stop allowing doctors and hospitals to be sued for lacking omniscience, too.
Quote:The government should protect people not corporations.
So it should be legal to, say, rob a branch of Bank of America, because it's a corporation and shouldn't be protected by the police ro the courts?
