Healthcare reform

[lostfan]

From what I gather, a lot of people seem to think "Universal healthcare" is the same exact healthcare they get now, only they won't have to pay as much -- at least, in theory -- as higher taxes would obviously have to subsidize this. Whatever the case, the point is, they think they will get the same exact care they get now but for far less money, rich or poor, sickness or health.

 

The problem is, that's incorrect. The care will not be the same, nor will the system of getting that care be the same.

 

I keep hearing people repeat how 3rd world our healthcare system is compared to Canada, Mexico, [insert Country Name here], etc...but they leave out a lot of information on these "universal" plans. My advice is to stop watching Michael Moore movies where 90% of the information is left on the cutting room floor to help him make his biased point(s).

 

First and foremost, we have the *best* healthcare there is -- for those who can afford insurance or have jobs that supply insurance...bar none -- nobody with universal care comes close. This is why the highest paid most skilled doctors/surgeons work here, because they get well compensated for said expertise. Now, there isn't a universal plan in existence where you can go to a hospital and say, "You know what, my knee hurts so I'd like an MRI", and have them actually give you that MRI. In the system we have here, you CAN do that, if you have the insurance or other means. People seem to be convinced nothing will change, when in fact they will ask a series of questions -- and if it's determined that you don't have a pressing need to have your knee checked, it won't be -- they'll send you into a waiting list where you'll get to wait 3-4 months (or however long their backlog is) before they even begin to treat you.

 

I'm not sure about some of you, but I like having the choices and power I have to go into any doctors office or hospital I want and REQUEST care because I know somethings bothering me -- if for nothing else other than piece of mind. I don't want or need someone determining if I need a procedure based on my livelihood, or if I can "live with it for now".

 

And I know some of you will deny what I've said -- say how wrong I am and how it doesn't work this way...but it does work that way, regardless of what people in favor of this "free" healthcare say, and that includes Michael Moore.

??? How is this true? If I went into my doctor's office and said "I want an MRI" he would look at me like I was crazy. I have a f***ed up shoulder ATM that will eventually need physical therapy and he did refer me for X-rays (which I have not gone to do yet for some reason), but I didn't just request it, I had to explain it and he examined my shoulder. Furthermore, the time between me calling to set that appointment and actually get seen was about 2 months. Part of this is just me probably having a doctor with too many patients and I need to switch, the other part of it is some mythical version of the American healthcare system I keep hearing about that simply doesn't exist.

 

Granted, you are right, there is not nor has there ever been a problem with the QUALITY of healthcare in this system, no doubt it's the best. That's a paradox though. Quality costs money and at some point, the cost becomes prohibitive. I would love to drive a Lexus right now, and I could probably afford the payments, but it would be pretty dumb of me to go sell my Impala for a Lexus in my current financial situation. That's basic budgeting, and as NSS was saying, that choice has been thoroughly taken away from the consumer in the current situation so it can't even be called a free market.

[Y2HH]

??? How is this true? If I went into my doctor's office and said "I want an MRI" he would look at me like I was crazy. I have a f***ed up shoulder ATM that will eventually need physical therapy and he did refer me for X-rays (which I have not gone to do yet for some reason), but I didn't just request it, I had to explain it and he examined my shoulder. Furthermore, the time between me calling to set that appointment and actually get seen was about 2 months. Part of this is just me probably having a doctor with too many patients and I need to switch, the other part of it is some mythical version of the American healthcare system I keep hearing about that simply doesn't exist.

 

Granted, you are right, there is not nor has there ever been a problem with the QUALITY of healthcare in this system, no doubt it's the best. That's a paradox though. Quality costs money and at some point, the cost becomes prohibitive. I would love to drive a Lexus right now, and I could probably afford the payments, but it would be pretty dumb of me to go sell my Impala for a Lexus in my current financial situation. That's basic budgeting, and as NSS was saying, that choice has been thoroughly taken away from the consumer in the current situation so it can't even be called a free market.

 

How is it true? It's true because it's true. There is no reason for you to see a general practitioner for a recommendation/referral if you have a PPO or the money to request said services -- you can do that freely, anywhere you want, anytime you want.

 

I never go to a general practitioner for referrals -- I go right into the experts office and say I'd like X service please -- but I also work for Blue Cross so I kinda get whatever I want. :> That said, anyone with a PPO based plan can do this, it's only with HMO's that you need referrals to be covered.

 

And there are offices/specialists that only do these types of services, and as I've said before, if you have the means/insurance, they'll perform these tests on you upon request. The issue for some people is they have HMO's, which require referrals for coverage.

 

For example, earlier this year I needed to see a mouth/throat specialist and just called and made an appt with a random one I researched/was board certified, etc...one day later I was in his office being checked as there was no need for me to see my general practitioner for referral. PPOs are more expensive, though.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

How is it true? It's true because it's true. There is no reason for you to see a general practitioner for a recommendation/referral if you have a PPO or the money to request said services -- you can do that freely, anywhere you want, anytime you want.

 

I never go to a general practitioner for referrals -- I go right into the experts office and say I'd like X service please -- but I also work for Blue Cross so I kinda get whatever I want. :> That said, anyone with a PPO based plan can do this, it's only with HMO's that you need referrals to be covered.

 

And there are offices/specialists that only do these types of services, and as I've said before, if you have the means/insurance, they'll perform these tests on you upon request.

Oops, I forgot I don't have a PPO (I have POS since I don't need referrals very often and because HMO f***ing blows, I figure if there is a situation where someone needs referrals more than once a year I'll pay the extra money). I stand corrected on that point. My larger point was about the long waits to see doctors though. When I was in the military (coincidentally, government-run, but that's not my point and I don't want a government-run system) my wait times were dramatically lower than they are now. I just find the quality-of-service argument to be not true, in my experience. Although that is probably where I live and who my doctor is.

[Y2HH]

Oops, I forgot I don't have a PPO (I have POS since I don't need referrals very often and because HMO f***ing blows, I figure if there is a situation where someone needs referrals more than once a year I'll pay the extra money). I stand corrected on that point. My larger point was about the long waits to see doctors though. When I was in the military (coincidentally, government-run, but that's not my point and I don't want a government-run system) my wait times were dramatically lower than they are now. I just find the quality-of-service argument to be not true, in my experience. Although that is probably where I live and who my doctor is.

 

Don't forget, military doctors are only for military personal -- so seeing them would obviously be faster than if they had to treat every American that walked in the door.

 

If you want to see free healthcare in action, go to just about any emergency room, Mercy hospital is a great example of this. The ER waiting room will be 100% full of people with a sniffle or headache, and I'm not kidding. Why do they care?! They aren't paying for it anyway...so what we get is hospital waiting rooms full of people with minor ailments that chicken soup and rest would cure.

 

Last year I took my father to the ER (Mercy), because he was bleeding from his nose -- his BP was 290/180 (that's not a typo) -- he was simply lucky that his nose gave out before his brain due to the immense pressure. We get there, and he's bleeding nonstop, with rags of blood on his nose in an ER full people with colds or minor flu like symptoms. Again, NOT kidding -- they had f***ing colds and they're sitting in an ER for some free theraflu and checkups.

 

The ER is for emergencies, like say, bleeding profusely for hours on end due to extreme blood pressure, NOT colds.

 

People tend to abuse things that are free, therefore the system they will undoubtedly have to put in place in any universal system is -- we get to decide who needs treatment and who doesn't...the question is, who is that we who will be deciding, and do the people actually WANT them deciding such things?

 

I sure as hell do not.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Don't forget, military doctors are only for military personal -- so seeing them would obviously be faster than if they had to treat every American that walked in the door.

 

If you want to see free healthcare in action, go to just about any emergency room, Mercy hospital is a great example of this. The ER waiting room will be 100% full of people with a sniffle or headache, and I'm not kidding. Why do they care?! They aren't paying for it anyway...so what we get is hospital waiting rooms full of people with minor ailments that chicken soup and rest would cure.

 

Last year I took my father to the ER (Mercy), because he was bleeding from his nose -- his BP was 290/180 (that's not a typo) -- he was simply lucky that his nose gave out before his brain due to the immense pressure. We get there, and he's bleeding nonstop, with rags of blood on his nose in an ER full people with colds or minor flu like symptoms. Again, NOT kidding -- they had f***ing colds and they're sitting in an ER for some free theraflu and checkups.

 

The ER is for emergencies, like say, bleeding profusely for hours on end due to extreme blood pressure, NOT colds.

 

People tend to abuse things that are free, therefore the system they will undoubtedly have to put in place in any universal system is -- we get to decide who needs treatment and who doesn't...the question is, who is that we who will be deciding, and do the people actually WANT them deciding such things?

 

I sure as hell do not.

This is complete B.S. actually. The ER is full of people with sniffles or headaches because when you're uninsured, most doctors won't treat you...the only place that is legally required to treat you is an E.R. It's a stupid system since having sick people go to the E.R. is ridiculously expensive and it's a key part of the fact that something like 60% of bankruptcies in this country happen because of medical bills, but that's the system we've built up as the only way of dealing with the 45-50 million continuously uninsured/80 million+ who go uninsured for at least part of a year.

 

Hell, there are more than a few Republicans who have argued this is a good thing because it's how we get "Universal" health care - its universal because anyone can go to an E.R.

[Y2HH]

This is complete B.S. actually. The ER is full of people with sniffles or headaches because when you're uninsured, most doctors won't treat you...the only place that is legally required to treat you is an E.R. It's a stupid system since having sick people go to the E.R. is ridiculously expensive and it's a key part of the fact that something like 60% of bankruptcies in this country happen because of medical bills, but that's the system we've built up as the only way of dealing with the 45-50 million continuously uninsured/80 million+ who go uninsured for at least part of a year.

 

These people shouldn't even be at a doctors office, is my point. Either way, whether they do this in an ER or a doctors office (with a universal free plan that won't be free) they're abusing the resources available that I'll undoubtedly have to help them pay for.

 

People need not go to a doctor for the flu, or a cold, or a minor sore throat -- STAY HOME. You go to doctors if symptoms persist or worsen over a span of days, not when you sniffle once or twice. People receiving "free" care are the ones that abuse this, the fact that most people with insurance have "co-pays" keeps them from going to the doctors office, or ER, or wherever else for things like a headache.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

I just wanted to point out one thing I do like about the health care reform bill in its current form. They are putting a stop to the habit of insurance companies to deny or delays coverage for pre-existing conditions. That I like.

 

[Balta1701]

I just wanted to point out one thing I do like about the health care reform bill in its current form. They are putting a stop to the habit of insurance companies to deny or delays coverage for pre-existing conditions. That I like.

They're saying they're going to do that, but the devil is going to be in the details.

 

[spiderman]

I want a single payer system similar to England. Healthcare is bankrupting us right now. You can't solve the economy without solving heathcare. Bush was wrong to not bother with it. Republicans are wrong to oppose it. Healthcare is currently rationed, 46 million can't get it, another 10s of millions are under insured, so that's how we ration it. Overhead is 30-35% on average which means that's how much less we should be spending per cappa. We spend 15% of our GDP on healthcare where Germany and Canada spend 10% and cover everyone.

 

We won't get single payer because the health industry / pharmaceutical industries buy Republicans and most Democrats. Our health and economic well-being are bought off. It's bull####. The most we'll get is a watered down public plan because Democrats are ####### and because Obama is not flexing his political muscle. He's backing off and primary Democrats are selling out. Everyone will loose this way, I hope I'm wrong.

 

I like my healthcare except that I'm on an HMO and have restrictions as to who I can see. That sucks. I want to see whoever without having to pay 10% of the bill. I have an HMO so I don't pay 10% but my options are limited which isn't always easy.

 

Some people with serious health issues can't get insurance because of his heart, no one will touch them. Some people have to lie to get theirs. If it weren't for some people's jobs, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to afford it (for people with more serious issues like diabetes). Did you know that we are the only industrialized country in the world without single payer or a competitive public option? That means we are wrong and the rest of the world is right. Canadians, Germans, the English etc.etc. all live longer than us and their healthcare costs less to them and their country, how is that?

[BearSox]

Yeah, cause a single payer system has worked in so many countries, and England was a great example!

[spiderman]

Yeah, cause a single payer system has worked in so many countries, and England was a great example!

 

Why am i wrong? explain please.

 

what would be a better system? do you not realize how inefficent the current system is?

[Balta1701]

Yeah, cause a single payer system has worked in so many countries, and England was a great example!

England spends 1/2 as much per person as we do, covers everyone in their country, and produces significantly better results in terms of overall care for the total population according to repeated studies.

[BearSox]

Um, how about...

 

1.) Extremely long wait times

2.) Immense costs

3.) Rationed care

4.) Why in hell should we have to rely on politicians for our health care?

 

And according to studies, nationalizing healthcare will increase our depth by at least 1 trillion dollars and reduce the number of uncovered people from 46 to 39. Yeah, I'll pass.

Edited June 20, 2009 by BearSox

[Balta1701]

2.) Immense costs

I just pointed out. They spend 1/2 as much per person as we do in the U.K. 1/2 as much. If theirs has "Immense costs", then I don't know if there's a word in the english language to describe ours

4.) Why in hell should we have to rely on politicians for our health care?

Why the Hell would we want to rely on private insurers who's goals have nothing to do with the quality of care and have everything to do with maximizing their profits?

[southsideirish71]

England spends 1/2 as much per person as we do, covers everyone in their country, and produces significantly better results in terms of overall care for the total population according to repeated studies.

 

Odd, my relatives in Ireland and England tell a different story. Complains about rationing, lack of choice, waiting for simple surgeries that get you put on a waiting list. Now granted on of their relatives is dead, waiting for one of those rationed surgeries that he would of received here in no time. Don't sweat the small stuff I tell them.

 

As a diabetic I would be excited on what government rationed drugs I would get to take, probably not the stuff that I take now. Its expensive. But then again, with an incurable disease. I am just a burden on the system, and if I check out it will lower the cost anyway.

 

Can't wait for this.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Odd, my relatives in Ireland and England tell a different story. Complains about rationing, lack of choice, waiting for simple surgeries that get you put on a waiting list. Now granted on of their relatives is dead, waiting for one of those rationed surgeries that he would of received here in no time. Don't sweat the small stuff I tell them.

Yes, for many procedures, the U.K. has longer wait times than the U.S. does (assuming you don't count the nearly infinite wait times for the 80 million people who are uninsured for at least part of every year).

 

The question is...if they spent an additional 1% of GDP on health care...wouldn't an awful lot of those problems go away? Or 2%?

 

It quite literally is the British taxpayer's choice to save the extra $4000 a year and put up with longer wait times.

 

The U.S. spends about 17% of its GDP on health care right now. The UK spends 8%. And at the same time...they extend coverage to everyone. There really is no disputing this.

 

If the British spent the same percentage of their GDP on Health care as the U.S. does, with their current system, their doctors would be using gold plated stethoscopes with built in HDTV's because they'd have no idea how to spend those kind of funds.

 

Here's my question for the people who say we shouldn't have a public option. Is our current health care system 2x as good as Britain? 1.5 times as good as Canada or the rest of the developed world? Is our population healthier or being better served by it?

 

Or, would you put up with a system with longer wait times in exchange for an extra $3500 a year in your pocket?

[BearSox]

Why the Hell would we want to rely on private insurers who's goals have nothing to do with the quality of care and have everything to do with maximizing their profits?

Yeah, like Politicians really care about the people..... NOT.

 

I'm sorry, but I'll trust private insurers over most politicians.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, like Politicians really care about the people..... NOT.

 

I'm sorry, but I'll trust private insurers over most politicians.

Have you ever had to deal with private insurers personally?

 

Have you ever spent any time uninsured?

 

Have you ever put off care or endured pain because you're uninsured and can't afford to see a doctor?

[mr_genius]

(assuming you don't count the nearly infinite wait times for the 80 million people who are uninsured for at least part of every year).

 

what are you talking about? 80 million US citizens have no health coverage?

Edited June 20, 2009 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Have you ever had to deal with private insurers personally?

 

Have you ever spent any time uninsured?

 

Have you ever put off care or endured pain because you're uninsured and can't afford to see a doctor?

 

You're screwed no matter what if you have a major problem. I never have, thank Obama, but even with insurance a week stay in a hospital is going to cost like $50,000 at least.

 

With all your huffing and puffing, will YOU admit there needs to be strict cost measure like in Europe or Japan? Or do you just suggest a California like program; totally bankrupt.

 

 

there are limits which on the amount of debt the feds can take on. I think your guy Obama knows this.

Edited June 20, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

You're screwed no matter what if you have a major problem. I never have, thank Obama , but even with insurance a week stay in a hospital is going to cost like $50,000 at least.

 

With all your huffing and puffing, will YOU admit there needs to be strict cost measure like in Europe or Japan? Or do you just suggest a California like program; totally bankrupt free for all... EVERYTING FREE! WEEEE!

 

You do know that we are basically at the limits of DEBT the feds can take on right? I think your guy Obama does.

 

[kapkomet]

what are you talking about? 80 million US citizens have no health coverage?

Yea, that number keeps creeping up every few days, it seems.

 

[Balta1701]

Yea, that number keeps creeping up every few days, it seems.

45-50 million are uninsured at any given time, and 80 million go uninsured for at least part of every year. Over 1/4 of the population of the country will spend at least some portion of this year uninsured. And that number could skyrocket given the job losses.

[kapkomet]

45-50 million are uninsured at any given time, and 80 million go uninsured for at least part of every year. Over 1/4 of the population of the country will spend at least some portion of this year uninsured. And that number could skyrocket given the job losses.

How many illegals? How many opt outs? How many actually get insurance and now you're double dipping counts to make it look higher and higher?

 

 

[lostfan]

The numbers aren't important. Don't get sucked into arguing about petty crap.