RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
I'd like to get some opinions on universal healthcare, as a concept, as it is being done in other countries, and plans to extend this to Americans.
I am forming some of my own opinions, but need to read more and understand some points better before I feel comfortable with reaching a conclusion.
Also, I am curious why I pay such a large tax on Medicare every paycheck. I've never really understood why it's so much and what it covers. Any clarification on that would be appreciated.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics
Universal Health Care Discussion
[1026 posts] [83 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
KSquared
Literally Hell
Login to Send PM
Posted 3 years ago # -
TaraK
shoe-mocker
Login to Send PM
I preface anything by saying I'm entirely biased because I think any country with our development and resources should be providing health care. I get angry when people say that it will raise our taxes too much because the increase in taxes would still be less than most of us pay per month for health care (I pay something like 10% of my take-home). And I get angry when people say, "Do you want yer government rulin' your healthcare? They ruin everythang they TOUCH!" I just want to respond that the free market system is so much better, right? There are lots of people who can't get coverage unless they pay outrageous prices. I seriously almost lost my coverage for having "leg pain," as cited on the letter from the insurance company. Also unfair that women have to pay more than men.
So sorry. That's all more tangent than what you were asking for. I am tempted to ask if you've seen Sicko, but all the while know that he, too, is biased toward my ideas. Regardless, there is a lot of good info in there for comparing different national systems. It's worth checking out.
[/rant]
Posted 3 years ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
I swear to god Hael, if you keep pulling out these fringe conservative clips and references, I'm going to start posting Bill Maher and Michael Moore clips.
A. Obama's plan isn't socialized medicine.
B. What Crowder did was exactly what Moore did, only in favor of the other side of the argument.Want me to link his video explaining why the US using torture is such a good idea?
Posted 3 years ago # -
TaraK
shoe-mocker
Login to Send PM
Not related to health care, but related to political extremism -- check out this jewel from the RNC, a racist, hate-filled card game!
@ Tigertree: It's a mixed bag. Right now is probably the WORST time to implement some kind of new spending. At the same time, more and more Americans are losing their healthcare with job loss, hours too few to qualify, etc., so it's also more needed right now. The number of people who don't qualify for gov. financed care and who can't afford/qualify for private care is growing.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Not to mention employer paid healthcare is a bigger financial burden to companies than taxes, and it just keeps getting worse.
Posted 3 years ago # -
aderwent
Login to Send PM
- the united states has 327% more mri units and 183% more ct scanners per capita than cananda.
- doctors in the united states perform twice as many inpatient surgical procedures than canadian doctors.
- there are 14 percent more physicians and 19 percent more nurses in the united states, per capita than in cananda.
- correctal cancer rates are much higher in cananda (6.7 per 100,000) than in the united states (4.8 per 100,000). 41% of cases in canada prove fatal, and only 34% in the U.S.
- the average waiting time between the time patients saw their family physician and the time they actually got treated is now 18.3 weeks.
- less than half (44%) of all new drugs approved in cananda in 2004 were covered by the government insurance program in october 2007. there's a one year wait on average to get your hands on these drugs.
- 1.7 million canadians could not access a family physician in 2007. that's about 5 percent of the entire population.
- the average waiting time for "non-urgent" cardiac surgery in manitoba, cananda is 77 days. hope the heart can hold out that long.
and for those saying we shouldn't whine, because we'd be able to get private insurance still; we would have to pay for two insurance plans basically, if we did that. which means private insurance would be taken over by the public insurance anyway probably. hooray for monopolies!
lastly, it seems you guys are deeeeeeep in the left/right dichotomy. sad.
wake. the. @#%*. up!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Tigertree wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
Not to mention employer paid healthcare is a bigger financial burden to companies than taxes, and it just keeps getting worse.Good thing the health care is going to be free then eh?
And this is why people should actually learn about the plans before they start making decisions and judgments. Obama's healthcare plan isn't "free health insurance", it has a helluva lot more in common with Mitt Romney (you know, the Republican presidential candidate) universal healthcare law in effect in Massachusetts.
So while the Canada stuff is all fascinating, no one is proposing a system even similar.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Tigertree wrote >>
No, but there is going to be a tremendous tax on the wealthiest Americans who, coincidentally, generally own those businesses who are spending more on health care than taxes...Really? Explain this tremendous tax to me, because the only tax change under Obama even proposed is the removal of the Bush Tax Cuts at some point in the future. Again, just because someone told you Obama is a socialist who's going to raise everyone's taxes and implement socialized health care, doesn't actually make it true.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Tigertree wrote >>
I'll admit I need to do more research before I engage in a real debate about this, but to assert that we're just going to magically end up with a government health care program that isn't going involve a huge tax burden....That's because we're not ending up with free healthcare from the government, that's not the plan. In fact, a huge part of the plan is reducing the cost of the free healthcare that the government already provides
Posted 3 years ago # -
SusanB
Hungarian Village, Columbus' fastest growing Gayborhood!
Login to Send PM
The biggest problem with health insurance today is that the insurance companies (or your employer) can screw with you if you get sick. My rates on my "Anthem for One" are now over 1k a month. No one else will touch me. I am in email contact with a woman who was just diagnosed with leukemia whose employer is making noises about making her start paying all of the premiums on her policy. As that her employer only has 7 employees, she's not covered by ADA. They may also "find" a reason to lay her off. Our current system is great until you develop a serious life threatening condition or lose your job, then it sucks.
Another issue- many "American" cars are now made in Canada. Guess why?
Posted 3 years ago # -
TaraK
shoe-mocker
Login to Send PM
This Canada stuff is bonkers. As others have pointed out, NO ONE has proposed a system similar to that one, so the comparison is bunk. And these statistics are meaningless out of context.
- doctors in the united states perform twice as many inpatient surgical procedures than canadian doctors.
Does that consider the difference in population? The difference in preventative care (emphasized when there is public health care) vs. crisis care (last resort for those who are uninsured, and more expensive)?
- 1.7 million canadians could not access a family physician in 2007. that's about 5 percent of the entire population.
So how does that compare the 46 million Americans, or 18% of the population, that don't have health insurance and, subsequently, many of whome don't have access to a family physician.@ SusanB: Yeah, that's such a sad but frequent case. And so many employers now restrict most employees to "part-time" (i.e. 32 hours a week) to avoid paying this. And I understand why they do that -- but health care just shouldn't be a for-profit business at all, and it shouldn't be connected to it. There are so many albeit important but less necessary publicly funded things I'd give up for health care (i.e. libraries, parks).
Posted 3 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
I'll have to say that my predisposition is to be skeptical. In an ObamaCare world, I can't imagine we'd have seen aggressive cost-cutting programs like the Wal-Mart $4 generic promotion that sparked a rush of other retailers trying to cut costs.
That said, I'd want to know more about the details of the ObamaCare plan before I start voicing more detailed objections. This is because the "health care industry" has a tremendous amount of moving parts, and I don't know exactly how many of those parts Obama intends to bring under public control (directly or by stealth).
The insurance aspect of health care is the one that could be most easily supplanted by the government under the current status quo, largely because the current status quo is simply that broken. The tendency of government bureaucracies to become sclerotic and moribund is all but completely balanced out by the fact that insurance companies are themselves heavily bureaucratic. In addition, private insurers face some perverse incentives: they profit the most when they pay for the least care possible.
The provider side of the industry contains a lot more tripwires, and I get really antsy about some of the proposals I've heard rumors about. The reason is that most of the costs of the industry ultimately pass to the providers, and most of their costs are personnel costs--i.e., doctors, nurses, lab techs, etc. The public pressure to control costs is high (and on the flip side, if the government fails to control costs, it will get blasted for that, too). The problem is that that means forcing doctors and nurses to work for less. I can't pretend to be comfortable with that. What will inevitably happen in the medium run is precisely what has already happen with Medicare: many of the highest-end providers simply opt out of the system because reimbursement rates are too low. That's going to lead to public pressure to *make* doctors accept the government rates whether they want to or not, with all the ill effects that have accompanied government price controls in every industry whenever they've been tried. It's still just too easy to see the arguments made against "greedy" doctors refusing to treat patients even at the behest of Uncle Sam.
The research side of the industry has done pretty well as a public-private hybrid for a long time now. Many government agencies write research grants that are either directly or peripherally related to health care; most of those grants go to doctors who also work in academia (e.g., in research hospitals). New pharmaceuticals and new equipment are generally developed in the private sector, but of course, many an academic has augmented their income by doing consulting work for the pharmaceutical sector, too. I don't know if Obama's plan would be to change this, too. I know he's not above going after Big Money in Big Pharma. That doesn't mean that the current proposal acts too heavily on those instincts.
I'm also not sure if there are proposals out there to try to regulate better diets and exercise habits and other such things. My guess is that those aren't in the bill; in fact, if I were a Republican opposed to the bill and saw measures like that in the bill, I'd let it get out of committee with that measure intact, and then blare that one all over the news. It would likely be a dealbreaker for a lot of on-the-fence Representatives and Senators.
Posted 3 years ago # -
howatzer
Login to Send PM
You can't really call our current health system a free market. Firstly, the fed spends 20% of its budget on medicaid, medicare and S-chip, so more government money is pumped into the health sector than any other single US industry. The rates it pays are negotiated (mandated) low and the costs are passed back to us.
Secondly, a free market implies an uninhibited adjustment between supply and demand. With our system, insurance companies and employers set the demand (and are heavily regulated by the government), and since they are just interested in lowering the costs, quality and comprehensiveness of care is not necessarily a concern.
In my ideal world, health care providers would compete for our business like any other service, and supply would adjust to meet demand. This would bring costs down for those of that make good choices like not smoking or eating a big mac everyday, or for those of us who rather spend more on other things besides a private hospital room.
However, this can't happen, mostly because the AARP runs this country and they want to keep the current system in which we all pay for our 92 year old grandma's hip replacement, as well as 100% of her prescription drugs .
So, in the end, the reality is either the insurance/employer system spreads the cost around or the government does. Either an insurance rep decides who gets what care or a bureaucrat does. In either case, many will get screwed and those with money will be able to buy better care directly.Posted 3 years ago # -
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
howatzer wrote >>
You can't really call our current health system a free market. Firstly, the fed spends 20% of its budget on medicaid, medicare and S-chip, so more government money is pumped into the health sector than any other single US industry.Where did you get that figure from? It seems awfully high.
:edit: Never mind. I found a few pie charts and that looks about right. 13.3% for medicare, and 7.2% for medicaid and SCHIP.
Posted 3 years ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.