A first hand (actually second hand) interpretation of UHC

[Atreus21]

My little sister went with a university group to France this past week. While she was there, she got pretty sick. She went to a hospital where she was diagnosed with a kidney infection. Upon her return to the states, her doctor here confirmed the diagnosis, and commented on the top-notch quality of the imaging that french health care provided toward this conclusion.

However, one interesting side note: My sister said that there were cameras everywhere in the hospital. Operating rooms, changing rooms, bathrooms (yes, even in the stalls, regardless of gender), everywhere. I didn't know what to make of that. Are they trying to document everything?

As hard-right wing as I lean, I'm having a hard time condemning UHC. I disagree with it in principle, but in practice I'm on the fence.

Incidentally, my sister was thought to have Lupus. But recent blood work has indicated negative on that. Also, she said the French hate us. I said, "Good. Looks like we're doing our work well."

 

[K1052]

European nations have much different privacy standards (or lack thereof) than the US and tend to put cameras everywhere possible. Most people over there think it is normal and proper while Americans can't quite understand it because of the protections we enjoy here.

edit: changed to something more on topic

 

[GTKeeper]

I don't think that UHC is an all or nothing proposal. There are obvious benefits with it (your sister's example) but I also think there is room for a private / public system. I don't see why people would be against that.

As for the cameras, I am sure they are in there in case they see an army marching in the hospital, so they can surrender in record fashion.

 

[freegeeks]

The French system is simply one of the best in the world (if not the best). It's a hybrid system that gives a lot of choice to patients but still manages universal coverage.

some good articles

linky

linky

 

[Whitecloak]

its never lupus.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My little sister went with a university group to France this past week. While she was there, she got pretty sick. She went to a hospital where she was diagnosed with a kidney infection. Upon her return to the states, her doctor here confirmed the diagnosis, and commented on the top-notch quality of the imaging that french health care provided toward this conclusion.

However, one interesting side note: My sister said that there were cameras everywhere in the hospital. Operating rooms, changing rooms, bathrooms (yes, even in the stalls, regardless of gender), everywhere. I didn't know what to make of that. Are they trying to document everything?

As hard-right wing as I lean, I'm having a hard time condemning UHC. I disagree with it in principle, but in practice I'm on the fence.

Incidentally, my sister was thought to have Lupus. But recent blood work has indicated negative on that. Also, she said the French hate us. I said, "Good. Looks like we're doing our work well."

As Dr. House says - it is never Lupus. Ever. More to the point, a lot of people rail against UHC without ever seeing its implementation. It is always recitation of talking points and "evidence" from other countries which oftentimes is more sensational then well-founded criticism. We as Americans shouldn't be afraid of UHC. We should take a pragmatic approach to piece together the best healthcare policy possible, combining the best aspects of both public and/or private systems. It may even take some experimentation, but eventually we will arrive with a system that will WORK for us. Currently, the system as we have fails far too many...just throwing our hands up at the problem saying it is socialism if we change anything is just going to make the problem worse for us and future generations.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Whitecloak
its never lupus.

Damn, beat me to it.

 

[Xavier434]

I like the French system a lot, but I think we can do even better in terms of developing a system that performs very well and is also more cost efficient. For example, the French pretty much require nothing to go see a specialist for nearly anything and that specialist has tremendous freedom when it comes to tests to be performed. That is a nice thing but very expensive. I say we make sure there are some rules that involve very reasonable prerequisites before certain tests are performed or even requiring a recommendation to see a specialist. That should help bring down costs a lot.

Anyways, that is just one small idea and I am no expert. I am very confident we can devise something really cool though.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
The French system is simply one of the best in the world (if not the best). It's a hybrid system that gives a lot of choice to patients but still manages universal coverage.

some good articles

linky

linky

Good find there, freegeeks. IIRC, haven't you lived in that area of Europe before? Do you have any insights into the system that those of us in the US might not?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My little sister went with a university group to France this past week. While she was there, she got pretty sick. She went to a hospital where she was diagnosed with a kidney infection. Upon her return to the states, her doctor here confirmed the diagnosis, and commented on the top-notch quality of the imaging that french health care provided toward this conclusion.

However, one interesting side note: My sister said that there were cameras everywhere in the hospital. Operating rooms, changing rooms, bathrooms (yes, even in the stalls, regardless of gender), everywhere. I didn't know what to make of that. Are they trying to document everything?

As hard-right wing as I lean, I'm having a hard time condemning UHC. I disagree with it in principle, but in practice I'm on the fence.

Incidentally, my sister was thought to have Lupus. But recent blood work has indicated negative on that. Also, she said the French hate us. I said, "Good. Looks like we're doing our work well."

As Dr. House says - it is never Lupus. Ever. More to the point, a lot of people rail against UHC without ever seeing its implementation. It is always recitation of talking points and "evidence" from other countries which oftentimes is more sensational then well-founded criticism. We as Americans shouldn't be afraid of UHC. We should take a pragmatic approach to piece together the best healthcare policy possible, combining the best aspects of both public and/or private systems. It may even take some experimentation, but eventually we will arrive with a system that will WORK for us. Currently, the system as we have fails far too many...just throwing our hands up at the problem saying it is socialism if we change anything is just going to make the problem worse for us and future generations.

How about you take a look at its implementation in Massachusetts then. Even though that state has the highest doctors per populace ratio in the country, they are now in a shortage where doctors no longer accept new patients and people have to go to the emergency room for routine care.

As for the OP's experience: I bet UHC does work well at diagnosing health problems. The real issue is caring for those problems, especially if they are non-routine/expensive/require specialists/experimental treatment/etc.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
How about you take a look at its implementation in Massachusetts then. Even though that state has the highest doctors per populace ratio in the country, they are now in a shortage where doctors no longer accept new patients and people have to go to the emergency room for routine care.

As for the OP's experience: I bet UHC does work well at diagnosing health problems. The real issue is caring for those problems, especially if they are non-routine/expensive/require specialists/experimental treatment/etc.

State UHC and our entire nation having a UHC is like comparing apples and oranges though due to how funding works. That plus there are a million and one ways to devise a UHC plan. Just because one doesn't work doesn't mean they are all doomed to fail. It all boils down to the details of whatever plan we develop. To draw any conclusion before the details are available and thoroughly analyzed by professionals is foolish.

 

[QuantumPion]

Oh, I think I see the $62,000 reason why the French medical care system is superior to ours, in one of those linked articles:

"Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system,"

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: freegeeks
The French system is simply one of the best in the world (if not the best). It's a hybrid system that gives a lot of choice to patients but still manages universal coverage.

some good articles

linky

linky

Good find there, freegeeks. IIRC, haven't you lived in that area of Europe before? Do you have any insights into the system that those of us in the US might not?

How does ridiculously expensive sound?

 

[halik]

Having lived under UHC the first 2/3 of my life, I really cannot complain. For day to day stuff, it's a great solution.

That being said, I wouldn't consider getting high end surgery anywhere, but in the U.S. Free market based healthcare leads to competition which produces by far the best skills and quality of care.

 

[shadow9d9]

Guys, it is much better to pay 10-20% of your income on health insurance without any pre-existing coverage than the evils of socialist UHC... So what if you are denied insurance by everyone because of a pre-existing condition? You should just exercise more and lose weight... Losing weight and exercising will eliminate your pre-existing conditions and you will have the choice to see all of the doctors in your limited healthcare plan.... Plus, our insurance companies(american workers) get to rake in the profits for denying us healthcare treatments! What beats that!?

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: freegeeks
The French system is simply one of the best in the world (if not the best). It's a hybrid system that gives a lot of choice to patients but still manages universal coverage.

some good articles

linky

linky

Good find there, freegeeks. IIRC, haven't you lived in that area of Europe before? Do you have any insights into the system that those of us in the US might not?

I'm a Belgian. Our system is basically a mix of the French and the German system. It's also a hybrid private / public system with universal coverage. I was in French hospitals twice with my brother because of climbing accidents, no complaints about the care.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: freegeeks
The French system is simply one of the best in the world (if not the best). It's a hybrid system that gives a lot of choice to patients but still manages universal coverage.

some good articles

linky

linky

Good find there, freegeeks. IIRC, haven't you lived in that area of Europe before? Do you have any insights into the system that those of us in the US might not?

How does ridiculously expensive sound?

Totally wrong.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: halik
Having lived under UHC the first 2/3 of my life, I really cannot complain. For day to day stuff, it's a great solution.

That being said, I wouldn't consider getting high end surgery anywhere, but in the U.S. Free market based healthcare leads to competition which produces by far the best skills and quality of care.

Yes, and that is why I think the best system would include providing UHC for the day to day stuff and preventative as well as additional private coverage being available for emergency care.

 

[freegeeks]

I don't understand why Americans are so paranoid about the govt. running healthcare, can someone enlighten me?

There is also some great reading here. Some good interviews with experts about the different approaches to healthcare in different countries

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand why Americans are so paranoid about the govt. running healthcare, can someone enlighten me?

There is also some great reading here. Some good interviews with experts about the different approaches to healthcare in different countries

Many fear things like long lines and shitty care. I don't fear it.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: halik
Having lived under UHC the first 2/3 of my life, I really cannot complain. For day to day stuff, it's a great solution.

That being said, I wouldn't consider getting high end surgery anywhere, but in the U.S. Free market based healthcare leads to competition which produces by far the best skills and quality of care.

Yes, and that is why I think the best system would include providing UHC for the day to day stuff and preventative as well as additional private coverage being available for emergency care.

Yeah,
I've heard the ideas thrown around and I think it would be a good solution. Having a 2 tier system would fix the problem of uninsured people and still keep the free market at work.

Especially if you incorporate limited torts and keep the costs to minimum in the universal clinics and allow the private clinics to reject non-emergency patient. That might actually drive down the health care costs in general - if you're a hospital now and only every third patient pays, you charge him/her enough to offset the two uninsured bastards that didn't pay.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand why Americans are so paranoid about the govt. running healthcare, can someone enlighten me?

There is also some great reading here. Some good interviews with experts about the different approaches to healthcare in different countries

Well, from an American perspective, it is kind of ingrained in us. To be honest, it is also valid. Government-run healthcare is subject to the massive inefficiencies that government beurocracies often create. We like options to get things done as quickly and efficiently as possible. I'm not saying free-market is best, just that it does have some inherent advantages. Second would be of our natural distrust of government. This has been around since the founding of our nation and will endure with it. Giving the gvt sole authority for medical care decisions and unhindered access to one's medical records is a MAJOR privacy issue. This could conceivably be used against a citizen that the government deems a "troublemaker" or whatnot. This goes for many other things as well. We would rather keep as many rights and responsibilities in the hands of individual citizens as much as reasonably possible. We just don't trust the government blindly or nearly as much as other peoples do. This will not change. It is part of who we are as a people...

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand why Americans are so paranoid about the govt. running healthcare, can someone enlighten me?

There is also some great reading here. Some good interviews with experts about the different approaches to healthcare in different countries

Because if govt. is involved it quashes compitition which in turn quashes quality. But I guess you don't mind that they turn over used bed sheets in some British hospitals to save $$.

Will the French system work here? Who knows. It might, but the beaucracy created would be substancial and quality of care would plummet. It's just the way it works. We are not France, Britain or Germany--we just don't have the same views on what govt. should do. And IIRC wasn't this the place were thousands died of heat stroke in 2007? Where EMS just stopped answering the phone.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand why Americans are so paranoid about the govt. running healthcare, can someone enlighten me?

There is also some great reading here. Some good interviews with experts about the different approaches to healthcare in different countries

Well, from an American perspective, it is kind of ingrained in us. To be honest, it is also valid. Government-run healthcare is subject to the massive inefficiencies that government beurocracies often create. We like options to get things done as quickly and efficiently as possible. I'm not saying free-market is best, just that it does have some inherent advantages. Second would be of our natural distrust of government. This has been around since the founding of our nation and will endure with it. Giving the gvt sole authority for medical care decisions and unhindered access to one's medical records is a MAJOR privacy issue. This could conceivably be used against a citizen that the government deems a "troublemaker" or whatnot. This goes for many other things as well. We would rather keep as many rights and responsibilities in the hands of individual citizens as much as reasonably possible. We just don't trust the government blindly or nearly as much as other peoples do. This will not change. It is part of who we are as a people...

UHC does not automatically mean that the govt. has access to your medical files. I can only speak for the Belgian system but the govt. has no access to my medical files, there is a confidential patient / doctor relationship. The govt. just acts as the insurer

 

[KB]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I don't understand why Americans are so paranoid about the govt. running healthcare, can someone enlighten me?

There is also some great reading here. Some good interviews with experts about the different approaches to healthcare in different countries

Because we have seen the enormous taxes required to run social security, medicaid and medicare and we are still bombarded with talk about how thexe programs will go bankrupt in so many years. Last thing we want is another pot for the government to raid when they want to buy some more pork.