Serious changes are required in health care

Draftee

Member
Feb 13, 2009
68
0
0
47 million Americans have no health insurance at all, and 50 million are seriously under-insured. They only find out when they get ill.

It's estimated that half of the personal bankruptcies in America are the result of unplanned medical expenses. And with many people only insured through their employers, things are expected to get worse as unemployment goes up.

Reforms have been tried before and failed. But everyone - from doctors, Washington insiders and the insurance industry - agrees that the situation is now so dire, changes have to be made.

Chris Jennings, who worked with Hillary Clinton on her doomed campaign to fix the health system and now advises Obama on the same thing, says opponents of change "always use words like socialism, communism and government takeover" but those arguments are becoming harder to sustain these days. "We have a crisis, and that is the only time this country does big things."

My father-in-law in Australia recently had cancer (trachea + mouth), he was operated on within 2 weeks of diagnosis, he has now been cleared and expects to return to work within 6 weeks of the op. All using the public health system. A high quality system, without a single bill from the operation.

Everyone there is taxed to provide for public health care for all, mostly free of charge. It doesn't cripple the economy, it supports the economy by ensuring those struck down by ill-health will return to the workforce fit and healthy, quickly, without crippling debt. Private services are available, which provide competition. But in any case, policy has been able to give the nation an efficient, cost-effective umbrella to all.

There are plenty of models out there, some with flaws, many with solid foundations, that show better outcomes can be achieved. They put the US model to shame.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I agree that it's suboptimal. The topic is so complex and so emotional at this point that it's very difficult for a lot of people to even debate what a prudent solution is.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Originally posted by: Draftee
47 million Americans have no health insurance at all, and 50 million are seriously under-insured. They only find out when they get ill.

It's estimated that half of the personal bankruptcies in America are the result of unplanned medical expenses. And with many people only insured through their employers, things are expected to get worse as unemployment goes up.

Reforms have been tried before and failed. But everyone - from doctors, Washington insiders and the insurance industry - agrees that the situation is now so dire, changes have to be made.

Chris Jennings, who worked with Hillary Clinton on her doomed campaign to fix the health system and now advises Obama on the same thing, says opponents of change "always use words like socialism, communism and government takeover" but those arguments are becoming harder to sustain these days. "We have a crisis, and that is the only time this country does big things."

My father-in-law in Australia recently had cancer (trachea + mouth), he was operated on within 2 weeks of diagnosis, he has now been cleared and expects to return to work within 6 weeks of the op. All using the public health system. A high quality system, without a single bill from the operation.

Everyone there is taxed to provide for public health care for all, mostly free of charge. It doesn't cripple the economy, it supports the economy by ensuring those struck down by ill-health will return to the workforce fit and healthy, quickly, without crippling debt. Private services are available, which provide competition. But in any case, policy has been able to give the nation an efficient, cost-effective umbrella to all.

There are plenty of models out there, some with flaws, many with solid foundations, that show better outcomes can be achieved. They put the US model to shame.

Theres the big difference, if he was unable to return to the workforce, they would have kicked him to the curb.

 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Yeah, it is indeed in need of an overhaul. The current system fails too many people in too many ways. There are MANY ways to do this...

/cue the OMGSOCIALISM crowd
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
I agree, we need a better system. All in all, I wouldn't mind paying a little more in that my parents would be taken care of in the event of a crisis. EVERYONE will eventually die and most will get sick (some life threateningly), it's something that will affect everyone. All working adults already pay taxes, so I don't see what is unfair about dealing with an issue that WILL eventually happen to all of us.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I think everybody can agree out system is broken. The problem is determing the best way to fix it. Many people automatically fall back on bigger govt will solve it. What do know about other big govt programs? I am sure this one will go against the grain right?

Costs are the biggest concern right now. Adding millions more into the demand pool while not increasing the supply isnt going to address this issue. It will make it worse than it already is.

I could supposrt a govt run insurance program if it had a high deductible. In other words it covers catostrophic scenarios. If we simply move what the private insurers do to govt(cover everything for a 15-30 dollar deductible) and then add 40 million people into the system, the result will be a complete and utter debacle.
 

Draftee

Member
Feb 13, 2009
68
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
I think everybody can agree out system is broken. The problem is determing the best way to fix it. Many people automatically fall back on bigger govt will solve it. What do know about other big govt programs? I am sure this one will go against the grain right?

Costs are the biggest concern right now. Adding millions more into the demand pool while not increasing the supply isnt going to address this issue. It will make it worse than it already is.

I could supposrt a govt run insurance program if it had a high deductible. In other words it covers catostrophic scenarios. If we simply move what the private insurers do to govt(cover everything for a 15-30 dollar deductible) and then add 40 million people into the system, the result will be a complete and utter debacle.

You're right, there has to be mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of the system. For example, going to your local doctor for your flu should only be covered up to a certain amount, say $30. You pay the rest of the e.g. $50 bill. This covers most of the bill, but at the same time discourages unscrupulous people as they're still out of pocket and reduces the overhead on the government purse.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Step 1: Spent $600 billion on health care
Step 2: Find out actual costs are about 4x as much.
Step 3: Act shocked that step 2 happened.
Step 4: Cut out so called 'non essential' services and begin to ration everything else.

Maybe we can skip to the end.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: winnar111
Step 1: Spent $600 billion on health care
Step 2: Find out actual costs are about 4x as much.
Step 3: Act shocked that step 2 happened.
Step 4: Cut out so called 'non essential' services and begin to ration everything else.

Maybe we can skip to the end.

FUD

:cookie:
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree that it's suboptimal. The topic is so complex and so emotional at this point that it's very difficult for a lot of people to even debate what a prudent solution is.

Republicans will just scream SOCIALISM! at the top of their lungs throughout eternity and nothing will get done. Don't worry, we won't ever get an efficient healthcare system thanks to them.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: winnar111
Step 1: Spent $600 billion on health care
Step 2: Find out actual costs are about 4x as much.
Step 3: Act shocked that step 2 happened.
Step 4: Cut out so called 'non essential' services and begin to ration everything else.

Maybe we can skip to the end.

FUD

:cookie:

Yawn. I guess the same taxes on the 'rich' that are paying for greenery and closing the deficit and the 'down payment' on healthcare can cover spiraling costs too!
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
The part that scares me more is how people will argue against what's best for them as well. I don't want government-run healthcare. I've spoken to people about benefits in general, including on here, and people try and make the same lame arguments. It's always "for the best of the company." Sure, I want my employer to survive -- I need the job -- but what if you're barely being provided for? Benefits keep getting cut to the point of them being useless.

Of course, you have the issue of addressing all of the superfluous costs associated with healthcare though. I don't believe in the benevolence of companies though, so even if some of the ills of healthcare are taken care of, I doubt the cost reductions will be passed on to you.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
I think they only way to do it is to force everyone to have health care of some sort. Corporations will not tolerate premiums going up every year 10%+ at the point when employees will refuse to pay so much more each year.

I think what people mis-understand is that the un-insured number is 50 million people who DONT pay into the system and use things like emergency rooms etc. and that drives the costs up for everyone.

A public / private system is the best way to go IMHO. Look at Switzerland, they are the only country that went from a 100% private syatem to a public/private system.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: winnar111
Step 1: Spent $600 billion on health care
Step 2: Find out actual costs are about 4x as much.
Step 3: Act shocked that step 2 happened.
Step 4: Cut out so called 'non essential' services and begin to ration everything else.

Maybe we can skip to the end.

So true it's sad. This is how it's worked in every other socialized healthcare system. Yet somehow nobody listens to this fact.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
If the government is paying for my healthcare, does that mean they dictate what kind of workout lifestyle I can and cannot have? Does it mean they're going to charge me more because I choose to do my cardio through sprints rather than jogging (wear on knees+huge oxidative load) or swimming (huge oxidative load)? Does it mean they'll say I can't drink beer? Does it mean I can't smoke my pipe once per month?

If the government is paying for these things then it is obligated to the taxpayer to make sure everybody is living their life correctly. Of course this will involve things like drinking and smoking and won't involve things like being fat, because there are a ton of fat people.
Bam, loss of freedom; it isn't hard to see how it will happen.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,890
55,160
136
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
If the government is paying for my healthcare, does that mean they dictate what kind of workout lifestyle I can and cannot have? Does it mean they're going to charge me more because I choose to do my cardio through sprints rather than jogging (wear on knees+huge oxidative load) or swimming (huge oxidative load)? Does it mean they'll say I can't drink beer? Does it mean I can't smoke my pipe once per month?

If the government is paying for these things then it is obligated to the taxpayer to make sure everybody is living their life correctly. Of course this will involve things like drinking and smoking and won't involve things like being fat, because there are a ton of fat people.
Bam, loss of freedom; it isn't hard to see how it will happen.

/facepalm
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: winnar111
Step 1: Spent $600 billion on health care
Step 2: Find out actual costs are about 4x as much.
Step 3: Act shocked that step 2 happened.
Step 4: Cut out so called 'non essential' services and begin to ration everything else.

Maybe we can skip to the end.

So true it's sad. This is how it's worked in every other socialized healthcare system. Yet somehow nobody listens to this fact.

Yet, every other 1st world socialized health care system cost half as much per capita than ours does, and they provide for EVERYONE whereas we leave out 50+ million

Funny how that works.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: winnar111
Step 1: Spent $600 billion on health care
Step 2: Find out actual costs are about 4x as much.
Step 3: Act shocked that step 2 happened.
Step 4: Cut out so called 'non essential' services and begin to ration everything else.

Maybe we can skip to the end.

So true it's sad. This is how it's worked in every other socialized healthcare system. Yet somehow nobody listens to this fact.

Yet, every other 1st world socialized health care system cost half as much per capita than ours does, and they provide for EVERYONE whereas we leave out 50+ million

Funny how that works.


That is why it starts at home by leading healthier lifestyles. Until that happens the system will be broke. It is just not providers or insurance companies that are the problem. We need to work on reforming all 3. Get the cost of insurance down where more people can afford it.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
If the government is paying for my healthcare, does that mean they dictate what kind of workout lifestyle I can and cannot have? Does it mean they're going to charge me more because I choose to do my cardio through sprints rather than jogging (wear on knees+huge oxidative load) or swimming (huge oxidative load)? Does it mean they'll say I can't drink beer? Does it mean I can't smoke my pipe once per month?

If the government is paying for these things then it is obligated to the taxpayer to make sure everybody is living their life correctly. Of course this will involve things like drinking and smoking and won't involve things like being fat, because there are a ton of fat people.
Bam, loss of freedom; it isn't hard to see how it will happen.

You are such a child.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
If the government is paying for my healthcare, does that mean they dictate what kind of workout lifestyle I can and cannot have? Does it mean they're going to charge me more because I choose to do my cardio through sprints rather than jogging (wear on knees+huge oxidative load) or swimming (huge oxidative load)? Does it mean they'll say I can't drink beer? Does it mean I can't smoke my pipe once per month?

If the government is paying for these things then it is obligated to the taxpayer to make sure everybody is living their life correctly. Of course this will involve things like drinking and smoking and won't involve things like being fat, because there are a ton of fat people.
Bam, loss of freedom; it isn't hard to see how it will happen.

You are such a child.

I don't know, sounds like there is some merit in his post. How about saying "why" you think he is a child instead of just simply calling him one.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
If the government is paying for my healthcare, does that mean they dictate what kind of workout lifestyle I can and cannot have? Does it mean they're going to charge me more because I choose to do my cardio through sprints rather than jogging (wear on knees+huge oxidative load) or swimming (huge oxidative load)? Does it mean they'll say I can't drink beer? Does it mean I can't smoke my pipe once per month?

If the government is paying for these things then it is obligated to the taxpayer to make sure everybody is living their life correctly. Of course this will involve things like drinking and smoking and won't involve things like being fat, because there are a ton of fat people.
Bam, loss of freedom; it isn't hard to see how it will happen.

You are such a child.

I don't know, sounds like there is some merit in his post. How about saying "why" you think he is a child instead of just simply calling him one.

He's a child because he is thinking of some weird Orwellian 1984 future and applying it to UHC.

I could say hes a fucking idiot. I was being nice.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: quest55720
That is why it starts at home by leading healthier lifestyles. Until that happens the system will be broke.

And how exactly can that be fixed? Massive taxes on twinkies? Arresting people for being too fat? No, but seriously, you can't force people to be healthier. Right?