USA Politics

It's much more complex than even that.  There are several methods of doing health care and the US can't decide which one it wants.

1. Government-run healthcare, like NHS in the UK.
2. Government-run health insurance as the only option, like Medicare in Canada.
3. Privately-run but publicly subsidized and regulated insurance, like in Switzerland.
4. Privately-run insurance, like in the USA.
5. Privately-run insurance with a competing government option, as some current officials have suggested.

So, what some liberals want is option 1 or 2, or at least option 5.  What Obama seems to favour is moving towards option 3.  All we know is that option 4 is a huge fucking mess.
 
LooseCannon said:
So, what some liberals want is option 1 or 2, or at least option 5.  What Obama seems to favour is moving towards option 3.  All we know is that option 4 is a huge fucking mess.
Click to expand...

How can you be sure, if the article Foro pulled says that already 60% of health care is publicly funded?  What is sounds more like is that option 4 does not even exist.  What is typical in mixed economies in any field, one side always blames the other for the problems.

I'm no expert in this issue, especially since I don't live in the States.  What I do know is that Ontario's health care is painfully slow in treatment and wait times; and the more serious the disease the slower it is because there are less doctors available.  There is a reason why seriously ill patients are asked to get the work done in the States, where the patient pays fully in the US and later gets reimbursed by the Canadian government.  I do not know how often this occurs, but I know there is research out there and the latest word I read agreed that it happens more than it should. 

Recently, in order to fight Obama's proposed health care policy, a local woman from suburban Hamilton (Shona Holmes) has been advertised as a poster girl by the US conservatives as an example of Canadian-style health care.  The gist of the story is the following.  She had a major medical condition that she claims would have killed her had she waited in Ontario.  She went to Arizona to get it done.  The US doctors said she needed to get it done.  The Canadian public claims knowledge that the Canadian doctors were right in that she could have waited.  I have not heard a comment from the Canadian doctors, but it would be nice to know their side of the story.  At any rate, her name is mud today judging by the number of angry calls she's received and judging by editorials.

You see folks, we Canadians, at least here in Ontario, treat our health care as a most precious religion and irrationally strike out against anyone who may have negative things to say about it to outsiders.  Criticisms in papers by local media is one thing, but to reveal that our so-called perfect health care is a mess to outsiders (especially to Americans) is a sin.  A sin that requires an outrage of a most brutal retort.  So when we see a newspaper cartoon of a skeleton complete with spider webs in an Ontario doctor's waiting room, we can chuckle amongst ourselves.  Humour is useful as it diminishes the gravity of an isssue.  However, when an American criticizes our health care we can accuse him or her of having health care that serves only the rich.

I know American health care has its problems, but I wonder if the suggestions implemented by the "oponents" in Foro's Wiki article were allowed, if the story would be different.  Like I said I cannot know for sure the problems with health care in USA, only the problems in Ontario.

Personally too!  As I mentioned when I came back to IMF after my six month absence, my wife had a recent health scare.  One night we spent four and a half hours at a hospital waiting to be seen by a doctor.  She had major stomach pains and she was ignored.  We could not even get a hospital bed to let her lie on in order to eleviate her pain.  Eventually we found out that she had a kidney infection and a double pneumonia.   :mad:

Don't get me wrong.  I do not blame our doctors; I know they work hard. 

When I read in papers that Americans are protesting Obama-styled health care, I cannot help but wonder that they're doing the right thing.  The fact that many Americans are uninsured is sad and should be solved, but in my experience, I cannot see how more tax funded monies would help.
 
Yeah, GK, but you need to remember that our health care system, flawed as it is (and it is indeed a flawed system), is significantly better than the uninsured Americans have.  The story your wife had could be far worse in the US - people die in emergency rooms every year because of denied care, when they have doctors providing personal care to rich people who don't need it.

But while you have had a bad experience, as have I, as have many of us - the end result is that when my dad was in a car crash, and when he had an extreme case of cellulosis, the hospitals were there, and we walked away without a bill.  It's one of the most ridiculous ideas in the US.

Here's the problem with the American system: most insurance companies don't cover people fully.  They have a maximum payout per year and per person, meaning that if you're too sick, you get cut off.  That'd never happen in the Canadian system, or at least, very rare and with new and untested drugs and treatments.

Ontario, of course, is hugely in debt right now due to their lack of money and jobs, but that won't last forever.  The Canadian system, though, evens out over time, and gets better.  And if we had more doctors (where the real focus should be) we'd be even better.  And in Nova Scotia it is getting better, as they encourage more young doctors to stay in Canada before heading south to make their fortune off the flawed US system.
 
LC, the problems in Ontario are not recent and while the economic recession will certainly not make it better, I get the feeling that regardless of the economy the debt will keep rising.  The growing population will further add more burden. 

Most of the innovations are due to private funding, at least in Hamilton.  In the next two to three years two new medical buildings will go into Hamilton all due to private funding.  One is a renewed hospital and the other a major medical research facility.  (Hamilton Health Sciences have been the top employer in town over the last decade or so, but this is even more evident now that the steel mills are idle or working at half the capacity).  Compassion and philantrophy seem to be better benchmarks for how well our health care system is doing. 

This reminds me, I hear all the time of rich Americans donating charitable funds to universities or the poor in Africa.  Does anyone know, our local Americans in particular, if any such donations exist for the 45 mil. (right stat???) uninsured for health insurance in USA.
 
The problem with private money coming in that you run the risk of creating a two-tier system.  Which is rather similar to the US system - if you can afford to pay for health care, you get the best doctors who have time for you.  It might help a small percentage of people who have the cash-money, but most of us saps would be stuck with even less doctors.  Scares me.
 
Hmm, looks like there's a psychological factor among opponents. Afraid of the unknown, even though it cannot be known in advance if the reforming won't improve things.

I wonder, if people don't like the present situation, why should they think the future won't improve?
Should they let themselves be Caught Somewhere in Time? ;)
 
LooseCannon said:
The problem with private money coming in that you run the risk of creating a two-tier system.  Which is rather similar to the US system - if you can afford to pay for health care, you get the best doctors who have time for you.  It might help a small percentage of people who have the cash-money, but most of us saps would be stuck with even less doctors.  Scares me.
Click to expand...

I don't see why there would be even less doctors.  The fact is the private health care has never been attempted.  Perhaps there needs to be some fiddling around with the insurance companies to ensure a fair system.  I don't know as we don't have this issue in Canada.

Alberta is considering just this two-tier system.


Forostar said:
Hmm, looks like there's a psychological factor among opponents. Afraid of the unknown, even though it cannot be known in advance if the reforming won't improve things.

I wonder, if people don't like the present situation, why should they think the future won't improve?
Should they let themselves be Caught Somewhere in Time? ;)
Click to expand...

The same arguement could be used from the other point of view.

Ultimately, the decision will be made on confidence or lack thereof, i.e. which system do most people feel confident with?  So yes, fear or the unknown always plays a role in a situation like this.  ;)
 
There is too much money being made in our current healthcare system for it to be changed. Take a look at how much a drug costs here in the States, then look at how much the same drug costs in other countries. You have pharmacutical reps paying bonuses to physicians to perscribe them, the drug companies pushing new drugs that have'nt been tested enough through the FDA and saturation advertisement in the media. That is the root of our healthcare crisis right now. Ten years ago it was health management organizations providing coverage for a profit. that has been overshadowed theses days by pharmacutical corporations developing new drugs and pushing the ones that are already out to make a fortune for themselves and thier shareholders. The reason used to be to find a cure for diseases like cancer, diabetes or HIV. Now it is to develop products to make a profit. Until the president addresses this fundamental issue, his plan will go no where and if by some miracle it gets put into effect, it will be a clusterfuck of epic porportions. The government here can't even get a national ID card through the various Motor Vehicle Branches, what makes them think they can revamp the healthcare system?
 
It's easier than it sounds.  Health care isn't controlled by governments, but by corporations who can be regulated.  Extreme regulation would be harsh, and might force some HMOs out of business - and good.  Fuck 'em.  Hate the goddamn things, they're evil.
 
Genghis Khan said:
The same arguement could be used from the other point of view.
Click to expand...

Nope. People who have the urge to change things because they want to see improvement are not afraid of the unknown.
 
Derek Smalls said:
...You have pharmacutical reps paying bonuses to physicians to perscribe them, the drug companies pushing new drugs that have'nt been tested enough through the FDA and saturation advertisement in the media. That is the root of our healthcare crisis right now....
Click to expand...

This reminds me of what I've seen on TV lately. YAZ or Yazmin, a kinda new birth control pill has been "pushed" for about a year now. The original add had a group of girlfriends discussing it. Now, the know-it-all of the group has gone solo and is now saying "The FDA wants us to clarify a few things about YAZ," and goes on to say the specific cases in which it is to be used. On the other hand, a law firm is putting out their own ads that if you or a friend has suffered any severe side effects like blood clots and death (yes death is a SIDE EFFECT) from taking YAZ that you have a right to sue....

Yay for drugs and laws!
 
Forostar said:
Nope. People who have the urge to change things because they want to see improvement are not afraid of the unknown.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood.  The pro-gov side is afraid of what less gov involvement would do.

Onhell said:
This reminds me of what I've seen on TV lately. YAZ or Yazmin, a kinda new birth control pill has been "pushed" for about a year now. The original add had a group of girlfriends discussing it. Now, the know-it-all of the group has gone solo and is now saying "The FDA wants us to clarify a few things about YAZ," and goes on to say the specific cases in which it is to be used. On the other hand, a law firm is putting out their own ads that if you or a friend has suffered any severe side effects like blood clots and death (yes death is a SIDE EFFECT) from taking YAZ that you have a right to sue....

Yay for drugs and laws!
Click to expand...

Good let them get sued.  If the drug company did not put forth a strenuous enough research to see how it would affect patients or follow FDA code, they're likely to be sued.
 
There are people in America who don't want the state to tell them what to do. That includes things they would benefit from, such as health care. They prefer freedom of choice over state insurance. It may be hard for a European to understand or even believe, but that is how it is.
 
There are people in America who only like the state when they have to pay less taxes.
There are people in America who could live more modest.
There are people in America who ... [censored]

Alright, back to the people.

What do we think of this rather fundamental issue:

· In most cases, people have little influence on whether or not they will contract an illness. Consequently, illness may be viewed as a fundamental part of what it means to be human and, as such, access to treatment for illness should be based on acknowledgement of the human condition, not the ability to pay or entitlement. Therefore, health care may be viewed as a fundamental human right itself or as an extension of the right to life.

And Genghis: I am still curious, would you explain to me how less government control will improve matters? E.g. How will it help all those uninsured people? Will there be more corrpution? Less? How do you see that? I am not trying to win an argument, I just don't have a clue, so help me out.
 
Derek Smalls said:
The reason used to be to find a cure for diseases like cancer, diabetes or HIV. Now it is to develop products to make a profit.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense.  Why did companies invest millions in developing HIV, diabetes and cancer drugs?  To make a profit. 

Perun said:
There are people in America who don't want the state to tell them what to do. That includes things they would benefit from, such as health care. They prefer freedom of choice over state insurance. It may be hard for a European to understand or even believe, but that is how it is.
Click to expand...

That's part of it.  The other part is that government agencies are, with a few noteworthy exceptions, largely ineffectual.  Derek Smalls (who played bass, not lead guitar, btw) got this part right: Anyone who thinks the government can run ANYTHING competently should visit their local DMV.  Plus, there is an inherent distrust that governments are corrupt.  "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," and all that.  Read Orwell, people. 

Let's be clear:  Companies operate to make a profit.  Government entities operate to protect and extend their own power.  Neither operates out of altruism -- only charities do that, and some of those are really just glorified tax shelters. 
LooseCannon said:
in the US - people die in emergency rooms every year because of denied care
Click to expand...
One of my best friends is an emergency room doctor.  While I cannot speak for every single hospital, as a general rule, emergency rooms do not deny care in acute, life-threatening cases.  Will you get chemotherapy without insurance?  No.  Will you have a gunshot wound, dangerously high fever or other serious injury treated? Yes, absolutely. 
 
No, you're right there.  They generally don't - but overworked doctors or overflowing emergency rooms don't always see people who have somewhat hidden symptoms.

And I just got back from the DMV, or the Nova Scotian equivalent.  Not too bad today.
 
People who work in the healthcare sector should not be seen as business people. A hospital is not a company.
It's a service. More than that: a right.
 
Forostar said:
People who work in the healthcare sector should not be seen as business people. A hospital is not a company.
It's a service. More than that: a right.
Click to expand...

Some Americans disagree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top