Some of them are uninsured, Foro. Some people just don't see it as a right.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
So, why would I spend the time and money to go to college for 4-5 years, go to medical school for another 4 years, do my internship and residency for another 2-3 years, if I can't make money as a doctor? Why would I invest hundreds of millions of dollars in building a state-of-the-art hospital if I can't run it as a business and get a profit? Do we trust Congress or state legislatures to allocate those resources efficiently?Forostar said:
Here's a modest proposal: If you don't have health insurance, and you get sick, you can't get ANY treatment. Even emergency rooms won't treat you. You may die. Do you think more people would buy -- and more companies might offer -- health insurance if that were the rule?
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
No, I'm not seriously advocating my proposal. But, it is worthy of thought -- why don't more Americans buy health insurance? Is it because they don't think it's necessary? Is it that they simply can't afford it, or are unwilling to sacrifice elsewhere to free up the money to buy it? If there is tremendous demand for low-premium private health care, why hasn't the private sector stepped up and offered budget health insurance? I can buy insurance for almost anything. Even shitty drivers can -- and do -- get cheap car insurance. So, why has the market failed? Has the market failed at all? Or, has something from the outside (like, ahem, government) impaired the market from functioning efficiently? I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions, but I do think that, if people think they'll get something for free, they may be less likely to pay for it.Perun said:
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Forostar said:
That is the one area -- perhaps the ONLY area -- where I think government intervention is probably needed. Children should be relatively cheap to insure -- they're generally pretty healthy, compared to the rest of us -- and it's not the child's fault that the parent is irresponsible.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Forostar said:
More gov't involvement would make it worse in my view.
Forostar said:
You're NOT an American. It is NOT for you to decide how the issue is to be resolved. The same is true for me. However, I have more at stake than you since I'm their neighbour. Even though the chances are fairly small, I just might have to rely on American healthcare one day if my gov't tells me that they cannot help me in due time.
Forostar said:
Read the following please: http://www.iedm.org/uploaded/pdf/juin05_en.pdf
Forostar said:
A doctor's choice of how much to work, how much to charge, how often to provide charitable help can also be viewed as a fundamental human right.
cornfedhick said:
Thank you. I'm glad somone is NOT afraid to say it. I'm also willing to assume that you're not saying this cynically, as I'm not trying to be cynical in any of my comments.
cornfedhick said:
This is my understanding of USA medicine, as well. But, I have no personal experience. I belive there is a US Law (I don't feel like looking it up) where a person in immediate mortal danger must be helped even if they're not a USA citizen. (Something most Canadians do not know or do not care to remember). This law is how it should be and I do not think that contradicts my answer to Foro's issue of morality.
LooseCannon said:
Placing further burdens on doctors won't encourage more to join the field. There is a reason why "brain drain" is an issue in Canada and UK when it comes to doctors. No professional likes to be told on how to do their job particularly the know-it-all governments.
Forostar said:
And about this uninsured business. Most of those 45 mil. or 15% are uninsured less than a full year and most of those are the ones who are unemployed or their whole family is unemployed. The answer in these situations, as I said before, is compassionate charity not government edicts.
EDIT: Some spelling mistakes.
Genghis Khan said:
What is particularly interesting in that leaflet is figure 1: Oh-so-advanced Germany spends most in public health care, yet you are required to pay a fee of ten Euros every three months. That doesn't sound like much, but two things should be put into consideration: First, given that public health insurance is ultimately paid by tax-payers, that is pretty outrageous, and a clear statement that the government is unable to sustain it the way it is. Second, those who need free health care the most - such as chronically ill unemployed - pay the most, but can afford it the least. Is that fair? Is that social justice? Is that in any way better than what is happening in the US? No, because in the US, those people can actually choose to rely on free charity health care (as described in the leaflet) - in Germany, they can't. And that is where the freedom issue kicks in.
EDIT: I forgot to mention, those mandatory ten Euros every three months are individual for each surgery you visit, i.e. you pay ten Euros for your normal doctor, ten Euros for the dentist, ten Euros for the physiotherapist and so on. And all of the sudden it isn't that little anymore, unemployed people have to pay up to 80 Euros before they get state coverage. 80 Euros in three months is a lot for an unemployed, poor person in Germany. Statistical analysis has indeed shown that consultations have been reduced by nearly 10% since the law was introduced in 2004. Now riddle me this: Should you go see your doctor once too often or once too little?
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
cornfedhick said:
Great point. Let's not forget -- and no one has answered this for me yet -- if the current US health system is so free-enterprise, free-market, why is the government spending more money on health care than any other nation in the world and why does it have "60%" of its paws into the health care?
Perun said:
Wow! Germany too. Three Canadian provinces including British Columbia have the exact same issue.
And Germany always likes to claim it has the most advanced health care in the world. I can seriously only laugh at that. Judging by that leaflet you posted, I'd rather be seriously ill in America than in Germany. Not because of the ten Euro fee, I can pay that. But because you get inferior treatment when you're on government health care. And most Germans are.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Perun said:
Canadians have the same superiority (snub your noses to Americans) when it comes to health care. The father of Canadian health care, Thomas Douglas, was voted in a national poll as the best Canadian that lived. That's sad. (I don't want to say what I really think about that).
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Genghis Khan said:
Unemployed people (should) have the same basic rights as people with a job.
I read the 4 year old article. Now read this, please:
-------
Low-Income Adults Under Age 65 — Many are Poor, Sick, and Uninsured (June, 2009)
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7914.pdf
Overview:
Low-income adults under the age of 65 are more likely to have poor health, but are the least likely
to have health insurance coverage, and in turn, have the poorest access to health care. This policy
brief focuses specifically on the low-income adult population, a group of over 50 million who are at
high risk of losing their health insurance coverage or are already uninsured.
■ Nearly a third of adults under the age of 65 are from low-income families (<200% of the
poverty level). Fifteen percent of nonelderly adults live in poverty.
■ The chances of being healthy decline with income. One in five (19%) of poor adults
describe their general health as being only fair or poor. One in seven poor adults have
only fair or poor mental health.
■ Compared to higher income adults, poor and near-poor adults are younger, not as well
educated, less likely to have full-time workers in their family, and more likely to be a racial
or ethnic minority—many factors that contribute to their greater risk of being uninsured.
■ Almost half (45%) of poor adults are uninsured.
■ Poor adults with Medicaid coverage are different from the poor who have private
insurance, including their health. They have more chronic health problems, more work
limitations because of their health, and have poorer health in general.
■ Compared to low-income parents with dependents, childless adults as a group are older
and more likely to be living with more than one chronic condition to manage.
■ The uninsured have far less access to care than either the privately or publicly insured.
Among the low-income, levels of access to care among adults covered by Medicaid and
the privately insured are comparable.
Poor and near-poor adults are less likely to have health insurance coverage than others because
they often work in low-wage jobs where health benefits are often not offered or are unaffordable.
However, their need for health insurance may be even greater since they are also less healthy than
others. The Medicaid program has limited coverage for adults, unless they are very poor parents
with dependent children, pregnant or disabled - leaving large shares of poor and near-poor adults
uninsured, while having greater needs for affordable care than others.
-------
To me it shows that a lot of things have to change, to make things more fair for everyone.
Genghis Khan said:
It is not the best way, believe me. They are people with the same health problems as you and me. Having a job has nothing to do with healthcare. It should have nothing to do with it. If people want to connect these matters, they discriminate unemployed people. Let everyone play by the same rules. An obligation for insurers to accept all patients helps. Young, old, healthy, sick, it shouldn't matter, everyone is equal.
And to only provide help when someone is in mortal danger is not enough. Normal decent healthcare (chemo-therapies included), that's what this subject is about. That's how to treat humans in a humane way. You don't only give charity to people with cancer, you give them treatment. And poor people ought to get the same chance for recovery as millionaires.
Perun said:
In the Netherlands the standard monthly premium for health care paid by individual adults is about €100 per month. Persons on low incomes can get assistance from the government if they cannot afford these payments.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Here is a recent NYTimes article on the proposed health care legislation. The notion that middle-class Americans will be spending 13% of their income on health insurance premiums is shocking.
Baucus Releases Senate Health Care Proposal
By DAVID HERSZENHORN
It’s out.
The much-ballyhooed, long-wrangled-over Baucus health care proposal , which meets many of the requirements President Obama has laid out for remaking an industry that accounts for about one-sixth of the American economy, is now public. Only to be wrangled over some more.
The proposal is the result of more than a year of preparation and more than three months of intense negotiations between a small group of Democrats and Republicans led by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
The first surprise in the Baucus plan: a slimmed down price-tag of $856 billion over 10 years. Earlier versions of the health care legislation had come in costing $1 trillion or more. But stay tuned for a close look at the fine print; Congressional budget-scoring is often as much art as science.
Another number to watch: 13 percent. That’s the share of family income that the Baucus plan envisions middle-class American families having to pay in health insurance premiums before co-payments, deductibles and other cost-sharing.
And senators in both parties are questioning whether, at the end of the day, insurance will be affordable to the people who need it most — perhaps the single most crucial question for all of the health care overhaul proposals.
The Baucus bill seeks to extend health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured American citizens. To do so, it would broadly expand Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, and provide government subsidies to modest-income individuals and families to help them buy coverage.
The bill would also create new, state insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, where consumers could shop for insurance and compare plans.
All of the insurance plans in the exchange would have to meet strict new government requirements. Insurance companies could not bar coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, and could only increase the cost of premiums based on a small number of factors, like age, tobacco use and whether a plan is for an individual or a family.
Stay with Prescriptions throughout today as we bring you the latest developments, including a news conference with Mr. Baucus at noon.
Baucus Releases Senate Health Care Proposal
By DAVID HERSZENHORN
It’s out.
The much-ballyhooed, long-wrangled-over Baucus health care proposal , which meets many of the requirements President Obama has laid out for remaking an industry that accounts for about one-sixth of the American economy, is now public. Only to be wrangled over some more.
The proposal is the result of more than a year of preparation and more than three months of intense negotiations between a small group of Democrats and Republicans led by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
The first surprise in the Baucus plan: a slimmed down price-tag of $856 billion over 10 years. Earlier versions of the health care legislation had come in costing $1 trillion or more. But stay tuned for a close look at the fine print; Congressional budget-scoring is often as much art as science.
Another number to watch: 13 percent. That’s the share of family income that the Baucus plan envisions middle-class American families having to pay in health insurance premiums before co-payments, deductibles and other cost-sharing.
And senators in both parties are questioning whether, at the end of the day, insurance will be affordable to the people who need it most — perhaps the single most crucial question for all of the health care overhaul proposals.
The Baucus bill seeks to extend health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured American citizens. To do so, it would broadly expand Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, and provide government subsidies to modest-income individuals and families to help them buy coverage.
The bill would also create new, state insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, where consumers could shop for insurance and compare plans.
All of the insurance plans in the exchange would have to meet strict new government requirements. Insurance companies could not bar coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, and could only increase the cost of premiums based on a small number of factors, like age, tobacco use and whether a plan is for an individual or a family.
Stay with Prescriptions throughout today as we bring you the latest developments, including a news conference with Mr. Baucus at noon.
@Foro, I kinda glanced through the info you have there. One thing that I didn't notice (tho i will re-read in greater deatail) was the medicade program. I know for a fact that, at least in the Iowa/Illinois area, the states provide total health coverage for people below the poverty level. I know people that have always been on it, and has never cost them a dime for any medical stuff.
I know, personally, of people that were covered totally for childbirth, broken bones, hearing loss, glasses & eyecare, speach therapy, and routine physicals. Oh, dental as well. Now, there is a 'status' that goes with this health care, most people don't want to be on it, because it means they can't provide for themselves. Also, you can't choose which doctor you want, you must take whomever the state pays for. This can usually be just fine, but on occasion, you get a pretty piss poor doctor. but it is there.
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
Good point, my friend.LooseCannon said:
8 years of Republican rule has de -regulated alot of shit that should be heavily regulated, like utilities and healthcare. But my point is that companies like Pfizer, Glaxo-Smith Klein and Kaiser Permamente have deep, deep pockets. The HMO's and other carriers are'nt going to be the big opponent. Their days are pretty much over because all the money is going into Pharmacutical Corporations. When you have ChemoTherapy drugs that are $5000 USD a pop and some poor soul needs 20 or so doses to have a chance of staying alive, then they have us by the balls and they are'nt afraid to squeeze. It seems everyone here in the States is on medication for something.
Foro, I think every state here has some insurance for the poor. The basic medical such as routine exams, prescriptions, emergency room visits and most surgical procedures are covered pretty good. But other services like eyeglasses and dental visits are'nt as accessable.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
MisterAJ said:
She obviously sounds uneducated. You don't attack a policy by commiting in essance Godwin's Law in person.