djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2012 10:51:04 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-global-health-reform-20120512,0,4695600.story terrific story on how and why countries are pushing for universal healthcare. interestingly, it is done for sound economic reasons, not just because it is something people want. we used to lead. now we follow. sad. Chinese leaders were concerned their citizens were saving excessively because there was no system to protect them if they got seriously ill, said Yanzhong Huang, director of the Center for Global Health Studies at Seton Hall University. The high savings rate was restraining domestic demand for consumer items, making the economy overly dependent on selling goods abroad.
In Mexico, political leaders were alarmed to see that poor families were often forced to pull a child out of school or to give up productive assets such as livestock or equipment to pay medical bills, said Frenk, the former health minister.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 10:55:12 GMT -5
Your link doesn't work, but the text you posted doesn't necessarily point to universal healthcare as the best solution, does it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2012 11:03:14 GMT -5
Your link doesn't work, but the text you posted doesn't necessarily point to universal healthcare as the best solution, does it? thanks for the tip on the link, IB. i don't know what you mean by "best solution". they are point out a number of problems with private healthcare in the article. most have to do with financial insecurity of the citizenry. if citizens are financially insecure, they behave in a way that is counterproductive to growth and prosperity. if we CARE about those things, then it is pretty clear that UHC helps take care of those problems. what i am forced to conclude from that is that we don't care about those things. and when i say "we", i mean TPTB, not average citizens. this is, after all, a republic.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 11:12:58 GMT -5
Well, like i said, I didn't read the article as the link didn't work.
But if the issue was financial security, that would seem to suggest that they didn't have access to any sort of insurance. Whether it's UHC paid via increased taxes or insurance paid directly, that tends to address the financial insecurity. So yes, UHC is better than nothing, and insurnace is better than nothing. The question is, which is better?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2012 11:18:36 GMT -5
Well, like i said, I didn't read the article as the link didn't work. i reinserted it, ib. did you click it again?But if the issue was financial security, that would seem to suggest that they didn't have access to any sort of insurance. Whether it's UHC paid via increased taxes or insurance paid directly, that tends to address the financial insecurity. So yes, UHC is better than nothing, and insurnace is better than nothing. The question is, which is better? here is the thing, ib. weird health stuff happens. people may gamble on their health thinking that nothing will go wrong to make economic decisions such as sending a kid to school or buying a house. when they are diagnosed with a rare form of cancer at 34, their life is destroyed, and they lose everything. this benefits nobody. it does not benefit them, obviously. it doesn't benefit their family, which is thrown into chaos and ruin. it doesn't benefit anyone connected with them, who may have relied on their work or friendship. and it doesn't benefit society as a whole, who in a "there but for the grace of god go i" mode, will pull money out of the economy to preserve themselves against such a possibility. what makes you think that any of these things would NOT be fixed by UHC?
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on May 12, 2012 11:24:11 GMT -5
Speaking from experience of having been involved in the healthcare business here and abroad, not all but many countries I found the health care provided to be quite primitive and behind the times. We need a better path to provide health care for all citizens at an affordable way here. But looking at other countries unless wealthy there is no health care for many at all. We could improve our own but we are still miles ahead in new developments and availibility than some places.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2012 11:32:43 GMT -5
Speaking from experience of having been involved in the healthcare business here and abroad, not all but many countries I found the health care provided to be quite primitive and behind the times. We need a better path to provide health care for all citizens at an affordable way here. But looking at other countries unless wealthy there is no health care for many at all. We could improve our own but we are still miles ahead in new developments and availibility than some places. availability is not really the issue. our delivery systems are awesome. the issue is affordability. the issue is whether insurance is adequate and affordable. the issue is healthcare costing 2x what it does in these "inferior" systems. and the issue is what impact being one accident away from bankruptcy has on a nation's citizens. our system addresses NONE of those things.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2012 11:36:32 GMT -5
personal anecdote. when my son was born, he had a respiratory problem, and spent three days in Emergency. the MONTH he was born, our insurance carrier "switched us" into a "lower cost plan" because the plan that we had was "obsoleted". this change meant that rather that costing us about $1,500, my son's difficulties cost us $8,000.
now, i have that kind of money. it was not an issue for me. but i started to think about what one of my employees, or the clerk at the grocery store, or anybody with an income that falls into the lower 50%, would have done under similar circumstances. and all i could think of was "declare bankruptcy".
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 12, 2012 11:37:37 GMT -5
I've always heard (I'm no expert on insurance, certainly) that insurance becomes less expensive as the number of people you have enrolled with that particular insurance provider grows. Why, then, would it not be true that insurance would be less expensive for the individual if all people were enrolled with the same provider?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2012 11:43:49 GMT -5
I've always heard (I'm no expert on insurance, certainly) that insurance becomes less expensive as the number of people you have enrolled with that particular insurance provider grows. Why, then, would it not be true that insurance would be less expensive for the individual if all people were enrolled with the same provider? precisely. just being a pure ruthless capitalist, if i want the best deal on my insurance, i join the largest group with the most clout. if i have every insured person in my group, we can beat the crap out of insurance companies, to the point where they are barely making any money- which is precisely where i want them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 12:52:58 GMT -5
"what makes you think that any of these things would NOT be fixed by UHC?"
They probably would be fixed. I just said I don't think it's the best way to fix it.
Thanks for fixing the link. Reading through it, it didn't seem like all the countries were implementing gov't run (and funded) healthcare. Although the gov'ts all did seem to be highly involved. I could certainly envision scenarios where increased gov't involvement would help, but not necessarily taking over or doing the dumb stuff that Obamacare is doing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 12:54:53 GMT -5
"Why, then, would it not be true that insurance would be less expensive for the individual if all people were enrolled with the same provider?"
Look to any other industry for your answer. Big oil companies, big agriculture companies, big car companies, big retailers mean more efficient operations that help keep costs down for the consumer. However, imagine the only store you could go to was Walmart. All others are put out of buisness by the gov't. Would the results be good or bad?
Do you think private, for-profit insurance companies would ever have tollerated 25% of their payouts going to fraud like the gov't has done with Medicare and other programs? Imagine what condition those programs would be in if fraud had been reduced by $200B over the past 10yrs. Maybe the programs wouldn't be 100% over budget. But hey, it's the gov't, so who cares? It's a lot easier to just borrow more money. Nobody believes private monopolies are good. A gov't monopoly isn't going to be any better.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on May 12, 2012 13:18:06 GMT -5
To err is human... To really screw things up requires government involvement...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2012 13:19:32 GMT -5
"what makes you think that any of these things would NOT be fixed by UHC?" They probably would be fixed. I just said I don't think it's the best way to fix it. Thanks for fixing the link. Reading through it, it didn't seem like all the countries were implementing gov't run (and funded) healthcare. Although the gov'ts all did seem to be highly involved. I could certainly envision scenarios where increased gov't involvement would help, but not necessarily taking over or doing the dumb stuff that Obamacare is doing. what dumb stuff?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2012 13:28:43 GMT -5
"Why, then, would it not be true that insurance would be less expensive for the individual if all people were enrolled with the same provider?" Look to any other industry for your answer. Big oil companies, big agriculture companies, big car companies, big retailers mean more efficient operations that help keep costs down for the consumer. this is absolutely not the case for healthcare, though. our publically funded options in the US are far less expensive than the private counterparts. and this is not unique to the US. the same is true in France. However, imagine the only store you could go to was Walmart. All others are put out of buisness by the gov't. Would the results be good or bad? ironic example. WalMart openly advocates UHC.Do you think private, for-profit insurance companies would ever have tollerated 25% of their payouts going to fraud like the gov't has done with Medicare and other programs? probably not. but they would certainly tolerate spending 25% of their revenue on advertizing and administration. is that really better?Imagine what condition those programs would be in if fraud had been reduced by $200B over the past 10yrs. Maybe the programs wouldn't be 100% over budget. But hey, it's the gov't, so who cares? It's a lot easier to just borrow more money. Nobody believes private monopolies are good. A gov't monopoly isn't going to be any better. of course it is. the danger of a monopoly is that they can dictate prices absolutely. when a representative government is the monopoly, they are also in charge of pricing. since it makes no sense to gouge oneself (although i hear some people are into that sort of thing), it is way way better in that very important sense.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 12, 2012 13:37:14 GMT -5
To me, there's a vast difference between selling widgets (whether at the wholesale, or retail end) and providing for healthcare. There's a big difference between making those widgets for consumption and dying of consumption. While I'll agree that efficiency needs to be a top priority, and hasn't been to date, that still doesn't answer the question. There's no doubt that having one provider for all can reduce costs to the individual. The insurance business, itself, has proven that to be true.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 14:30:35 GMT -5
Publically funded healthcare is absolutely NOT less expensive than private insurance. First, a given treatment costs the same regardless who pays the bill. Second, they have a tremendous amount of fraud (although at least that is improving). Third, they are heavily subsidized by private payers. They may pay less for a given treatment, but that doesn't make them cheaper. It just helps them hide the true costs. And lastly, since they tend to insure the least healthy of the population (esp Medicare), administration costs as a percentage are lower simply because the expenditure for the healthcare is higher. ------------------------------------------------- "probably not. but they would certainly tolerate spending 25% of their revenue on advertizing and administration. is that really better?"
I'm pretty sure it's more like 16%. If that's the cost of having private insurance vs a gov't that spends nearly 30% on fraud and administration, it's not such a bad deal. However, I'm not going to defend the state of health insurance in the US. It has it's problems that need to be fixed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 14:42:26 GMT -5
"since it makes no sense to gouge oneself (although i hear some people are into that sort of thing), it is way way better in that very important sense."
Price gouging isn't the problem when the gov't is the monopoly. The problem is lack of incentive to do better. Lack of choice if service sucks. Etcetera.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- "There's no doubt that having one provider for all can reduce costs to the individual."
Of course it's possible. But it goes against human nature, so it never does work, whether it's private or public. The only exception would be cases where it's virtually impossible to have competitors (ex: electricity, water, and gas transmission and distribution).
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 12, 2012 15:44:23 GMT -5
So does catastrophic insurance.
If we follow other nations with UHC, we will follow them down the path of bankruptcy, too...or the rationing and delay of care. It's the only way that large UHC programs manage.
There are only a few fixes we need to our current system. However, we still have the best system in the world with the highest life expectancy after excluding homicides and automobile death even though we've got such a diverse population (it's much more difficult than a homogeneous population).
I also don't think you overhaul a system to have greater government dependence for what amounts to about 10-12 million people that are truly uninsured and need the safety net.
How about we focus on the other ways the government holds US citizens back and let the private market take care of healthcare [including bifurcating health insurance from the employer].
With that said, I think we'd have to mandate people buy insurance and have guaranteed coverage. This way, you don't have people who don't have insurance for many years, only to buy it after they get cancer and insurance companies can't cherry pick customers.
I don't think any of the sentences in this statement are accurate. Canada's system is broken, we do not have an abject failure and already have the best system in the world.
Canada has good & quick care if you're an animal.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 12, 2012 15:54:14 GMT -5
I prefer the personal knowledge I gained having lived in an UHC country, thank you!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 12, 2012 16:58:50 GMT -5
I've experienced both. I like ours better. The vast majority of Canadians would NEVER go back to what you have now. Is it perfect? Of course not, but having lived in both the US and Canada, I prefer ours, hands down.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 12, 2012 17:27:35 GMT -5
If the country you lived in, formerexpat, wasn't Canada, I'll still listen to those who are currently living in Canada and experiencing that system. While I realize it's not perfect, there aren't many things that are perfect. I strongly feel our system needs to be better than it is, and needs to serve our people better than it is currently serving them. I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater because some systems aren't the epitome.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 19:44:16 GMT -5
"I strongly feel our system needs to be better than it is...."
I think just about everyone can agree on that. And yet, our leaders have yet to make any serious effort to identify and address the shortcomings.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 12, 2012 21:21:33 GMT -5
Listening to the opinions of people that live in a system that would be 1/10 the size of the US with very different demographics is meaningless.
Most UHC systems start showing cracks around 25-30m people, begin to break around 50m people and begin to bankrupt their country between 60-80m people. Very few countries buck this trend.
Very little of our root causes were focused on for Obamacare. It was ideological legislation instead of one that focused on the core issues that our system faces. And because of its excessive reach, it's going to set the issue back 20 years when it gets overturned.
I don't think there is much we need to fix about our system other than the governments involvement and reach that is the crux of the problem.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 12, 2012 21:35:16 GMT -5
I disagree, formerexpat. I believe the existence of other UHCs give us information through which to build a better mousetrap. I believe we're capable of building a better mousetrap. In order to do so, however, we have to look at the mousetraps others have built, find what's good and what's not-so-good in them, and go forward from there. We've always, as a people, been good at that sort of thing. Our diversity helps in that regard. I'm one who feels "Obamacare" didn't go far enough, much less display "excessive reach". I also believe there's plenty we need to fix in our system and it's not just the government's involvement that needs fixin'. There's graft and corruption in all the corners, under the beds, and in the closets on all sides of the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 21:58:13 GMT -5
Other countries w/Universal Care have the same problem that Medicare has. Private payers subsidize them. Price controls increase the cost of drugs and technology for private payers. What happens to drug and technology development if the largest economy in the world also implements these price controls?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 12, 2012 22:18:59 GMT -5
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this statement but for the most part, all we have in DC is rats that aren't interested in building mousetraps. So, we (or rather the bottom 80-85%) will have to deal with the repercussions of their shit droppings.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 12, 2012 22:28:39 GMT -5
The reason there are rats instead of mousetrap builders in DC, formerexpat, is us. We put them there, and we allow them to stay there. Because we're infested with rats isn't cause, as I see it, to stop trying to build mousetraps. In fact, it's a damned good reason to build bigger, stronger, more effective mousetraps. I guess I'm just not the type to throw up my hands and let 'em have it all. I've got to keep hacking away at that piece of wood, hoping for a mousetrap. It's just my nature, I suppose.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 12, 2012 22:30:34 GMT -5
Other countries w/Universal Care have the same problem that Medicare has. Private payers subsidize them. Price controls increase the cost of drugs and technology for private payers. What happens to drug and technology development if the largest economy in the world also implements these price controls? I'd say we need to take a good long look at that problem and brainstorm ways to eliminate it as a problem and/or morph it into a benefit. If we do it right, we can accomplish a great deal. If we just say it can't be done ... well, it won't be.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on May 12, 2012 22:50:50 GMT -5
To have a good UHC system that would work and not break the bank is to have in a country like ours is to have universal participation. that means everybody contributes something into the system or at least 90% participation. In the current format that is not going to happen. Currently you have at best have a 55 or 60% participation in paying for the other 40%. That is not sustainable. This is what other countries are facing and lowering their ability to maintain a viable UHC system.
|
|