Government Involved In Healthcare? Can't Be Good!

[Deva]

Michael Moore said about his film, "Sicko," that the criticisms offered about the failings of other nations' universal health care systems should be an alert and a guide about what we can avoid or do better... not a reason to do nothing. I agree. Putting our tax money into keeping us well instead of keeping other nations under our hegemony makes some crazy kind of sense to me, especially in terms of REAL national defense.

 

I totally agree, Pitchu. Excellent post. I don't know why access to healthcare is dependent on whether or not you are employed. That just seems wrong to me. If you don't happen to have a job because the home office decided to downsize you, you are up the creek. Not too many people can afford $700 a month for insurance with no job. I remember that was what my coverage would have cost. I went without for a few months.

 

Yet we have the funds to invade Iraq... need I go on?

[BlueGiant]

Ummmm...government is already involved in healthcare. You know those certifications that say a doc isn't a complete quack, yeah, those a re government. The safety requirements, are government.

 

I'd point out that no one, including this administration, is talking single-payer gov healthcare at this point. All the klaxons going off about it are knee-jerk repub reactions to it. Yes, the government screws things up routinely. So does everyone else. I guess it's better if you get fucked over and out by a HMO corporate master as opposed to the government, I mean after you get screwed, and then dead, then your survivors still have to pay off the guys that got you killed.

[godsfavoritecolor]

You rugged individualists make me sick. Are you from Ruby Ridge?

 

I have a rich acquaintance who invented the radar gun and made millions. I don’t begrudge him his millions. He had a great idea and made the most of it and deserves a reward. But he is constantly whining about the taxes he has to pay. He says he created the invention by himself and deserves the maximum reward he can extract for it.

 

The fact is he didn’t do it by himself. A library could be filled with the list of people who supported the infrastructure that enabled him to create his invention. I challenge any rugged individualist who thinks he is a self-made person to leave all of his clothes and tools behind and try to live on a deserted island. (He should also clean his brain of any knowledge attained from other humans.) He wouldn’t last long.

 

In contemporary society we are all interconnected. Some of the least important people in that society often make life a little better for the rest of us.

 

When I became ex-Christian, I didn’t become ex-human.

[Vomit Comet]

In other words, if you are the average person or family and you are dealing with flu shots, physicals and check-ups, an occasional broken bone, etc, then a government sponsored health care system will probably work perfectly for you most of the time.

 

A huge reason why American healthcare is in trouble is because poor people don't have access to routine care. Because an individual must forgo a $70 flu shot and keep working to feed their family, a few weeks down the road they end up requiring a $500 ER visit which they simply cannot repay. The alternative, of course, is to let them die. All because they couldn't get a $70 flu shot. The whole thing could've been prevented with the flu shot being on the house.

 

However, if something big comes along ... a brain tumor, for example ... then things can get sticky ... or so I have heard. I don't have any proof of this and I admit that I could be wrong. But I have heard of people with being diagnosed with a certain form of cancer, or some other disease, having to wait so many months for treatment that the cancer or disease has advanced to a place where it cannot be cured where, if it had been gotten too sooner, there might have been a chance. Again, perhaps these are just urban rumors. But I have heard of such people leaving their countries to go to some place where there is a medical system like we have in the USA (currently) in order to seek help because they know they can be seen fairly quickly and not have to wait months or more to get treatment.

 

1. In this country, when something major like that hits, coverage often runs out and a family is hit with financial ruin. Prior to the real estate crisis, medical bills were the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America.

 

2. If you've got no coverage, or insufficient coverage, you die. Either that or you go to the public hospital (Las Vegas' public hospital just closed down their cancer ward completely), hope for the best, and cost the taxpayers a huge bundle because early treatment likely did not happen.

 

3. I have a friend who's a Sgt. in the 82nd Airborne. He's already done several combat tours. He's still in for one reason and one reason only: his son. The kid has a rare immune disorder that costs over $100,000 a year to treat. No insurance company in the United States is willing to pay for that, and he couldn't afford it anyways. Uncle Sam is willing to foot the bill as long as he re-ups again and again, heading into the combat zone again and again. He told me straight-up: "I'm in until my kid dies, or until I die." I'm guessing that if he dies, his kid is up shit creek. I hope that's not the case... and I hope neither of them dies.

 

But that the system will fall apart for the more complex stuff, leaving people in the lurch.

 

It's a matter of funding.

 

I also fear that the US government, as it typically does, will create the program in such a way that the best and the brightest will not be attracted to it.

 

Not the case in the UK.

 

After all, who wants to go through all those grueling years of medical school, emerge a few hundred thousand dollars in debt and then take a job in a government health care facility making middle class wages or worse? This may not be what happens in other countries, but we have already seen this sort of thing happen in the USA with other government sponsored programs.

 

1. Offer to pay off part of, or waive their student debt.

 

2. UK doctors in the employ of the NHS do well enough.

[godsfavoritecolor]

While I agree (something should be done), I am wary of any quote coming from Michael Moore. And just because something needs to be done does not mean it is the US government that should be the doer. They have a notorious track record of fouling things up. Why should we give them yet one more thing to mess with?

 

Who would you suggest to do something? AIG? Citibank? Dick Cheney?

[florduh]

It is inefficient, tends to have poorer quality doctors, is bloated and, well, just does not work as it should.

 

Sounds about the same as the private health care and insurance my family currently can't afford.

 

I'm no fan of the goobermint either, but neither am I a fan of actuaries and insurance companies dictating my health care needs. When you're one of those families that makes too much to go on public assistance but not enough to be able to afford private insurance or care, almost anything looks better than nothing. Which is what we have right now: no care at all.

 

Interestingly enough, the spouse just this past week FINALLY got a job working as a nursing assistant at the local VA hospital here. After his probationary six months, we'll qualify for state employee benefits - excellent, comprehensive, and affordable. FINALLY.

 

Just gotta hope nothing catastrophic happens to us in the meantime, because if it does, it will wipe us out. No question.

 

Something's gotta give, somewhere.

 

 

I agree. Government can't run a business, but neither can businessmen, hence our current situation. It's lazy, or under-trained, or unmotivated, or just plain greedy people and our wonderful cutting-edge technology that are the problem.

 

Private healthcare is also poorly implemented, and the insurance is prohibitively expensive for a large portion of the population. Our "socialized medicine" (the VA and Medicare) seems to work or not work as well as the private sector depending on your personal experience. Certainly, it's cheaper than private insurance or paying out of pocket.

[godsfavoritecolor]

Hey,

 

You can do what you want, just give me and those like me the option to opt out. Otherwise I will make life hell for any politician personally and make my goal in life to be the single biggest pain in their ass. I have done it in the past, and continue to do it on a small scale now where I live and will continue to do so. Hell, in the past, we released some bad stuff on a state rep in Tennessee that caused him to commit suicide (he had a little problem of exposing himself to underaged little girls). If I could find something like that to the fucking socialist pigs in government at any level, I would hope they have the decency to do likewise. If you want to see some of the handywork of me and my friends, check this link out: http://tntaxrevolt.org/july-12-2001.jpg Just so you know, that was a large crowd I helpd organize in Tennessee to stop an attempt to put in state income tax, which we were successful, there were about 10,000 people there, 2000 of us stormed the capitol, started beating on the windows and when they broke, spit reigned down on the state senators. The police backed off as they were outnumbered like 200 to 1. When I say I will be the biggest pain in the ass to government pigs....I FUCKING MEAN IT!

 

Does this mean that you will send back you Social Security and Medicare checks? Who pays for the roads you drive on in Tennessee? Do you pay for your own personal police and fire protection? What is it that’s burned out? Might I guess -- the wheels in your brain?

[pitchu]

Michael Moore said about his film, "Sicko," that the criticisms offered about the failings of other nations' universal health care systems should be an alert and a guide about what we can avoid or do better... not a reason to do nothing.

 

While I agree (something should be done), I am wary of any quote coming from Michael Moore.

 

I'm surprised, L4A at your being more focused on the source of an observation than on the merits of the observation itself.

 

Society everywhere has eons of making improvements by looking at the faults and failings of previous attempts at everything from eating an artichoke to giving head protection to football players. Yet, because Michael Moore says this is a constructive method to use when examining health care systems... you're wary...?

[Looking4Answers]

Society everywhere has eons of making improvements by looking at the faults and failings of previous attempts at everything from eating an artichoke to giving head protection to football players. Yet, because Michael Moore says this is a constructive method to use when examining health care systems... you're wary...?

 

Yes. I take anything he says with a grain of salt. But I did agree that something needs to be done. I just don't think that a government sponsored health care plan is the best option.

[pitchu]

Society everywhere has eons of making improvements by looking at the faults and failings of previous attempts at everything from eating an artichoke to giving head protection to football players. Yet, because Michael Moore says this is a constructive method to use when examining health care systems... you're wary...?

 

Yes. I take anything he says with a grain of salt. But I did agree that something needs to be done. I just don't think that a government sponsored health care plan is the best option.

 

Imo, that salt shaker first needs to be sprinkled energetically over the opinions (and lobbyists) of CEOs of Pharma, HMOs and private insurance companies. They've received stratospheric billions of dollars doing wrong by sick people. It's a comparative pittance which Moore has received by pointing up their greed and consciencelessness.

[Looking4Answers]

Imo, that salt shaker first needs to be sprinkled energetically over the opinions (and lobbyists) of CEOs of Pharma, HMOs and private insurance companies. They've received stratospheric billions of dollars doing wrong by sick people. It's a comparative pittance which Moore has received by pointing up their greed and consciencelessness.

 

Sure, but the topic of this thread is NOT about how RIGHT things are CURRENTLY with health care (because they're screwed up, for sure). The topic IS about how much more messed up things would be IF the government gets heavily involved in it. Once again, I agree that SOMETHING needs to be done. Once again, I state that I don't believe that it is the government of the USA that is going to be able to fix it ... at least not by creating some sort of socialized health care system.

 

What agency runs well that is run by the US government?

[pitchu]

What agency runs well that is run by the US government?

 

Many federal agencies and federally-funded programs, from the U. S. Postal Service to the National Guard to the Peace Corps to the CCC to the Census Bureau, to Headstart, have or had long records of reliability and success. Many others were doing well, too, or had the potential to do well -- like WIC and HUD -- until their funding was cut so we could afford to invade some country or other with whom we had no quarrel so that private interests could make more stratospheric billions from taxpayer dollars. That's the part of government that needs to be fixed.

 

What private health care entity runs well?

 

Is there a third alternative to govern health care which you prefer but which is as yet un-named?

[Looking4Answers]

Many federal agencies and federally-funded programs, from the U. S. Postal Service to the National Guard to the Peace Corps to the CCC to the Census Bureau, to Headstart, have or had long records of reliability and success.

 

You actually listed the US Postal Service as one of example of the US governments reliability and success? I'm sorry, but I think that is a stretch. Lost mail, ever increasing costs to shipping a single letter, damaged mail delivered by people who don't seem to care about what is in the package ... but that's not all. Part of the reason for the ever increasing costs is how bloated the system is. It is virtually impossible to fire people once they get in and work for the government and so "bad apples" tend to linger.

 

The National Guard? I suppose we could list them as a success. I am not sure. I was not really thinking about any of the US Military, but perhaps I should have been. However, despite how well equipped the military is (including the Guard), the government often ties our hands when we have to do the real work and the result is loss of life (on our side).

 

Headstart? WIC? HUD? Come on.

 

I think you have been buying in to too much of the government's own newsletters or something.

 

Is there a third alternative to govern health care which you prefer but which is as yet un-named?

 

Its like people can't read or something. I said already that something needs to be done ... that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. However, I don't believe the US government is the one for the job. So the idea here would be to THINK about what a third option would be and not just DEFAULT to the government.

 

The US government should serve, in my opinion, as a facilitator to help things move along and become a reality, but it should not become the be all and end all of everything. In other words, the US government should make a path for a third option or to fix what is already there, but they should not take over (or begin to take over), control and manage health care. They are already firing (or threatening to fire) executives at private companies and so have extended their reach into the private sector in some areas. Frankly, I am reluctant to give them more.

 

I am (obviously) for a smaller and more efficient government. Let the rest of us pursue life, liberty and happiness ... and not by having to bow to big government to get it, either.

[RankStranger]

The solutions that I would PREFER to see are these- listed in order from most possible to downright impossible:

 

Income-based subsidy for people who can't afford health insurance.

 

Cost reductions through standardized electronic medical records.

 

Standardization/simplification of private health insurance plans so that people can make an apples to apples comparisons (much like auto insurance).

 

De-coupling of the health insurance industry from employers- allowing people to shop among insurance plans (much like auto insurance). It's my understanding that health insurance right now is linked to employment largely because health care costs are not taxed- so all this started as an easy way for employers to increase benefits tax-free. Seems like much the same thing could be accomplished with a tax credit.

 

Deregulation of prescriptions drugs (for mentally competent adults, of course). This would go a LONG way toward reducing costs... but I don't expect it'll ever happen.

 

I'd also like to see the prescription drug patent system reformed. Without going into too much detail, the current system is NOT designed to promote research or make new drugs widely available. It's designed SOLELY to protect Drug Companies' profits- and before any Capitalism-Worshippers chime in... keep in mind that patents are artificial government interventions in a free market. I'm not against them entirely- not at all. But they were originally intended to promote progress and benefit society as a whole... they have evolved into nothing more than profit margin protections.

 

 

 

 

But again- only a few of these obvious problems are being seriously discussed by anybody who matters. And as long as our "free market" party is under the thumb of whichever lobby has the most money (and I don't expect this to change), then any solution they offer will amount to little more than maintenance to the lucrative status-quo.

 

So even though I DON'T think socialized healthcare will reduce costs at all- at least it will make health care more equitable. Giving everybody access to the mediocre level of healthcare that I currently enjoy- that might be an improvement over what we have now.

 

My posts so far have focused on cost reductions and barriers to competition- but as others have mentioned here, healthcare is an issue that doesn't really lend itself to capitalism. Who wants to shop around for the best deal in brain surgery? Or chemotherapy? It just isn't realistic. I'd like to see changes in the system that promote competition between providers and price-pressure (i.e. shopping around) when it comes to drugs and non-critical healthcare. Maybe universal healthcare would be more appropriate for major/critical healthcare- but not so much for your average cold/flu/sprained ankle.

[Looking4Answers]

I believe part of the problem (as far as cost of health care goes) is the cost of things like medication and the equipment used. It is like the companies that produce the equipment have a stranglehold on the hospitals (etc) that would purchase these machines. I am fairly sure that these high-tech machines don't cost anywhere near what they are charging for them. My uncle's wife is the president (or was ... I think she retired) of a major medical supplier in the Washington D.C. area. Her income was literally millions of dollars each year. Of course, her salary and bonuses came from the sale of what her company supplied to hospitals, doctors, etc. While I certainly don't begrudge anyone making their millions, it makes me wonder what the actual cost of these medical supplies actually is.

 

Then when it comes to pharmaceuticals, I wonder about costs there as well. When I lived in Israel, I could get a weeks supply of an antibiotic, without insurance, for about $15. There was no real need for insurance for these types of things. The same medication here in the USA was closer to $100. So what was the difference? From what I have heard (and perhaps this is incorrect, you can tell me), pharm companies sell the medications to other countries at a discounted rate and the difference in cost is added to the cost of the drug as it is sold here in the USA. In this sense, the USA consumer is subsidizing the foreign consumer of pharm products. Again, I have not researched this and I could be wrong, but if this is the case, then this certainly contributes, in some way, to our rising health care costs.

 

I believe in the free market system and would like to see the government stay out of it as much as possible.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't mind a socialized health care system. While I am for a smaller, more efficient government, I realize that health care is not the same as, say, selling cars or creating software. However, our current bloated government does not seem up to the task, if you ask me. Perhaps I am wrong and, frankly, I would be glad to be wrong about this. Still, I would like to see less control in the hands of the government and more in the hands of the people. How to make that work the best for our health care system? That I don't know.

[pitchu]

You actually listed the US Postal Service as one of example of the US governments reliability and success?

 

Yep. Because, ever since the Pony Express, what it's been able to achieve -- every day -- is nothing short of phenomenal. You wanna try it? And the defects you mention get attention because the are rare.

 

Headstart? WIC? HUD? Come on.

 

Instead of "Come on" why don't you rip into how awful it is to give disadvantaged kids a leg up in their education; how unnecessary it is to see that infants and their moms get fed; how wasteful it's been to build low cost housing because we've seen, since this program was slashed, how excellently families manage when living on the streets?

[pitchu]Is there a third alternative to govern health care which you prefer but which is as yet un-named?

 

... So the idea here would be to THINK about what a third option would be ...

 

Great. Get back to me when you've got it thought out.

[RankStranger]

I'll propose a third option. Sort of:

 

I believe part of the problem (as far as cost of health care goes) is the cost of things like medication and the equipment used. It is like the companies that produce the equipment have a stranglehold on the hospitals (etc) that would purchase these machines. I am fairly sure that these high-tech machines don't cost anywhere near what they are charging for them. My uncle's wife is the president (or was ... I think she retired) of a major medical supplier in the Washington D.C. area. Her income was literally millions of dollars each year. Of course, her salary and bonuses came from the sale of what her company supplied to hospitals, doctors, etc. While I certainly don't begrudge anyone making their millions, it makes me wonder what the actual cost of these medical supplies actually is.

 

I think it's a combination of regulations that are ostensibly in place to protect patients and require that equipment meets certain standards- and the fact that said equipment is RARELY paid for out-of-pocket: i.e. no price pressure/shopping around.

 

My father-in-law is disabled- and he's HUGE (about 6'5", 270-ish pounds). He has a bad case of osteo-arthritis- and when he falls over on occasion, my mother-in-law can't get him back up. She has to call the neighbors or the local fire dept. So we decided to get a lift for her to use-one of those contraptions that hospitals & nursing homes use to lift disabled patients (big ones). Shopping around, the absolute minimum price we could find for one of these patient lifts was $1500- and I'm not sure if that one even had enough capacity for Bob. I got to looking at one- and functionally, it's almost IDENTICAL to an engine hoist. So we went down to the local farm supply store and bought an engine hoist (1000 lb capacity) for under $200. She took the girth-strap from one of their saddles to use as a sling. She's used it a couple of times and it works just fine. Now, a medical lift is made of stainless steel (better anti-microbial properties than regular painted steel), it has rubber wheels (doesn't matter though since the house is carpeted), it's a little lighter and nicer-looking... and about 10 times the price. I've no doubt that there are similar examples all over the medical field.

 

Hell, my inlaws live on a farm WAY out in BFE. They're been known to buy certain medications from the vet. Same product: 1/10 the price. Because when it comes to taking care of animals, there IS price-pressure and shopping-around. And far fewer regulations.

 

Then when it comes to pharmaceuticals, I wonder about costs there as well. When I lived in Israel, I could get a weeks supply of an antibiotic, without insurance, for about $15. There was no real need for insurance for these types of things. The same medication here in the USA was closer to $100. So what was the difference? From what I have heard (and perhaps this is incorrect, you can tell me), pharm companies sell the medications to other countries at a discounted rate and the difference in cost is added to the cost of the drug as it is sold here in the USA. In this sense, the USA consumer is subsidizing the foreign consumer of pharm products. Again, I have not researched this and I could be wrong, but if this is the case, then this certainly contributes, in some way, to our rising health care costs.

 

I'm hardly qualified to get into any in-depth discussion on the matter. But my wife worked at a neurology clinic while she was in grad school. She says that drug reps used to take the ENTIRE STAFF on vacations. That was eventually banned. So instead, these clowns would show up with cases of wine, steak dinners, and free drug samples all-around... just to get/stay in the doctors' good graces. If that isn't a corrupt industry that's FLUSH with money- then I don't know what is.

 

I believe in the free market system and would like to see the government stay out of it as much as possible.

 

I do, too... but only as a matter of utility- not as an article of faith. I think that competition and free markets can be harnessed for the collective good. But setting up a system where the top 1% of income earners own 90% of the wealth... while millions can't afford basica healthcare... that's just obscene. Lately I think that capitalism is better suited for use as a tool rather than some end to strive for.

 

Truly free and COMPETTITIVE markets drive down prices- I see it every day in the trucking industry. Of course, wages are also driven down (gotta cut costs, you know). In a compettitve market, struggle is the rule... and when it comes to providing services better/faster/cheaper, there's no better incentive IMO. When I see drug reps like the ones I mentioned... doctors making as much money as rock stars (when phd professors at the local college are solidly middle-class)... even nurses making $35 per hour- THAT isn't an industry that is struggling. That's an industry that's protected and insulated from competition. And it's no wonder that costs are out of control.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't mind a socialized health care system. While I am for a smaller, more efficient government, I realize that health care is not the same as, say, selling cars or creating software. However, our current bloated government does not seem up to the task, if you ask me. Perhaps I am wrong and, frankly, I would be glad to be wrong about this. Still, I would like to see less control in the hands of the government and more in the hands of the people. How to make that work the best for our health care system? That I don't know.

 

The way I see it, our current system is nothing to brag about- unless you make at least a mid-6-figure income (in which case you HAVE access to the best healthcare in the world). It suffers from much the same bureaucracy and lack of competition as any goverment program... yet is only accessible to people with enough money. Kindof a worst-of-both-worlds approach (not unlike our immigration system).

 

Something has to change- and even though I think some careful compettition-promoting reforms are what the industry NEEDS, the political will (and understanding of the situation) just isn't there. And with our medical lobby... it never will be.

 

While I'm not necessarily against it in principle... in the long-run, I think socialized healthcare will only make the problem worse. I expect that anything our goverment comes up with will be some combination of government subsidies and private insurance. In other words: Yet another layer of bureaocracy; more protection from price pressure and competition.

 

I'd rather see more competition/less regulation... and direct subsidy for people who truly can't afford medical care. And by direct- I mean that they should get to pocket what's left over, so that even the subsidized can participate in driving prices down. 'Cause I know from experience that when somebody else is paying for your medical care- you don't even THINK about price. If people could pocket the difference- you can bet that they'll find a way to cut corners.

 

But I'm dreaming again. BTW- please ignore the typos. I'm using the inlaws' computer and spell-check isn't enabled.

[I Broke Free]

When I lived in Israel, I could get a weeks supply of an antibiotic, without insurance, for about $15. There was no real need for insurance for these types of things. The same medication here in the USA was closer to $100. So what was the difference? From what I have heard (and perhaps this is incorrect, you can tell me), pharm companies sell the medications to other countries at a discounted rate and the difference in cost is added to the cost of the drug as it is sold here in the USA. In this sense, the USA consumer is subsidizing the foreign consumer of pharm products. Again, I have not researched this and I could be wrong, but if this is the case, then this certainly contributes, in some way, to our rising health care costs.

 

There is a lot going on behind the scenes making our healthcare much more expensive than necessary.

 

My own example:

 

I have a chronic condition called ‘Barrett’s Esophagus.” My stomach has pushed through my diaphragm which is supposed to keep my stomach and my esophagus separate. This condition allows my lower esophagus to be bathed in stomach acid and the lining of my lower esophagus has been permanently damaged. I take a medication twice a day to keep the acid in check and keep the painful episodes from returning. The medication works great and is actually available over the counter. My prescription costs me through my insurance just $20 per month. When I get my prescription the label tells me “how much I am saving:” due to my insurance company picking up the remaining $133 of the cost. I am supposed to be happy about this? I can pick up the same prescription over the counter for a full month for $44! What’s going on here? If this is true then why doesn’t my insurance company just forego giving me the expensive prescription for me and just give me coupon to by it over the counter?

[RankStranger]

That's a good point. I take Prilosec OTC, and a month's supply costs about $30.

 

Haven't got around to it yet, but next time I go to the doctor, I'm going to get him to write me a prescription for Prilosec. Then I'll only have to pay a $3 co-pay per month.

[ixolite]

We have both in Germany, goverment health care and private health care. And that is basically our problem, the private companies suck the young and healthy out of the non-private companies with cheap insurances, however as those people get older and sicker the insurance gets more and more expensive, eventually forcing those people back into the official system. There was talk about outlawing private health care recently, because of this, but I don't know how far that got, would be good imo.

 

You have to pay 10€ for a quater of the year if you go to the doc, additionally 0-10€ per each drug and an extra 10€ if you go to the dentist. However, this extra money you pay must not exceed 2% of your yearly income, 1% if you are chronically ill. This is additionally to the ~15% one pays a month. (Exception: people on unemployment money or welfare). Of course you can get extra services (i.e. acupuncture) if you pay for it privately.

 

I for my part have Rheuma and I can't complain about our system.

[Scorpion]

Here are my two €urocents:

 

Any nation that is capable of it, should have a public health system.

 

Why?

 

Because why you have a profit-driven healthcare system, the bottom line is "make money", not "save people". By takin away the profit motive, you put the focus on what's really important: healing people. So, you either give healthcare over to the government or you give it to a non-profit organization, which is unheard of. I dunno of any other possibility, and I don't know how the latter would work. We know government-run healthcare works, though. All industrialized countries except the US have government-run public healthcare. And though it is the US who spends more per capita on healthcare, it has the worst health indicators in the industrialized world.

 

I'll admit it, my only experience with amercan healthcare comes from "Sicko" and episodes of "ER". But a goverment-run healthcare system will never deny you treatment because you're not in their network, it will not deny you treatment because your ensurance plan doesn't cover it, it will not deny you treatment at all! They will do any and everything possible to heal you because that's their job! To heal you, not to make money! And it will be cheaper because your don't have to pay for the insurance company's daughter's new mansion in Aspen!

 

I don't have a problem with private healthcare. But it should allways be a supplement, a luxury for those who can afford it. Those who can't shouldn't left out to dry...

 

Because nobody is excluded. If we are capable of it, we should help another human being in need. The best analogy I have for this is to substitute "health care" for "law inforcement". Would you like to live in a country where you had to pay a "subscription fee" to the local police and they would only answer your 911 calls if your payments were up to date? Like law enforcement, health care is often a case of life and death. Shouldn't it be equally available to all?

 

About regulations:

 

When I hear "regulations", I hear "rules that prevent HIV-infected blood beeing used to make my meds" or "rules that ban carcinogenic chemichal from beeing used in the stuff I use every day", so I'm naturally suspicious of those who advocate wholesale de-regulation. Am I missing something here? Regulations exist to save peoples' lives. Imagine how many people would die if we de-regulated seatbelts on cars!

 

...but on the other hand (I have to be honest to myself), when I hear "regulations" I also remember the pointless signatures in triplicate and the three-feet-high stack of paper and red tape this goddamn bureaucracy-loving country requires to do every last damn thing! (It has gotten better, though)

 

On lower-price meds:

 

Looking4answers, I believe that medicines are sold at the same price everywhere. It makes no sense that people in the US should pay 300$ and the rest of the world 30$ (or else everyone in the US would buy from foreign stockers, right?). The thing is, the reason you got the medicines cheaper in Israel is because they probably are subsidized by the state (If they're doing it like we do here in Portugal). I'm assuming you don't have that there too. The state pays a substantial amount of the medicine's cost so people don't have to starve to afford their meds...

The state even subsidizes exams and consults in private practitioners when the waiting time is too long or they don't have the equipment (like oftalmology or MRIs, respectivelly).

 

On the costs:

 

When I go to a consult with my familly physician, I pay 2€.

When I go to a consult in the hospital, I pay 4,5€.

I payed 10€ for a CT scan and 20€ for an MRI.

 

Anything else you would like to know?

Thank you for your time.

 

Scorpion

[Amethyst]

Here are my two €urocents:

 

Any nation that is capable of it, should have a public health system.

 

Why?

 

Because why you have a profit-driven healthcare system, the bottom line is "make money", not "save people". By takin away the profit motive, you put the focus on what's really important: healing people. So, you either give healthcare over to the government or you give it to a non-profit organization, which is unheard of. I dunno of any other possibility, and I don't know how the latter would work. We know government-run healthcare works, though. All industrialized countries except the US have government-run public healthcare. And though it is the US who spends more per capita on healthcare, it has the worst health indicators in the industrialized world.

 

I have to agree with this. We have gotten so greedy as a population in general that we have lost sight of what is the most ethical thing to do. The ethical thing to do is heal people, not to deny them care because they are sick and/or can't afford it. What has happened to us as a society? It seems as if it's going down the drain. Health care, at least in America, has become about making money and blaming the victims, not helping them. I think this is a shame.

[Amethyst]

I believe part of the problem (as far as cost of health care goes) is the cost of things like medication and the equipment used. It is like the companies that produce the equipment have a stranglehold on the hospitals (etc) that would purchase these machines. I am fairly sure that these high-tech machines don't cost anywhere near what they are charging for them. My uncle's wife is the president (or was ... I think she retired) of a major medical supplier in the Washington D.C. area. Her income was literally millions of dollars each year. Of course, her salary and bonuses came from the sale of what her company supplied to hospitals, doctors, etc. While I certainly don't begrudge anyone making their millions, it makes me wonder what the actual cost of these medical supplies actually is.

 

A large part of the reason these costs are so high is because of litigation. If we cut down on litigation, we could control health care costs a lot better. This is the problem that comes as a result of living in a society that allows law suits. Granted, not all law suits are frivolous, but we need to cut down on them.

[I Broke Free]

If the U.S. were to adopt a single-payer government subsidized health care system that covers everyone, than something absolutely intolerable would happen. Some people “unworthy” of such care might get access to it! Many Americans would rather 45 million remain uninsured than accept the possibility that one illegal alien might slip through cracks and get an aspirin on the government’s dime.

 

Making everyone suffer to ensure that the sins of the few are punished is how we like to go about things here in America. I wonder where that mindset came from?

[nightflight]

What I fear is the government will even more than now tell us what we can or can't eat, and will forbid alternative treatments.