Nationalized Healthcare?

I've been hearing a great deal about this in the news lately. Unfortunately, most of the information I've gotten about it have been from extremist sources on both ends of the spectrum. What exactly are the pros and cons of this? I have my views, but given my lack of information, I'm willing to change them ;-)

I'm not asking for us to argue the point, but rather just explain both sides of the argument.

Thanks,
Matt

 

I don't need need a national health care plan personally since I'm covered through work. My adult daughters need it though.

From a non-personal perspective, I believe that this is the only first first-world country that doesn't have national health care. Do we need it? When something like 30% of the country is not covered in a health care plan, I think the obvious answer is yes. Why is there such an uproar then? There are very powerful and rich lobbys that like the status quo, e.g., pharmeceutical companies and insurance companies.

 

Thanks, Bill.

I'm just curios about this whole thing. I have a colleague at work who is adamantly against nationalized health care. Let me post a brief discussion I had with her earlier in the year about it.

ME: So why is everyone so against nationalized health care?
HER: Why? Do you know how many amputees there are in Canada?
ME: No. How many?
HER: A lot.

Her argument against nationalized health care seemed to focus on the lack of quality. Unfortunately, being a numbers guy, "A lot" isn't exactly something on which I could base a decision. I could see quality being an issue IF there were data to support it.

I saw the documentary on healthcare that Michael Moore did. I liked it, but I know his stance on things so I'm only taking it with a grain of salt. I would just like to know the reasons for and against it, reasons that aren't anecdotal or based on speculation.

-Matt

 

What type of logic is that? Is she is a Sarah Palin supporter?

 

Here's a link to the full text of the health care bill to aid this discussion:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3200:

Please use APA format when citing. Just kidding..

 

Actually she is... funny you should mention that

-Matt

 

Here's some data for you and your friend:

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/amputation/stats-country.htm

http://www.amputee-coalition.org/fact_sheets/amp_stats_cause.html

According to the first site, Canada has a much lower rate, but as the site also mentions in a footnote, it is an extrapolated estimate, and it also can't be taken completely seriously without knowing the cause as the other document states.

I was surprised to see how many amputees are just due to vascular disease. Interesting...

Anyways, the correct answer for your friend would have been, "not as many as in the US."

 

The devil is in the details.

I've lived many years in two countries that both have have nationalized health care systems - Japan and the UK. In my experience, the systems worked very well for people with not so serious problems, and for people who need medication for chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, asthma or diabetes.

The systems worked horribly for people with serious conditions or injuries, like heart conditions, broken jaws, spinal injuries, cancer. It was quite clear the healthcare was controlled by lawyers and accountants, and not by doctors and pharmacists. If I was forced to choose a healthcare system as they are today, between the US, UK, and Japan, I would choose the US any time.

I know the US systems if far from perfect, particularly for people with chronic conditions, but without reading through the actual bills, it is hard to say if the Obama plan will make things better or worse.

 

Personally, I'm skeptical that our government can pull it off. While I haven't read the entire bill (sure I'm not alone there), the parts I have read don't leave me any more confident.

Why we don't consider fixing medicare and medicaid first, I have no clue, or implement this in a much smaller scale (i.e. a few states at a time, or something along those lines). Not to mention I have no idea how we're going to pay for it, and I'm sure I'm not alone there, either.

I feel like this is one huge experiment that we're just hoping will succeed with faith, and if you don't believe in it you're branded a heretic or unintelligent. It's a great ideal, but I'm cynical in it's application given the track record of other massive government programs...

 

The interesting thing is that either the UK or USA government has paid for my health care my entire life to date. Since the 60s I worked only on DOD or NASA projects. I forget the number but a high percentage of US citizens have govt funded (direct or indirect) healthcare including Federal, State and local govt employees, many legislators, military, government contractors/suppliers, and those above 65 years of age.

 

Gimmy Gimmy Gimmy

I'm voting for whoever will give me a raise so that I can get rich and give me free health care. We can also vote ourselves into prosperity!!! The politicians who can promise us these things will save the country!!!! Once the citizens realize that they can tax themselves into prosperity, then the country will be saved!!!

 

Australia has a private and public system. Most medicines are subsidized by the government. We all pay a tax which is based upon a percentage of our wages. Some things are free and others not.

I recently had a CT Scan for cancer at a private clinic. It was free. The ultrascan on my jaw wasn't. I had to pay a tidy sum for it. I could go to a public hospital and be treated for free, but I will wait an enormous time to be seen and, if I need to see a specialist, it may take a year or more. Once you are in the system the treatment is good. You may, however, die before that happens. I have also heard that some rationing takes place with some treatments due to costs.

I contribute to a private health insurance fund because I wish to opt out of the public system. I can go to a private hospital, choose my own doctor etc. From my experience, I would not be out of the private insurance coverage as the quicker access to treatment is in the private sector.

I do, however, feel with very comfortable with the fact that the poor are not denied medical coverage and I do not object to being taxed for that. One never knows when or who poverty will strike, and it reassuring that families will be catered for in those circumstances.

Any system that precludes private participation, in my opinion, should be rejected. Cut costs by all means, create a strong public health system, but leave the private option on the table. The public system will not be as accessible. The private system also takes the weight off the public sector. Tax incentives for private insurance is the way to go. Those that can pay, do so with tax relieved private insurance, while others are covered by a less responsive safety net of a public system.

The hybrid is not perfect by a long shot, but better than straight socialized medicine. Choose carefully, because you are going to stuck with it once the egg is scrambled.

 

I agree with providing care to folks in situations who cannot do for themselves but I have a problem with providing for those that will not do for themselves, and treating anyone who is not legally in the country.

 

i live in Montreal. I went in to the emergency to get treatment for a bad infection in my hand. I waited an hour for triage and then got attention from a doctor in about another 45 minutes. I was put on intravenous antibiotics and then sent home. The portable intravenous units were sent to my house (as well as the medicine associated with that) later in the evening from a pharmacy.

For the next week or so I went in to a clinic (what the call a CLSC here) where they helped me administer the portable intravenous line and just made sure I was doing ok. I went to the clinic 4 times. i then returned to the hospital a week later for followup where I was checked out ok and given a week's worth of antibiotics.

So, my experience was that there was little to no red tape. No insurance companies to deal with, or getting in my way. I presented my health card and was given the appropriate care. during these 2 weeks I paid 20-30$ in parking and approximately 6$ in medical insurance costs out of pocket (you pay 2$ per prescription). Everyone is made to have drug insurance as well, which I pay into for the family each year. yes, we do pay pretty high taxes, but at the same time I'm not worried about having to dish out wads of cash out of pocket, and everyone get treated regardless of income level.

I highly recommend you Yanks get with the program. Its also best if those most at risk get treatment (ex. those with TB, etc.).If anyone has any questions about what its like under the system drop me a PM. Things aren't perfect, but neither am I worried my house will be seized if I break my ankle.

Regards,

a Canadian who hopes you'll choose wisely (and not to idiotic scare tactics) .

 

It looks, from here, that it is an immigration issue more than an health insurance issue. This could perhaps be covered with a health card system. We have a health card that must be presented on treatment. Private Doctors can also bulk bill the government if they choose to when the card is presented. The money paid by the government is usually lower than the Doctors accept, so you end up with a subsidized visit to a private doctor. You will probably pay about 20 dollars which is hardly expensive. Specialists are lot more of course.

The difficulty is separating the needy from the greedy or the people who go to the doctor for anything. Something that will probably never be resolved. Because we all pay the medicare levy, we all pay for the service, the greedy included.

I opt to pay extra for private insurance and have previously received a tax break for doing so. The private system is, as previously stated, quicker here than the public. The greater the volume, obviously the longer delays. The private system does not have the volume of the public system. I am prepared, like many, to pay a premium for that access. I guess it is a little like education with private and public schools. Like the school system here, if the private collapsed, then the public could not cope.

I can never recall a time when our public hospitals charged a public patient a fee for service. There is a huge demand here for the federal government to take the public health system away from the states. Interesting how different countries have different issues on health care.

 

Whistle-blower: Health care industry engaging in PR tactics

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/12/health.industry.whistleblower/index.html

 

One thing is for certain: Proponents of a change have done a poor job in getting their message out. Based on what I am reading about public opposition it is unlikely that politicians will enact anything more than a few minor (but perhaps important) reforms.

I doubt if most people realize they are paying several thousand dollars a year for their health insurance as part of their spending (a hidden tax). What annoys me is that I pay twice for health insurance - for my family insurance and for every one else though hidden taxes on my other everyday spendin and taxes..

 

Lack of Providers

Most primary care providers are doing 12 hour shifts 5 to 6 days a week anyway and on the 7th day you are catching up on all the paperwork. Giving everyone some kind of health insurance isn't going to fix the problem if there are not enough practitioners. Instead of getting in to see your PCP today it will be next week. if you want to see a specialist it may take many months. There are only so may providers and only 24 hours in a day. Those who will see and treat will be badabang badaboom (New York slang for in and out). Next!

 

Now what is the cost of the two wars we are currently engaged in and what is the cost of health care reform?

 

I have an idea to solve some of the access problems send the patients to for profit "tourist" medical facilities in India, Thailand and Singapore for examples. I hate to point out the math but the care is BETTER at those and costs a great deal less. In India I had four stents put in here ,out of pocket, that would have cost at least $100,000 ,they wouldn't give me a flat rate, where the Indian medical group it cost $15,000. That was with airfare, a private room, my own private nurse with a bachelors degree, a cell phone with all my medical teams numbers and meals to order from multiple cuisines. And six days in the hospital after the procedure to recover with physical therapy.

And if there were complications it would not have cost extra.

So why not send Medicaid paitents there if its cheaper and give it as an option for everyone else?

We outsource everything else why not this and I will add the hospitals that do this are a match for any American hospital even our best ones here. My doctor was educated in Great Britain that did the procedure and the Indian Medical eduction system is very well regarded for training nurses and medical doctors.

That would free up hospitals to focus on emergency care and procedures that cost less than is cost effective to outsource.