coatimundi_org
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,281
The great Health Care debate!
- Thread starter trillionaire
- Start date
- Status
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
I put the example of my ex out there, because I believe a lot of it is about personal responsibility. I have a fine arts degree, and I know a lot of people from my field who wouldn''t deign to work a real job, because they felt they were too good for it (ex-husband & many other friends) but they expected everyone else to pick up the tab for them. There are many jobs in the art fields (record companies, galleries, etc.) that had real benefits that they just didn''t want to do. I don''t think that people who choose to opt out of the system that they so disdain necessarily should stand to benefit from it.Date: 3/16/2009 6:24:48 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Date: 3/16/2009 6:11:51 PM
Author: vespergirl
Date: 3/16/2009 5:38:41 PM
Author: EBree
Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM
Author: trillionaire
to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!
ok, let me get back on topic...Good thing I am the OP!
I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn''t fair to punish them for the ''sins of the leeches.''
I wonder just how many who bring up the ''entitlement mentality'' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I''m guessing very few.
Well, I am upper-middle class now, but my parents lived in severe poverty (were actually malnourished as children), came to this country as family-sponsored refugees, but took NO social service money even though they were penniless when they arrived. My grandparents worked as maids and restaurant workers, and my father worked as a restaurant worker to pay his way through college. They lived in the ghetto (Hell''s Kitchen, NY), and were able to succeed even though they came here not speaking the language. So yes, I feel entitled to say that even though my family has a lower-class background, through hard work they were able to succeed without leaching off the government. In a matter of 15 years my father was able to transform himself from a barefoot, non-English speaking peasant into a college-educated businessman.
And as for my personal background, in my first marriage, I was married to a man who was a musician, and refused to find a job that offered insurance, even though we fought bitterly about it (even his family thought that I was being uptight, and that we should ''enjoy our youth''). Of course, I, being the responsible type, took a job that I hated to insure us because I knew that was important than anything else. Six months after we were married he was diagnosed with stage 3b Hodgkin''s Lymphoma - he was 28 years old. I had a great PPO plan, and even though his cancer was so far advanced when he was diagnosed, I was able to find him the best specialists and he was able to go into remission. So, I was in fact close to a medical catastrophy in my life, that I faced at the age of 23. It''s not like I don''t know how devastating serious illnesses can be - but I also know that it was my sense of responsibility that helped save my ex-husband''s life, and saved him from crippling debt. I personally know many people who don''t bother to get insured, because they don''t want to pay for it or don''t want to take the types of jobs that offer insurance, but then have to deal with the consequences after choosing not to insure themselves. So, not everyone is a victim who is uninsured - many people make that choice.
The question is, do you think those who don''t know better to get insurance like your ex, or those who can''t afford to buy it, deserve to be sick and ignored by the rest of us?
Your story gives more of a reason for pushing the health reform in this country. Why should YOU be the one paying for your ex''s ignorance on on insurance covergae? If insurance coverage is mandatory for all, then you would not have to go through what you went through.
I definitely think it''s a different story for folks like strm mentioned, secretaries who can''t afford to add their children to their insurance plans. As I stated earlier, I think that our system needs improvement, and those are the folks I would like to see helped first.
But we have to admit that there are many able-bodied people in this country who don''t do anything to help themselves, and feel entitled to having other people foot the bill for them, for whatever reason.
Believe it or not, I actually do think that all people should receive good health care. But it really bothers me that those of us who pay into the system and play by the rules (including taking care of our health - work out, eat healthy, don''t smoke, etc.) end up footing the bill for those who live carelessly (overeat, smoke, type II diabetes) and don''t contribute.
I truly believe that if the people of the US had the same honor & responsibility to each other that the people do in some of the smaller Scandinavian countries, maybe that type of system would work here. But I think that our country is too big, and our cultures are too diverse, for it to work. I don''t know, maybe I''ll be proven wrong if we socialize medicine, I hope the govt. does prove me wrong, but I don''t think they wil ...
LtlFirecracker
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,837
Well, a lot of good discussion has happened. I am just going to respond to a couple things very generally. I agree with icekid, we are not talking about ignoring the old and sick. It is that American''s have a fear of death. Death is the final stage of the life cycle, and doctors are not in the business of making people immortal. Now, nothing makes me more upset and angry than someone who died a preventable death. And of course, if a life can be saved, all means should be taken to save it. That is why so many people go into the heath care profession. However, if someone''s time has come, and there is noting that can be done, keeping them alive by artificial means so that their bodies work, but the soul that everyone knows them for is gone, is a loosing battle that is draining our system. A lot of times I am wondering why families are doing this. Are they in denial? Is it less painful for them if the person is still alive? I mean, if you have ever seen someone in an ICU, it is true suffering. That is different than optimizing the quality of life of someone chronically ill but who still has some time, that is where our resources should be going. It should be about quality of life, not how long you live. We are supposed to have the right to withdraw if the care if futile, but the courts have made it really hard. There was a case where a hospital was forced by the courts to resuscitate a baby with Anencephaly. That is not a condition compatible with life!! If we can''t say no to that, we can''t say no to anything.
The other thing is that I have seen both systems. And in our country, the private industry works more effectively than the government. I don''t believe that government has better intensions. Corporations act in the interest of profit, politicians act in a way that will get them re-elected. Neither are good. Either way, people are not being put first. The interests of the person running the system are. We could sit here and argue all day about this, and people''s opinions would be split. I do believe in government regulation over for profit industries. It has been done before it can be done again. Insurance companies have now been forced to pay for re-construction surgeries for pts with breast cancer, pay for birth control, and pay for a certain amount of time in the hospital after a woman gives birth. Regulations can be made to address pre-existing conditions, to simplify the appeals process if a person gets denied, ect. There are alternative solutions to our health care system other than a government run system.
The other thing is that I have seen both systems. And in our country, the private industry works more effectively than the government. I don''t believe that government has better intensions. Corporations act in the interest of profit, politicians act in a way that will get them re-elected. Neither are good. Either way, people are not being put first. The interests of the person running the system are. We could sit here and argue all day about this, and people''s opinions would be split. I do believe in government regulation over for profit industries. It has been done before it can be done again. Insurance companies have now been forced to pay for re-construction surgeries for pts with breast cancer, pay for birth control, and pay for a certain amount of time in the hospital after a woman gives birth. Regulations can be made to address pre-existing conditions, to simplify the appeals process if a person gets denied, ect. There are alternative solutions to our health care system other than a government run system.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
The health care mess harms the US in other ways also.
It kills innovation which has always came from small companies and back yard engineering.
The next big thing does not come from mega-corps.
I would love to have insurance, but at $2500+ a month cant afford it. (its more than my income right now)
Pre-existing conditions suck and despite it being illegal to discriminate for employment it is done every day.
A state wide or even multi-state group that people and companies could buy into would help.
That would be a good start to fixing the mess.
Taking all the state employees and putting them in the pool would be a start then talk to all the big employers and unions and get them on board as they would be dumb not to go for it.
Then shop the giant group around to insurance companies and set up 3-4 plans.
Set up a not for profit group of 20-40 employees to run it with min. overhead.
It kills innovation which has always came from small companies and back yard engineering.
The next big thing does not come from mega-corps.
I would love to have insurance, but at $2500+ a month cant afford it. (its more than my income right now)
Pre-existing conditions suck and despite it being illegal to discriminate for employment it is done every day.
A state wide or even multi-state group that people and companies could buy into would help.
That would be a good start to fixing the mess.
Taking all the state employees and putting them in the pool would be a start then talk to all the big employers and unions and get them on board as they would be dumb not to go for it.
Then shop the giant group around to insurance companies and set up 3-4 plans.
Set up a not for profit group of 20-40 employees to run it with min. overhead.
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
That sounds really good, but who''s to say what''s "better"? Personally I think it''ll be worse.
And faith in my federal government?? Nah. Not in my lifetime. Not when it comes to something this important and no matter who''s sitting in the big seat.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Date: 3/16/2009 10:14:09 PM
Author: vespergirl
I put the example of my ex out there, because I believe a lot of it is about personal responsibility. I have a fine arts degree, and I know a lot of people from my field who wouldn''t deign to work a real job, because they felt they were too good for it (ex-husband & many other friends) but they expected everyone else to pick up the tab for them. There are many jobs in the art fields (record companies, galleries, etc.) that had real benefits that they just didn''t want to do. I don''t think that people who choose to opt out of the system that they so disdain necessarily should stand to benefit from it.Date: 3/16/2009 6:24:48 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Date: 3/16/2009 6:11:51 PM
Author: vespergirl
Date: 3/16/2009 5:38:41 PM
Author: EBree
Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM
Author: trillionaire
to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!
ok, let me get back on topic...
I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn''t fair to punish them for the ''sins of the leeches.''
I wonder just how many who bring up the ''entitlement mentality'' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I''m guessing very few.
Well, I am upper-middle class now, but my parents lived in severe poverty (were actually malnourished as children), came to this country as family-sponsored refugees, but took NO social service money even though they were penniless when they arrived. My grandparents worked as maids and restaurant workers, and my father worked as a restaurant worker to pay his way through college. They lived in the ghetto (Hell''s Kitchen, NY), and were able to succeed even though they came here not speaking the language. So yes, I feel entitled to say that even though my family has a lower-class background, through hard work they were able to succeed without leaching off the government. In a matter of 15 years my father was able to transform himself from a barefoot, non-English speaking peasant into a college-educated businessman.
And as for my personal background, in my first marriage, I was married to a man who was a musician, and refused to find a job that offered insurance, even though we fought bitterly about it (even his family thought that I was being uptight, and that we should ''enjoy our youth''). Of course, I, being the responsible type, took a job that I hated to insure us because I knew that was important than anything else. Six months after we were married he was diagnosed with stage 3b Hodgkin''s Lymphoma - he was 28 years old. I had a great PPO plan, and even though his cancer was so far advanced when he was diagnosed, I was able to find him the best specialists and he was able to go into remission. So, I was in fact close to a medical catastrophy in my life, that I faced at the age of 23. It''s not like I don''t know how devastating serious illnesses can be - but I also know that it was my sense of responsibility that helped save my ex-husband''s life, and saved him from crippling debt. I personally know many people who don''t bother to get insured, because they don''t want to pay for it or don''t want to take the types of jobs that offer insurance, but then have to deal with the consequences after choosing not to insure themselves. So, not everyone is a victim who is uninsured - many people make that choice.
The question is, do you think those who don''t know better to get insurance like your ex, or those who can''t afford to buy it, deserve to be sick and ignored by the rest of us?
Your story gives more of a reason for pushing the health reform in this country. Why should YOU be the one paying for your ex''s ignorance on on insurance covergae? If insurance coverage is mandatory for all, then you would not have to go through what you went through.
I definitely think it''s a different story for folks like strm mentioned, secretaries who can''t afford to add their children to their insurance plans. As I stated earlier, I think that our system needs improvement, and those are the folks I would like to see helped first.
But we have to admit that there are many able-bodied people in this country who don''t do anything to help themselves, and feel entitled to having other people foot the bill for them, for whatever reason.
Believe it or not, I actually do think that all people should receive good health care. But it really bothers me that those of us who pay into the system and play by the rules (including taking care of our health - work out, eat healthy, don''t smoke, etc.) end up footing the bill for those who live carelessly (overeat, smoke, type II diabetes) and don''t contribute.
I truly believe that if the people of the US had the same honor & responsibility to each other that the people do in some of the smaller Scandinavian countries, maybe that type of system would work here. But I think that our country is too big, and our cultures are too diverse, for it to work. I don''t know, maybe I''ll be proven wrong if we socialize medicine, I hope the govt. does prove me wrong, but I don''t think they wil ...
Odd how some are moved to resentment while others are moved to pity. If all people should receive good healthcare, then all people should receive good healthcare. Period. We can acknowledge that our choices have effects on our health, but that doesn''t give the rest of us the license to deny care to those who need it. I judge that your problem was caused by your own bad choices, therefore I refuse you care? I think not. My mother smoked 2 packs a day for 52 years, and didn''t get lung cancer or heart disease, but ALS instead. Was it caused by her smoking? Doubt it. Would some like to point to it and say there must be a connection? I''m certain there are.
And that''s another thing, we as a people, and baby-boomers like myself are particularly bad about this, believe that if only we make the right choices, nothing bad will happen. I know this better than most because I had cancer. Want to know the first thought that went through my mind? "What did I do WRONG???" I beat myself silly trying to figure out what I did. Fact is, I didn''t do anything. Wrong age, wrong sex, wrong profession, no family history. After going over my history and background, even the Dr scratched his head. No clue. But I''m sure there is someone out there who would like to judge that I DID something wrong to precipitate cancer.
I view it as a spiritual exercise. I am to give without judgement. It''s hard to do, and I want to see the system work better like everyone else. I don''t like the idea that my monies are wasted NOT providing genuine care. But I''m going to try my best to not judge others. I''m blessed. Every day I breathe. If I can''t share my blessing with others in this small way, then I have my priorities skewed.
And strm, if you read this, yes, a pre-existing is absolutely terrifying. I was just damn lucky to find a job with good insurance before my COBRA ran out.
saltymuffin
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 225
Vespergirl, I understand a fear of change. I do. I too fear change to my own health care system. I fear that our government will be convinced to implement private alternatives and that we will end up with a really big mess. I understand that you are happy with the service that you get now, and that you are afraid that any change will be for the worse. I feel the same way.
But please don''t continue to suggest that universal health care only works in Scandinavia. EVERY wealthy industrialised country aside from the US has universal health care. Scandinavia is not the only place where it is a sucess. To suggest that it is, is unfair not only to all these other countries, but also to the Scandinavian nations. They do not live in a utopia - they have real problems that they have to deal with to make their systems work. I can assure you that every Swedish citizen is not responsible and honourable.
The reason that universal health care will not work in the US is not due to its size or diversity. The entire EU manages to provide universal health care to its diverse citizens, and is very similar in size to the US. Does every country use the same system? No. Would every state need to? In Canada, providing health care is a provincial responsibility.
Diversity should be seen as an opportunity, not a limitation. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all countries, like the US, made up mostly of immigrants. Canada is a country that has, to some extent, been divided linguistically and culturally since its creation. An infulx of immigrants from new and different places is common throughout the industrialized nations. The challenges that the US faces are not unique.
To have a public or private health care system is a choice in a democratic nation, the US is not a victim of circumstance, it CHOOSES the private system it has. A sucessful universal system is not built on honour and responsibility. One could argue that Americans are among the most honourable and responsible individuals in the world. The desire to fend for ones self, sink or swim, the ability to thive and excell and not owe or rely on the government for anything is the value system that the majority of Americans hold. It is these values, rather than size, diversity, or some lack of honour that explains the health care system you have.
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
I don''t mean ethnic cultures (trust me, I''m no where near blond or Scandinavian
I mean social cultures. There are hardworking people in the US who contribute but wouldn''t accept a dime, and there are many people who feel entitled to get something for nothing - and the people from both groups are of every ethnicity and nationality. The reason that I mention it is because I saw a documentary on why socialism works in Scandinavia, and statistics showed that it works best in countries with small and homogeneous populations. That sounded kind of pertrubing to me, but they said that it''s because people feel more motivated to take care of others who have similar lifestyles/backgrounds to themselves. Our country has so much diversity, and unfortunately, many people can not relate to people outside of their social circle, and therefore don''t feel a sense of responsibility towards them. I''m not saying it''s right, but the documentary I watched said that this is why social pragrams tend to not work as well in large, diverse countries.
saltymuffin
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 225
Vespergirl, I don't mean to pick on you, I really don't but you just say so many fascinating things!
Your friends who choose jobs that do not provide health insurance. They didn't "opt out" of any system did they? I mean you don't have a system to opt out of. They just chose not to pay for insurance. They don't currently have health coverage right? So they aren't benefiting from anything you have paid into, right? Are you bothered because they complain that they don't have coverage? Because they wish there were a universal system? Or are they in fact somehow getting insurance "for free"?
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
Trillionaire (and others),
I live in Australia and work for a private not-for-profit health insurer.
Our system is soooo completely different from the US, I don't even know where to start!
We have the government/public system (I think what is being referred to here as "universal" care in this thread.?). Then people can either choose to have
private cover to complement that, or not.
Many many Aussies choose to not ever have private health in their lifetime - for example my parents. And as far as I know, they have never had any difficulty accessing proper medical care in the public system.
It makes me really sad to hear how US insurers always want to find a way to deny a client's claim rather than pay it - I could never work for a company like that.
I know alot of people will not believe me, but where I work is the opposite - we will do what we can and go out of our way to try and pay the members. I guess being not for profit makes a big difference.
Please feel free to ask me any questions if you like - I'm not sure what else to add as there are so many
good discussions in this thread.
ETA: hold on, just read more - so if you have Any pre existing condition in the US, you can never get insurance and never get it treated?! That is nuts!
Am I reading that right?
Here is a suggestion, it seems to work pretty well here - just have qualifying periods! My company's QP for pre existing is 12mths - after paying for the insurance for 12mths, you can have any pre existing treated in a private hospital (24 mths if its a joint replacement surgery).
I'm pretty sure this QP is pretty standard for Australia - wide.
If you pay for the cover, why should you not have treatment for what you really need
I don't understand why the US Co's can't just do something like that? After all it sounds like your policies are also alot more expensive than ours
If you are an Aus. resident, the govt. pays 30% of the insurance for you if you decide to take it out - Government rebate. Wondering, does US have anything like this?
I live in Australia and work for a private not-for-profit health insurer.
Our system is soooo completely different from the US, I don't even know where to start!
We have the government/public system (I think what is being referred to here as "universal" care in this thread.?). Then people can either choose to have
private cover to complement that, or not.
Many many Aussies choose to not ever have private health in their lifetime - for example my parents. And as far as I know, they have never had any difficulty accessing proper medical care in the public system.
It makes me really sad to hear how US insurers always want to find a way to deny a client's claim rather than pay it - I could never work for a company like that.
Please feel free to ask me any questions if you like - I'm not sure what else to add as there are so many
good discussions in this thread.
ETA: hold on, just read more - so if you have Any pre existing condition in the US, you can never get insurance and never get it treated?! That is nuts!
Am I reading that right?
Here is a suggestion, it seems to work pretty well here - just have qualifying periods! My company's QP for pre existing is 12mths - after paying for the insurance for 12mths, you can have any pre existing treated in a private hospital (24 mths if its a joint replacement surgery).
I'm pretty sure this QP is pretty standard for Australia - wide.
If you pay for the cover, why should you not have treatment for what you really need
I don't understand why the US Co's can't just do something like that? After all it sounds like your policies are also alot more expensive than ours
If you are an Aus. resident, the govt. pays 30% of the insurance for you if you decide to take it out - Government rebate. Wondering, does US have anything like this?
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
Actually, many of these people were the types to take advantage of the system, and did indeed expect something for nothing. Several of the people I personally know who went to my private, expensive music college took out govt. student loans to pay for their educations, and then stated that they planned to default on the loans and not pay them back. My ex, who proclaimed that a young healthy person didn''t need health insurance, would go to the free clinics in our town whenever he got a sniffle, and instead of getting a regular doctor, would just use the emergency room when he needed real medical care (this was until I insured him). All the work that he did was under-the-table, and he did not declare most of his "income" on his taxes.
It''s the entitlement attitude of getting something for nothing that bothers me. It''s people who don''t contribute to the system - don''t want to work or pay taxes, but they are happy to use the entitlement programs that other people''s hard work and tax money pay for. I think that in a capitalist country, the agreement is that you need to work and contribute to succeed. If you don''t, and decide to live like a hobo, then I think that is your right but people should accept the consequences of those decisions - whether it means not owning a home, getting a paycheck, or health insurance.
Once again, I''m not talking about hard-working people who are struggling and working hard to try to support their families. We need to make insurance more affordable for those people.
But I do personally know many people who are homeless and unemployed by choice. One of my best friends has a mother who lives in her car. The woman has chosen the "free, hippie" lifestyle her whole life, and does not want to be tied down to a "soul-sucking" full-time job. She had 6 kids with 5 different men, and their whole lives they were dependent on the generosity of the welfare syste, Medicaid and homeless shelters from time to time. Her daughter has offered many times to have her come live with her, but staying in one place cramps her style. I am personally really disgusted by this woman, because she receives welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid that my family pays for. Why? Because she''s too lazy to work a job, even though she is totally capable. Do I feel like I should be paying for this woman''s healthcare? No way. She chose that life path, now she has to take the good & the bad that come with it.
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
I believe that an insurance company has to cover your pre-existing condition if you are insured through an employer (I may be wrong about that, but that''s what I''ve been led to believe.Date: 3/17/2009 10:50:05 AM
Author: arjunajane
Trillionaire (and others),
I live in Australia and work for a private not-for-profit health insurer.
Our system is soooo completely different from the US, I don''t even know where to start!
We have the government/public system (I think what is being referred to here as ''universal'' care in this thread.?). Then people can either choose to have
private cover to complement that, or not.
Many many Aussies choose to not ever have private health in their lifetime - for example my parents. And as far as I know, they have never had any difficulty accessing proper medical care in the public system.
It makes me really sad to hear how US insurers always want to find a way to deny a client''s claim rather than pay it - I could never work for a company like that.I know alot of people will not believe me, but where I work is the opposite - we will do what we can and go out of our way to try and pay the members. I guess being not for profit makes a big difference.
Please feel free to ask me any questions if you like - I''m not sure what else to add as there are so many
good discussions in this thread.
ETA: hold on, just read more - so if you have Any pre existing condition in the US, you can never get insurance and never get it treated?! That is nuts!
Am I reading that right?
Here is a suggestion, it seems to work pretty well here - just have qualifying periods! My company''s QP for pre existing is 12mths - after paying for the insurance for 12mths, you can have any pre existing treated in a private hospital (24 mths if its a joint replacement surgery).
I''m pretty sure this QP is pretty standard for Australia - wide.
If you pay for the cover, why should you not have treatment for what you really need
I don''t understand why the US Co''s can''t just do something like that? After all it sounds like your policies are also alot more expensive than ours
If you are an Aus. resident, the govt. pays 30% of the insurance for you if you decide to take it out - Government rebate. Wondering, does US have anything like this?
I think it''s only difficult to get insured with a pre-existing condition if you''re trying to buy your own private insurance, but I''m not sure about this ... maybe someone else who knows more about it can correct me?
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
Well, imho thats pretty much the same thing - why should someone with a decent paying job deserve a different standard of H.C than someone who earns less, or is unemployed, if they are still willing to purchase the insurance?
Seeing as I live in what some on this thread may refer to as a socialist H.C system, I would like to dispel a couple of the myths that keep getting said here:
- We don't have to wait forever to see a specialist. As far as I know, it's just like booking a regular GP appt (~ a weeks notice average).
- People do not get refused HC. If you choose to purchase private cover, than you get to select your surgeon, your cushier hospital etc. But if you go public, you still get treated, you just don't have as much freedom of choice.
- we don't kill off the elderly and chronically ill
- the government is not in our homes, telling us what to do - really, grow up with this view
I'm sorry, I don't want to sound patronizing, but I know which one I would choose.
No, I am not saying its a perfect system - I don't think any country in the world can claim that.
But I do belive a mixture of public and private IS the answer, with an emphasis on HC for All, and Choice.
iluvcarats
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,860
There is certainly truth to that old saying "There are two sides to every story."
If you google Canadian health care it takes a nano second for all sorts of stories to surface, both good and bad.
Here is one called
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care, and another that addresses the long waits that canadians face for tests and treatments. And it appears that the doctor and nurse shortage has driven the Canadian Government to desperate measures. Why don't more Canadians want to be doctors and nurses?
Yes, one "could argue that Americans are among the most honorable and responsible individuals in the world." Not only do we fend for ourselves, we fend for others as well. I am sure that if Canada was ever to need our help in ANY WAY, we would not hesitate to send our brave soldiers to help and defend you. And if ever there was a group of people who deserves *better* care than the rest, it is the men and women of the US Military. But this is how our government treats our soldiers
Is our health care system broken? Absolutely! Does everyone deserve care? Of course! It certainly needs fixing, but we are going to have to figure something else out. I am glad you find that the Canadian system works for you, although there are other Canadians who will disagree, and your dr/nurse shortage is a bit problematic. And to answer a previous question, NO, I really don't trust my government. I would be happy to pay higher taxes if I thought that the money was actually going to help the needy, feed sick children, and heel our soldiers. But I don't believe that it will, because there is far too much waste in our government. Just ask the Drs. at the VA - there hands are forever tied with red tape. And I would be sorry to see talented men and women stop practicing medicine simply because it is too much of a headache.
saltymuffin
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 225
From what you have described, it sounds like the documentary you watched was talking about a larger "socialist" safety net system, not just providing universal health care. As has been pointed out, all countries that provide universal health care are not socialist.Date: 3/17/2009 10:27:36 AM
Author: vespergirl
I don''t mean ethnic cultures (trust me, I''m no where near blond or Scandinavian
I am also not sure that I agree with the conclusion they drew. The reason that Universal health care (and other social programs for that matter) is supported in most countries isn''t because people feel motivated to "take care of others". They are supported because people see the benefit for themselves, and those they love.
My primary reasons for supporting the Canadian health care system are somewhat selfish. I value the freedom and security that it provides. I am happy that I don''t have to worry about the provision of health care of my friends and family, regardless of their age, social staus or illness. I am happy that I don''t have to pay for private insurance, or any sort of co-pay or deductable when I see a doctor. I am happy that if I lost my job, I would still be able to take care of my health. I am happy that I can make life decisions without worrying about a lack of coverage. I can choose to work as an author, artist, or freelance contractor in any field. Artists, photographer and freelance employees still pay taxes, so they still pay into the system. And if I decide to save up my money so that I can take a year off to travel or stay at home to raise a child that''s fine too.
I have to accept that those who don''t pay tax (children, students, the elderly, the disabled, and the slackers in society) get a "free ride", and I have to accept a system that isn''t perfect. These trade-offs are worth it to me.
coatimundi_org
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,281
Date: 3/17/2009 11:26:01 AM
Author: arjunajane
Well, imho thats pretty much the same thing - why should someone with a decent paying job deserve a different standard of H.C than someone who earns less, or is unemployed, if they are still willing to purchase the insurance?
Seeing as I live in what some on this thread may refer to as a socialist H.C system, I would like to dispel a couple of the myths that keep getting said here:
- We don''t have to wait forever to see a specialist. As far as I know, it''s just like booking a regular GP appt (~ a weeks notice average).
- People do not get refused HC. If you choose to purchase private cover, than you get to select your surgeon, your cushier hospital etc. But if you go public, you still get treated, you just don''t have as much freedom of choice.
- we don''t kill off the elderly and chronically ill
- the government is not in our homes, telling us what to do - really, grow up with this view
I''m sorry, I don''t want to sound patronizing, but I know which one I would choose.
No, I am not saying its a perfect system - I don''t think any country in the world can claim that.
But I do belive a mixture of public and private IS the answer, with an emphasis on HC for All, and Choice.
Hiya AJ,
Well said and thank you.
The "waiting in line" rhetoric is pretty hilarious. The last time I went into see my specialist for my finger, I waited 2 hours to be seen, because they had overbooked.
It works in other countries. It can work here.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Date: 3/17/2009 7:15:42 AM
Author: beebrisk
Just for me, individual plan, Would have to get into a group plan to get it any cheaper.Date: 3/17/2009 5:36:22 AM
Wow, Storm. $2500! Is that for a single, or family plan?? That''s just unconscionable.
Arthritis, blood clots, asthma and a messed up elbow.
The 2500 would also cover nothing related to the above for at least a year.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
They can exclude it for up to a 6 months on a group plan which is what most employer provided policy is if you didn't have insurance for 3 months before the policy kicks in.
Since it often takes 3-6 months to get benefits at many companies a lot of people get burned that way.
On an individual plan they can exclude it forever.
Basically it makes it very very hard for someone who hasn't had insurance for whatever reason to get it but fairly easy for someone that has always had insurance to keep it as long as they are employed by someone who provides it.
But if you lose it for any period of time your sol.
The current economy is going to hurt a ton of people in the long term because of this.
saltymuffin
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 225
I agree there are problems and I never meant to suggest that our system was perfect. But despite the problems (which are not as bad as the extreme articles you posted make out), I still prefer it to a private system. Most Canadians (myself included) do want change, but the vast majority want to improve the system we have, not toss it in favour of a private system. I do beleive a hybrid system could work, but it would have to be very carefully implemented.Date: 3/17/2009 11:33:50 AM
Author: iluvcarats
There is certainly truth to that old saying ''There are two sides to every story.''
If you google Canadian health care it takes a nano second for all sorts of stories to surface, both good and bad.
Here is one called
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care, and another that addresses the long waits that canadians face for tests and treatments. And it appears that the doctor and nurse shortage has driven the Canadian Government to desperate measures. Why don''t more Canadians want to be doctors and nurses?
Yes, one ''could argue that Americans are among the most honorable and responsible individuals in the world.'' Not only do we fend for ourselves, we fend for others as well. I am sure that if Canada was ever to need our help in ANY WAY, we would not hesitate to send our brave soldiers to help and defend you. And if ever there was a group of people who deserves *better* care than the rest, it is the men and women of the US Military. But this is how our government treats our soldiers
Is our health care system broken? Absolutely! Does everyone deserve care? Of course! It certainly needs fixing, but we are going to have to figure something else out. I am glad you find that the Canadian system works for you, although there are other Canadians who will disagree, and your dr/nurse shortage is a bit problematic. And to answer a previous question, NO, I really don''t trust my government. I would be happy to pay higher taxes if I thought that the money was actually going to help the needy, feed sick children, and heel our soldiers. But I don''t believe that it will, because there is far too much waste in our government. Just ask the Drs. at the VA - there hands are forever tied with red tape. And I would be sorry to see talented men and women stop practicing medicine simply because it is too much of a headache.
A universal system isn''t for everyone - I understand that, and I never meant to suggest that anyone "should" trust their gov''t. People value different things, there is no right or wrong here.
And I wasn''t being sarcastic when I said that Americans are among the most honorable and responsible individuals in the world. I really mean that. I was responding to vespergirl who suggested that Scandinavians are somehow more honourable and responsible than Americans, and that is why their system works. Honour and responsibility has NOTHING to do with supporting a universal health care system. It is all about what you value.
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
I had gotten my ideas about the long waits for Canada''s medical services from this NY Times article. It''s a couple of years old, so maybe things have changed since then - I''ll post the link.
One woman they interviewed, who was diagnosed with breast cancer, had surgery to remove the tumor, but then had to wait 3 months to begin radiation treatments, when she should have begun treatments after only 2 weeks. When my husband was diagnosed here is the US, he started chemo 1 week later.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E0DD173AF930A25751C0A9659C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=
Here is a quote from the article:
But growing complaints about long lines for diagnosis and surgery, as well as widespread ''''line-jumping'''' by the affluent and connected, are eroding public confidence in Canada''s national health care system and producing a leading issue for next year''s national elections.
One woman they interviewed, who was diagnosed with breast cancer, had surgery to remove the tumor, but then had to wait 3 months to begin radiation treatments, when she should have begun treatments after only 2 weeks. When my husband was diagnosed here is the US, he started chemo 1 week later.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E0DD173AF930A25751C0A9659C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=
Here is a quote from the article:
But growing complaints about long lines for diagnosis and surgery, as well as widespread ''''line-jumping'''' by the affluent and connected, are eroding public confidence in Canada''s national health care system and producing a leading issue for next year''s national elections.
saltymuffin
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 225
Thanks for chiming in arjunajane, I am really interested in the hybrid systems that Australia and several other countries have. Everything I have heard about the Dutch system sounds amazing. I also like your "myths". I have a few to add:Date: 3/17/2009 11:26:01 AM
Author: arjunajane
Seeing as I live in what some on this thread may refer to as a socialist H.C system, I would like to dispel a couple of the myths that keep getting said here:
- We don''t have to wait forever to see a specialist. As far as I know, it''s just like booking a regular GP appt (~ a weeks notice average).
- People do not get refused HC. If you choose to purchase private cover, than you get to select your surgeon, your cushier hospital etc. But if you go public, you still get treated, you just don''t have as much freedom of choice.
- we don''t kill off the elderly and chronically ill
- the government is not in our homes, telling us what to do - really, grow up with this view
I''m sorry, I don''t want to sound patronizing, but I know which one I would choose.
No, I am not saying its a perfect system - I don''t think any country in the world can claim that.
But I do belive a mixture of public and private IS the answer, with an emphasis on HC for All, and Choice.
- There isn''t only one way to implement universal health care.
- Just because you have a public system doesn''t mean that doctors have to be under the thumb of some burocrat. Most doctors in Canada are self-employed. They are paid by the gov''t on a fee per service basis. They don''t have a burocrat looking over their shoulder questioing their professional opion. From what I have heard, insurance companys in the US seem to have more power over treatment options than any gov''t burocrat does here.
- Prescription drug coverage is not part of the Canadian system. You pay for your own drugs, or get private insurance to cover it. The reason some drugs cost less here is not due to "buying in bulk", but because of gov''t regulation that limits the price of a drug to the median price that they are sold for elsewhere in developed countries. They also forbid charging different amounts to the insured and uninsured.
zhuzhu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,503
Some "interesting" belief flowing around here:
1) Some Americans are lazy and they take advantage of the other hard-working ones!!
2) America government is bad bad fox and can NOT do anything possibly right or help its own citizens....Do no trust anything they do or any system they implement!
3) So what so many other countries have government-sponsored healthcare system? Some of them complaint about lacking good care anyways - so they can''t possibly that good!
1+2+3 does NOT make it alright for those of us who currently (you never know about tomorrow)have good insurance to let the existing system continues to deny healthcare for the rest of us! Can we please all put aside our self-centered, self-preserving heart and look hard into what humanity means?
And to those high paid medical doctors who are in fear of pay-cut. Please, MDs were also the ones heavily resistant to HMO system, but now MDs are the ones benefiting financially most from the system.
What matters most is the future health of our population, and if we continue to turn away from those who are victims of the existing system, then very soon we will be the sickest nation and least productive one of all. Health is the single one most important investment of all. Let us give everybody the right to access care.
1) Some Americans are lazy and they take advantage of the other hard-working ones!!
2) America government is bad bad fox and can NOT do anything possibly right or help its own citizens....Do no trust anything they do or any system they implement!
3) So what so many other countries have government-sponsored healthcare system? Some of them complaint about lacking good care anyways - so they can''t possibly that good!
1+2+3 does NOT make it alright for those of us who currently (you never know about tomorrow)have good insurance to let the existing system continues to deny healthcare for the rest of us! Can we please all put aside our self-centered, self-preserving heart and look hard into what humanity means?
And to those high paid medical doctors who are in fear of pay-cut. Please, MDs were also the ones heavily resistant to HMO system, but now MDs are the ones benefiting financially most from the system.
What matters most is the future health of our population, and if we continue to turn away from those who are victims of the existing system, then very soon we will be the sickest nation and least productive one of all. Health is the single one most important investment of all. Let us give everybody the right to access care.
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
I agree with this, which is why my husband and I don''t smoke, get 30 min. of cardio 5 days a week, and don''t overeat. My son is also a healthy weight and is very active. I value my health, which is why I take care of it.
However, currently 62% of American adults are overweight or obese, and 34% of children are, which causes heart disease and diabetes, and 20% of Americans smoke cigarettes, which causes an array of cancers. The overweight and smokers are making themselves sick with preventable diseases, and their lazy attitudes towards their own health is costing everyone. Just getting access to free medical care isn''t going to correct those behaviors.
Here is a 2002 study titled "The Effects Of Obesity, Smoking, And Drinking On Medical Problems And Costs":
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/21/2/245.pdf
Here is an excerpt:
Obesity has roughly the same association with chronic health conditions as does twenty years’ aging; this greatly exceeds the associations of smoking or problem drinking. Utilization effects mirrors the health effects. Obesity is associated with a 36 percent increase in inpatient and outpatient spending and a 77 percent increase in medications, compared with a 21 percent increase in inpatient and outpatient spending and a 28 percent increase in medications for current smokers and smaller effects for problem drinkers. Nevertheless, the latter two groups have received more consistent attention in recent decades in clinical practice and public health policy.
icekid
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 7,476
You MUST be joking. Doctors have taken pay cut after pay cut over the last 20-30 years. Doctors are not the ones who benefit from HMOs. HMOs benefit from HMOs. Please try to glean a little knowledge from someone other than Michael Moore a before you go spouting off about things you don't know anything about.
Do you really have ANY clue what the life of a physician is like? Do you really have any clue? Oh yeah, we're all living it up on our yachts (you know, when we're not working all day and night). I've been in my residency training (my first real job FINALLY at the age of 27!) for the past 9 months, following 8 years of schooling. My entire twenties have been devoted to studying and working. There are plenty of weeks when I work 100 hours. That is 2.5 full time jobs. This leaves me what, a couple hours for my husband? Forget about having the child that I would love to add to my family. 8 years of school, $250,000 in debt, ANOTHER 5 years of training, little time with my family, no time to make a family with my husband, taking care of people who are dying, stress, exhaustion, lack of sleep, being so afraid to miss things, having to be mentally present for 30 hours straight with no sleep. Do you want my job? Really? I absolutely knew what I was getting into when I signed up for medical school. These are sacrifices I was willing to make. But I also knew that there would be compensation for all of the years that I put in.
Tell me, zhuzhu, who do you want to be your doctor? The person who graduated at the top of her high school, attended a prestigious university, and then trained at one of the most famous hospitals in the world? Or Joe Schmoe? Because the former will not go to medical school any longer, if there is no incentive to suffer through the process. And believe me, there is a lot of suffering! I will not apologize before I say that, yes, I absolutely believe I deserve to make a reasonable wage at the end of this.
LtlFirecracker
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,837
Actually, MD''s have not benefited from HMO''s at all, if anything it has hurt us. Doctor''s are not making nearly as much money as they did 20 years ago, and the cost of medical school has gone up. Students are coming into residency (which is 40-50k a year for 3+ years) with 200+ k of debt (in my school it is closer to 300k). Medical schools are already having trouble finding the best and brightest. I mean, lets be honest, if you want to just help people, there are plenty of professions that let you do that without 8 years of school + residency. In one book I read, it said that the personality of doctors was one of "motivational hybrids," people who like to help others, but want to make a nice living and are willing to work for it. For me, it is not all about the money, if it was, I would have gone into another field, or chosen a speciality that pays more. But I will admit, part of the reason I did this was it is a service oriented profession that pays well. If it didn''t I could have gone into physical therapy, or something else that would have allowed me much better hours, and the chance to be finically independent at a younger age.
The system in Australia is interesting, we already have a hybrid system (medicare, SCHIP), it would be nice to find a way to make it work better. I would be interested in learning more about that system. Pros and cons.
LtlFirecracker
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,837
Also, you know how many older doctors told me to reconsider? Pretty much all of them. One just said "the job isn''t fun anymore." They are also telling their children to reconsider, and that is where many of our doctors come from.
zhuzhu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,503
No offense Ickid,
I work with MDs day in and day out. Not all, but some of them in training (residents and fellow particularly), whine a lot like you do. I went to school for over 9 years to get my PhD. My pay is a fraction of those MDs who also "sacrifice their youth" for a higher education, so I can do something I believe in. I do not complaint about the time "used-up" when I was in school and not making money, nor the fact that I am paid pennies compared to you "doctors". It was my choice and I am proud of my work.
I know what MDs' lifestyle is like compared to others who are equally well educated, and frankly I think you are in the wrong profession "if" you value money more than the purpose of your work, or "if" you use the compensation package to determine the job satisfaction. Of course it is just my value system and you are prob disagreeing with every word of it. Anyways, unless somebody forced you into medical school to become a doctor, taking responsibility for your own professional choice will prob make life happier.
- Status
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)