[Tammyjh]

Originally Posted by (.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)

I feel like my posts are being missed because this is the third time I'll be pointing out that there is a conflict of interest in having doctors that have the choice to break even with your current insurance/medaid programs compared to going with elite insurance coverage where they make a profit. Here we pay our doctors, better than other public servants, but they still practice under the notion they aren't doing it for the money.


But right now in your system, your paying for someone's profit, the insurance companies' profit.

Michelle, I'm not really missing your points but I'm looking for someone to give me examples of how the US govt. can manage the program. US examples. Yes, private insurance compensates dr.'s more than medicaid. I've also seen one person on the board state that her family has health insurance through her husbands state job....and that the coverage sucks. My state has been trying to get a lower cost program off the ground for small business, self employed individuals, and those who have to self buy for a long time and its slow going because no one wants to pay higher taxes and the premiums are still a little high. They're still working on it. I beleive Mass. has sort of a state universal type program but I don't know how well that is working. If someone that has info on that can chime in, it would be great.

As to my point about employer based insurance, I was talking about the attitude many have about their benefits ~ entitlement ~ when benefits are really extras. And the sad part is that many who have employer based insurance, have no idea what the full premium costs. I often say that if everyone was suddenly faced with having to self buy their own health insurance, there would be many more ready to work towards some sort of real change.

[Tammyjh]

Originally Posted by Jess is Write

I don't trust our current government to get it right, either. Especially after all the "compromising" we've seen with the health care bill. But that doesn't mean we can't begin the push to get leaders in who can handle it. I just think we should all start working toward UHC and electing those who we think can make it happen. We guarantee every citizen the right to education and legal counsel, even if they can't/won't pay, and we don't place income requirements on them to use those services. It's completely absurd that medical care isn't the same way.

I don't totally disagree as I think there is a solution. It will take a lot of work because I do not believe its just about greedy health insurance companies....its about greedy politicians as well.

About public education......how many times have we had debates about how the public schools systems suck in this country? I'm probably one of few on this board who's happy with it.

[~Kris~]

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

But we do that now....its called employer based health insurance programs. When premiums rise, employers either require employees to pay in a little more OR they pass the cost down to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods/services. And I'm pretty sure that those who have health insurance through their place of employment don't sit around worrying about how much the consumer pays towards their benefits package.

To me that's just part of business. There are so many things that factor into the cost of products. I don't think the gov't needs to get their hands in collecting more taxes from some people and then handing out more to others. We already know some people get more back at tax time than they pay into the system and now we should turn around and give them more? What's next? Everybody deserves this type of house, this type of clothes, this type of car?

[**Badfish**]

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

About public education......how many times have we had debates about how the public schools systems suck in this country? I'm probably one of few on this board who's happy with it.

I don't think the opinions on this board are really representative with how most people feel about the public education system. I'm very happy with my public school education, including the international baccalaureate program that was available to me. Plus every.single.one of my friends who is a teacher works in a public school, and each one of them is very passionate about their job. All anecdotal, but nothing in my experience leads me to believe public education is bad.

Originally Posted by ~Kris~

To me that's just part of business. There are so many things that factor into the cost of products. I don't think the gov't needs to get their hands in collecting more taxes from some people and then handing out more to others. We already know some people get more back at tax time than they pay into the system and now we should turn around and give them more? What's next? Everybody deserves this type of house, this type of clothes, this type of car?

Give me a break. We're talking about health care. Everyone deserves the same level of health care. Period.

[Tammyjh]

Originally Posted by ~Kris~

To me that's just part of business. There are so many things that factor into the cost of products. I don't think the gov't needs to get their hands in collecting more taxes from some people and then handing out more to others. We already know some people get more back at tax time than they pay into the system and now we should turn around and give them more? What's next? Everybody deserves this type of house, this type of clothes, this type of car?

Its ok as long as the higher fee to the consumer comes from someone besides the govt?

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

Michelle, I'm not really missing your points but I'm looking for someone to give me examples of how the US govt. can manage the program. US examples. Yes, private insurance compensates dr.'s more than medicaid.

I think though we are fundamentally not understanding the framework of how UHC even works in the first place which is why neither of us are feeling like our points are being addressed. You're looking at this from the American POV of money first, quality of life second. I'm looking at this from the Cdn POV that qualify of life is first so then we pay for that as a consequence. Fundamentally the US does have that QOL first priority when applied to things like fire, police, EMS but when health care is part of the equation there is a break in that fundamental understanding. At least that's how it looks like from this POV.

So US examples that have been said over and over again are things like education, and emergency services. I know you can read so I don't understand why these services are being dismissed so readily. What do you see wrong with the emergency services currently in place in the US and why that can or can't apply to UHC?

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

I've also seen one person on the board state that her family has health insurance through her husbands state job....and that the coverage sucks. My state has been trying to get a lower cost program off the ground for small business, self employed individuals, and those who have to self buy for a long time and its slow going because no one wants to pay higher taxes and the premiums are still a little high. They're still working on it. I beleive Mass. has sort of a state universal type program but I don't know how well that is working. If someone that has info on that can chime in, it would be great.

This is what I mean about the fundamental differences in our perspective. You see state services as the reflection of what UHC standards will be like. I'm trying to convey because there is a conflict of interest of money, you're going to have substandard service in your state coverage. Until you eliminate this, it will continue.

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

As to my point about employer based insurance, I was talking about the attitude many have about their benefits ~ entitlement ~ when benefits are really extras. And the sad part is that many who have employer based insurance, have no idea what the full premium costs. I often say that if everyone was suddenly faced with having to self buy their own health insurance, there would be many more ready to work towards some sort of real change.

I think this ties back into what you consider basic health care and what I see as basic health care. Your perspective sees how employers pay for health insurance and how their employees take that for granted. My perspective is because your paying structure is designed to give doctors and insurance companies profits, there is a whole industry there that would be eliminated with UHC.

Originally Posted by ~Kris~

To me that's just part of business. There are so many things that factor into the cost of products. I don't think the gov't needs to get their hands in collecting more taxes from some people and then handing out more to others. We already know some people get more back at tax time than they pay into the system and now we should turn around and give them more? What's next? Everybody deserves this type of house, this type of clothes, this type of car?

Rather than combining two issues, why not seperate them? You see wasteful government spending to people you feel don't contribute enough. Why should everyone suffer by not getting UHC because the IRS is messed up?

[WineKeepsMeSane]

Originally Posted by Jess is Write

This next part is just a general observation:
I really don't understand the fear of the word "socialism" when so many of our services are already socialized (police/fire, libraries, schools, infrastructure, judicial system) and we're happy with them.

Because socialism is one step away from communism. Are you a commie Jess? ARE YOU? I bet you are! Ok, yeah, I don't understand why people have no problem with socialized schools, libraries, etc. but the second a leader wants "socialized" medicine they're a communist.

Originally Posted by ~Kris~

To me that's just part of business. There are so many things that factor into the cost of products. I don't think the gov't needs to get their hands in collecting more taxes from some people and then handing out more to others. We already know some people get more back at tax time than they pay into the system and now we should turn around and give them more? What's next? Everybody deserves this type of house, this type of clothes, this type of car?

Seriously? How on earth is deserving a certain level of health care even remotely close to saying everyone should have a certain level of material possessions?

I think Michelle is bang on about the POV difference surrounding quality of life.

[Fluga]

Originally Posted by *Jennifer*

How is universal healthcare when it comes to treating serious health conditions? For example, if I felt a lump in my breast, would I be able to see a doctor right away? Would I be able to get treatment right away? It's bad enough waiting for approval with an HMO. ETA - I just read that, in Italy, it takes an average of 70 days to wait for a mammogram. I also read that, in France, workers pay about 19 percent of their earnings in taxes for UH, yet more than 90 percent purchase complementary private insurance.

I'm only on page one so I dont know if this got addressed. I found a lump in my boob. I saw a doctor the day after calling for an appt. She got me a referral for a mammogram/US and being pregnant I got priority. I think I waited less than 3 weeks. For this I paid all of 10€ for the doctor's visit and nothing for the ultrasound on my boob.

I happily pay 22% tax that gets me free/low cost health care (some things are free while with others there is a small fee), paid for my education etc etc etc.

[Fluga]

Originally Posted by Keskes

Does UHC cover cancer? Because I know my health insurance, that cost almost as much as my mortgage, doesn't cover cancer. We're just kind of screwed if we get it.

UHC doesnt operate so much on what they do or do not cover with medical conditions. If a doctor diagnoses you with cancer and it is at a stage where it is still treatable it will be treated. If it is considered beyond that then you're out of luck.

[glasscandie]

Originally Posted by Fluga

I'm only on page one so I dont know if this got addressed. I found a lump in my boob. I saw a doctor the day after calling for an appt. She got me a referral for a mammogram/US and being pregnant I got priority. I think I waited less than 3 weeks. For this I paid all of 10€ for the doctor's visit and nothing for the ultrasound on my boob.

I happily pay 22% tax that gets me free/low cost health care (some things are free while with others there is a small fee), paid for my education etc etc etc.

A 3 week wait for a mammogram when I found a lump would be unacceptable to me :shrug: Here, if I found a lump, I'd get an appointment with my doc within a day and have the mammogram by the end of the week.

[Fluga]

Originally Posted by OceanChild

The bottom line for who is making money in this country is not going to change. That is the big picture, and that's why I'd never support UHC, it would just be the average citizens footing the bill. It's not lies by lobbyists, or the misspending of funds, this is always how it's been and I doubt in our lifetime it will change.

Another bottom line for me - health care in the United States is better than that in countries with socialized medicine. I don't want to pay more to get less. The U.S. has better survival rates for common cancers when compared to Europe/socialized medicine in general, better cancer survival rates than Canadians specifically, have access to preventative screening more so than countries with socialized medicine (something like 70% for Canada vs. 90-something percent for U.S.), have better access to medical technologies like medical imaging (it's something like 30-something CT scanners/million Americans vs. 12/million Canadians). Check Center for Disease Control for references.

Is the cancer statistic counting those who are treated for cancer or are those who cant afford to be treated for it included? As for the number of CT scanners, doesnt do a hell of a lot for the people who need them but again cant afford to get the scan.

[Banned-Mommiex2]

Originally Posted by Fluga

Is the cancer statistic counting those who are treated for cancer or are those who cant afford to be treated for it included? As for the number of CT scanners, doesnt do a hell of a lot for the people who need them but again cant afford to get the scan.

A 2009 study released by the Cambridge Health Alliance found that people without health insurance have a 40% greater chance of dying than those with private insurance. According to the study, the main reason that patients were more likely to die was because they didn't seek preventative care or early detection. As a result, illnesses progressed far beyond what they would have with an insured patient.

Unfortunately, the lack of health insurance often ties back to the rising costs of health care, as well as an increase in unemployment. People simply cannot afford coverage. So while the quality of health care at the doctor's office may be stellar, many people cannot make it to the doctor or hospital to receive care.

U.S. World Health Care Rankings - Compare Health Insurance Quotes | Go Insurance Rates

[foxfire_ga79]

I just want to add some perspective on fire departments and EMS since people seem to be praising them as socialized and "working great." There are huge differences in one department to the next, and lots of times there is not enough money to cover everything. I find this the worst in areas where the fire departments are volunteer. There are actually counties in THIS country where the government can't be bothered to pay firefighters. This was what my department was like when I lived in Virginia. Beyond not being willing to pay firefighters, we had to fight tooth and nail, and BEG for grants for even the simplest things. Our trucks were all more than 20 years old. It took us months to get a grant for a new chainsaw.
Most fires in that area ended up being total loss. I hate that saying that sounds like incompetence on the part of the firefighters, but what could we do? There was a group of people willing to do this on our own time and not get paid for it, and let's face it, it's just as dangerous whether you're being paid or not, and we couldn't even get the state or the county to meet us half way and just give us the equipment we needed.
Sadly, that was the reality for many of the volunteer departments there. Some had more funding and newer trucks and equipment, but it was always just a portion of what was really needed.

I don't know how the mega departments are doing. Obviously not all departments are as bad off as the one I used to be on, not even all vollie departments are. But the bottom line is there are areas in this country where government run programs are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. The citizens I served when I was a firefighter deserved better than what I was able to give them. They deserved to receive what their taxes were paying for.

The people that live in rural areas, are they going to receive what they're paying for in health care? If the Medicaid program already doesn't pay doctors what they need to function, how can we be sure they're going to start? Do we want our doctors to be as poorly funded as I know some volunteer fire departments are? There are some great doctors in this world that would work for free just like the firefighters do, but will they be given the supplies they need?
You know WHY my department wasn't funded? Our area only served about 1000 people. In my 4 years on that department we had 4 or 5 total loss homes. We didn't cover enough people to need the funds according to the people who control the cash, bigger departments needed more money than we did and they got dibs. I guess those people that lost their homes didn't matter because their homes weren't in the right place. If you've never had to call the fire department it's easy to say you're happy knowing firefighters are there without knowing the politics that goes on in their department. Just having a fire department isn't enough.
Is this how it will be with health care for people in true rural areas? Or poor urban areas? If funds are distributed based on how many people are in an area then less populated areas will be screwed. If funds are distributed based on how many taxable dollars there are in an area, less affluent areas will be screwed.

[**Badfish**]

Originally Posted by OceanChild

A 3 week wait for a mammogram when I found a lump would be unacceptable to me :shrug: Here, if I found a lump, I'd get an appointment with my doc within a day and have the mammogram by the end of the week.

Not if you didn't have health insurance. You would need to find either a state or local health program that takes uninsured patients (unless you're able to front the cost up front) and the waiting list to get in could easily be three weeks.

[Tammyjh]

Michelle, I guess we're just going to keep missing each others points and I'm sorry about that. I'm not trying to be thick but I just am sometimes

Unfortunately, $ is always the bottom line.
We do not have a police dept. in our town as the town does not have enough $ to pay for one and our firefighters are all volunteer. Some of our school districts have consolidated, programs have been cut, and there's talk of shortening the school year statewide. A lot of programs in the dept. of human services have been cut. So yes, it all revolves around $$ to a certain degree and there is no way to implement UHC without spending $$....thats why I asked about Mass. and their health care plan because if its a universal type program(and I thought it was) that is working well, it could be used as a model for other states.

[**Badfish**]

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

Michelle, I guess we're just going to keep missing each others points and I'm sorry about that. I'm not trying to be thick but I just am sometimes

Unfortunately, $ is always the bottom line.
We do not have a police dept. in our town as the town does not have enough $ to pay for one and our firefighters are all volunteer. Some of our school districts have consolidated, programs have been cut, and there's talk of shortening the school year statewide. A lot of programs in the dept. of human services have been cut. So yes, it all revolves around $$ to a certain degree and there is no way to implement UHC without spending $$....thats why I asked about Mass. and their health care plan because if its a universal type program(and I thought it was) that is working well, it could be used as a model for other states.

I think if we look, we could find smaller-scale models that are running efficiently. For example, I pay an additional $2.50/month on top of Cooper's health insurance premium to help fund this program: CoverColorado. It's not universal coverage, but it's a program that provides coverage to Colorado residents who have been denied coverage for whatever reason, or their COBRA ran out. I don't necessarily think the goal needs to be "free" health care, but bringing the cost of coverage down to something closer to car insurance premiums and deductibles. If each state can take on their own program, and offset health care costs to residents by adding $2 or $3 to everyone's utility bill, then I think that's the more reasonable option at this point.

Originally Posted by ~Kris~

To me that's just part of business. There are so many things that factor into the cost of products. I don't think the gov't needs to get their hands in collecting more taxes from some people and then handing out more to others. We already know some people get more back at tax time than they pay into the system and now we should turn around and give them more? What's next? Everybody deserves this type of house, this type of clothes, this type of car?

Capitalism got us into this mess in the first place. When you place profits about human lives, something is seriously VERY WRONG with the way the system works. Health care is a right, not just for those who can afford it. I am actually disgusted that you are comparing human lives to material possessions.

[oicyur]

I haven't read the last couple of pages so I hope I'm not repeating anything, but here is my answer to the OP.

I think there is a huge problem with the health care in the US, but I think people are being scared into using a UHC as the solution. Instead I believe we should be looking towards getting insurance companies changed. One way that has made car insurance better is by opening up the competition across states, and I believe simply by doing that with healthcare would help a lot. It wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a start. Also, I believe we should put into law something to discourage fluffy medical lawsuits. I don't believe health care is a right, but I believe it should be made affordable for everyone, and I believe the suggestions I just gave are ways to get it there.

One reason I'm not a fan of UHC and am skeptical about changing our health care system is that the US is the leader of biomedical research and development, and the leader of medical innovation. From Wiki:

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to data compiled and published by multiple international pharmaceutical trade groups, the US is the world leader in biomedical research and development as well as the introduction of new biomedical products; pharmaceutical trade organizations also maintain that the high cost of health care in the U.S. has encouraged substantial reinvestment in such research and development.

I don't think suffocating this research and development would be good for ANYONE in the world. Instead of jumping to UHC because our health care sucks isn't the answer. Fixing what's already there so that it's affordable for everyone while keeping the freedoms available to keep medical technology evolving is very important to me.

FTR, I don't have insurance right now. Luckily our children are on Medicaid, so there's something, but we're in the place where we should be crying out for UHC since we can't afford health care, but we don't think that's the answer to our problems. I can't wait to get off of Medicaid because dealing with them has been awful (the same as dealing with the post office, DMV, or any other govt run program), but I dread paying so much for health care! If only there was an affordable middle ground.

[oicyur]

I think it's also important to add that survival rates in the U.S. for a broad range of cancer types are the highest in the world. Something to consider when we want to overhaul our current way of doing things. How do we go about making a UHC system like Canada's while keeping the quality of the US's system?

[**Badfish**]

Originally Posted by oicyur

I don't believe health care is a right, but I believe it should be made affordable for everyone, and I believe the suggestions I just gave are ways to get it there.

Then what is it? A privilege? How does one earn the privilege of seeing a doctor when sick?

Originally Posted by oicyur

FTR, I don't have insurance right now. Luckily our children are on Medicaid, so there's something, but we're in the place where we should be crying out for UHC since we can't afford health care, but we don't think that's the answer to our problems. I can't wait to get off of Medicaid because dealing with them has been awful (the same as dealing with the post office, DMV, or any other govt run program), but I dread paying so much for health care! If only there was an affordable middle ground.

I think it's completely ironic when someone is willing to use Medicaid and then turn around and health care is not a right.