Support for national health insurance

[lawnchairboy]

Yes Keith, the ones who can afford it come to the US. I invite ANYONE to stroll around and through the Johns Hopkins hospital and research campus, read some of the plaques on the buildings. That facility alone receives MILLIONS AND MILLIONS from foriegn nationals who receive care there and then choose to make donations based on the fact that the care they or their family members receive there is outstanding.

[velomoto]

I've never seen a statement that better defines the basic belief differences between the left and the right.

It's not a question of which party spends more or less $$$, it's just a matter of what the $$$ is spent on and whether it is paid with taxes of added to the deficit.

[Whip]

I've never seen a statement that better defines the basic belief differences between the left and the right.

It's not a question of which party spends more or less $$$, it's just a matter of what the $$$ is spent on and whether it is paid with taxes of added to the deficit.

 

 

 

Neither of these statements could be further from the truth..........

 

More proof that the US education system has failed us all.

 

 

 

 

[Mike]

Remember, y'all . . . no politics.

[smiller]

it is not my responsibility to pay for my neighbor's healtcare nor is their responsibility to pay for mine.

Yes it is. It's called a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

I've never seen a statement that better defines the basic belief differences between the left and the right.

It should be noted that this isn't simply an issue of morality, there are pragmatic facets as well. If the fruits of a society (including such things as access to healthcare) become too inequitably distributed then that society isn't going to remain stable and productive for long, and that's bad no matter what your ideology.

[Shaman97]

Last time I checked, we still have Medicaid to cover those who fall between the cracks.

 

You cannot have a net worth in excess of $2,000. Home and vehicle excepted. If my net worth goes below $2,000, my home and car are already gone. Not a solution for someone that has worked their whole life, but has the misfortune to be in a debilitating condition.

[keithb]

Slight hijack. You ain't kidding about the public education system in this country Whip. I heard some shocking stats today about putrid graduation rates for our schools in our larger cities. Baltimore had a 34% graduation rate in the inner city schools. I think it was 50% in Detroit city schools. The graduation rates in the suburbs was higher-in the 80% range.

[chrisolson]

The real problem with health insurance is that the people that don't need it don't want to pay for it. The people that do need it either can't get it or can't afford it.

 

The only way to make Steve's system work is the same way that car insurance works. Everyone must get it to keep the average costs down. I hate government forcin me to do anything, but it may be the only way this will work.

 

You can't drive your car legally on the road without insurance........so ......................maybe you can't get a drivers license without health insurance....or.......???????????????????????

 

 

There has to be away.

 

 

Whip

My emphasis above .... glad to see that ammendment 'cause it really is the only way it will work.

[Shaman97]

Slight hijack. You ain't kidding about the public education system in this country Whip. I heard some shocking stats today about putrid graduation rates for our schools in our larger cities. Baltimore had a 34% graduation rate in the inner city schools. I think it was 50% in Detroit city schools. The graduation rates in the suburbs was higher-in the 80% range.

 

Agree. But the problem is NOT the government...it's the teacher's unions' fault.

[smiller]

The only way to make Steve's system work is the same way that car insurance works. Everyone must get it to keep the average costs down. I hate government forcin me to do anything, but it may be the only way this will work.

Whip! You and Hillary in agreement! What a team!

[steve.foote]

I don't think there is anywhere that the government works more effectively and economically than the private sector.

 

That's a nice Reaganesque thought, but having worked in both the private sector and the government, I can tell you that the private sector can be every bit as ineffective and uneconomical as the government.

 

The idea that things would be fine if we just removed all government regulation and let the market sort it out is similarly an appealing fantasy, but not connected to reality. We have regulation of the insurance industry because we've found that without it, crooks and fraudsters steal their customers' money. Every day we hear new tales of corporate financial malfeasance and theft, and you think those people are qualified to hold onto our health care accounts without oversight? I should feel safe knowing my Health Savings Account is with Bear Stearns???

 

So, if government is running things, who is watching them?

[smiller]

So, if government is running things, who is watching them?

I don't know if this is a trick question, but... the electorate?

[steve.foote]

So, if government is running things, who is watching them?

I don't know if this is a trick question, but... the electorate?

 

 

 

Oh yeah, that's a good one.

 

Ok, shifting gears a little, let's try this one. I would be interested in hearing what limits would be acceptable as far as the amount of coverage one could expect in a government financed healthcare system? Unlimited? $1 million? How much?

 

Good luck.

[Les is more]

Exactly. And 42 million with no coverage at all.

 

Yeah, but 20 million of those are here illegally. We should treat them and deport them!!

 

 

First, I would suggest that you refrain from trollish posts like this one.

 

Actually, these are the figures, released in 2005, working with a figure of 45.8 million Americans uninsured as reported by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

 

 

You'll note that the report doesn't indicate how many of the non-citizens are here illegally.

 

In 2005, census figures show that the number of uninsured rose to 46.6 million people. The percentage of uninsured non-citizens remained the same. The various sources I read all attributed this rise primarily to the erosion of employer provided health care.

[Pilgrim]

it is not my responsibility to pay for my neighbor's healtcare nor is their responsibility to pay for mine.

Yes it is. It's called a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

 

I've never seen a statement that better defines the basic belief differences between the left and the right.

 

Yup. "I'll take care of you whether your want me to or not at anybody's expense."

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

I would be interested in hearing what limits would be acceptable as far as the amount of coverage one could expect in a government financed healthcare system? Unlimited? $1 million? How much?

It would be interesting to perhaps get some input here from board members on how it works in other countries. It's not like this issue has never been dealt with before.

[smiller]

"moral responsibility to your fellow man" = "I'll take care of you whether your want me to or not at anybody's expense" ?

 

I don't want to jump to conclusions but it seems like you might be coloring the first statement just a bit.

[steve.foote]

I would be interested in hearing what limits would be acceptable as far as the amount of coverage one could expect in a government financed healthcare system? Unlimited? $1 million? How much?

It would be interesting to perhaps get some input here from board members on how it works in other countries. It's not like this issue has never been dealt with before.

 

I'm sure it's been dealt with before. I think even the most generous of us would agree that there has to be some limit. And if that is so, who sets it, and what happens to those who "fall between the cracks?"

[Dave McReynolds]

I would be interested in hearing what limits would be acceptable as far as the amount of coverage one could expect in a government financed healthcare system? Unlimited? $1 million? How much?

 

Actually, this opens the question of how to ration a scarce resource: healthcare. In the past in the USA, it's been rationed based on how much money or insurance the patient has, and your question reflects this past emphasis.

 

I suspect in the future it will be rationed on a different basis, which is being discussed and debated in many circles, but has yet to be defined. First it will have to be decided where the resources will provide the most benefit. Does it benefit an 80 year-old man to get a heart bypass more than a newborn premature baby to get open heart surgery? Does it benefit an alcoholic to get a new liver more than it benefits someone who wrecks his motorcycle while not wearing a helmet to get brain surgery?

 

In answer to your question, I don't think there will be a maximum amount of coverage, per se, but I think you'll be subject to an evaluation to determine where you'll be on the waiting list. Some people might get their problem taken care of right away; others might get their problem taken care right after Charles Manson gets parolled.

[velomoto]

I'm sure it's been dealt with before. I think even the most generous of us would agree that there has to be some limit. And if that is so, who sets it, and what happens to those who "fall between the cracks?"

To some degree this IS happening both with the current insurance based system and with universal health care programs (HMO's, government programs). In short, certain treatments and/or drugs are not provided, or provided as a last resort.

 

There seems to be a perception that the current insurance system in America will provide unlimited coverage anyone with coverage. There are limits and methods in place to curb (reduce) expenses. To believe otherwise is naive. Will there be better coverage with a government plan? This is a valid question and will vary with one's financial position. YMMV!

[Gary in Aus]

I think the expression has been used before where someones opinion was described as "unique" which was qualified by the original poster as "not unique just non-american".

 

I think this is another one of those moments.

 

 

While I support the provision of health care for all Australians {to me it is a way of valuing the quality of a society in that we can look after those who are unable to look after themselves} and I pay taxes to support it.

 

I vote for those who have similar value systems to me and I confront those who do not deliver the level of government I expect.

 

I also choose to have private insurance which allows me certain benefits such as choice of doctor ,surgeon, hospital , physiotherapy etc etc , the list goes on . It includes dental ,optical even down to rebates on running shoes and is a marketing playground.

 

 

In Australia we have a national health coverage ,it costs money , has negatives and positives , it delivers a service that some are happy with and some are not. I have used both the government and private systems , the government hospitals have the best emergency systems and because of the nature of our population distribution provide services in areas that a commercial operation could not survive.

 

Heading off the reason for my response.

 

The most important question for me in this topic is , why would you have a national health insurance scheme .

 

Consider all the smoke out of your arse sidelines such as government versus commercial , politicians versus what oil would you use {that creates interesting mental images} and focus on the the simple reasons why or why not, what are the benefits to your society?

 

It's important to me that all Australians have access to health care.

 

It's a matter of priorities.

[MikeRC]

I'm impressed; usually these "national health care" threads degenerate fairly quickly. I'll chime in with a couple of points.

 

I think there is a strong argument for national health care improving the health of the population and decreasing (some) overall health costs. The strongest example of this is prenatal care. Premature Births - Prevention The US has about 3 times the rate of avoidable premature births of countries like Canada, the UK and France that have universal health care and higher rates of prenatal care (WHO statistics). With the resulting staggering costs for caring for those infants. And those costs go far beyond the first few days of life. And every citizen ends up paying for those costs because those babies end up in hospital (private, state or county) and may need further care for many years increasing their dependence on tax dollars and decreasing their productivity.

 

So it can be all about economics. And it applies to others in the population as well. So provision of some universal medical coverage can actually benefit the society and the bottom line. Universal immunization comes to mind. Anyone else go to school with kids struck by the 1950's polio epidemics? I hope to never see a case of polio again. Or Pertussis (whooping cough). Or Haemophilus or meningococcal meningitis.

 

So maybe the first place to start would be to just provide universal prenatal care. See if that has a good return on investment for a decade or so and then tackle something more.

 

As far as decisions to "ration" care, those are more complex. They already occur in the US. Either by ethics committees setting up transplant list criteria or by your health care insurer deciding what to cover and what not to cover. And that last one is purely economics.

 

Mike Cassidy

[Gary in Aus]

Mike ,

 

you have mentioned something that I just took for granted , vaccinations.

 

Are these delivered in the US similar to Canada ,NZ and Australia ?

 

I didn't consider it as part of the "national health insurance" question.I am 52 and there was a girl in my home town who had polio , a crippling disease,I remember having the 3 dose vaccine at school.

 

We have government {taxpayer} funded vaccinations for everyone ranging from flu shots for the young and elderly , rubella etc to the latest ones being for cervical cancer, these can be delivered by your own GP , community nurses or school programmes.

 

The economic advantages of these preventative measures can be estimated but how do you measure the personal and social costs of those afflicted with a medical condition

that can be prevented with something as simple as a vaccination.

[marcopolo]

I would be interested in hearing what limits would be acceptable as far as the amount of coverage one could expect in a government financed healthcare system? Unlimited? $1 million? How much?

It would be interesting to perhaps get some input here from board members on how it works in other countries. It's not like this issue has never been dealt with before.

 

I am not aware of any limit for an individual in the Canadian system. To give a personal example, just three years ago my twenty-four-year old son developed near total kidney failure. Since then, he has had two kidney transplants (the first was not successful, and he had a second a year later). You can imagine the amount of medical care this entailed, not just several major operations, but dialysis three times a week (until a successful transplant), an incredible number of lab tests and visits to doctors and the transplant clinic etc., etc. I have no idea what all this cost (you never see a bill) , but I'm sure it was significant. Cost was never an issue at any time. All of this was covered by the public healthcare system.

[90%angel]

People are bad for the environment. Therefore, people living longer is a bad thing, and makes universal healthcare bad for the environment.

 

Maybe we should implement the carousel system of Logan's Run and be done with it. Might solve our Social Security woes too!

 

 

And now back to your regularly scheduled debate!

[steve.foote]

Where do you sign up to hunt down the runners.

[Whip]

The only way to make Steve's system work is the same way that car insurance works. Everyone must get it to keep the average costs down. I hate government forcin me to do anything, but it may be the only way this will work.

Whip! You and Hillary in agreement! What a team!

 

I remember the day I heard her say that.......the earth stood still.......dogs and cats began living together in perfect harmony........

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

It's called a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

 

I've never seen a statement that better defines the basic belief differences between the left and the right.

 

I would suggest it defines the basic belief differences between greedy selfishness and enlightened altruism, but that would just set the Randroids going.

[Whip]

It's called a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

 

I've never seen a statement that better defines the basic belief differences between the left and the right.

 

I would suggest it defines the basic belief differences between greedy selfishness and enlightened altruism, but that would just set the Randroids going.

 

 

"give a hungry man a fish feed him for a day teach him to fish feed him for a life time!"

[Huzband]

Exactly. And 42 million with no coverage at all.

 

Yeah, but 20 million of those are here illegally. We should treat them and deport them!!

 

 

First, I would suggest that you refrain from trollish posts like this one.

 

Actually, these are the figures, released in 2005, working with a figure of 45.8 million Americans uninsured as reported by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

 

 

You'll note that the report doesn't indicate how many of the non-citizens are here illegally.

 

In 2005, census figures show that the number of uninsured rose to 46.6 million people. The percentage of uninsured non-citizens remained the same. The various sources I read all attributed this rise primarily to the erosion of employer provided health care.

 

Matt's post was hardly trollish. Yours, on the other hand, is fully trollish, considering that it's based on political leanings.

 

Erosion of employer provided health care? What about the erosion of personal responsibility?

[Bheckel169]

Leslie,

There are at least 4 major reporting agencies with varying statistical results regarding the uninsured. One of the variables which can cause a huge swing in these numbers is when an uninsured has been recorded. Many of these agencies will report a person uninsured if he is uninsured during the reporting period which may be, as an example the first of the year. In fact, he could have been insured for the entire year but left his current insurance provider for only a month or 2 months or longer as he shopped. He is still considered uninsured by these reporting agencies. This causes a tremendously skewed statistic.

[Ken H.]

Yes Keith, the ones who can afford it come to the US. I invite ANYONE to stroll around and through the Johns Hopkins hospital and research campus, read some of the plaques on the buildings. That facility alone receives MILLIONS AND MILLIONS from foriegn nationals who receive care there and then choose to make donations based on the fact that the care they or their family members receive there is outstanding.

Yup, if you've got the bucks you're fixed, if you don't, you're _ucked.

[Les is more]

It's easy to say the words personal responsibility but a little harder to get the insurance companies to forgo profit for the good of that individual out there trying to buy his own insurance.

 

I am aware that statistics can be skewed. That's why I didn't quote any of the various think tanks out there--just the statistical info compiled by the government. Possibly not the very best example but certainly more valid than tossing a completely unsupported statistic about "illegals" out there.

[Whip]

From the same stats.......this explains a lot to me.......young people don't need or want health insurance.....or at least they are not willing to pay for it.(My experience enforces this conclusion)

 

 

21% of the uninsured are below age 18 and 63% are under age 34.

 

 

The Uninsured by Age

 

 

 

 

......as I suspected......not as big a crises as I was lead to believe.

 

I will no longer spend any time worrying about it.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Whip

[Ken H.]

So it can be all about economics. And it applies to others in the population as well. So provision of some universal medical coverage can actually benefit the society and the bottom line.

It is about economics too. But the long term economic advantages are more hidden and are lost on (or denied by) most people. Not just specific direct cost that could be avoided by a better system that included more preventative care, avoiding treating coughs in emergency rooms, etc. But the more intangibles like the fact that a healthier populous is a more productive one. People can hold down jobs better, longer. Kids can learn in school better when they are sick less, etc. It's just that those intangibles can't seem to be recognize by our "me - me, right now" society. It's yet another form of AADD.

 

We spend more per capita on health care in the USA than any other westernized country, yet we lag in a number of areas. Something clearly is wrong.

 

A basic question - Why is health care a for profit enterprise at all? We would never consider say, police protection beig a for-profit enterprise. Have to buy "protection insurance." (Mafia jokes aside.) Having to pay a co-pay when you call 911. Having a deductible for your yearly use of the police forces. We just naturally accept police protection as necessary for our wellbeing and something we are willing to pay taxes for. It's, (gasp!) socialized crime protection.

 

Health care is just as necessary for our wellbeing, why then do we seem to naturally accept that it should be a for-profit enterprise??

[Ken H.]

"altruism"

 

I had to actually go and look that word up!

[Ken H.]

Matt's post was hardly trollish. Yours, on the other hand, is fully trollish, considering that it's based on political leanings.

There's nothing trollish about posting statistics to counter, or support, a position on a subject.

[Ken H.]

From the same stats.......this explains a lot to me.......young people don't need or want health insurance.....or at least they are not willing to pay for it.(

Or it supports the availability of it to them. Or more accurately lack of availability. Under 18 often = part time jobs (if any job at all), no benefits, no employer provided health care, poor finances preventing purchase of private care, college expenses, just setting out on their own expenses. There can be quite a list of reasons why the under 24 crowd isn't insured beyond 'don't want to be.'

[smiller]

Yours, on the other hand, is fully trollish, considering that it's based on political leanings.

Data from the Department of Health and Human Services?

[lawnchairboy]

Yes Keith, the ones who can afford it come to the US. I invite ANYONE to stroll around and through the Johns Hopkins hospital and research campus, read some of the plaques on the buildings. That facility alone receives MILLIONS AND MILLIONS from foriegn nationals who receive care there and then choose to make donations based on the fact that the care they or their family members receive there is outstanding.

Yup, if you've got the bucks you're fixed, if you don't, you're _ucked.

 

Well Ken, I think you missed my point. There are other places in the world where folks feel like their best choice is to come to the US to our poor old broken down health care system to get their care... probably because the outcomes are so horrible, right?

 

As far as your economic question about being rich or poor, who pays Ken? We are ALL already paying for those who can't afford care as velo posted earlier.

 

We are far far from a perfect all inclusive healthcare system. I have traveled all over the world and have seen a few versions of healthcare in other countries and if I ever have the misfortune of getting hurt, I pray I wake up in a united states emergency room, whether I have the ability to pay or not.

 

chris

[keithb]

Leslie

I have a question for you regarding illegal aliens and social services. How do you feel about San Diego spending 100 million dollars in 2005 on illegal alien public services? Don't you think those funds would have been better spent on schools, roads, and San Diegans health needs? I have been to S.D. enough to know the schools and roads are falling apart as bad as they are up here in Orange and L.A. county.

[ghaverkamp]

"give a hungry man a fish feed him for a day teach him to fish feed him for a life time!"

 

Are you suggesting free, universal medical school?

[Jerry_75_Guy]

 

......as I suspected......not as big a crises as I was lead to believe.

 

I will no longer spend any time worrying about it.

 

 

Why is it that everytime we discuss topics concerned with the well being of others, one side of the debate insists upon taking a tack nearly identical to those of the very worst Dickensonian characters?

 

Show me just one family, one which started out monetarily well healed, and insured, then was devastated when a catastrophic illness or injury beset their family, who feels some larger form of universal healthcare is a bad idea. A families' savings and insurance coverage can be exhausted with frightening alacrity. And, sadly, these are the lucky ones.

 

I've met these people; they do exist.

 

Heaven forbid, but if fate tosses you a nasty twist, you'll change your tune pretty quickly; I'm sorry to say that I've personally witnessed this more than once.

[steve.foote]

Why is it that everytime we discuss topics concerned with the well being of others, one side of the debate insists upon taking a tack nearly identical to those of the very worst Dickensonian characters?

 

Jerry, could it be that those people are simply tiring of finding someone else's hand in their pockets all the time?

[smiller]

Why is it that everytime we discuss topics concerned with the well being of others, one side of the debate insists upon taking a tack nearly identical to those of the very worst Dickensonian characters?

Jerry, could it be that those people are simply tiring of finding someone else's hand in their pockets all the time?

Well, after all, it's a fine excuse for picking a man's pocket every 25th of December.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

Jerry, could it be that those people are simply tiring of finding someone else's hand in their pockets all the time?

 

I'm very much in favor of fiscal prudence, but there are very real, and very necessary costs to living in community with others, and in the end, given the impact that our lives, and life events, have on those around us, a level of caring for others very much furthers our own self interests.

 

Beyond that, caring, and compassion for others is by definition, what it means to be human, and humane, and yes, it can be done without feeling you're being 'nicked' in the process.

 

I hope that's not the first sensation that passes through your heart when the possibility of improving the health of those around you is discussed.

[Les is more]

Keith,

 

I'll try to answer your question within the context of this thread as best I can. Although this thread is not about undocumented workers, here are some figures I've come across in my readings that seem to suggest that they are a small part of our health care issues.

 

The number of uninsured in San Diego County is 420,000 including 75,000 children. (Source: S. D. County Medical Society Publication, San Diego County Physician, July 2004, p. 8.)

 

Check the fact sheet here for some numbers for uninsured undocumented Californians.

 

$26 Million is one estimate of what San Diego spends on Health AND Human Services for undocumented residents. I don't know the figure for health services alone. It should be noted that this figure was obtained from a report put together in order to obtain repayment from the Federal Government for costs incurred. It appears to either be or echo the source that gave you your $100 million figure. This figure also fails to take into account the revenues collected from the workers who pay into the system. There are many reports--

here's one--that hold that undocumented workers pay far more into the Government coffers than they take out in services. At the very least there are offsets that must be taken into consideration.

 

Again, I'd rather not sidetrack this discussion onto this issue.

[Matts_12GS]

It's easy to say the words personal responsibility but a little harder to get the insurance companies to forgo profit for the good of that individual out there trying to buy his own insurance.

 

Why on earth would a company forgo profit when it exists to make that profit? FOR PROFIT corporations exist to make money. NOT FOR PROFIT and NON PROFIT corporations generally exist for some nature of advocacy. That's why they have different tax code provisions (e.g. 501.c1 and 501.c3 subchapters).

 

The product that is bought/sold/traded/processed exists because there is a perceived market for it. Some products work better than others.

 

If there are people who can't afford the product they must seek to find a someone selling a product they CAN afford. If there's a market for it, it will sell. If not, well then, it won't. It's a pretty simple equation on the perceived value of a product.

 

As for those 18-24 year olds that don't have insurance, that statistic is useless by and large because it fails to enumerate the number of those "yout's" that can be covered on their parent's insurance because they are college students or have some other covered issue. They "don't" have insurance in their name, but they're covered. Break that out and then let's get a discussion going.

 

Like was said earlier in this thread, education is the key, and since the teacher's unions. and ridiculous tenure contracts and the lack of decent management have left 2 generations of kids without the education it takes to pay bills or balance a checkbook, they just don't know any better.

 

While I take offense at being called trollish, I will admit to the error of my ways using the 20 million number. I was merely quoting what one of the media's leading men on one of his numbers ( Lou dobbs ) ( AZ Republic ) so...

 

Twenty million may be a wrong number, a "red herring" if you will, it seems that the actual number is somewhere between 13 and 20 million.

 

Still a sizeable number that should be dealt with, wouldn't you agree?

 

Some light reading...

linky

linky

linky

 

In all of this we should remember there are lies, damned lies and statistics (Mark Twain)

[Heck]

Methinks that socialist dogma is not the only dogma at work here.

 

Me Karma ran over the dogma.....

[keithb]

Matt

I don't think 20 million is an overstated figure. We have an estimated 6 to 7 million here in the state of California. Other states like N.C., S.C., and Georgia have seen their illegal populations skyrocket in the past 10-15 years straining all social services. I know because I lived in N.C. for 12 years.