View Full Version : Problems of Universial Health Care
DoyleG
06 Sep 2004, 04:26 AM
This column tells a story that not unusual in a Universal Health Care system.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Edmonton/Mindelle_Jacobs/2004/09/05/616298.html
Frankfurt Blue
06 Sep 2004, 04:32 AM
This column tells a story that not unusual in a Universal Health Care system.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Edmonton/Mindelle_Jacobs/2004/09/05/616298.html
I found that since I arrived here 2 years ago, that the Germans don't faff about getting you into hospital if something needs doing.
This example of Canada sounds just like the UK.
Ian McCracken
06 Sep 2004, 11:43 AM
If the United States had a national health care system, Bill Clinton would not be having his surgery this morning. Heart bypass patients wait weeks, if not months, before it's their turn on the operating table.
ratdog
06 Sep 2004, 11:51 AM
If the United States had a national health care system, Bill Clinton would not be having his surgery this morning. Heart bypass patients wait weeks, if not months, before it's their turn on the operating table.
As opposed to America where if he just a normal working stiff, his HMO would try to deny him treatment or he'd be ruined if he was one of the millions of Americans without health insurance.
There is no absolutely perect system, but if run well like in most of Western Europe, a national health care system is fairer than our system without a drop-off in quality. But then insurance and HMO CEOs wouldn't become millionaires so as long as they and the AMA can successfully threaten politicians, we're stuck with the inefficiencies and unfairnesses of our system.
Ian McCracken
06 Sep 2004, 12:04 PM
As opposed to America where if he just a normal working stiff, his HMO would try to deny him treatment or he'd be ruined if he was one of the millions of Americans without health insurance.
Nobody is forced to choose a HMO, stop making it the bogeyman. Fact remains, Bill Clinton would be in a perilous situation if we lived under a national health care system. Somebody with his means would travel to the United States to get the proper treatment in a timely manner.
sarabella
06 Sep 2004, 12:08 PM
Nobody is forced to choose a HMO, stop making it the bogeyman.
If their jobs provide only HMO coverage, what choice do they have? Pay for a different insurance out of their own pocket??
dawgpound2
06 Sep 2004, 12:11 PM
There is no absolutely perect system, but if run well like in most of Western Europe, a national health care system is fairer than our system without a drop-off in quality.
Now all the sudden, you would trust big government? Uh, no thank you.
Ian McCracken
06 Sep 2004, 12:12 PM
If their jobs provide only HMO coverage, what choice do they have? Pay for a different insurance out of their own pocket??
That's an option. One way or the other, the money is coming out of their pockets. You think their employer is giving them health insurance coverage out of the goodness of their heart? There is a direct relationship to their take home salary. We'd all be better off if employers got out of the business of providing health coverage and everybody shopped around on their own, like auto insurance.
ratdog
06 Sep 2004, 12:15 PM
Nobody is forced to choose a HMO, stop making it the bogeyman. Fact remains, Bill Clinton would be in a perilous situation if we lived under a national health care system. Somebody with his means would travel to the United States to get the proper treatment in a timely manner.
Inaccurate, as usual. Sarabella got the employment angle correct. In fact, it's getting worse as under Bush more and more Americans have lost ANY health care coverage. Also, companies are paring down their choices in the face of rising costs caused by the various inefficiencies of our health care system.
And I suggest you actually read about health care systems in other countries and not rely solely on what Mr. Limbaugh tells you before commenting on them because you're just making yourself look idiotic by insisting that Clinton would be "in a perilous situation" anywhere but America. The real peril is faced by the millions of Americans who don't have health care coverage or who are at the mercy of the bean counters at HMOs and insurance companies.
Ian McCracken
06 Sep 2004, 12:17 PM
And I suggest you actually read about health care systems in other countries and not rely solely on what Mr. Limbaugh tells you before commenting on them because you're just making yourself look idiotic by insisting that Clinton would be "in a perilous situation" anywhere but America.
What is the average waiting time for heart bypass surgery in these other countries that you speak of?
sarabella
06 Sep 2004, 12:17 PM
That's an option. One way or the other, the money is coming out of their pockets. You think their employer is giving them health insurance coverage out of the goodness of their heart? There is a direct relationship to their take home salary. We'd all be better off if employers got out of the business of providing health coverage and everybody shopped around on their own, like auto insurance.
My company pays for my health insurance 100%. When I was between jobs, my COBRA payment was almost $400 a month -- just for me. Imagine what that would be if I had a family. There's no way people can afford that.
WTF are you talking about "there is a direct relationship to their take home salary"??? All employees at the companies I've worked for are offered the same insurance plan regardless of their position or salary.
obie
06 Sep 2004, 07:33 PM
I have a friend and former co-worker who is a noted expert on employer-provided health care. His constant mantra over the past four years has been that what the insured, through private insurance premims and insurance pools, pay now to cover health costs for the uninsured is greater than what we would pay if we gave all of them basic Medicare. So people can debate how we do it in good faith, but providing universal health insurance in the US through any set of current systems would save us all money.
superdave
06 Sep 2004, 07:48 PM
US health care is the most expensive in the world (money spent per person), but Americans are less healthy than many, maybe most, of the developed world.
DoyleG
06 Sep 2004, 08:19 PM
I found that since I arrived here 2 years ago, that the Germans don't faff about getting you into hospital if something needs doing.
This example of Canada sounds just like the UK.
The red tape here is a big problem.
Capital Health Authority, which covers Metro Edmonton, is the biggest employer in the province.
Nobody is forced to choose a HMO, stop making it the bogeyman. Fact remains, Bill Clinton would be in a perilous situation if we lived under a national health care system. Somebody with his means would travel to the United States to get the proper treatment in a timely manner.
So how come that the US lags on most measures of the health of its population compared to all these dastardly western countries that have some form of universal health care? And this when the US spends far more as a percentage of its GDP on healthcare than any other country? Whichever way you cut it, Americans are getting lousy value for money from their healthcare system as compared to many other countries.
Ian McCracken
06 Sep 2004, 08:37 PM
I have a friend and former co-worker who is a noted expert on employer-provided health care.
Who is your friend and former co-worker? Since he is a "noted" expert, give us his name so we can check his credentials and whether or not he has an interest in a universal system.
DoyleG
06 Sep 2004, 08:44 PM
So how come that the US lags on most measures of the health of its population compared to all these dastardly western countries that have some form of universal health care? And this when the US spends far more as a percentage of its GDP on healthcare than any other country? Whichever way you cut it, Americans are getting lousy value for money from their healthcare system as compared to many other countries.
Or perhaps people aren't getting off that couch.
How many countries have Population similar to the US?
Or perhaps people aren't getting off that couch.
How many countries have Population similar to the US?
The US spends as much on health care _administration_ is a few western countries do for their entire health care spending - hardly indicative of a country that has a well run and efficient health care system.
Population similar? Do you mean in terms of numbers of demographic makeup? Not sure what you're saying here.
Mel Brennan
06 Sep 2004, 10:09 PM
You folks, many of you, are in la-la-land. I am in the UK universal system...no problems whatsoever. Wife, son, daughter...medical, dental, vision...no probs whatsoever. My dad came over to visit, had swelling in his arm...no problem whatsoever. Now, if I want porcelain bonding on my teeth (which I might), or if we're interested in some down-the-road apporach to my daughter's bow-leggedness, well, they set those appointments down the road...b/c they're not important.
I think that if you think that the US citizen doesn't deserve health care, but deserves a $400 billion military budget just to keep that ********er in idle for 365 days (not to use it, but to have it on and running in Park), a military that could not stop 9/11 and will not stop another one, you are out of your minds and deserve whatever health care the market will give you, and the resultant riots that will ensue when people burst at being ********ed over for so long.
Never have so few done so much for so few with so much; that ******** WILL come back to haunt you. Freedom can be defined many ways.
The NHS may be different in London, but here, it's ********ing butter; wouldn't have it any other way than to be in a system that starts off with your humanity as a given, as opposed to a system that says that you must prove your humanity through some sort of liquidity before you become worthy of the best care.
Oh, and by the way; the secretary at the Faculty of Arts hee had bypass surgery about two months ago, and she didn't wait more than a day or two, just like Clinton..again, you folks, some of you, are in la-la-land.
Stars&Bars
06 Sep 2004, 10:23 PM
Not to take this discussion off-topic but it is kind of relevant anyway. How would the current universal healthcare hold up in the countries that have them if they paid and even share in the research and development of prescription drugs? 800 million to bring one drug to market, but American's pay like 80% of that.