Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dietrich: Social Security is not spending more money than it takes in. If you are referring to SS running a deficit this year, that may be true, but SS has had 11 deficit years since 1960. Deficits may start in 2016, but trust fund is expected to absorb those deficits for 30 years.

If you're worried about government spending look to the military and medicare which goes back to the original topic of this thread.

Edit: clarification of this year

Kilkrazy wrote:
Universal healthcare works pretty well in most countries which have it, such as the UK and France, and private medicine is available for cases which cannot be dealt with quickly by the NHS.
...
My father recently was diagnosed with cataracts in both eyes, went private, and got the operation done in a couple of weeks for about thousand pounds. If he didn't have the money, he would have had to wait a few months, but it would have got done.

Ok, so the NHS is good because you can pay money to avoid it when you actually need something done. This logic baffles me. I guess the poor people who have to hope that nothing too bad happens to them while they're on the waiting list are ok with this.

The problem in the US isn't where the money comes from, it is where it goes to. The prices on everything medically-related here are so jacked-up that insurance is required to pay for it. A trip to the doctors to have something looked at, as a preventative measure, typically costs $150. You see the overworked doctor for maybe 5 minutes, and for this, you (or your insurance company) shells out $150. I know the guy went to medical school and all, but $150 for five minutes?!

And that's because of the overhead of being in the medical industry in the US. It's called "practicing" medicine, but people expect perfection and sue when they don't get it. I can see malpractice suits when a doctor amputates the wrong leg, or leaves a scalpel inside a patient, but not for the minor ooops that happen to all of us on a regular basis as a result of being human.

But there's a big powerful lobby that has an incentive to keep the cash cow alive. They don't care where the cash come from, as long as it keeps lining their pockets. It all adds up to this misconception that health-care has to be expensive. It doesn't. Health-care should be affordable, but the solution isn't to raise everyone's taxes and keep feeding the same inefficient system, the solution is to repair the system, so that five minutes of a doctor's time costs $20, not $150.

The pharmaceutical industry is another that is just milking people. Drugs can be produced fairly inexpensively, but the prices charged for them are excessive. Now, I'm an engineer, and I understand the fact that for each successful drug on the market, there are probably 100 abortive attempts, and that the people who worked on the failed drugs worked just as hard as the people who worked on the successful one, and needed to be paid. But, the prices on the successful drugs are so far in excess of even these R&D costs, and it's because the drug companies are publicly traded and "have a duty to show ever increasing profits" for their shareholders. People need their medicines, and at some point, you raise the prices to the point that insurance companies shell out the money for the drugs, and so have to raise their rates, to line the pockets of the pharmaceuticals. Once upon a time, a company like a pharmaceutical would be happy with a modest profit, and issue dividends. But dividends are no longer in fashion, people want more returns, so the companies have adjusted to how the stock market works, with the net result being overpriced medicines.

Again, the solution isn't to raise taxes and have the government simply feed money to the pharmaceuticals, it's to regulate the pharmaceutical industry better. Cutting the middle-men out of the medical equation will make health-care affordable again. The money-men, the insurance agents, the lawyers, the people who are getting rich while not actually helping anyone. Fix the underlying problem.

Redbeard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Universal healthcare works pretty well in most countries which have it, such as the UK and France, and private medicine is available for cases which cannot be dealt with quickly by the NHS.
...
My father recently was diagnosed with cataracts in both eyes, went private, and got the operation done in a couple of weeks for about thousand pounds. If he didn't have the money, he would have had to wait a few months, but it would have got done.

Ok, so the NHS is good because you can pay money to avoid it when you actually need something done. This logic baffles me. I guess the poor people who have to hope that nothing too bad happens to them while they're on the waiting list are ok with this....

The logic is, that if you live in the UK, you do not have to rot to death in a gutter because you aren't rich.

As someone who has grown up with the idea that anyone who is sick gets healthcare, regardless, I find the concept of that not being the case mind-boggling. Universal healthcare is really good. Try it out America!

Dal'yth Dude wrote:dietrich: Social Security is not spending more money than it takes in. If you are referring to SS running a deficit this year, that may be true, but SS has had 11 deficit years since 1960. Deficits may start in 2016, but trust fund is expected to absorb those deficits for 30 years.

If you're worried about government spending look to the military and medicare which goes back to the original topic of this thread.

No, my point is that they're not managed the Social Security fund well. Michael Moore likes to use SS as an example of a well-run government program. I think it's failing, and I don't want the same people who 'manage' SS taking responsible for my health care. People are living longer and collecting benefits for longer, but the program hasn't changed. They haven't taken off the 'cap' which is the max you can pay in. iirc, Bush the younger suggested that, and it was called the largest proposed tax hike in US history. What happens in 2046? Does the fund run out? If the government wants to fix it, they should have done something 20 years ago. Instead, they have done nothing, because the suits in Washington are more concerned with the next election instead of the long-picture.

afaik, US hospitals don't throw ill people out onto the streets. In fact, afaik, part of the reason that health care costs are so high is to cover the loses that hospitals and doctors absorb from people who can't pay. I haven't heard any reports of hospitals wheeling a dying patient into the street on a gurney. I would agree that those with money and/or good health care do get better treatment, but it appears that is true in countries with a NHS.

I can't Imagine not having free health care after being in the military for all these years. I never worry about my wife or baby to be, she has tummy pains we go to the doctor. The goverment oversees Military hospitals and for the most part they are tops. (the hospital they sent Vets to was a horrible fluke.). I do not think it's fair that I and Goverment Officals get to enjoy peace of mind, while the real hard working people of this country hope they don't get laid off or nobody gets too sick. We are 50 years ahead of everybody in the military and 40 years behind on health care. It's a damn shame. In this Economy you can lose your job AND lose your health Insurance in one fell swoop, it must be a real nightmare.

One of the problems with any health care system is, imho, getting preventative treatment for people to avoid long-term and bigger medical bills. But, the flip side, imho, is you need some dis-incentive so that someone doesn't go in for a splinter or stubbed toe either.

dietrich: But, the flip side, imho, is you need some dis-incentive so that someone doesn't go in for a splinter or stubbed toe either.

Agreed, but as is people with coverage are currently guilty of this waste of resources.
So what we have now is a system of people denied health care supporting (by creating a cost reduced workforce) the lifestyles of people with inadequate judgment that have no concept of what a constituets a legitimate health concern (thankfully these wasteful sots are few).

Also going to the doctor is inconvenient, most people would rather not have to go to the doctor if they don't have to.
So people burning resources by leaving their jobs to go to the doctor (thus burning their own resources) is unlikely.

Me losing pay due to work absence is plenty dis-incentive enough for me not to waste a doctor's time.
It's ludicrous the way it is now if your not covered: ~60 dollars lost pay + $150 visit + $50-$300 treat + $150 follow-up

garret wrote:no its payed entirly by the Boss

So THAT'S where all my money goes!

As usual I was vehemently opposed to the US system because of misinformation.
Now I understand it better I'm less opposed but still prefer socialised medicine. It's just less hassle for me- it's all done for me, I don't have to worry about it and I can get on with my life.

Frazz: Here's the problem. Right now thats effectively additional income you are receiving. Corps like the idea because they don't have to pay for healthcare under universal coverage. You and I will be paying via taxes. But guess what, your salary is not going to go up. All the expenses are transferred directly to you without income benefit. And now you will have joyous government coverage, brought to you by the same people who bring you the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Actually, if there was government coverage payroll would be reduced and cost of living would be reduced.
Pay from ethical employers that already provide coverage would go up, since they were spending that money on their employees already.

Any coverage when you have none is good.
If I would have loved to waited in line 5 hours to see a doctor at points in my life, because that would indicate that I could have afforded to be seen by a doctor.

Also government coverage would benefit the capitalist structure, since employers would have to compete more to hold on to employees.
Since individuals would have more mobility not being tied to positions for the health care.
Thus being sell their services to the highest bidder.

dietrich wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:dietrich: Social Security is not spending more money than it takes in. If you are referring to SS running a deficit this year, that may be true, but SS has had 11 deficit years since 1960. Deficits may start in 2016, but trust fund is expected to absorb those deficits for 30 years.

If you're worried about government spending look to the military and medicare which goes back to the original topic of this thread.

No, my point is that they're not managed the Social Security fund well. Michael Moore likes to use SS as an example of a well-run government program. I think it's failing, and I don't want the same people who 'manage' SS taking responsible for my health care. People are living longer and collecting benefits for longer, but the program hasn't changed. They haven't taken off the 'cap' which is the max you can pay in. iirc, Bush the younger suggested that, and it was called the largest proposed tax hike in US history. What happens in 2046? Does the fund run out? If the government wants to fix it, they should have done something 20 years ago. Instead, they have done nothing, because the suits in Washington are more concerned with the next election instead of the long-picture.

afaik, US hospitals don't throw ill people out onto the streets. In fact, afaik, part of the reason that health care costs are so high is to cover the loses that hospitals and doctors absorb from people who can't pay. I haven't heard any reports of hospitals wheeling a dying patient into the street on a gurney. I would agree that those with money and/or good health care do get better treatment, but it appears that is true in countries with a NHS.

I've heard of people (emergency cases) dying untreated in the US while the hospital staff tried to find their insurance card. It was on a Channel 4 documentary a few years back. The same documentary said that health care costs were elevated by the need to account in detail for every aspect of treatment so that it could be charged for.

I have often read that there are 43 million people in the US without health insurance, but apparently there is something called the county hospital.

I don't know whether any of this is true, it's just what I have picked up from sources that are usually regarded as trustworthy. However, my sister-in-law is American. Both of her parents died young from cancer, partly because they could not afford treatment, and left her and her brother penniless orphans. She is a passionate fan of the NHS. Being married to an English guy and living in the UK she is fully covered.

I've been NHS treated, so has my (Japanese) wife and my daughter. She got osteomyelitis, which is a rare but serious bone infection. I drove her to the hospital at 3 a.m. She was seen within a few minutes, and over the next 10 days got the best attention possible including X Rays, gamma scan and MRI scan. It didn't cost a penny. The worst cost to me was the hospital car parking fees.

Of course the UK has higher tax rates because we have to pay for the healthcare that way.

dietrich wrote:One of the problems with any health care system is, imho, getting preventative treatment for people to avoid long-term and bigger medical bills. But, the flip side, imho, is you need some dis-incentive so that someone doesn't go in for a splinter or stubbed toe either.

This is definitely true and a lot of work goes on to try and redirect resources towards preventative medicine. In the UK, "Wellwoman" and "Wellman" clinics are now common, which were unknown 30 years ago, also we have the annual flu jab for vulnerable people, cervical smears and mammograms for women, health information campaigns, and so on.

There is still a lot to do.

If you think about it, technically the US has a form of socialized medicine already. You go to the ER then you give a fake name. Since you legally cannot be turned away for treatment, you can skip out on the bill. My mother gets some woman's medical bills from time to time as this woman lists my mother's address when she gets medical treatment. The result of this problem is that hospitals are forced to eat the expense which raises medical costs for everyone.

And as for preventive care, would it not be easier to give if everyone had some form of medical coverage already? I have a friend without medical coverage who just has to hope he doesn't get sick. And when he does get sick, he ends up in the ER if he doesn't just get well on his own. A few months ago, he got strep throat and tried to avoid going to the doctor. When he finally broke down and went, it was because his throat had swollen so badly it was setting off his gag reflex. His total medical bill amounted to $1800. Had he had some form of coverage, he could have just gone to a doctor and been given antibiotics for far less. But he tried to avoid the cost of a doctor's visit and damn near killed himself.

The problem now isn't that we don't have socialized medicine in this country. We do. If you're poor, or broke, or old... you don't pay a dime for healthcare.

The people that suffer the most under the current system aren't the destitute: by law, they have to be treated, and medicaid covers the long term stuff along with Social Security and medicare.

Who suffer under the system are the working poor and the lower middle class, that have some assests and a revenue stream, and thus don't qualify for medicaid, and who have something to lose if they run up a large medical bill. It's a perverse system that is more helpful to the indigent than to the hard working, I think.

Universal health care is also good for entrepreneurship, as it allows people to run or work for small start ups without worrying about health benefits.

The lack of universal health care also hurts the people with conditions that preclude any purchased health insurance. Many states have insurers of last resort, that have to take anybody, but not all do.

And while I don't think anybody is naive enough to think that eliminating heath care benefits will result in a salary bump, it will have the effect of increasing salaries across the marketplace, as competition for talent always does. I also highly doubt that private insurance will disappear, just like private schools didn't disappear with the spread of public education.

warpcrafter wrote:

youbedead wrote:This is how america works

"socialized medicine is good"

"socialized...?, socialist, commy, commy, burn the commy"

And leaving it to corrupt imperialist megacorporations is better? It's time to come out of the dark ages.

Oh, no I support socialized health care 100%. I was just explaining why it would never happen in the U.S.

Planned Parenthood is free. Not many know this...but they provide basic healthcare for free as well....not just stuff relating to sex.

dietrich wrote:I think it's embarrasing that the US has (arguably) the best health care in the world, but that it's not acccessable by many people.

It isn't the best system. It is the most expensive (by a long way) but in terms of metrics the US scores middle to bottom of the ladder compared to other countries. It is the most expensive because so much of it is driven by profit, without any of the benefits of a competitive market. The people who stand to benefit from better healthcare (you) are shut out of the decision making process in favour of an employer who wants to keep premiums to a minimum while maintaining the appearance of providing benefits.

It scores poorly on metrics because it is a profit driven system. There's no motivation for investing in preventative medicine (as people will probably change jobs and be working with some other company by the time it becomes a problem). And there are tens of millions of people who aren't insured, and liable to die from preventable illness.

Over here in Australia our system isn't perfect, but people don't get bankrupted because they got sick and their profit driven insurance company found a loophole to avoid paying for their lifesaving treatment. They don't die because they were between jobs when the lump was found.

You have a staggeingly bad system. Truly, remarkably bad. It can't be said enough times, your system doesn't need fixing. It needs to be completely abandoned, and written into the big list of bad ideas we're never going to try again.

Now, I understand why insurance companies spend a lot of time lying about your system and systems in other countries. They have substantial business empires to defend. What I don't get is why anyone in the US believes that rubbish. So desperate to defend yourselves from socialism that you can't recognise one possible situation where a non-profit based model might work better?

I think it is important to look at what Mad Doc said....I think many people look at "universal healthcare" as a 1 or 10 type of situation, and that is not the case, or at least doesn't have to be. I'm not really into politics, except for firearm politics, but I've read a little bit on this. Countries that have guaranteed healthcare do not necessarily fund healthcare 100% from tax revenue. If you're that concerned for the welfare of insurance companies, I wouldn't worry about that, as they do apparently exist in countries with guaranteed health care, and they wouldn't if they didn't make a profit.

I was once against universal healthcare based on ideals I held about free market economies and non interference by the government. But after working for a while in the "real world" it has become apparent to me that health care needs to be guaranteed by the government. That doesn't mean that we need to completely cut the private sector out, but the citizens of this country need the security of knowing that if the worst happens, they'll get treatment. I agree with another poster that reasoned that it would actually facilitate entrepreneurship by allowing individuals to take economic risks, with the security of knowing that they and their family's basic needs are assured. I believe people are associating guaranteed healthcare with a communist state, which is not true. You'll still have plenty of opportunity to excel, take risks, and become rich, if that is what drives you. The government is just assuring that the old lady down the street won't have to choose between food or medicine.

Once again, though I don't always agree with him, Polonius shows that he is a damned genius. He correctly points out that even though we don't have "guaranteed" healthcare, the hospital has to treat you in an emergency. What happens, is that you'll wreck your finances. If you're old, broke, indigent, or whatever, who cares, you just skip on the bill. It is people who have managed to scrape together a little bit who are looking at financial ruin if they lose their coverage and need medical care. Incidentally most bankruptcies in the US are not the result of consumer debt, like many seem to believe, but are a result of medical bills.

Ultimately, my argument for guaranteed healthcare is not based on economics or reasoning, but it is a simple emotional appeal...and that is fine by me. Providing health care for people is the right thing to do damn it. Most of the people who are uninsured in this country are not unwilling to work, or lazy. They are the people who work in our FLGS and other small businesses that can't provide health insurance for their employees. They are people who have worked hard and been responsible with their money, who have lost their job because of factors beyond their control. They may be manual laborers who never have been paid well, or it may be the highly paid executive that suddenly finds himself jobless due to the poor economy. When a single major medical incident can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, even the best and brightest with large salaries can be sunk. The bottom line is that the elderly shouldn't have to choose between food for today or medicine. I shouldn't have to worry that I won't have health coverage if I lose my job through no fault of my own. A child shouldn't lose their opportunity to pay for college because their family was uninsured and had to spend their life savings on medical care.

brad3104 wrote:Planned Parenthood is free. Not many know this...but they provide basic healthcare for free as well....not just stuff relating to sex.

And people shouldn't have to rely on a private entity for healthcare that they believe promotes murder.

I don't believe this way, but I know people who do, and would just choose not to accept their benevolence.

Beggers cant be chosers. Its free. 100% free. People cant always have every personal want and need met. Even if its something that silly. And Planned Parenthood doesnt promote murder. They promote safe sex, being there for people when know one else is, good health, and options. This thread isnt about abortion so dont turn it into one. If someone really needs health care...they would go there....Planned Parenthood provides lots of services....not just that ONE. You make it seem like Planned Parenthood has commercials on TV with them killing babies or something. Every doctor/healthcare provider in the US provides birth control/abortions....does this mean they promote murder also? Does this mean someone shouldnt have to go to a standard health care facility? should people be provided some magical place that doesnt provide abortions just to have their beliefs met?

If healthcare was provided by the government, people would still have to get their healthcare from a source they may be strongly opposed to.

brad3104 wrote:Beggers cant be chosers. Its free. 100% free. People cant always have every personal want and need met. Even if its something that silly. And Planned Parenthood doesnt promote murder. They promote safe sex, being there for people when know one else is, good health, and options. This thread isnt about abortion so dont turn it into one. If someone really needs health care...they would go there....Planned Parenthood provides lots of services....not just that ONE. You make it seem like Planned Parenthood has commercials on TV with them killing babies or something. Every doctor/healthcare provider in the US provides birth control/abortions....does this mean they promote murder also? Does this mean someone shouldnt have to go to a standard health care facility? should people be provided some magical place that doesnt provide abortions just to have their beliefs met?

Alright. I want you to do something. Go back and read my post three times. Now wait thirty seconds. Go ahead, I'll be here.

.
.
.
.
.


Ok, now that you've analyzed my post, you will note that I said that I don't believe this way. *I'm* not making them out to be anything at all. *I* don't have an opinion. I was actually bringing it up because it is an example of a specific private entity that is not for everyone. I'm not turning it in to an abortion thread at all. The point is that if there was universal healthcare, the issue would be moot.

Not all doctors or healthcare providers provide birth control or abortion. The providers for that are usualy Gynecologists or Obstetricians. Regardless, if all of them did, then they would all be promoting murder, * if you believe that way*. I know people who consider abortion abhorrent, and I wouldn't suggest planned parenthood as their first choice in medical care.

I read your post. I saw you didnt believe it. Almost all healthcare facilities DO provide birth control/abortions because the public wants/needs it...and thanks I kinda figured Pediatricians didnt provide abortions -_- ....by all doctors i ment facilities....Kaiser, Aetna, blue cross, planned parenthood etc...i cant think of any that DONT provide it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:If healthcare was provided by the government, people would still have to get their healthcare from a source they may be strongly opposed to.

Not if you also had optional private healthcare.

British people have four options for healthcare.

1. The NHS, which is basically free at the point of demand, except for prescription charges, and these are subsidised for most drugs.
2. Private healthcare.
3. Go and use one of the social healthcare systems somewhere else in Europe, because we are EU members.
4. Health tourism -- pay for private treatment in Slovakia, or Brazil, or the USA.

The only element of compulsion in the system is the taxation, which means that well-off people pay taxes to support the NHS then pay again for private medicine. Of course they don't have to, and well-off people are remarkably good at avoiding taxes, so it probably doesn't do them a lot of harm.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:If healthcare was provided by the government, people would still have to get their healthcare from a source they may be strongly opposed to.

Not if you also had optional private healthcare.

British people have four options for healthcare.

1. The NHS, which is basically free at the point of demand, except for prescription charges, and these are subsidised for most drugs.
2. Private healthcare.
3. Go and use one of the social healthcare systems somewhere else in Europe, because we are EU members.
4. Health tourism -- pay for private treatment in Slovakia, or Brazil, or the USA.

The only element of compulsion in the system is the taxation, which means that well-off people pay taxes to support the NHS then pay again for private medicine. Of course they don't have to, and well-off people are remarkably good at avoiding taxes, so it probably doesn't do them a lot of harm.

Can wealthy people use your NHS, or are they obligated to pay for private insurance?

Everyone can use the NHS. No-one is required to pay for insurance.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone can use the NHS. No-one is required to pay for insurance.

Alright, was just curious about that one

O_o

You mean there isn't a US equivalent of the NHS?
I always presumed that as an advanced country, America would have free healthcare for all Americans. I never even considered that NOT being the case.

As Killkrazy said, you have 4 choices here. Whilst the service might be gakky at times, if as a kid, I ever wasn't feeling well, my mum just rang up the doctor, made an appointment for later on in the day, I'd be seen, prescribed if necessary, and that would be that.

How can you guys need to mess around with things like insurance plans for the most basic medical attention?
I'm actually gobsmacked, I always just took a national healthcare service as one of the hallmarks of an advanced nation, like the judiciary, or rubbish collection. It never even occurred that the US wouldn't have it.

Ketara wrote:O_o

You mean there isn't a US equivalent of the NHS?
I always presumed that as an advanced country, America would have free healthcare for all Americans. I never even considered that NOT being the case.

As Killkrazy said, you have 4 choices here. Whilst the service might be gakky at times, if as a kid, I ever wasn't feeling well, my mum just rang up the doctor, made an appointment for later on in the day, I'd be seen, prescribed if necessary, and that would be that.

How can you guys need to mess around with things like insurance plans for the most basic medical attention?
I'm actually gobsmacked, I always just took a national healthcare service as one of the hallmarks of an advanced nation, like the judiciary, or rubbish collection. It never even occurred that the US wouldn't have it.

We have something called medicare for some segments of the population, and in Tennessee there is something called TennCare, again for certain segments of the population. I don't know anything on how it works exactly, its all quite complex. That is part of the problem, it is difficult for people who aren't professionals in the insurance field to understand any of this.

Keep in mind I more or less believe in universal healthcare...but what you said about "advanced nations" is somewhat ethnocentric. How do you define advanced? What does that mean? Why is providing social services inherently advanced? Why are we more "advanced" than a group of hunter gatherers living off the land in Africa? I'm not sure "advanced" has any meaning other than what we want it to have.

Ethnocentric?
I just meant first world countrys, that's all.

And generally, by advanced, I mean advanced in terms of social structure, and technological achievement. Whilst you could say it is entirely subjective as to what constitutes being advanced in that case, you end up with the old philosophical problem of societies that eat babies and the like being as advanced as the modern american system. Which I don't buy.

EDIT: And I would regard universal healthcare as being inherently advanced, as the requirements for such a system to develop are hallmarks of an advanced society, for example, you need a government, you need a moralistic society that believes that sick people should be treated, and so on.