How Bad Is American Health Care...Really?

Quote:

Originally posted by Honda_X

[ Image ]

Now, before the super patriots roll in here flags-a-wavin, I'm not trying to troll you guys. The only reason I say your health care is bad in the thread title, is because I hear about how bad it is sometimes.

I'm a Canadian. I chug maple syrup, and I ride a moose to work at my job as a Mountie, but, I also don't personally pay for health care. Yes, as far as I know our taxes might be higher to pay for it, but still.
40,000,000 Americans are uninsured.That is the state of American health care.

I hear a lot of bullshit about our health care as well, that you have to choose doctors that are designated by the government, and the wait lists are crazy long and all sorts of shenanigans, but in reality you just go to whatever doctor you feel like going to. You make an appointment, and there is sometimes a weeks wait, depending on the doctor, but emergency rooms are always pretty quick. The longest I've ever waited in an ER was when I was thirteen, I had to wait about two hours because I thought I had broken my nose when I ran into a friend of mine who was a lot shorter than I am. I had to wait because they took a few cases that were more serious than I was.

So, about two years ago my brother fell down the stairs and hit his head on a doorknob. He had to be airlifted to a major hospital, ambulances...at one point the police came, it was a big ordeal. It cost nothing. Asshole got to ride in a fucking helicopter for free, jerk.

Now on the flip side, I hear people can actually die in America from shit that CAN BE cured? Is this actually true?
I mean, if you need heart surgery, and you don't have health insurance..can you fucking die?

Also, how much is health insurance? What does it cover?

Sorry, I'm guessing someone can explain this better, I just don't know a lot about American health care.

What are HMO's all about?

I heard a story about a man who lost two fingers, and he had to decided if he could AFFORD to have them reattached in America...does this shit happen?

Now that you've heard about how pretty awesome Canadian health care is...short, if any wait time, and choosing doctors on your own...being able to walk into any hospital, for any reason..and not pay a cent, do you prefer Americas health care system?

40,000,000 Americans are uninsured.That is the bottom line.

It may be the bottom line, but it tells you nothing of substance about the situation, nor offers any remedy.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

Your comments show a level of ignorance I won't even attempt to delve into. You can only see that someone makes money so that is wrong. Remember that when what you do for a living is deemed too important for you to make a profit at it.

The world was better when people had a sense of community and helped each other. Now days it's all about me, me, me. My wealth, my stuff, my taxes. That's bullshit. You used to be able to rely on your neighbors to help you through when times got hard and you would gladly in turn do the same for them, now it's just like "fuck you get out of my way."

We're talkin about peoples health and lives here. I'm not saying doctors, nurses, hospitals shouldn't make a profit. Useless fucking middle men who serve no purpose other then jacking up costs and scraping massive amounts of money off the top is complete bullshit. I'm talking about peoples needs and you're talking about your own wallet, it's pretty clear where both our priorities lie. You are one seriously cold hearted unbelievably selfish human being and so I'm not gonna make any progress in this discussion. I might as well be trying to get a robot to have some emotion or compassion.

We have a different way of looking at things. I think that anyone who wants to take away from someone else at the barrel of a gun to pay for their care is the selfish bastard. You look backward toward a sense of community, but conveniently forget that when that time existed it wasn't the government taking money from people to give to others, it was the people giving to each other. When you get down to it, conservatives consistently give more to charity than liberals/progressives. I have no issue giving to charity for those in need. But I refuse to let the government come in an control everything and just take my money to give to someone else.

Exactly RTF, there's a big difference between helping your "neighbor", and someone (the Govnt) "taking" someone's assets to redistribute them "equally" among those who did not contribute equally (or maybe not at all)

I'm Canadian. I just don't get it - why Americans are afraid of a "public option"? A non-profit option that competes with big insurance companies to bring the prices down for everyone, including small business employers. Profit of insurers have gone up around 350% in the last few years according to congressional testimony.

All this business about "government takeovers" seems nonsense to me. In my country, if you go to the doctor (or hospital/clinic) you never meet any government officials because there are none. (I have close family on hospital boards). All decisions are made by doctors and patients - no govt involvement whatsoever.

"While some label Canada's system as "socialized medicine," the term is inaccurate. Unlike systems with public delivery, such as the UK, the Canadian system provides public coverage for private delivery. As Princeton University health economist Uwe E. Reinhardt notes, single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems, because doctors are in the private sector. Similarly, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities, rather than being part of government." (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems)

I just don't get it. Why are so many in the U.S. "afraid" of universal health insurance?

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

We have a different way of looking at things. I think that anyone who wants to take away from someone else at the barrel of a gun to pay for their care is the selfish bastard. You look backward toward a sense of community, but conveniently forget that when that time existed it wasn't the government taking money from people to give to others, it was the people giving to each other. When you get down to it, conservatives consistently give more to charity than liberals/progressives. I have no issue giving to charity for those in need. But I refuse to let the government come in an control everything and just take my money to give to someone else.

Do that mean that "conservatives" are OK with taking tax money to wage pre-emptive wars (label "Culture of Death" and not taking tax money to subsidize health care (label "Culture of Life"?

Would you argue with the proposition that "LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are self-evident unalienable rights? If the U.S. govt can use public money for maintaining common-defense, courts of law etc. to protect the liberty of U.S. citizens, why can't it do the same to protect the life of its citizens through health care? Aren't heart attacks, cancer etc. as deadly as potential terrorist attacks?

If cultural conservatives get riled up against abortion (protecting the unborn), why no such compassion for those who are actually born and for whatever reason unable to afford medical treatment? Or is that "charity"?

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts that medical care is a right of all people. Many religions also impose an obligation on their followers to care for those in less favourable circumstances, including the sick. (Article 25 in particular).

Whatever you may think of the U.N., the United States endorsed - actually promoted - that charter. The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favor, 0 against, with 8 abstentions (communist nations in the main). Are you stating a view that it should be repealled?

If the argument is essentially economic, why is U.S. devoting 15-16% of its GDP per capita on health care (not covering at least 15% of its population) while other countries spend considerably less? In Canada (my country), its 10% of GDP per capital (and everyone is covered).

If you say, we spend more but have better outcomes, why then did a 2007 comparison by the Commonwealth Fund of health care in the U.S. with that of Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada find that the US ranked last on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes? (ref: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx)

Did you know that the Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31 percent of US health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs! (ref : http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf)

So what is the moral argument based on a modern understanding of human rights?
And what is the financial argument taking into account the actual facts?

Sorry, I'm totally baffled by these posts.

Military funding and the prosecution of military action are a proper role of the federal government. Therefore any military action authorized by Congress is appropriate for the federal government.

The international ratings of care are skewed toward systems that provide care through taxation, and often are not adjusted appropriately. Once accidental death and murder are removed from the equation, the US is among the top three in life expectancy. The US counts all births that draw a breath as live births regardless of pregnancy length while almost all other countries they do not count children born before a certain number of weeks and in many cases do not count a child as a live birth if they die within 24 hours of birth (which the US does count). Cancer survival rates in teh US are higher than most anywhere else in the world.

The Federal Government has no right to take money from one person to give to another to provide individual benefit. That includes Social Security and Medicare which I also oppose. If the states want to do so that is fine but the Federal Governments is limited in what it can do by the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally posted by JSly

All this business about "government takeovers" seems nonsense to me. In my country, if you go to the doctor (or hospital/clinic) you never meet any government officials because there are none. (I have close family on hospital boards). All decisions are made by doctors and patients - no govt involvement whatsoever.

That is correct only in the direct sense. There are rules governing what care can be provided and when it can be provided as well as budgets for certain procedures that can not be gone past. Decisions are made by the doctor and patient within what the government allows.

Canadians never fought a war to gain independence from an oppressive government, and to the best of my knowledge, Canadians never fought a war to defend the rights citizens of another Country from oppression, so I wouldn't expect most Canadians to be as wary as government becomes increasingly more involved in personal aspect of it's peoples affairs. Unfortunately, Americans are also becoming very tolerant of it, as we're already far more suppressed and oppressed by government now than we've ever been.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Canadians never fought a war to gain independence from an oppressive government, and to the best of my knowledge, Canadians never fought a war to defend the rights citizens of another Country from oppression, so I wouldn't expect most Canadians to be as wary as government becomes increasingly more involved in personal aspect of it's peoples affairs. Unfortunately, Americans are also becoming very tolerant of it, as we're already far more suppressed and oppressed by government now than we've ever been.

I think you're on the reason for the difference in attitudes between people in the two countries. Citizens here in Canada generally don't have a paranoid distrust of their government - we didn't throw the British out, they just kind of went away. I tend to see that as a good thing. We don't have a government that unduly meddles in the "personal aspect of it's peoples affairs". In fact, federal laws trying regulate sexual activities between consenting adults were repealed in 1967. The saying at the time was the "government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

I just don't see how subsidizing health care from the public purse constitutes "oppression" of the people. I'm a bit stunned to hear that you feel "far more suppressed and oppressed by government now than we've ever been." Clearly, we don't live in the same country in more ways than one.

On the other hand, aside wars of indepence, you state: "Canadians never fought a war to defend the rights citizens of another Country from oppression". That can't be right. We did fight in two World wars, Korea, various NATO interventions etc. and are now in Afghanistan with you guys. So I think you got that wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

Military funding and the prosecution of military action are a proper role of the federal government. Therefore any military action authorized by Congress is appropriate for the federal government.

The international ratings of care are skewed toward systems that provide care through taxation, and often are not adjusted appropriately. Once accidental death and murder are removed from the equation, the US is among the top three in life expectancy. The US counts all births that draw a breath as live births regardless of pregnancy length while almost all other countries they do not count children born before a certain number of weeks and in many cases do not count a child as a live birth if they die within 24 hours of birth (which the US does count). Cancer survival rates in teh US are higher than most anywhere else in the world.

The Federal Government has no right to take money from one person to give to another to provide individual benefit. That includes Social Security and Medicare which I also oppose. If the states want to do so that is fine but the Federal Governments is limited in what it can do by the Constitution.

You, of course, have a perfect right to your opinion (and me to mine). Yours matters more becuse it is your country, not mine.

If you oppose Social Security and Medicare, then it is understandable you would also oppose present health care reform efforts. But are you not in the minority on this?


You are right in saying the federal government is limited by the U.S. constitution. It is more than separation of powers. Despite the original intent of the 14th amendment, not all of the Bill of Rights has been "incorporated" against the states.

As a side point, if you are a proponent of judicial restraint and say "military action authorized by Congress is appropriate for the federal government", you presumably would have grave doubts about presidents circumventing the enumerated power of congress to declare war (Article 1, Section 8) under the constitution? (The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has not been tested by the Supreme Court).

Aside all that, the twain may never meet on our thinking on health care and a host of other issues.

"I hope Neil Young will remember, Southern Man don't need 'round anyhow" (Lynyrd Skynyrd - US)
"Keep on Rocking the Free World" (Neil Young - Canada)

Quote:

Originally posted by JSly

As a side point, if you are a proponent of judicial restraint and say "military action authorized by Congress is appropriate for the federal government", you presumably would have grave doubts about presidents circumventing the enumerated power of congress to declare war (Article 1, Section 8) under the constitution? (The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has not been tested by the Supreme Court).

I personally believe Congress is to blame for this. They are too wimpy to actually declare war anymore. But I know of no President who has officially declared war without Congress doing so. Bush used the word war but officially it was still a Congressionally approved and funded military action which is within his capacity as Commander in Chief (at least currently). It isn't right. but isn't against the Constitution either. Personally, as President I would refuse to go into military action outside the US EXCEPT in the case of attack against us and the very limited response that would require without Congress declaring an official war. I wish all Presidents would do the same.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

...

I personally believe Congress is to blame for this. They are too wimpy to actually declare war anymore. But I know of no President who has officially declared war without Congress doing so. Bush used the word war but officially it was still a Congressionally approved and funded military action which is within his capacity as Commander in Chief (at least currently). It isn't right. but isn't against the Constitution either. Personally, as President I would refuse to go into military action outside the US EXCEPT in the case of attack against us and the very limited response that would require without Congress declaring an official war. I wish all Presidents would do the same.

Glad to hear you don't favor pre-emptive wars for the purpose of spreading democracy and nation building in the absence of a very real military threat to the U.S.

Getting back to the original question posed "How Bad is American Health Care ... Really?", what is your view? Status-quo or some reform needed?

As an economist outside the US, I have no personal experience of your system (through I travelled extensively the Easten seaboard). I can only look at the statistics, the surveys and public commentary. The numbers suggest "something" is not right for the greatest and most succesful industrialized nation on earth, wouldn't you agree?

There is reform needed, but not government takeover. The debate has changed so that the idea of reform has been positioned to mean government health care, but that is inaccurate. Reform to me would be changing the laws to make it easier for people to get their own care and provide tax benefits for doing so. The market should be open across state lines for everyone to buy whatever care they want. Insurance should not be forced to cover things for everyone, but should be required to allow people to select that coverage if desired. I had a vasectomy 12 years ago. I do not need maternity or birth control coverage for me or my spouse but I have to pay for it. I should be able to select the coverage I want from any company in the country as long as I have the option to purchase coverage for anything I want. Without that you can never say the market is truly free and you can not say the free market system doesn't work. Give tax breaks to companies for providing care/coverage for those who are below a certain income level. Place restrictions on lawsuits like most other countries have and change the system to loser-pays so frivolous lawsuits will go down.

The government has actively passed laws to make the current system such a mess. Why shouldn't we make them remove those laws and make things more consumer centered prior to taking a huge step like government take over?

Quote:

Originally posted by JSly

I just don't see how subsidizing health care from the public purse constitutes "oppression" of the people. I'm a bit stunned to hear that you feel "far more suppressed and oppressed by government now than we've ever been." Clearly, we don't live in the same country in more ways than one.

Imagine that a government representitive showed up at your door in April and "took" between 30% and 50% of everything you'd accumulated during the last year... would that be oppressive? because that's the same net effect of current taxation. Other than air, can you name one thing the Canadian government does not tax?

Quote:

Originally posted by JSly

If you oppose Social Security and Medicare, then it is understandable you would also oppose present health care reform efforts. But are you not in the minority on this?

I'm pretty sure that most who oppose universal healthcare ALSO oppose SS and medicare. I do not believe it's the Government's job to "take care" of an individual's finances, healthcare, or retirement... PERIOD

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

There is reform needed, but not government takeover. The debate has changed so that the idea of reform has been positioned to mean government health care, but that is inaccurate. Reform to me would be changing the laws to make it easier for people to get their own care and provide tax benefits for doing so. The market should be open across state lines for everyone to buy whatever care they want. Insurance should not be forced to cover things for everyone, but should be required to allow people to select that coverage if desired. I had a vasectomy 12 years ago. I do not need maternity or birth control coverage for me or my spouse but I have to pay for it. I should be able to select the coverage I want from any company in the country as long as I have the option to purchase coverage for anything I want. Without that you can never say the market is truly free and you can not say the free market system doesn't work. Give tax breaks to companies for providing care/coverage for those who are below a certain income level. Place restrictions on lawsuits like most other countries have and change the system to loser-pays so frivolous lawsuits will go down.

The government has actively passed laws to make the current system such a mess. Why shouldn't we make them remove those laws and make things more consumer centered prior to taking a huge step like government take over?

I see. Its a "fend for yourself" philosophy of government. Govt intervention in the marketplace has screwed everything up. Social security, medicare etc. have harmed the citizenry.

Let the free market operate freely with minimal/limited/no government intervention. Milton Friedman type of economics (Nobel Loreate who did his seminal work at University of Chicago by the way).

But wait ..... didn't that approach just lead to the current financial crisis?

(P.S. The direct cost of malpractice suits amounts to only about 0.5% of all healthcare spending, and studies indicate that over 90% of the malpractice suits examined contain evidence of injury to the patient and that frivolous suits are generally readily dismissed by the courts. So much for tort reform)

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

...

Imagine that a government representitive showed up at your door in April and "took" between 30% and 50% of everything you'd accumulated during the last year... would that be oppressive? because that's the same net effect of current taxation. Other than air, can you name one thing the Canadian government does not tax?

...

I'm pretty sure that most who oppose universal healthcare ALSO oppose SS and medicare. I do not believe it's the Government's job to "take care" of an individual's finances, healthcare, or retirement... PERIOD

I see. Forget the "New Deal" (or better repeal it) and go back to laissez-fair economics. Everyone on their own, with a bit of charity thrown in for good measure.

Canada and the U.S. both have progressive taxation as it is. The latest survey in the field shows that 89% of Canadians prefer paying a bit more in taxes and have universal healthcare (and well of our version of social security). So, as a bunch, we are not too unhappy.

Let's see. On your side of the border its a 2:1 split (roughly) (ref : http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1344 and http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/poll-americans-split-by-political-party-over-socialized-medicine.html)

Democracy should settle the matter, wouldn't you think?

Quote:

Originally posted by JSly

But wait ..... didn't that approach just lead to the current financial crisis?

Nope. You forget that the cause of all of the sub-prime mortgages in the US was government interference. There was a huge government push to increase the number of "affordable" mortgages available to people. The government backed Freddie and Fannie and that played into more people pushing bad mortgages because the government would make them right later if something went wrong. It was the implicit government backing that cause the mortgage crisis which in turn caused the economic downturn.