Free health care in America (moral, tradition, birth control, blood)

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Fresh on the heels of having seen Sicko, the new documentary on health care by Michael Moore, I am horrified by America's lack of free health care. It was demostrated how France, Canada, Britain, and even Cuba has universal free health care. In these countries you don't need a health insurance, you don't need anything when you're sick. You just go to the doctor. Medicine is obscenly cheap in these places, but here it is the other way around. When a person gets sick, they just have to deal with it on their own when they don't have health insurance. Even when they do have it, the co-pays and deductibles are a nightmare. I am living in this situation as we speak, so I have a full reality of how ridiculous this health system is here in America.

Should we have universal health care in America? Why or why not?

[jonny]

There's no such thing as "free" health care. You're going to pay for it one way or another - most likely by paying higher taxes. It might balance out though when you eliminate the money that you have to pay out of your paycheck each month for healthcare (I pay about $80/month right now. If I had children that would quadruple).

I don't mind exploring the idea of gov't health care - but not until the government commits to balancing the budget. We can't pay for the government programs that we've got so far and adding another HUGE program isn't going to help our government manage our money better. I'd consider an ammendment to the consitution that requires congress to balance the budget (I haven't really researched this idea fully) and elimination of 'earmarks' on bills passed by congress - then, and only then, will I listen to an argument about letting the government take over health care.

Personally, I think everyone agrees that the government screws up just about everything it touches. It is extremely corrupt. Unless we have some sort of system that allows people to opt-out and get private insurance, I don't know how we can really trust the government to do better with this than they have with other things in the past. Did anyone else read the article today about the former Surgeon General testifying of being forced to 'keep quiet' on health issues?

I should add that I'm more inclined to let the states deal with this. I don't like the idea of depending on the federal gov't for everything when it could be managed better at a state level.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by fullyveiled muslimah

Fresh on the heels of having seen Sicko, the new documentary on health care by Michael Moore, I am horrified by America's lack of free health care.

I wish I could go see Sicko, but alas, until someone invents the popcorn-free theater that's not an option. I guess I'll wait for Netflix.

Well, we do have free health care, but only if your 65 or older and that sort of thing. It's not like we don't know how to do it in some form.

It was demostrated how France, Canada, Britain, and even Cuba has universal free health care. In these countries you don't need a health insurance, you don't need anything when you're sick. You just go to the doctor. Medicine is obscenly cheap in these places, but here it is the other way around.

Not only that, but doctors there focus on the patient's needs, and are not rushed on to the next patient because insurance demands only allow them a certain amount of time with each patient if they plan on keeping their practice open. Also, they don't get reimbursed for talking to a patient and counseling them on good diet or quitting smoking or things like that that make a huge difference in people's health. They are paid for procedures. This encourages unnecessary procedures, which drive up healthcare costs.

Not to mention many of those tests are not done because they are strictly necessary, but rather they are a means to cover a doc's butt in case of a malpractice lawsuit, it's a way to get past the insurance company's rules that tend to depress the doc's ability to stay in business, and if a hospital is involved, trust me, I used to write and maintain the bloody software that hospitals across this nation use to analyze the *profit* a doctor is making for a hospital.

If you're a doctor and you're not ordering enough tests to pay for the hospital's equipment -- they will drop you off their list of docs with privileges there. They only want docs who make money for them.

When a person gets sick, they just have to deal with it on their own when they don't have health insurance.

Even if they do get sick, they may have to deal with it on their own. The allopathic medical profession has the money all tied up and jealously guards their market share. This is why they've gone after chiropractors for years (and lost in the Supreme Court) and are again going after them now that the makeup of the Court has changed to favor them. This is why you can be arrested in this country for actually healing people with cancer (cf. Getzen and his problems in Texas -- he moved to Mexico). This is why traditional remedies that people have used for thousands of years cannot be advertised for the things we all know they are good for. This is why naturopaths can be arrested and tossed in jail if they say anything remotely prescriptive. They have to couch their words *very* carefully so it all can be cast as "just education."

And believe me, I've got a lot more where that comes from.

Oh, did I mention that allopathic medicine was completely unable to cure and not even treat the illness(es) I've had for the last 5 years? Oh someone sure can -- it's why I'm here now instead of bedridden on Oxycontin just waiting to die. We've paid in the neighborhood of $30K a year to keep me alive and get me functional again. The insurance I pay dearly for reimburses me for nearly none of that. It's a damned good thing my husband makes a good income.

As Moore points out in his movie (I saw an interview) thousands (I think he said 18K?) people DIE in this country every year because they do not have access to healthcare.

Even when they do have it, the co-pays and deductibles are a nightmare. I am living in this situation as we speak, so I have a full reality of how ridiculous this health system is here in America.

I've experienced the UK's system and this one. I'll take the UK's any day. btw, you're more likely to survive a heart attack in the UK than here. Why? Doctors and hospitals don't move out of impoverished areas where the populace can't pay the bills -- because it doesn't matter there! They bills get paid whereever you are.

Should we have universal health care in America? Why or why not?

Our system is hopelessly broken and predicated on a number of things that make no sense for the subject of healthcare. Healthcare is treated like a business that sells widgets. Well of course the manufacturer of widgets will want to sell you more widgets. Well, the "manufacturers" of healthcare want to sell you more healthcare than you need too. So it gets expensive and we wonder why?

And on the other side are the insurance companies. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits. They don't have a responsibility to see that we remain or get healthy. So guess what? They do everything in their power to ensure that they don't actually have to provide you with the service you pay them for.

What a crock.

But I don't see what can change our system on the level it requires short of a collapse of the system altogether. Which, I think, is inevitable if we don't have a serious debate about it, and it may be inevitable anyway, because the monied interests are not interested in a change, they are even more powerful now than they were a few decades ago, and they will fight change tooth and nail.

But when 75% of Americans have no coverage and the hospitals are closing because their patients can't pay, maybe then someone will pay attention.

Frankly, I think the Internet and grass roots is the only place where change can really be spearheaded. The mass media in this country have their bills paid by Big Pharma. They are not going to take on the people who pay their bills.

One immediate thing we could do, though, is what Australia did. They realized that pharmaceutical costs were skyrocketing. They went back to the old ban on advertising, and the costs dropped.

It used to be you couldn't advertise drugs here either. We've done it before, and we can do it again. It's a bandaid on a hemmoraghing patient, but it's something.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by jonny

There's no such thing as "free" health care.

Free health care is really a misnomer. Of course it has to get paid for somehow.

You're going to pay for it one way or another - most likely by paying higher taxes.

Yes, and you and businesses won't be paying insurance premiums, which would offset the taxes.

It might balance out though when you eliminate the money that you have to pay out of your paycheck each month for healthcare (I pay about $80/month right now. If I had children that would quadruple).

Don't forget what many employers are paying also. That's quite a chunk of change, and they aren't happy about it either.

I don't mind exploring the idea of gov't health care - but not until the government commits to balancing the budget.

If we stop invading other countries and trying to rule the world, we will have more than enough money to pay for this. If freakin' Cuba can do it (and they're only two notches below us on the measure of how good the healthcare is), then we have no excuse I can see.

(Oh, and on the subject of military spending, there's a lot more cash given to that than just the DoD budget. Money for military spending is squirreled away in all sorts of other agency budgets.)

We can't pay for the government programs that we've got so far and adding another HUGE program isn't going to help our government manage our money better. I'd consider an ammendment to the consitution that requires congress to balance the budget (I haven't really researched this idea fully) and elimination of 'earmarks' on bills passed by congress - then, and only then, will I listen to an argument about letting the government take over health care.

These are very real concerns, Jonny, and I must say that as a fiscal conservative I share them with you. I see no reason why earmarks serve the country, and can't imagine the Founders would recognize a "bill" of the sort we have today.

I'm not sure about the implications of a balanced budget amendment, but you know, that would make a great thread of its own. Many states have them...how would that work? Would you like to start a thread?

Personally, I think everyone agrees that the government screws up just about everything it touches. It is extremely corrupt.

I agree about the corruption. They are bought and paid for...and the two top industries are the military and healthcare. If you take the money out of ruling the world and out of healthcare as it is now, you might actually reduce the amount of corruption. Who knows?

Unless we have some sort of system that allows people to opt-out and get private insurance, I don't know how we can really trust the government to do better with this than they have with other things in the past.

I'd like to see our friends from the UK address this topic and how National Health deals with things.

Admittedly, the UK is about the size of one of our states, so that may affect the workability of the system. There's no guarantee that a system that works there would work if expanded to the size we'd need here.

But if you look at the EU collectively, it would mirror us pretty well. Maybe we need some federal level guidance but work things at the state level. There are so many options to consider.

Did anyone else read the article today about the former Surgeon General testifying of being forced to 'keep quiet' on health issues?

Yes, I did. It's typical for this Administration, I'm sad to say. I wonder what happened to the idea that lying is immoral? It seems to be the modus operandi right now. It's a sad day when our gov't is so bent that one could say with a straight face, "Q: How do you know a politician is lying? A: They open their mouth." But that seems to be the case today, and it doesn't seem to matter which "side" you're talking about.

I should add that I'm more inclined to let the states deal with this. I don't like the idea of depending on the federal gov't for everything when it could be managed better at a state level.

I wonder about this myself. First off, it doesn't make sense to assume the cost in NYC is going to be the same as in Peoria. Everything is more expensive in NYC...healthcare too. I don't think a one-size-fits-all system would necessarily work very well. I wonder how Medicare does it?

I haven't been tapped into the "socialized" part of our healthcare -- just the profit-making part.

[jonny]

Originally Posted by Booko

One immediate thing we could do, though, is what Australia did. They realized that pharmaceutical costs were skyrocketing. They went back to the old ban on advertising, and the costs dropped.

It used to be you couldn't advertise drugs here either. We've done it before, and we can do it again. It's a bandaid on a hemmoraghing patient, but it's something.

This came about in the 90s under Clinton didn't it? I don't remember any pharm commercials before I left on my mission in 1998. Now they are everywhere. I'm in favor of blocking these also, and not just because I hate hearing the word "erection" while I'm trying to eat my dinner.

[jonny]

Originally Posted by Booko

I wonder about this myself. First off, it doesn't make sense to assume the cost in NYC is going to be the same as in Peoria. Everything is more expensive in NYC...healthcare too. I don't think a one-size-fits-all system would necessarily work very well. I wonder how Medicare does it?

I think that the federal gov't's role in this should be to give the states incentives to fix the problems. We all agree that everyone needs health care, but we have different ideas of how we should go about getting it done. The reason why I support the states taking control of this is because the people will have more of a voice on how their states spend their money. The federal gov't could give them incentives by withdrawing funding for certain programs if the states don't meet some basic requirements for health care for their residents. I know they do that with the highways (This is a reason why you won't really see any states with a speed limit over 75 mph - my understanding is that they lose funding from the federal gov't if they go above that).

[jonny]

Another potential problem I can see with universal health care is the fights that will arise on what is covered. I can only imagine the debates when people start discussing using tax dollars to pay for abortions, birth control, etc. Ugh. I dread the thought of it.