Free health care in America

Medical privacy is protected by HIPPA regulations.

Your privacy is currently in the hands of whatever hospital/clinic/Dr/ Nrs Practicioner you visit. I don't see how consolidating this info into a single file would be any less secure than what we now have.

As far as the government owning and controlling all the hospitals, clinics, &c, and paying Drs, Nurses and technicians directly, yes, this is basically what socialized medicine is.
Not all single-payer systems are socialized, though. In most places the government acts as an insurance carrier and does not own or manage anything. Even in the UK, which does have a socialized system, one is free to opt for a private hospital should one wish.

jonny said:

I don't think you really know what a monopoly is then. The system we have right now is NOT a monopoly. If you don't like your insurance company, you can get a new one or complain to your HR department. When I worked for a larger company, we had three different insurance companies to choose from.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm quite familiar with what a monoply is. Healthcare certainly has the makings of one.

You remember when the government busted Microsoft becoming a monopoly?

Healthcare is a lot like computers (in the business sense). You can by a Dell, a Gateway or a Compaq. But in the end, they were all going to need the same operating system to function: Microsoft

Healthcare is no different: You can get insured with Blue Cross, Aetna, or Healthnet. But in the end you end up having to use the healthcare facilities (hospitals).

This is what Microsoft was found guilty of:

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said in a news conference that Jackson's finding affirms the position of 19 states in the case: "One, that Microsoft indeed does have a monopoly, two, that Microsoft has abused that monopoly, and third, that consumers have been harmed by that."

Click to expand...

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-232565.html

The same, exact thing is happening with healthcare:

1)There is no alternative to hospitals.
2)The healthcare industry is exploiting that.
3)Consumers are being harmed because of it.

Sure seems like a monopoly to me

jonny said:

There are alternatives - there are just no affordable alternatives available without discrimination.

A few years back I was denied insurance coverage by Blue Cross Blue Shield because I had a "pre-existing condition" (a gall stone that was no longer a problem). When I was denied coverage, I received a letter from the state of Utah mentioning that they had some sort of an insurance program I could use. I wish I still had the letter so I had more details. I'll have to dig it up.

Click to expand...

I know what programs you're talking about. I just can't think of them names of any of them at the moment.

I've seen Blue Cross cancel people's insurance for getting food poisoning and not having them to be eligible for coverage again for up to a year, because they had a "pre-existing condition." It's a good way to make profit.

Health insurance is only part of the problem though. The hospitals and the pharmaceulticals are the other parts.

jonny said:

No, I don't believe that my tax dollars should dictate people's lives, but if my tax dollars are going to be taken, against my will, and used to fund something that I find morally reprehensible, I will fight against it. That's the way a democracy works. The government answers to the people...in theory.

Click to expand...

But by definition, that's using tax dollars or the lack thereof to dictate people's personal lives. I contend that whether this is done by addition or subtraction is beside the point.

Also, people sometimes forget the flip side of the "Majority rules" coin: the minority have rights that in a true democracy, are not infringed. Violate them and we are reduced to mob rule.

I actually think that the middle class and poor would be better off in the long run if they shared a portion of this new tax burden. Obviously, the tax rates would be scaled to people's income, but if you just throw the entire tax burden on the rich it will result in lower wages at the bottom. Taxes go up, income goes down. That's the was Keynesian economics works anyway.

Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you, but the last six years have shot that theory down in flames. Poverty has increased every year that President Bush has been in office except for one, when it roughly stayed the same.

The small percent increase doesn't look that bad until you compare it to the rather large increase in the total number impoverished:



Yet during the same time, the average CEO makes $475 for every $1 that his [sic] worker makes.

It's an uncomfortable fact, Johnny, but "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is not just a saying.

Not equally, but I believe that if we are going to pay for healthcare that everyone should contribute. It wouldn't be socialism if we didn't work together, now would it?

Click to expand...

Ah, "equal." If a millionaire, a middle class employee, and a poor and unemployed person each pay $1000 in taxes, is that equal?

More importantly, is that fair? Is equality in this sense really fair?

Or is it perfectly okay to let the rich pay the extra taxes that they can very easily afford?

No, I do not believe that corporation are not corrupt.

Let me reword that... Yes, corporations are horribly corrupt, but no more corrupt than the government. That's why I favor a system that includes CHOICE.

Click to expand...

So on principle, I have better luck trusting a big corporation than I do a given agency of the federal government?

I have a bachelor degree in Marketing Management. Believe me, I know all about this. I also know that there are privacy laws regarding your health information. It's called HIPAA. I don't believe that our health information is stored in a government database, but I could be wrong. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving the government unfettered access to this information.

Click to expand...

Well, that's why we have laws that severely punish critical breaches of confidentiality. Just ask Scooter Libby.

Oh, wait a minute. Never mind.

This was an intersting editorial in the Wall Street Journal today. Wisconsin wants to implement a Universal Health Care system in its state. I'm all for states doing what they feel is right for their people, so I say more power to them.

Here is what the Wall Street Journal says about it:
- It would insure every resident under 65 years old.
- It would cost $15.2 billion each year.
- The state currently collects about $12 billion each year with sales, income, and corporate income taxes, so they would need to more than double their revenues in order to pay for the system.
- It would cost $512/month for each worker.
- It would be funded by a 14.2% employment tax on all wages which would be shared by the worker and the employer. Employers would have to pay a combined 29.8% in payroll taxes for each worker (double what they are currently paying).

You can read more about it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118523871060575674.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep

Mercy Not Sacrifice said:

I hate to break this to you, but the last six years have shot that theory down in flames.

Click to expand...

The poverty rate has stayed pretty flat from what I can see. The number has risen, but there doesn't appear to be much significant change in the rate. It did jump up a bit after the internet bubble burst at the end of the 90s - the end of the Clinton presidency. The economy was going down before Bush took office, so please don't blame that on him.

I'm not denying that poverty isn't a problem and I'm definitely not going to say that executives salaries are too high. I'm not going to share my feelings on this subject too much because it is off the topic, but I favor a system similar to what Ben & Jerry's did before they sold out to a big name CEO. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Mercy Not Sacrifice said:

Ah, "equal." If a millionaire, a middle class employee, and a poor and unemployed person each pay $1000 in taxes, is that equal?

Click to expand...

If you read what I wrote, I actually said "not equally" (it was the first two words of the sentence). If your income is above the poverty line, you should be contributing to this new government program. Like I said, it wouldn't be socialism if we didn't work together.

Regarding taxes, I believe it was the democratic candidates that I heard pushing for a "fair tax" in the debate the other night.

Mercy Not Sacrifice said:

So on principle, I have better luck trusting a big corporation than I do a given agency of the federal government?

Click to expand...

You can trust who ever you want. I don't trust the government. I also don't trust a lot of corporations. There are those out there that I do trust and I prefer to have the choice.

jonny said:

You can trust who ever you want. I don't trust the government. I also don't trust a lot of corporations. There are those out there that I do trust and I prefer to have the choice.

Click to expand...

You know Jonny, you've got me thinking......who's regulating the healthcare industry?

Groups such as the FDA, right?

Makes you wonder why the government hasn't put a stop to this malarky.....

What about the Swedish setup: All health care is free for minors, including dentistry of all kinds. For adults, the maximum annual cost for doctor/clinic visits is $130, not including dentistry, although adult dentistry is subsidized to a degree. Prescription drugs are max. $260 per year per person. Exception would be for the destitute, who I think are covered fully by other means.

On sick leave, you still get some 80% of your wages, provided you get a verifying physician statement after day 2. (And you can't be fired when on sick leave or pregnant.)

For the umptieth time, it's of course not "free". We pay between 30 and 60% of our net income in taxes. For an example, retired, on a fair but not huge pension (to which I just contributed automatically from my earnings) I pay 32% in local taxes and no govt. tax.

Thus, here it's rather difficult to get really wealthy from wages only, but on the other hand, should you need a heart transplant or a pacemaker or daily growth hormones or insulin, the same maximums apply for you as well as for all others.

That adds up to a kind of solidarity which I think compares to all of us paying for our national defense. Any political party trying to restrict our system would be out of business before the morning paper ink had dried.

In your opinion anders, is the swedish economy similar to american economy? I would like an answer as this question is valid, not one of debate.

fullyveiled muslimah said:

In your opinion anders, is the swedish economy similar to american economy? I would like an answer as this question is valid, not one of debate.

Click to expand...

No. Ours is stable, perhaps even improving now that we've got a non-socialist government. Witness the dollar's rather continuous falling vs. the krona. I often cast a glance at the wekend diagrams, and we also seem to gain vs. the yen and at least in the long run don't lose to the euro. (The INR sunk steadily for a few years, to add one I look at, but is picking up, so I suppose India as well is in a better shape than the US.)

MysticSang'ha said:

Fine with me as long as you're cool with either bringing the hacky sack or the booze so we can all play a few rounds of "Fuzzy Duck."

Click to expand...

What is hacky and why does it need to be in a sack?

We can't afford national health care until we stop dropping ten million dollar bombs on 10 dollar tents. As was pointed out the money has to come from some where to pay but the truth is we give so much away and waste so much its near impossible to do. On the other side you have the pharmaceutical company's that really stick it to the USA, for example the medication I took in the USA cost around $100 per month here it costs $1.25 same thing imported from the USA but now I have national health care so I don't even pay the $1.25 and I get a check up every 6 weeks also no charge, not bad for a developing nation.

response to the poster

the answer is no we should not have universal free health care in this place.

why?????
because that opens the door for the government to make it to where you have to go and see a doctor once a year, and as far as i am concerned, this is a violation of our civil liberties. the government needs to be smaller, and has no right to dictate our lives.

almifkhar said:

response to the poster

the answer is no we should not have universal free health care in this place.

why?????
because that opens the door for the government to make it to where you have to go and see a doctor once a year, and as far as i am concerned, this is a violation of our civil liberties. the government needs to be smaller, and has no right to dictate our lives.

Click to expand...

Here in Canada we have had Health Care for a long time... The Canadian government does not force us to go to the doctor (I haven't been to one in like 4 years, thank God) and you pick your own family doctor... Only real problem we have is wait time for things like organs, do to lack of supply....

We already pay more than anyone else in the world for healthcare! -- with embarrasingly poor results compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

If we cut out all the 3rd parties with their hands in the cookie jar -- who generate mounds of paperwork and other overhead but no actual medical service -- we could cut our costs in half while Improving care and outcomes by a similar factor.

People keep talking about the cost of a single-payer or socialized system. It would be more reasonable to speculate about the three or four thousand dollar rebate a single-payer system would allow.

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries

It would be easier to give everyone in America a house and a new car than it would to give every man woman and child full coverage health care for life.

Reverend Rick said:

It would be easier to give everyone in America a house and a new car than it would to give every man woman and child full coverage health care for life.

Click to expand...

And yet Cuba manages it

stephenw said:

And yet Cuba manages it

Click to expand...

Yes they do, but the life styles of their doctors have something to improve upon. Imagine living in Cuba and knowing your profession is worth a hundred times more less than 50 miles away and you may not go there.

Reverend Rick said:

Yes they do, but the life styles of their doctors have something to improve upon. Imagine living in Cuba and knowing your profession is worth a hundred times more less than 50 miles away and you may not go there.

Click to expand...

For some it's not about financial gain.

stephenw said:

For some it's not about financial gain.

Click to expand...

I understand that, but many more people would go to medical school and work hard if there was a reward just as less would put that much effort forth if there was not.

Doctors in the United States have earned what they have. I know a heart surgeon where I live who spent 20 years achieving his profession and has accrued almost a million dollars in debt for his troubles. Yes he has a good life now, but it was a delayed reward for all his hard work. The bottom line, doctors are not given a free pass to the good life.

Reverend Rick said:

I understand that, but many more people would go to medical school and work hard if there was a reward just as less would put that much effort forth if there was not.

Doctors in the United States have earned what they have. I know a heart surgeon where I live who spent 20 years achieving his profession and has accrued almost a million dollars in debt for his troubles. Yes he has a good life now, but it was a delayed reward for all his hard work. The bottom line, doctors are not given a free pass to the good life.

Click to expand...

When I've finished studying I hope to work in the mental health area. My studies are quite expensive but I don't see the cost as an investment in the financial sense.
In this country the government have run down the public health system on ideological grounds, efficiency of the free market etc. etc.
On ethical grounds I am against this. It is non-sensical to me that an insured cancer victim is more entitled to life than an uninsured one. And profit. It seems inherently wrong to me that healthcare include provision for profit.
I think universal health care is a mark of a civilized country.