Sad. But this is no different then the current system. Arguing with the insurance company about what is and isn't or should be covered. And if you can afford it out of pocket, then you just go ahead and get it.
That's binary thinking. You can mix and match capitalist policies, socialist policies, and others besides. I recently visited the doctor for a minor issue - he remarked upon his surprise at how rarely he sees me. Nonetheless, I don't feel the taxes I pay that go toward our NHS are wasted, for the most part. It seems to me like simply a form of mandatory health insurance. I'm not saying it's without it's problems, far from it. I just would hate to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Most hospitals in the US now have things like MRI's and helicopter access but in Canada, the lack of an MRI, the lack of a helicopter, the lack of a specialist forced a drive to another hospital for Natasha Richardson which ended up killing her. That is one reason it costs more here. If you want universal health care, the rich will still always have access to the best care and the rest of us will have to settle for lesser healthcare anyway so basically it drags everyone to the lowest common denominator as the funds become the countries largest and most discussed budget item.
I remember reading a study on why the health care system costs so much. One of the things pointed out is that there were TOO many MRI machines and other medical technology in a given area. So they were idle. Which meant that every MRI, etc. had to be charged out at a higher rate in order to recoup the cost + profit margin of the technology. Is there a middle ground? BTW they have helicopters and MRIs in Canada. I think that the case you mentioned, while tragic, is also atypical.
I think our first act should be to separate the health research, pharma/medical device manufacturing, and healthcare fields into separate areas. For instance, many of the issues that pertain to medical research are vastly different from those confronting the front-line healthcare agencies (eg. doctors, hospitals, home health agencies, etc.). In answer to you first point, I think the federal and state governments should fund healthcare research for a variety of reasons. 1) Pharma, medical device makers, and other private healthcare firms do not have an incentive to perform the basic research that is vital to finding cures (or at least better treatments) for a host of diseases. Federal and state governments can fill this gap by providing money for basic research. As an example, pharma companies do not have much of an interest in funding research into finding new types of antibiotics; the costs of the research simply outweigh the benefits from any new drug produced (for the pharma company). The government has stepped in to fill this gap. 2) Private healthcare firms also often do not have an interest in doing the research necessary to translate basic research into new drugs. The federal government (and state governments) can help in this area as well (and should devote more money than it currently does to translational research). 3) The government (state or federal) can better control animal research (and reduce exploitation of said creatures), if it has a financial stake in the research. Now, regarding the healthcare community who treats illnesses (doctors, hospitals, etc.)...I believe that a purely laissez faire approach to healthcare would prove to be a disaster. A truly detailed response would take up pages (or books); however, I will try to sum it up in a few sentences. We live in an interconnected society. The actions of an individual have an impact on a large number of other people. It is in society's best interest to help all of its citizens to remain as healthy as possible. As an example, if someone is sick and misses work, it impacts the productivity of that company. The lost productivity then impacts society, etc...
What do you mean by "archaic?" Are physicians using leeches, vodoo, and holy water to treat patients where you live?
I dont agree with this slippery slope argument at all. People care about thier health primarily because being healthy is important to have a good life, not because healthcare may be expensive. Even with completely socialised healthcare, only a miniscule fraction of people is going to abuse themselves because healthcare is now free. But I do think that everyone should pay for their healthcare to some degree. A symbolic sum if they are poor, but still. This would help to keep useless procedures low and remind them of the fact that there is no free lunch.
Let me start by saying that I agree with essentially everything you have said so far and have enjoyed reading your posts. However, as a physician, I can say that it is essentially impossible to accomplish what you are asking. For example, we know that COPD (combined obstructive pulmonary disease) is hugely correlated with chronic smokers. Yet, I have had COPD patients who vehemently deny smoking a single cigarette in their entire lives. Who am I to call them liars? Maybe they were exposed to a massive amount of cigarette smoke as a child? Maybe they have another obstructive lung disease that mimics chronic bronchitis and emphysema? My point is, in obtaining a patient's history, all we really have to go by is the patient's word. If the patient knows that they will be penalized for admitting to smoking, drinking, and other risky behavior, then they will merely resort to lying to their physicians.
This is why 2/3 of North Americans are obese or overweight. The leading cause of death is heart disease and cancer (both of which were relatively unknown until very recently). I'm sorry but MOST people abuse these systems. I'm glad we agree on this much at least.
At the risk of sounding cruel, if they were around loved ones or friends who smoked, they should have either got out of their way, asked them to leave, or maybe even the people smoking should be sued for their health care costs. Or voluntarily pay it if they are still alive themselves. People will always lie - especially when their lives are at stake. I agree with House on this one lol.
The idea that government can run health care efficiently is true if you understand that they have limited funds and will influence the health care decisions for you. I am more for creating more innovative ways to provide health care than putting all the eggs in one basket. Another thing that has happened since the advent of much more expensive health care due to specialization and technology is that everybody expects to get the best health care and somehow have the idea that it should not cost anything. That is just plain unrealistic. Right now with the ACA does nothing for innovation or actual cost but restructures insurance through insurance companies yet still limits insurance from working across State lines. That is like putting a band-aid on the Titanic thinking it will keep it from sinking. The alleged cost savings for users is already shown to be false and it forces some people to spend their limited dollars on a product they may not want. It will also not make a dent in the obesity epidemic. Only education will do that.
Yeah but isn't it utterly stupid that so many right wingers are ever so eager to pay for Israel's health care while laughing as so many Americans die for lack of health care? It is stupid and treasonous to do so. But that's Republicanism for you.
Every bit as much so as there are rightists who are intelligent enough to make the incredibly simple distinction between being anti-Israeli government, and anti-semitic. Really, it's not that hard.
Although I believe such a distinction can be made in theory, in practice, my experience on this forum is that it's just a cover for hate and bigotry. And a cover that flies off pretty quickly. For instance, Israel has nothing to do with this thread topic.
You go ahead and blow that cover off then. Until someone does, I'm not going to buy that. Although you're quite right about it being offtopic though, I must admit.
It's "truthful" only if you are living in your own fantasy world with absolutely no grasp on reality. We give Israel military aid. In turn, their soldiers are risking their lives and dying so our soldiers don't have to. We are fighting a common enemy with a common goal. I personally would rather send a couple of billion dollars a year (which is pocket change to the Obama administration) to assist Israeli forces instead of sending hundreds or thousands of our own troops there (which would probably end up costing far more than a couple billion dollars).
Personally, I think Universal Health Care would work (socialized medicine), but there a wide range of options out there. Instead of dragging in horror stories from Canada or the UK, why don't we discuss the "managed competition" systems of the Netherlands and Switzerland where everyone is required to buy health insurance from private insurers but the insurane market is tightly regulated to ensure access to basic plans. In other words, simplified Obamacare inside a simplified medical system. They still manage to deliver high quality care at a lower price than the USA does and people don't fall through the cracks nearly as often.
If you're prepared to turn sick or dieing people away from hospitals, then that's fine. But American's at least, aren't prepared to do that, and per capita spend double the amount on healthcare that Canada does, without better health outcomes.
What a stupid comment! How the hell does pointing out the TRUTH that we pay for Israel's health care constitute anti-semitism? Secondly, being of Jewish descent myself as I have pointed out about three times previously, how do the hell is that anti-semitism???? Tell me genius - I'd like to know.
If the USA would mind its own business and stay out of those affairs we would not have to waste one cent in military wastage. Israel is the world's biggest enemy of peace and of the USA. Without our tax dollars Israel's currency would have gone to hell and its government bankrupt. It is our money that enables that government to pay for its citizens health care and the people there know it. Only a drugged up Islamophobic right wing delusional America hater would deny that TRUTH.
I'm a conservative from the US and I support single-payer healthcare. We should eliminate welfare entirely and replace it with single payer healthcare as an option for those who can't otherwise afford it. This would be such an effective solution to our problems. We wouldn't have people buying beer and cigarettes on food stamps, or people on Medicaid driving Cadillacs - we could simply send them some packaged food once a month, and they'd be entitled to a number of medical visits per year, the same as everyone else. Those willing to pay more for higher quality healthcare would be free to seek higher coverage, and the goverment would not regulate the private healthcare sector, like they're trying to do with Obamacare. As far better solution to the problem you speak of would be simply to raise taxes on unhealthy food choices, so that people in turn have to pay more in sales tax than those of us who choose to eat healthy, which would help offset the increased medical costs.
I'm not worried about the coverage, there's just something seriously disgusting about paying 30% of every healthcare dollar to CEOs and shareholders as 'administrative mark-up'. Those boys make government functionaries look downright thrifty and efficient.
