Originally posted by drwizardphd

That's pretty funny, considering there is a post directly above yours contradicting that claim with personal experience.

"Individual experiences will vary." Anecdotes are not authoritative.

If you look at an unbiased source, such as the World Health Organization, you will see that the United States ranks in at a lowly 37th in overall health system effectiveness, and a staggering 72nd on overall level of health.

The WHO study is flawed on several counts. It doesn't take into account the effect of government-run markets and price controls. It doesn't consider the differences in the populations, lifestyles and cultures it compares. It completely overlooks the actual use of medical resources compared to their availablilty and effectiveness.

Canada, Switzerland, the UK, even Cuba beat us on these statistics, and all have socialized healthcare plans.

And, the Obama plan and Congressional drafters explicitly eschew adherence to any of these programs! They insist that the Obama plan will compete with insurance, not replace it.

I'm not happy with our current system, either. I believe that if we gave Americans the $4,600 they 'spend' on health care to decide where, how and when to use it, the system would be more efficient and less costly.

The W.H.O.'s statistical rankings do not take into account that most of the cited programs distort the equation by controlling prices and wages. Do you honestly believe that a Cuban doctor is paid the same as an American? (Why are Canadian-trained doctors and med students fleeing the Country and the practice altogether?) Or that services provided in this country are the equivalent of those provided elsewhere? Do you really consider it accurate to compare medical devices made and supplied by the government to those developed and sold in a free market?

Insurance distorts the markets, no doubt. It is essentially a wager that the insurer will make better use of your premium dollars than it will cost them to pay claims. The more claims denied or discounted, the more the carrier keeps.

But, the Obama plan preserves this distortion and takes advantage of it itself. Instead of insurance profitting from our illness and injury, the Obama administration will too!

Haven't you even looked into HIS plan? Have you ignored or chosen not to read Obama's own description of how he will lower health care costs?

Rationing. Cost-effectiveness. Service vs. "quality of life."

Aren't these the decisions that the patient should make? Why would Obama be a better 'referee' for service/resources than any other third-party?

Deny ignorance!

jw

Originally posted by jdub297

And, the Obama plan and Congressional drafters explicitly eschew adherence to any of these programs! They insist that the Obama plan will compete with insurance, not replace it.

I don't like Obama's plan at all. I don't want there to be any private insurance companies left, because I believe they are antithetical to what's best for the populace. I don't want to force people to buy health care, like Hillary's plan either. Honestly, American politicians are trying too hard to compensate capitalism with health care, when in actuality the two can never mix.

I want a fully nationalized, European style health care plan that will provide the same exact care to everyone, despite if they make $1 a year or $1 million a year.

Originally posted by jdub297
I'm not happy with our current system, either. I believe that if we gave Americans the $4,600 they 'spend' on health care to decide where, how and when to use it, the system would be more efficient and less costly.

Well, the problem with that is, most medical procedures cost more than that to perform. If we simply take health coverage out of the picture entirely, then people are going to go broke paying for their procedures. Most people will only need to undergo one or two major surgeries in their lifetimes, but those can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. So while those people will save money most of their lives, when the time comes and they need something done, they might not have 60,000 to drop on a bypass. Then they are faced with two options: take out a loan and pay it off the rest of their life, or die.

The only truly fair way to handle health care, is to collect through taxes (not private companies that can change rates or refuse service), and then unquestioningly provide every citizen with every procedure their doctors recommend for their well-being.

The only procedures that people should pay for out of pocket are unnecessary things like elective cosmetic surgery (not accident victims), sex change operations, psychiatric sessions, chiropractic work etc. Of course in situations where these procedures are determined necessary for well-being by a doctor, then they would be covered by the fed.

We spend so much taxpayer money on our military, bailouts, etc, that its shameful we don't spend it on the people who actually need it.

But then again, I'm a pinko commie socialist, so what do I know?

Originally posted by drwizardphd

I want a fully nationalized, European style health care plan that will provide the same exact care to everyone, despite if they make $1 a year or $1 million a year.

I want, I want, I want.

Not even in "fully nationalized, European style" plans do people get "the exact same care" for the same cost. You need to look at a few before you make such statements.

And, be careful what you wish for.

Well, the problem with that is, most medical procedures cost more than that to perform. If we simply take health coverage out of the picture entirely, then people are going to go broke paying for their procedures.

No, they won't. A resonable program would let citizens keep that $20k (for a family of four each year) to use for basic care, minor surgery, and preventive services. Any major expenses could be borne by the feds or from a pool of funds contributed to by employers and the feds. It would be less expensive, driven by doctors, not bureaucrats, and prevent people from bankruptcy for things over which they have no control.

The only truly fair way to handle health care, is to collect through taxes (not private companies that can change rates or refuse service), and then unquestioningly provide every citizen with every procedure their doctors recommend for their well-being.

So, the drug addict, motorcycle racing, alcoholic, sky-diving smoker should get every procedure she needs and at the same cost as my non-smoker, physically fit mother?

As I said earlier, if all services are "free" they will be used up until they are scarce. Human nature and plain and simple economics.

The only procedures that people should pay for out of pocket are unnecessary things like elective cosmetic surgery (not accident victims), sex change operations, psychiatric sessions, chiropractic work etc. Of course in situations where these procedures are determined necessary for well-being by a doctor, then they would be covered by the fed.

Only someone with no real-life experience would be oblivious to the fact that some doctor some where will say whatever you pay him for. Ever heard of "junk science?" Or "insurance whores?" Or "Plaintiff's whores?"
You can just as easily find a doctor to say anything is necessary for your well-being as you can find one to say just the opposite.

And who should decide what service is best for you? You include chiropractic and psychiatry, sex-change and cosmetic surgery in your short list. What about cleft lips, mastectomies, misaligned joints, and the trans-gendered? None of these procedures are "unnecessary things" to the people who want/need them. Do you really think someone elects to have a sex-change just because they want one?

And do you really think that if the feds have all that money set aside in a big account, they are going to let your doctor tell them how to spend their money? Every level of bureaucracy is going to want a say in what gets paid to justify their existence.

This post is a joke, right. No one can be so naive as to believe that a bureaucracy, given $650,000,000,000 (that's what BHO says his plan would cost, yours would be much more expensive) to dispense, is going to be altruistic and even handed.

(I admit it, you roped me in. For a minute, I thought you were serious.)

Deny ignorance!
jw

But then again, I'm a pinko commie socialist, so what do I know?

Oh, that could explain it, too.

jw

[edit on 12-5-2009 by jdub297]

8 years ago my son was diagnosed with a heart condition that he will have to have surgery on at some point in his life. Then a year later he was diagnosed with autism. I cannot find a health insurance company that will cover any of his conditions because they are pre-existing.

He is 12 years old and all I want to do Is make sure he taken care of. We pay all of his medical expenses out of pocket. So yeah, I would like to see a sweeping overhaul of health insurance.

...and No, we do not get state aid.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by Tartarspoon]

I have a question about the current system. A relative of a friend of mine recently had to be hospitalized. He has been an alcoholic for many years and is a transient. no property, no assets, of course no job, no insurance. I can't remember the medical details at this point but he was in intensive care for two weeks. no expenses spared. he then received follow-up care with regular appoints, medications. bill was of course enormous but it was written off by the hospital because he is considered "judgment-proof" because of his lack of assets or earning ability.

my question is this: what if a person had insurance with certain limits, but required care or procedures that exceeded those limits, would those procedures be performed anyway and the excess part of the bill sent to the patient with the expectation of payment from his own funds or would the excess be "written off" by the hospital? would less expensive procedures be substituted so that cost would fit within insurance limits?

just curious

I would say that you would be billed and If you don't pay, you will be turned over to collections. there are some cases where you can talk to the hospital and work out an arrangement .

As someone who has been put in debt to the heathens of the medical industrial complex, I can say, our whole medical system needs massive overhaul.

However, as someone who has been living in countries with socialized national healthcare, I can say: socialization/nationalization of health care is not the answer.

A good start would be doing something about the ridiculous amounts of money charged by the medical establishment.

I got so angry as I read this thread. So angry with all the opponents of 'socialized' medicine, the advocates for for profit 'healthcare', the people who would deny their fellow man life or health. The rightwingers, the liars and the willfully ignorant, and the rethuglicans and neocons, the freepers and the downright evil.

But I'm cleansed. It's like it all quickly vanished away as I started writing this and I had to delete what I had already put down and start over.

God will judge. Vengeance is His.

But I really think it is easier for a camel...

Health care should be a non profit industry. That doesn't mean the rewards will not be great.

A doctor making $200,000 a year is still way ahead of the curve when it comes to income. A Doctor making a million dollars a year is just being greedy.

As long as health care is a for profit industry, No American will ever be healthy. There is no profit in healthy people.

Originally posted by breakingdradles
There are a few things I believe people should not make money on, health insurance being one of them!

The government themselves have a pool they all throw into and no one makes profit off of it, why can't we get that too?

When you have to call a corporation and see if they approve a medication/service, there is a fundamental problem with they system.

So you approve of changing it to calling a politician to see if they approve a medication/service, unless of course you actually think government health care will be a 'free for all' with no restrictions. Then hopefully you get exactly what's deserved to you.

[edit on 6/21/09 by Ferris.Bueller.II]

politicians make money on every single thing that passes through their greedy little hands. definitely health care industry has some very greedy players and needs to be reformed. unfortunately our current crop of elected officials will simply add their cut to the greed. I'm not sure where that leaves us. the elected officials will go along with whoever promises the most votes & money, which means unions will somehow make out well. don't know about doctors. i think drug companies will have their ways of continuing to collect billions. hospitals might have to shape up a bit. insurance companies are currently in bed with drug companies and hospitals. if some regulations can be enforced upon these thugs we might have a chance. chances are their lobbies are powerful though.

i hate the idea of adding the government greed percentage to what's already an expensive situation. i wish we could trust them. i wish they had ethics. i wish i had a million dollars. i wish.....

Arizona Moves To Protect Residents From ObamaCare

Arizona Moves to Oppose Obama’s Expected Health Care Mandates

CNSNews.com) - Voters in Arizona will decide next year whether residents will be subject to mandates in the pending health care reform that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promoting.

At least five other states – Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming – have considered proposals to take pre-emptive action against the pending federal mandates, but those proposals have either not made it out of committee, failed to get enough votes from one side of the legislature, or are still being crafted.

Only the Arizona Legislature introduced an initiative (HCR2014), which if passed, would amend the state constitution to codify that no resident would be required to participate in any public health care option. Arizonans will vote on the initiative in November 2010.

“HCR2014 is proactive and will protect patients’ fundamental rights,” Arizona State Rep. Nancy Barto, a Republican, said in a statement. “We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions. Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.”