Heritage Foundation Releases Report That Shows Countries That Have Universal Healthcare have more "

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by randomname

 

It also seems odd to want an industry that actively seeks profits from the misery of others. They are even starting to privatize the military, not that there was not already a relation between profit and war, but it starts to become ludicrous how the general populace does not see and revolt against this overt subversion of state functions and policies by private interests.

Seeing the good result that the profit motive has been form time to time I would say that all for profit hospitals should be given tax exempt status.

A couple of quick things. The Heritage study is looking only at economic freedom. How do they decide how to measure that? From the study:

Q.3. How do you measure economic freedom?

We measure ten components of economic freedom, assigning a grade in each using a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum freedom. The 10 economic freedoms are grouped into four broad categories or pillars of economic freedom:
1.Rule of Law (property rights, freedom from corruption);
2.Limited Government (fiscal freedom, government spending);
3.Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom); and
4.Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).

Each of the freedoms within these four broad categories is individually scored on a scale of 0 to 100. A country's overall economic freedom score is a simple average of its scores on the 10 individual freedoms. Detailed information about the methodology used to score each component is contained in the appendix.

Except for government spending, I don't see how health care could be figured into this study. Connecting government run health care to freedom is too much of a stretch.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

just a fan of people being turned away from hospitals because they cant pay?

This is the biggest lie ever told and never or only rarely defended. I cannot believe how many times I read this on ATS and hardly anyone denies this ignorance.

It is illegal to refuse *anyone* treatment in the US that goes to a hospital, regardless of their ability to pay.

If you are crititcally injured, you are treated right then and there, and immediate applications are made, based on ability to pay, age, etc., to Medicare and Medicaid.

Even if you break a bone, or have a bad cut, you are treated. You will be billed, certainly. You pay what you can, even if it is only 10 dollars a month. If you do get taken to court, and it rarely happens, if you consistantly pay that 10 dollars a month, no judge will make any finding against you. Most hospitals write it off as a loss.

We did not, up until January 1, 2013, tax anyone for healthcare like is done in your country. Individuals were given the adult choice to decide for themselves. THAT is freedom of choice. Now, the TAX for healthcare is still not really going to help anyone, it is a fine levied for failure to STILL have to buy insurance. You see, no one is gaining anything. People are still getting that same emergency relief at the emergency room, just as they did in 2012, 2011, and 1978.

Unfortunately, some people tend to behave carelessly, and not make wise decisions, and sometimes bad things happen to innocent people that made choices suitable to them. Regardless of the reasons, that is why there is and always has been, emergency relief for debt.

I am so sick of seeing these lies about people being turned away from hospitals. It is illegal. It doesn't happen. People are never denied care that need care. Even if you have a boil on your bum, they will treat you. You will pay dearly, even if it is only 10 dollars a month.Of course the wiser decision would have been to go to a health department or private doctor and pay 25, 150 dollars or so, instead 1500 dollars.

But again, that is the beauty of freedom of choice.

reply to post by Libertygal


Do a google search and youll find plenty of examples of people being turned away after the hospitals find out they are uninsured, gun shot and stabbing victims, pregnant women whos babies went on to die.

Turned away from hospitals

Or are these stories just lies and propaganda?

reply to post by Logarock


I do not think that for profit or the privatization of anything generates added value over state control and that in some activities state control (or even better local communal control would do a better job of protecting the citizens interests).

Privatization bring optimization and focus to achieve concrete objectives, that is a valid improvement but there is a danger when the primary objective above all else is not better performance but profit, they are not the same thing. I can be under-performing and be extremely profitable or be extremely efficient but unprofitable.

State ownership has many issues but as the creator and enforcer of laws and supposedly the protector of the public interests, any failing to be as good as the private sector falls down to bad management, not really a problem of private versus governmental control. Then there are public services that should not be profitable at all, as I said health (including medical and pharma research and production), education (including prisons), water and environmental resources (management and monitoring) and most things that fall under the public domain (like the preservation of culture, history).

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


No mkore that the OP on this thread.

This here read reminds me of the read sheets the professors would pass out....well all the time....while i was at liberal state college taking political science.

Originally posted by Libertygal
Most hospitals write it off as a loss.

Like crap they write it off! What a load!

They add it to the cost of everything on other people's bill. Why do you think an asprin costs ten dollars? The bills that are defaulted on are paid by everyone who DOES have insurance and who DOES pay their bills. The hospital gets its money, just from other people.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Logarock

 

I do not think that for profit or the privatization of anything generates added value over state control and that in some activities state control (or even better local communal control would do a better job of protecting the citizens interests).

Privatization bring optimization and focus to achieve concrete objectives, that is a valid improvement but there is a danger when the primary objective above all else is not better performance but profit, they are not the same thing. I can be under-performing and be extremely profitable or be extremely efficient but unprofitable.

I think the real motive, the end aim of government control of health care is not to get out form under the burdens of profitablity. It is a high hope that taking the profit form health care and turning health care into a state apparatus is going to lend to real efficiency.

The United States are not these other countries.
Apples and Oranges!

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
It was only on this site that I found out people pay for Hospital visits in developed countries,

I put my hand through a window once, sliced it up pretty good.
When I went to the hospital in Australia, they asked for my name and Bday, asked how it happened and 5 min later a Dr and a nurse were looking at it. 30 min later I was in surgery and after I woke up I was out the door with pain killers and a card telling me when to go back to get the stitches out.

They didnt even look at my ID let alone ask for money!!!!!

I seriously cant wrap my head around why healthcare isnt free in a country as allegedly rich as the USA

This is one of those rare instances where I agree with someone that I usually disagree with. I guess everyone can find common ground on one issue or another.

Seriously though my guess as to why the US doesn’t have universal healthcare is mainly attributed to the fact we spend so much of our budget on the military in comparison to other countries it is far above theirs so it doesn’t leave as much for national issues such as healthcare.

reply to post by Logarock

I think the real motive, the end aim of government control of health care is not to get out form under the burdens of profitablity. It is a high hope that taking the profit form health care and turning health care into a state apparatus is going to lend to real efficiency.

I think you are specifically referring to the US system. In the US it is not really a nationalization (taking from the private sector to put them under state control) it is simply restructuring of how private organizations manage the heath market-space. The issue only makes sense when you look on the profit versus the quality of service in the US in terms of the general population, it is abysmal and becoming unsupportable in the areas that the private sector drains profits directly from the state. It simply is restructuring of the sector, general economic collapse or outright cutting of state fundings to some of the benefits in the sector.

I do not believe that they claimed to be working towards an efficiency of service improvement but an efficiency of costs.I think that they will only be able to have a minimal impact since the US government clearly does not work for the benefit of the common citizen, there will be a chairs game, some corporations will be shifted and the major abusers of the public finances will probably be chastised for being abusive, but it will probably all remains much the same in regards to costs vs effectiveness.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


That link has just 2 "stories" and no names, dates, or proof to back the claim up. So I'm going to go with "lies and propaganda".

Now here's the actual law.

The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA)

Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay. It also prohibits unnecessary transfers while care is being administered and prohibits the suspension of care once it is initiated, provisions that prevent dumping patients who cannot pay on other hospitals. The treatment of indigent and uninsured patients is a huge financial drain upon the health system, especially in areas where no public hospitals are available.

Anyway I'd rather pay myself and choose when, where, and whom treats me medically and keep the Gov out of my business. That's freedom. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything away.

reply to post by Libertygal



Yep, a decade working in an ER here.. NO ONE was turned away... even the ones that SHOULD have been turned away werent. I worked in a level 1 trauma center.. inner city. Jerks come in for a stubbed toe and demand to be seen and get pain killers before car wreck or any other REAL emergency need. Nope.. we HAD to see them and coddle the idiots... then be verbally ( sometimes physically) when they learn they arent getting a script of vicodin for a bruise or scratch.

I still cant believe that "Obamacare" ( or even ROmneycare when that was being discussed) is still being seen as a UK or Canadian or Aus like healthcare system. ITS NOT. Its NOT that sort of universal healthcare... sheesh.. it would be nice to talk to people who actually knew what the hell they were talking about. Oh and Heritage Foundation...

reply to post by Carreau

Anyway I'd rather pay myself and choose when, where, and whom treats me medically and keep the Gov out of my business. That's freedom. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything away.

Even if the government nationalized health care you could still pay for private health care. I think what you are saying is that you do not want others to benefit for better health care from your taxes.

Now consider that you live in a society, that implies social obligations that ultimately should work for the benefit of all. In the specifics of health by preventing sickness in others you are even preserving your own health. That is the logic also behind vaccination programs. Imagine living in a world that tuberculosis, syphilis even leprosy did not receive public funding, or drug addiction etc...

reply to post by megax5000


You all understand that the Heritage report is not rating countries based off of overall freedom, but ECONOMIC freedom, which are two different things, right? And bear in mind, that the rating of economic freedom those countries received has more to do with income and corporate taxes as well as overall economic policy than who controls the healthcare system.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
It was only on this site that I found out people pay for Hospital visits in developed countries,

I put my hand through a window once, sliced it up pretty good.
When I went to the hospital in Australia, they asked for my name and Bday, asked how it happened and 5 min later a Dr and a nurse were looking at it. 30 min later I was in surgery and after I woke up I was out the door with pain killers and a card telling me when to go back to get the stitches out.

They didnt even look at my ID let alone ask for money!!!!!

I seriously cant wrap my head around why healthcare isnt free in a country as allegedly rich as the USA

A good question.

We lost our mission statement and have been having corporatist rewrite it for the past 30 years or so..

Yes. I think the answer is because to a lot of us Americans (not me) think
"free market capitalism" ....ie corporations
more important than interests and concerns of "the people",
ie people.

The Nations people's right to be well is not as important as somebody else's "God given right" to make a living off that illness. That's our motto. It is sickening - literally.

Originally posted by Libertygal


This is the biggest lie ever told and never or only rarely defended. I cannot believe how many times I read this on ATS and hardly anyone denies this ignorance.

It is illegal to refuse *anyone* treatment in the US that goes to a hospital, regardless of their ability to pay.

If you are crititcally injured, you are treated right then and there, and immediate applications are made, based on ability to pay, age, etc., to Medicare and Medicaid.

When my son was a baby, he was very sick and I took him to the hospital. The doctor was frustrated and told me he had a serious bronchial infection and needed to be put on a respirator.
But I was a single mother and college student, so I was on Medi-Cal, which only would cover him if he was in a critically life threatening state... he told me I had to go home, and wait. When my son began to turn blue, then try taking him into the hospital (and try to drive fast, so his heart doesn't stop too long before I get there).


At that time I was so accustomed to being a prisoner of that abusive system, I accepted this as normal. Now that I have lived in another country (where I pay a little each month, knowing none of it is going to a company's profit ) so that when my child is sick, I can get him treatment quickly and easily BEFORE he gets on the brink of death.

reply to post by megax5000

The Heritage Foundation, for instance, is a conservative think tank that professes to pursue goals similar to Cato's. In practice, however, whatever the Republican Party wants, so does Heritage.

In 1989, Heritage helped develop the idea of universal health care delivered by the private sector through an individual mandate. In the early 1990s, it helped Senate Republicans build that concept into a legislative alternative to President Bill Clinton's proposed reforms. In the early 2000s, Heritage worked with then-Governor Mitt Romney to implement the plan in Massachusetts. Then, when Obama won office and Democrats adopted Heritage's idea, Heritage promptly fell into step with the Republican Party and turned ferociously against it.

www.tampabay.com...

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
It was only on this site that I found out people pay for Hospital visits in developed countries,

I put my hand through a window once, sliced it up pretty good.
When I went to the hospital in Australia, they asked for my name and Bday, asked how it happened and 5 min later a Dr and a nurse were looking at it. 30 min later I was in surgery and after I woke up I was out the door with pain killers and a card telling me when to go back to get the stitches out.

They didnt even look at my ID let alone ask for money!!!!!

I seriously cant wrap my head around why healthcare isnt free in a country as allegedly rich as the USA

This is one of those rare instances where I agree with someone that I usually disagree with. I guess everyone can find common ground on one issue or another.

Seriously though my guess as to why the US doesn’t have universal healthcare is mainly attributed to the fact we spend so much of our budget on the military in comparison to other countries it is far above theirs so it doesn’t leave as much for national issues such as healthcare.

The case is to simple and was probably presented with that in mind.

Look into care for longterm conditions. See if thats as easy a thing as bing bang a few stiches and you are out the door.

Was watching C-span the other day....english commons...some lady stood up and was bitching on deaf ears how the system had turned its back on a section of folks with a chronic condition that called for very expensive drugs. Why did the system turn its back? The cost was to high for so few people.

So after all these years of the english system....whata get? Selective care, cost considerations, the needs of the many (common) over the needs of the few.

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by Libertygal


This is the biggest lie ever told and never or only rarely defended. I cannot believe how many times I read this on ATS and hardly anyone denies this ignorance.

It is illegal to refuse *anyone* treatment in the US that goes to a hospital, regardless of their ability to pay.

If you are crititcally injured, you are treated right then and there, and immediate applications are made, based on ability to pay, age, etc., to Medicare and Medicaid.

When my son was a baby, he was very sick and I took him to the hospital. The doctor was frustrated and told me he had a serious bronchial infection and needed to be put on a respirator.
But I was a single mother and college student, so I was on Medi-Cal, which only would cover him if he was in a critically life threatening state... he told me I had to go home, and wait. When my son began to turn blue, then try taking him into the hospital (and try to drive fast, so his heart doesn't stop too long before I get there).


At that time I was so accustomed to being a prisoner of that abusive system, I accepted this as normal. Now that I have lived in another country (where I pay a little each month, knowing none of it is going to a company's profit ) so that when my child is sick, I can get him treatment quickly and easily BEFORE he gets on the brink of death.

edit on 14-1-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Ok two words Medi-Cal.