Americans Just Don't Get It! Health care no good if it's socialism!

To me it is mind boggling that the negative reports of having all Americans with health care coverage and the government paying for the scheme is criticised that it is socialism!

Editorial
A Public Plan for Health Insurance?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07tue1.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Americans think socialism is the form of government in Cuba. That might be one definition of the word, but if the supporters of socialized medicine could rename it "Public health care" they might stand a better chance.

Americans have socialized police, fire and school departments of government. Why not health care?

The stumbling block on establishing decent health care is the money from the HMO's and their lobbyists. They won't give up their cash cow easily.

In that N.Y. times article there were quite a few, 299 or 199 comments, and some were pretty good. Some do understand that for profit health care sucks.
I saw a program where the japanese cost compared to GDP was somewhere aroud 6%, as compared to 17% in the USA appx. And of cours 48,ooo,ooo are not covered.

So to ask the question...is the Canadian plan so much better?

Waiting lines of hours for people in an emergency room?

A kid gets a sniffle and it's off to the doctor's office cause they know it's paid for?

In the US...ALL children under the age of 18 are guaranteed health care, regardless of insurance.
For students, they ALL get coverage till they graduate as part of their tuition.

The rest of the health care program is questionable. No hospital would turn away an injured person or fail to treat an injury or sickness because of insurance. They may turn away elective, or therapeutic treatments...but if a guy comes in with a broken leg, they will NOT turn him away. They'll treat it, and mail him a bill.

The problem with a public system is the abuse it will receive. And unfortunately, with a public system...the people who pay into it the most...are typically the ones who do NOT use it.

The problem with a private system, is that not everyone can afford it. But the typical abusers of a public system are receiving welfare, or some sort of government funding already...and they get health care benefits tied into their subsidies.

Unfortunately, it's the "middle-class" who are left with no coverage. The ones who if injured, have to debate whether they can afford the treatment...or will it mean missing the house payment that month.

My father was self-employed for almost 20 years...it cost him over $500/month just for minimal health insurance (with a prescription plan) so he wouldn't have to worry if he broke his leg at work, and could afford to buy his pills.

It's a very fine line towards which way I lean...though it's comforting now to know I don't have to worry about it...I'm still in the mindset of going to the doctor ONLY when I need to.

From what I've read of Obama's plan...it's unlikely to succeed...even if passed. The ONLY way to correct the system is to control the insurance companies, and reduce the costs...which means someone has to give up a lot of money.

A prime example of this would be what happened with me.
Shortly after moving here...I ruptured my Achilles tendon.
Since I had no coverage yet...and none from the US...I knew I had to pay for whatever got done. For an Achilles rupture...you can either have it repaired through surgery, or put the leg in a cast to isolate it, and let it heal "naturally" for 3-6 months. The surgery route has about a 5% chance of re-rupture, the isolation route about a 40% chance.
I called a friend of mine back in New Jersey who is an orthopedic surgeon and asked him what it would cost me to have the surgery done "back home". He quote me $11k (not including therapy afterwards).
I called the PanAm clinic here and asked them the cost...they said about $2500 for the surgery, and another $500 for therapy (over 10 weeks).

We borrowed the money to have it done here...and I'd guess the surgery was just as good as I would have received there.

So why the cost difference? I could understand a difference of 50%...but 400%? That's pretty extreme.

It's called overhead. In the Staes, the doctors all have condos in Florida with expensive boats parked outside, and with numerous cars parked in their 300' driveways.

When you called the panam clinic here did you mention you were not a manitoban?

Deank wrote:When you called the panam clinic here did you mention you were not a manitoban?

Yup..told them the whole situation...that I was an American and everything.

interesting.

That difference is probably the for profit difference. I saw some great documentary where about a dozen countries were compared.
In Japan a Doctor was being paid $6 for an office call! can you imagine that happening in the USA? The for profit , earn a million per year in the USA! How could you change that system to one where the government pays a certain amount for a certain procedure, as is done in Canada. And then control somewhat what prescriptions cost because you have negotiated a lower price than is being charged for the same product in the USA?
Our canadian system I figured out was costing us about $400 per month through our higher tax rate. That is just some guesstimate. Many people will fly to India for an operation at $11,000 that in the USA would cost $28,000.
The US system is pretty ugly if you have no coverage. Those 48,000,000 with no coverage are really in a horrible situation.
The USA is the only modern democratic country that does not provide a plan for complete coverage.
I think that once you get to 65 you are guaranteed coverage. If they have coverage up to 18 than that is good.
I thought Bush vetoed that bill?

rosencrentz wrote:I think that once you get to 65 you are guaranteed coverage. If they have coverage up to 18 than that is good.
I thought Bush vetoed that bill?

No..after 65 you get Medicare...but it's not "full" coverage...and you'd still have to get some sort of prescription plan, or you pay top dollar for your drugs.
Fortunately for my dad, he was also a veteran, so he gets VA benefits which covers most of the prescription issues.

Bush actually made sure that under-18 bill was passed.
Congress had threatened to block it...but he basically told them "this HAS to happen".

Like Arny in California...Bush's wife is a staunch Democrat. It helps moderate the "money is everything" attitude most Republicans seem to have...and provide environmental and social programs that are actually needed.

i thought Republicans and Democrats were prohibited from marrying under the cruelty to animals laws?

Bush Vetoes Health Measure

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100300116.html

President Says He's Willing To


President Bush yesterday vetoed a $35 billion expansion of a popular children's health insurance program, a move that left him as politically isolated as he has ever been and had even Republican allies questioning his hard-line strategy

Leavitt said he was surprised "that the Democrats in Congress, who have
for years pursued national health insurance, rejected an invitation of
a Republican president to advance the cause of every American having
insurance."

Maybe I got something mixed up then. I remember debates on this early in his first term when he announced it would happen. That all dependent children would have health care, and thought I heard it went through.

Judging from the article though...it was attempted...but obviously shot down at least once (the article is from more than a year ago)...and possibly because the Democrats were trying to give too much away...or (as is common practice in the US)...they tried to "piggyback" some extra legislation onto the bill...and had it thrown back at them.

I'll have to look further and see what I can find.

AGEsAces- maybe you are one of the uneducated US citizens, that I was so rude to mention?

What got me when this happened was the fact that Bush's war in Iraq has cost ??? 1,000,000,000 ? and this 35 million, i thought it was 85 million, he vetoes because the U.S. cannot afford it!
What a horrible leader! No compassion for the underprivileged.

Good point about abuse of the system in a socialized medical system (Canada). We should charge a minimal cost ($10? $25?). Get 100% back in annual taxes? That might reduce the abuse.

My father said that 25 yrs ago ,and I agree we go to the doctors for every slight ache and pain . Cut a finger go to emergency , twist a ankle same , the emerg sytem is not for bo bo,s go to a walk in . Better yet see a Doctor the next day you will live .

Most insurance in the US...still has a co-pay system.

No...you don't have to pay $300 for that cast...but you do have either a flat-rate or a percentage co-pay.

Personally I think that system works better...even for public insurance.

It keeps most people from hobbling in cause they have a splinter...cause it will cost them say...$20 at a clinic or $50 at an emergency room.

The co-pay rate could be set to address the paperwork issues (management costs), where the actual medical costs are covered by insurance.

But it would need to be applied at all levels of medical...so that person who wants some surgery...co-pay...maybe $500 (I said "want" not "need").

For those on welfare/assistance...the co-pay could be directly billed back, but deducted off future assistance cheques.

And if any of the treatments can be directly connected to "social illnesses" (tobacco, alcohol, sex, etc.) then the co-pay should be double.