Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[Meshugger]

A part of me wishes for the current administration to simply put public single-payer as the only option, and passing a law that would outlaw the entire healthcare insurance industry as whole. Then, the history books will tell that this was the start of the Second American Civil War, the only war ever in history that was fought over a healthcare insurance policy.

 

The war was won by "The People's Liberation Army for Freedom" against the "National American Front for Justice and Prosperity".

 

I think thar i need to play Civ4 or something similar for a while.

[Guard Dog]

A part of me wishes for the current administration to simply put public single-payer as the only option, and passing a law that would outlaw the entire healthcare insurance industry as whole. Then, the history books will tell that this was the start of the Second American Civil War, the only war ever in history that was fought over a healthcare insurance policy.

 

The war was won by "The People's Liberation Army for Freedom" against the "National American Front for Justice and Prosperity".

 

I think thar i need to play Civ4 or something similar for a while.

It would never pass. Simply put we (the majority of Americans) just don't want it. I know it's used in many other places and it works fine. We just don't want it here. It really is that simple. Heck I keep reminding everyone, the US in not Europe. It's not Austrialia. We may have far more in common than not but we have fundamentally different attitudes about what the role of government should be. Most of us do at least. That is not to impugn the viture of state run healthcare as it is practiced elsewhere. I know Krezack in particular is guilty of this but many non US posters here look at the US and wonder "why aren't they more like us?" We are the product of our history. If you really want to understand why the US is how it is I highly reccomend this book: http://www.amazon.com/5000-Year-Leap-Mirac...0994&sr=8-1

 

I know you were joking about the civil war part and while I do believe a break up of the US is certainly probable at some future point, I very seriously doubt there will ever be another civil war.

[Meshugger]

No worries, i was just toying around with ideas, monthy python-style

 

Since the legislative branch, judicial and executive branches are shaped as they are, meaning that big and broad changes are made difficult for one administration to accomplish, i do not see anything else than a few laws that pushes the healthcare insurance dilemma in one direction or the other.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I recommend James Michener's "Tales of the South Pacific"

[taks]

I know it's used in many other places and it works fine.

depends upon what you call "fine." any and all socialized health care systems require that care be rationed, hence waiting lines. plus, when the incentive to become a doctor no longer includes high pay, the quality of care will be reduced. yeah, argue about doctors that do it simply because they want to help people all you (rhetorical use here) want, but when i'm lying on the operating table with a brain tumor, i don't want a compassionate doctor, i want the brilliant doctor that's the best in the world and didn't go into international banking because brain surgeons don't make a fortune anymore. the incentive of high pay attracts the best and the brightest.

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

We may have far more in common than not but we have fundamentally different attitudes about what the role of government should be. Most of us do at least. That is not to impugn the viture of state run healthcare as it is practiced elsewhere.

 

I can respect that, over the years on these forums I've come to accept that it just seems America doesn't want UHC.. and that's cool, I mean we just love the system, that's why we preach it and you love yours so that's why you preach it.. Besides I don't think our system would really work for you.. America is too big and the system is too complicated as it is..

 

depends upon what you call "fine." any and all socialized health care systems require that care be rationed, hence waiting lines. plus, when the incentive to become a doctor no longer includes high pay, the quality of care will be reduced. yeah, argue about doctors that do it simply because they want to help people all you (rhetorical use here) want, but when i'm lying on the operating table with a brain tumor, i don't want a compassionate doctor, i want the brilliant doctor that's the best in the world and didn't go into international banking because brain surgeons don't make a fortune anymore. the incentive of high pay attracts the best and the brightest.

 

I read on salary.com that a surgeon in America on average makes about 350.000$-570.000$, with the majority at around 400.000$, a year in America. In Denmark the minimum is around 550.000$, so by your logic our doctors are more motivated and therefore better? And that's just in our public hospitals, our private healthcare sector they make around 1.5x that..

 

Please check your sources before making generalizations please...

[Aram]

You know, I don't know if I'm supposed to be right or left or what--both sides say stuff that seems dumb as hell to me and both sides occasionally say things that make plenty of sense. One thing I notice is no matter what side they belong to, the politicians chosen to represent these sides, the supposed champions of both parties, are hopelessly ****ing useless.

 

We just got done with eight years of the Republican party ****ing us and everyone in the ass. I voted for Obama if only because he wasn't Republican, as though that might mean he'd go to lengths to be the opposite of Bush. The Democrats should have more or less had all the support they needed to do whatever **** they wanted. If, the god damn day Obama had sworn in, he had said "Okay here's what we're doing. We're going to arrest and charge every mother **** who had anything to do with starting a fraudulent war and we're going to put everyone involved in the torture, rape, and murder of prisoners in jail. By the way, next time you go to the hospital, we're paying for it, and we're paying for it by taxing rich people. Deal with it, ****ers." If this had happened, I would vote democrat in every election from now until I die if only because we finally had somebody in charge with some god damn principles.

 

I honestly think that the reason he didn't see anyone put in prison is because politicians, like dirty cops, don't like to go against their own kind. If one politician can go to jail for being corrupt, they all can--so they let things go.

 

On health care reform, the Republicans naturally pissed and moaned and completely made up a bunch of bull**** reasons why we should too. But that's just the same old ****. Everybody knew they would do that, because by nature they're supposed to be against free and altruistic stuff like that. The question I have is why the hell are they getting any say in the matter? They just ****ed up, again and again, for eight years straight. Their opinions shouldn't matter at all. Regardless, we end up with the same bill democrats have been proposing in one form or another since I can remember--a neutered, mostly useless pretend bill. A bill that will probably mean more money for insurance companies and a few small changes that might even help a few people before it gets repealed somewhere down the line.

 

Even if the bill passes, as it exists now, and the democrats stand up and shout "victory!" it's not going to make any significant difference. Everything the democrats reach for, as far as I can tell, seems to be a carefully calculated series of dives and compromises that, when successful, look like they mean something but really don't, so they can get credit for passing revolutionary new reforms even though they're not revolutionary at all. **** like the "assault weapons ban," which didn't really ban anything but but certain cosmetic attributes that manufacturers got around by selling the same weapons with minor cosmetic changes--even if you're for gun control, you'd have to be a moron to think this was a law worth passing.

 

We're in a country in which it is more likely for a determined president to declare war on a country for little to no reason than pay for poor people to go to the hospital. That's ****ed up.

 

I'm going to say it--George W. Bush by all measures seems to be a more competent leader than Obama. With only the rubble of a pair of buildings he managed to start a massive bloody criminal war that still hasn't ended. With the conceptual rubble of an entire economy and every bit of self-respect Americans have left, Obama can't even pay poor people's hospital bills. We may as well have elected a tree. Perhaps a peach tree. Then at least we'd have some peaches.

[Aristes]

Wow, what an ignorant post. One of the most ignorant I've ever seen. Your comments are foolish. Great idea, once one party gets in power, they arrest folks with impugnity. Good Lord, I rarely say this to folks, but please move. Go to Denmark. They've got well paid psychiatrists to deal with you. Yeah, that would be you, Aram. Don't come after me with your weapons now.

 

As to the sane people in the thread:

 

I think that amount will vary greatly in the United States, Ros. Denmark is not quite as large as the United States. If the average is taken from around the country, you're getting the high and low together. I don't know what the comparison would be, but I'd be interested to know how that comparison would work between major urban areas. For example, what about, say, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington DC? I did look up the salaries myself.

 

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People..._Doctors/Salary

 

Now, if you switch that US to other codes, which are fairly intuitive, then you can compare salaries. For example, DE is Germany:

 

http://www.payscale.com/research/DE/People..._Doctors/Salary

 

I would use Denmark, but I don't think any of them are open:

 

http://www.payscale.com/research/DK/People..._Doctors/Salary

 

Problem is, while most of the data seems to indicate pretty strongly that the US does indeed have damned good pay, the fact is many of the specialty salaries are hidden for the protection of the folks inhabiting the category. The US has the most open of them that I read, and my reading might be wrong also. I'm not exactly an accountant type.

 

The biggest reason so many of us in the United States distrust claims about the rosie nature of other health care systems is because there are regional differences at work, which you noted. (Thanks, I appreciate that.)

 

I think my biggest problem isn't with socialized healthcare per se. I have had excellent, speedy, and thorough health care my whole life, and so I don't think it would be better, but I would not go gonzo if the US adopted it. The problem is with the systems in place now, some of which have created many of our problems. Personally, I think we would need to start from the ground up, but that's not feasible in the United States.

 

For the record, I don't want to go to Universal Health care. Someone will get the shaft in any system. Why should the fact that you've done well for yourself be any more evil than the fact that you're part of a particular group? Older folks vs younger folks? More likely to survive vs less likely? What criteria would the bureaucrats use? If someone claims that the bureaucrats would be fairest, I'll laugh. hahaha I'm laughing in advance.

 

As far as free market goes, it's fairly pointless to compare the median salary for Denmark against the United States anyhow. That's because there are too many factors built into practicing within a country as opposed to moving between countries. Add wide variances between regions in large countries like the US and the problem is even worse.

 

EDIT: I ammended my comments to be slightly less offensive. They were already quite a bit less offensive than Aram's. Aw, hell, I even excised the Will Rogers comment. Too personal. Still, one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen, dude.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Aristes

[Aram]

lol

[Aristes]

At least that was an intelligent response. Come on, you might as well flame me. It's been a long time and I'm usually pretty quick to forgive message board showdowns.

[213374U]

I read on salary.com that a surgeon in America on average makes about 350.000$-570.000$, with the majority at around 400.000$, a year in America. In Denmark the minimum is around 550.000$, so by your logic our doctors are more motivated and therefore better? And that's just in our public hospitals, our private healthcare sector they make around 1.5x that..

 

Please check your sources before making generalizations please...

Did you take tax deductions into consideration?

[Gorgon]

You know what annoys me about our great socialist health care system. I've only been in hospital once, I broke my arm when I was 8, and the last time I went to the dentist I had to pay 12000 kr.

 

What did I get for all those years of exorberant taxes exactly, a cast ?. Free dentist treatment would have made me feel I got something back for my trouble. Everybody goes to the dentist, regardless of how much a drain they are on the hospital system.

 

Given the choice though I prefer living in a country where you can get quality professional care regardless of your ability to pay

 

Nothing in life is certain, but honestly, you pay all this money and when or if you ever get in serious trouble your HMO is motivated by the great invisible hand of the market to find a loophole in the contract and turn your claim down. I would want a medical professional who is paid to look out for me to make decisions on treatment.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Gorgon

[Humodour]

plus, when the incentive to become a doctor no longer includes high pay, the quality of care will be reduced.

 

What are you talking about? Doctors are one of the most, if not the most, highly paid professions in Australia (I think only optometry and dentistry are higher paid) - especially private ones (which is another point - what makes you think public healthcare precludes private healthcare competing with it?). I was almost certain high pay for doctors that was a universal thing around the developed world.

 

Oh, I forgot actuarials. I think they get paid more.

 

Fact of the matter is, quality of care isn't reduced in the other Western countries with universal healthcare (pick one - America is the only one without it). Hey, doesn't Cuba have healthcare quality equal to America or something?

[Rosbjerg]

As far as free market goes, it's fairly pointless to compare the median salary for Denmark against the United States anyhow. That's because there are too many factors built into practicing within a country as opposed to moving between countries. Add wide variances between regions in large countries like the US and the problem is even worse.

 

True, I was merely trying to show the fault of Taks' logic, when he assumed his system was better than all public healthcare system, based on doctors pay.

 

Thanks for taking the time to research though, it was a pretty interesting read!

[Moose]

You know what annoys me about our great socialist health care system. I've only been in hospital once, I broke my arm when I was 8, and the last time I went to the dentist I had to pay 12000 kr.

 

What did I get for all those years of exorberant taxes exactly, a cast ?. Free dentist treatment would have made me feel I got something back for my trouble. Everybody goes to the dentist, regardless of how much a drain they are on the hospital system.

 

Given the choice though I prefer living in a country where you can get quality professional care regardless of your ability to pay

 

Nothing in life is certain, but honestly, you pay all this money and when or if you ever get in serious trouble your HMO is motivated by the great invisible hand of the market to find a loophole in the contract and turn your claim down. I would want a medical professional who is paid to look out for me to make decisions on treatment.

 

That's not what universal healthcare is about though. You're paying for other people, and the nation looks out for one another. It's socialism. One big happy family. Might even work if we didn't all loathe each other.

[Humodour]

It's socialism.

 

No, it's an element of socialism. And communism. And democratic socialism. And Social democracy. None of which are the same thing.

 

Might even work if we didn't all loathe each other.

 

'Might'? America is the only Western country without it. There are plenty of examples around the world of universal healthcare working in an exemplary manner, and there has been for decades - it's certainly not new.

 

I don't know about you, but I generally find people don't loathe each other at all. Heck, the fact that voters in democracies voted for such systems in so many different countries across the globe says kind of the opposite. Bad life experiences on your part?

[Kelverin]

Is there a reason people from other countries care about how we handle our own health care?

[Moose]

It's socialism.

 

No, it's an element of socialism. And communism. And democratic socialism. And Social democracy. None of which are the same thing.

 

Might even work if we didn't all loathe each other.

 

'Might'? America is the only Western country without it. There are plenty of examples around the world of universal healthcare working in an exemplary manner, and there has been for decades - it's certainly not new.

 

I don't know about you, but I generally find people don't loathe each other at all. Heck, the fact that voters in democracies voted for such systems in so many different countries across the globe says kind of the opposite. Bad life experiences on your part?

 

I think you need to relax and learn to recognise internet sarcasm.

[Guard Dog]

Might even work if we didn't all loathe each other.

 

[Walsingham]

Listen, i think we're talking on two divergent lines here, chaps.

 

1) UHC, a la the British or continental systems. You pay tax, and a slice of that goes to protecting your body against germs and accident in the same way that a slice goes to protecting the same body against criminals and foreigners.

 

2) The system of government administered healthcare which I'm beginning to grasp is what's actually on the table in the US.

 

 

I'm going to play to the crowd by acknowledging my discomfort with point two. I suspect that the system as it stands will be immensely complicated and completely fail to address the needs of the people, because it's a filthy public private partnership lash-up. Which means you're expecting semi-conscious civil servants to outwit the insurance industry in regulating how they insure people. This is like trying have a biting contest with an ant colony. Yeah, your jaws are huge, but they've got hundreds of them. I am going to go further in pandering to the crowd and suggest that this is because Obama hasn't got any bloody balls. It's all very well talking about forging a consensus, but if there's one thing I've learned it's to know when you're going to have to annoy someone just get on and do it. The insurance industry and their paid goons aren't going to like anything which diverts this enormous feast they've been having. As Aram says, send in teams of young men armed with billy clubs and angry wolverines. Get it over with. For the love of all that's holy either do it right or don't bother. It's like circumcision; there's no compromise solution here.

 

 

However, I'm now going to lose all the goodwill I may have stirred up by pointing out that painting UHC as communism is equally bloody silly. We've all had a damn good laugh at Lord of the Flies' recent insistence that communism is great because the proof is in the pudding. Communist countries suck. In the same vein I point at UHC and demand to know when I can expect to have to swear allegiance to the proletariat? I haven't been on Army premises in a few months but the last time I checked it was the ****ing queen's picture on the wall. Moreover we've had UHC for something like 80 years.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Walsingham

[Aristes]

Yeah, Walsh, but this assumes that the insurance companies are making huge amounts of cash hand over fist. I simply can't see begrudging folks for making money. Now, I'll trust one of you accountant types to know more about this, but the return on investment in the insurance industry is supposed to be between 3-5%. That doesn't seem unreasonable. The point of a capitalist system is that folks invest money in order to make more. If we completely destroy the incentive by removing any return, investment stops and the government is forced to step into the role of insurer. Yes, there are terrible and greedy insurance company execs. There are terrible and greedy people everywhere, but the point shouldn't be to bring down the whole apperatus because of folks gaming the system. If we need oversight, fine. Implement oversight and try to catch the rat bastards who game the system. Of course, by the same token, folks game every system.

 

In this forum, I'm probably one of the more conservative, but I'm not behind 100% free market principles without any form of government oversight. I just don't think that universal health care is the way to go. Even then, I'm not going to take to the streets if Obama manages to get socialized health care through congress. I don't think he can, but I won't rebel over the idea.

 

My biggest beef is with the way the media depicts people who don't favor a government run option in the healthcare plan. If you voice your opinion on the matter, you're a 'brown shirt' or a 'thug' or simply uneducated. We have quite a few advanced degrees among the folks in my family. The only one who favors UHC? My aunt who earned her JD from Bezerkly in the early 1990s and decided that being a lawyer was 'not fun' and has not even used her degree for anything going on damn near twenty years. The point is, just because you don't buy into the govt run option doesn't mean you're ignorant. By the same token, just because you don't want UHC doesn't mean that you're some evil rich Republican. My wife is a registerd Democrat and she's far more hostile to the govt run option than me. Better educated as well. I'm just smarter. hehehe Just kidding. Anyhow, on top of the fact that we're a split R/D household, we give far more money to charity than many of our more wealthy friends. We also don't give as much as some of our less affluent friends. Fact is, both Republicans and Democrats give money to charity, volunteer, and support their communities. So, when I see the media and the Democrats blindly attacking folks voicing their dissent as ignorant, uneducated, and greedy idiots, it doesn't bring me closer to their positions.

[Walsingham]

Fair do's, Aristes. but i notice you don't clarify which side of the argument you're addressing.

 

However, it is not my intention to accuse anyone so far of being ignorant. If I am indulging in a bit of incomprehending fury it's because I just don't see the counter-argument being put in a way I can fathom.

 

- UHC means communist takeover. Clearly I don't get this

- UHC is expensive. I'm not saying it's cheap cheap. But I also don't see it being 18% of our sodding GDP either, and most importantly it works.

- UHC can't be run by the US government. The US govt cares for military personnel. End of argument.

- UHC is immoral. This I understand least of all. I know there's a variety of moral systems out there, but I thought you buggers were Christians. The way I was raised that means helping the needy.

- UHC is practically unneccessary. As a citizen and as an employer I recognise that disease doesn't give a toss about insurance. The most effective health schemes are those which tackle everyone at once.

 

Now, explain to me in words as short as possible what the **** you lunatics are banging on about? Please.

[Gfted1]

Now, explain to me in words as short as possible what the **** you lunatics are banging on about? Please.

 

Ok. Its not my job to raise you.

[Aram]

I used to be against universal health care for the same reason I'm against things like the death penalty--the government tends to muck a lot of things up. I envisioned waiting for medicine and xrays and doctors to become as painfully slow as waiting at the DMV. Then I spent 3 years on the brink of death and realized it's already far, far worse than that. My admittedly few experiences with the British health care system were at least as satisfactory. The only real difference is that if I had not had the resources, which I in fact would not have had ten years ago and may not have ten years from now, my experience in the US most likely would have been many times worse.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Aram

[Aristes]

Hey Walsh, you jerk, don't call me a lunatic.

 

I was responding to your comments about the insurers being hungry ants. Are grocery chains evil for making a profit? ...And they have even less of a profit margin.

 

Food is even more vital to life than health insurance. Is there a universal food coverage program? There is a food program in most countries to help the people most in need, but it's not the equivalent of UFC.

 

I don't disagree with trying to make sure health care is available to all. However, any person with an emergency will get service. As far as insurance goes, there are folks right now who have the money to buy health insurance and decide not to do so because they don't want to spend the cash.

 

Now, you mentioned straw man earlier. I would say that the only argument I have made is that it's expensive. It is expensive and I don't think the expense will lessen with UHC using the same sorts of paradigms we have now. Yes, the US spends far more on health care. Funny. We spend astronomically more on defense also. Once again, I say that comparing our state of affairs with yours simplistic.

 

Otherwise, I would say that a UHC is not communistic, but it is socialistic in that it veers away from a free market. Mostly, I don't think my standard of care will improve. Having friends abroad, I have some basis for that assumption. So, which is better, good care for most folks are fair care for everyone? Which is better from a moral point of view? I'm not die hard against the system, but I don't see it as inherently better.

 

BTW: I personally think the 'you must be greedy because you don't support UHC' argument is pretty hollow. I don't know what you all give to charity, but I have a lot of strident liberal friends who talk a lot about helping the poor who don't give a dime to charity at all.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Aristes