Universal Health Care - what are we waiting for?

[Midpack]

Map sorta says it all...note Iraq & Afghanistan!

We pay way more, for inferior results (vs top 30+ developed countries) and leave 17% of our population without access to health care (unlike almost all other developed countries).

[rgarling]

We need to hire an image consultant.

[sengsational]

Yeah, but we have richer doctors and larger profit margins for hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, not to mention more people employed in insurance and those suing and being sued. Such a lovely system supported by those interests won't die easily, especially since Washington is bought and paid for.

[Birchwood]

It may eventually go there, and there is nothing much you and I can do about it. Well, all need to pay higher taxes and the government will need to decide which is considered standard care or not.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Map sorta says it all...note Iraq & Afghanistan! We pay way more, for inferior results (vs top 30+ developed countries) and leave 17% of our population without access to health care (unlike almost all other developed countries).

Noted--no news here. Anybody drawing the conclusion that health care in Afghanistan is better than the US needs to get out and see the world--if that counts as "universal care" then we have already accomplished it in the US and can start congratulating ourselves. Speaking of that--why isn't the US green on the map that "says it all"--doesn't the present legislation and all the other turmoil count as "attempting to implement universal care" ?

[ChiliPepr]

"leave 17% of our population without access to health care"
I would tend to disagree slightly with this statement... while 17% of our population may not have health insurance, they do have access to health care. At least emergency heath care.

Your second attachment looks as if it is total health expenditures (note 2) divided by the insured population (note 1). That is not the amount spent per person in the US.

[youbet]

I notice that Mexico is listed as "attempting to implement." That will be great if they are successful. It should save us a few bux.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiliPepr "leave 17% of our population without access to health care" I would tend to disagree slightly with this statement... while 17% of our population may not have health insurance, they do have access to health care. At least emergency heath care.

I'd have to agree to the extent that not having health insurance in the USA is different than not having access to health care whatsoever.

Note: I'm not making a plea pro or con regarding universal health care. I'm just agreeing that the term "without access to health care" isn't really accurate.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I take it you'd prefer the status quo...

Prefer it to what? That's what this entire national debate is about. I don't know anybody who thinks we can't improve the present non-system.

Regarding the health care in Iraq and Afghanistan: Your source is overstating the case. By a lot. Why are you buying that? "US war funding" does not provide universal care in these countries in any sense that you or I would recognize. The US and many other donor countries provide humanitarian assistance and developmental assistance to these nations. It goes as far as it goes. That these countries claim that everyone gets free medical care (it's a "universal right" in Iraq--hah!) is meaningless. Please--I know you don't think the US has established hospitals throughout these countries so people can get their arthritic knees replaced, get their heart bypass operations, etc. C'mon.

No graphic, especially ones like those, "say it all."

[2B]

Our convoluted health care system goes back to the wage and price controls initiated during WWII. The single payer system used by most of Western Europe and Canada goes back to the end of WWII and was made possible to a large extent by the Marshall Plan. Both approaches effectively ration care. The US does it by employment status and income. The single payer systems have prioritization policies. Of course, the rich from these countries have ways around the rationing aspect.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Prefer it to what? That's what this entire national debate is about. I don't know anybody who thinks we can't improve the present non-system.

Never mind...

[Gone4Good]

Right now we're waiting on the Supreme Court. If that goes poorly, I think we'll be waiting for the ~17% of the population without insurance to grow in numbers to the point where it can no longer be ignored politically by either party. But considering that the most politically active demographic, the 65 and over crowd, is not only the fastest growing but also already has universal health insurance, I think we'll be waiting a very long time.

[JOHNNIE36]

I used to be against universal health care but recent dealings with the system make me wonder what we are doing as a country. To site the case of DW's bout with the norovirus recantly. Taken to the emergency room at our local hospital on 3-12 because whe was dehydrated. Discharged 3-6.
Total hospital bill $29215. This does not include doctors charges. I'll break it down for you (large amounts only).
$5247 the room in 2 East
$1409 pharmacy
$932 intervenous therapy
$10075 CT scan (can you believe that?)
$592 radiology
$7579 laboratory
$3086 emergency room
$300 some misc charges

$29215 Total. My part was $912 but discounted $228 for paying on the spot. Doctors and specialists billed separately but covered by insurance plan. All bills not in yet. We have a Medicare Advantage plan where we pay only our Medicare premium. We have copays but I don't think $684 is bad for all the treatment she got. This is the part I don't understand and take exception with our system. Of the billed amount by the hospital of
$29215, the insurance company only allowed $3947 and paid $3092. The balance was my copay which was discounted.

Now, does any of that make sense? The billed amount? The allowed amount? What happens to the difference? This is what I have against our system. The individual just can't relate to the charges. One of DW's regular medications, which we buy for $6 for a 90 day supply, was charged on the bill at $67 every day. This whole system is bulls**t!!!

[travelover]

Now look what ya started.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Now look what ya started.

Yes, don't know what came over me. Actually I've been reading The Healing of America by TR Reid today, the same guy who did Sick Around The World on PBS, and the book has me stirred up again.

Even though I'm a lifelong conservative, free markets are not going to provide (universal) access to quality health care at anything near competitive prices. Until there is a serious groundswell from all us regular peeps, the special interests will make sure "our" elected officials maintain the gravy train status quo in health care. Hope springs eternal...

[MichaelB]

Midpack, it is frustrating when your thread follows a path different than the one you intended.

Your mention of free market access to quality health care jogged a memory cell. If you're interested, Kenneth Arrow wrote a paper on this 50 years ago and it still considered the best case framework as to why free markets do not lead to optimal health care. You can see the paper here.

[JOHNNIE36]

I understand! Got it! The reason I went off is because my grandson works in the medical field and we have been at odds for awhile at just what Midpack's post illustrates. Not that my post had anything to do with what Midpack was posting, but it got me going and I just had to vent through my post. It points out that we spend more than anyone other country per person and don't have good results to show for it.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Midpack, it is frustrating when your thread follows a path different than the one you intended. Your mention of free market access to quality health care jogged a memory cell. If you're interested, Kenneth Arrow wrote a paper on this 50 years ago and it still considered the best case framework as to why free markets do not lead to optimal health care. You can see the paper here.

Thank you very much. I just downloaded the paper to iBooks to read tonight, wow, I've just started to understand what he knew in 1963...

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHNNIE36 I understand! Got it! The reason I went off is because my grandson works in the medical field and we have been at odds for awhile at just what Midpack's post illustrates. Not that my post had anything to do with what Midpack was posting, but it got me going and I just had to vent through my post. It points out that we spend more than anyone other country per person and don't have good results to show for it.

• Don't forget something like 17% of the population does not have access to health care unless it's an outright emergency.
• Reportedly 18,000 people per year die for lack of health care in the US, some reports suggest it's much higher.
• And we're the only developed country where people go bankrupt over medical care costs.
• While paying 50-100% more than other countries.

Once I finish the book I'm reading, I'll probably calm down again, then again maybe not...

[travelover]

I wonder what the Kardashians are up to these days.