Health care?

[Snowbird100]

Snowbird, welcome to the forum. Why not stop by here to tell us abou yourself

Hi MichaelB !

 

[modhatter]

Hi Snowbird100. So glad you came over. You will find here that some people are very much in favor of change, with varying views of how we should do it. Some people will be very negative and feel resentful and will call it wealth distribution, and feel covering everyone under some form of universal plan will take away from those who have earned it, and give it to people who haven't. We can't talk political parties here and have to stay on topic, so to avoid any mud slinging from opposing political party views.

I hope you will take the time to read some of the posts on here and comment where you can from your own personal experience. It is a hot topic, as you can tell, and many people feel passionate about it, as it is a big
factor in most everyone's life, and many life decisions are based on the health insurance problems and costs we face here.

 

[Snowbird100]

Hi Snowbird100. So glad you came over. You will find here that some people are very much in favor of change, with varying views of how we should do it. Some people will be very negative and feel resentful and will call it wealth distribution, and feel covering everyone under some form of universal plan will take away from those who have earned it, and give it to people who haven't. We can't talk political parties here and have to stay on topic, so to avoid any mud slinging from opposing political parties.

I hope you will take the time to read some of the posts on here and comment where you can from your own personal experience. It is a hot topic, as you can tell, and many people feel passionate about it, as it is a big
factor in most everyone's life, and many life decisions are based on the health insurance problems and costs we face here.

Hi Modhatter,

I am on page 2 and will take time to read all the pages ...

I think the society will be more harmonised if everybody is covered, no people will have to worry about no health care when they get old ... Yes it is somehow weath distribution (Canada, the UK, 1st world countries in Europe) but WHY NOT ? Take a little bit from the weathy and share it with the poor who needs health care, I have no problem with that at all !

 

[DoingHomework]

During the debate about Obamacare a couple of years back I decided to do my own research on health care systems around the world. Having lived in Europe I know for a fact, or at least to my own satisfaction that their quality of care is at least as good as ours.

Europe spends about 14% of GDP on health care

USA spends about 17%.

I believe the extra 3% here comes from inefficiencies and from poor health choices. If we cut out 90% of the paperwork and finger-pointing about what is covered, who pays, what is preexisting, etc. and if people ate better diets and exercised, we'd probably cover that 3% spread and then some.

But Americans would rather argue about their god-given right to sit on their butts, eat pork rinds, and pontificate about "them socialists" in France than actually try to address the root of the problem!

 

[REWahoo]

Snowbird, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know our health system is in need of some serious improvement. The positive aspects of your health care system you enthusiastically describe are indeed wonderful.

But It should also not take a rocket scientist to know stepping into someones house to point out - with the best of intentions - how much nicer your house is than theirs might not meet with the warmest of receptions. The US and Canada are far different in how they view this subject.

Diplomacy is an art even some rocket scientists can't master.

 

[REWahoo]

But Americans would rather argue about their god-given right to sit on their butts, eat pork rinds, ...

Uh oh. You're in trouble now...

 

[Alan]

Welcome to the site Snowbird, there are quite a few Canadians here so we all have a good feel about how the Canadian Health system works and how well regarded it is.

I hope you'll tell us more about yourself in the "Hi, I am" forum, and explore some of the other forums here.

 

[Snowbird100]

Why? You're paying considerably more while 45 million of your fellow Americans go under insured or completely without health care. You don't think most Americans are totally oblivious to what US health care costs them or the various ways they pay dearly - for poorer outcomes?

That's one of the problems: Americans are paying considerably more while 45 millions of Americans go under insured ...

Here's some of the reasons:
- Doctors in the US get paid at least double what Canadians doctors get.
- Private hospitals FOR PROFIT (Canada: No private hospitals, all non profit).
- Procedures cost more.
- Unnecessary procedures (some might argue): Why do I or Canadians know about these unnecessary procedures done by US hospitals and doctors ? Here's the answer:

We Canadians always joke about when we are "hospitalised" in the States, say Florida for some minor accidents, and as soon as the hospitals found out we are Canadians they treat us like "king" when they found out we had top up insurance. When we wanted to be discharged from the hospital, the doctor/hospital would say: Oh no no, we will have to run more tests to make sure ... (you get what I mean). Those tests/procedures are absolutely redundant in Canada !

 

[Snowbird100]

During the debate about Obamacare a couple of years back I decided to do my own research on health care systems around the world. Having lived in Europe I know for a fact, or at least to my own satisfaction that their quality of care is at least as good as ours.

Europe spends about 14% of GDP on health care

USA spends about 17%.

I believe the extra 3% here comes from inefficiencies and from poor health choices. If we cut out 90% of the paperwork and finger-pointing about what is covered, who pays, what is preexisting, etc. and if people ate better diets and exercised, we'd probably cover that 3% spread and then some.

But Americans would rather argue about their god-given right to sit on their butts, eat pork rinds, and pontificate about "them socialists" in France than actually try to address the root of the problem!

I will add one more "inefficiency": Hospitals for PROFIT !

 

[ERD50]

Hi Modhatter,

I am on page 2 and will take time to read all the pages ...

I think the society will be more harmonised if everybody is covered, no people will have to worry about no health care when they get old ... Yes it is somehow weath distribution (Canada, the UK, 1st world countries in Europe) but WHY NOT ? Take a little bit from the weathy and share it with the poor who needs health care, I have no problem with that at all !

Hi Snowbird100 - I think that some of your observations are based on a distorted view of how some of us in the US think about this.

The US health care system doesn't take care of some 50 millions people, ...

This is not true. If someone needs treatment they get it. You don't see the gutters in front of hospitals and ERs lined with dead/dying. It's not just emergency services either, I know people who have received excellent treatment for things like tendinitis surgery, with no out-of-pocket cost.

That is not to defend our system. I am one of the many who feels we need change, big changes. The recent bill that was passed does not address many of the issues that people on both sides of the political spectrum agree with (cut the link between employment and health insurance being one important one).

I don't think it is so much that we are afraid of change, but many of us feel we have reason to be afraid of the kind of changes our political system comes up with (that is meant to be totally non-partisan).

I think a nationalized health care system would be an easier pill to swallow (pun intended!) if we had more faith in our governmental system. Polls consistently put Congress approval ratings in single or low double digits. I think people are being generous


edit: forgot to comment on the Wealth Redistribution hot button - Our current system involves wealth redistribution; people w/o means are treated for free, some people decide to 'go naked' and don't pay for insurance. Others end up paying their bill through higher charges. A well run nationalized system could actually reduce the wealth redistribution aspect by not allowing those who can afford to pay to opt out (but still be accepted at the ER when trouble comes their way)

-ERD50

 

[Snowbird100]

Welcome to the site Snowbird, there are quite a few Canadians here so we all have a good feel about how the Canadian Health system works and how well regarded it is.

I hope you'll tell us more about yourself in the "Hi, I am" forum, and explore some of the other forums here.

Hi Alan,

Will catch up ... I am still on page 2 ...

 

[Snowbird100]

Hi Snowbird100 - I think that some of your observations are based on a distorted view of how some of us in the US think about this.




This is not true. If someone needs treatment they get it. You don't see the gutters in front of hospitals and ERs lined with dead/dying. It's not just emergency services either, I know people who have received excellent treatment for things like tendinitis surgery, with no out-of-pocket cost.

That is not to defend our system. I am one of the many who feels we need change, big changes. The recent bill that was passed does not address many of the issues that people on both sides of the political spectrum agree with (cut the link between employment and health insurance being one important one).

I don't think it is so much that we are afraid of change, but many of us feel we have reason to be afraid of the kind of changes our political system comes up with (that is meant to be totally non-partisan).

I think a nationalized health care system would be an easier pill to swallow (pun intended!) if we had more faith in our governmental system. Polls consistently put Congress approval ratings in single or low double digits. I think people are being generous


edit: forgot to comment on the Wealth Redistribution hot button - Our current system involves wealth redistribution; people w/o means are treated for free, some people decide to 'go naked' and don;t pay for insurance. Others end up paying. A well run nationalized system could actually reduce the wealth redistribution aspect by not allowing those who can afford to pay to opt out (but still be accepted at the ER when trouble comes their way)

-ERD50

Hi,

I have no preference on the American system b/c it doesn't affect me.

But for argument sake, isn't somehow there's some kind of resistance to block the wealth distribution, and that's why 45 million Americans are under insured or have no insurance at all ?

I know they (no insurance) will get treatment in ER, but according what I learnt, only ER; And Americans could go bankrupt b/c of medical costs. How can you explain that ? I think there's a fundamental problem with the American health care system, frankly !

 

[Alan]

ERD,

I think that last post of yours is a good summary of how many of us feel.

Thanks

 

[Alan]

Hi,

I have no preference on the American system b/c it doesn't affect me.

But for argument sake, isn't somehow there's some kind of resistance to block the wealth distribution, and that's why 45 million Americans are under insured or have no insurance at all ?

I know they (no insurance) will get treatment in ER, but according what I learnt, only ER; And Americans could go bankrupt b/c of medical costs. How can you explain that ? I think there's a fundamental problem with the American health care system, frankly !

This thread has survived a very long time without undue political rhetoric causing it to be closed.

You've said your piece, now please drop it.

 

[Snowbird100]

Ooppsss !

 

[ERD50]

I'll take your comments out of order:

I think there's a fundamental problem with the American health care system, frankly !

Agreed!

But for argument sake, isn't somehow there's some kind of resistance to block the wealth distribution, and that's why 45 million Americans are under insured or have no insurance at all ?


I know they (no insurance) will get treatment in ER, but according what I learnt, only ER; And Americans could go bankrupt b/c of medical costs. How can you explain that ?

I'll lump these together - and my response will also explain why so many of us are afraid of the change that our government promotes:

Yes, someone with means, but unable to get HI could end up essentially bankrupt. That is bad. But how did it get this way..... (hint: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you'...).

Our govt decided to provide incentives for employers to provide health care to their employees (I think there might have been some wage freeze issues too, and HI was not considered 'wages', but again this was govt driven). It was cheaper for companies to provide HI than salary. In low unemployment times, 'better' HI was provided to attract talent. But in this light, 'better' means low/no deductible or co-pay, go to the doc for any little thing and don't worry about it because 'you are not paying for it'. That is not how smart people buy car insurance when it is their own money they are spending (they will get reasonably high deductibles). Anyhow, this whole system had a lot to do with how we got into this mess in the US. And now, the people who broke it are telling us they are the right ones to fix it (while never admitting fault in the first place, and not changing that part of the system).

The first quote/response bears repeating:

I think there's a fundamental problem with the American health care system, frankly !

Agreed!

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

ERD, I'm not sure our system was designed that way (employer based, etc). Perhaps it just evolved, and now is stumbling because there is no central structure.

 

[Snowbird100]

I forgot to mention one more thing: I think a huge population might be another problem to fix HI in the US on top of hospitals for profit and doctors get paid too much (more than double what Canadians doctors get paid).

9 times more people than Canada (32 millions total in Canada) !

Summary of problems/costs:
- 9 times more than Canada (population): $$$$$$
- Private hospitals for profit: $$$
- Doctors get paid more than double: $$
- Red tape (insurance companies): $$
- Unnecessary procedures (some might argue): $$

I am having a headache

 

[MichaelB]

Ooppsss !

Snowbird, just to be clear, you are welcome to join us and also post here. I think Alan was suggesting you not focus on the wealth distribution issue, as that invites the type of political discussion we try to discourage.

 

[Snowbird100]

Snowbird, just to be clear, you are welcome to join us and also post here. I think Alan was suggesting you not focus on the wealth distribution issue, as that invites the type of political discussion we try to discourage.

Thank you !

 

[modhatter]

During the debate about Obamacare a couple of years back I decided to do my own research on health care systems around the world. Having lived in Europe I know for a fact, or at least to my own satisfaction that their quality of care is at least as good as ours.

Europe spends about 14% of GDP on health care

USA spends about 17%.

I believe the extra 3% here comes from inefficiencies and from poor health choices. If we cut out 90% of the paperwork and finger-pointing about what is covered, who pays, what is preexisting, etc. and if people ate better diets and exercised, we'd probably cover that 3% spread and then some.

But Americans would rather argue about their god-given right to sit on their butts, eat pork rinds, and pontificate about "them socialists" in France than actually try to address the root of the problem!

I think your numbers are off. We spend more than 51% more than the next highest country which is Norway, and about 90% more than Canada and nearly 100% more than France.

I agree, we as a population are over weight and that is definitely a factor.
I don't think anyone would argue that. The poorest population are generally the most obese, and the wealthier Americans are the most fit (as a rule - not always) I think there is a direct correlation to income and intellect and being fit or obese. If you have traveled to other countries, you will see some significant differences in their eating habits, and food available.

We are the Fast Food capital of the world, and the general accepted diet for Americans is not exactly healthy. But our government does not seem willing to promote better eating. Look at the problem they are having with the school lunches, and the critisism Michele Obama got when she planted her garden and advocated eating more vegetables. Yes, it is not our government's job to take care of our health, but it wouldn't hurt for them to participate in some education.

I don't know what percentage to allocate to this fact. I don't know where you came up with your 3%. I concur, it is a factor, but how much I don't know. Certainly not attributing to 50-100% increase.

 

[explanade]

Wait, the govt. is the reason why health care costs are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcies?

The tie to employer-based health care started during WWII or out of the Depression, I believe, as companies weren't able to increase wages during dire times and offered health care coverage as a perk to compensate for lower cash compensation.

 

[Snowbird100]

I think your numbers are off. We spend more than 51% more than the next highest country which is Norway, and about 90% more than Canada and nearly 100% more than France.

I agree, we as a population are over weight and that is definitely a factor.
I don't think anyone would argue that. The poorest population are generally the most obese, and the wealthier Americans are the most fit (as a rule - not always) I think there is a direct correlation to income and intellect and being fit or obese. If you have traveled to other countries, you will see some significant differences in their eating habits, and food available.

We are the Fast Food capital of the world, and the general accepted diet for Americans is not exactly healthy. But our government does not seem willing to promote better eating. Look at the problem they are having with the school lunches, and the critisism Michele Obama got when she planted her garden and advocated eating more vegetables. Yes, it is not our government's job to take care of our health, but it wouldn't hurt for them to participate in some education.

I don't have the stats on costs between Canada and the US, but that 90% more than Canada seems right to me !

If we look at the costs between Canada/US:
- Canadian doctors gets half of American doctors
- No private hospitals/Hospitals for profit in the US
- Less red tape / private insurance companies, more red tape
- Less procedures, no unnecessary procedures / Unnecessary procedures driven by for profit hospitals (top up insurance)

So I am not surprised it costs 90% more than what it costs in Canada !

 

[REWahoo]

Here is an interesting article on the history of health care in the US. (Note: it is from Humana so I'm sure it probably has some sort of an agenda...)

U. S. Healthcare History

 

[DoingHomework]

This is not true. If someone needs treatment they get it. You don't see the gutters in front of hospitals and ERs lined with dead/dying. It's not just emergency services either, I know people who have received excellent treatment for things like tendinitis surgery, with no out-of-pocket cost.

That is not to defend our system. I am one of the many who feels we need change, big changes. The recent bill that was passed does not address many of the issues that people on both sides of the political spectrum agree with (cut the link between employment and health insurance being one important one).

I don't think it is so much that we are afraid of change, but many of us feel we have reason to be afraid of the kind of changes our political system comes up with (that is meant to be totally non-partisan).

I think a nationalized health care system would be an easier pill to swallow (pun intended!) if we had more faith in our governmental system. Polls consistently put Congress approval ratings in single or low double digits. I think people are being generous


edit: forgot to comment on the Wealth Redistribution hot button - Our current system involves wealth redistribution; people w/o means are treated for free, some people decide to 'go naked' and don't pay for insurance. Others end up paying their bill through higher charges. A well run nationalized system could actually reduce the wealth redistribution aspect by not allowing those who can afford to pay to opt out (but still be accepted at the ER when trouble comes their way)

I certainly think we need big changes. But I am not a fan of wealth redistribution and I think doctors deserve to be paid well. In my opinion, fundamental to any change is the need to give individuals a powerful economic incentive to being healthy and avoiding costly diseases.

Now, I don't think for a second that anyone wants to be sick. But the fact remains that people continue to do, eat, behave, etc in ways that are all but unarguably unhealthy. These people then require more care and we all pay for it. If we have a socialized system then all taxpayers pay. If we have a purely private system then all policy holders pay. Essentially, anyone who receives care pays for those requiring more care because of their habits. Since I think we all want to get care at some point, I really believe that the debate about "socializing" is a red herring.

I think what we need to do is modify the system so that there are powerful forces putting pressures to reduce costs. I'd do this by making people pay for at least 20% of their own care, reward people for healthy behavior with rate reductions, and so forth.

In my state, our governor is charging people on the state's medicaid plan extra if they smoke or if they are obese. Although I generally lean toward the liberal side when it comes to health care, I think what she is doing is a big positive step in giving people a direct, measurable incentive to improving their own health and reducing the costs for all of us.

I worked with a guy who ran the state division of a major health plan (HMO) about 15 years ago. He remarked once on how he had a program shot down by the national office because the payback would not be seen in the same fiscal year. He wanted to subsidize the cost of gym memberships for plan members so that they would be more healthy. The expected cost savings and impact on health were enormous over 5 years or so but the idea was shot down because he could not demonstrate a short term financial gain. Of course subsidies like that are more common now.

I just think that we should get past the politics because there really is a lot that can be done without ticking off either the liberals or the conservatives. But I'm not holding my breath.