Health Care Reform

[Martha]

If the Health Care system in the US is so bad, you will not have so many people coming to the US from Canada, Asia, South America and the Middle East to get medical care.

The US has some excellent health care for a price. But its primary care system is suffering and people without good health insurance are suffering.

Perhaps it is not fair because the rich will have it better. They also have better houses, better wardrobes, better car, better schools, but they work to pay for that.There should be equality of opportunity but equality of outcome should not be society's goal. You want to be rich, work towards that. This doe not appear to be the thinking of a lot of the populace now. Class envy is more and more the norm. The productive segment of the society is not only having the pocket picked, but it is being denigrated as selfish and greedy at the same time. I wonder how long before they go John Galt.

Just because you do not have health insurance does not mean you are not productive. I seriously doubt that the rich are going to Galt on us. The rich are no less inclined than the poor to support social programs. (Sorry, I am not finding my statistics). So it is class envy to want a system of universal health care? I doubt it because the desire is not split down class lines. Equal opportunity in health care? I don't think so. There is discrimination all the time and it is legal. It is called underwriting.

Most all other democratic countries provide national health care. The benefit of a society is that as a whole we can do so much to better everyone's lives. Road. Sewers. Police. Schools. I am not at all saying that everyone should end up with the same standard of living or that efforts should not be rewarded. But I do think that a society is stronger if we educate our population and do what is reasonable to keep it healthy. I also believe that it is the moral and right thing to do and we can afford it.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

If the Health Care system in the US is so bad, you will not have so many people coming to the US from Canada, Asia, South America and the Middle East to get medical care.

If you are implying that the quality is uniformly better here, the outcomes for almost every comparable procedure or specific illness care are as good in most developed countries as it is here. There is no advantage in going to Mayo (other than for said rare conditions) than a legitimate hospital in Buenos Aires, Paris, Toronto, or Tokyo.

I'm very proud of the technical quality of care here, but we don't have a monopoly. Those who can afford to come here wil get very good care, as would you if you got sick in Barcelona or Oslo.

The only difference is that the other locations often do a better job of getting that care to a larger percentage of their populations through non-employment-related health care delivery systems.

 

[Gone4Good]

Perhaps it is not fair because the rich will have it better. They also have better houses, better wardrobes, better cars, better schools, but mostly they work hard in life so they can pay for those advantages.

I hear ya. I'm all for rich people being able to have things that others can't afford . . . nice houses, fancy cars, private planes, country clubs, etc. etc.

But I'd draw the line at telling the guy with cancer, "Sorry buddy, you should have worked harder."

 

[samclem]

The systems out there today works OK for us. . . . However, if we dropped Medicare and bought a Medicare Advantage plan, there are no questions asked. That's what we did. The plan doesn't cost us anymore that our Medicare premium. Medicare still takes the premium, sends it to the Advantage plan provider and that plan covers us. Includes prescription drugs, and minimal dental and vision. It has a maximum out of pocket of $3400 each per year. So far so good.

President Obama is a vigorous opponent of Medicare Advantage.
CATO Institute Article
From the New York Times

In addition, insurers and health care providers are lobbying strenuously against cuts in their Medicare payments that would produce savings of the type they profess to want. Insurers are fighting Mr. Obama’s proposal to cut payments to their private Medicare Advantage plans by a total of $176 billion over 10 years.

The program has many enemies in Congress, who see it as wasteful. Anyway, not to worry. The central planners will provide something for you, and for all of us.

 

[atlas888]

My rant was taken out of context. I am not against Health Care Reform to provide for basic as well as catastrophic medical care, I was reacting to the simplistic approach of the politicians to raise taxes on the " rich" as a solution to everything. They have massively underestimated the cost and will stick the future generations with massive burdens.And there will be a continuing mission creep of governmental programs, but fiscal restraint had never been raised as an integral part of the solution, as well as being a responsibility of the government.

National Health Care system in Canada has not been a panacea. The government regulates everything on top of reimbursement of fee, and includes where a doctor can practice medicine, how much should they earn in a year (I was talking to people from Canada in the late 1990's: if a doctor makes over the allowed annual limit, he would be paid at a very substantially reduced rate. The amount of work was the same. The malpractice risk was the same. So many doctors just took very frequent and prolonged vacations when they got close to the billable limits. Often it amounted close to 3 months a year). The government also decided on how many slots there should be in a medical school. In the 1990's the health planners thought that there were too many doctors. Not that they based that on doctors/patients ratio , they were projecting more doctors means more the government had to pay out in cost. So the government instituted a sizeable cut in medical school classes nationally. That, together with many Canadian physicians who chose to vote with their feet and moved to the US, created currently a physician shortage (same for nurses) in Canada.

As it stands, health care costs eat up a major portion of the government budgets. Canada has a very high income tax rate. They have a VAT. They also have a 12 to 13% national and provincial sale tax. It still ran a record high government deficit last year The basic health care is provided for, but people have a hard time getting a primary care doctor, because they are not accepting new patients. They have long wait for diagnostic procedures and "elective surgery".

Outcome statistics can be fudged, and depend on a lot of factors including population homogenity, lifestyle, diet (in the US, dietary indiscretion) And statistics can be distorted to serve political purposes. I remember reading the old Soviet Union, boasted the lowest newborn mortality rate before the Iron Curtain came down, . That was because they counted babies then born before twenty eight as miscarriages and not counted. Their medical capacity did not allow them to sustain those premature babies. Those babies are routinely and often successfully cared for in the west. The newborn mortality rate is higher in the west because they are trying to save babies born even at 23 , 24 weeks. You can buy the Michael Moore's line about Cuba having one of the world's best medical care system. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The US and Canada have many fewer primary care physicians, because the system emphasized the role and prestige of medical specialists. Just because there will be national health care insurance reform may not change the career preferences of the North American medical students.


Nowhere in my post did I suggest that those without health insurance are being irresponsible or unproductive . Nor did I say that the poor should not get medical care if they cannot pay for it. As a matter of fact, the poor (and those people who learned to game the system), are in all sorts of government programs that gave them a check each month, and pay for food, housing AND medical coverage for medications and doctor and hospital fees. It is the working class who are not in high paying jobs who have to struggle constantly to pay for daily cost of living, health insurance, copayment etc for themselves and their family. They still have to reach in their pockets to support the increasing number people who are dependent on the government ( meaning, actually, other members of the society) It would be naive to deny that there are people gaming the system, and the government has become an enabler and get some people stuck and accept governemental programs as a way of life

 

[ziggy29]

My rant was taken out of context. I am not against Health Care Reform to provide for basic as well as catastrophic medical care, I was reacting to the simplistic approach of the politicians to raise taxes on the " rich" as a solution to everything.

It's certainly true that there's a temptation to go to that well so often that it eventually runs dry. Or put another way, there's only so many golden eggs you can ask the goose to lay before you kill it.

I think one of the trickiest things about health care reform -- assuming it eventually takes *some* form of universal coverage -- is figuring out the specific mechanism to pay for it. Some have suggested primarily funding it with payroll taxes (like SS and Medicare). As a prospective early retiree that sounds great to me -- let those working pay for it all! -- but it does seem like that would be a grossly regressive way to pay for the tax in that it would seem to produce a massive financial incentive to retire early and let the working stiffs with lesser means pay for it. Having said that, like any other social program there will be *some* degree of redistribution going on -- but where that happens it should be as fair as possible, the costs spread out relatively equitably, and avoid being too much of a burden on the poor and middle class while also not "soaking the rich" to the point of damaging economic growth.

In examining all the world's health care systems, when all is said and done I suspect we'll most closely follow the German model. And as for paying for it, it's possible there will be a payroll tax, but if there is we'd probably need another line on the tax forms where people who didn't have earned income would have to pay their share -- sort of like how self-employment tax is handled today.

 

[huusom]

The fact that we're paying twice as much as the rest of the developed nations and 47 millions american are without healthcare speaks for itself. The current system is not sustainable.

Can we all have the same type of universal coverage and pay for the same basic coverage at the same rate the French, the German and the Brit are paying (which about half what we are paying now) and let the wealthy americans purchase additional coverage if they so desire.

What is wrong with this idea?

 

[ziggy29]

Can we all have the same type of universal coverage and pay for the same basic coverage at the same rate the French, the German and the Brit are paying (which about half what we are paying now) and let the wealthy americans purchase additional coverage if they so desire.

My understanding is that this is illegal in some countries with universal health care. Apparently wanting to seem egalitarian and not allowing "the rich" to have better (or more timely) health care, some nations have banned the practice of letting people buy "better" or "more comprehensive" coverage with their own money. I think that's anathema to the current American mindset that "it's my money and I can do what I want with it."

 

[kumquat]

National Health Care system in Canada has not been a panacea. The government regulates everything on top of reimbursement of fee, and includes where a doctor can practice medicine, how much should they earn in a year (I was talking to people from Canada in the late 1990's: if a doctor makes over the allowed annual limit, he would be paid at a very substantially reduced rate. The amount of work was the same. The malpractice risk was the same. So many doctors just took very frequent and prolonged vacations when they got close to the billable limits. Often it amounted close to 3 months a year). The government also decided on how many slots there should be in a medical school. In the 1990's the health planners thought that there were too many doctors. Not that they based that on doctors/patients ratio , they were projecting more doctors means more the government had to pay out in cost. So the government instituted a sizeable cut in medical school classes nationally. That, together with many Canadian physicians who chose to vote with their feet and moved to the US, created currently a physician shortage (same for nurses) in Canada.

You may want to check the accuracy of the 'red' statements with meadbh.

As it stands, health care costs eat up a major portion of the government budgets. Canada has a very high income tax rate. They have a VAT. They also have a 12 to 13% national and provincial sale tax. It still ran a record high government deficit last year

Yes, health care is a major government expense.
Combined federal and provincial top marginal rates vary from province to province but average about 45%, average rates for a $50K income would be about $10-12K.
Canada has a VAT, 5%. Some provinces have sales taxes ranging from 0% to 8% with various exemptions. The TOTAL sales tax varies from 5% to 13% depending on province.
Canada ran a deficit of ~$2B last year, hardly a record. For the previous 12 years they ran a surplus.

 

[atlas888]

When a new graduate or when a doctor wants to move to and ,say, work in Vancouver, he/she has to get a billing number from the province. The province had routinely been denying those numbers in places where they deem there is an oversupply of doctors. You can get a billing number without difficulty if you want to go and work as a doctor in the Northern parts of any province, where it is extremely cold, underpopulated and underserviced, but you will have a hard time if you want to work in your profession in Vancouver,Toronto, Montreal and so on. Physicians in Canada may be the only group that have no choice as to where they want to work and raise a family.

Doctors are seeing fewer patients because of imposed billing limit

Marginal Revolution: French health care

In Critical Condition: Health Care In America Canada's Way What a universal health care system delivers, good and bad

Under the Radar: Stealth Development of Two-Tier Healthcare in Canada

When Doctors Opt Out - WSJ.com

FCPP Publications :: Canada’s Doctor Shortage

Where Have All the Doctors Gone? By Dr. Peter W. Kujtan - A Research Guide

The Doctor is Out: Physician Participation in the Rationed Access Day Work Stoppage in British Columbia, 1998/99 :: Vol. 1 No. 1 2002 :: Longwoods Review :: Longwoods Publishing

I just randomly pull up some articles. The first and the last were addressing the annual billing limits the government imposed ( can you say Pay Czar, the latest scheme the US government is thinking of ?) Reactions from physicians included rotating strikes in British Columbia, and doctors closing the office and taking long vacations. Another article talks about the time a doctor spent in filling out government forms for billing,(they took more time than seeing a patient) and at the end of day he got $C 20 for the patient's visit. From that amount he had to pay office rent, staff, supply, all the support services and Tax.

The average salary of a French Physician in 2003 is $50,000 as noted in one of those articles. It alluded to the tainted outcome comparison between nations taht people touted. If you want to have doctors who operate on your eyes or brain , who have to work long hours, spent years in training, to make the same or less money than a US postal or auto worker, by all means. You might still get the best and brightest to go into the profession, and then again you may not.

When I say the malpractice risk is the same, I mean that just because you saw a patient and the government pays you only 33c instead of a dollar because you are over the billing limits, the malpractice risk did not decrease by a corresponding 2/3. I was not comparing the malpractice insurance rate between Canada and the US.

American has the fantasy that the Canadian system is the panacea. That may be so from afar. You may not see all the worms in the system
--------------------
So you think an average combined rate of 45% for federal and top provincial tax is fine. That is half a person's income he tolled for. On top of that you have the 13% GST and PST, used to be 13$ in Quebec. That GST and PST applies to home purchase and other large items. ( I was struck by having to pay the 13% GST and PST when I bought stamps to mail postcards to friends when I was on vacation in Montreal.) Before 2000, the top federal rate of 29% kicked in at $ 60000 and it was only recently that the top rate applies to income over $100000. There is no mortgage deduction in Canada. At the end of the day. you still pay for the "free" Canadian health care if you are a Canadian.
--------------------
I do not know where your rosy number of 2 billion dollars in Canadian government deficit came from ( you said last year). For 2008 it is $50 billion and it was a record. Health care cost accounted for 40% of the federal budget.
.
Federal deficit headed toward record territory

France 24 | Canada on course for record budget deficit | France 24


I am too lazy to research and link the article now. What it said was: the national debt of the US is 1x the GDP. ( I do not know whether the calculation takes into account the current spending rate), but the national debt of the European nations like France and Germany we so admire is 1.5x the GDP. They do not have a large defense budget, so most of the deficits stemmed from social spending. That ratio of debt to GDP is even higher in smaller economies like Italy and Greece.

P.S. I think I 'll will stop kicking around this discussion now, before the moderator cut us off. This is getting to be something that should be posted in the Political Discussion section

 

[Texas Proud]

I can't speak for anybody else. But considering my own experience I don't think it is possible we can get any worse medicine than we have now

I had severe back pain a few years ago. The doctor prescribed a traction chair to help the back get better. Some bureaucrat at the insurance company refused to pay for it, so I could not use it. I still have back pain etc.

A friend of mine have MS. As an MS patient she needs to take a daily injection of a drug. She could not use the medication the doctor prescribed, because the insurance company refused to pay for it. Instead, she had to settle for a cheaper drug the insurance company allowed her to take. The doctor was not happy, but it was this second choice drug or nothing.

Whatever health care reform we get, I doubt it will be worse than what we have today. Furthermore, since this is an early retirement board, health care reform hopefully will also eliminate the issues with pre-existing conditions. It is tough to retire with a pre-existing condition as no insurance company will touch you.

Why would you think that having a single payer system would be any better... instead of some insurance company refusing to pay, some gvmt official refuses to pay... same with the drug... what is being proposed does not address the two examples that you gave (at least IMO)...


Also, my question to you (not trying to be mean about it...)... but, if you back was hurting so much, why not pay for the chair yourself? I can tell you that I would if I could get rid of back pain...

 

[Texas Proud]

The fact that we're paying twice as much as the rest of the developed nations and 47 millions american are without healthcare speaks for itself. The current system is not sustainable.

Can we all have the same type of universal coverage and pay for the same basic coverage at the same rate the French, the German and the Brit are paying (which about half what we are paying now) and let the wealthy americans purchase additional coverage if they so desire.

What is wrong with this idea?

But WHERE are the savings that you talk about... if the gvmt is going to be paying trillions of dollars, how is it cheaper...

From all the talk, I still will be paying for my current insurance, but the gvmt will pay for all that are not on the system.... to me this is HIGHER costs...

Now, if you can say for sure that as a nation, we could cut the cost of health care in half IF we had a universal system... then I could go for that... but that is not what is in the works.... nothing even close..

 

[samclem]

From all the talk, I still will be paying for my current insurance, but the gvmt will pay for all that are not on the system.... to me this is HIGHER costs...

Yep, unfortunately you belong to the group that will be paying for your dinner plus the dinner of a few others. Console yourself with the knowledge that, though you are paying for everything, we're allegedly going to get a good price on the chow.

Aside from the humanitarian, do-gooder, "it's our social responsibility" yak, there is a case to be made that the US would benefit economically to a huge degree if we can find a way to deliver health care in a more efficient manner. Right now, we don't. The employer-sponsored system is crazy--it shackles people to jobs they don't like/aren't suited for and impedes worker mobility that would significantly boost productivity. It is also inefficient (ask any health care worker who deals with the admin side of our present system). If we could find a way to deliver health care more efficiently, we'd all benefit tremendously. While health care is not exactly like other consumer commodities, I believe there are still ways to harness the free market to deliver the kind of benefits it delivers in every other aspect of our economy.

Yrs to go wrote . . .

This is a scheme that can potentially achieve the same objectives as a single payer system, but the hand of government is so heavy here I'm not sure there is much difference between this and just having the government run everything. It's possible that you get some benefit from competition among insurers but the scope of those benefits will be limited by how much leeway companies are given to compete on things other than price.

I guess I'm more optimistic that private businesses would offer a lot of efficiencies and enhancements to services. Some of the package options could be HMO-style for people willing to put up with the restrictions in order to save some money--a little free choice: if you like what you could get in Canada, it's available. People who want more options, lower wait times, access to single hospital rooms, access to a particular physician could pay more. Also (though I didn't go into it here, se previous post) I see a big role for the government as an information clearinghouse that facilitates consumer choice. If people can see how satisfied/dossatified others have been with all the insurers and health care providers they can choose from, I think consumers would be in a better position to choose an insurer (using their own money or the government voucher) and I think the insurers will increase their efforts to please customers . It's more free choice than we have now (under employer plans) and much more free choice than we'd have under a government-run plan. Though the overall amount spent on medical care in countries with socialized medicine/government-run plans is lower than the US, the problems of skyrocketing government expenditures for these services is nearly universal. Maybe we can take a different approach and avoid that headache.

An observation: We don't have a free market today. One reason health insurance providers get poor ratings from patients is that the patients are not their customers--they have only an indirect motive to serve them. Their true customers are the companies for whom the patients work. The companies care most about lowering costs. If we fix things so that insurers are competing for the business of the public directly, there's every reason to believe they will become more responsive and that people will be happier with their health care. I don't see this dynamic coming into play if the government is running things, but that is only because I've been to the DMV and talked to the IRS.

 

[ziggy29]

YThe employer-sponsored system is crazy--it shackles people to jobs they don't like/aren't suited for and impedes worker mobility that would significantly boost productivity.

I would go even further than that: specifically, not just that it impedes worker mobility, but it stifles the entrepreneurial spirit. It's scary enough to quit your job and follow your dream or pour your heart, sweat and guts into a new business or a new idea. Losing a sure-thing paycheck for a high-risk, high-reward venture is a big decision. And it's made that much harder by the way the employer-provided health insurance model shackles one to their employer.

I have to think the employer-insurance model has been increasingly causing a drain on the primary engines of economic growth in recent years -- entrepreneurism and small business.

 

[kumquat]

When a new graduate or when a doctor wants to move to and ,say, work in Vancouver, he/she has to get a billing number from the province. The province had routinely been denying those numbers in places where they deem there is an oversupply of doctors. You can get a billing number without difficulty if you want to go and work as a doctor in the Northern parts of any province, where it is extremely cold, underpopulated and underserviced, but you will have a hard time if you want to work in your profession in Vancouver,Toronto, Montreal and so on. .

atlas,
I'm not suggesting that the Canadian system is one anyone should follow. I am suggesting that some of your comments here are out of date, exaggerated or both.

The above statement was true 10 years ago in the general Vancouver area only. I don't believe it is true today. Even then, a doctor could choose to 'opt out' of medicare and bill patients directly. That is why I suggested you consult meadbh, who is a practising doctor in Canada.

Physicians in Canada may be the only group that have no choice as to where they want to work and raise a family.

This suggests that physicians are told where they must go to practise. Even when BC stopped handing out billing numbers, this limited them to places that weren't Vancouver. While choice 1 may have been unavailable many other choices were left.

Re: malpractice
I think insurance rates are lower because (due to differences in the legal systems) doctors are sued less, win more cases when sued and awards are lower when they lose.

Once again, I'm not advocating the Canadian system. I'd be dollars ahead if I had paid for all of my family's care and not paid the portion of tax that went to fund it. The Canadian system is what it is. Let's just be accurate when we describe it.

So you think an average combined rate of 45% for federal and top provincial tax is fine.

Actually I said the average top marginal rate and I didn't say I liked it. While I believe US rates are generally lower, I wouldn't want to pay NYC income tax.

The maximum rate in the city limits of New York City (as of 2007[update]) is therefore 47.14%

I do not know where your rosy number of 2 billion dollars in Canadian government deficit came from ( you said last year). For 2008 it is $50 billion and it was a record.

The number comes from here. 2009 will be a record.

 

[atlas888]

Like I said, this discussion is taking on a of tone about government policy and politics and may be better if it takes place in the political discussion in the other section. But at the risk of the moderator's displeasure:

I left Canada in 1990 after college and graduate school, that was the situation back then. Despite the many controls the government placed, such as billing number control and annual billing limits, there was still runaway health care cost. The draconian controls got to the point where doctors refused to take on more patients, going on rotating strikes etc. ( see articles) And many doctors left the country.

The physicians could not opt out of the government health care system at that time. Things changed somewhat in 2004 after the Canadian Supreme Court decision. But you can read from many sources ( in newspapers, McLean magazine , and on TV) that the Canadian health care system is a shadow of what it was intended to be. It is hard to compress a relatively long time line into a short paragraph and information and time may be juxtaposed. Just because some utterly unfair practices are now removed does not mean that they never existed and some did not suffer injustice. If doctors can get billing numbers in Vancouver now, it is because Canada is now facing a significant doctor shortage. Central planning often backfire and have unintended consequences. I am wondering whether we are wandering down the same road.

The way government think health care cost may be controlled is to control the industry. When it is the single and only payer, it can control the pay (and underpay) of health care professionals to cut cost. It will browbeat the hospitals and drug makers into charging what the government want them to charge. One article alluded to the doctor getting C$ 20 for the patient's visit. The average salary of doctors in France was $50,000 . Doctors, being a small group, can be soaked, just like the rich can be soaked. But despite controlling doctor's, health care cost had still skyrocketed in many countries where there are government ran health care. The bureaucracy still have to be manned and there will be a lot of government jobs for paper pushers. Just hope those workers do not all end up with lifetime government pensions.

And there will not be a lot of other savings, because a disinterested bureaucrat is not likely to dispute george76 in his claim. It would save time and effort just to rubber stamp any claim, after all it is nobody's money.

 

[kumquat]

Well, I'm out of this thread with the following observation. If you want to post opinion, feel free. If you want to post facts, make sure that your facts are, in fact, facts.

 

[george76]

Why would you think that having a single payer system would be any better... instead of some insurance company refusing to pay, some gvmt official refuses to pay... same with the drug... what is being proposed does not address the two examples that you gave (at least IMO)...


Also, my question to you (not trying to be mean about it...)... but, if you back was hurting so much, why not pay for the chair yourself? I can tell you that I would if I could get rid of back pain...

My posting said that the new health care reform could not be any worse than the system we have today. Yes, perhaps you would have a government bureaucrat instead of some insurance bureaucrat rejecting your doctor's proposed prescription. How is that any worse? Furthermore, everybody would have now have coverage. So, by default it would be better.

By the way, I spent a couple of years in Europe in a country with so called socialized medicine. I never had some government bureaucrat reject what the doctor had prescribed.

Why did I not pay for it myself? It would have been $4,000 or monthly payments in excess of $250 for years to come. At the time I simply couldn't afford it. I guess I could have declared bankruptcy, but that's just not me.

By the way, you raise an important issue. The vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the US is because of health care costs. Kind of like the situation I was in. Health care reform would help lower this number.

 

[george76]

I agree we shouldn't have to pay for a bridge to nowhere. The people in charge who decided to build that bridge would be the same people in charge of your health care.

The same people who are in charge that decided to build that bridge are also the same people that are making decisions about the US military.

Surely you would agree that we have a first class military? It is run by the government. Why couldn't the government also run a first class health care system?

Other countries, such as France, also have first class health care systems. Theirs is run by their government. If France can do it , why can't we?

 

[lets-retire]

There is a lot of leeway given to a successful military campaign. Set backs that cost a lot of lives are expected. Look at our first steps in WWII. We couldn't fight our way out of a paper bag, yet we won the war. The point is that a military campaign can withstand incompetent people if there are enough competent people to make up for them. I have been in units where I would urinate on the CO if he were on fire, but I would fight tooth and nail for my peers. There is a big difference between health care and military actions. Almost anybody would fight hard if their life depended on it. It is that type of action that can carry the day, in spite of poor leadership.

I'm not willing to take the chance with my health care of having some bureaucrat in Washington tell my doctor what acceptable treatment they can or can not perform. Many people say that private health insurance already does that. As I have stated I have yet to have the insurance company refuse to pay for something that was deemed necessary by my doctor. Of course my doctors have never recommended experimental procedures.

I have decent health care. I've been subject to civilian, military, and VA health care and found the system that most bash to be the best of the three. A VA hospital I went to received very high ratings according to a person on this board. I wouldn't go to that hospital again to have my prescriptions filled. The civilian doctors I have gone to have been in all kinds of cities from very rural in Michigan to large cities in Florida and every type of town in between. Hands down the civilian doctors have been the best. They even fixed problems the military doctors said I would have to live with. I have had several co-workers tear their rotator cuff (at least that is what they said their issue was) on the weekend/after duty hours. These people had to go to a civilian doctor to be treated. To a person they were told they should undergo surgery to fix the problem. Not one went under the knife to have the muscle repaired on the military's dime. Military health care would kill us, but it sure wasn't the decent care I expect.

Their was an article a couple years ago about the exodus of wealthy French citizens. They were getting tired of being taxed through the teeth.

 

[kumquat]

Look at our first steps in WWII. We couldn't fight our way out of a paper bag, yet we won the war.

Note to self. DO NOT HIJACK THREAD! DO NOT HIJACK TREAD!

 

[Texas Proud]

My posting said that the new health care reform could not be any worse than the system we have today. Yes, perhaps you would have a government bureaucrat instead of some insurance bureaucrat rejecting your doctor's proposed prescription. How is that any worse? Furthermore, everybody would have now have coverage. So, by default it would be better.

By the way, I spent a couple of years in Europe in a country with so called socialized medicine. I never had some government bureaucrat reject what the doctor had prescribed.

Why did I not pay for it myself? It would have been $4,000 or monthly payments in excess of $250 for years to come. At the time I simply couldn't afford it. I guess I could have declared bankruptcy, but that's just not me.

By the way, you raise an important issue. The vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the US is because of health care costs. Kind of like the situation I was in. Health care reform would help lower this number.

My point is that it could be much worse... and cost a lot of money that we will not pay, but make our children and grand children pay...

I don't care about the uninsured... the vast majority of them have access to health insurance but choose not to buy it (or, from my reading just signing up for it).. that is their choice..

So... who are the uninsured... I think I will go get facts as someone pointed out...

KeithHennessey.com » How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?

• There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.
• Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.
• Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There’s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.
• Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.
• Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.
• Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.
• The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:
  • U.S. citizens;
  • with income below 300% of poverty;
  • not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;
  • and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34

 

[samclem]

I would go even further than that: specifically, not just that it impedes worker mobility, but it stifles the entrepreneurial spirit.

Yep, good point. And, it's not just the individual, but often the whole family that loses medical insurance. It's one thing to decide to take a risk and start a business knowing that your whole family will have to tighten their belts, skip the vacation, and eat beans for a year. It's another thing to know that if anybody gets sick there's a real chance that you won't be able to get them timely care, and that the family will be bankrupted by it.

 

[Corato]

The problem right now is the president and leaders of the house and senate want government run health care period. Anything else they say is a lie. Government run health care will be rationing period. They will let us die when we get over XX age.

 

[Brat]

I haven't seen a thing that prevents a person from buying care with their own $$$. I think any insurance should pay for care likely to restore health, if a person wants to pay out of pocket for care not covered by insurance (public or private) that is just fine. As it is now private health insurance doesn't pay for all possible services, it is "rationed" through coverage limitations. When writers say that care was denied by their insurer that isn't correct, the insurer simply said that they wouldn't pay for the care requested. The patient was free to pay for it outside the policy.