Health Care Reform

[Madame Defarge 21]

President Obama's Health Care Reform Bill , or at least a very watered-down-to placate-the Republicans-even though-they-still hate-it- version, has finally reached the Senate. At the center of the debate is the much feared 'Public Option.' Why is it feared? I don't know.

 

I don't understand the problem. We have free public education in my country, paid for by the taxpayers, and nobody seems to mind. Nobody has to have 'Education Insurance'. If they lose their job, the school won't slam its doors shut in the face of their kids the next day. If people choose to pay, then they have the option of sending their kids to private school. So why should free, basic healthcare to those in need be any different? The (mostly) conservative response to this is usually some sort of idealogical mumbo jumbo, but some Democrats are opposed to it too. .

 

I have read posts on this forum which seem to be very critical of the government sponsered healthcare in Great Britain and around the globe. What does everybody think about government run health care? Is it really so bad?

 

I'm interested in hearing your opinions. Ideological mumbo jumbo will be happily accepted as long as you have met your $200.00 deductible and there will be a $40.00 co-pay.

[Monoclinic 39]

President Obama's Health Care Reform Bill , or at least a very watered-down-to placate-the Republicans-even though-they-still hate-it- version, and has finally reached the Senate. At the center of the debate is the much feared 'Public Option.' Why is it feared? I don't know.

 

I don't understand the problem. We have free public education in my country, paid for by the taxpayers, and nobody seems to mind. Nobody has to have 'Education Insurance'. If they lose their job, the school won't slam its doors shut in the face of their kids the next day. If people choose to pay, then they have the option of sending their kids to private school. So why should free, basic healthcare to those in need be any different? The (mostly) conservative response to this is usually some sort of idealogical mumbo jumbo, but some Democrats are opposed to it too. .

 

I have read posts on this forum which seem to be very critical of the government sponsered healthcare in Great Britain and around the globe. What does everybody think about government run health care really so bad?

 

I'm interested in hearing your opinions. Ideological mumbo jumbo will be happily accepted as long as you have met your $200.00 deductible and there will be a $40.00 co-pay.

 

IMHO:

 

I don't think that the NHS is bad. It might not be the best social healthcare system but now I realise that some of these European systems actually require an additional payment and additional taxes whereas the NHS is completely free and the tax level lower.

 

Also I think it is indicative of our greedy consumer society in that we always want more. We see another country's system being placed higher or offering a better service but yet are unaware of these hidden charges or factor in the level of taxation and social security one would have to pay in that country. We are a bunch of negative whinging poms as honez might say albeit with a nice Welsh lilt. People should be more grateful that they weren't born in Zimbabwe, Myanmar or Kyrgyzstan.

[Boudicca 702]

It is very odd. I used to speak to someone who lives in Palm Beach and when she heard about my daughter's condition she kept saying, "but if you lived here you'd be able to see the best haematologist in the country!"

 

At a cost of quite a few extra dollars no doubt, not to mention $$$ for travel and the doctor thousands of miles away in an emergency

 

I never could explain that my daughter already sees the top people in the country at no extra cost and whenever she needs them. The hospital is grim and Victorian yes, but who cares?

[The Miser 18]

It is very odd. I used to speak to someone who lives in Palm Beach and when she heard about my daughter's condition she kept saying, "but if you lived here you'd be able to see the best haematologist in the country!"

 

At a cost of quite a few extra dollars no doubt, not to mention $$$ for travel and the doctor thousands of miles away in an emergency

 

I never could explain that my daughter already sees the top people in the country at no extra cost and whenever she needs them. The hospital is grim and Victorian yes, but who cares?

 

When I was waiting for a heart transplant at one of the top US hospitals, there were patients from Canada and the Bahamas waiting for their yearly allowance to reset so they could get their heart. They do not do heart transplants in those countries (or at least not very well). I got my heart in 16 days and am fine. One of them died waiting. I don't pretend to know what will be in the details in the Bill that will eventually be passed but someone should make sure that situation doesn't occur here. I guess my point is the devil is in the details. Although the US system needs to be fixed, I worry that people think "Wow, if we get the system that Canada has then all our problems will be solved." Not so Much!

[Rotten Ali 600]

I was thinking about the NHS lots during the last few days.

 

Q1. Went down to a blood donor session on Wednesday - my first - and was mighty impressed with the level of care I received.

 

Q2. Mrs Rotten's best friend (also 42) has gallstones, and has started down the road to a gall bladder removal operation.

 

I can't think that our "no-cost" system is best.

 

A1. Performing a selfless act for no return is a tad lame - here I am - I've only got 8 pints of blood at a time! - here you are Mrs NHS, have one of them for free! Some money would come in handier than a Jacob's Club biscuit and two glasses of orange squash! This is still a capitalist system. The state pays you for doing jury service or £10 for doing a Police identity parade. But this no fee for my well made blood makes me feel even better does it?

 

A2. Sounds like a whip-it-out quick tact is on offer. But I ask, would not a better route be removal of just the gallstones be in order? Better than having a 20% chance of having the John "squits" Ashcroft's for 50 years!

 

Can't think that putting in for elective surgery should still be within no-fee basis. If the guys who want tits and a fanny think they are due them for free, I don't know how they can live with themselves understanding they drained money from the NHS when girls who just want bigger tits have go private and pay £3,000 a pair, or worse still have breast cancer and need them removed.

 

I could do with a nice nose job and new set of front teeth but am I expecting them on the NHS? Swivel!

 

Why can it be right that those who go along to their GP and ask that they need little blue "SPAM" pills get a whole load of them when they cost so much? I'm under the impression that the prescription charge of £7.20 does not cover the cost of 1 tablet. Let this lifestyle drug be available "at cost" beyond a one tablet for £7.20 per month.

 

Also why can't the NHS start to compete with the private sector? Has anyone seen the adverts for www.LifeScan.org? £395 for an internal CAT scan of your own guts. If the NHS would also offer these services "at competitive rates" it could cut out these "fly-by-night" firms and allow the excess funds raised to be re-invested in even better services.

 

And the final killer blow I would introduce would be a "two-list" waiting system. Those with loads of money can skip the main "free" of point of charge waiting list if they pay the relevant cost of what they need done so as to go on the fast track list. Then these valuable moneys would also be available for re-investment.

 

So to the United States of America's old system - I've got my copy of "Sicko" and the system needs to be changed. I think the UK's NHS service costs us more than we can afford. You need a half way house. A "free" cover-all basic service and a "charge-the-going-rate" add-on that is also removed from the big-business providers. I'm not that against for-profit providers but they need to be kept on their toes by a big-government system so real people have at least a choice.

[Monoclinic 39]

Performing a selfless act for no return is a tad lame - here I am - I've only got 8 pints of blood at a time! - here you are Mrs NHS, have one of them for free! Some money would come in handier than a Jacob's Club biscuit and two glasses of orange squash! This is still a capitalist system. The state pays you for doing jury service or £10 for doing a Police identity parade. But this no fee for my well made blood makes me feel even better does it?

 

Very nearly an armful? You could have always become a member of The Young Conservatives instead.

[deadsox 892]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

[honez 79]

I believe there should be a set minimum standard of service and facilities provided by the government in any westernised society. These should come out of standard tax payers funds.

These being, basic health care (non-elective surgery, emergency departments, emergency ambulance services, GP checkups, cancer screening, baby deliveries, vaccinations, etc.) Elective surgery should come out of the patients own pocket.

If a patient wishes to jump the queue, then by all means allow them to do so in a private user-pays system.

Basic dental should be covered. Fancy elective dental should be user pays.

Public education should be government funded. Zero public funds should go into the private user-pays system.

Roads, trains, public buses and other forms of public transport should be government funded not private.

Water, sewerage, electricity, telephones, TV and broadband & wireless infrastructure should be government funded, but on a user pays system.

Defence, police, prisons should be government funded.

Libraries, galleries, performing arts, museums, etc. should also be government funded and not-for-profit.

Sports facilities like running tracks, swimming pools, parks and amenities should be government funded.

Sports stadiums, race tracks, etc should be privately funded and not be paid for out of taxes.

 

So, in my humble opinion, there should be a minimum level of infrastructure and services that everyone is entitled to in a modern western society. These should be government funded from taxes collected.

Anything over and above that should be user pays or privately funded. Just my two cents worth.

[Monoclinic 39]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

 

Just because a government choses to provide a free healthcare system does not make it a nanny state. People are free to choose whether to "take care of themselves" by having check-ups or following up any health worries (viz. Jade Goody). Is giving the responsibility of our health to a big corporate firm any better in this day and age? Should fat cat executives profit from cancer? Should a couple pay just to give birth, part of the natural cycle of life? (In fact do you have to pay for this or indeed for any emergency treatment that saves your life as a result of an accident/attack that was not your fault?)

[The Miser 18]

I think that the US should try to do a health care plan for everyone under 18 first to see how it works. Then you can correct any f-ups.

[honez 79]

I think that the US should try to do a health care plan for everyone under 18 first to see how it works. Then you can correct any f-ups.

Nope. That's a bad plan, Deathlist rules prohibits U-18's.

If you're going to test things out, at least do it on the over 60's.

[Madame Defarge 21]

I think that the US should try to do a health care plan for everyone under 18 first to see how it works. Then you can correct any f-ups.

Nope. That's a bad plan, Deathlist rules prohibits U-18's.

If you're going to test things out, at least do it on the over 60's.

We have. The average age for a U.S. Senator is 63.

 

All Senators and Congressman are covered by something called the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. They are eligible as soon as they take office, with no waiting period and no pre-existing condition clause. There are a wide range of plans to choose from, and the government pays 75% of their premiums. The wives and children of US Senators and Congressmen can be covered, as well. This whole deal is funded by U.S. taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford health care coverage themselves.

[Guest Guest]

If this NHC gets approved that will mean doctors would see a significant decrease in salary and now you'll have less intelligent people attending medical school.

I like what Honez said to an extent (Listen, you pay for the face lift) and I feel that a separate system should be designed for the people who actually can't afford health care. Example: The elderly couple who do not have a pension and so they cannot afford the health care they so desperately need. I mean .. is health care not affordable? Is it not? I know NYC is expensive but health care itself is only beyond the reach of a few. Do I have to manage your budget Madame? I'll do it for free ..

[millwall32 114]

I'm not saying that I disagree with some form of healthcare reform but listening to the new this morning

I thought of that line Denholm Elliot has in A Private Function.

On the eve of founding the NHS he's the doctor who says

"Do you realise that if this government ha its way then any little peasant will be able to walk into my surgey and say

[adopts pathetic voice] "I'm not well, cure me.""

[Tuber Mirum 125]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

I don't think even the worst possible government would actually force you to enjoy the benefits of free universal healthcare if you were to insist on paying your way.

 

Assuming you could.

[Windsor 2,233]

Senator Robert Byrd isn't looking too clever these days. He seems to have become quite frail quite quickly.

He has been a senator since 1959, and recently turned 92.

[Madame Defarge 21]

Senator Robert Byrd isn't looking too clever these days. He seems to have become quite frail quite quickly.

He has been a senator since 1959, and recently turned 92.

 

It actually sounded like he was using his next to last breath during the Senate roll call vote to croak out 'This is for my friend Ted Kennedy. Aye.', and disappointing Senator Tom Coburn who apparently has an interest in dead-pooling.

[honez 79]

Senator Robert Byrd isn't looking too clever these days. He seems to have become quite frail quite quickly.

He has been a senator since 1959, and recently turned 92.

 

It actually sounded like he was using his next to last breath during the Senate roll call vote to croak out 'This is for my friend Ted Kennedy. Aye.', and disappointing Senator Tom Coburn who apparently has an interest in dead-pooling.

As the article points out...

Mr. Byrd should “do the right thing and expire,” wrote Bob Owens, in a post to the Confederate Yankee blog titled “All I Want Is a Byrd Dropping for Christmas.”

That's the spirit. Anyone wanna invite Bob Owens to the Deathlist forum?

[Tomb raider 9]

You could say I'm sort of an ultra-left left winger (voting for the Dutch Socialist Party, once considered Maoist (!)) so I don't think any American is really interested in my opinion.

 

Just in case you are: the government clearly can't solve every problem, but as 30 million of your compatriots can't afford health care insurance (or are too stupid, too lazy or too miserly), you could let her try and solve at least that problem. So many people just are unable to take care of themselves, due to the complexity of living in this era. They have to make plans for the future, saving up for pensions, college education, old age care and health care, that requires a good mind, a stable situation at home and at work, and a little bit of luck. Why wouldn't you make things a little bit easier for everyone by making health care insurance compulsary? And if you refuse to help out poor, incapable or stupid people, at least think about their families. No underage can be held responsible for his parent being poor or being a moron, can he? But he will pay for that if he gets sick.

 

And for all those people worrying about the state taking control over their lives: why are you so paranoid? The state is not a cold, abstract monster, it's you, together with all your friends and neighbours, and its executives are the people you elected - or the people controlled by them. You're always so optimistic about your democratic system, why don't you start trusting it a little bit more? It works all right for us, believe me. I pay 110 euros per month for my health insurance and that covers almost every medical expense that I might have, including hearing aids, prenatal exercises, elastic stockings, Vi*gra and rollators.

[Madame Defarge 21]

You could say I'm sort of an ultra-left left winger (voting for the Dutch Socialist Party, once considered Maoist (!)) so I don't think any American is really interested in my opinion.

I am, which is why I asked for everyone's opinions, and I happen to agree with yours, but then again I am one of those mad, bad, Socialist types I guess..... BTW I googled Netherlands and Socialism and found that Holland has 11 different parties and that each of these is represented in Parliament. We have a two-party system, and that makes a huge difference, especially when the Democrats are becoming more of a centrist group, and the Republicans have to cow-tow to the right-wing evangelist agenda for votes.

 

Anyway, I feel that if a child is born to lazy, infirm, or just plain unlucky parents he should not be blamed, for he is no more responsible for the circumstances of his birth than a child born into a more fortunate situation. In other words, a good education and basic healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.

 

True, there will be those who abuse the system, because that is inevitable no matter what system is in place. Just my opinion.

 

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.

~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

[deadsox 892]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

 

Just because a government choses to provide a free healthcare system does not make it a nanny state. People are free to choose whether to "take care of themselves" by having check-ups or following up any health worries (viz. Jade Goody). Is giving the responsibility of our health to a big corporate firm any better in this day and age? Should fat cat executives profit from cancer? Should a couple pay just to give birth, part of the natural cycle of life? (In fact do you have to pay for this or indeed for any emergency treatment that saves your life as a result of an accident/attack that was not your fault?)

 

Once a government run health care system is in place, we will not really have any option. The system that I and many other working Americans have been using and paying for will cease to exist. Should "fat cat" executives profit from cancer? If you believe as I do that private enterprise does a better job of providing goods and services than the government, then why shouldn't they make a profit? To be sure, a legitimate role of government is to regulate such industries and make sure that profits are reasonable. I love your point about couples not paying for childbirth because it's a "natural cycle of life". What about eating? Isn't that a natural cycle of life? So I guess no one should have to pay for food either? The bottom line is that we will be paying for the system. But will we have freedom of choice or have to take what the government hands us? Will we take a pretty good system (with some defects to be sure) and trash it for a complete unknown run by bureaucrats? Probably so unless Americans wake up in time.

[deadsox 892]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

I don't think even the worst possible government would actually force you to enjoy the benefits of free universal healthcare if you were to insist on paying your way.

 

Assuming you could.

 

As stated in my previous post, nap, we won't have a choice once government run healthcare is established. Free you say? What in life is free? Won't we be paying for this through our taxes? I'd rather continue to pay as I have been than put something as important as our health in the government's control and pay fro that. Assuming I could pay? I have been paying for my healthcare since becoming an adult. It may sound like a strange concept but people can and do pay for things like healthcare, food and housing.

[welshman 31]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

I don't think even the worst possible government would actually force you to enjoy the benefits of free universal healthcare if you were to insist on paying your way.

 

Assuming you could.

 

As stated in my previous post, nap, we won't have a choice once government run healthcare is established. Free you say? What in life is free? Won't we be paying for this through our taxes? I'd rather continue to pay as I have been than put something as important as our health in the government's control and pay fro that. Assuming I could pay? I have been paying for my healthcare since becoming an adult. It may sound like a strange concept but people can and do pay for things like healthcare, food and housing.

Deadsox - seems like you are one of the lucky ones who currently have a choice. What about the others? That is what this is about surely? I am pretty sure you will still be OK but now hopefully millions more will be too

[Tuber Mirum 125]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

I don't think even the worst possible government would actually force you to enjoy the benefits of free universal healthcare if you were to insist on paying your way.

 

Assuming you could.

 

As stated in my previous post, nap, we won't have a choice once government run healthcare is established. Free you say? What in life is free? Won't we be paying for this through our taxes? I'd rather continue to pay as I have been than put something as important as our health in the government's control and pay fro that. Assuming I could pay? I have been paying for my healthcare since becoming an adult. It may sound like a strange concept but people can and do pay for things like healthcare, food and housing.

People? All people can pay for healthcare? That's interesting news. Or do you just mean people worth mentioning, i.e: those of a certain socio-economic rank and/or ethnic background?

Anyway, I'd be surprised if you didn't have a choice.

Here in Germany nobody is under the illusion that healthcare is free for anyone but the very poorest in society. Anyone who can afford to can also choose to opt out of the state system (a monthly payment clearly distinct from your income tax) and pay much more for a faster and better private service from the same doctors and hospitals much to the detriment of those in the public system.

I reckon you could do that in the USA too.

 

If your conscience allows it.

[Madame Defarge 21]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

I don't think even the worst possible government would actually force you to enjoy the benefits of free universal healthcare if you were to insist on paying your way.

 

Assuming you could.

 

As stated in my previous post, nap, we won't have a choice once government run healthcare is established. Free you say? What in life is free? Won't we be paying for this through our taxes? I'd rather continue to pay as I have been than put something as important as our health in the government's control and pay fro that. Assuming I could pay? I have been paying for my healthcare since becoming an adult. It may sound like a strange concept but people can and do pay for things like healthcare, food and housing.

People? All people can pay for healthcare? That's interesting news. Or do you just mean people worth mentioning, i.e: those of a certain socio-economic rank and/or ethnic background?

Anyway, I'd be surprised if you didn't have a choice.

Here in Germany nobody is under the illusion that healthcare is free for anyone but the very poorest in society. Anyone who can afford to can also choose to opt out of the state system (a monthly payment clearly distinct from your income tax) and pay much more for a faster and better private service from the same doctors and hospitals much to the detriment of those in the public system.

I reckon you could do that in the USA too.

 

If your conscience allows it.

 

Replace the word government with 'big corporations with their own dodgy agendas'.

 

Reading these posts , I suddenly wondered : Has health insurance always been attached to jobs, and if not, what prompted this connection? I discovered that this is a uniquely American concept and this article gives a brief history if anyone is interested. The marriage of jobs to health care has always struck me as a bit odd but I just chalked it up to the fact that medical costs had risen so high that no one could ever afford it without insurance, and that offering benefits was a way to attract employess and promote loyalty among the workers.