big news in healthcare

[Jill]

There have been plenty of assumptions on both our current political threads-and I'm certainly not the only one making them.
I'm asking honestly, and not just to you but to anyone: how much are you going to lose if we get nationalized health care? Do you know for sure if that cost is greater or less than the current burden of taking care of the uninsured? Is one way or the other better for our nation's productivity? Do you agree or disagree having a healthier populace is better for us as a country?

I get that you're against it, but I don't understand why. Unless it really is as simple as "THOSE PEOPLE-MY STUFF."

Lowrise, assumptions are one thing, but declaring an individual's opinion for them is another. Please try not to do that when it comes to me, okay?

You can google and find tons of material about why many people are not in favor of socialized medical care for the USA.

Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place. I have a serious and chronic health issue and being able to have the great doctors and providers I do, and the hope of advancements in medicine, are very personally important to me.

Another part of it is this wide perception of entitlement. It really does not sit well with me when I and many others like me have made serious personal sacrifice to build what we've built, and every day make choices about what we should do, vs. what we'd like to do. I can really think of more fun ways to spend my own health insurance premium, for example, but again we get back to my feelings about personal responsibility.

 

[LowriseMinis]

Anything that I've said about anyone's opinion comes from what's been said (or typed). That is the impression I get and I apologize if it's incorrect.

As far as the degradation of services: I can see how the quality of a huge health care system may not be as great as the care you get through a private insurer. What I'm not quite getting is how a national healthcare system affects the quality of those private services. Maybe the care we get under a national system isn't as great, but if the alternative for some is no care, isn't that still better?

Entitlement is bad, yes. I agree. I'm constantly annoyed at the people who sits on their butts and do nothing but take and I hope that we can overhaul our welfare system to help put a stop to those abuses. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to go about that, personally. But there are a lot of people out there who are trying to do the right thing. They are working, they are going to school, they are trying to get into a better position. They are making those hard choices and those sacrifices. And they're coming up short.

While these people are making that climb, should they have to go without insurance? Because they are working, many of them don't qualify for low-income assistance. There's little to no support for these upper-low income to lower-middle class folk. I don't want anyone thinking they deserve to be cradled by the state or nation, but I'm appalled that people have to choose between getting an education and being able to afford to pay their rent, or between buying food or paying for a doctor's visit.

Those are not choices people should be having to make if they're already making reasonable sacrifices. I think if there is anything we can do to help Americans who are caught in that gap-tuition assistance, tax reduction, health care, social services...I think that is the moral, socially responsible thing to do.

As an aside (and I may have said this before) I never understood how anyone could want to say on some kind of government assistance until I was on unemployment myself. I was getting more then than I'm making now that I'm working, and if I stayed on it would have been eligible for more assistance from the state. So I'm working, making less, and getting no help. No wonder people mooch!

 

[Sonya]

Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place

This is one of my big fears with a socialized/nationalized healthcare system.

I know many Canadians have responded that their system is working for them....living on a border state...I've gotten a totally different impression. I have met, talked to, and friends with many Canadians (including a couple relatives) who would paint you a whole different picture of their system...and it's not a pretty one. Quality is just one concern with them (along with having to wait eons for procedures/tests) and many come to the U.S. for treatment and pay for it out of their pockets. I don't know where they will go in the near future.

 

[minifancier]

Name just ONE thing the Government does well, ( Besides Collect Taxes) ??

Some times you can't compare medical in Canada to what may take place here in America two different forms of Government and one that really want to get a hold of more and more control over its people all the time. THINK NAIS, if you don't believe that.

And when Government gets involved into things those things go to heck in a hand basket quickly.

And as many Baby Boomer's get older now and retire WHO do you think will get the quickest medical care? Those of younger age that can still contribute to "the system" that is who. And the older you are the more likely you are going to get pushed back further and further into the abyss.

Till finally you won't get help or the bare minimum help and then die and then The System benefits, as they get they younger generation keeping healthy.

 

[crponies]

Another thing to think about is this - the government does not generally get things for the lowest price. They often pay way more than necessary for things. I remember when I was doing custodial work for a home health agency they had this paper that showed what medicare would pay for things like gauze and such. Some of those prices were outrageous. They were way higher than necessary. If the government wants to spend my money so badly they could at least get the best deals possible. Not that I am in favor of a national health care system; I just wanted to share one of the reasons I am opposed to it.

 

[Minimor]

Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place

This is one of my big fears with a socialized/nationalized healthcare system.

I know many Canadians have responded that their system is working for them....living on a border state...I've gotten a totally different impression. I have met, talked to, and friends with many Canadians (including a couple relatives) who would paint you a whole different picture of their system...and it's not a pretty one. Quality is just one concern with them (along with having to wait eons for procedures/tests) and many come to the U.S. for treatment and pay for it out of their pockets. I don't know where they will go in the near future.

As someone stated earlier, sometimes, for some things, there are wait times. Sometimes those wait times are unacceptable, and some patients do go south of the border to get faster treatment. Many, many times, though, treatment/testing is very prompt--wait times are next to nothing. I waited less than two weeks to get in for my bronchoscopy, and after the test was finished I was in the hospital having surgery less than two weeks after that. I can name you a whole list of other people that have had to have various tests and procedures and treatments done that get in very quickly for whatever it was they needed. I've known people in the US that actually had to wait and worry longer for the same procedure/test/whatever. We get in for our testing or surgical procedure without any hassle at all over whether or not our insurance will cover the cost or if we need to go to a different hospital that is within the coverage area of the insurance policy...

We do not snipe at each other about how if we can't afford health care or choose to pay for something else rather than an insurance policy we cannot afford then we don't deserve to have health care...

 

[LowriseMinis]

As far as the degradation of services: I can see how the quality of a huge health care system may not be as great as the care you get through a private insurer. What I'm not quite getting is how a national healthcare system affects the quality of those private services. Maybe the care we get under a national system isn't as great, but if the alternative for some is no care, isn't that still better?
...While these people are making that climb, should they have to go without insurance?

If anyone has answers/evidence on these I would honestly love to hear them (Google isn't helping me!). Canadians, I know that independent health insurance is still available for purchase up there! Do you have it? It the quality/speed of treatment any better or worse than the national system? Is the quality better or worse because of the national system?

 

[McBunz]

There are very few private clinics but our Conservative Government is pushing for more.. and removing some services from the health care system..

They eliminated the premiums for health care on one hand and reduced services on the other.. makes a lot of sense doesn't it.. The biggest problem

with out health system is people using the emergency rooms as walk in clinics.. for things as simple as the flu. Sure there is some waiting time for

some procedures......but this would only become worse if private clinics became the norm...

 

[Bess Kelly]

I am not opposed to some type of "national health care system" that would help those who need medical treatment. What we probably ALL want, from what I'm reading, is adequate access at some reasonable prices. Let's face it, Medicare & Medicaid is such a system, of sorts, and there is a cost but not everyone pays the cost. At least we need to have some system for the "must have" treatments -- cancer, heart problems, etc. (I'm totally opposed to the incarcerated getting treatment at my expense for unnecessary concerns, like the trans sexual op one wanted

)

These systems are sometimes "used" in an inappropriate manner -- not just by the individuals but by the doctors, med facilities

. Example, the gauze and tape mentioned by another, an aspirin given in a hospital that costs between $4-8 each

There are cases of doctors/facilities that do routinely overcharge. If more were spent on people to honcho such abuse, the costs would be much tighter. Some of the insurance companies have made unrealistic decisions as to allowing treatments that were desperately needed......a better appeal/peer review is needed! People who are grossly overweight need help to get back into shape and be REQUIRED to do so on a national plan. There are so many meds and conditions that are created/needed just due to this ONE problem (look back at the CA info one of you posted!).

One of the reasons that these issues will not be easily resolved is the people we have in Congress/Senate who feel they need to be "pork-bellied" in some way. Another is that the ability to manage/oversee such a system is not going to be well established or have the needed checks in place to stop, cure, penalize, when needed. This is obvious by the way the Welfare system operates in many places. (IMO if you get welfare you need to "pay back".....go to school and train for a job, give numbers of hours via public service, help out at controlled child care facilities so others can afford to work, etc.---- OK, another topic, sorry

I'm on a roll!)

The money saved by both government and individuals would offset the costs, if run properly.

I'm for very heavy actions to stop illegal drug use, traffic, manufacture, etc. Surprised?

By the way, I don't use drugs (RX or otherwise), never a smoker, enjoy an occassional mixed drink or glass of wine, eat very healthy, do not receive welfare, food stamps, etc., earned and receive my Social Security (still work) have NO health insurance (medicare in 2 yrs

), haven't had a prescription given me in over 10 yrs (that was for a skin cream!), pay my own bills and have good credit, own my home and 40 minis, 3 cats (2 feral who stayed) and one dog. Do I want to see others helped? YES -- and I want to see those who are able help out others, similar to outlined above.

I know that the people on this forum who love their animals, work to help rescue, help offer suggestions for treatments (animal & human) -- those people WANT help for all but DO NOT want to feel they are being taken advantage of, or left out from assistance, as the climate is now. It isn't always the government or assistance departments that are at fault, often it is the human element who is "working the system" that creates problems. It will never be otherwise if people do not want to be involved in the correction process.

 

[tagalong]

As someone stated earlier, sometimes, for some things, there are wait times. Sometimes those wait times are unacceptable, and some patients do go south of the border to get faster treatment. Many, many times, though, treatment/testing is very prompt--wait times are next to nothing. I waited less than two weeks to get in for my bronchoscopy, and after the test was finished I was in the hospital having surgery less than two weeks after that. I can name you a whole list of other people that have had to have various tests and procedures and treatments done that get in very quickly for whatever it was they needed. I've known people in the US that actually had to wait and worry longer for the same procedure/test/whatever. We get in for our testing or surgical procedure without any hassle at all over whether or not our insurance will cover the cost or if we need to go to a different hospital that is within the coverage area of the insurance policy...

minimor - I was the one who pointed that out earlier... and you are right - it depends on the procedure that is required, available doctors and beds etc. Some procedures you may need to wait for - and then in another area that same procedure will get you in the door instantly.

I also noted that the same thing happens here - south of the border. Sometimes you get care instantly - and sometimes you wait... and wait... and wait.

And going to the ER for the flu or a cold - that knows no borders. It happens everywhere!

Bess Kelly - excellent, EXCELLENT post!

 

[LowriseMinis]

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion, Bess!

 

[Minimor]

Canadians, I know that independent health insurance is still available for purchase up there! Do you have it? It the quality/speed of treatment any better or worse than the national system? Is the quality better or worse because of the national system?

Perhaps it varies from province to province--here in Manitoba we do not have any private clinics (other than a private abortion clinic or two--don't hear much of those any more, but I think they are still there). There was talk of allowing some privately owned CT scanners, but that ended up being turned down. The private insurance we have--Blue Cross is the most common, not sure if there are others--is merely for "extras". My blue cross coverage gives me extras such as semi-private hospital room, ambulance, vision care, prescription drugs, dental, chiropractor, massage therapy, special duty nursing, prosthesis, and various medical appliances such as an iron lung if it were needed... My Blue Cross has nothing to do with quality or speed of treatment. Cost? I pay just over $10 per month for my Blue Cross coverage.

 

[LowriseMinis]

I wasn't quite sure how to phrase my question right, but I think you did a good job of answering it, Minimor!

 

[Minimor]

Oh, I also meant to add that Manitoba has never had any health care premiums for us to pay--at least not in the 30+ years that I have lived here.

There are some incidental fees that we pay for some treatments; one example is a tray fee for day surgery--several years ago I had a very large mole removed from my back. Because that was doctor-ordered due to concerns over skin cancer, I paid nothing for the procedure. Had it been a mole I was having removed for cosmetic purposes, I would have had to pay a tray fee at the time--I think then it was about $15. Now from what I have heard, that tray fee would apply even to a surgery such as the one I had to remove that mole from my back. I'm not exactly sure, but I do know the fee applies to more procedures now than it did at one time. It still doesn't apply to people who are admitted to hospital for surgery. We pay for such things as doctor's certificates for missing work for medical reasons ($7 or $10, depending on which clinic you use) and we pay if we have to have a medical form filled out by the doctor--whether it's for life insurance purposes or for things like a pilots or Class 1 drivers license. If we have a doctor's appointment & miss it without cancelling 24 hours ahead, we get billed for that.

 

[Danielle_E.]

Jill said

Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place. I have a serious and chronic health issue and being able to have the great doctors and providers I do, and the hope of advancements in medicine, are very personally important to me.
Another part of it is this wide perception of entitlement. It really does not sit well with me when I and many others like me have made serious personal sacrifice to build what we've built, and every day make choices about what we should do, vs. what we'd like to do. I can really think of more fun ways to spend my own health insurance premium, for example, but again we get back to my feelings about personal responsibility

The first thing that puzzles me is what I heard your President say was that anyone that has healthcare provider that they are happy with and can afford to pay the premiums that they can stay with that. Perhaps I am wrong but I am pretty sure that is what I heard. If that is factual than I don't see why you would be worried about losing quality of care. The system that he seems to want to put into place, correct me if I am wrong, is not a universal care system as we have here in Canada, paid by tax $$. I understood that he wants to find affordable type blanket insurance that people could buy into a type of universal policy at much reduced cost so that at least they get "basic" care. I don't see anything wrong with that at all and it would help millions of Americans at least when sick not go untreated because at the moment they don't have "affordable" healthcare. Your premiums for healthcare are in my opinion absolutely ridiculous (the cost of your presciption drugs are also exhorbitant) and I wonder how the average family can afford them if their employer don't offer a healthcare plan. I don't understand why you would deny a family the right to "basic" healthcare because you feel they aren't entitled because they have either fallen on tough times, which can happen to any of us at any point, whether you work for someone else or are a proprietor of a business. I think "universal" health care is a matter of "dignity". My opinion is if you pay taxes, which we all do and HIGH taxes, whether in the U.S. or Canada, that "healthcare" is sometehing that should never be denied to anyone in a civilized country. Your lack of a health care program that works for your country reminds me of people in third world countries doing without something so basic as healthcare. You will allow billions to be spent on wars, you will generously give to other countries via your taxes and yet you will deny the universality of everyone in the U.S. being able to seek medical care when needed. To me that is absolutely mind boggling.

 

[Elsa]

Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place. I have a serious and chronic health issue and being able to have the great doctors and providers I do, and the hope of advancements in medicine, are very personally important to me.

In order to increase access, cost would increase and quality would decrease. It's called the iron triangle. I don't know that many people who want "socialized" health care would be very happy with the decrease in quality as a result.

Also, preventative care starts with responsibility. Eating right, exercising etc are all things we can do to make ourselves healthier, yet many people still eat junk and get little to no exercise. When a problem arises, people will sit around waiting for it to go away and when they are later forced to go to the ER, the dr's visit that could have been $100 becomes and acute cost of much much higher. In turn, the hospitals absorb that cost and raise prices and insurance companies are forced to raise premiums.

 

[Elsa]

While these people are making that climb, should they have to go without insurance? Because they are working, many of them don't qualify for low-income assistance. There's little to no support for these upper-low income to lower-middle class folk. I don't want anyone thinking they deserve to be cradled by the state or nation, but I'm appalled that people have to choose between getting an education and being able to afford to pay their rent, or between buying food or paying for a doctor's visit.

Very true. Medicaid and SChips are not sufficient. However, if everyone was forced to carry insurance, the same way you're required to have car insurance if you drive, the cost of health care would go down. There would be no outrageous costs to absorb from those who are uninsured. The insurance premiums would in turn go down.

 

[LowriseMinis]

In order to increase access, cost would increase and quality would decrease. It's called the iron triangle. I don't know that many people who want "socialized" health care would be very happy with the decrease in quality as a result.

Now I'm still curious about where the decrease in quality comes in. No one would be forcing everyone to use the nationalized health care. If we did have it, but someone chose to stay with their private insurer, would the quality of their care go down at all? If so, why?

 

[Charley]

I'm guessing... but with a major increase in patients there will not be more doctors, nurse practicioners, etc. So the time spent on each patient will decrease and the quality of care due to this will decrease.

 

[Danielle_E.]

I'm guessing... but with a major increase in patients there will not be more doctors, nurse practicioners, etc. So the time spent on each patient will decrease and the quality of care due to this will decrease.

So in other words it is an advantage at this moment that so many don't have health care and don't seek help when it's needed. The same problem would happen that you mention above if EVERYONE could afford to pay the insurance premiums now that insurance companies charge. So it's a matter of numbers, how many people aren't insured in order to keep your level of quality where it's at now.

I guess I just can't get my head around the fact that, like I said in my other response, that you are willing to spend billions and billions on war expenses, or on bailouts, or sending relief money to all sorts of other countries to help people there but you won't help out your fellow americans by enabling them to get something as basic as healthcare. I still don't get it.