New health care system

T

Ted

Active member
I am still amazed at the debate in congres about the health care system. Living in a country where this has been taken care of since the '60, I can't understand the enormous amount of resistance against these basic health care plans.
On the news here (Holland) they told us that this debate has been going on since Teddy Roosevelt. Is this true?? And if it is true, why can't congres get this bill to pass?
In short: I find it truly amazing that the US has more than 45 million uninsured people, but the US congres doens't give the other bills the time of day. As a result nothing happens and this soap continues. Why is this? Is it really because both parties only accept their plan? I heard many causes for public protest on this forum, but it is awefully quiet regarding something so profound!
 
It is called "lobbyist" democracy: The big insurance companies will lose money, maybe even big time, and of cause, they move heaven and earth so this should not happen. Nothing better to have than a monopoly where you make the rules and decide who is included/excluded etc. to keep profits maxed...

Rattler
 
Before WWII health was a matter between you & your Doctor, perhaps with some insurance involved. During WWII Companies began offering insurance as a fringe benifit, due to wage controls(Govt interference with the market economy). As a result people now expect someone to provide them with insurance/health coverage, if not thier Company, then the Nanny State.
 
But doesn't the state have a duty to protect their citizen's? Isn't that why they pay for the armed forces too? Why is it looking after their citizen's basic health care needs so much different? And I am not talking about special medical things that cost billions! Just the rudimentary basic, so that someone doesn't go bankrupt when he has to spend a night in a hospital. Or worse; hospitals that refuse aid, because no one will pick up the bill.
 
Ted said:
But doesn't the state have a duty to protect their citizen's? Isn't that why they pay for the armed forces too? Why is it looking after their citizen's basic health care needs so much different? And I am not talking about special medical things that cost billions! Just the rudimentary basic, so that someone doesn't go bankrupt when he has to spend a night in a hospital. Or worse; hospitals that refuse aid, because no one will pick up the bill.
Click to expand...
Why not give everyone a house, shelter is a basic need. How about a car so they can get to work. Untill recently health care wasn't something that was considered to be a basic service of govt, & to many of us it still isn't. And, yes, they are talking special medical things that will cost Trillions & end up being rationed.
 
Ted said:
But doesn't the state have a duty to protect their citizen's? Isn't that why they pay for the armed forces too? Why is it looking after their citizen's basic health care needs so much different? And I am not talking about special medical things that cost billions! Just the rudimentary basic, so that someone doesn't go bankrupt when he has to spend a night in a hospital. Or worse; hospitals that refuse aid, because no one will pick up the bill.
Click to expand...

In away you could say the State Governments might have that duty, but not the Federal Government.

The founding fathers never intended the US Federal Government to have "control" or influence over the daily lives of its citizens. So every time the Federal Government does anything to "take over" or administer anything for citizens it is a major point of contention. No matter how much it might benefit the citizens, it is a matter of the Federal Government entering areas it was not given explicit approval by it's citizens to do. The fear the "Government" is growing to big and controlling.

This is what makes health care or any other issue have so many different views.

The US Federal Government as originally constituted did not have a mandate or duty to protect it citizens directly . It was to coordinate a United defense of the 13 Colonies. Governing and protecting the populous belonged to the original colonies that became the original states. (For Europeans they should consider the roll of the European Union to its member governments as roughly equivalent to the roll of the US Federal Governments to its states.)

While a National health care system does makes sense, who administers it and how brings up a lot of issues. People might not be able to choose their doctors, not a big deal to those currently without insurance or maybe in HMO but for people who pick their Dr's, it is defiantly a big deal.

Of course cost and who pays and how much is a big scary question. We all know it will get paid until it goes broke. With a government administered Postal System going broke, it makes you wonder if the government is capable of administering a health care system.

Problems with Medicare, Medicaid, and VA Healthcare do not instill confidence.
 
In truth if the US goes abroad to study healthcare it will have to study every country since healthcare in the European Union is not universal.

If you wish to read how a particular country handles healthcare and insurance this is a good impartial link.

http://xnet.kp.org/kpinternational/2007 European Health System Comparisons.pdf



What do European health care models offer the U.S. health reform debate? ​
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Many U.S. policymakers believe that most European countries have achieved universal coverage by using a financing and care delivery system similar to that used by Canada or the United Kingdom. In truth, no European country uses the same system as Canada or the UK, and some European systems use the exact opposite approach: a market-based model involving both competing private health insurance plans and competing private-sector providers of care. Some European countries use a mixed model, combining both private plans and government-based social insurance models. Each European nation has evolved its own pathway for universal coverage. We need to study carefully the array of alternatives embedded in these approaches. The attached chart outlines some of the approaches used in Europe to finance care and achieve universal coverage. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]quoted from above link.[/FONT]
 
We do NOT need to look at Canada for heath care reform. That much is clear. The United Kingdom would be better, and France would be even better.... I still haven't heard one argument from the right side of the line about my option, which I have proposed on every single thread dealing with health care since the topic came up....
 
The top 50 healthcare systems in the world, according to the World Health organization. In bold are the systems that offer at least some kind of universal care, be it through the government entirely or as a baseline option, etc. and in italics are countries currently converting to a nationalized system:


  1. France
  2. Italy
  3. San Marino
  4. Andorra
  5. Malta
  6. Singapore
  7. Spain
  8. Oman
  9. Austria
  10. Japan
  11. Norway
  12. Portugal
  13. Monaco
  14. Greece
  15. Iceland
  16. Luxembourg
  17. Netherlands
  18. United Kingdom
  19. Ireland
  20. Switzerland
  21. Belgium
  22. Colombia
  23. Sweden
  24. Cyprus
  25. Germany
  26. Saudi Arabia
  27. United Arab Emirates
  28. Israel
  29. Morocco
  30. Canada
  31. Finland
  32. Australia
  33. Chile
  34. Denmark
  35. Dominica
  36. Costa Rica
  37. United States
  38. Slovenia
  39. Cuba
  40. Brunei
  41. New Zealand
  42. Bahrain
  43. Croatia
  44. Qatar
  45. Kuwait
  46. Barbados
  47. Thailand
  48. Czech Republic
  49. Malaysia
  50. Poland
Look which one stands out the most.

 
Oh well here goes. Where our new big govt is missing out is govt controlled legalized drugs. Then big brother would control the big banks, the auto indrustry, health care, plus they would also be the drug cartel. Wow then they could really control all of us. But don't worry, if you ignore your rights they will just go away.
 
sgt d usmc said:
Oh well here goes. Where our new big govt is missing out is govt controlled legalized drugs. Then big brother would control the big banks, the auto indrustry, health care, plus they would also be the drug cartel. Wow then they could really control all of us. But don't worry, if you ignore your rights they will just go away.
Click to expand...

What does providing healthcare to people who don't have it, have anything to do with civil liberties? I hear this part alot, people complaining that the government is taking away their rights. But which "right" specifically are they referring to?

Let me remind you that private Healtcare has had 30 years to reform itself, (and their is little arguement on the point that massive reform is needed). Not only has Private Healthcare has refused to change its ways it has actively campaigned against any change. Remember is a TRILLION dollar industry anytype of reform is bad for their bottom line and what they fear the most is a Government plan as that would bring a serious competitor to their little monopoly.

And finally The Other Guys list is correct, the best healthcare systems in the world are government managed programs. We already have government healthcare for the elderly, for veterans, and for our governemnt officials. But the anti-Obama would make you believe that what is good for special cases is NOT good for the general public.

I picked this up from the SF Chronicle this morning...

Health premiums up 131% in last 10 years

 
Last edited:
The whole point of going abroad to several countries is precisely because rarely are two systems alike. You go to various countries (even within the EU) and see what you think would work for your country. Then you implement it.
The best example I think we've seen here when it comes to differences between countries in the EU is the UK and France. We've covered that somewhat so I don't think folks here will think that every EU member has the same medical coverage system.
And no, you don't have to go to every country.
For example, if you sent guys to study the medical system in let say, Cameroon, it probably wouldn't have been a very good use of government funds. Okay, so maybe you'll send two guys or something just incase you can pick up anything valuable (like an example of what not to do) but otherwise, I'd say we're looking at the upper tier EU countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands etc.), upper tier Asian countries (Singapore, Hong Kong - yeah know it's not a country but behaves like one -, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan...) and other places that reputedly have excellent systems.
You'll find a lot of systems, a lot of approaches, a lot of successes and a lot of failures in every country. I believe that America has the ability to make such a thing work. So far a bulk of the argument against health care reform has been something along the lines of "Americans are too stupid to pull this off" which has been reworded in various ways. I find it hard to believe people would say that and still claim to be the best country in the world. America can do it. You just have to fight off the folks who are getting filthy rich off the current system.


Chukpike said:
In truth if the US goes abroad to study healthcare it will have to study every country since healthcare in the European Union is not universal.

If you wish to read how a particular country handles healthcare and insurance this is a good impartial link.

http://xnet.kp.org/kpinternational/2007 European Health System Comparisons.pdf



What do European health care models offer the U.S. health reform debate? ​
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Many U.S. policymakers believe that most European countries have achieved universal coverage by using a financing and care delivery system similar to that used by Canada or the United Kingdom. In truth, no European country uses the same system as Canada or the UK, and some European systems use the exact opposite approach: a market-based model involving both competing private health insurance plans and competing private-sector providers of care. Some European countries use a mixed model, combining both private plans and government-based social insurance models. Each European nation has evolved its own pathway for universal coverage. We need to study carefully the array of alternatives embedded in these approaches. The attached chart outlines some of the approaches used in Europe to finance care and achieve universal coverage. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]quoted from above link.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
I think that the persons referring to the loss of civil rights also think that government intervention leads to communism and tyrannie. We are talking about a system where anyone has a basic medical healthplan. In Holland we also have some sort of private-public partnership, where the government garanties the health-care providers that they will pick up the bill when the victim can't pay. This is the point where you can choose: "Why should I give a toss about my fellow countrymen? He is so dumb to have an accident or sickness, so let him pay!" Things like helping others aren't a priority on your social calendar. Or you can say;"We all live in the same country, so why not help eachother some?" This does not mean that we all agree to have the same income, same car and same housing.....
 
Precisely Ted, precisely.
If we're going to call ourselves a people under one flag, why is it that helping each other out in a time of need be such a bad thing? Or you can just ditch the flag and go on your separate ways. You think the bulk of those guys with billions of dollars care about country? A few do, most do not. They see it as a way to fool the rest of us into agreeing with avenues to enrich them.
We should not allow actions that harm the rest of us.
Not saying it's a zero-sum game where when they win, the rest of us lose. It doesn't always work that way but when they collude with one another to enrich themselves while ripping us off with expensive but shoddy goods or services, that should not be tolerated. And yes, they use the national flag, ideas like patriotism etc., to try to make us be afraid of disagreeing with them.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
The whole point of going abroad to several countries is precisely because rarely are two systems alike.
Click to expand...
I hope the politicians in the US wanting to reform the US Health-care system have all ready studied the health care systems of other countries. I hope they are incorporating the best features of the workable plans from other countries. (If they have not, then that is a very good reason why we should not support reform).
From the Other Guys post the US health care system is 37th in world. Maybe reform is not what the US needs. Maybe improvement can be accomplished by working within the current system. People are so used to the US being #1 that #37 looks bad.
Strikes me as funny that someone who lives in a country that is not even listed in the top 50 health-care systems would be telling people in the US what they should do.;)

the_13th_redneck said:
For example, if you sent guys to study the medical system in let say, Cameroon, it probably wouldn't have been a very good use of government funds. Okay, so maybe you'll send two guys or something just incase you can pick up anything valuable (like an example of what not to do) but otherwise, I'd say we're looking at the upper tier EU countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands etc.), upper tier Asian countries (Singapore, Hong Kong - yeah know it's not a country but behaves like one -, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan...) and other places that reputedly have excellent systems.
Click to expand...
Since South Korea, Taiwan are not listed higher than the US in the world health-care systems we can skip them.
the_13th_redneck said:
You'll find a lot of systems, a lot of approaches, a lot of successes and a lot of failures in every country. I believe that America has the ability to make such a thing work. So far a bulk of the argument against health care reform has been something along the lines of "Americans are too stupid to pull this off" which has been reworded in various ways. I find it hard to believe people would say that and still claim to be the best country in the world. America can do it. You just have to fight off the folks who are getting filthy rich off the current system.
Click to expand...

Basically, this argument has been promoted by non Americans who really have nothing more than second or third hand information to go by. While not necessarily "country bashing" it is decidedly meaningless.

American's who believe it is still the best country in the world are not the one's claiming to be "to stupid to pull this off".
 
The ranking is not some kind of Godly definitive authority on how good they *really* are. Most rankings tend to be pretty flawed (like the FIFA rankings... they are notoriously inaccurate and only ranking obsessed folks who don't know a whole lot about soccer give it any credit).
Most critiques of the US health care system I know of are from folks who have actually had to go to hospital or undergo medical treatment in the US who haven't had a fortune to spend.
What do I know?
When I was in the US, I once got hurt playing soccer and had to go to the ER where I waited for 8 hours, got the most ridiculously trivial treatment which consisted mostly of tylenol and was charged in the neighborhood of $200 for it.
That is just ridiculous.
For treatment over here I have never had to wait in excess of 3 hours (and that happened once and was considered a very long wait) with the average about 15 to 30 minutes, got good treatment and didn't have to pay over $100 for it. Most of the treatment I got was in the neighborhood between about $30 to $50 maybe... some as less as $10.
So how that list goes about doing its business is beyond me.
I've pretty much explained this point to death now.
 
I really don't think theres any question that health care in the US needs to be reformed. Agree with the current plans or not there is probably going to have to be some type of public option, competition between insurance companies has to be opened up, health care corporations need to be held accountable for defensive treatments and tort reform needs to be looked at in some form or another.

Currently the US has an incrediable health care infrastructure capable of great treatment, the only problem is access to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top