The Case For Some Sort Of National Healthcare

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_thnited_states.htm"]http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm[/url]

[quote]1. Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

2. Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

* Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

* Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

* Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

* Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

* Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

* Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

3. Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

* Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

* Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

* Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

* Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

* Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

4. Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services

* Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US

* Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.

* Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)

* Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.

* Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%

* Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

5. Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

* Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits

* Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer

* Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind

* Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved

6. Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public

* Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

* Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country

7. Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient

* Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.

* Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more

* Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care

* Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).

* Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.

* Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised

* Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.

8. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care[/quote]

Edited May 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thought the conclusion was interesting. i liked and agreed, to an extent, with the immoral remark.

[quote]8. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care[/quote]


i also thought the life expectancy etc was interesting, and the efficiency and savings arguments were compelling.


does the counter argument come down to... if you can't hack it and can't pay for it, then too bad so sad for you?

what ever happened to the days when you could just give the doctor a cow for basic medical surgeries? nowadays, the public does not have access to that cow. not that we should be giving cows for everything and paying for everything under the sun.

the answer, is that there is no answer that is moral to these questions. people against these "liberal" ideas just go state their little rhetoric about inefficiency, and are reduced to saying it's simply socialism and immoral. what's sad is they don't realize that it's stealing from the people if they cannot access basic things like this. they don't realize popes have always taught against pure capitalism when it comes to people scrapping it, and this is probably no different.

there are many solutions to helath problems. simply saying the government is bad is not one of them.

[Archaeology cat]

I personally am for socialised medicine to an extent. I think it's horrible that some people in the US can't get health insurance without spending an exorbitant amount of money (thinking of my sister's personal experience at being denied health insurance because she had endometriosis). Yes, Medicaid & Medicare help, but not everyone can get that. And sure, socialised medicine has its problems, too - everything does. But I've yet to have a problem being seen by a doctor when I needed it, and there was no problem when my husband had to have an appendectomy, or when I had my son. So it can be done well.

[Altari]

I am outrageously opposed to socialized medicine. We don't need Nanny paying our way. Perhaps if the government had stayed out of medicine to start with (take a look @ those 1945 statistics), we wouldn't have such a huge health care problem.

[CatherineM]

I have lived in the US without insurance, with great company provided insurance, with a mediocre HMO, and now in Canada with government health care. Being in the US without insurance really makes you feel like you are scum. I was at least lucky enough to live in a town with a medical school, so I could get some care. I loved being able to flash a gold card and get treated nicely in an ER. The HMO was frustrating at times, but usually reasonable. I've found no real change in wait times here. I got in for a mammogram in less than a week, and have had several large health issues dealt with very timely. I guess the main difference here is there are no pickle jars on the counter at the 7-11 for spare change for a sick kid or someone needing a transplant. Here, if you have a sick child, it doesn't completely ruin the family. Instead of worrying about losing your house, you can spend all your effort worrying about you child.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1525751' date='May 12 2008, 05:48 PM']Here, if you have a sick child, it doesn't completely ruin the family. Instead of worrying about losing your house, you can spend all your effort worrying about you child.[/quote]
Exactly!

And I've seen the worry that women have when they get pregnant with no health insurance. I count myself blessed to have been able to just focus on the pregnancy itself, and knowing I could go to the hospital and not have to worry about horrible bills if I needed a doctor and not just a midwife (which I did).

[Altari]

Nearly every state in the US has some kind of socialized health care for mothers. In Illinois, anyone can get state sponsored health care, regardless of income (if you make more, you pay). I believe Wisconsin is the same way (if not the same, very similar). This is becoming more and more common. This myth that people "can't" get health care is a little tiring, especially when applied to children.

I also like to point out that public hospitals cannot refuse service to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Health departments offer immunizations for extremely low cost.

[Archaeology cat]

I didn't know that about Illinois. And yes, I know there are options for pregnant women & children, though these aren't always well-advertised. That being said, there are, in fact, people who have trouble getting the healthcare they need because they can't afford it. People are denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and others make too much for some of the socialised healthcare but can't afford independent insurance (in those states that don't offer it, or at the very least don't advertise it). People shouldn't have to worry about how to afford a needed operation, or if they can afford their medicines.

[CatherineM]

Altari-I raised two foster kids, and there were many years that they were not covered by health insurance. They didn't get what other foster kids got because they weren't legally foster kids since their mother lived with me too. Their mom was disabled, and the government gave us $150/month for them. The oldest also got $75/month in child support, and the youngest got zero from his father. Between the 4 of us, our household income was around $20,000, so too much to get them on medicaid. The youngest had insurance through little league, but it only covered him while on the baseball field. I applied for everything available, not available, etc. I took them to a pediatrician that was willing to see them for free in exchange for barter sewing services. She charged for out of pocket expenses, and I paid $80 each for Hep B shots that they had to have or would be prevented from attending school. Maybe up north, you guys care more about poor, uninsured kids, but where I'm from the powers that be pretty much figure that if poor people die because they are uninsured, then that's just too bad. "if they're going to die, they'd better do so and decrease the surplus population."

[Altari]

When did you raise these foster kids? There are a lot of social programs available to give people a leg up, help when they're in trouble and short term assistance in times of need.

My problem with socialized health care is where does it stop? You do have to deal with substandard health care in socialized medicine. The doctors may be just as good, but there are longer waits for conditions. As an example, 3 years ago I had my gallbladder removed - an "elective" procedure. In the US, without insurance, I would have paid about $15,000 (assuming I didn't utilize state aid) all told, but it was completely taken care of in 6 weeks. In England, last statistic I read, the wait time for gallbladder removal was in the [b]months[/b]. The pain that the person withstood or the liver damage that resulted isn't factored in.

Sweden, which was touted by the socialist groups as the be-all-end-all of socialist wonder, had to turn over their hospitals to private institutions because [i]the government couldn't properly run the health care sector[/i]. Governments are inherently wasteful and mismanage resources.

[CatherineM]

The oldest was 4 in 1989 when he came to live with me. The youngest was a year. The oldest graduated in 2003 in went into the Navy, and the youngest went to live with his dad when his older brother left home. Believe me when I say that I applied for everything possible. When it came to providing for them, I would humble myself on my knees if necessary. I stood in line at the Salvation Army for Christmas presents, went to the food bank, sewed uniform patches on 300 jerseys for the youngest's little league fees, and I even made cookies every week for the drug dealers on the corner in exchange for them leaving my boys alone. If I could have gotten them on insurance, I would have. When the oldest was 16, he got up in the middle of the night and stubbed his toe on a chair, and promptly punched the chair and broke his hand. We sat 18 hours in the waiting room, and I was still paying the bill when he left for boot camp.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Altari' post='1527646' date='May 14 2008, 01:55 AM']My problem with socialized health care is where does it stop? You do have to deal with substandard health care in socialized medicine. The doctors may be just as good, but there are longer waits for conditions. As an example, 3 years ago I had my gallbladder removed - an "elective" procedure. In the US, without insurance, I would have paid about $15,000 (assuming I didn't utilize state aid) all told, but it was completely taken care of in 6 weeks. In England, last statistic I read, the wait time for gallbladder removal was in the [b]months[/b]. The pain that the person withstood or the liver damage that resulted isn't factored in.[/quote]
It really depends on which part of England you're in, to be honest. Just as health care varies from city to city in various states, it does here, too. As anywhere, some hospitals are better than others. In Liverpool I've never had a problem. A close friend in Lincolnshire had to wait maybe 2-3 months for her hip surgery, but that's comparable to what I had to wait for my knee surgery in the US. You can choose to go to a private (non-NHS) doctor here and get private health insurance if you like, but I've yet to see a need for it.

[Adrestia]

It would be really nice if cancer treatment for adults was even partially socialized. Pediatric cancer treatment protocols are more uniformly applied at different centers across the country. Money is a big reason (but not the only reason) why the same cannot be said about adult cancer treatment protocols. It makes me sad.

[dairygirl4u2c]

my cousin opted out of his plan, and he gets 200 a month for it... he's only insured for catestrophic stuff... and with 200 a month, he can easily afford check ups and even more serious things

the problem wiht insurance is decuctibles are too low and premiums too high. and then people abuse it cause they can. and then it's too much cost for everyday people.

the solution, is to help some people who are poorer, get gov co pay..... that gives benefits of capitalism, shopping around etc and choice... and allows ability to pay. using the savings on those who cannot aford it at all.

we could socialize the whole thing, and save a bunch of money... but we'd run into lines and people think socizing things is inherently bad,even if it's more efficient, which it could be if it was done right. eg copays etc.

the only arguments i hear against helping hte poor is.... government is bad.. and arguments taht only apply if we socialized the who thing.

saying "socialism" doesn't count as an argument in and of itself, especially when it's not.

i really suggest peole go back and read through that link.. cause a lof of comments here reflect taht they have not read it very well.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1529917' date='May 16 2008, 02:14 AM']we could socialize the whole thing, and save a bunch of money... but we'd run into lines and people think socizing things is inherently bad,even if it's more efficient, which it could be if it was done right. eg copays etc.[/quote]
Run into lines? Not sure what you mean by this. Wait times? I don't really see much difference in going to a doctor here in the UK than when I was in the US. And by the way, yes, I do have a choice in which doctor I go to. There are a few doctors at the practice I go to, and I can request which one I'd rather see. If I don't like any of those, I can switch to a different NHS practice. There is a co-pay for prescriptions (I think it's around £7), but not one for doctors, though I wouldn't mind if there were one.