Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[morethanpretty]

thanks for pointing it out.

[TheMercenary]

It comes down to some broad problems with the whole Bill which have raised most of the objections.

1. The devil is in the details and so far there are few details being released.

2. How is it going to be paid for.

3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations. Even the state of Mass has pretty much failed in it's process to enact universal care.

I think most people agree that something must be done.

And this from the news about Canada's national healthcare system:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...335rGu_Z3KXoQw

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is why the cost-cutting part of the plan has to be in the biggest and boldest print. So far it has been the weakest part.

And that, I'm certain, could have been argued and a compromise could have been established, but the price point wasn't what the majority of the opposition was arguing. It was the concept, not the cost, of government provided health care that people have been furious over. At its core, this is disturbing -- that we are the most powerful country on Earth and will send our military to the other side of the planet at any cost under the banner of spreading democracy and goodwill, but we will fight each other so fiercely under the label of pro-American values because we do not want to extend a hand to a fellow citizen who cannot afford a life saving medical procedure. What does that say about us as a society and our culture? Our priorities? That there are groups that have risen up and gnashed their teeth, screamed some nonsense about how the constitution is being trampled upon when it was proposed that we might try to take care of our own as if it were some sinister concept that will take our country down the same path as the political group that exterminated the jews in the late 1930s. What. The. Hell.

I wonder how these same people would react if they found out that those who cannot afford a lawyer are offered public defenders paid for with tax payer money. How come no one is up in arms about giving aid to potential criminals that don't have enough or don't want to pay for their own lawyer? Public schools, a public police force, the fire department... all of these have private options. I want to see these people up in arms about UHC take such a verbal stand against those government provided services. Where's all that anger?

In the process of becoming this distrusting of each other, this afraid, we're hurting our communities. Not only that, but we're continuing to slide into disadvantage in the global market because we can't work these issues out.

The Woodstock site is also believed to hold an edge over the US states of Missouri, Kansas, Michigan and Alabama, which all sought to attract the plant, because health-care costs for employees in Canada are half those in the US, the Journal said.

We've lost countless jobs and lives because we can't work out something considered so simple and fundamental in every other industrialized nation on this earth. I'd just want to know why it is currently considered so courageous to stand up against the ideals of UHC and in favor of such petty selfishness.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It comes down to some broad problems with the whole Bill which have raised most of the objections.

1. The devil is in the details and so far there are few details being released.

2. How is it going to be paid for.

3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations. Even the state of Mass has pretty much failed in it's process to enact universal care.

I think most people agree that something must be done.

And this from the news about Canada's national healthcare system:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...335rGu_Z3KXoQw

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/01/2...e-system/3783/

Here is one of the posted remarks from the article you linked to.
August 17, 2009
8:57 am
Link

We in Canada are shaking our heads at the US paranoir over healthcare. We have universal healthcare in Canada and yes, every now and then we complain and bitch about waiting times, but man, we would NEVER give it up. Everyone is covered and you don’t go into debt when you are sick. You don’t pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance. Anyone can walk in a hospital or docter office and get ALL the help they need. Sometimes you may have to wait but if your life is in danger you are rushed through. To the American people - you are being bamboozled. Canada, England and most of the Europe has universal health care. I feel sorry for Americans. You have no idea. This isn’t about socialism or communism or whatever else your politicians and insurance agents tell you. It is about giving healthcare to everyone, those with money and those without. God help you.
— Margaret

I have a friend in Canada. He goes to the doctor and always gets treated. Even if it is a sore throat. They take a pre-emptive approach. He seems to get better health care than I.

I have an aquaintence who could not get treated for a serious illness who moved to Canada because she could not get the treatment here. She is doing so much better now and that is because of the Canadian health care system.

[DanaC]

3. Programs administered by other countries with less than 1/15th the size of our population or budget are not models of success when it comes to providing heathcare to their populations.

The NHS provides a damn good service in Britain. There are gaps, yes, but there are gaps in your system too. Personally, I'd say it is a model of success for all but a very few unlucky people.

[TheMercenary]

Well here are some news items about the Canadian system.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fra...143/story.html

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/06...eads-to-death/

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-its-toll.aspx

[skysidhe]

no thanks

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The NHS provides a damn good service in Britain. There are gaps, yes, but there are gaps in your system too. Personally, I'd say it is a model of success for all but a very few unlucky people.

All I am saying is that our systems are bloated and inefficient and maybe if they were the size of yours they would not be so. There are way to many factors in the US system of delivery that most other contries do not have to contend with and mainly that is the outside influence of business interests, private organizations, professional organizations, drug companies, etc. And to take some small countries plans and to try to adopt it in the US would make it be doomed to failure. We need to figure it out, but we do not need to rush it and all the details need to be spelled out before the plan is implemented.

[DanaC]

We have lots of new stories about the things that go wrong in our system...but then they sell newspapers in a way that stories about things going right simply don't.

For every scare story you can find about socialised medicine, there will be a similar scare story about your current insurance system.


[eta] meanwhile we're busy breaking our system by farming out more and more of it to private interests and thereby making it less efficient and more costly.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The NHS provides a damn good service in Britain. There are gaps, yes, but there are gaps in your system too. Personally, I'd say it is a model of success for all but a very few unlucky people.

agreed

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well here are some news items about the Canadian system.

I'd rather take the word of real people I know like Dana and my two friends who actually use their universal health care system and like it.


anyway,,,I am done with this subject.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

We have lots of new stories about the things that go wrong in our system...but then they sell newspapers in a way that stories about things going right simply don't.

For every scare story you can find about socialised medicine, there will be a similar scare story about your current insurance system.

No doubt. And I will be the first to tell you that our current insurance system is quite broken and needs to be fixed.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

I'd rather take the word of real people I know like Dana and my two friends who actually use their universal health care system and like it.


anyway,,,I am done with this subject.

As long as you personally have to pay for it I would support it too.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...The House bill starts at 1 Trillion....

Over ten years. That's about a 10% increase more than current spending.

The total cost of the bill over 10 years is estimated at $1.04 trillion

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Over ten years. That's about a 10% increase more than current spending.

From your link:

Neither of the bills covers their costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting the House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. That takes into account the spending changes and revenue increases that would save about $219 billion and bring in $583 billion in new revenue over the same period. The total cost of the bill over 10 years is estimated at $1.04 trillion, and the bill intends to pay for the provisions with spending cuts and a new tax on the wealthy.

The Senate bill approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is less close to covering its costs. According to the CBO, the bill would increase the federal budget by $597 billion in the 2010-19 period, offset by a net savings of $48 billion. Details on the reform bill from the Senate Finance Committee were not available, but it may not include a public plan option and could impose taxes on employer-sponsored coverage.

While the bills make a number of financing proposals, some health experts argue they don't go far enough to rein in costs over the long term.

"There are no substantial proposals to change the system," said Victor Fuchs, Stanford University professor emeritus of economics, health research and policy. "You cannot increase coverage and reduce costs without making substantial changes to the way we finance care and organize the delivery system."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

[DanaC]

Since y'all (the US) have been so forthcoming about the failings of the NHS in recent weeks, our news media has stepped up to defend it. An interesting take on the current American system, and the well-meaning and hard-working medics, doctors, nurses, dentists ,opticians et al who are desperately trying to plug the gaps by working for free:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-21602170/


Worth also checking out the side stories about British conservatives running down the NHS and jumping on the American Right's NHS-bashing bandwagon. This has become a bit of an embarrassing story for the leader of the Opposition, who has spent the last year or so trying to convince the electorate that not only is the NHS safe in their hands, but that they 'are the party of the NHS' and that far from dismantling it they want to invest more. Now one of his own party's MEP's has come out and declared the NHS a 'sixty year mistake', whilst another has published a book which basically calls for it to be dismantled: he must be sitting somewhere with his head in his hands wondering how he can get his hardliners to shut the fuck up :P