OK, now that I have your attention I will ask a question about national health insurance in the US. (I am tired of seeing questions like "why do conservatives want to deny poor children health insurance, and for once I decided to respond in kind, to illustrate the absurdity.) We know from experience in other countries that government control of health care results in rationing to save costs, and the waiting periods and "triage" that goes with it. Many times, procedures are not performed on patients because of their age. Even if one company does this in the US, there's an ability to "shop" for different insurance providers. If the government ran it, there's only one game in town. Shouldn't we "fix" the health insurance system by REMOVING some of the distortion resulting from existing government regulation, rather than make it worse? Nost importantly, what's YOUR solution? Thanks. Many good answers. Again, I apologize for the "headline," but sometimes that's the only way to get responses.
Other - Politics & Government - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If it iis free regardless of the over all poor quality and lack of skilled doctors they'll take it. They will punish the entire country by lower medical standards, to wit the good doctors will go to countries that pay and our new doctors will be whats left.
2 :
You have to realize that with private health insurance now, people are denied treatment for a lot of things and they are denied treatment by the doctor they would want. It's not called rationing, but how different is it? Right now, we have national health insurance for the elderly - it is called medicare. Elderly patients are not denied treatment for their age. In fact, this is one of the biggest and costliest economic problems - they aren't denied coverage. Typically, of the entire lifetime cost of a person's healthcare, most of it is spent in the last few months of your life. This is done to give you an extra few months. It is kind of stupid. You deny coverage when a person is young and treatment can have a significant effect on the quality of thier life and have limitless treatment when they are about to die. Really, the solution to most of the cost of healthcare is to give MORE treatment to younger people and less treatment to terminal, dying patients. It's a tough decision and I don't know how you enact it I think it requires people to take a realistic look at things.
3 :
The problem is that much of the regulations have been removed and the drug and insurance companies have the ability to deny services and charge huge prices for their products. We need a basic system where those that cannot afford insurance can still get aid. We also need to be able to bargain with the drug companies instead of allowing them to charge whatever they wish. I want the same health care system that Congress has. That would be ideal but as long as politicians are in the back pocket of the corporations we will get more of the same inadequate services.
4 :
The major distortion in the health care industry today is not government regulation, it's the insurance industry. They exist to make a profit, and making a profit requires denying claims as often as possible. This causes hospitals to charge excessive prices to everyone so that they can break even after half of them are denied. I don't necessarily subscribe to universal health care, but I do subscribe to universal health insurance. The Medicare system works very well, at an administrative cost of only 2 to 3 %. If we extended Medicare to all citizens, it would level the playing field a lot. People could opt out if they wanted to, and rejoin when they wanted to. This will, of course, never happen because the insurance companies contribute major campaign funding to all candidates.
5 :
We also know that government control of health care results in EVERYONE having health care. The system is places like Canada and Britain is not as broken as we pretend it is. EVERYONE gets health benefits. EVERYONE is taken care of for their most basic needs. And if you want to pay more for better service, you can, and people there do. I challenge you to show that the elderly are not taken care of in countries like these. It simply isn't true. Meanwhile, the "why do conservatives deny poor children insurance" argument is actually pretty sound. Millions of people, including children AND the elderly, do not have health insurance in our country. MILLIONS! And it is not because of government regulations. It is because it costs lots of money to have insurance and they cannot afford it. Seems to me that universal health care sponsored by the government is a MUST. The alternative is millions of children AND elderly people not getting the help they need. Health insurance companies only care about profits in our system. They are not going to help those in need without government sponsorhip or legal obligation. The past 50 years has proven that to be a fact.
6 :
You're partly correct. There's no question socialized health care has its drawbacks. The "allure" in the US comes simply from the fact that our system of health care is obviously broken--and since there is,as yet, no seriousl effort by policy makers to really address the problems, a lot of people are looking for alternatives on the theory that anything would be better than the mess we have. And--the cold hard truth is that some of the socialized systems are working better than US health care right now. I'm not in favor of government control of helalth care, etither--just point out the realities. BUT--you are off base in simply saying "get rid of regulations." That won't solve the problems. We do need the removal of some bureaucratic rules/regulations/red tape. But--we also have to have sensible regulation. To take a simple example: should a doctor or an insurance accountant make life-and -death decisions about medical care for a patient? The reality is that you need rules to guide policy--and those rules have to be effective and well thought out. As for solutions" first of all, we need comprehensive reform--and it needs to be drastic. That DOES NOT mean moving to socialized medicine. Here are some areas that badly need addressing: >tort reform to rein in inappropriate malpractice cases/awards >Reform the Medicare/medicaid system to allow "Independant Living" as a option (this one change woudl improve care fro the elderly, and save a minimum of $50-100 BILLLION annually) >Restore the FDA's authority to regulate new/existing medications (as it stands they are a paper tiger). >Restore public health services. Many peopledon't like te idea of "spending taxpayer money" on clinics, etc. for the poor. So what we've got is emergency rooms trying to provide care--at two or three times the cost. And, since lower-income groups are also getting less health education as a result of current policies, the need for medical care--and the cost of providing it--is going through the roof. Not providing such public health services, in short, costs more in the long run than providing them >We have to sit down ant think about how to make private health insurance affordable--either that or work out some way employers can afford to provide it. Right now, that issue isn't being seriously addressed. You'll note that what I've suggested involves a mix of both public and private health care. That's vital--you cannot have access to health care for everyone purely on a private sector system. And the only other alternative is government-controlled health care. As I said--extensive reforms are absolutely necessary. And--if they are not forthcoming soon, the demand for SOME sort of change will become overwhelming. Andthat will lead only to socialized medicine. We either fix the system--and I mean real changes, not "get rid of some regulations" or other half-measures--or we end up handing the whole thing over to the government. Take your pick.
7 :
No group who genuinely wants to reduce health care and make it affordable, would support the largest negative factor, causing the most harm- trial lawyers. Michael Moore gave the trial lawyers (partners in socialism) a pass, in Sicko, what does that tell you? The people who cry about evil drug companies and evil insurance comapny, support trial lawyers. Instead of exploiting people who suffer (liberals primary targets) a positive solution would be to stop personal injury attorneys from profiting on 30% - 40% contingency fees, from frivolous law suits. The USA is the only country who allows the loser, in a law suit, to be not repsonsible for the legal expenses, the innocent party incurs, defending themselves from these ridiculous law suits. No wonder, health care costs are a bigger problem in the US than countries who don't allow trial lawyers from terrorizing our way of life.
8 :
Very good answers. I am impressed. My solution would be to end capitalism when it comes to health care. Law suits drive up doctor and hospital costs. A panel set up in every state to decide if a lawsuit has merit or not and set ranges for payment if they do, would be a good start. Paying 6 or 7 dollars for a couple of Tylenol is ridiculous as are most hospital charges. Ever wonder why hospitals have an office designated only to take care of disputed bills? Doctors that demand you come in every few months to continue getting meds for high blood pressure are just wanting the office visit money. Taking a blood sample every 3 months to check blood sugar when you are checking it yourself is just a money making scheme. I don't mind doctors making a good living, they deserve, it but running people through like cattle is over the top. If they stopped this practice we wouldn't have to wait an hour to see one. Dentists that want to do an xray every other visit is the same thing .Everyone should be able to afford insurance. Even companies that provide group rates pay way too much which causes lower wages. A lot don't know it, but the workers 150 dollars a month for health insurance is a lot less than the companies share of it.
9 :
Well, you're wrong when you say that other countries have miserable healthcare. I have many friends in Europe and Canada who have zero complaints about their system, except for the magazines they have in the waiting room. I wish that was my only complaint for our healthcare system. That whole concept about these countries being unhappy is just propaganda from the US health insurance companies. Try talking to people that utilize the national healthcare in Canada, UK, France, etc.. You'll find that most citizens are very satisfied knowing that when they get sick, they get cured. Money is irrelevant. Isn't it materialistic and down right evil to put $ over the well being of humans. I don't get how people can argue anti-abortion/pro-life and then tell a 9 year old girl "tough luck" because her parents can't afford the required operation to keep her alive. Sometimes, I'm ashamed to be an American citizen where we hold $ higher then human life and well being.
Read more discussions :
- What health insurance company is best for a child
- What age is best to complete fathering babies from...
- When talking to a child in a health care setting w...
- Is dental included in child support/court ordered ...
- How can I explain that not everyone is a good or n...
- In California, are you required to have health ins...
- Do conservatives agree with Bush's veto of child h...
- Why is giving citizens housing, food, utilities, h...
