Forums | MacLife

I don't think you'll find anyone who pays attention to the issue who doesn't know that we spend far too much on health care for what we get in return.

I don't think most Americans have the first clue what a screwy health care system we have. It's not a matter of simply spending too much or too little. It's that we spend so much and get such poor outcomes overall.
From infant mortality to life spans ( and everywhere in between) Americans score more closely with second world countries while spending about twice what our industrialized peers do.
The largest single cost we need to look at is the 30% of every health care dollar that is absorbed by the MASSIVE work of simply dealing with 100+ different insurance programs.
After I lost my last job I spent about 9 months working at several medical centers here and in every case, the single largest department was billing. Where highly trained people spent their days deciphering all the various insurance plans to figure out who got billed for what.
It's and absolutely insane system made moreso by the fact that it is a legacy left over from the WWII era.

. . . does this imply that my idea is flawed?

So Farmerkev is afraid that any such program that results from health care reform won't be perfect.

Wake me up when there is any change.

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

We need a basic government funded insurance program which will take the for profit insurers out of the game as far as routine healthcare for people is concerned. Such an arrangement does not preclude fee for service for procedures that program won't cover. Certain elective procedures would not be covered by the public system.

Health care IS being rationed. We may as well ration it sensibly. If you can choose fee for service at the venue of your choice because you feel it's better or because you'd be denied due to a poor prognosis, more power to you.

I really don't understand what people are afraid of.

This

OHIP will now only cover Hunt’s cancer treatment in Buffalo, NY, where the Roswell Park Cancer Institute is the ministry’s only “preferred provider” of IL-2 treatment for metastatic malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. The Ministry of Health has a number of funding agreements with out-of-country health care facilities, which are chosen based on specific criteria.

After much bureaucratic wrangling, Hunt will finally meet with specialists in Buffalo today and find out when he can begin treatment there. But he still doesn’t understand why he and his family have to make the four-hour trip instead of simply crossing the border to get the same medical care in Detroit.

Ministry spokesman Andrew Morrison said the Roswell Park Cancer Institute was selected as a preferred IL-2 treatment provider in May because it seems to be favoured by Ontario’s doctors and oncologists at a lower cost to the government.

http://www.windsorstar.com/goes+Buffalo … story.html

Similar situations occur all the time with insurers and their preferred provider lists. Also consider their plight if they were one of the millions of American families that don't have insurance.
Frankly all this whining about waiting or inconvenient travel pales in comparison to the results of our smurfed up system. I wonder how many thousands die each year because they decided to "tough out" an illness rather than spend money on treatment and let their kids go without food or become homeless.

Pariah wrote:

Similar situations occur all the time with insurers and their preferred provider lists. Also consider their plight if they were one of the millions of American families that don't have insurance.
Frankly all this whining about waiting or inconvenient travel pales in comparison to the results of our smurfed up system. I wonder how many thousands die each year because they decided to "tough out" an illness rather than spend money on treatment and let their kids go without food or become homeless.

Yes they do but we're talking about the majority and they are happy with their own coverage.
As far as people dying, who could even venture a guess. How many die not because of money but because they were scared to go and find out they were seriously ill? Once again, who knows.

bedstuy wrote:

... yet there's never any serious attempt by conservative parties in the UK or Canada to get rid of their health care system.  Now I wonder why that is?

Perhaps for the reason Shicky is always telling us, there aren't any conservatives in Canada in the fashion we know.

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

. . . does this imply that my idea is flawed?

You asked what people were afraid of, I wasn't commenting on the rest.
It's the stories like these, and they are numerous, that scare people that currently have good coverage and that's the majority of us.

I was going to respond but Pariah beat me to the punch.

You should watch that Frontline piece comparing healthcare in Great Britain, Japan, Taiwan, Germany and Switzerland.

In all cases, except Britain, government has placed limitations on how much profit insurers can make AND negotiated specific prices for procedures.

Additionally, if you lose your job you don't lose your coverage.

All systems have some downsides. . . ours just appears to have more than the others.

Pariah wrote:

Pharmaceuticals have one of the highest ROI of any industry. Big Pharma is HUGELY profitable.

I cannot figure out why conservatives aren't the least bit concerned about health care denial under our private system while go all little bitch about it when it happens under government plans. All systems have their flaws but health figures dont lie. People who live in Universal care countries live longer and are more healthy.
At half what we pay.

The live longer probably has more to do with unhealthy american diet habits, which you will find skyrockets the cost of any health care the government will provide.

Americans who exercise and eat a healthy diet instead of going to McDonalds and Carls 5 times a week live a very long time.

The problem with our longevity isn't our health care, it's our lifestyle.
Unless you want the government to control that, our lifespan will not change with universal health care.

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Similar situations occur all the time with insurers and their preferred provider lists. Also consider their plight if they were one of the millions of American families that don't have insurance.
Frankly all this whining about waiting or inconvenient travel pales in comparison to the results of our smurfed up system. I wonder how many thousands die each year because they decided to "tough out" an illness rather than spend money on treatment and let their kids go without food or become homeless.

Yes they do but we're talking about the majority and they are happy with their own coverage.
As far as people dying, who could even venture a guess. How many die not because of money but because they were scared to go and find out they were seriously ill? Once again, who knows.

I'm happy with my coverage because I have it. I work for the Commonweath of PA and I now pay 1%. . . used to be free. . . funny, the legislatures' is still free. . .

To receive GA (general assistance) medicaid benefits in PA you must be disabled AND your income must be below $205.00 per month. The catch is that NMP (non money payable) which pays for prescriiptions, if you're disabled or you work and your net income is below $205.00/mo. AND you require health sustaining medication in order to work you can get it. For a lesser class called MNO (medically needy only) if you're not working at least 20 hours/week at minwage or better AND your net income (result of the benefit calculation) is not less than $205 (which is a pretty narrow window) you're SOL.

Those people usually wind up in the ER and get what treatment they can. Follow up is sketchy at best and everyone bears the cost in addition to that of medicaid.

edited to fix incoherence. . .

Last edited by isaly (2009-06-19 7:44 pm)

resedit wrote:

I know you don't like to watch Fox News so you probably haven't seen them, but testimony's from people in Canada and England who had to fight the government, often unsuccessfully, to get care they would have had little trouble getting under health care plans typically provided by employers in America are not at all uncommon, and that's what people are afraid of.

That's anecdotal.  Who is happier with their coverage, on average?

What's the support for a public option, anyway?  Doesn't recent polling show it to be quite high?

My objections to a single payer system are based on our lousy government but I'm not the general public.
This thread isn't about me, it's about the populace in general.