Socialized Healthcare Working Much Better Than the Current US Healthcare System

[acesneverwin]

In Canada, Universal Health Care is our highest national value for the government to support. Everyone has the same access, and landed immigrants and permanent residents have the same rights and access to all health care needs. (READ: My American DIL who was without insurance for 6 years because she could not afford the premiums in the US)

The US health care system is all about profits. I was on an expensive RA drug called "Rituxan" which cost $2000 an infusion and I needed them twice, every 6 months. It was all covered by my extended health care. An American friend of mine was on the same drug, and it cost her insurance company $75,000 for the same two infusions!

This means it cost $71,000 more for the same drug, which was MADE in the USA! That is scandalous. I won't even get into how my RA friends get every possible scan, test, monitoring every time their pinky finger hurts them, and it turns up nothing more than what a good doctor diagnoses in Canada using a little wisdom.

I am glad that we pay more for health care than arms as a country, and that we care for everyone. Canadians make no apologies for a system that is working much better than the American one ever will.

And as for paying $50,000 out of pocket for an operation, it is no wonder the leading cause of bankruptices in the US is medical care.

"Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship."

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study

I have insurance through my employer so I didn't really have to worry but yeah the cost of care in America... it's ridiculous. I broke my hand in June of last year. I'm still getting the things from my insurance stating the price of everything. Two broken bones in my hand and a surgery that lasted maybe 1 1/2 hours... Adding all my bills up I would have had to pay, if I didn't have insurance, over 115,000 dollars!!! That's not including rehabilitation therapy... which I went to twice a week for 3 months... 800 dollars for each session where I sit around and pick up foam blocks with my fingers and pinch some putty! I almost had to pay for one of those sessions cause my insurance lapsed but I got it worked out.

4 weeks ago.. I broke my leg really good. 4 nights in the hospital and a more severe injury needing more extensive surgery than my hand... I can only imagine how much the cost of this is going to add up. I think we need to take care of the out of control medical costs first before trying to fix health insurance.

 

[posthuman]

Health care is a big and sad issue facing the American public, and through the years any attempt to change it for the better for the middle to low class families has been blocked by private banking and private doctors.
I will take some flack for this because some do not want to realize this, but Obama when he first became president in his first term had a plan for 100% government paid health care system. No premiums, no doctors/hospital bills, and no prescription costs for the average everyday American. This was blocked by private doctors spreading fear and false propaganda that people would not be able to pick their own doctors or hospitals if they approved it. This was completely false and was only blocked because they the private doctors would no longer be able to charge more then the standard hospital doctors to do the same procedures......

there is a lot of utter falsehood spread around very effectively over the last 8 years with the purpose of turning public opinion against the POTUS and against nationalizing health care.

i lost my insurance recently due to some pretty crazy circumstances - basically by following the advice of the physician that my insurance company referred me to. if the system that Obama actually wanted had gone into place, i would still have insurance. if the state i lived in had not refused to accept the federal subsidies that were offered to them, i would still have insurance. i wasn't dropped because of 'Obamacare' -- i was dropped because of stubborn partisan politicking and lobbying influence that removed parts of the omnibus bill that prevent companies from treating group policies like individual policies whenever it benefits them but harms the consumer. that's another story though.. a "win" for the GOP that was actually and quite tangibly in my case a "loss" for the taxpaying citizen.

but losing it revealed something pretty interesting - while insured, my co-pay for every regular doctor's visit was $75.
my last two regular visits, with no insurance, cost me $22 each. for exactly the same procedures.
hospitals play a min/max game too - they overcharge people with insurance, so that they can charge more reasonable amounts to the uninsured. if they charge uninsured people too much, they won't return, because they can't afford it, or they won't be able to pay and their bills simply go into default and are never collected. so the "better" your insurance is, the more a hospital charges for your procedure. this factors into the insurance actuary's equation - and influences the insurance brokerage's optimum solution toward higher copays and lower liability - basically worse insurance policies from the point of view of the consumer.

the health care plan that we have now that everyone calls "Obamacare" is not the plan that Obama wanted, not what he campaigned on, and not what he pressured congress for. it's a compromise that tries to implement some of the benefits of standardized, national minimum care while retaining the current for-profit hold on the entire healthcare economy.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's great until you find yourself in Laura Johnson's position. Then it will consist of congestive heart failure, severe endema, and a host of related serious medical conditions which ultimately leave you unable to work, bankrupt, and maybe homeless cycling in and out of the local jail unless you can find a family member to take you in and care for you. But you're "fine" now, and unique in that you're the only one God would never allow that to happen to, so screw everyone else. Hey, I get it. Drink up and praise the Lord.

My free health care consists of three things:

Prayer, Exercise and Hard Work.

Once in a while a cold beer helps out as well.

 

[kennethcadwell]

there is a lot of utter falsehood spread around very effectively over the last 8 years with the purpose of turning public opinion against the POTUS and against nationalizing health care.

i lost my insurance recently due to some pretty crazy circumstances - basically by following the advice of the physician that my insurance company referred me to. if the system that Obama actually wanted had gone into place, i would still have insurance. if the state i lived in had not refused to accept the federal subsidies that were offered to them, i would still have insurance. i wasn't dropped because of 'Obamacare' -- i was dropped because of stubborn partisan politicking and lobbying influence that removed parts of the omnibus bill that prevent companies from treating group policies like individual policies whenever it benefits them but harms the consumer. that's another story though.. a "win" for the GOP that was actually and quite tangibly in my case a "loss" for the taxpaying citizen.

but losing it revealed something pretty interesting - while insured, my co-pay for every regular doctor's visit was $75.
my last two regular visits, with no insurance, cost me $22 each. for exactly the same procedures.
hospitals play a min/max game too - they overcharge people with insurance, so that they can charge more reasonable amounts to the uninsured. if they charge uninsured people too much, they won't return, because they can't afford it, or they won't be able to pay and their bills simply go into default and are never collected. so the "better" your insurance is, the more a hospital charges for your procedure. this factors into the insurance actuary's equation - and influences the insurance brokerage's optimum solution toward higher copays and lower liability - basically worse insurance policies from the point of view of the consumer.

the health care plan that we have now that everyone calls "Obamacare" is not the plan that Obama wanted, not what he campaigned on, and not what he pressured congress for. it's a compromise that tries to implement some of the benefits of standardized, national minimum care while retaining the current for-profit hold on the entire healthcare economy.

Yes and I do blame Obama for not sticking to his guns and compromising what he wanted to do with healthcare, but at the same time the members of Congress republican and democratic alike voted this final Obamacare we have now into place. If they did not like it why did they vote yes? Did they vote yes just so they could blame him later for their fault as well?
The media and public even called many of them out for voting yes on something they did not agree with.
Of course our commander in chief Obama always gets the blame, and I see very little blame going to all the idiots in Congress.

 

[Elin]

Does anyone understand anymore that insurance is about pooling and covering unkown financial risk?

not just about "covering" risk -- about smothering it with premium cost,

"Smothering" risk is a good thing. . .it extinguishes it and makes insurance unnecessary.

Insuring against unknown negative financial impact--liability, or loss of property, health or life--is not a public benefit, nor a moral endeavor, nor an entitlement, nor a right to possess, etc.

It is a financial arrangement to minimize the financial impact of unknown financial risk.
If you do not procure this financial protection, then you bear the financial burden should
such a negative financial impact actually occur to you.

Insurance is a business like every other business. It exists to make money.
One of the side benefits of business is that it provide jobs.
It is the goose that lays the golden egg.
And business survives by providing a product/service people want, at a competitive price.

Private insurance is not a social entitlement program.
Do not confuse private business with social welfare, and
do not try to make private business into social welfare.

So there is no reason for medical social welfare for the whole nation.
For those who need it, the government provides Medicaid and Medicare.

Everyone else should examine where there money is going.
Start with how much is going to social media, etc.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Where do you get this idea that 50 million poor people who can't afford or obtain healthcare or health insurance at the present rates in the private sector have no reason to access healthcare?

Because, the fallacious logic you employed in your post aside for a minute, this false assertion you're making where there's no reason for 50 million people to have healthcare in an environment where it's so expensive (e.g. the most expensive in the entire world, in fact) that the cost of obtaining it is beyond them and 25 million poor wage earners have to file bankruptcy because of it every decade in the U.S. appears to be a form of utter DENIAL.

At best negligent and ignorant, at worse well... wicked.

So there is no reason for medical social welfare for the whole nation.
For those who need it, the government provides Medicaid and Medicare.

Everyone else should examine where there money is going.
Start with how much is going to social media, etc.

 

[Billyd]

What's happened to the Christians in this country? We eagerly support their government spending more than all other countries combined on defending the Athiest "free world", while we deny the citizens of our own country adequate and affordable health care. I am personally ashamed of us. I wonder what God thinks of us!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Some things they're getting right and some things they're getting wrong. For example, they're standing bravely against the rapid slide into utter immorality on the one hand and I very much applaud my brothers and sisters for that. But then they do a 180 degree turn and harden their hearts rock hard against their poor sick neighbors.

The latter behavior is unwise politically (and I'd argue ungodly as well) as healthcare is in a state of inevitable transition due to the astronomically rising cost of it over decades that's brought the U.S. to a place where we now have the most expensive healthcare system in the world per person despite it being far from the best.

We should be using our political clout to influence the inevitable healthcare transition that's occurring to the astronomically rising cost of healthcare in the U.S. over decades so that it aligns well with medical (e.g. ensure adequate healthcare), budget (reduce the costs), and human rights (e.g. respect liberty, religious freedom, etc...) requirements.

Instead, they're engaging in an all or nothing political war with liberals over it and driving away poor sick people from their party who refuse to vote for their own medical and financial destruction.

What's happened to the Christians in this country? We eagerly support their government spending more than all other countries combined on defending the Athiest "free world", while we deny the citizens of our own country adequate and affordable health care. I am personally ashamed of us. I wonder what God thinks of us!

 

[Angela53510]

My free health care consists of three things:

Prayer, Exercise and Hard Work.

Once in a while a cold beer helps out as well.

All it takes is one medical emergency to bankrupt you. Or one serious illness! No one is immune to illness, and many things are entirely treatable, with proper care.

I hope we don't see you in the prayer forum asking for prayer for health, because you can't afford health care, one of these days.

 

[andypro]

Yes and I do blame Obama for not sticking to his guns and compromising what he wanted to do with healthcare, but at the same time the members of Congress republican and democratic alike voted this final Obamacare we have now into place. If they did not like it why did they vote yes? Did they vote yes just so they could blame him later for their fault as well?
The media and public even called many of them out for voting yes on something they did not agree with.
Of course our commander in chief Obama always gets the blame, and I see very little blame going to all the idiots in Congress.

Not one single Republican voted for Obamacare. Not one.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Not one single Republican voted for Obamacare. Not one.

Well that is where you are wrong, as they had them on media asking them why they voted for it when they did not agree with it. It did not get passed without their votes, as there needs to be a 2/3rds vote to approve a bill. Meaning more than half of the representatives had to vote yes on it.....

 

[kennethcadwell]

"Smothering" risk is a good thing. . .it extinguishes it and makes insurance unnecessary.

Insuring against unknown negative financial impact--liability, or loss of property, health or life--is not a public benefit, nor a moral endeavor, nor an entitlement, nor a right to possess, etc.

It is a financial arrangement to minimize the financial impact of unknown financial risk.
If you do not procure this financial protection, then you bear the financial burden should
such a negative financial impact actually occur to you.

Insurance is a business like every other business. It exists to make money.
One of the side benefits of business is that it provide jobs.
It is the goose that lays the golden egg.
And business survives by providing a product/service people want, at a competitive price.

Private insurance is not a social entitlement program.
Do not confuse private business with social welfare, and
do not try to make private business into social welfare.

So there is no reason for medical social welfare for the whole nation.
For those who need it, the government provides Medicaid and Medicare.

Everyone else should examine where there money is going.
Start with how much is going to social media, etc.

Do you think that Medicaid and Medicare are free or cheap ???

If you do you better think again, as I was on Medicaid at one point because I had kidney and liver failure, and even though I could not work for 3 months they still was charging me $90 a month, and they did not cover 100% of my medical bills. I still have over $30,000 dollars in medical bills that have hurt my credit rating.
My dad also is on social security, which means he is on a very fixed income, and the take over $100 dollars out of his check every month and that does not even include prescription costs. He has to get a secondary insurance for that.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Not exactly. H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act initially passed through the House of Congress with 174 Republican Congressional representatives voting for it on 10/08/2009: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/h768

Then it went to the Senate where it passed with changes on 12/24/2009 despite not a single Senate Republican voting for it: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/s396

Then it went back to the House of Congress where it passed on 03/21/2010 with the Senate changes despite not a single Republican Congress person voting for it: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2010/h165

Obama the despot signed it into law on 03/23/2010.

Initially, 174 Republicans did vote for "Obamacare."

Not one single Republican voted for Obamacare. Not one.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

New poll from Kaiser: Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: January 2015 | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Since Kaiser is both a healthcare provider and a private insurance company, I would classify this internal poll conducted by Kaiser employees as biased with extreme prejudice. That said, it's fun to look at the results anyways. This poll was conducted using a statistical random sample of 1503 adults aged 18 and over in the U.S. including the continental U.S. and Alaska and Hawaii.

As you can see Republicans are divided on Obamacare and a political party that's divided on an important issue that affects its members deeply may post very different results in a presidential election than they do locally and for the federal legislature when that election might determine whether or not they can have adequate healthcare or not.

They are millions and millions of Republicans that are poor and struggling with serious health issues that align with the GOP for their traditional family and morality (and for non-Hispanics also often immigration) but whom do not support GOP socio-economics (e.g. monopoly capitalism, free trade, no adequate medical safety net for poor sick Americans, etc...).

These people may not vote for a Republican president in the next election if doing so threatens them with loss of adequate healthcare leaving them to physically deteriorate. Many of their family members may not vote for the GOP candidate either as the burden would shift onto them and they can't pick it up. It's a serious potential election result liability for the GOP if their voters act as a house divided in the next presidential election. Obviously, that would cost them the election.

And it will be their own fault because they engaged in a win or die strategy on something as important as healthcare putting a material percentage of their own base to twist in the wind.

In other words, they are asking a material percentage of their own voters to commit hari-kari. But people don't want to be abandoned to deteriorate physically without adequate healthcare and become financially ruined in a medical bankruptcy. But that's what the GOP is asking them to do though, of course, they're masking it by pretending their "tax credit" solves the problem.

 

[Elin]

Do you think that Medicaid and Medicare are free or cheap ???

No, they simply reduce the cost to the recipient.
Why would anyone think the world's finest medical care should be cheap?

It's a bit much to think one is entitled to free medical care and should not bear the burden of some of the cost when one has an income.

There ain't no free lunch. . .

 

[posthuman]

Well that is where you are wrong, as they had them on media asking them why they voted for it when they did not agree with it. It did not get passed without their votes, as there needs to be a 2/3rds vote to approve a bill. Meaning more than half of the representatives had to vote yes on it.....

actually he's sort of right -- the Dem's had a sizable majority in the Senate and House. only one R vote was recorded as an "aye" - in the House, Representative Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana.

Affordable Health Care Act Senate Vote

Affordable Health Care Act House Vote

One Republican Vote For Health Care Act

the reason for the large Dem. majority then is similar to the reason we have a large Rep. majority in the house now -- just like public opinion was against president Bush (for many reasons, many of them viable, many of them not) and is now against president Obama, people voted in Congressional elections against the sitting president, instead of for or against the actual people running. as any republican candidate was a virtual shoe-in in the last congressional election because, "Obama" -- not so long ago any Democratic candidate was a virtual shoe in, because, "Bush."
honestly in 2007-2008 i was sure that whatever Dem. candidate got the nomination would win the presidency for sure, because Bush had wrecked the economy, started an unjust war, opened up dozens of unconstitutional prisons, initiated an entire new branch of government dedicated to 'big-brotherness' and so on. it didn't really matter who Obama was, all that mattered was that he was not a Republican.
and honestly in 2016 i don't think it matters who the Republican candidate is, he or she will probably win. not on their own merits at all - but because he or she is not a Democrat.

Representative Democracy really works best when voters are not sheep. i am afraid that is not the case in America though.
"popularity contests" may be better descriptors of what we do every 4 years than "debates" and "elections" -- the voters who actually talk and think about issues are a minority.

i wonder if issues will will decide who is elected to leadership in our country, or if memes will?
i am leaning towards memes.

 

[posthuman]

No, they simply reduce the cost to the recipient.
Why would anyone think the world's finest medical care should be cheap?

i think the point is that actually the finest medical care in the world (which is in France, not in America!) comes at a per-capita expenditure that is something like half of what we spend in the USA.

 

[kennethcadwell]

No, they simply reduce the cost to the recipient.
Why would anyone think the world's finest medical care should be cheap?

It's a bit much to think one is entitled to free medical care and should not bear the burden of some of the cost when one has an income.

There ain't no free lunch. . .

Reduce the cost ???

I just said my dad is on a very fixed budget, as he gets only $1,200 a month to live on through social security.
They take over $100 dollars of that for medicare, and that doesn't even cover prescriptions as he has to get a secondary insurance to cover his medicines which means he has to pay more money for that coverage.

I had a private insurance through blue cross and blue shield when I was making $10.50 an hour, or almost $1,700 a month before taxes. I was only paying $75 a month for me and two kids.

Plus like I was saying I had kidney and liver failure and pretty much on my death bed and could not work for 3 months, and then for a little while after only limited work. Even so without a paycheck and not able to work, and then not able to work full time they still wanted to charge me $90 a month.

It is not entitlement as we pay enough in taxes for the money to go as we see it should go.
Our tax dollars that could go to helping others out keeps going to fating the pockets of those in Congress who keep voting themselves raises when they do not deserve raises. You sound like Romney as he ran his campaign, and that type of attitude toward the American public cost him the election.
The government was placed by the people, made up of the people, and is for the people.
That last half seems to get left off in policy making as it is no longer for the people. As the government consistantly shows they care about their own agendas more then the people they are suppose to support and help.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Well I don't put to much stock in news sources or reports on such, but as all I remember when it was passed CNN, FOX, ABC, and other outlets talked to some Republicans on their news casts about why they voted yes if they did not approve of it. If no republicans voted yes, as a few of those sources you and AgeofKnowledge gave, who are these republicans that were on these media sources that said they voted yes???

actually he's sort of right -- the Dem's had a sizable majority in the Senate and House. only one R vote was recorded as an "aye" - in the House, Representative Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana.

Affordable Health Care Act Senate Vote

Affordable Health Care Act House Vote

One Republican Vote For Health Care Act

the reason for the large Dem. majority then is similar to the reason we have a large Rep. majority in the house now -- just like public opinion was against president Bush (for many reasons, many of them viable, many of them not) and is now against president Obama, people voted in Congressional elections against the sitting president, instead of for or against the actual people running. as any republican candidate was a virtual shoe-in in the last congressional election because, "Obama" -- not so long ago any Democratic candidate was a virtual shoe in, because, "Bush."
honestly in 2007-2008 i was sure that whatever Dem. candidate got the nomination would win the presidency for sure, because Bush had wrecked the economy, started an unjust war, opened up dozens of unconstitutional prisons, initiated an entire new branch of government dedicated to 'big-brotherness' and so on. it didn't really matter who Obama was, all that mattered was that he was not a Republican.
and honestly in 2016 i don't think it matters who the Republican candidate is, he or she will probably win. not on their own merits at all - but because he or she is not a Democrat.

Representative Democracy really works best when voters are not sheep. i am afraid that is not the case in America though.
"popularity contests" may be better descriptors of what we do every 4 years than "debates" and "elections" -- the voters who actually talk and think about issues are a minority.

i wonder if issues will will decide who is elected to leadership in our country, or if memes will?
i am leaning towards memes.

 

[Elin]

No, Medicaid and Medicare are not cheap, they simply reduce the cost to the recipient.
Why would anyone think the world's finest medical care should be cheap?

It's a bit much to think one is entitled to free medical care and should not
bear the burden of some of the cost when one has an income.

There ain't no free lunch. . .

Reduce the cost ???

What would the cost be for that health care without Medicaid or Medicare?
Do you think it would be less?
If so, then don't use Medicaid or Medicare, and pay for it yourself.

I just said my dad is on a very fixed budget, as he gets only $1,200 a month to live on through social security.
They take over $100 dollars of that for medicare, and that doesn't even cover prescriptions as he has to get a secondary insurance to cover his medicines which means he has to pay more money for that coverage.

I had a private insurance through blue cross and blue shield when I was making $10.50 an hour, or almost $1,700 a month before taxes. I was only paying $75 a month for me and two kids.

Plus like I was saying I had kidney and liver failure and pretty much on my death bed and could not work for 3 months, and then for a little while after only limited work. Even so without a paycheck and not able to work, and then not able to work full time they still wanted to charge me $90 a month.

It is not entitlement as we pay enough in taxes for the money to go as we see it should go.
Our tax dollars that could go to helping others out keeps going to fating the pockets of those in Congress who keep voting themselves raises when they do not deserve raises. You sound like Romney as he ran his campaign, and that type of attitude toward the American public cost him the election.
The government was placed by the people, made up of the people, and is for the people.
That last half seems to get left off in policy making as it is no longer for the people.

Do you think the government should guarantee everyone a nice living, whether they work
for it or not?

Policy making is for the people when our enemies are kept off our shores at the great price of blood and treasure, when there are roads and bridges that facilitate transportation of goods and services, when there is mail service, when there are free public schools, when there is law enforcement, fire protection, and natural disaster relief, etc., etc., etc.

A comfortable life for its citizens is not the responsibility of taxpayers, it is the responsibility of the individual. Do you think the taxpayers should guarantee that no one experiences hardship?

As the government consistantly shows they care about their own agendas more then the people they are suppose to support and help.

But that's democracy. . .our remedy is to put the right people in office.
The people get the government they deserve because they are the ones who elected them.

And the only ones the government is supposed to support are the disabled who cannot work.

Everyone else is responsible for their own livelihood.
And there are more assistance programs than one can count to help them.