Declining coverage-The worst is yet to come

[HM2VikingRN]

As of 2007, employer-sponsored health insurance remained the dominant form of health insurance in the United States. Over the 2000s, however, the share of Americans receiving coverage through an employer (whether their own, or that of their spouse or parent) has declined steadily. As of 2007, the share of individuals covered by employer-based policies was almost 5 percentage points smaller than in 2000 (see Figure). This decline, not surprisingly, coincided with a rise in the number of Americans without health insurance coverage.

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/declining_health_care_coverage_the_worst_is_yet_to_come/

[talaxandra]

I think that once healthcare is perceived to be free, the flood of drug seekers ALONE will overwhelm the system, and it will crash & burn.

I certainly come across a few drug seekers in Melbourne, but as I don't work in Cas I'm sure I only see a fraction of those who present. However, I'm not aware of any statitics about higher rates of pharmaceutical drug abuse in non-US countries, just lower rates of mortality and morbidity (thanks in part to needle exchange programs and the opportunity to get health care access easily).

It would therefore seem that you do think that you're fellow citizens are lazier, less motivated, less principled, weaker or in some other way less than those who live in one of the countries where universal health care covers more people more effectively, with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates at less cost. That's genuinely fascinating.

A corollary to this position would seem to be that you believe a universal health care program in the US would somehow prevent health care professionals from screening who they prescribe narcotic and related drugs to, and the dosage and quantities. Or is it that you think the only thing stopping them from flooding the system now is the cost of ED presentations and/or the cost of medication?

I don't have time right now to address the statitstics you provided comparing rates of poverty with local political elections, but I have 3 caveats - the first is that, without a comparison of, say, the 10 cities with the fewest people under the poverty line and their voting trends, the statistics tell us nothing about a correlation between welth and election patterns. The second is that two of the cities you cite haven't had a Republican mayor in over 100 years, but are not the poorest, which I'd expect if there was a correlation (ie the longer it's been since a Republican was in power, the worse off the city is). Which brings me to three - the more recently a Republican was mayor, the worse off these cities are, which doesn't seem to support the position I (conjecture) you were making about Democrat mayors and financial ruin.

As I said, however, I only have time to take a cursory look. I would be interested in your responses, though.

[ozoneranger]

Melbourne.....I assume you are in Australia?

"It would therefore seem that you do think that you're fellow citizens are lazier, less motivated, less principled, weaker or in some other way less than those who live in one of the countries where universal health care covers more people more effectively, with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates at less cost. That's genuinely fascinating."

I don't know about "fascinating" but frustrating, yes. In the ER 60% of the patients my husband sees are drug seeking.

As for lazy. The mindset of our welfare recipients is 'gimme' they feel entitled to anything they 'want' so long as someone else pays for it. That's what generation after generation of hand outs does to people.

Perhaps if Melbourne were to have the influx of illegal aliens & welfare bums that we do, you'd see a change in demographics, mortality & morbidity rates would rise concomitantly.

[talaxandra]

Interesting. So two questions - why do you think that you have more welfare bums than we, and do you think the percentage of drug seekers would increase from that truly staggering figure of 60%?

You're right that I'm an Aussie - we've had universal health care, subsidised housing, free education (through to university until recently), unemployment and disability pensions, and aged pensions among other benefits for quite some time now. Somehow, though, we don't have seem to have the same problem as you describe, and I wonder why that is.

Also, you seem to be saying that there's a strong overlap between people on welfare payments and drug seekers. However, universal health care isn't a welfare system, so I'm not sure how it would make a difference to the numbers of either of these populations.

Although Australia's borders are relatively non-porous (despite media hysteria to the contrary), the same can not be said for other countries, though - the UK has its fair share of both dole bludgers and illegal immigrants, and the NHS is still ticking along...

[ozoneranger]

I do hope you realize my 'page 220, lines....." post was sarcasm.

What percentage of your population is illegal immigrants? How many of your citizens are living fully off the backs of your productive individuals. What is your tax structure for individuals? For corporations?

There are many complex economical issues that prevent this from being an apples to apples comparison.

[talaxandra]

I do hope you realize my 'page 220, lines....." post was sarcasm.

I don't know what this refers to.

I agree that every country has different economic and demographic profiles. As such, specific stats about Australia's welfare recipients and tax structure aren't going to make any difference to the US situation (but if you're interested I did go into some detail on the latter here, here, here and here); universal healthcare here is only available to citizens of Australia or a country with which we have a reciprocal agreement, which clearly doesn't include illegal immigrants.

For this reason, comparisons between any country and another will be imperfect. My point, when I initially responded to your post, was that every other Western country seems to manage to fund health care at lower cost, with greater accessibility, and better outcomes in terms of average life expectancy and infant mortality. Why is the US so different?

PS Interestingly, the Centre for Immigration Studies says illegal immigration to the US is dropping, thanks to the GFC, with people in some cases returning to their home countries.

[K98]

I don't know what this refers to.

I agree that every country has different economic and demographic profiles. As such, specific stats about Australia's welfare recipients and tax structure aren't going to make any difference to the US situation (but if you're interested I did go into some detail on the latter here, here, here and here); universal healthcare here is only available to citizens of Australia or a country with which we have a reciprocal agreement, which clearly doesn't include illegal immigrants.

For this reason, comparisons between any country and another will be imperfect. My point, when I initially responded to your post, was that every other Western country seems to manage to fund health care at lower cost, with greater accessibility, and better outcomes in terms of average life expectancy and infant mortality. Why is the US so different?

PS Interestingly, the Centre for Immigration Studies says illegal immigration to the US is dropping, thanks to the GFC, with people in some cases returning to their home countries.

Positively heartbreaking.

[talaxandra]

I assume that bold was sarcasm. My point was that illegal immigrant use of the US health care system is often given as one of reasons for the difference between the US & the rest of us, and has certainly been cited as a reason on this thread. If illegal immigration trends are reversing then this may improve.