10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 24, 2009

The thread is titled, "10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care." I believe reason number 2 is listed at the beginning of the thread--'It costs less and saves money'. I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept the analysis, rationale, and studied opinion of Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman, together with that of Dr. Ewe Reinhardt on the subject. Hardly "unqualified assumptions" the way I see it. The best you can do is to stray off-topic. "Arafat?"
I'm done. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for offering up the Singaporean system. I know they have a thriving medical tourism business. Got money, get care! That's no solution. Alas, you've tipped your hand. The facts speak for themselves.

All I have presented is facts, and I was not playing poker, so I have nothing to hide.

Reason number two is not actually reflective of a complete thought. The same concept could be applied when considering buying a scooter vs. buying a minivan; the scooter..."it costs less and saves money." Unfortunately it is insufficient for all our transportation needs, although the idea does fit in with the socialistic view of shared misery.

I wasn't getting off topic; it appears that the Nobel-prize status of Krugman was injected as some kind of qualifier; it seems as though if it weren't thought to be relevant, it wouldn't have been included. I merely pointed intimated the danger and irrelevance of relying on such dubious qualifiers. Krugman is a critic and an idealogue, not a problem-solver. He just has opinions about everything...he doesn't like the way Bush does things, he doesn't like the way Obama does things, but somehow he's an expert on health care.

And maybe you could clarify the "medical tourism" comment about Singapore; the WHO rankes them number six globally, and number one in Asia, and they are rock stars when it comes to the socialistic benchmarks that are championed by advocates of socialized healthcare...and their health care system is UNIVERSAL. If the provision of medical services to tourists is suddenly a part of the discussion, it would be nice to know it's role. Good? Bad? What are the experts saying about it? What is the almighty Krugman saying about it?

Why is Canada getting involved in medical tourism?

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 24, 2009

I am not getting this and I hear it a lot from the anti- publicly funded crowd.
Just HOW will a universal health care system reduce my choices as I have never had this experience and in fact I have found individual choices to be not only respected but encouraged.
it is my understanding that managed care reduces choices as the insurance company will only pay for services that are provided by their contracted professionals.
Am I wrong about that?

You asked a reasonable question, and I am submitting an answer in sincerity. If your intention is to simply attack and criticize the answer instead of considering it's content, I will consider myself fooled once.

A single-payer universal system will reduce my choices for several reasons.

1. A single payer will have no competition, therefore no motivation to cover services that a competitor might offer in order to compete in the open market and capture customers.

2. In a system such as Canada, that outright banned private care at one point, now places limits on some of the care that people will seek outside the Canadian payer system. Looks like choice-limits to me, and I think that is a big deal.

3. On a basic level, what I like about my current insurance is that I had four plans to choose from, all four of which included a dental and vision plan (dental not included in the Canadian system), or vision (spotty coverage in the Canadian system). When I receive my annual coverage update, I am provided with literally hundreds of providers to choose from. When I felt my last eye doctor was arrogant and impatient, I simply went to a competitor a few miles away...ironically, a Canadian eye doctor who came to the US to work because she makes more money here. I also received both short and long term disability insurance (at no additional cost to me). BTW, I mis-stated my Dr. visit copay...I thought it was $30...it's $20. I am not limited to any specific hospital.

Your understanding about "contracted professionals" is maybe a misunderstanding of the process. They don't just contract with "people," they will contract with people who are able to provide the services that they want for their customers.

The belief that 'de-privatizing' the system will somehow improve it is simply false. Socializing the decision-making process might improve it (as long as the malpractice process is socialized as well), but socializing the delivery of the care will be a catastrophe in the US.

classykaren · Mar 24, 2009

It will save our hospitals from visits from people without heath insurance

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 24, 2009

It will save our hospitals from visits from people without heath insurance

Do you think it's "saving" Canadian hospitals?

Do you know how many Canadian Hospitals have closed or merged in the past 14 years?

Why isn't their health care system saving their hospitals?

nicurn001 · Mar 24, 2009

Honnête et Sérieux , I think that proponents of either sides of an argument can find sources of facts , to support their biases ( we tend to agree with those who reflect our opinions) , if you won't accept that a Nobel prize winner in economics can't be referenced in discussion of the economic aspects of this thread , it makes it a waste of time to introduce facts into this thread .

H&S , Medical Tourism has been injected into this discussion , in your responses you have inferred that people from UHC countries use this because of unavailability of care in their countries . You have not mentioned that a growing number of US citizens are seeking this type of care , even some employers are offering this to their employees.

Have you ever lived in a country that has a UHC system and experieced that system , I have . I believe for the most part both systems have their short comings , but the UHC has benefits such as , you are not tied to an employer by your benefits eg. if you leave one employer , take a few weeks of work then start at another employer , there is no break in coverage . Wheras here you would have to pay the exhorbitant fees of cobra from the first day of end of employment until your new employers health insurance kicks in .

classykaren · Mar 24, 2009

Yes we can do even better than Canada

allnurses Guide · Mar 24, 2009

workers bear brunt of woes in health care

6m more uninsured than in mid-'90s, report says, yet they pay bill to cover the poor, elderly.

american workers -- whose taxes pay for massive government health programs -- are getting squeezed like no other group by the nation's health insurance woes.

while just about all retirees are covered, and nearly 90 percent of children have health insurance, workers now are at significantly higher risk of being uninsured than in the 1990s, the last time lawmakers attempted a health care overhaul, according to a study to be released today. ...

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090324/biz/903240342/1040/workers+bear+brunt+of+woes+in+health+care

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 24, 2009

Honnête et Sérieux , I think that proponents of either sides of an argument can find sources of facts , to support their biases ( we tend to agree with those who reflect our opinions) , if you won't accept that a Nobel prize winner in economics can't be referenced in discussion of the economic aspects of this thread , it makes it a waste of time to introduce facts into this thread .
If you blindly accept that a Nobel prize winner in economics has somehow pegged a solution to healthcare economics just because he supports a matching view of a socialized system and won a Nobel prize, then it's a waste of time to introduce facts into this thread. The reality is that having a Nobel prize is not a qualifier.
H&S , Medical Tourism has been injected into this discussion , in your responses you have inferred that people from UHC countries use this because of unavailability of care in their countries .
No I didn't. I didn't inject medical tourism into this discussion, and for the person who DID, it looked like a disconnected non sequitur to me. So much, in fact, I requested clarification as to it's relevance to the discussion. I definitely didn't infer that "people from UHC countries use" medical tourism "because of unavailability of care in their countries." It looked to me like someone was making a negative comment about the practice of medical tourism in Singapore, and I pointed out that socialized countries also offer medical tourism services. The reality is that my words on the issue were almost exclusively requesting clarification.
You have not mentioned that a growing number of US citizens are seeking this type of care , even some employers are offering this to their employees.
Again, I didn't introduce the idea. And the idea that was originally introduced (by someone else) was regarding Singapore's medical tourism industry...no one said anything about Americans going to seek this kind of care. Can someone please nail down whatever point that is trying to be made? But what I am reading is simply ludicrous; if it is true that Americans are engaging in medical tourism to seek out medical care, is this somehow a reflection of a system failure? Keep in mind the facts I've pointed out regarding Canada commonly 'outsourcing' it's care outside it's borders..not really "medical tourism," but more like "forced temporary medical deportation." The reality is that Americans engage in medical tourism to save money and see the world. Canadians do it because they either can't get what they need in Canada, or they don't feel like waiting until they die. Either way, you can't logically think it's a failure of an American system if they CHOOSE to cross the border to seek care, but that someone the Canadian system is superior when their recipients are FORCED to cross the border.
Have you ever lived in a country that has a UHC system and experieced that system , I have . I believe for the most part both systems have their short comings , but the UHC has benefits such as , you are not tied to an employer by your benefits eg. if you leave one employer , take a few weeks of work then start at another employer , there is no break in coverage . Wheras here you would have to pay the exhorbitant fees of cobra from the first day of end of employment until your new employers health insurance kicks in .

I assume that your question about whether I have "lived in a country that has a UHC system" was intended as a qualifier for your point of view; I can't think of any other reason why you would've asked that question. It's illogical, however, to use that as a qualifier. I don't have to jump from an airplane without a parachute to know that it will end badly.

I'd like to know, however, how having medical benefits via an employer is a "shortcoming?" Is it a shortcoming that your paycheck, which you use to purchase food and shelter, is also tied to your employer?

You misrepresent the COBRA benefit. You only have to pay for it if you want it. And as far as "exhorbitant fees," the cost is directly tied to what your insurance cost at your last job. If this is so alarming, someone who wants to "take a few weeks" off work should just purchase a more affordable policy for that brief period. Or they don't if they prefer not to...they choose what they want to do. Or they don't take a few weeks off work between jobs, and instead use vacation time like everyone else. I truly don't understand why people are so opposed to paying for their OWN HEALTH CARE! What is completely unethical is that someone would expect to be covered under a gov't plan when they are taking time off work just because they don't feel like working for a few weeks. Sheesh...must be unreasonable idiots who would be disturbed about paying for someone else's healthcare while they "take a few weeks off work."

cwazycwissyRN, RN · Mar 24, 2009

Seems kinda hard to discuss something that does not exist. We do not have a plan....we have nothing to look at ...we are selling or buying a theory?

Before I am on board with such an important issue, I need to know more than a theory of what it may be. I can not be against it either.

the president is going to have meetings on this. Are these meetings to sell something already in existence, or are these meetings as he presents them....gathering people to build it?

I am befuddled on taking a position, a stand on ___________________???

RN_Canada · Mar 24, 2009

I was very sincere in my question.

Why isn't their health care system saving their hospitals?

A health care system is so much more than a hospital.

The belief that 'de-privatizing' the system will somehow improve it is simply false.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that UHC automatically improves a health care system. Any system must be run well in order for it to work well. The argument for UHC (well my argument anyway) is a moral one. I just think it is the right thing to do. I certainly don't see how UHC is detrimental or will ruin anything--but again that all hinges on how the laws are designed to support it.

A single payer will have no competition, therefore no motivation to cover services that a competitor might offer in order to compete in the open market and capture customers.

You are right - no competition. However competition is not the only motivation to seek out and offer new and better services to customers. Service improvements and better treatments come about through quality improvement programs and public accountability which I think are better motivators and lead to better outcomes anyway. Quality improvement programs and public accountability seek to find improvement because it is the right thing to do not because "we need more customers to make more money".

now places limits on some of the care that people will seek outside the Canadian payer system

Government medical insurance plans will only pay for medically necessary care and will not pay for it outside of Canada if it is available in Canada but you still have a choice. Those people who choose to go outside of Canada are a very small minority. Please do not generalize this as a reflection of the entire population because it is not so.

One last thing I would like to inject into this discussion is that health insurance is not necessarily a part of UHC. Some countries have no insurance system for basic medical services and private insurers step in to cover items that are not included in the basic government system. It all depends on how the system is designed the concept of insurance is not mandatory. However, when public funds are used there has to be some type of limitation because the public money pot is not bottomless.

The Canadian system is flawed- but that doesn't mean that the concept of UHC is not a good concept. Our government believes it has a moral obligation to provide health care services for Canadian Citizens and the Canadian population holds them accountable for that.

I truly don't understand why people are so opposed to paying for their OWN HEALTH CARE!

You do pay for your own health care through your taxes - the government has to get the money from somewhere! Universal Health care does not mean FREE health care it means universal health care. Universal means that most people get most of the care they need most of the time regardless of their ability to pay or "pre-existing" conditions.

Two ingredients are necessary for the implementation of Universal Health Care in any country:

1. the belief in the obligation AND

2. the concept of public accountability

If you think that UHC will be a disaster in the US it is not because UHC is not a good idea it is because you think that both of these ingredients are missing in the American culture.

And from reading your posts on this forum I am inclined to agree.

cwazycwissyRN, RN · Mar 24, 2009

"Two ingredients are necessary for the implementation of Universal Health Care in any country:

1. the belief in the obligation AND

2. the concept of public accountability

If you think that UHC will be a disaster in the US it is not because UHC is not a good idea it is because you think that both of these ingredients are missing in the American culture.

And from reading your posts on this forum I am inclined to agree. "

So, the solutions to our current healthcare system, the solutions, cannot be found by the people.....it has to be done by the government, by the government taking over the insurance industry?

Perhaps I see two ingredients that are necessary for implementation of improvement in current healthcare system by the people, for the people. Bet you can guess what they are.

When the government takes charge of our reimburstments of services provided......???in another thread someone is talking about spending hours and hours explaining our current government reimburstment system to people......???? I just hope these are issues they look into while building this plan.

nicurn001 · Mar 24, 2009

i assume that your question about whether i have "lived in a country that has a uhc system" was intended as a qualifier for your point of view;no it was simply to show i had practical experience of something you are theorizing about .
i'd like to know, however, how having medical benefits via an employer is a "shortcoming?" is it a shortcoming that your paycheck, which you use to purchase food and shelter, is also tied to your employer? i'm trying to follow the virages of your logic , but the problem i see with tying your healthcare to your employer , is that it then ties some employees to their employer ( preexisting conditions etc . coming into the equation when you try to get private insurance).
you misrepresent the cobra benefit. you only have to pay for it if you want it ( if you don't pay it , then become sick , who pays ? me & you , i'm sure you would love that solution ).
i truly don't understand why people are so opposed to paying for their own health care! were have i said i am not willing to pay for my own healthcare , i simply only want to pay for it once , i have as much dislike of the private pay system as you have of the uhc system . at present i have to pay for the uninsured through taxes ( unless you advocate that those who cannot pay for healthcare , should not recieve healthcare , this cost will always be there ) , then pay a private insurer for the same care as the uninsured get.what is completely unethical (thanks !) is that someone would expect to be covered under a gov't plan when they are taking time off work just because they don't feel like working for a few weeks. sheesh...must be unreasonable idiots who would be disturbed about paying for someone else's healthcare while they "take a few weeks off work. in the case of these leaves ( which are a common practice in other industrialised countries of the world ) you pay through the taxes applied to your vacation pay / final paycheck ( comes back to my point of theorizing about that you have no experience of ) , so again i am not expecting someone to pay my health care"

maybe we could learn from the rest of the world , what we are as people is more than the value of our paycheck and what it can provide for me , me , me !

my last contribution to this thread , h&s you generalise your parochial views , via your facts to reflect a world view that is more complex than your facts encompass . i'm sorry but i should have realised it futile to debate

:saint: honnête et sérieux , when you attack the credibility of a nobel prize winner sheesh . pschitt ! none of us on this forum is worthy to share a thread with you . good bye and good luck .