I have felt for a while that we should have universal health care here in the US, but I didn't know things were this bad. We really should be ashamed that GTMO Bay prisoners get free (and very good quality, from the looks of it) health care and 9/11 rescue workers are suffering from 9/11 related health conditions and have no coverage.
And hospitals removing their names from the pt bracelets of ill, unisured pts, and having cabs drop them on Skid Row?
And insurance company physicians admitting that they know they caused the death of pts by denying claims in order to save the ins company money?
What is the matter with us that our health care system is ranked #37 among industrialized nations?
To me, this is not about politics, not about personal responsibility, it's not about cost- it's just about what is right and what is wrong.
I know the Canadian and other universal health care systems have their problems, but they are not run on a foundation of greed and denial of care as ours is.
I am very fortunate that I have good health insurance, but this could change at any time. I am willing to pay more taxes so that all US citizens can get free or low-cost health care that is not connected with a job, and can move with the citizen and cover them wherever they are and whatever their circumstances are.
You see, I'm completely against UHC the whole way so I see what I came up with as a compromise. Part of fixing the whole system. Most of the costs incurred (major costs) are from chronic conditions and I see this as a way to help avoid those costs. By telling people, "ok now you are covered" will give people the idea that they don't have to worry about their health because it will be all paid for. I see having a few special populations that are fully covered as being a good compromise and anyone else that want's to be covered can follow the simple rules.
Like I said, I'm for the free market, small government and work for everything you have. I do not see healthcare as a right. I do think the government should help people in a period of crisis, but not from craddle to coffin.
By the way, don't get me started on SS. The idea behind it is great but the way the idea is implemented is not. It's kind of like the "No child left behind act" in that way. Not that I have all the answers, but like I said, I'm trying to come up with a compromise.
You see, I'm completely against UHC the whole way so I see what I came up with as a compromise. Part of fixing the whole system. Most of the costs incurred (major costs) are from chronic conditions and I see this as a way to help avoid those costs. By telling people, "ok now you are covered" will give people the idea that they don't have to worry about their health because it will be all paid for. I see having a few special populations that are fully covered as being a good compromise and anyone else that want's to be covered can follow the simple rules.
Like I said, I'm for the free market, small government and work for everything you have. I do not see healthcare as a right. I do think the government should help people in a period of crisis, but not from craddle to coffin.
You might be interested to know that countries that have UHC have earlier interventions and address precursors to disease and illness, yet we address acute illness which is much more costly and difficult to manage. So the message we currently send is that one shouldn't listen to their body and go on about life until there is a crisis and it may be fixed at the last minute. With all that one must contemplate and accomplish throughout life, don't you think we could reduce our stress level by having one less financial burdeon to consume ourselves with? I agree under the UHC system in America there should be penalty for not attending to wellness..not monetary of course.. but there needs to be a method to encourage peopel to take ownership for the health in a proactive way instead of encouraging people to drain the teat of our acute care facilities for totally manageable conditions.
Medicare is different that Universal Healthcare. Old people should be covered as well but they too should be held to a standard of rules, influenza vaccines and pneumonia vaccines. Anything to reduce the risk serious problems. Adults no matter what age can make their own choices. In this case it is either follow the rules or find your own private payer. Now before you go all crazy about dementia pt's or Alzheimers, there always some exceptions to the rules.
My point is if you are a 30 year old that can make other decisions and function there is no reason you can not decide to follow the rules to get your so called free healthcare.
What is so special about the children?? the fact that they have no choice if their parents are deadbeats or if they choose to spend there money on new boats and cars and don't cover a child that doesn't have an option. That's what is so special.
I think you need to research your first assertion. Medicare is one of the most sucessful single payor govt provided healthcare systems in the world. It is the essence of what a UHC system would be in the US.
I do not believe in Universal Healthcare. I do believe anyone under 18 should be covered.
One thing I propose is that if people want to be covered by the government they have to follow certain rules. Like no smoking, get your immunizations, follow up appropriatly, take you medications and generally maintain good health. It's the chronic conditions that cost the most money. If people sign a paper to agree to certain terms then they can have coverage. If they break the rules, no more coverage unless they pay for it themselves.
I hate to see my money thrown away like it is in the rest of our welfare heavy government with all the people that have some strange sense of entitlement and think they shouldn't have to work to have the best.
Ok, as I said earlier, I think that people should be encourage to assist in maintaining wellness, however, if you bar smoking, then shall we bar people with certain occupations that expose them to industrial pollutants. Should we bar people who live in certain areas where environmental pollutants are burdensome? While chronic conditions are costly, the goal would be to reduce them. Early interventions such as wellness retreats covered under a UHC may be helpful. Access and subsidization of foods purchased at farmers markets and community nutritionists that are employed by the school district may also curtail childhood obesity which then would reduce type II diabetes. The expenditures among our senior citizens are actually higher in cost per person than chronic illness.
Finally, your money is not wasted. As we are patriots, there is a case to be made for understanding the economic benefit to a healthy workforce. Additionally, we are non competitive as a nation if we are sickly. There are many aspects to having a nationally secure America and I see health as being first and foremost.
i don't know why it would seem that way; i've said that i support the singapore uhc system, and i only introduced that because i was challenged to present what i would consider a reasonable alternative. otherwise, i only address those systems that are otherwise introduced.
i complimented you and it was genuine. i only said the following point about you picking and choosing because it's what i observed, and at times it doesn't feel fair to hear you clump my country in with everything else and produced generalized statements that aren't always accurate.
er waiting lists are legendary.
yes, i agree, er abuse is rampant. i believe that i have personally added to the conversation already about wait list times for diagnostic tests, elective surgery, specialist appointments. the wait times are ridiculous, i was never denying that as an issue. however that wasn't the point of my post. the point was that the government doesn't deny treatment, or limit treatment choices, as you attempted to point out...
so there are things that are not covered.
the reality is that the canadian payer system does ration and restrict care. you can't pretend like it doesn't.
that's not very fair. the things that aren't covered are not related to the health of a person...someone needs to draw the line somewhere or else the government (or any other person, group in control) will soon find themselves paying for acrylic nails because someone feels that they have "failure to grow" nail syndrome. the difference between our government denying to cover care is that it isn't decided on a case to case basis. there is no such thing as a subjective inquiry into whether or not you really needed that treatment or whether you should have been treated with x drug as opposed to y drug. if you have a medical problem, and you doctor orders a treatment...it's covered.
so i guess your right. the government does restricts care.
your also wrong, it does not ration care. if it did, we wouldn't have wait lists.
many observations about the us system are also speculative, and also include unsubstantiated assumptions about gov't payer systems. i've pointed them out.
as a response to me personally, i have not made one claim about the american system, except pointed out i feel bad for people who appear to get the short end of the stick. i can't make observations because i'm not living in your system, and i've therefore avoided doing so. i simply talk about our system. i correct people when they make false assumptions good or bad, and beyond that i'm just enjoying the conversation.
I think you need to research your first assertion. Medicare is one of the most sucessful single payor govt provided healthcare systems in the world. It is the essence of what a UHC system would be in the US.
Tricare is also a government run system for the military and their dependants. I am now covered with Tricare for life. I have medical insurance for life, and no longer need to worry about being insured through an employer.
Tricare is fine, and I have no complaints with it. I feel that Medicare should be reserved for those older than 65, and everyone younger than 65 should be put on Tricare. The infrastrcture is already in place. It would be a simple thing to place Americans on Tricare for health insurance. Problem solved.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
as a response to me personally, i have not made one claim about the american system, except pointed out i feel bad for people who appear to get the short end of the stick. i can't make observations because i'm not living in your system, and i've therefore avoided doing so. i simply talk about our system. i correct people when they make false assumptions good or bad, and beyond that i'm just enjoying the conversation.
i note your posts for the very objective presentations that they are, but i need to point out that i only respond to the issues you present.
and i need to point out that rationing is not exclusive of wait lists; a country can ration and still have wait lists.
The movie made me cry. I liked the point made in the movie by an Englander - after WWII they decided if they had money for war - they had money for healthcare.
And I need to point out that rationing is not exclusive of wait lists; a country can ration and still have wait lists.
Interesting point to think about.
Obviously there is not an infinite number of resources in the world, or any country for that matter... and keeping this in mind:
(simplified scenario)
If Country X only had enough resources (man and material) to perform 10 000 MRI's a year and had a total of 1 million citizens.
If the government of X saw that the demand for the test exceeded the availability they could ration the citizens access to it by
saying that each citizen can only have a max of 1 MRI every 5 years
OR
Saying that the first 10 000 to get in line, get the MRI for that year
But is it rationing if everyone has access to have an MRI, however the health professionals will triage those requesting a test to determine who goes first, and those that aren't urgent may have to wait a year (as long as their condition doesn't change), but they will ultimately have their test?
I don't necessarily see this as rationing. It's a bit like ER triage, where some people wait longer than others but ultimately get seen in the end. After all, any system has a limited number of resources, but it doesn't mean that everyone can't access them.
I guess you're right, when I looked at it, it is a form of rationing. The wait lists are intolerable to me and part of a large problem
I can't help but add that the US must ration resources as well (since they re not infinite), it just seems that it is done with dollar amounts where you either have it or you don't, and so easily avoids wait lists.
Comes in a full circle for the arguement of whether health care is a right or a privilege.
MN BigJ
119 Posts
You see, I'm completely against UHC the whole way so I see what I came up with as a compromise. Part of fixing the whole system. Most of the costs incurred (major costs) are from chronic conditions and I see this as a way to help avoid those costs. By telling people, "ok now you are covered" will give people the idea that they don't have to worry about their health because it will be all paid for. I see having a few special populations that are fully covered as being a good compromise and anyone else that want's to be covered can follow the simple rules.
Like I said, I'm for the free market, small government and work for everything you have. I do not see healthcare as a right. I do think the government should help people in a period of crisis, but not from craddle to coffin.