Obamacare
Options
Replies
-
... It's just that there might actually be differing opinions on how to make healthcare more accessible (including but not limited to affordablity) without forcing anyone to buy anything...
If we truly had universal healthcare, no one would have to buy anything. Yes, everyone would have to pay into the system, the same way we pay for the military, social security, etc. But there would be no commercial products that anyone would have to buy. This is by far a better approach than propping up the corrupt and (yes, I'm going to say it) completely freaking *EVIL* health insurance industry. But for now, we're stuck with an imperfect solution, which is far better than having done nothing at all.
In my ideal world (I think I said this before but I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look)... We wouldn't need health insurance to "help" pay for costs... we also wouldn't need the government to do so either... But no, the States have mandated that insurance companies must cover every little thing (which is why we cannot purchase health insurance across state lines), thus increasing the costs... The articles that I provided earlier, the doctors (granted it was only two) stated that by them creating a flat fee cost for people to get care (or people paying al a carte as needed), reduced the costs (which they then passed on to their consumers) for them as well, because they didn't HAVE to deal with insurance... My allergist will not accept government insurance at all... Not Medicare, Medicaid, nor TriCare... probably because they are also hard to deal with...
It is my belief that if we got corporations (and yes, even the government) largely out of health care and let the health professionals do it, then perhaps it wouldn't be causing people to go bankrupt... In my (admittedly) limited dealings with doctors and hospitals, at the end of they day they just want to get paid so they can keep running... while they might care some, they are willing to see that happen at $50 a month or the full balance.... they don't want to send people to collections... they don't want to see people not get the care they need. But again, this is solely based upon what I see as a patient and as a family member in a medical family.0 -
I concur. Everybody (both sides) should read that. It's not simple, is it?
Great article - that's a keeperA very interesting take.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html
No it's not, and that's why I get frustrated when people reduce it down to "you must just hate poor people" when someone doesn't agree...0 -
If that system is so great why was the UK trying desperately to find cost saving measures recently? They are trying to shave 31 b from the NHS budget by 2015. That will only lead to shortages in staff, nurses and doctors which will not lead to better care. Why have there been reports for people who had to give birth in ambulances, or people who had to come here because they couldn't get timely treatment for their cancer?
The UK, like most of the rest of the world at the moment, is in a state of recession. Cuts and efficiency measures are taking place across the country in all spheres, not just the NHS. The proposed changes in the NHS focus on reducing the money spent on administration, moving regional clinical decision-making into the hands of medics rather than business-managers, and actions such as combining two or more smaller practices into one larger facility, leading to significant savings on overheads etc. The changes are explicitly designed NOT to affect clinical care and staffing levels, despite what the nursing unions and certain elements of the press here would like the public to think.
I am aware of people travelling outwith the UK to seek specialist care in other centres of excellence, as per my earlier post, but I'd be astonished if that choice had really been made because of a delay in treatment for cancer, of all things. Elective and non-emergency treatments regularly get bumped to prioritise critical treatments - that's where the majority of public dissatisfaction usually arises, and why some choose to purchase additional private insurance. As for giving birth in an ambulance, I'm fairly sure that occurs in countries with non-socialised medical care as well. The fact that we are taxed at source for our healthcare doesn't make us any better or worse at predicting labour progression or at predicting how many women are going to go into labour at any given time!
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
Edited to add: In referring to patients travelling overseas because of delays in treatment, you may have been referring to the NHS policy of having critical patients treated outside their home region, or abroad if necessary, if waiting lists in their home area are too long for the problem at hand. The NHS still pays for this treatment. I must confess I had forgotten about this policy until I just double-checked something else, but wouldn't you say that's an example of putting health-care for the individual first - something that seems to concern a lot of US commentators.
By the way, your figures on the cuts are somewhat odd, given the current government's pledge to increase NHS budgets in England year-on-year until the end of this parliament (probably in 2015). £31bn (out of a budget well over £100 billion) may be the figure the government believes it is possible to save through efficiency measures, not an actual cut imposed. Where are you getting your figures from?
I provided a link to where I got that figure from earlier. It was from a Forbes article.
How is denying people care because of cost anymore humane than the US system? Plus this has been going on long before the financial crisis. There was a lawsuit brought up in 2008 concerning breast cancer patients not receiving the care the needed. This lawsuit goes back to 1997, long before the financial meltdown.
This article illustrates much of the problems with socialized medicine.
Cancer sufferers forced to buy their own drugs are planning to sue the NHS for compensation.
Hundreds of patients had to pay for treatment after NHS chiefs ruled that new pills that might improve or extend their lives were not 'cost effective'.
But many are now demanding refunds from the health service after spending tens of thousands of pounds. At least three London trusts have been targeted by patients making compensation claims, an investigation by the Evening Standard has found.
Bearing the cost: Adam Griffin, with sister Amy, was forced to raise the money to pay for the drug Erbitux to treat his bowel cancer when health bosses ruled the NHS would not fund the treatment
Bearing the cost: Adam Griffin, with sister Amy, was forced to raise the money to pay for the drug Erbitux to treat his bowel cancer when health bosses ruled the NHS would not fund the treatment
In the first known case of its kind, one trust has been forced to refund a patient for a drug it initially refused to buy.
Experts warn the NHS is facing a series of legal battles as families fight to recover the huge sums they have spent on buying drugs privately. The move comes amid a growing row over access to life-enhancing treatment and anger over the Government's policy of denying 'top-up' treatments.
More...
Warning for bone victims: Thousands to be denied treatment under new NHS guidelines
Purple 'super tomato' that can fight against cancer
Current rules mean patients cannot mix NHS care with private care even with drugs not available on the NHS.
Health Secretary Alan Johnson this weekend signalled he may reverse the policy within weeks. But the Uturn comes too late for many who have paid for private treatment, and raises the prospect they will seek to recover their money.
Patients in Bromley, Hillingdon and Wandsworth have already requested refunds. A course of Avastin for colon cancer costs up to £70,000 a year per patient, while Erbitux, used to treat bowel cancer, can cost up to £60,000.
Bromley PCT has compensated one patient for drugs which it originally refused to fund. Other claims include a kidney cancer patient who asked for a refund from Hillingdon PCT.
The claimant personally funded a cycle of treatment with the lifeextending drug Sorafenib.
The PCT has refused the request, but could face other claims as a number of patients have made 'inquiries' about refunds. Wandsworth PCT has also received a written
request for a refund. It comes after the PCT admitted court action is inevitable from patients who have been denied cancer drugs.
Ian Reynolds, chairman of Wandsworth PCT, said: 'We're being sent bills by people turned down by exceptional treatment panels and who have then gone private. We're not liable to pay but the reality is that these claims will now end up in court.'
Katherine Murphy from the Patients' Association said: 'It's quite unforgivable to deny someone their right to a treatment which a clinician says could save their life.'
£55,000, BUT ADAM DIDN'T SURVIVE
When Adam Griffin was diagnosed with bowel cancer at the age of 29 health bosses would not pay for his life-extending medication, telling him he was not an 'exceptional' case. Instead, the graphic designer and his friends and family embarked on a fund-raising drive to raise £55,000 to pay for the drug Erbitux.
They raised £80,000, but Adam, who lived in Twickenham, took the drug for two months before he died in December last year. His sister Amy, 30, of Dulwich Village, said: 'We had to give the NHS £55,000 before they gave him the medication. They will not start treatment until you have given them the full amount.
'Adam didn't want his family to have to pay because it would have meant remortgaging the house. The only way he was happy to pay was through fund-raising,' she added.
'The drugs do not cost that much, but patients then have to pay for everything else privately.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1080864/Three-NHS-trusts-sued-cancer-sufferers-pay-life-saving-drugs.html#ixzz1zC7TGPKg
Our system isn't perfect and is in need or reform, but it needs to be market based, not government.
From the Daily Mail, which is a tabloid, and one of the less credible of that ilk at that (recent headline: WW2 Bomber found on the Moon!).
What none of the articles you quote makes clear is that the medications being discussed are various examples of drugs that MAY, not will, but MAY increase a cancer-sufferer's life-expectancy, along with a host of other drugs that are covered by the NHS. Typically, these drugs are fairly new, their claims to increased efficacy are not well-proven, and they tend to be very much more expensive than proven treatments that are covered. If someone wants to pursue experimental, or close-to-experimental treatments in addition to NHS-provided treatment they are welcome to take out private insurance or raise funds privately to do so (the ban you mention on simultaneously using NHS and private means was reversed in 2008 by the previous government and was only sporadically enforced. The upper limit on annual expense for a drug covered by the NHS was also significantly increased at the time).
Ian Reynolds as quoted above 'We're being sent bills by people turned down by exceptional treatment panels and who have then gone private. We're not liable to pay but the reality is that these claims will now end up in court.' is entirely right - the NHS is not liable to pay where it has offered a drug or treatment that is accepted by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as providing significant benefit to patients at a cost that is reasonable relative to benefit (up to £80,000 p/a for some cancer drugs as of 2008, so hardly cheapskate!). Those who take the NHS to court are trying to prove that a clincially-wrong decision was taken, and I can't find any detail on the alleged Bromley pay-out, so it's difficult to know the facts of this particular case.
Yes, there are flaws - any system will have them - but what you are talking about is a very few patients out of the millions of UK citizens treated every year by the NHS with little or no out-of-pocket cost to the patient beyond taxation. We don't have patients denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. We don't have people forced to choose between necessary medical treatment and other necessities such as food, shelter and heating. We certainly don't have patients treated as second, or third-class citizens because they are on MedicAid, and we absolutely do not have people who have worked hard to provide good lives for their families, who have paid premiums for years, being forced into bankruptcy when someone develops a chronic or fatal illness or is involved in a major accident, because of nominal lifetime maximums or insurance companies that drop patients when they become ill. What's not to like?
Didn't see your Forbes link earlier - will check that out. And is it just me, or is your current system not market-based?0 -
Seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0
It's not an entirely unjustified point of view miss. Just sayin'.
Sorry can't watch Youtube... But if it's a bunch of protestors nicely edited or questioned/provoked just so to look uneducated... or even if they really are... it doesn't mean much to me... because the majority of the debate isn't happening on the streets... it's happening in places like this, in offices, in homes, schools, places where arguments cannot be reduced to what a Sharpie and some Poster board can handle...
It's not one of those, I don't watch porn. Those edited things are just cherry picking - "Talk to 100 people - 94 of them are reasonable folks with a point of view - 6 are idiots and/or monsters - USE THOSE - paint the whole group as idiotic monsters". Not fair, not cool, and not accurate. I don't like them either, from either side.
This was the vid of one of the Republican primary debates where the question came up about an uninsured young man with cancer, and what should be done about situations like that - and some members of the audience screamed out "Let Him Die!!!".
Thanks for the description... and that honestly disheartens me... and it should dishearten anyone regardless of political leanings... aside from this guy, I don't know any Republican (and I am admittedly a Republican, mostly so I can vote in the primaries) that would conclude to let anyone die... and I know that the Republicans I know are also sick of insurance companies and the crap care that we get... I know I wish that the Republicans in Congress would quit saying they have another plan and actually get one... :grumble:0 -
Just to say I just noticed the time and I'm out of here. Not ignoring anyone, I just don't get into the forums at the weekend because I only use my phone to log. Hope everyone has a good couple of days!0
-
The law of unintended consequences. Something the government rarely thinks about, but it very much a danger.
I concur. Everybody (both sides) should read that. It's not simple, is it?
Great article - that's a keeperA very interesting take.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html
No it's not, and that's why I get frustrated when people reduce it down to "you must just hate poor people" when someone doesn't agree...0 -
Didn't see your Forbes link earlier - will check that out. And is it just me, or is your current system not market-based?
It is to some extent, except it is VERY hard to comparison shop.. There is virtually no way to know what something will cost until AFTER you have seen the doctor... with an exception of places like the CVS Minute Clinic and other various small limited clinics placed in pharmacies, where they post what each procedure and vaccination will cost online. So it's very hard to get the best rates for medications and services. But it is largely dictated by insurance companies.... many times an insurance company will tell a hospital or clinic to price things one price so they can "negotiate" to a "lower" price and make it look like the insurance companies are getting a good deal for their customers...
eta: an example would be just recently we were in between health insurance coverage because my husband was changing jobs... I have been trying to figure out the true "market" cost of my birth control for ages... especially after the whole birth control debate a few months ago... I know what I used to pay back in 2005 ($25 btw) and I know what I pay now with insurance ($82)... but I couldn't for the life of me find out what it would cost without insurance... until I actually paid for it without insurance ($102 if anyone was wondering....). Things like this isn't widely publicized... and I have to wonder if it were, then would health care become cheaper...0 -
Imagine a car repair place where they get called automatically when you break down on the side of the road - haul you to the garage whether you want to or not - make all the repairs your car needs - and charge whatever they damn please...
Think that would last long?
Delivery of health care is not influenced by market pressures.0 -
@Castadiva
So it's ok for the government to ration services in the interest of cost, but it's not ok for a private corp to do so? You basically said this when you implied that cuts in care were acceptable due to decreased tax revenues.
Also, the universal system is supposed to put life above anything else, everyone is suppossed to gave equal access to the best treatment regardless of income. Yet you are ok with them not providing potentially life prolonging medications to those who need it because the cost vs benefit hasn't been established. I fail to see how that's more human than our system. You then say that people can purchase these on their own if they choose to. Well, what about those that are poor? Tough luck I guess with nowhere else to turn.
I'd also like to point out that the numbers of uninsured used by obama are misleading. Of the 46 uninsured, the majority have access to insurance but choose not to take it.
http://epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/
I'm sure the US Census is full of crap too.
You may have had good experiences with the NHS, just like I've had good experiences with the DMV. As you know, every American loves going to the DMV.0 -
Didn't see your Forbes link earlier - will check that out. And is it just me, or is your current system not market-based?
It is to some extent, except it is VERY hard to comparison shop.. There is virtually no way to know what something will cost until AFTER you have seen the doctor... with an exception of places like the CVS Minute Clinic and other various small limited clinics placed in pharmacies, where they post what each procedure and vaccination will cost online. So it's very hard to get the best rates for medications and services. But it is largely dictated by insurance companies.... many times an insurance company will tell a hospital or clinic to price things one price so they can "negotiate" to a "lower" price and make it look like the insurance companies are getting a good deal for their customers...
eta: an example would be just recently we were in between health insurance coverage because my husband was changing jobs... I have been trying to figure out the true "market" cost of my birth control for ages... especially after the whole birth control debate a few months ago... I know what I used to pay back in 2005 ($25 btw) and I know what I pay now with insurance ($82)... but I couldn't for the life of me find out what it would cost without insurance... until I actually paid for it without insurance ($102 if anyone was wondering....). Things like this isn't widely publicized... and I have to wonder if it were, then would health care become cheaper...
This has been an issue in the debate on health care for many years. We actually have a triangular system, which I think is the cause of many problems. The end consumers of health care (patient) do not directly pay for the healthcare, and those who pay for the health care (insurance companies) do not directly receive the care. The doctors are stuck in the middle--wanting to serve the direct customer (patient), but having to answer to the payer. So you do not have a direct "customer--service provider" relationship the way you do in another type of commercial transaction.
So that raises questions as to what kind of "market" forces can really be included effectively in the system. I keep seeing the term "market" thrown around as a solution, without any detailed explanation of what that means (except to trot out the old cliches of "tort reform" and "selling insurance across state lines").
And without trying to sound condescending, there is also some question about how capable the average person is in evaluating the quality of doctors and healthcare providers. Having spent most of the past 30 years working in healthcare-related businesses, I have my doubts about whether the average consumer can evaluate various healthcare choices the way they do buying a microwave. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am wary of using wal mart as the model for our healthcare system.
One could also argue that there ARE "market forces" at work now, and that it is those same capitalist principles that are causing the problems. When private insurance companies must first and foremost maximize profits, not only does that add a huge markup to the bill, it provides a built-in disincentive to skimp on coverage.
I guess, bottom line, the way I look at it, republicans have had plenty of time and opportunity to both address health care reform (2001-2007) and to provide input into the current ACA. They chose not to do so, and so, by both the principles of personal accountability and the free market, they are stuck with what they got.
Can't complain about the rules, when you refuse to play the game.0 -
I concur. Everybody (both sides) should read that. It's not simple, is it?
Great article - that's a keeperA very interesting take.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html
I'd like to read it, but my work computer cannot access anything that is a "blog"
Can anyone take pity on me and paste it into a PM for me? I'd be ever so grateful
Pretty pretty please?0 -
On the way LL
I got it guys0 -
Didn't see your Forbes link earlier - will check that out. And is it just me, or is your current system not market-based?
It is to some extent, except it is VERY hard to comparison shop.. There is virtually no way to know what something will cost until AFTER you have seen the doctor... with an exception of places like the CVS Minute Clinic and other various small limited clinics placed in pharmacies, where they post what each procedure and vaccination will cost online. So it's very hard to get the best rates for medications and services. But it is largely dictated by insurance companies.... many times an insurance company will tell a hospital or clinic to price things one price so they can "negotiate" to a "lower" price and make it look like the insurance companies are getting a good deal for their customers...
eta: an example would be just recently we were in between health insurance coverage because my husband was changing jobs... I have been trying to figure out the true "market" cost of my birth control for ages... especially after the whole birth control debate a few months ago... I know what I used to pay back in 2005 ($25 btw) and I know what I pay now with insurance ($82)... but I couldn't for the life of me find out what it would cost without insurance... until I actually paid for it without insurance ($102 if anyone was wondering....). Things like this isn't widely publicized... and I have to wonder if it were, then would health care become cheaper...
This has been an issue in the debate on health care for many years. We actually have a triangular system, which I think is the cause of many problems. The end consumers of health care (patient) do not directly pay for the healthcare, and those who pay for the health care (insurance companies) do not directly receive the care. The doctors are stuck in the middle--wanting to serve the direct customer (patient), but having to answer to the payer. So you do not have a direct "customer--service provider" relationship the way you do in another type of commercial transaction.
So that raises questions as to what kind of "market" forces can really be included effectively in the system. I keep seeing the term "market" thrown around as a solution, without any detailed explanation of what that means (except to trot out the old cliches of "tort reform" and "selling insurance across state lines").
And without trying to sound condescending, there is also some question about how capable the average person is in evaluating the quality of doctors and healthcare providers. Having spent most of the past 30 years working in healthcare-related businesses, I have my doubts about whether the average consumer can evaluate various healthcare choices the way they do buying a microwave. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am wary of using wal mart as the model for our healthcare system.
One could also argue that there ARE "market forces" at work now, and that it is those same capitalist principles that are causing the problems. When private insurance companies must first and foremost maximize profits, not only does that add a huge markup to the bill, it provides a built-in disincentive to skimp on coverage.
I guess, bottom line, the way I look at it, republicans have had plenty of time and opportunity to both address health care reform (2001-2007) and to provide input into the current ACA. They chose not to do so, and so, by both the principles of personal accountability and the free market, they are stuck with what they got.
Can't complain about the rules, when you refuse to play the game.
First off, the current ACA is largely based on the Republican model from the 90's I believe... that they couldn't get passed... and I would argue that capitalist principles AREN'T at work... corporatist principles are... We have little to no choice in who provides us coverage... right now the only choice that a person might have is whether or not they get coverage... and that's only for the people that have that choice in the first place, but there is virtually no choice on who will cover them or how... the insurance industry lobbied hard for ACA... so did the pharmacuetical industry... which is the biggest reason I am against this legislation.... and if it were a truly capitalist driven market, people would have more choices than they have... We have the States deciding what should be covered, instead of the insurance companies and the insured themselves... We have insurance companies deciding rates at which patients will be charged, both premium/deductible wise, as well as, out of pocket and/or as uninsured wise.0 -
I don't think that's the case. In reality, some people will always have better access to better care than others. What universal systems do is establish a baseline. They provide a minimum level of care that everyone is entitled to - and like any other large program there are problems and it's not perfect.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Also, the universal system is supposed to put life above anything else, everyone is suppossed to gave equal access to the best treatment regardless of income. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As always, those with more money can always buy better. It's not against the law to practice private medicine in countries with a Nat'l Health Service - and those who have the want/need/desier/$ can buy something better than the baseline. It is always thus.0 -
On the way LL
I got it guys
Thank you very much!!
Wow that is an excellent piece! I did not expect to agree so strongly with it. I figured it would be the type of journalism that fawns all over the president and offers nothing of substance. But this was well thought out.0 -
I would just like to step off the hill that I'm dying on to say... I really appreciate how this debate has been going on.... while we largely disagree, it is respectful... and I like that... I have debated this topic over the past years on many a forums and it reduced to personal attacks (I realize it's in the rules to not go there... but I'm talking even implicitively)... and I appreciate that.
*goes back to top of hill*0 -
This is why a Tylenol costs $63 at the hospital.
So...you have a bill that states you were charged $36 (or $63) for a Tylenol?If the culprits are greedy insurance companies, then what are the hospitals that charge $36 for a tylenol?0 -
Didn't see your Forbes link earlier - will check that out. And is it just me, or is your current system not market-based?
It is to some extent, except it is VERY hard to comparison shop.. There is virtually no way to know what something will cost until AFTER you have seen the doctor... with an exception of places like the CVS Minute Clinic and other various small limited clinics placed in pharmacies, where they post what each procedure and vaccination will cost online. So it's very hard to get the best rates for medications and services. But it is largely dictated by insurance companies.... many times an insurance company will tell a hospital or clinic to price things one price so they can "negotiate" to a "lower" price and make it look like the insurance companies are getting a good deal for their customers...
eta: an example would be just recently we were in between health insurance coverage because my husband was changing jobs... I have been trying to figure out the true "market" cost of my birth control for ages... especially after the whole birth control debate a few months ago... I know what I used to pay back in 2005 ($25 btw) and I know what I pay now with insurance ($82)... but I couldn't for the life of me find out what it would cost without insurance... until I actually paid for it without insurance ($102 if anyone was wondering....). Things like this isn't widely publicized... and I have to wonder if it were, then would health care become cheaper...
This has been an issue in the debate on health care for many years. We actually have a triangular system, which I think is the cause of many problems. The end consumers of health care (patient) do not directly pay for the healthcare, and those who pay for the health care (insurance companies) do not directly receive the care. The doctors are stuck in the middle--wanting to serve the direct customer (patient), but having to answer to the payer. So you do not have a direct "customer--service provider" relationship the way you do in another type of commercial transaction.
So that raises questions as to what kind of "market" forces can really be included effectively in the system. I keep seeing the term "market" thrown around as a solution, without any detailed explanation of what that means (except to trot out the old cliches of "tort reform" and "selling insurance across state lines").
And without trying to sound condescending, there is also some question about how capable the average person is in evaluating the quality of doctors and healthcare providers. Having spent most of the past 30 years working in healthcare-related businesses, I have my doubts about whether the average consumer can evaluate various healthcare choices the way they do buying a microwave. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am wary of using wal mart as the model for our healthcare system.
One could also argue that there ARE "market forces" at work now, and that it is those same capitalist principles that are causing the problems. When private insurance companies must first and foremost maximize profits, not only does that add a huge markup to the bill, it provides a built-in disincentive to skimp on coverage.
I guess, bottom line, the way I look at it, republicans have had plenty of time and opportunity to both address health care reform (2001-2007) and to provide input into the current ACA. They chose not to do so, and so, by both the principles of personal accountability and the free market, they are stuck with what they got.
Can't complain about the rules, when you refuse to play the game.
First off, the current ACA is largely based on the Republican model from the 90's I believe... that they couldn't get passed... and I would argue that capitalist principles AREN'T at work... corporatist principles are... We have little to no choice in who provides us coverage... right now the only choice that a person might have is whether or not they get coverage... and that's only for the people that have that choice in the first place, but there is virtually no choice on who will cover them or how... the insurance industry lobbied hard for ACA... so did the pharmacuetical industry... which is the biggest reason I am against this legislation.... and if it were a truly capitalist driven market, people would have more choices than they have... We have the States deciding what should be covered, instead of the insurance companies and the insured themselves... We have insurance companies deciding rates at which patients will be charged, both premium/deductible wise, as well as, out of pocket and/or as uninsured wise.
We seem to have reached that awkward point in a discussion where I can't tell--or have forgotten--if we are agreeing or disagreeing..............:embarassed:0 -
As always, those with more money can always buy better. It's not against the law to practice private medicine in countries with a Nat'l Health Service - and those who have the want/need/desier/$ can buy something better than the baseline. It is always thus.
In Canada, yes money can buy you whatever you want in another country, but doctors and hospitals here are paid per service, by the provincial health insurance plans. The amounts are set. They are not allowed to charge more. Money only changes hands in a doctor's office for things not covered by the plan, like notes for employers. Extended health care insurance, if you can afford it, or it's part of an employment benefit plan covers things like drugs, private hospital rooms, physio, dental, etc. For day to day doctors visits, specialists, surgeries, hospital stays, it's pretty much one system for everyone.0 -
I don't think that's the case. In reality, some people will always have better access to better care than others. What universal systems do is establish a baseline. They provide a minimum level of care that everyone is entitled to - and like any other large program there are problems and it's not perfect.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Also, the universal system is supposed to put life above anything else, everyone is suppossed to gave equal access to the best treatment regardless of income. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As always, those with more money can always buy better. It's not against the law to practice private medicine in countries with a Nat'l Health Service - and those who have the want/need/desier/$ can buy something better than the baseline. It is always thus.
Not in Canada unless they've changed that law.
That is entirely the case. What is the common things most said about why we need to have a gov run system? It always comes down to fairness and access. Our system is accused of not being fair because not everyone has equal access, yet, the gov run systems provide that so we're told. That's what is touted about the greatness of that kind of system. Nobody is left behind because supposedly nobody gets left out. This is not the case, because many people are left out. Research it and you will see that many people go without the care they need because of the wait or rationing. There are some horrific stories about how people have not been able to get care. There are people who don't get knee replacements even though they are in pain because they haven't reached the gov threshold.
And who defines what is fair and who's suffering is greater than the next? How does the gov come up with that? And what do you do when you have a bad experience? I'm sure most of us can attest to the fact that complaining to a government agency get's you nowhere. Try complaining to the DMV, IRS, EPA about how you were treated and see what kind of justice you get. People are fooling themselves if they think a national health service would be run any better.
If people don't have the same access, and they don't have the same ability of others, then the universal system is failing on it's promise.
The problem is these governments can't keep affording to do this without lessening the quality of care. Rationing is a necessity because there isn't enough resources to go around. There are countless stories about people having to come to the US to seek care because they couldn't be seen in time in their homeland. Everyone might be covered, but they all don't get to be seen when they need it.
Ask a vet if they like the VA and I'd bet 9 out of 10 would tell you it sucks.
I highly doubt an inefficient entity such as the government can run 1/6 of the economy in a cost efficient way.
I suggest that you take a look at some of the links I provided and you will see that there are not as many people left out of our system as we are led to believe.
We need a fix, but it cannot be done without the free market. Our system isn't free enough for the free market to work in favor of the consumer. Free the consumer, add competition and you'll see prices come down.0
