This is the Healthcare Reform that many of you hate?

Yeah, almost as quality as ABC, CNN and FOX. Surely they'll provide you with the hard-hitting truth.

 

And what are those?

 

I love that website.
That was a good article.
It IS a shame some people like to take things out of context.

 

Long thread,I only read part of it.A few quick comments.A few years ago neighbors of mine(a senior citizen couple) moved back to Montreal.They loved living here in Hawaii,but could not afford health insurance anymore,and they were NOT poor by any means.Now they do not even need health insurance in Canada.----There are a number of countries worldwide that do NOT have universal healthcare.Of course,most of those countries are in the third world,banana republics and -- the USA.--A good universal healthcare system,done 'properly',gives people more freedoms in almost every way.--I do have my doubts whether the US can pull it off properly.However one thing is certain,the current 'for profit' healthcare system run by insurance and drug companies is UNacceptable.

 

Lets also face it,alot of the opposition to universal healthcare in America is coming from wealthy big business special interest groups(whose ONLY interests are the very rich) who are afraid,and rightly so that if a good socialized medicine system is put in place, most Americans will like it.

 

Something needs to be done. Unless someone has personally gone through a health crisis, unable to pay, they really can't understand what it's like. Instead of focusing on getting better, I have to worry about the fact that I'm about $15000 in debt to the hospital because even though I couldn't work for the past year, I didn't qualify for Medicare.

And now that I can work, finding a job is next to impossible, and I'm not that picky. The whole system sucks right now. If Obama can actually fix it, and I can get a quality doctor, more power to him.

 

Oh, you mean like the same wealthy big businesses that Obama is in the pockets of (big pharma, etc.)?

 

I'm no big fan of Obama+Co or their healthcare plan of over 1000 pages.I'm just saying a socialized medicine system done 'properly' is a good thing.--It's un-acceptable that any politician is even 'allowed' to get money from big companies. That is one reason I have many doubts about the US being able to pull it off and do it right.--Rat you make a valid point,Obama+Co. did not re-instate the ban on prescription drug ads yet,what are they waiting for.--That's why I rarely follow the con-game called US politics anymore.

 

My solution to healthcare is to simply amend the current Medicare law to change the starting age from 65 to 0, making all U.S. citizens eligible from birth.

 

I really don't understand why we need another massive government program. For those that cannot afford coverage or if coverage is not available, then have the government buy them a policy with Aetna, Blue Cross or one of the big carriers. You have 2 components of a new law: 1. all companies must share the burden of the hard-to-insure cases equally from a pool of such persons, 2. and the feds will cover the indigient by buying their policies.

This would be quite simple and thus no need for a massive government agency coming into our homes. The current program as envisioned starts up a big new database that is very intrusive and starts tracking more and more data on us....I REALLY dislike that...and anything that makes the federal government MORE of a police state than they already are...

 

There is a more free market approach.

http://healthcare.cato.org/free-market-approach-health-care-reform

 

we have had healthcare system in the uk since 1945, if you already had such a system, and it were to be abolished, i,m sure you would not like it, there would probably be street riots, you will be better off for it, even if you do end up paying a little more tax.

 

No, even in terms of government finding a way to cover all the uninsured, the NHS is a horrible system to follow.

 

It's the WORST system to follow.

 

OK, everyone who thinks the Canadian system is so great, well, it seems to be not so great now.

Canada's top doctor: Health care system 'imploding'...
'We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize'...

 

^^ Meh. It's because of neo-cons in power that our health system was striped in the mid-late 90s. Everyone knows that. Cuts to public health royally threw us a curve ball.

This is what I posted awhile back, and I think I'll re-post it because it's considerably pertinent:

The benefits of living in Canada and experiencing Canada's universal health care competitive advantages:

1) Single-payer health insurance system is superior to private alternatives, as there are lower administrative costs and better health outcomes.

2) While some business practices could be adopted within the public system non-profit delivery of health services is cheaper and more efficient than for-profit care.

"Education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States."
- Paul Krugman, Prof. of Economics, Princeton University & Columnist, New York Times

Like I've said in another thread about GM's Legacy Payments, one of the many reasons why GM is struggling is because of retiree health care benefits costs in the USA. The amount that GM is paying for the health care of people that don't even work for them anymore, is over-bearing and overwhelming a for-profit health care system. It just costs more.

The fact that Canadian companies - large and small - don't have to offer basic health benefits to compete for the best talent and the most productive workers explains to a large extent why were are competitive in the NAFTA era, despite a dollar parity with the U.S.

3) Business taxes to provide health care in Canada are much lower than health care premium contributions for U.S. businesses.

Like I said, for-profit systems just costs more.

4) Privatization proponents argue that since health care is so important, people should be able to purchase private insurance to pay for better care. They claim that allowing parallel private insurance would decrease demands in the public system.

The truth is private insurance provides greater health care access and choice for the few who can afford it, but not for the majority. In countries with two-tier systems, only a relatively small percentage of the population holds private health insurance; such is the case with the overwhelming number of people in the U.S. who have none. For the rest, access is limited, for a number of reasons. Either people can't afford the premiums, they don't qualify due to pre-existing conditions, they face higher premiums for these conditions, or they can't afford high out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and co-payments.

And since private insurance is only beneficial if it co-exists with a parallel private system, there is a negative impact for the public system. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are drawn away from the public system to the private, for-profit system, reducing the public system's capacity for the rest of us.

Comparisons? Okay.

5) U.S. Medicare system is a bizzare mélange of thousands of payers with payment systems that differ for no socially beneficial reason, and there is a staggering complex public system with mind-boggling administered prices and other rules expressing distinctions that can only be regarded as "weird".

U.S. health insurance system is so complex that most hospitals have large departments to manage claims to different individual, employer-based or government-funded insurance programs. (Canadians, can you imagine going back to the hospital to check in a with a case-worker for a claim you submitted for a re-imbursement with Green Shield, Great West Life, ManuLife, Sun Life, Blue Cross, etc. when you broke your leg 3 months ago?)

"The costs of health insurance premiums per employee in the U.S. is about $350 per month for single coverage and almost $1,000 a month for family coverage. Employees typically pay about 10 per cent of their coverage.

Assuming a full cost-recovery, each Canadian pays about $190 in monthly premiums for 4 of the health care system expenditures (hospitals, physisicans, capital expenditures and administration). For a similar insurance (with no deductible, user fees or co-insurance) Americans have to fork over $1,000 per month to a private insurer - provided they qualify for insurance."

- (CIHI) Canadian Institute for Health Information & Kaiser Family Foundation in the U.S., data. From the Council of Canadians.

6) Costs and quality comparisons from the same source^^:

Lifetime Maximum benefits? U.S. = Usually set @ a max. of $1 million - $5 million / Canada = NO LIMIT
Coinsurance? (the percentage of medical expenditure paid by patient) U.S. = Coinsurance of between 10%-50% is the norm. / Canada = NONE
Copayments? (User fee applied to some medical acts) U.S. = copayments are frequent for drugs and medical visits. / Canada = NONE
Deductibles? U.S. = From no deductible (premium) to $10,000/yr. / Canada = NONE
Routine tests and procedures? (like immunization, colonoscopy, blood tests, urine tests, mammography, etc.) U.S. = Copayments are often required. / Canada = 100% COVERED
Maternity costs? U.S. = From no deductible (premium) to $10,000/yr. / Canada 100% COVERED
Clinical diagnosis, treatment and therapies? (stroke, heart attack, Autism, etc.) U.S. = Copayments are often required. / Canada = 100% COVERED

 

It amuses me that oftentimes people believe that public health systems are too big, overbearing and bureaucratic to function properly, but that's totally false.

The rat race of private insurance for your healthcare delivery is the bigger cheese.

 

Always remember: we want the best of everything. We want the best healthcare, the best education, the best govenment, the best security. But we just don't want to have to pay for it.

 

The US went from being one of the best in education prior to the 1980s, to one of the worst following the establishment of the Department of Education in 1980. It's funny how people somehow equate government control over something to being better or "the best." Meanwhile, the government is barely able to manage a stupid "Cars for Clunkers" program. I say the issue is a lot more complex than people simply not wanting to pay for it. As it is, future generations are already going to be slaves to debt this generation and previous ones have racked up.

 

I don't know what statistic is being looked at here, but Im pretty sure we've never been the least educated nation. Maybe you left out a qualifying statement or something?