|
Post by ausador on Mar 6, 2009 13:00:08 GMT -5
Just as the title says I would like to hear your thoughts on what you think would be the solution to the ever increaseing and unsustainable costs of healthcare. Did you know that according to at least one study 49 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare goes to administrative fees? (insurance employees, executives, hospital clerical staff, etc...) That over 30% of all those employed in the 'medical field' (not counting insurance) are simply administrative workers? Yet when you point out that most modern countries have nationalized healthcare to avoid this people jump out of thier seats screaming socialism/communism! (as if they were the same thing). Just for something to think about and discuss; how about this study that was published in 2003 and compares 1999 healthcare spending in the United States to Canada. It is very short and concise and makes an excellant read. (it even has cool tabley thingies) content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/349/8/768.pdfSo anyway, what do you think we should do?
|
|
|
Post by brendanjd on Mar 6, 2009 13:52:56 GMT -5
The USA can afford universal healthcare. That is a fact. I've got a university textbook right next to me with the stats. It costs about 1-5 billion more per year due to middlemen and lost productivity to have the private system than it would to have complete cradle to grave universal healthcare.
Of course, that might keep a few extra clusterbombs and nuclear warheads from being made, and we can't have that.
On a serious note though, it'll probably never happen. After the American Revolution, anyone with a shred of social conservatism was driven from the country by the Liberals (came up here to Canada btw). Without that historical thread of social conservatism, I think only a revolution would change the liberal notions of private healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 6, 2009 15:49:49 GMT -5
Well that was sort of the point I was trying to make....that it would be cheaper if it was nationalized. But of course that would be *gasp* socialism.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 6, 2009 15:53:36 GMT -5
One thing I'd like to see, but which not a lot of politicians talk about?
A push for preventative matters.
Here's what I mean.
The government could encourage each of its agencies to develop a preventative medicine program for its employees. Things such as exercise and proper nutrition would be encouraged, as would finding ways to get people in for preventative medical examinations. If needs be, an arrangement could be made between the employer and a health care provider. This would all be mostly trial-and-error, but a competent manager should be able to figure something out.
Once the government has determined some models that appear to work well enough, it can take these models and encourage private endeavors and state governments to adopt similar models for their employees.
The ultimate goal of this would be to set up a situation wherein people start being more proactive in regards to their health, including regular preventive medical screenings. By having people being proactive, they can hopefully avoid medical problems before they even begin. This will reduce claims by both employees and employers, thus giving the system enough leeway to where people can actually consider doing anything a little more radical.
|
|
|
Post by headache on Mar 6, 2009 15:57:35 GMT -5
If anything, a proper UHC system would be a lot cheaper and better for every citizen.
USA already spends twice as much of your tax money on health care as other countries with UHC.
And no, UHC does not mean government RUN health care, just government PAID FOR health care. The actual health care providers can and should still be on private hands. It's just that now, these institutions no longer can scam the market as prices will be negotiated on behalf of the industry. Doctors' will still be able to buy a Ferrari, an Aston Martin, a day cruiser, a weekend home and fly to Vegas for fun whenever they want. They may not be able to afford a 10 carat engagement ring but have to do with a 5 carat ring, but we all have to sacrifice in these days.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 6, 2009 16:20:19 GMT -5
Hell, I think it goes without saying that I would support socialised health care. I dunno what its like in America, but if we were to lop a wee bit of the ludicrous consultant salaries and maybe add a bit to nurses salaries over here the NHS would not only be one of the most advanced healtth services in the world but a financially viable social healthcare system.
And sky, the NHS invests huge amounts of money into 'preventative medicine' as you put it, when a hospital's primary motive is saving lives as opposed to earning money prevenatative measures are a natural step.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Mar 6, 2009 16:41:17 GMT -5
Skyfire, some insurance companies already do what you mentioned. For instance, my dental insurance gets cheaper for every consecutive 6 month period I see the dentist, down to x amount. If I were to skip a cleaning the cost for me increases back to the original amount. Through my medical insurance's website I can get nutritional info, along with other things I forget.
I think that we should have universal healthcare. I find it disgusting that I live in one of the richest countries in the world and many people feel that healthcare is a luxury and not a right. Plus dealing with insurance companies sucks, especially their policies.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 6, 2009 17:02:49 GMT -5
Skyfire, some insurance companies already do what you mentioned. For instance, my dental insurance gets cheaper for every consecutive 6 month period I see the dentist, down to x amount. If I were to skip a cleaning the cost for me increases back to the original amount. Through my medical insurance's website I can get nutritional info, along with other things I forget. I think that we should have universal healthcare. I find it disgusting that I live in one of the richest countries in the world and many people feel that healthcare is a luxury and not a right. Plus dealing with insurance companies sucks, especially their policies. Not to mention how much of our tax dollars go into the health care system anyway. If we're going to throw money at health care, we might as well get covered for it.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Mar 6, 2009 17:06:55 GMT -5
very true Schizophonic.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 6, 2009 17:37:29 GMT -5
Skyfire, some insurance companies already do what you mentioned. For instance, my dental insurance gets cheaper for every consecutive 6 month period I see the dentist, down to x amount. If I were to skip a cleaning the cost for me increases back to the original amount. Through my medical insurance's website I can get nutritional info, along with other things I forget. Not all insurance firms are that progressive, however. Likewise, the proactive policy I suggested could work as a stop-gap for firms that (for whatever reason) do not offer a proper insurance package to employees; encouraging preventive health care and having a nurse or two on-hand might well be a cheaper alternative to insurance and provide at least something for the employees while the government sits down and figures out just what it wants to do.
|
|
|
Post by Sikotik_Psyphi on Mar 6, 2009 17:50:19 GMT -5
Preventative health care is all well and good Sky, but what if I'm crossing the street to go to the coffee shop to get my iced mocha latte fix and some drunk uninsured driver leaving the bar 5 blocks away hits me as I'm crossing, leaving me with broken bones and putting me into a coma for a month? I have no health coverage. What do I do? Go bankrupt if I manage to recover and become employed again? Or should the doctors just pull the plug on me?
This actually happened to my best friend Sam. He's 22 and will be paying medical bills from this accident for the REST OF HIS LIFE!
edit: Apologies for the run-on sentences
|
|
|
Post by headache on Mar 6, 2009 18:57:13 GMT -5
This actually happened to my best friend Sam. He's 22 and will be paying medical bills from this accident for the REST OF HIS LIFE! edit: Apologies for the run-on sentences Too bad he was not born in a first world country with decent health care. Even more amazing is it that republicans don't get it. They want USA to be the best country in the world but they don't want to pay the price to become the best country. It is not free, it will cost you a lot of money and take a lot of time. Currently USA is somewhere in the 20-range when it comes to the "best countries in the world" and has a long way to go before it even can hope of breaking into the top ten.
|
|
|
Post by Sikotik_Psyphi on Mar 6, 2009 19:09:47 GMT -5
Yeah it is too bad. I don't even want to discuss the bills I'll be paying for the rest of my life.
And to think that Teddy Roosevelt, a REPUBLICAN, advocated UHC for the US back in fucking 1907.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 6, 2009 19:57:08 GMT -5
Preventative health care is all well and good Sky, but what if I'm crossing the street to go to the coffee shop to get my iced mocha latte fix and some drunk uninsured driver leaving the bar 5 blocks away hits me as I'm crossing, leaving me with broken bones and putting me into a coma for a month? I have no health coverage. What do I do? Go bankrupt if I manage to recover and become employed again? Or should the doctors just pull the plug on me? This actually happened to my best friend Sam. He's 22 and will be paying medical bills from this accident for the REST OF HIS LIFE! edit: Apologies for the run-on sentences Owned for life through no fault of your own. That's just disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 6, 2009 20:03:55 GMT -5
I would say that probably we (as in the US electorate/politicians, whatever) could actually manage to put a few basic health coverages in place without having to go all the way into UHC. I would like to see us adopt UHC, but the truth is we are probably going to get there in incremental steps instead of one giant sweeping change. After all, vaccinations are practically a matter of UHC right now--lots of people can go to the local health department and not end up paying anything or very little for them, even if they have no health insurance and they don't meet normal federal poverty level guidelines.
I'd say what we could get passed first is a combination of what you've been talking about above: preventive check ups and catastrophic coverage. I think most people would probably agree to go with that before they'd sign on to support UHC. It's usually the catastrophic events that bankrupt families anyway. We'll get there, but we have to be pragmatic about how we do it. People don't like change, and you have to ease them into it. I wish it were different, but that's just how people seem to function.
|
|