Universal Health Care-we should not have to choose

[Joanne98]

Health care should be a given. It is in all developed countries but the United States. It is offered in many underdeveloped countries as well. Take a look at the United States today:
14.5 US citizens are unemployed as of May 2009.

86 million of our friends and neighbors are without health care coverage.
9 million of our children have no access to medical care coverage.


The health of a nation is measure by the infant mortality rate. The United States, considered one of the most powerful in developed countries has an increasing infant mortality rate.


The U.S. ranks 29th worldwide in infant mortality, tying Slovakia and Poland but lagging behind Cuba, the CDC repo Nearly seven U.S. babies die out of every 1,000 live births. More than 28,000 American babies die before their first birthday.


The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than rates in most other developed countries,” note CDC researchers Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, and T.J. Mathews. “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening.”


The following nations already provide Universal Health Care to citizens:

Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
Japan
Finland
Australia
New Zealand
Czech Republic
South Korea
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Rationale to continue our system as is ?
Competition provides better care
No long waits or exclusion of services
No bureaucratic, government intrusion into our personal affairs
Cost containment better handled via private health care administration
We are a country of free choices and every citizen should have the choice to choose a health care system
HMO’s were developed to do the exact opposite of the above. How many of you believe in our health care system? Many who are employed don’t see an issue. When your family and friends are-and maybe you at some point, perhaps the, “well this isn’t my problem” mantra will change.
Unemployment rates rose 9% in May 2009.
Guess which industry didn’t layoff?
Look at this statistic from the US Census website:
Health care employment increased by 24,000 in May.


The numbers speak for themselves.
This isn’t about some lazy family refusing to work.
Your friends and neighbors, parents, elderly grandparents and babies, having had continuous health care coverage, will, probably for the first time have no health care coverage.

Pay attention-while the debate on Capital Hill is between our elected officials and Obama’s push to provide what other civilized countries have been giving for years-
it is really between the powerful lobbyists who control our elected officials, big business and oppositional parties.
Sorry-this issue has nothing to do with you-the United States citizen-
-it’s all about making a profit.

http://onepooldlady.journalspace.com/2009/06/19/universal-health-care-we-should-not-have-to-choose/

[jaxx]

1. Do they have blue dogs and repugs in those countries?

I'm going to call Baucus' office and ask them who he represents, because it isn't me. Since he heads the committee I want an answer about this:

"We're getting closer and closer," Baucus said during a break in the meeting. "There's no doubt in my mind we're going to have a bipartisan bill."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20090619/D98TQNQ80.html

To hell with bipartisanship.

[supernova]

2. UHC will be a long-haul fight

As much as I'd like to see a Canadian or UK style plan here immediately, it's not going to happen quickly.

I think all this talk about insurance reform is just the opening salvo. It may be a necessary first step. When they pass whatever insurance "reform" comes out of these first negotiations and see that after two, three, foursd XXXXXXXXXXX or five years that it *doesn't solve the problem* of people not being able to afford care, of having people still not using it or not signing up (the mandate that everyone have insurance), then they will be forced to come back and fix it ... again. And again. And again.

So, I really wish DUers wouldn't go all OMG this is our only shot at UHC!!. That doesn't help if you're so perfectionistic that you only think there's one way to do something. It's going to be a very long, very tough fight. It will involve probably more than one bill. Many fights, possibly some civil disobedience too. It's going to take years but first the insurance companies have to be chopped down to something manageable.

You could say, why doesn't it follow the trajectory of Social Security? Remember that took even seven years into the Depression. It wasn't passed quickly either. And it was passed with not a single Repub vote. They've been fighting ever since. Every election, they run against FDR and LBJ.

Any thing that is worth haviing takes a while. We haven't begun to make our case in the public square yet.

[dkf]

3. I still say that going to the doctor a few times a year is cheaper

than paying for health insurance. And lacking health insurance doesn't mean lack of access to health care or it shouldn't. People ought to be able to pay a $100 a visit upfront. Is there anything unreasonable there?

[supernova]

4. Nothing wrong with that, but

you shouldn't have to pay $100/visit. It should be free or nominal fee, say $5 visit based on income level.

edit: Paying for the Dr's fee usually isn't the problem, eventhough it can run as much as 300-400/hour for some specialists.

Labwork and tests really add up and you can't be expected to pay for all of that out of your pocket, even if that's just a routine visit and not for a specific problem.

[dkf]

5. But surely it doesn't cost $3600 for a couple of doctors visits

with tests?

I'm just saying that if you can't afford to see a doctor, there is even less chance you can afford health insurance.

And I really don't think I can escape paying an arm and a leg for insurance through Obama's plan. If anything I will be paying more because my taxes will be going up to pay for someone else's insurance.

So I don't think I'll come out a winner on this. The question really is do I want to pay for my insurance and for 48 million other people. I would like to know how much that will cost me and if I can build a retirement less that amount.

[supernova]

6. Then you aren't for UHC either

"The question really is do I want to pay for my insurance and for 48 million other people."

The answer is yes, in UHC we are all our brothers' keepers, and they are ours. If you don't buy that basic premise than UHC isn't for you.

As for the $3600 figure, yeah, you can easily rack up that much. A trip to the ER, easy. A couple of dr visits, tests (CT scans are roughy $1500/pop) You could easily get a grand worth of blood work and explorations for different diseases until the Dr can arrive at an accurate diagnosis. The practice of medicine is as much art as it is science.

The answer is you have people paying into a risk pool (be it public like medicare for all) or a private one, say Aetna. The idea is that the ones who are relatively healthy are subsidizing the sicker ones who have to use more services because they are, well, sick. Now, these populations aren't static, you or I will be the sick or well one at different times.

There is a very small pool of chronically sick people who need care for years...they need their medical needs taken care of. And we should all pay for that. What has happened with the insurance companies is they have fobbed off their responsibilities to the sick in favor of ever increasing profits by cherry-picking the healthy ones that they can see. All the while scaring MDs into paying more and more malpractice premiums, Nice, huh?

[dkf]

8. For UHC, don't I get to stop paying my insurance premium?

I would pay taxes instead right? As it is, I hardly go to the doctor and hardly get tested

[YewNork]

7. For me it's not the $100 visit I'm worried about. It's the $30,000 appendectomy

Or the $3,000 for five stitches, or a broken leg.