New stuff on Health care

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
investorzzo's picture
investorzzo
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2008
Posts: 1182
New stuff on Health care

There are a number of stories here on the health care debate. I like to hear from all sides.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/archives.php

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Re: New stuff on Health care

My contribution to this discussion will mainly be the article below. Personally, I don't think healthcare run as a "for profit" business makes sense or is ethical. Maybe that's why we do it here in the good old U.S.of A.

 

The Leading Cause of Personal Bankruptcy

 by: Trader Mark June 05, 2009 |

Whenever I do a piece on our healthcare system, our foreign readers always send some aghast emails. To which I can only say, " I can't really explain to you the US Healthcare system." The fervor is to the point it's hard to fight the dogma.

So many jobs are in small businesses, but the price of insurance is too much to bear for a small business to provide this insurance. While specialized care is the best in the world, our life expentency is 3 years lower than those "socialists" to the north of us in Canada, even though they apparently have to wait "forever" just to get their broken arm fixed since they are "rationing" care. All I know is 40% are uninsured, and use the emergency room as their primary care physician as befitting any good 1st world country. I often say in America if you get sick at the wrong time (when you are uninsured) you go bankrupt... it looks like I will have to modify that statement. It appears even those who have insurance often go bankrupt. So to the foreign readers who live in those "socialist" countries like the United Kingdom... it's just hard to explain what is going on here, unless you live in the world of soundbites and political extremes.

Remember, we wrote last year as the recession hits Americans are cutting back on "Extras"... you know, like healthcare [Sep 24, 2008: As Economy Gets Tough, Americans Begin to Cut out "Extras" - Like Healthcare]

 

 

22% of 686 consumers said that economy-related woes were causing them to go to the doctor less often. About 11% said they've scaled back on prescription drugs to save money.

Health-care companies say the current economic slump's impact on demand for medical services has been surprisingly swift.

Speaking at an investor conference this month, Walgreen Co. Chief Executive Jeffrey Rein said the U.S. is experiencing the "tightest prescription market" in his 27-year career, as more cash-strapped patients skip their pills or take half doses.

"It's hard to get people to follow up when they're having to decide between the gas bill, the electric bill or deciding to come in and see the doctor," Dr. King says.

 

Ironically even with 4/10ths of Americans without insurance, the system will still eventually bankrupt the country. Cleary a very healthy system. Anyhow back to green shoots.

This is where I say 'richest country on Earth'*
*excluding debts

Via Reuters

  • Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.
  • More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.
  • "Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.
  • "Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations."
  • "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement. "For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.
We don't need no stinkin' middle class... the have and have-not system we are moving to is working like a charm. Reverse Robin Hood.
  • The researchers, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the share of bankruptcies that could be blamed on medical problems rose by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007. (while I'm not advocate of bankruptcy, please keep in mind the lobbyists for the financial firms made filing bankruptcy much more expensive and difficult mid decade. When oligarchs say jump, our feckless... err, fearless leaders jump)
  • Patients with multiple sclerosis paid a mean of $34,167 out of pocket in 2007, diabetics paid $26,971, and those with injuries paid $25,096, the researchers found.
Solution?
  • The researchers and some consumer advocates said the study showed the proposals under the most serious consideration are unlikely to help many Americans. They are pressing for a so-called single payer plan, in which one agency, usually the government, coordinates health coverage. (that would make us European.. or worse.... Canadian) Neither Congress nor Obama are considering the kind of single-payer plan advocated by Public Citizen, Himmelstein and his colleague Dr. Steffie Woolhandler. (no one wants to be called European - it's a dirty word in America)
  • "Expanding private insurance and calling it health reform will fail to prevent financial catastrophe for hundreds of thousands of Americans every year," Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen said in a statement.
  • "Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads. (which last I checked, pretty much removes the whole point of healthcare insurance)
If anyone is from Australia and happens to catch this, please feel free to drop me a line on how your healthcare works. It's a Western style country and since Americans hate to be branded European (code word for socialistic), maybe we can adopt whatever Australia is doing. Australia does not have the same bad associations. Unless of course you have a single payer system... and then we will not want to be branded Australian either.

EDIT 1:45 PM - since not everyone reads comments on the blog, I will copy and paste these comments from Alex (from Australia) My comment back was nothing was 'free' so how is this paid for... but I like the general idea.

Hey Mark,

Alex, from Australia here...

Basically, our system works like this:

We have what we call Medicare, (NOT like your medicare from what I can gather) which is available to everyone. It is a basic level of health insurance if you like, where you pay for the service at a doctors, and are reimbursed a percentage of that by going into a medicare office and claiming it, depending on what the service is the percentage changes I think.

Some doctors offer what we call bulk billing, where they will take care of getting the money off medicare, and you just go in and sign a thing saying you were there. Not sure if they are all like this, but the bulk billing doctor near me will bulk bill up to $75AUD I think.

The service we get for free is quite good, it encourages people to go and get things checked out, why not when it's free anyway right? We also get paid sick leave here, so that probably helps too. :) What a bunch of commies we are...

Ok, that's the basics...

HOWEVER, a lot of middle class and above also have private health insurance. This allows you to go to a private hospital, and choose your own doctor. http://www.iselect.com.au/ will give you an idea of the different types and costs of insurance available. Where this comes in handy is with things like sports injuries etc, where may want a doctor who is the best in say knee surgery for instance if you have torn a ligament there or something. Heart patients and that sort of thing might want to choose a certain specialist too.

Also the lower income earners can get what's called a healthcare card, where among other benefits they get more back from medicare (I think, I'm not 100% on this, as I've never been in that situation personally.)

My personal experience is that the healthcare here is pretty good. This said, I've never really needed anything serious done. Probably the most serious thing I've ever had here in Australia is a couple moles removed, which was free and done at a bulk billing doctors. I'm pretty happy with the job done. The doctor was competent and friendly.

Anything else just ask. :)

Oh yeah, I should add, that if we earn over a certain threshold, and don't have private health cover, then we pay what is called a medicare levy. Which is $500AUD for those earning over $50kAUD a year and are single, and goes up again after $100kAUD or something like that.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1443
Re: New stuff on Health care

The issue isn't that we need a new healthcare system.  We do.  But, we can't afford to do it in the manner in which Obama is suggesting.  Plus, putting our healthcare into the hands of a corrupt government is the last thing that I want or trust.  There's the chance that the power that this program gives to the government will be used for evil. 

VeganDB12's picture
VeganDB12
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 731
Re: New stuff on Health care

Just FYI

The new White House site containing responses to criticisms of the healthcare bill.  I know their counterarguments and am still mulling it over. I will refrain from repeating my opinion on this, I just wanted to put it on the forum in case anyone wants to see their response to the townhalls, etc....

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/settingtherecord

Regards

D

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: New stuff on Health care

You know, I don't really see what's happening as a 'debate.'

The proper, democratic way to do this -- the way major bills used to be written -- would be to hold Congressional committee hearings, obtain testimony from all stakeholders and experts, and then after due deliberation and debate, craft a bill. For a subject as complex as health care, this process probably would take a couple of years.

In the current instance, a government which has been in office only seven months has generated 'top-down' insider-drafted bills, and then gone through the empty motion of holding public hearings. While these hearings may gauge the mood of the public, I doubt they will produce any input on the content of the bill.

What mystifies me is why the Democratic party thinks health care is an effective issue for it to take on. Consider some history.

In 1965, Lyndon Barack Johnson introduced Medicare and Medicaid. Obviously there was some political calculation here -- it was expected that grateful seniors would lean Democratic. Yet by March 1968, Johnson was so unpopular that he withdrew from the re-election contest. And a Republican, Richard Nixon, proceeded to win the presidency.

In 1993, Hillary Clinton embarked on what amounted to a celebrity tour of Congressional committees to present the Clinton health plan. Congress struggled mightily, but none of the six committees actually succeeded in reporting out a bill. In this case also, a new administration was presenting an insider-drafted bill with little public consultation, and on too tight a schedule. In the 1994 election, Democracts lost their majority in the House for the first time in 40 years.

Far from being a ticket to entrench power, health care 'reform' has been more of a third rail for Democrats -- touch it, and they die. It doesn't have to be this way. They could actually consult the public, and draft the bill in transparent fashion. But a rubber-stamp Congress don't work that way no more, in our slickly-managed Potemkin democracy.

For what it's worth, I'm stocking up on beer and popcorn. It should be a spectacular show when the health care 'reform' bus smacks into a brick wall at a hundred miles an hour and explodes in a white-hot fireball. Snow cones, anyone?

Davos's picture
Davos
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 3620
Re: New stuff on Health care
machinehead wrote:

You know, I don't really see what's happening as a 'debate.'

The proper, democratic way to do this -- the way major bills used to be written -- would be to hold Congressional committee hearings, obtain testimony from all stakeholders and experts, and then after due deliberation and debate, craft a bill. For a subject as complex as health care, this process probably would take a couple of years.

In the current instance, a government which has been in office only seven months has generated 'top-down' insider-drafted bills, and then gone through the empty motion of holding public hearings. While these hearings may gauge the mood of the public, I doubt they will produce any input on the content of the bill.

What mystifies me is why the Democratic party thinks health care is an effective issue for it to take on. Consider some history.

In 1965, Lyndon Barack Johnson introduced Medicare and Medicaid. Obviously there was some political calculation here -- it was expected that grateful seniors would lean Democratic. Yet by March 1968, Johnson was so unpopular that he withdrew from the re-election contest. And a Republican, Richard Nixon, proceeded to win the presidency.

In 1993, Hillary Clinton embarked on what amounted to a celebrity tour of Congressional committees to present the Clinton health plan. Congress struggled mightily, but none of the six committees actually succeeded in reporting out a bill. In this case also, a new administration was presenting an insider-drafted bill with little public consultation, and on too tight a schedule. In the 1994 election, Democracts lost their majority in the House for the first time in 40 years.

Far from being a ticket to entrench power, health care 'reform' has been more of a third rail for Democrats -- touch it, and they die. It doesn't have to be this way. They could actually consult the public, and draft the bill in transparent fashion. But a rubber-stamp Congress don't work that way no more, in our slickly-managed Potemkin democracy.

For what it's worth, I'm stocking up on beer and popcorn. It should be a spectacular show when the health care 'reform' bus smacks into a brick wall at a hundred miles an hour and explodes in a white-hot fireball. Snow cones, anyone?

Wink + 1 And a pilot program in a city/state would have been nice. Well that and some real cost and how are we going to pay.

scbissler's picture
scbissler
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 8 2008
Posts: 39
Re: New stuff on Health care

Here is a proposal for true "change" in the healthcare system :

http://mises.org/story/3643

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments