Speaking of Healthcare Reform...Follow

My state is the first to have this particular issue go to ballot (I'm voting later today)

Basically, the vote will only reject the portion of the Health Care reform that forces people to have insurance. I'm all for this.

I suspect that, regardless of the actual portion of the healthcare bill that this or other similar ballots seek to change, a vote for change will end up becoming a "referendum on Obamacare."

Amusingly, the universal health care option would have been more openly constitutional (less debatable) and the precedent already exists with other social welfare programs. Whether I like it or not, the potential now exists for the mandate to be struck down which still leaves us with a gaping hole in the system (people who refuse to retain insurance and exploit emergency services)

I work for a small business, and the health insurance plan they carry would cost me more for regular doctor visits than the extorted price I usually pay (which is actually half of what the insured pay). I'm also in a wonderful position because my doctor's office got spanked with some fines, and now other physicians in the area are completely resistant to taking new patients in general, but particularly from the office I go to. And so many physicians are so fearful about the insecure state of healthcare in this country that new patient visits are usually scheduled 2 weeks to a month out, and cost twice as much as a regular visit, and chances are they will be skeptical of any of my health issues because the doctor I go to now has a bad rap, which is unfortunate; he was my stepmother's family doctor her entire life. He's always been really patient with me for being uninsured, but has a myriad of tests he wants to do when I can get a plan that won't put me in the negative just to help pinpoint some of my health issues.

But, I suck it the **** up, because most of this country would rather see their neighbors suffer than pay a few extra dollars out of their paycheck for something that will benefit them as well. Oh, except the healthy of course, **** the idea of them having to help pay for the ailed. I say we give the people an option to "opt out" of a single-payer system, with absolutely no opportunity to opt back in. Win/win/win.

Easy. Have your politicians grow a set of balls and get Universal Health care, not this ******** health insurance crap. Health insurance is to provide people with an upgraded service, universal health care ensures everyone gets the basic needs they require.

The only way this is easy is if the general populace man up and ride special interest groups out of DC on a rail. I don't see it happening any time soon.

To my US way of thinking, a single-payer-system (a.k.a. universal healthcare) is where the government is your insurance company. You pay your "premiums" (taxes) to the government, and they pay the doctors and hospitals directly.

That was what I meant, but I know what you mean. I shouldn't be using the term insurance so broadly.

I've been lucky in that Ray and I have insurance through his military benefits so our annual premium is less about $200 a month (for health, vision and dental). Sometimes the wait time and rushing through a doctor consult sucks (especially when you're at the military hospital) but we haven't had serious issues.

My boss' girlfriend is a doctor and she has a private concierge medical practice. She's seen a surge of clients sign up for her. They're all rich high-end folks and we're always hearing that they're going the conciere route because they want a doctor of their choosing in a setting they want instead of something they may be forced to do via insurance.

they don't let them die.

The US govt spends more per capita on health care then Canada does.

No. We don't let people die. But that argument is misleading. When it's made, the comparison is always between how much it costs to treat someone in the ER when they are very sick compared to how much it would have cost to treat them pro-actively. What that misses is that not everyone gets very sick and ends up in the ER every year (or even every 5 years). Since we can't know which percentage of the population will get sick or injured, we have to pay for that pro-active care for *everyone*, not just the same number who would otherwise end up in the ER. And when you compare the cost for ER treatment for one person to the cost for regular doctor care over a year for the 10 people who wouldn't have gotten sick, it ends out not being a cost savings at all.

It also fails to take into account that lots of people would have ended up in the ER anyway. It's not like uninsured people don't get into accidents and have to go to the ER or anything. There's a whole lot of numbers games being played with this issue and what's being sold as a cost savings really isn't.

That's misleading as well. A large portion of what is spent on health care is actually spent on health care research. A whole lot of the new treatments, procedures, medicines, and equipment which advance medical care globally are paid for in the US. It's one of the reasons I always wonder why the hell people living in countries with socialized medical systems argue for the US to do the same. That's the last thing you want. Right now, you can focus almost all of your health care dollars on direct treatment. It's why universal health care "works" at all. Take away another nation doing all the heavy lifting and it doesn't. Well. It does, but the rate of advancement will slow to a crawl.

Well, except for all the research advances that have come out of all the other countries. But we've been over this before, and you ignored it then, so I expect you'll ignore it now. I'm not saying the US isn't a leader in health care research, but it's not that one sided.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2010 2:04pm by Xsarus

The OECD removes research spending from it's data, and the US is still way way higher in health care spending then any other country.

The graph below shows that the US government is spending close to or more per capita, adjust for purchasing power parity then pretty much any other country, and way way more when you factor in the private spending. From a quick glance there are only three countries where the government spends more.



Edited, Aug 3rd 2010 2:14pm by Xsarus