panorama - poor america

[KevO]

Why not? What harm would come of it? The American dear of centralised administration is a red herring and deeply unhelpful when one looks to solve many social issues. It is an unthinking mantra chanted repeatedly by Republicans who seem to have no desire to think for themselves. In all honesty, it makes them look faintly ridiculous to European eyes.

Call the Soviets they have an answer for you... oh wait there's nobody home.

To be fair I think the Government handles monopoly's far better than the market does (here's looking at you Enron), that's a given because the government has no incentive to profit. When it comes to a competitive market as there is in healthcare? The market wins hands down by far.

Also I feel like I need to add this to ever post: I favor some sort of public payment system.

 

[CanadaToffee]

I note the odd potshot at the Canadian Medical system in this thread - which usually comes from the US right wing, is usually based on one anectdotal incident, and is always 100% misleading. Because firstly, each province in Canada runs its own Medicare system, and there are differences, and secondly, here in Ontario, while we do have significant problems in our system and its funding, the overall quality of acute care and the per capita real cost are fare ahead of that in the US - if you exclude the wealthiest 2% of the population of each country. Put another way, for 98% of the people in North America, the Canadian health care system provides better care, at a lower overall cost, than in the US.

BTW, I've had to wait all of 8 days to get an MRI here for a minor knee problem. I realize in the US I would probably have got the MRI the same day, but what difference would that make - being it is a minor problem?

Not saying it's all perfect here in "commie" Canada - just sick of hearing the US medical debate use incorrect facts about Canadas' system(s).

 

[KevO]

mate, would you like to explain that. you have the high-tech for sure. but how does that benefit other than rich people.
when talking about healthcare in general, Usa aint even close to the top. no offence.

Come on. You know it doesn't only benefit rich people, even the lower end of middle-income can pay for good insurance, whether they chose to or not is a different issue all together, but the majority of Americans can pay for good health insurance.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Come on. You know it doesn't only benefit rich people, even the lower end of middle-income can pay for good insurance, whether they chose to or not is a different issue all together, but the majority of Americans can pay for good health insurance.

The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study)

 

[RAFUH]

Come on. You know it doesn't only benefit rich people, even the lower end of middle-income can pay for good insurance, whether they chose to or not is a different issue all together, but the majority of Americans can pay for good health insurance.

You're forgetting the underinsured, which includes the working poor and reaches into the middle class. Close to half (81 million) of the US population was either uninsured or underinsured in 2010.

Underinsured means that have coverage year round, but still have unaffordable medical costs due to holes or limits in their coverage. I work with many patients that have "insurance" but it doesn't include prescription coverage or it's just hospital coverage nothing to cover seeing a physician regularly.


FinnFan is correct. The WHO no longer does that report, but other organizations do and since 2000 the US standing hasn't improved, although we are still paying the highest percent of our GDP.

 

[johnnydawg68]

You're forgetting the underinsured, which includes the working poor and reaches into the middle class. Close to half (81 million) of the US population was either uninsured or underinsured in 2010.

Underinsured means that have coverage year round, but still have unaffordable medical costs due to holes or limits in their coverage. I work with many patients that have "insurance" but it doesn't include prescription coverage or it's just hospital coverage nothing to cover seeing a physician regularly.


FinnFan is correct. The WHO no longer does that report, but other organizations do and since 2000 the US standing hasn't improved, although we are still paying the highest percent of our GDP.

Basically, we're not getting the best return on our money, because the system is flawed.

 

[Jib in lad]

Check out Michael Moors documentary on health care in the US its called Sicko , was a eye opener like .

 

[McBain]

I know Bill must feel like were ragging on him most of the time, but this is an area where everyone seems to be on the same page.

It's not just Tall Poppy Syndrome, its a basic human right. Isn't it?

 

[KevO]

You're forgetting the underinsured, which includes the working poor and reaches into the middle class. Close to half (81 million) of the US population was either uninsured or underinsured in 2010.

Underinsured means that have coverage year round, but still have unaffordable medical costs due to holes or limits in their coverage. I work with many patients that have "insurance" but it doesn't include prescription coverage or it's just hospital coverage nothing to cover seeing a physician regularly.


FinnFan is correct. The WHO no longer does that report, but other organizations do and since 2000 the US standing hasn't improved, although we are still paying the highest percent of our GDP.

That's not even close to half, that barely over a quarter of the U.S. 315 million people, you don't need to exaggerate, you already make good points.

Also I mentioned that many millions chose not to get good coverage, that's a decision, maybe they feel they would rather spend their money else where, but it doesn't mean they can't afford it. For working poor I agree though.

 

[johnnydawg68]

I know Bill must feel like were ragging on him most of the time, but this is an area where everyone seems to be on the same page.

It's not just Tall Poppy Syndrome, its a basic human right. Isn't it?

Bill's entitled to his opinion, fair play. But there are loads of people in this country who are just ideologically opposed to government intervention in any economic activity. In lot of cases that's a fair point, but there are lots of examples around the world where it works better than we have. I'm sure Bill will tell you that what we need is more market based solutions. What we have now is sort of the worst of both worlds.

 

[RAFUH]

That's not even close to half, that barely over a quarter of the U.S. 315 million people, you don't need to exaggerate, you already make good points.

Also I mentioned that many millions chose not to get good coverage, that's a decision, maybe they feel they would rather spend their money else where, but it doesn't mean they can't afford it. For working poor I agree though.

Sorry, left out a very important part.... half of US non-medicare eligible adults, not half of total population which is the part of the population that would have to purchase their own coverage. Most states have some kind of safety net for uninsured kids.

Employers often only offer one plan so good or bad coverage, it's what you're getting. With the economy the way it is, employers are (understandably) cutting costs by either offering fewer benefits or increasing employee's contribution.

As far as those that could afford it and choose not to get insurance, that group is usually younger, single/no kids and male. I was in that group at one point in my life, well minus the male part. You still believe you are invincible and nothing bad can happen.

 

[Clint Planet]

Most states have some kind of safety net for uninsured kids.

"Most"?

 

[RAFUH]

"Most"?

Didn't want to say all as I didn't know that to be true and was too lazy to go hunting for the answer.

Have checked now. Forgot about CHIPs so each state does have options beyond Medicaid, but the US still had 5-6 million kids uninsured in 2010 at least according to the AMA. Those would be kids whose parents didn't sign them up for Medicaid/CHIP or families making more than 2x poverty level that can't or won't get private insurance via employer or independently.

 

[McBain]

So weve got this far, could we outline the treatment you get in your respective country?

I go to the Docs here, flash my Medicare card and the Doctor bulk bills the Government. I get treated and the Doctors get paid. It works fine. Medicines are subsidised to a realistic price, even more so for Pensioners.

You, of course can go to your own GP, and pay on the spot if you don't have/want Medicare.

I don't have Private Insurance, but will think about it when i get richer. You should also have a responsibility to get Private Health care if you are wealthy, and take pressure off the Public System, but no one should ever be denied treatment because of their Bank Balance.

 

[Nordecke]

Bill's entitled to his opinion, fair play. But there are loads of people in this country who are just ideologically opposed to government intervention in any economic activity. In lot of cases that's a fair point, but there are lots of examples around the world where it works better than we have. I'm sure Bill will tell you that what we need is more market based solutions. What we have now is sort of the worst of both worlds.

Considering the principles in which our country was founded it's not hard to believe..

*Apparently not "Loads" because "loads" of people with those idea's wouldn't tolerate this government..

Even going back to G.W.'s patriot act, you can argue it made us safer, but it was despicable.