Controversy meets Progress? The great divide on Health Care in America

I've heard a lot of good things about the US system of late.

Yet quick search of Google News for the US and the legal case database returns many cases of issues and negligence in US hospitals.

See my point? Every system, every healthcare provision suffers from human error. Sitting back and saying 'the US is great!' only prevents improvements to your own system

This isn't about the NHS, this isn't about socialism or Europe, this is about your own system so stop trying to deflect attention away from the issues - its counter productive to your own country.

That is due to the fear of 'socialism!!!!' preventing any government in the US seriously considering a free healthcare system, or indeed a public option as was much discussed previously.

 

I don't think most people read up on the health bill, which is why people don't care because they think anything the government does is good.

 

I have made it very clear that there is absolutely no such thing as a free health care system. Never has been. Never will be.

And it is not a "fear" of socialism. It is a love of capitalism. It's a cultural difference I am proud of.

Notice: The only supporters in this thread are from other countries.

 

Or they are too intimidated to read the bill. I've read 50 pages so far and other than children being covered until 26, I disagree with all of it. It doesn't address the root problem and if anything penalizes the middle class, as the poor don't have to pay the fine and the rich are subject to file for state grants.

 

So, it is the doctors fault that the patient agreed to the chemo therapy?

The stories you listed about old people (90+) that are getting chemo, why did none of them reject the chemo? There is such a thing (at least in the US) as the Patients Bill of Rights. In fact, when I was in the hospital, before they gave my any medication, they handed me a sheet of paper that stated all of my rights as a patient (and in many cases, I had to sign the sheet).

In fact, after one of my surgeries, a nurse came in to give me medication and I refused it (which is one of your rights under in the Patient's Bill of Rights). When I refused it, she simply marked on a sheet that I refused it and walked away.

I would just like to note that if it were not for the awesome doctors that were in charge of my case, I would not be here today. Literally.

 

surely it will require taxes to go up? how will it effect the people who already pay for health insurance? surely it is a kick in the teeth for them seeing as they manage to pay for their own health care for other people who dont put towards it, to get it for free?

perhaps they should have refunds for what they ahve paid?

 

^ Not so much a kick in the teeth for those already paying, but it is a kick in the ass for those who are not.

 

Ah, VAT. Yes, it is incorporated into prices of "stuff". Different stuff has different VAT. Food has 12% and medicine etc. has 6%. Some have 17%.
It's illegal here to advertise prices without the VAT added into it.

Personally I don't think that your guys' taxes would shoot skyhigh if you had the same kind of system as nordic countries have. And if the purchasing power would come down, I'm pretty sure (not 100%, I'm no economist) the prices would come down too.

 

someone explain this to me as if I were a 5 year old please

 

How do you read that I implied Obama is deliberately creating unemployment into my comments? I believe that rather than intruding into our lives, the government should be lowering taxes and removing restrictions on free enterprise so that people can have jobs, thereby strengthening the economy, and consequently be able to afford insurance.

The huge global recession that was caused by the Democrats that have controlled Congress since 2006?

Again, where are you getting this from?

But, I will try to explain it for you; One of the principles that America was founded on is self-reliance. I believe one should always try to save what they can for the possibility they may lose their income. Remember the fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper? Americans are also the most generous people on the planet. When one one of us falls, our friends and family step in to help. I would rather rely on them and myself than a faceless bureaucracy whose "safety net" comes with too many strings attached.

Socialism says the worker has the right to be supported by the government. In turn the worker becomes subservient to the government. Does your government guarantee you are cared for? If so, at what price?

 

Yes I know what a VAT is. You of course realize that everytime you pay the 22% extra that is lopped onto the price of things you are paying for your health care.

 

I wasn't aiming that first comment at you, just that people often just follow their local opinion - the same is the case in the UK.

You do have to work, so you do have to pay taxes. Who on earth can choose not to pay taxes? Even if you are on social security you pay indirect taxes, and I don't imagine any of you gurus want to rely on social handouts.

Of course you take part in the legal system - your every action is covered by law. Did you buy alcohol before you were 21? Drive before you were 16?

You say you support pre-existing conditions, yet at the same time state you think its unfair on insurance companies - how do you suggest they pay for healthcare - government assistance? I guess its possible.

In fact, your argument surely supports public healthcare - as you point out, private sector companies will not want to insure people with pre-existing conditions. Which brings us back to the point that the bill has massive issues, whether you are on the left, right or the middle.

Just to clarify - I don't think this bill is great either, I'm defending healthcare not this bill.

Clearly not free - I'm talking about free at the point of consumption, such as the NHS model.

I see what you mean re. capitalism - however, do you not think that the love of an economic theory above all others, and indeed much of the developed world, is clouding your logic when discussing issues?

Capitalism is clearly a strength for America, but to suggest that anything different to pure capitalism is thereby a weakness would be a mistake I think.

What is there that I could do in America, which I could not do in a modern mixed economy such as that found in Europe?

 

Well sorry that I replied

And yes, I realize it, and yes, I think it's nice to have damn cheap healthcare here. Edit: I'm just saying that it's awesome where that 22% goes.

 

Because you said

which suggested you believe the administration likes people not having jobs as it provides control to 'Obama and his cronies' for 'control over you, that is why!'. If they had jobs, there would be less control (this is a pretty standard and common argument against left-wing governments, actually). Apologies if you were not saying this, but it certainly looked like that.

I wouldn't say any particular government is to blame for the recession, if anything its a mixture of government mistakes, risk-taking by investment banks and ineffective regulation.


Your family argument suggests that your family can afford to step in and help, which pretty much ignores reality for many people.

Your most recent post explains that you don't believe in a security net! I wasn't attacking your opinion, was genuinely asking, and you explained your point of view pretty well so there we go.

I'm no fan of 'socialism' either; I believe there are elements of public sector work which are beneficial.

 

Mandating private citizens purchase products or services is beyond the powers granted to the Federal Government by the US Constitution, but the constitution has rarely stopped the .gov bureaucracy from expanding its powers where it hasn't had the authority to do so.

 

Don't you think that this is perhaps because people from "other countries" enjoy the health-care they receive and can't understand the manner in which the USA runs its system?

It's safe to say that there are many, many people who never need medical treatment or to see a doctor but doesn't part of being a country who prides itself in being "the best in the world" mean that everyone deserves a chance to be looked after without being penalised by their wealth (or lack of)? What happened to "look after your own" and "love thy neighbour"?

The bill has been butchered and hacked so much it's only a fraction of the vision Obama originally intended and these changes have brought about the provision of frankly bizarre situations (the idea of custodial sentences for people who don't have insurance, if that's true) but would it be safe to say that the majority of nay-sayers for change are those people fortunate enough not to be burdened by poor health?

It is of course impossible to fully understand circumstances about something so important without being in the country in question to experience things first-hand but it's likely that most of the people outwith the United States appear to support change because we hear negative stories from within the country far more than positive ones. I don't mean stories in the news either; I mean stories from people you meet online in this so heavily inter-connected age. I've only ever befriended a handful of Americans in my years of being online but sadly each have told me "horror stories" about the care (or lack of) that they have received, to the point that one friend is steadily becoming crippled because the insurers won't cover her and the care she needs is unavailable elsewhere.

I appreciate the distrust of things socialist in nature and it's true that operations such as the NHS are indeed socialist at heart but embracing such a system does not mean a country has to forget "who it is". Europe is predominantly capitalist, despite the socialist healthcare that exists in some countries. Is it really right that the fear of socialist behaviour be used as a justification to speak in favour of a system that betrays people who are otherwise proud to be an American?

Of course the idea that our (in my case, the NHS) healthcare free is incorrect; it's free at the "point of sale" (just as free text messages and phone calls are free with a contract-phone, you pay for them elsewhere) but costs are recovered through taxation with a nominal prescription charge applicable for most groups (though this figure is being phased out). If the argument that implementing a socialist healthcare system would drive up taxes for the average citizen is touted in a conversation why is it that:

...is never brought up along with it?

If the American system involves expensive insurance and premiums for the 'customer' yet costs the country twice as much as countries with socialist healthcare isn't that really a strong indication that things need a drastic shake-up? Our healthcare is free at the point of use, it doesn't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions or on low-income and it costs the country less than the capitalist-based system in the US.

Is this bill going to change things for the better? Arguments for and against both have merits. Should the US system really continue the way it does ad infinitum? It's hard to see any logical argument for yes.

 

Warning! Heavy economic and financial jargon shall ensue:

The global financial crisis had its roots in global trade imbalances, not in the United States congress; heavy exporters like China had (and still have) huge trade surpluses which manifested in the form of capital inflows into the US. These capital inflows increased US capital market liquidity, which entailed an increase in the supply of low-cost capital in the US financial markets. This in turn rendered low interest rates which fueled heavy consumer spending on housing. Large debt creation ensued by mortgage companies and banks, which exploited consumer demand for (sub-prime) loans. The sh*t hit the fan when interest rates took a spike and consumers defaulted on their loans; the holders of sub-prime assets and their insurers (banks & insurance companies) then went bankrupt as their balance sheets got kicked in the teeth by valueless assets.

Of course, there are several other details to the global financial crisis which I left out in the above description, but that's the gist of it; although you may find it hard to believe, I would blame China for the global financial crisis more than I would blame the US; China has been keeping its currency artificially undervalued to exploit the ensuing attractiveness of its exports to foreigners (like Americans).

 

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I just wanted to say that I am both surprised and happy that this thread has made it to 4 pages with some good debate.

People acting civilized and debating issues is awesome.

 

Thanks guys these are both very good posts; I've posted Miller's cost argument previously however it tends to get conveniently ignored!

I think this sums it up well - there simply has to be change; whether this bill is the right change or at least a step along the right path is up for debate.



Decane, interesting point about China's exchange rates, I've been reading about that for a while now - I agree with you in principal, though that is probably a topic for another thread.

If anyone wants to be shocked / interested in financial markets, definitely follow up Decane's post re. subprime loans - especially the role of ratings agencies in awarding securities triple-A ratings.

Yeah it is good, though I must admit some of my earlier posts were poorly worded, for that I must apologise.

edit: sorry, I mean exchange rates of course .

 

The primary reason for the differences in spending between the US and other countries, like that 16.2% of GDP you have there, is because the ability of people to pay is what rations the care, not the government approval board.

For every horror story you've heard here, I've heard about not being able to get "X" prescription because it is too expensive. Waiting lists and a lack of availability of ultra-modern drugs and equipment are what keep your costs down because the government forces them down by refusing to pay for them.

To assume that health care costs should scale linearly with GDP figures is an incorrect assumption. There are GDP per capita figures at which a country begins to care about pollution, and spending on pollution cleanup and prevention increases, beyond linearly, with a rise in GDP. Health care behaves similarly. When the people in question have the ability to afford it, they will purchase more and more health care.

And you claim that we support some kind of radical change, with no notion of the feelings within the country.

In my mind, the reigning idea should be that our government is pushing something that the vast majority of us do not want and are actively fighting against. Shouldn't that be what this is about? It doesn't matter if universal is right or not, why should a people who claim to be free be forced in anything, at all, that is against their will?