US Healthcare debate discussion

Because healthcare affects so many individual Americans, AND because healthcare spending eats up so much GDP of the USA's economy, this thread is for discussing how healthcare worked in the USA before Obamacare, and how it will work after.

Debate, discuss, how does the USA compare to other countries systems?

(Request: Please stay away from terms like "European system", it's too vague, and I'd prefer a more specific information based discussion given that Europe is made of several different countries each with their own nuances and take on how to handle healthcare. Thanks)

 

I live in New Zealand and we have a tax funded health system that is probably better than America's - I have heard stories of people dying in the halls in US hospitals because the doctors won't touch them without insurance, unsure if this is true. However, there are still massive waiting lists for operations, and a chronic shortage of doctors and nurses. Most leave to work overseas and get paid a better wage. Many of the health staff that do stay in NZ to work, and overworked.

A lot of people get private health insurance, if they can afford it.

 

bump

 

Universal healthcare works in Canada and Europe. There is no reason it cannot work in 'Murica.

/End of discussion.

 

Actually, I'll play devils advocate in my own thread here.

There is a reason why Canada or Britain's system wouldn't work so well in the states. NPR did a whole report about the specifics of why that is back in 2009-2010. (Population differences between the USA and UK or Canada is one factor for instance)

But I will say a system like Germany's might work in the USA. It'll be interesting to see how the Healthcare State Exchanges work state by state.

The only thing I know for sure is that in States where the legislature has not set up the State Exchange system and opted out, people in those states WILL see their premiums go up.

In States that did accept and setup and prep for the changes Obamacare is bringing, residents in those states will probably see premiums go down.

 

So basically it'll work well only in states that want it to work well.

 

Sort of a fucked up sort of political blackmail.

 

Socialized medicine cannot and will not work in America, and I doubt it's even intended to. It's really about controlling people and making them sicker, limiting their choices in how they're treated. It's about eugenics.

For one, America is very different from other countries, both in its size and demographics. There is too much of an entitlement system in America where people can just come here, contribute absolutely nothing, yet reap the rewards of simply being here. So just by those two things alone it would be completely unsustainable. It is going to be a total disaster once fully implemented.

 

Hmm that's a bit unfair, and I partially-agree with your post but some latter points indicate to me that you don't know how the Exchanges are supposed to work, nor that all the hospitals are still privately owned, unlike in Britain or Canada.

Also we already have an "entitlement" system of sorts pre-Obamacare because of the nation's policy on not turning away people who go to the ER.

Yeah, but part of it is in the math of it all.

I don't think so, I mean if citizens in a particular state CHOOSE not to purchase health insurance through the Exchanges then they don't have too. It's an opt-in type of program which to me communicates MORE freedom and choice not less.

 

I want to say, speaking of ObamaCare, that all the biggest insurance companies in the US are behind it. I can't believe Liberals think this will be much different than the past 40 years of Medicare. Yeah, everyone get insurance, but everyone has to pay for it; and if you don't, you can't even go to a hospital! That's more inhuman than the system we have now.

 

You are just claiming that hospitals are and have already begun to treat the patient like a commodity for repair. One comes in despair of ever being able to understand what the longevity was about. This was it when one paid for his health in that he was increasingly marred for life for indifference to his fellowman. Living longer was a disgrace to the liberal judgmental world of environmental degradation.
Now we can conservatively with Obama care believe there is no such thing for the alternate problem of economic recession. Environmental ethics is a replacement for the situation of human guinea pigs.:sunny:

 

Are you crazy? Are you literally telling me this massive increase in taxes is the ONLY way to get out of this recession? Obama is a con artist! Everyone Loved Him, HATED Romney yet, LOVED Romney's healthcare bill.

Ugh! Americans LOVE Obama, they don't know/ ignore most of his Bush-Style War policies.

 

I have a friend that has already tried to sign up for insurance under Obamacare and didn't qualify because her combined household income is too much and she is offered insurance through her place of employment. However, she can't afford insurance through her employer because her income is tied up in paying off past medical bills as well as student loans. She's really in a catch 22 and I feel like more people will find themselves in this situation when obamacare is really rolled out in 2014.

I agree with others that this system was designed to profit the insurance industry. Its actually really misleading to call it Obamacare because it was watered down by Congress and outside interests.

I would like to see a single payer system in the same vein as France. I always like to use them in comparison to US healthcare because they are one of the few nations with a single payer system that pays their doctors a comparable salary to US doctors. They also deal with problems like illegal immigration as Rat mentioned and yet their healthcare is ranked #1 in the world by the WHO.

 

No offense Stp, but this post indicates to me that you don't understand the difference between Medicare and what Obamacare is. There is a difference, and it's pretty significant.

There are some good things about Obamacare. For instance poor college students can stay on their parent's health insurance policies, and god knows they need it. I have over 3 friends who in their early 20's developed gastrointestinal problems out of the blue, or contracted a bad cold/flu.

Also health care insurance providers cannot exclude you from coverage. (the pre-existing conditions issue is what I'm talking about here)

Until Obamacare, many families who chose to go through a length of period without healthcare and then decided that they wanted it privately because they came into some moderate cash, couldn't necessarily get it.

1. Being a women was considered a pre-existing condition

2. Going without coverage for like 6 months in your medical history was considered a pre-existing condition.


Also I believe Obamacare sets up the first step to decouple health insurance from people's jobs. Many will disagree, but I think this is a good thing because employers are pushing to not hire full time workers like they used too, and in certain industries, companies (like tech companies) are hiring "contract workers" which don't necessarily get benefits.

I think more power goes to the individual when they can shop for healthcare on the free market, which they couldn't do before because individuals didn't have the gross buying power/risk pool that corporations do.

These trends and problems were happening WAY BEFORE passage of Obamacare, so Obamacare can't be blamed for this things.

Rebuttal: This whole talk about "death panels" that really got started by Sarah Palin, has already been debunked by fact checking organizations like:

http://www.politifact.com/

http://factcheck.org/

So any negative emotions or conclusions or talk on that perspective about Obamacare on that front are moot and invalid because they were based on a lie.


Also @Stp, because the state of Georgia has decided to opt out of creating state-run healthcare exchanges, healthcare insurance in your state Stp, IS going to suck.



-----

Originally when healthcare was being debated back in 2009-2011, there was a HOUSE version that included a public option that Democrats were pushing.

This version got rejected, in an attempt to get some Bi-partisan (from the Republican side) to support for what ended up as passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare).

The argument was that if the public option was taken off the table, and the law relied on the private sector perhaps some Republicans would go along and support the new law. Also taking the public option off the table was an attempt for Democrats to counter their critics that they wanted a healthcare system like Britain and Canada that was "socialized medicine" (government runs hospitals ect..)

A broken clock is right twice a day. Just because you don't like someone 100%, doesn't mean you can't agree with SOME things they do or say.

I'm just noting the false logical premise that seems to be in your post stp, that if you dislike guy A, you must dislike everything that is associated with guy A.

What state is your friend in?

Also how could she even have tried to get health insurance under Obamacare if the State healthcare exchanges aren't set up until 2014?

The whole plan of the healthcare law as for individuals to buy their insurance ON the Exchanges, because that's where the competition will drive the prices down. This hasn't happened yet, because for some dumb reason when the Obamacare law was written, someone thought it was a great idea for that part of the law to NOT take effect until 2014, nearly 4 years after the law's initial passage.

 

I never said anything about death panels; all I know is everyone has to pay for ObamaCare, what about the many Americans who have no income? I also said the insurance companies are behind this, and it's a government monopoly one cannot opt out of. I am losing my insurance thanks to ObamaCare in 1 years, and I'm gonna be forced onto this government program which is probably no better, and just gonna skyrocket the price. Your desire to push what you think is best, is literally hurting middle class and working class people, by selling them into debt and slavery, for temporary comfort and security. We have an 18 trillion dollar debt; the LAST thing we need is more taxes for "free" healthcare and, "free" preschool for every four year old. If individuals kept their money, and government wasn't in the business of healthcare, prices would drop. Even the government knows to create jobs you're supposed to lower taxes to encourage spending, and lower regulations. The problems wont be solved as long as Liberals and Republicans hold the same view on this issue that "everything's fine."

 

There's an exception clause in the law (I'm assuming you haven't read it), for those who are too poor to pay for health insurance. But this is no different than Pre-obamacare, where this same populace of people were going to charities or the ER visits (which is also taxpayer or costs passed onto the consumers in the private sector)


1. It's not free healthcare, people buy it privately on the exchanges. It's not government owned. The government only encouraged a market place where competition can be funneled for individuals who would otherwise go without.

2. Free pre-school (this seems off topic)

3. The reason insurance doesn't compete across statelines, has to do with contradictions in state laws, and geographical cost differences on medical care.
(Note: under a libertarian social perspectives and principles maybe this would work, but with Republicans with their foot in the door tweaking how state laws affect women's healthcare it won't work.)


----

Also it's important to note that regional monopolies exist within hospital-doctor relationships. This is one cause of why medical related expenses are rising in one state or county, but in another state it's vastly different in cost. (hospital bills or prices for certain medical treatments for example)



So to say: "It should just be open on the free market" as if you were comparing getting a medical treatment or insurance akin to which car or blender is cheaper from store A or store B, is an over simplification and is not a fair example of the nature of purchasing medical care or medical insurance.

(Note: Medical care, and medical insurance are two separate things I'm talking about here, but they are interrelated to a degree)

 

bump, since this hasn't gotten a response yet, and it's been a couple days and the topic is still relevant.

(Question to the mods: is this kinda of bumping against forum rules?)

 

Oh, goodie! More Taxes all around. I don't like the idea, of federally operated anything, I know medicare is "different," this is "updated medicare," but I was pointing out the failures of that to illistrate a point.

Why are people going without? I'll use the words of Ron Paul. "The Government has been in healthcare for 40 years and the price has gone up, quality has gone down, and the distribution has been eliminated; there are less people with healthcare, since the government has been in the business."

Government doesn't run anything "like a business." The post office, as almost everything else the government runs, has become a vacuum of taxpayer money; so these alleged solutions, are actually going to add to our problems. Also, I don't like most of what Obama does, there is only one good thing he's done in office! (Give Bob Dylan a peace metal:2thumbsup

It's most certainly not- what about all those 3-4 year olds that can't do for themselves? Would you leave a toddler educationless (cause no one but the government provides such services)

Healthcare wont work, because you're forcing everyone to buy it, when only some need it. Plus, it creates a new government program with new employees and insurance cards to dump taxpayers money into.


----

Well this may be a legit argument, if the same exact thing didn't happen when government got involved in college loans. That's why it costs 20,000$ to sit your ass in a desk at one!

I agree, it's not like shopping for a car. But even government ran cars (before the Berlin wall came down,) were pieces of crap! Think literally about what you're saying- maybe it's not like shopping for a car, maybe it's like buying a house. But still, would you let government choose your house? cause I sure as hell wouldn't. I like my insurance, I don't want this new insurance; Obamacare is a Monopoly being forced upon the populace, and this type of thinking is ruining the principles of this Nation. Even the government knows the create jobs they need to let the free market run- still some people have this screwed up idea that the government knows best...

 

The push is not so much federal as it is encouraging states to run it.

However most red states are deliberately opting out of setting up exchanges.

So for the states that are opting out citizens in the USA there are gonna feel obamacare is failing them.

 

Obamacare failed us from the start. Now you're playing the Left-Right games again. I much closer to the Right than to the Left.








See? I'm moving toward freedom, while those on the Left lean toward tyranny. The only thing is, the Political "Right" republicans, lean toward more government control, instead of being Conservative. This is why many Republican voters joined the "Tea Party" and "Libertarian" Candidates.

Right is a good thing to me. I'd rather be self reliant than have government cameras in our homes, and troops kicking in our doors.