Governments tellin' you to do stuff

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Mesden

No, we would spend noticeably less money. We already spend stupidly high amounts of money on unneeded public healthcare (Expansions on Medicare part-d anyone?).

Well, I was basically giving the most conservative estimate of the average taxpayer's potential savings but yeah, pretty much.

[Xaeta]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

...but really we'd hardly be taking the first step at all. We already have numerous publicly-funded service programs, from schools to police to road work and on and on.

True. But it's not that Americans would be taking the first step or not, it's the ideal that the first step is actually there - the threat of Comminsm/Socialsm is such a redundant fear passed down through the generations, to the point where merely speak of it in the wrong crowds will hardly end well.
But publicly-funded programs can only go so far and do so much because - as the name implies - it's publically funded. Road workers will only work as hard as you pay them, and police will work as hard as they're stressed. That's where private corporations take on the curve to stop the government from spending money and make money at the same time.
So essentially there's a big reliance on private corporations to save you because you're a member - NOT A SHAREHOLDER, a member....pffft, yea right.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

I'd just like to point out how Canada's health care system follows what you're calling 'socialist/communist', and we get along quite well thank you. In fact, the last study done on healthcare put Canada among the top in the developed world (and the U.S. in the bottom) and noted that had the U.S. followed Canada's model there would have been up to 100 000 fewer deaths in the past year.

Also, the U.S. is the only wealthy industrialized nation without universal health care, and it has one of the lowest life expectancies in the wealthy world. Just throwing that out there.

[Elminster_Amaur]

This is one of the problems I have with government run health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TEs...eature=related

I mean, the US government was designed for two major purposes:
1. Defend the people from external threats/Negotiate treaties with other countries
2. Defend the people from dangerous criminals within our borders.

They're doing a bang-up job on number one, and they have to have John Walsh's TV show to help with number two. I'd hate to see what they do with a more complicated task like giving medical treatment to the citizens.

Personally, I think they need to remove their hands from all portions of the economy, because without all that red-tape, doctors wouldn't have to spend as much to save more lives. I mean, take rent controls for example. The last time they were wide-spread, the controls held rents at a certain level (WWII), but the quality of housing plumetted because there was no longer a reason for owners to keep up their rentals, since they were guaranteed rent at that rate, and improving wouldn't have gained them anything for the same reason. It's the same thing they did to the first REAL transcontinental railroad.

[Osterbaum]

Doing what you're saying would hardly be considered socialism by any of todays standards.

Now in Finland everyone who owns a car has to have atleast a minimum car insurance. It comes with the deal when you buy the car. It's been like that for... I don't know how long, but long enough that people don't really complain about it or anything anymore.

As for healthcare, we get it free. Well, through taxes, you know the deal.

So sadly, I have no educated comments on how you should change your (USA) system.

I can however state my opinion on 'forcing' health insurance or anything else on people.

A goverment does not have that right. Yes, that's how I'm putting it. They don't have the right to really force anything. Now that's a pretty simplified statement, true. Truth is, they do a lot of things which are basically the same by going around it somehow (like Fifth wrote about adding to taxes something and sending you a 'free' gun for example). Now stuff that really does work out good for EVERYONE is all ok and nice. But like in this case, as I understand it many people can't simply afford a health insurance. So how is forcing them to buy one gonna make it better? They'll buy it and then not buy car insurance because of it? Buy it, but save on clothes, housing, food or whatever?

Maybe they wont buy that gun. Or whatever. You get the point.

I don't see this course of action solving any more problems than it creates. And a lot of people would still not get health insurance if the whole thing wasn't too closely monitored.

The idea of a "nurse" state as we might call it here is something I am not specially fond of. Social welfare state is different thing.

[Odjn]

I think we should have a government insurance policy that costs a certain amount. That way private companies would have to compete with that rather than work among themselves to determine pricing.

[CABAL49]

Health care is a double edged sword no matter what. Put the government in charge and the government decides who lives and who dies. Put private corporations in charge and these corporations decide who lives and who dies. Neither are perfect or even that great. Pure capitalism or socialism are a waste of time, they have too many negatives to work on their own. The economy will just collapse either way. I actually approve of the U.K.'s system. They have Universal Healthcare but you can also spend your own money to get stuff like private rooms and whatnot. Not perfect but I am not opposed to it.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

This is one of the problems I have with government run health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TEs...eature=related

On the subject of wait times:

Waiting Times For Care? Try Looking At The U.S. - Nurses, Doctors Say It's Time To Debunk The Myths

Waiting times in U.S. hospitals and clinics are becoming so lengthy that even one of the nation's biggest insurers, Aetna, has admitted to its investors that the U.S. healthcare system is "not timely" and patients diagnosed with cancer wait "over a month" for needed medical care, said two leading organizations of doctors and nurses recently.

...

"There's been a lot of clamor lately about delays in care in some other countries. But if you want to see some really unsightly waiting times, look at U.S. medical facilities," said Deborah Burger, RN, president of the 75,000-member CNA/NNOC.

While the problem has been largely overlooked by the major media, it was quietly exposed by the chief medical officer of Aetna, Inc. late in Aetna's Investor Conference 2007 in March.

In his talk, [Aetna, Inc.'s Chief Medical Officer] Troy Brennan conceded that "the (U.S.) healthcare system is not timely." He cited "recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement… that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable," Brennan said.

...

A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada. And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.

In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or better than the U.S. in most areas, the organizations say. Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.

"There are significant differences between the U.S. and Canada, too," said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost, because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they have a pre-existing condition."

The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months

In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems. Take Susan M., a 54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April, knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for her routine screening at the end of May, then had another because the first wasn't clear. That second X-ray showed an abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date: mid-August. "I completely freaked out," Susan says. "I couldn't imagine spending the summer with this hanging over my head." After many calls to five different facilities, she found a clinic that agreed to read her existing mammograms on June 25 and promised to schedule a follow-up MRI and biopsy if needed within 10 days. A full month had passed since the first suspicious X-rays. Ultimately, she was told the abnormality was nothing to worry about, but she should have another mammogram in six months. Taking no chances, she made an appointment on the spot. "The system is clearly broken," she laments.

It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. "Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care," says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy.

All this time spent "queuing," as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries. On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries.

There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.

Arguments about Canada's wait times are essentially cherry-picking the worst-performing national health-care system, and we still don't stack up very well against it.

To make one particular point, per the bolded bits above it's worth noting that one meaningful consequence of nationalized healthcare would be accountability. If the healthcare service is awful then citizens have the option to petition their elected representatives to make it better; under our current system you're pretty much at the mercy of companies that have every incentive to deny and restrict access to care.

The only people for whom the US system solves the problem of waitlists is those 40 million uninsured people, who don't have to worry about waitlists because they can't afford to be on them.

[bluestarultor]

I just have to say this. Bravo, Fifth. That seriously needed to be said.

Honestly, the only reason Canada gets slapped with the stigma of long waiting times is because they have people who actually have medical access. In the US, a significant portion of people just don't go to the hospital when they get sick. They don't have the money.


One more interesting thing between the US and Canada: in a worldwide study, the US ranks as the 25th happiest country in the world. Canada ranks number 10. One of the major things Canadians rated as a contributing factor was their health care system.



*clarified*

[Xaeta]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Also, I don't really agree with the slippery slope idea that your Reagan quote suggests. There's the obvious point that we don't have to keep taking more steps toward socialism afterward, but really we'd hardly be taking the first step at all. We already have numerous publicly-funded service programs, from schools to police to road work and on and on.

To tell you the truth I don't really like that quote either. I use it as a reference to why universal healthcare is a prominent problem in America and why it won't be done any time soon. I mean, privately owned health-insurance companies and many senators spent hundreds of millions of dollars to SILENCE Hilary Clinton and her plans of bettered (near universal) healthcare.
Not to sound Communist, but....is America SO capitalist that it will constantly allow private business to dictate if you can (RATE TO) see the doctor or not? I guess getting an extra $500,000 a year over the next man is rather tempting....