|
Posted by Eric on May 21, 2008, 4:40 am
HeyBub wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Try it sometime, just for laughs, get rid of your insurance, wait
>> until you're sick, then go looking for treatment. By all means come
>> back and let us know how that goes. I have no doubt that if *you*
>> were the one sitting in a packed emergency room waiting ten or
>> fifteen hours just to see a doctor, if *you* needed medication you
>> couldn't afford, if *you* were the one going without care then you
>> would instantly stop being so flip about how it's not a problem. Go
>> on, give it a try. Fat chance huh?
>
> Why would I want to try it? To prove a point? What if you're right and I
> die? Besides, individual cases make bad policy.
>
>>
>>> Screwing up the health CARE system so that everybody has health
>>> INSURANCE is insane.
>>
>> They tried it that way in Canada, govt.-run insurance, actually a
>> bunch of provincial plans with much of the funding being federal. Private
>> insurance is allowed only for things the govt. insurance
>> doesn't cover, e.g. if you want a private room or some kinds of
>> rehab. The problem is the monthly fee is so low it can't begin to
>> cover the real cost, so greater and greater amounts of tax money are
>> needed. When the govt. doesn't cough up the money because they're
>> afraid to raise taxes the system starts to come unglued as it very
>> publically did in Canada a few years ago when someone sued over not
>> being able to get private insurance to provide timely treatment. It
>> went all the way to the supreme court which found delays in treatment
>> (including life-threatening delays) were widespread. Sooner or late
>> somebody is going to have to bite the bullet and announce that if
>> Canadians want universal health care as in say Denmark then they're
>> going to have to pay the same sort of taxes, presumably the party
>> that does that won't win the next election.
>
> You raise some good points. Our health care system has evolved over several
> decades. To re-jigger the whole thing in the hopes of addressing some
> perceived inequality is, in my judgement, foolish. One of the rules of
> system analysis is:
>
> "A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to
> work. You have to start over with a working, simpler system."
>
> A potential consequence of messing with our health care system is the
> catastrophe it will visit on our Canadian friends: they won't have anywhere
> to go for proper care! Lest you think I jest, there are more MRI machines in
> Seattle (according to my neighbor who works for the G.E. MRI division) than
> there are in the entire country of Canada (and Seattle is not particularily
> known as an MRI Mecca). My cardiologist has angiogram capability in his
> FREAKIN' OFFICE!
>
> On the bright side, abortions are free in Canada - if you don't mind the
> eleven-month wait.
>
Or having to sign up 11 months in advance for a birthing room (in England)
>>
>> On the other hand those Americans who have no coverage of any kind
>> would probably prefer the Canadian model with all its flaws.
>
> I dunno. I've never heard of someone going to Canada to get health care not
> available to them here.
>
>> It's
>> also worth noting that many employers prefer to build plants in
>> places like Canada because it costs them so much less due to not
>> having to pay for employee insurance. Apparently it costs GM $1,200
>> less to build a car in Canada than in the U.S.--great, another way to
>> export American jobs.
>
> Well, yeah. I read where more money goes into U.S. auto workers pension
> system for each car produced than goes to pay for the steel used in
> construction of the vehicle! But, be that as it may, I'm all for moving
> manufacturing jobs - or any other jobs - to places where they can be done
> better or cheaper or (hopefully) both.
>
>>
>> You pay your money and you take your choice. America has so far
>> decided that keeping the health insurance industry profitable is more
>> important than making sure everyone has adequate care.
>
> Again, you confuse the two. Insurance and care are two different critters.
> Related, but different.
>
>> As more and
>> more people get less coverage, as the costs spiral up out of sight,
>> who knows, some sort of basic universal coverage might eventually
>> come about if only because that might turn out to be cheaper than not
>> paying for it. One thing I'm reasonably sure of, guys like you who
>> think that because you have insurance therefore the system is working
>> fine are fooling only yourself.
>
> Well, it works fine for me. Those who suggest I should put myself at great
> risk so that others may possibly do better, are nuts.
>
> Here's an interesting factoid addressing one of the sub-problems: I'm in
> Texas and Texas has seen a stampede of physicians moving to our state to
> practice. Our State Board of Medical Examiners is, today, running 1,000 to
> 2,500 applications behind in processing license approvals. Virtually every
> one of these physicians suggest our state's tort reform of four years ago is
> the biggest reason. Malpractice insurance for health-care providers has
> DROPPED 40% in three years and the number of companies offering such
> insurance has gone from 15 to 39.
>
> Tort reform is an easy fix. Here's another: Each state has its own rules
> about health care that can be provided and no "national" plan is available
> because of this. Some states mandate coverage for chiropractors, mental
> health, holistic healing, acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and other
> non-mainstream methodologies. Payments for these crackpot schemes drive up
> the cost for everyone.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap