You can come to the US now, we have health care

[neorichieb1971]

It's not free healthcare.

No it isn't.. but its not so bad that people who remain healthy don't pay shit whilst watching everyone else die because they can't afford it.

[Domino]

Also, fuck Mitt Romney and the republicans, sick of seeing those assholes trash talk on my TV. I hope Obama gets re-elected. He may not be perfect, but at least he has a brain.

Remember, you are wasting your free time watching a bunch of white guys on TV. Do what I did, get rid of cable!

The other thing that baffles me is that the guy running against Obama wants to reverse this political movement straight away. If America is split 60/40 on the votes there are going to be a lot of extremist activities.

Where if the Supreme Court said anything you don't like it then vote people in who will appeal it.

Ideally, US should be split in 2 with democrats running one half and Republicans running the other half. Then people can just choose what half they want to be in.

Sounds like New York state.

I don't think the UK service is that great. They give you pain killers and fob you off most of the time. I go to the Dr's if that has already failed, but not before. Common sense should prevail with a cut finger?

If people have any common sense in the first place.

[Skykid]

Remember, you are wasting your free time watching a bunch of white guys on TV. Do what I did, get rid of cable!

I don't have cable. But every time he pops up with his wanky swagger and cowboy hat smile I just want someone to punch him in his stupid fat cat face. Honestly, saying the first thing he'll do when he gets into power is reverse the subsidised healthcare bill? What a total cunt. It's like something out of Robocop.

[undamned]

If people have any common sense in the first place.

Therein lies most of our problems here in the good ol' US of A
-ud

[Domino]

I don't have cable. But every time he pops up with his wanky swagger and cowboy hat smile I just want someone to punch him in his stupid fat cat face. Honestly, saying the first thing he'll do when he gets into power is reverse the subsidised healthcare bill? What a total cunt. It's like something out of Robocop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Gpd0U9ECo

[GaijinPunch]

Austin's great -- one of the few livable US cities.

To play devil's advocate a bit:

This topic has been coming up among my American friends lately... no doubt as 2012 elections are just around the corner. I've been living w/ NHS for ages, so I don't have anything against it in general (I think the US and Japan should find nice middle ground, for the best system honestly). However, the reason it "works" so well in Japan and isn't the magical savior in the US is b/c the cost of health care in the US, which is directly driven by insurance, which is directly driven by the exorbunt amount of money from the results of malpractice lawsuits. America's "sue first ask questions later" attitude is eating it from the inside out.

I don't mind a base level of healthcare offered as a tax, but they should do something to get the fucking COST back into the stratosphere at least first.

[BulletMagnet]

However, the reason it "works" so well in Japan and isn't the magical savior in the US is b/c the cost of health care in the US, which is directly driven by insurance, which is directly driven by the exorbunt amount of money from the results of malpractice lawsuits. America's "sue first ask questions later" attitude is eating it from the inside out.

I'm no expert, but I do recall reading that, while tort reform would reduce health care costs to some extent, it's far from the main driving factor in that area (hafta see if I can dig that article up). I dunno, are doctors in Japan/Europe/etc. that much more shielded from malpractice suits that those countries end up spending 2/3 to half what we do per person on healthcare, with similar or better end results to boot?

The first question I'd ask, personally, is how many resources insurance providers over there expend to find and enforce loopholes in their plans to prevent people from getting the treatment they've paid for...and how much their top executives take home versus ours.

[burgerkingdiamond]

Austin Christian apologetics

that's funny because I watch The Atheist Experience a lot and that show is based in Austin.

[Drum]

Also, moral hazard. If people don't have to risk paying medical bills and/or higher premiums, they will decide to be sick instead of deciding to be healthy. Or they'll more frequently decide to procure unnecessary medical treatment.

holy shit

[ED-057]

I`m so glad that we can have a "tax" (on what?) to fund federally mandated insurance company profits. Now that the U.S. Government has the insurance companies` backs, I`m sure health care costs will start going down, just like tuitions did.

[GaijinPunch]

[quote

I'm no expert, but I do recall reading that, while tort reform would reduce health care costs to some extent, it's far from the main driving factor in that area (hafta see if I can dig that article up). I dunno, are doctors in Japan/Europe/etc. that much more shielded from malpractice suits [/quote]

Japan? Yes. Very much so. To the point that if the US is one extreme, Japan is the polar opposite. That's to say, either extreme is no good. Basically, if you sue in a court here (malpractice or anything) you will not win millions upon millions of dollars.

that those countries end up spending 2/3 to half what we do per person on healthcare, with similar or better end results to boot?

Japan's medical system, if you're seriously ill, is a joke. Decades behind. However, for *most* people, it is cheap and it works. Don't be afraid to self-diagnose. One could say the reason their medicine is so far behind is they devalue it, considering they have the longest life span...even though a miserable one according to statistics.

The first question I'd ask, personally, is how many resources insurance providers over there expend to find and enforce loopholes in their plans to prevent people from getting the treatment they've paid for...and how much their top executives take home versus ours.

In Japan, with the two main healthcares, the phenomenon of the insurance provider weaseling out of tens of thousands AFTER said operation does not exist. The state offered outlines are extremely clear. It's either covered or not. If you have private health care (which some people do... sometimes in addition to state provided) then you can tangle w/ that.

just like tuitions did.

Sarcasm, right?

[antron]

I`m so glad that we can have a "tax" (on what?)

the "tax" (penalty) is to offset the risk one causes everyone else if they don't have insurance. everyone gets sick, and everyone gets care. but if you don't pay then the hospital has been shifting that cost to the insured. no more.

[neorichieb1971]

Like Gaijin says, its about how much the healthcare costs in the first place!

I remember an incident 15-20 years ago where a lady from the UK wanted to fly to FL USA being pregnant. The Dr in the UK gave the all clear to fly to the USA for her and so she went. Whilst there, she had complications and the bill racked up to about $1.1m in healthcare costs, which were filed with her insurance company. The premium she paid was about £40 for the holiday insurance.

Again in the USA. A heart transplant. What does it cost? Its millions of dollars. Even though the procedure accounted for one shift of about 10-15 people to perform the operation. 12 hours of electricity, utilized technology which was already paid for, it costs millions of $$$$. So the surgeon must be on $100,000 an hour pay or more? I always wished there was a breakdown of what things cost. It would be amazing to see where most of the money goes. I am sure hardly any of it goes into the pockets that actually do the work.


Unfortunately the healthcare system in the USA is making alot of fat cats. Its money is intertwined with all kinds of pensions and political promises. Thats why a pill that cost .025cents to make is costing $5 a pop. Once the American people actually analyze they are getting ripped off in the first place, they can vote accordingly.

The system is flawed, the people are weak and the choice is an illusion.

I would have to say in the past. American healthcare is so badly adminstered that you would be better off drinking poison than medicine.

[njiska]

Like Gaijin says, its about how much the healthcare costs in the first place?

To be fair this is a problem even in countries with social medicine. Case in point, here in Ontario, Canada we have a backlog of surgeries because we can't afford to pay most surgeons to perform their work more than one day a week. Government controls the prices and even still it's expensive.

[antron]

neorichieb1971: fat cats, weak people, poison... your post reads like it was written by a soviet propagandist.

I'll say it again:

Any talk about cost reduction without understanding what a Accountable Care Organization (ACO) is, is a complete waste of time. It is a proven system in the US (Geisinger, Mayo, Kaiser). It's part of the law.

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/01/132937232 ... -explained

[Skykid]

neorichieb1971: fat cats, weak people, poison... your post reads like it was written by a soviet propagandist.

Keep in mind that we have an outside-in perspective. It's not the same as someone born, raised and taught to be considerate of the costs for private healthcare.

Lots of people find reasons to complain about the NHS, but they wouldn't be if every time they walked out of the hospital they had a £250 bill. Personally I think the NHS is the only good thing about the UK. You get sick, they treat you, you go back to life.

The two systems can operate perfectly well in tandem, we do have private medical organisations too - but not even having the option is so backward for the world's largest economy, I can only think of one good reason holding it back: money.

[neorichieb1971]

Well, what the USA should do is implement it gradually.

If I were a politician I would invoke an act where the people at the age of <15 were automatically put into a NHS. As people got older and died there would be less Americans used to the old system and they would have to look at younger people benefiting from the new system.

What I think is the problem right now is that Obama has done a quick right turn. Sudden changes sometimes take time to get used to.

As Obama said. Its not a political choice, its one that makes the country better. Is it so hard for Americans to think along the lines of "country first, me second". Because ultimately thats what this is. A forced charity tax that nobody wants to pay.

[antron]

^Reading your post gives me the idea that you have absolutly no idea what the law does. Kind of like the thread you once started with the title "US gets NHS style healhcare", which was completly wrong.


from: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8023-R.pdf

The legislation will do the following:
• Most individuals will be required to have health insurance beginning in 2014.
• Individuals who do not have access to affordable employer coverage will be able to purchase coverage through a health Insurance Exchange with premium and cost-sharing credits available to some people to make coverage more affordable. Small businesses will be able to purchase coverage through a separate Exchange.
• Employers will be required to pay penalties for employees who receive tax credits for health insurance through the Exchange, with exceptions for small employers.
• New regulations will be imposed on all health plans that will prevent health insurers from denying coverage to people for any reason, including health status, and from charging higher premiums based on health status and gender.
• Medicaid will be expanded to 133% of the federal poverty level ($14,404 for an individual and $29,327 for a family of four in 2009) for all individuals under age 65.

for those who don't know Medcaid is government sponsered insurance for the disabled poor.
also not listed here is the rule that insurance companies can only take 20% profit off the top of their revenue.

[Skykid]

This is the best part of the sanctions:

• New regulations will be imposed on all health plans that will prevent health insurers from denying coverage to people for any reason, including health status, and from charging higher premiums based on health status and gender.

Now why would the Republicans not at least want to maintain this aspect of the bill? Is there really any reason why companies should be allowed to place profit before life itself?

I'm sure Armpitt Romney has a cheesy answer.

[antron]

The answer is known as "Adverse Selection". Only sick people will buy insurance, because the healthy can just wait to buy only if they get sick.

That is why the law mandated that everyone buy insurance. The two provisions are two sides to the same coin. But Republicans see mandated purchase as an erosion of personal liberty (even though it was originally their idea)

But the personal liberty argument has been an illusion ever since Emergency Rooms were required to take all comers (1980s). You cannot gamble with your own life by not purchasing insurance. The ambulance will eventually come get your ass, and everyone else will have to pay for it. And guess what, because you waited so long to get care, you will now be MORE expensive.

[Skykid]

^ All this does is confirm my belief that the US medical system is a total fucking mess. It's in a near unsalvageable position because it's trapped between corporate and political entities; the primary issue being that, when it comes to America, they're pretty much one and the same.

I fall back on my original statement:

I think all privatised healthcare should be abolished tbh.

Pay tax = get medical help. If Cuba can do it, anyone can.

[CMoon]

Colbert Report weighs in:

http://on.cc.com/KHKBKB

[undamned]

here in Ontario, Canada we have a backlog of surgeries because we can't afford to pay most surgeons to perform their work more than one day a week. Government controls the prices and even still it's expensive.

Oh, don't worry about that being a problem in the good ol' US of A! We'll just print money to pay for it! Or borrow money we can't possibly pay back! Problem solved!
-ud

[Skykid]

Oh, don't worry about that being a problem in the good ol' US of A! We'll just print money to pay for it! Or borrow money we can't possibly pay back! Problem solved!
-ud

[antron]

^ All this does is confirm my belief that the US medical system is a total fucking mess. It's in a near unsalvageable position because it's trapped between corporate and political entities; the primary issue being that, when it comes to America, they're pretty much one and the same.

I fall back on my original statement:

I think all privatised healthcare should be abolished tbh.

I would agree with you but...
I work for a great healthcare provider. I see satisfied patients every day (almost all of them are). I am well paid. We are killing the competition. But this is all because we are an Accountable Care Organization!

[Skykid]

I would agree with you but...
I work for a great healthcare provider. I see satisfied patients every day (almost all of them are). I am well paid. We are killing the competition. But this is all because we are an Accountable Care Organization!

It is with great regret that I must inform you, not for the first time, that you're entirely missing the wider point. I think all US citizens should be forced to broaden their horizons with mandatory travel as part of the educational curriculum.
There are alternatives to purely capitalistic practices that work well enough, believe it or not, while maintaining the benefit of the majority.

And they don't make you a communist.

[antron]

We are an alterative to purely capitalistic practices, we have a .org at the end of our URL. And I bet you still don't know what an ACO is.

[Skykid]

We are an alterative to purely capitalistic practices, we have a .org at the end of our URL. And I bet you still don't know what an ACO is.

I wikipedia'd it before replying, but I didn't know before I looked into it because we don't have so many divisions of medical services. More ethical than a corporate medical practice by making it easier for a select clientele to make payments through a fee-for-care scheme. Does that about sum it up?

Sounds all well and good, and I'm sure it works for its client base, but I still maintain you can offer medicine without any form of public fiscal stimulus, as long as your taxation systems are organised appropriately.

[undamned]

as long as your taxation systems are organised appropriately.

I would venture to say (in concert with my previous post) that even if we did have an "appropriate" tax scheme, it is totally inconsequential if our government's spending scheme doesn't have a catastrophic asteroid collision of a reality check.
-ud

[Skykid]

as long as your taxation systems are organised appropriately.

I would venture to say (in concert with my previous post) that even if we did have an "appropriate" tax scheme, it is totally inconsequential if our government's spending scheme doesn't have a catastrophic asteroid collision of a reality check.
-ud

Wholeheartedly agree.