NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does no one seem to care about health care policy? It affects each and every one of us directly, at some time or another, yet no one seems to give a rat's ass. Amazes me... Perhaps a "bury your head in the sand and it will go away" thing?

Perhaps a "bury your head in the sand and it will go away" thing?

It'll go away..

It'll go away..

Hopefully said in jest. At least speaking as an American, health policy is a very serious situation, that everyone should be more informed about. Things like Medicare, Medicaid, nationalized healthcare, all very important topics.
:headbang:

Hopefully said in jest. At least speaking as an American, health policy is a very serious situation, that everyone should be more informed about. Things like Medicare, Medicaid, nationalized healthcare, all very important topics.
:headbang:

I couldn't agree more. I am focusing my masters degree in Political Science on Healthcare policy, and it is amazing how many people know absolutely nothing about the Medical field at all, or even things that are directly tied to healthcare policy, such as social security, the economy, etc.

I couldn't agree more. I am focusing my masters degree in Political Science on Healthcare policy, and it is amazing how many people know absolutely nothing about the Medical field at all, or even things that are directly tied to healthcare policy, such as social security, the economy, etc.

What is there to talk about? Some people want a nationalized system. Others want completely privatized. And others want a mixture.

The socialized system has drawbacks: long wait time; possibly sub-par compared to private.

The private system has drawbacks: expense, namely.

Socialized health care for basic needs and private options for more expensive operations seems to be the best route.

What is there to talk about? Some people want a nationalized system. Others want completely privatized. And others want a mixture.

The socialized system has drawbacks: long wait time; possibly sub-par compared to private.

The private system has drawbacks: expense, namely.

Socialized health care for basic needs and private options for more expensive operations seems to be the best route.

An interesting stance to take, I think I am sort of following a similar path. I think the US is the one country in the world that could actually sustain a "Nationalized, privatized healthcare" if that makes any sense. The large insurance companies (United Healthcare being the biggest and best) could pretty easily add a few million more patients. Figure, Medicare has 35 million patients currently, United Healthcare has 55 million already. The framework is already there, there isn't nearly as much bureaucracy, I think it would be workable, at least for those more "catastrophic" services you refer to. At least everyone would have an opportunity to purchase insurance if they wanted it...

Socialized health care for basic needs and private options for more expensive operations seems to be the best route.

Sounds interesting.

What counts as a basic need? If I get a kidney stone and spend 6 hours in the hospital, which does it fall under?

Would pre-natal care count as a basic need? (I'm not having a baby, I'm just interested in how care would be classified)

I think having regular checkups covered is a good idea, if some examination regimen were used that would give a decent chance of early detection. I'd like to see more go into preventative healthcare.

Why does no one seem to care about health care policy? It affects each and every one of us directly, at some time or another, yet no one seems to give a rat's ass. Amazes me... Perhaps a "bury your head in the sand and it will go away" thing?

Given what seems to be the average age around here, it is hardly unsurprising that it is a low-priority subject for discussion.

Most people don't care about it that much in more than an abstract sense until it affects them directly. If someone's Grandmother is having trouble getting prescription filled or whatever - that is unfortunate, but just not seen to be on the scale of other more immediate concerns that they have. It's that "at some time or other bit" you mentioned. They're worry about it... at some time or other when it suddenly matters.

Why does no one seem to care about health care policy? It affects each and every one of us directly, at some time or another, yet no one seems to give a rat's ass. Amazes me... Perhaps a "bury your head in the sand and it will go away" thing?

My understanding of healthcare is that however it is organized, there will alway be some form of rationing. In the US this is achieved by: giving a portion of the population excellent - possibly the world's best - healthcare; a portion adequate - though not fully comprehensive - healthcare; and, a portion virtually none.

On the other hand Europe seems to achieve this by giving everyone almost identical, but not as comprehensive as the best US care, coverage. (Though I doubt Tony Blair, or Sir Richard Branson gets the same health coverage as a bus driver).

Ultimately, I think people are aware that the current US model is unsustainable as is, owing to costs rising faster than inflation, but no-one wants to think about it because it will entail making some difficult choices in respect of the extent and type of care that many people now recieve. So the attitude is, just wait until it collapses, and then do something.

An interesting stance to take, I think I am sort of following a similar path. I think the US is the one country in the world that could actually sustain a "Nationalized, privatized healthcare" if that makes any sense. The large insurance companies (United Healthcare being the biggest and best) could pretty easily add a few million more patients. Figure, Medicare has 35 million patients currently, United Healthcare has 55 million already. The framework is already there, there isn't nearly as much bureaucracy, I think it would be workable, at least for those more "catastrophic" services you refer to. At least everyone would have an opportunity to purchase insurance if they wanted it...
And you have 45 Million Americans with no health care plan.

What would you do for them?

And you have 45 Million Americans with no health care plan.

What would you do for them?

Which on the good side means there are 250 million Americans with health care. You have to figure that some Americans are independently wealthy, or just have no desire to purchase healthcare. For the other 44.9 million out there, the goverment and private markets can definitely work together... Imagine a group of 1000 gets a discount over a group of 100, imagine a group of a million or so... I think this idea needs better wording, but definitely has potential...

I wonder if people who mention that there are 45 million uninsured Americans realise that "uninsured" does not mean "no access to health care".

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba339/ba339.html

Being uninsured is not the same as being without health care. There are more than 40 federal health-care service programs. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) makes it illegal for hospitals to turn people away from emergency rooms because they cannot pay. COBRA imposes severe penalties on hospitals that engage in "patient dumping." In addition, there are state and local programs and charity and nonprofit providers. For example, Texas requires nonprofit hospitals to provide charity care equivalent to 5 percent of net revenue. According to a recent report by the Texas Comptroller, through public and private means, Texas spends an average of about $1,000 per year on every uninsured individual in the state.

I wonder if people who mention that there are 45 million uninsured Americans realise that "uninsured" does not mean "no access to health care".

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba339/ba339.html

Being uninsured is not the same as being without health care. There are more than 40 federal health-care service programs. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) makes it illegal for hospitals to turn people away from emergency rooms because they cannot pay. COBRA imposes severe penalties on hospitals that engage in "patient dumping." In addition, there are state and local programs and charity and nonprofit providers. For example, Texas requires nonprofit hospitals to provide charity care equivalent to 5 percent of net revenue. According to a recent report by the Texas Comptroller, through public and private means, Texas spends an average of about $1,000 per year on every uninsured individual in the state.
Perhaps this will help to put it in perspective?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10331344&postcount=60

I believe that your article does not address the real problems inherent with an underfunded health care system.

I believe that your article does not address the real problems inherent with an underfunded health care system.

It's not a funding problem. The US spends around 15% of GDP on healthcare, that's more than say Canada or the UK. The problem is how it's spent, and who recieves what.

For what it's worth, I've dealt with both private insurance (HMO's and the like) and Medicare. When I was still able to work and covered by private insurance, it was not uncommon for me to be denied care and forced to jump through hoops in the name of red tape. But since I've been on Medicare, I have received better care than I ever did under a private insurer. I have yet to encounter any red tape, substandard treatment, long wait times, or difficulty finding a doctor supposedly inherent in a government run system. It's been great so far.

It's not a funding problem. The US spends around 15% of GDP on healthcare, that's more than say Canada or the UK. The problem is how it's spent, and who recieves what.
United States:

Public health expenditure (% of GDP), 2002 6.6
Private health expenditure (% of GDP), 2002 8.0
Health expenditure per capita (PPP US$), 2002 5,274

Canada:

Public health expenditure (% of GDP), 2002 6.7
Private health expenditure (% of GDP), 2002 2.9
Health expenditure per capita (PPP US$), 2002 2,931

In the US, too much money is lost on administration and competing insurance providers.

In the US, too much money is lost on administration and competing insurance providers.

That's part of it. I also think that some people in this country get too much healthcare. It's a consumer culture, and doctors will rarely refuse to give treatment that is covered, i.e. dispense pills of dubious utility. (Unless you are really ill and need something big, then that's a huge fucking hassle.)

That's the problem though. Like I said, there is always going to be some form of rationing. A nation just can't provide rockerfeller coverage for everyone. And as it is in the US, no-one wants to give up the piece of the pie they already have. So nothing will change until it collapses,

Perhaps this will help to put it in perspective?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10331344&postcount=60

I believe that your article does not address the real problems inherent with an underfunded health care system.

Life expectancy:

Canada

A 80.1 years
M 76.73 years
F 83.63 years

United States

A 77.71 years
M 74.89 years
F 80.67 years

Source: CIA

Heh, that's why I'm against two-tier healthcare and for-profit healthcare.

On another note, I wonder how aboriginals can afford private healthcare. I also wonder how accessible (private) healthcare is to low-income families, hell they're not going afford a $200 return flight to Vancouver just for a $1000+ hip replacement surgery. Also drugs (no, I'm not talking about pot) in Canada are way affordable than the United States, will it be affordable without public healthcare?

Btw, good article CH.

Why does no one seem to care about health care policy? It affects each and every one of us directly, at some time or another, yet no one seems to give a rat's ass. Amazes me... Perhaps a "bury your head in the sand and it will go away" thing?

In the states, it's completely a bury your head in the sand and it will go away thing.

In the UK, it's more "we've tried everything short of actually ensuring there's no two tier healthcare system, but we'll never do that and have one unified governmental healthcare system, because that would scare the middle class who would rather pay £500 for a doctor to tell them they have a bunion than £450 in tax to provide a doctor to tell them they have a bunion so lets just waffle a bit about choice and then hope the whole thing goes away"


basic variants of this are also in place in education and pensions policy :)

I'm reading a book called "Health Care Meltdown" by Robert H. LeBow, MD. In it, he promotes a universal coverage, single-payer system of health care in the Unites States. While I don't subscribe to all of his assertions, I do agree with a lot of what he says in the book. If you're interested in this topic, give it a read.

I think that the United States should provide universal health coverage for all "essential" procedures. The boundaries for "essential" will be open for debate and review on an ongoing basis, but I believe should definitely include routine preventive exams (physicals, prostate exams, mammograms etc.), vision care (corrective lenses but not corrective surgery...yet), and dental (semi-annual cleanings, non-cosmetic orthodontia, wisdom tooth extraction).