Healthcare in this country stinks

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'd rather have the government take it over for a while so the corporations STOP gouging the consumers. When you have a cartel and monopoly you can charge anything you want.

You do know what a monopoly is? If not google the definition. So many people who talk about this issue have no concept of monopoly. The problem is people are pro-corporations above every other consideration.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'd rather have the government take it over for a while so the corporations STOP gouging the consumers. When you have a cartel and monopoly you can charge anything you want.

You do know what a monopoly is? If not google the definition. So many people who talk about this issue have no concept of monopoly. The problem is people are pro-corporations above every other consideration.

Insurance companies only have a monopoly/oligopoly because government has encouraged it with regulations that hamper competition. Pretty much every issue with our health system is rooted in too much government involvement.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'd rather have the government take it over for a while so the corporations STOP gouging the consumers. When you have a cartel and monopoly you can charge anything you want.

The government never takes something over "for a while." Once you hand it to them (or, as it may be, they take it from us), it will be theirs forever. It's naïve to think anything else.

You do know what a monopoly is? If not google the definition. So many people who talk about this issue have no concept of monopoly. The problem is people are pro-corporations above every other consideration.

The government is the biggest monopoly of anything out there, yet you're advocating for them to have a monopoly on healthcare.

See, the problem is that some people are pro-government above every other consideration.

ETA:

originally posted by: Edumakated
Insurance companies only have a monopoly/oligopoly because government has encouraged it with regulations that hamper competition. Pretty much every issue with our health system is rooted in too much government involvement.

EXACTLY this.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Edumakated

All very good questions IF universal healthcare is a consideration.

But to me, it should not be a consideration at all, therefore I find it a mental exercise and nothing more. HOWEVER, I still would love to see things cut from the government, and instead of replacing it with something else, just letting me keep the money that I earn through my own knowledge, skills, time, and effort.

However, I think that the more appropriate solution is not single-payerizing health insurance through taxation, but just ridding the nation of the middle-men that are insurance companies (or, at the very least, removing that as the normalized way of paying for health care). Getting people back in the process of paying directly from pocket to doctor/hospital would do wonders in reducing costs and headaches and uncertainties. HSAs should obviously remain a thing.

Think about that, for a moment--if the OP put aside even 1/4 of his upcoming $2,000/mo health-insurance cost each month into an HSA, by year's end, he'd have built up $6,000 if he spent nothing. Assuming that, on top of that, he spent $500/mo out-of-pocket on healthcare costs (which I think is pretty high for the average person and would cover, on average, everything), that still leaves him with a monthly reduction of 50% of what he will be paying this upcoming year, plus he could keep building up the HSA the following year.

Of course, that's assuming that $500-$1,000/mo would be a good, average expenditure per month for a family of four people, but in most cases, I think that it would.

In theory, this reduces the monthly financial burden on the family, rids the healthcare industry of the headaches, uncertainty, and need to deal with the insurance industry, would reduce the actual cost of healthcare procedures, AND brings the individual back in direct contact with the doctor when paying.

I absolutely view this as a much better next step than talking about single-payer, universal, government-administered healthcare and insurance.

I agree. A big problem is that people don't understand the concept of insurance. Insurance is supposed to be for catastrophic expenses, not paying for every single doctor visit for a physical or sneeze. We don't really have health insurance plans, but health maintenance plans which is why it is so expensive.

Think how much car insurance would cost if the insurance company had to pay for oil changes, tire rotations, brake jobs, car washes, etc.

Health insurance would go down dramatically if it were only for catastrophic incidents - broken arms, unexpected surgeries, cancer, etc. The things that would financial break someone if they occur.

Routine health care should not be covered by insurance. If you want a phsyical, you should call around and find a doc to give you one at fair price.. I guarantee the cost would drop overnight. You see this with elective surgery like plastic surgery where insurance isn't paying for it,so the patient has more of an incentive to shop around for a fair price.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Lets be realistic..."want" and "can't" are merely semantics in a nation where even the poor have smart phones and access to both voice and data. Where even the poor wear $100 sneakers.

Defining what is a "want" and a "can't" must first untangle the luxuries that American poor choose to have, rather than basic healthcare. Just 1, maybe 2, generations back there would have been much less entertainment and much more healthcare in the average poor household.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TrueBrit

Don't you brits pay taxes all over the place?
Vat tax?
$7 gas?
Etc etc

Or do poor people not pay those?

Serious question.

Vat is added to the cost of stuff so everyone pays the same flat rate regardless of how much you earn

Income tax is a percentage of income but not the first 12 grand a year and those on low income with families can claim tax credits which are a sum given weekly to top uo to the amount deemed necissary to live but you still pay income tax.

everyone pays the same for petrol and deisel but yes it is heavily taxed.

Health, pensions and what other stuff like unemployent benefit ect is paid for by national insurance which is I think 11 percent of income over the 12 grand but after a certain level of income it rops to a lot lower percentage.

We pay council tax based on the location and size of the property you live in that covers local councils, waste removal, police, fire service ect and this is about £1500 a year on average regardless of how many people live in the property.

Having a quick look if you earn £150,000 a year then National insurance is about £550 a month so even if your on a really decent wage you pay no where near what a lot of you guys are paying. if you are a couple you also both get the same tax and NI free allowances.

On the lower scale if you are a couple and both earn £25,000 a year then total NI contributions are about £340 a month and it obviously covers your kids too. The same family after income tax and NI gets about 80% of their gross income and the other stuff is paid for afterwards.


Hope this helps a bit.

a reply to: Edumakated

Well, you and I get it...

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: dfnj2015

How on earth can anyone afford $2000 pm? That's insane. Even if both adults are working and they wonder why so many prefer to live on the bread line on welfare. What's the point of working if you're paying out that kind of money "just in case"? Plus taxes fuel, gas & electricity, food, clothing, phone, other insurances. Bloody hell

Clearly, because the OP is a business owner, he is considered "rich." Therefore, he is made of money and this is all so much whining. That is the attitude all too many have these days, and they are figuring that the $2000 premiums are a small price for him even though they don't understand the first bit about overhead or anything else. They just see the gross bottom line and think "rich, greedy bastard!"

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Edumakated

Well, you and I get it...

You aren't the only ones.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: dfnj2015

How on earth can anyone afford $2000 pm? That's insane. Even if both adults are working and they wonder why so many prefer to live on the bread line on welfare. What's the point of working if you're paying out that kind of money "just in case"? Plus taxes fuel, gas & electricity, food, clothing, phone, other insurances. Bloody hell

Clearly, because the OP is a business owner, he is considered "rich." Therefore, he is made of money and this is all so much whining. That is the attitude all too many have these days, and they are figuring that the $2000 premiums are a small price for him even though they don't understand the first bit about overhead or anything else. They just see the gross bottom line and think "rich, greedy bastard!"

They don't have access to your income figures when they give you a quote do they?

If they do then that is really scarey, hope not.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Then go to some other country if you want to be oppressed...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0naut
But seriously, here's a Wikipedia list of countries that provide either free or universal health care (or both).

There will never be a list of "free health care," because nothing is free when paid for by taxes.

Perhaps, but the specific list is there in black and white.

Surely,in the 21stCentury, only a third world country would withhold something that is obviously such a basic human right as health care.

Health care is not a right, just a fabricated argument when it is called such. No one should have the right to someone else's products, services, skills, or time without due compensation (paid for by the individual, not a government). We have a right to life, not a right to artificially sustained health.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a legally binding interpretation of the human right to health, which is recorded in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', in a document generally referred to as General Comment 14.

So, it is actually codified as a universal human right.

And regardless, every single person in America has forced-by-law access to emergency health care, even if they cannot afford it.

In 2009, in a study by the American Journal of Public Health, it was found that 45,000 people per year were dying from lack of health care specifically because they could not afford insurance.

So, I'd call the "forced law access to emergency heath care", ineffectual BS. A government snow-job to hide their failures.

I would think that the managed provision of such universally publicly available services is one of the reasons for the existence of a government in the first place.

Not all governments, and not in all places...and I'm not saying that with the implication that this is a bad thing. The government should only do what private industry can't, won't, or shouldn't do (like national military).

Also, (and please forgive my very 'back of the envelope' figures) if your population base is, say 323.1 million people of which 5% have health costs @ $50,000 P/A, that averages out to an annual tax of @ $2,500 per citizen and the health of all those requiring care would be fully funded for a socially acceptable cost.

But in truth, because they have a history of threatening the lives of those who are unwell and can extract increasing money from the situation, health costs in the US are more than twice as high as any other country. This trend will continue while ever there is no cap at all on what can be charged for healthcare.

This has also led to a per capita healthcare cost of about $8,953 P/A. In most other countries in the world, healthcare costs are manageable and far less than half the US cost. It makes sense for governments to assure the best healthcare for its citizens is available, regardless of their income.

The notion that you should not pay a tax for this, because you would be paying for the healthcare of someone else and that you will never get sick, is both morally reprehensible and unreasonable.

For balance, consider that the US government in 2012 spent $52,800,000,000.00 on 'black budget' military projects (above and beyond normal military funding). Such projects persist to this day. Your taxes continue to pay for that.

Wouldn't it be preferable to choose a 'better spend' that actually, provably and directly directly saved the lives of citizens rather than a lot of wasteful "golden hammer" projects that probably won't save any lives, much less have a positive outcome?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I just got a letter from my healthcare insurance company announcing a 24 percent increase in the cost of my premium. I'm too angry to show you the exact numbers but my premium went from $1500 per month for family of 4 to $2000 per month. A $500 per month increase. I run my own business. I've paid 100% of my healthcare premium for 25 years now. Every year before and after the ACA the premium goes up 20% to 25% on average. Every 5 years it doubles in price. This government sucks. This country sucks. Healthcare sucks. All you people with political opinions eff you. Until you pay your own healthcare premium eff you! Eff you all! Eff this country!!

$500 is a big hike, but I'm guessing that those insurance companies have been milking the people for God knows how long now.
I am also of the opinion that medical equipment is fantastically overpriced, R&D on all things medical has too much money going to so few people, and things have gone way out of proportion. The rub is that those at the end of the chain, those that pay the dollars for all the miraculous treatments, don't have much choice, especially if it is a living thing.
You could say, from the cradle to the grave that even the secular version of the Hippocratic oath,
"utmost respect for human life from its beginning" has become tardy and irrelevant in application..even the art is losing it's relevance, when so many people because of their talent, stand in line to screw you....big time.
Governments seem to be impotent for one reason or another, they just don't seem qualified enough to make a stance at what goes on, or have a vested interest by lobbyists for the big guys. It's all so tarnished by money these days.

It's time, I think, that people should start asking Government, "Just exactly what, it is, you do?"

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: rickymouse
We need socialized medicine and a government who doesn't allow unnecessary tests to be done. Many doctors prescribe tests that aren't really necessary, chasing a wrong diagnosis on purpose, so they can make sure that workers in healthcare and other doctors can keep employed. You find this in hospital employed doctors more than in those completely separate from the hospitals.

The cost of all the emergency room use is driving insurance premiums up too. So is the cost of medicines which are increasing a lot lately. The cost of cancer drugs is jumping even though there is more competition, evidently everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to get rich in the Pharma industry.

We need to fix this system, this has been going on before Obamacare, and spreading the cost out between more insured is not working. I do not know where they dreamed up that lie from, people will go to the doctor more if they are paying a premium even if they sneeze. They want to get something for their money they pay. This whole philosophy is messed up, it is going to turn into a country where you either a patient or a healthcare worker. Taking medicines when you do not really need them is not good. You can alter the diet to control things like G-protein receptor activation which makes up around a third of the types of medicines prescribed. Modifications of diet can treat a lot of things, but following the government's food guidlines most often will not help anything. Sometimes eating more supposedly good food on a regular basis will make people need medicine.

Doctors order unnecessary tests because they don't want to be sued. This is why tort reform is so important. Doctors are practicing defensive medicine to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

Our healthcare system is messed up because of government. If you get government out of the way, the market will lower costs.

You have a good point there, lawsuits play a big part in raising costs. But here in Michigan, a law was passed giving immunity to drug companies if their meds were oked by the FDA. It did nothing to stop rising prices. www.michcitizenaction.org...

If a doctor prescribes you a medicine that is approved for the use of the diagnosis in Michigan, you cannot sue the Pharma company or the doctor who prescribed it. Medical malpractice only applies to mistakes made by the doctor or medical professionals if they did something considered improper. If the doctor thinks you have a disease based on evidence he has collected and you die of something else, he is not liable as long as he treats you for the disease he thinks is the problem. A patient cannot come in and demand tests if it does not fit the diagnosis and expect the insurance company to pay for it. There are a lot of people that hear about things and go to their doctor and make up symptoms to get a test done. The internet has stirred up a hornets nest. Most people do not research things like I do, they grab at straws. Occasionally they do hit the nail on the head though. Symptoms for many diseases are pretty much the same, an experienced doctor can often distinguish between them. Blood tests are often as worthless as a tit on a bull, the chemistry of the blood does not show what is happening at the cellular level half the time. Medicine is not as advanced as some people think. A lot of tests are given to make the patient think the doctor is looking into things when he/she is often just trying to settle the patient down and make it look like something is being done.

Our system is broken, the doctors that have lots of experience retire young, they are sick of the direction things are going. Often experience of the doctor is much better than a pile of tests, but then again a doctor can be mistaken, they look at history and make an oppinion of what can be happening. I know a lot of people who got misdiagnosed, they did not sue the doctors. They just went and got a second opinion from another doctor who diagnosed it right and they got fixed.

If I had something major, I would go to Mayo Clinic right away, we do not get a lot of good specialists up here. We live at the end of the rainbow here and there always tends to be a lot of tension between staff and doctors at the hospitals. I wouldn't want to wind up staying in a hospital in this area, most of my relatives did not do good with treatment here. We did have a good cancer doctor and a real good heart surgeon, but the heart surgeon moved to a different town sixty miles away to get away from the turmoil. It is a smaller hospital. I do not know who is doing heart surgery now, I know I would go see that doctor sixty miles away, he was/is an excellent surgeon.

There is so much tension between people in the hospital here that there is problems with people getting better.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yep

Having lived under both (New Zealand Socialized health care (I also have insurance, its quite cheap) and US Insured health) .... I get better care under the nanny state. Not that anyone who has supped the kool aid or eaten the laced apple sauce of "socialized health care will kill you" that the US feeds people will believe me.

Are you under the impression that single payer systems have slave Dr.'s and that a tax payer based system paychecks are worth less than a insurance based one?

Health care is not a right, just a fabricated argument when it is called such. No one should have the right to someone else's products, services, skills, or time without due compensation (paid for by the individual, not a government). We have a right to life, not a right to artificially sustained health.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

a reply to: chr0naut

The UN is not in any way a legislative body for the USA.
So no, it's not a right in the USA or any other country because the UN said so...just saying.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No, its perfectly simple SlapMonkey, and this is nothing to do with the first amendment.

If people consistently vote for people who refuse to socialise medicine, then they are voting FOR private medicine, which, as can be very easily demonstrated, is bad for patients, costs hundreds of percent more than it should or needs to, and means that despite spending more per head on healthcare, this expenditure does not translate to improvements in life expectancy, commensurate with that spending. If you vote for private medicine, you choose to be ripped off, you choose to have unaccountable CEOs deciding matters of life and death (not something which ever ought to be left to someone who is worried about the bottom line), rather than qualified, medical practitioners, devoted to the task of life saving, making any and all decisions about the care of patients.

Basically, the people who vote for private medicine, have two options, and neither of them involve complaining. One may simply NOT have private medicine which works fairly, correctly, or to the benefit of patients, because the aim of operating a private business is for the creation of wealth for those who own it, not those who work in it, not those who deal with the public, not those who deal with the really hard decisions, the qualified staff. If you vote for a system which by definition is NOT there to benefit the user of the service, but itself, you have no business complaining when it performs exactly as intended. The options therefore, are simple. Vote only for politicians and Presidents who want to socialise healthcare, or bend over, brace yourself, and prepare to not only receive the attention of a proctologist, but also to pay through the sphincter for it also.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I think that your words will fall on deaf ears.

My experience on ATS concerning the subject is that the vast majority of Americans are so ingrained with the propaghanda against the concept of nationalised medical care that they will outright refuse it at the off and refuse to listen to or look into the many nantions that use such a system and the opinions of their populations.

As you rightly say until enough people vote for a different system then complaing is just that.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Very true. The US system vs Canadian does not turn into better life expectancy. But the Canadian system is 1/2 the cost of the US's.

The US system is about profits. And sure taxes will go up to pay for a taxpayer funded system, but the $500-$2000 a month plus sky high deductibles-co-pays-out of pockets-out of networks go away.

And how would business like the fact they can get out of the health insurance business?


.