Healthcare in this country stinks

a reply to: Edumakated

With the greatest respect for what you do if I lived under a sucession of governments that created a situation where members of the public had to fund raise to pay for sick kids to be treated in hosptals then I would be seriously thinking about changing the way the political system works.

Here in the UK it was similar up until the creation of the NHS with charitable childrens hospitals dangerously underfunded and it was the top docs and consultants who worked and managed them that were the key point in formation of the mational health service. Without their input it would have failed.

originally posted by: chr0nautoriginally posted by: SlapMonkey
But I live in a country with both 'free' and 'universal' healthcare...

So, your anecdotal experiences put you in the category of people who think that it's okay for a central government to force everyone to chip in on your personal healthcare just so that you don't have to pay for anything out of pocket?

I mean, I get the appeal, I just can't bring myself to think that it's okay for the American government to force others to provide part of their hard-earned income to what would be the new middle-man insurance industry (the federal government) so that I have a false sense that overall healthcare costs are lower in America.

I don't mind that I have to spend part of my income paying for my own healthcare costs--call me crazy. I chock it up to personal responsibility, I suppose...and it also reminds me that it's a good idea to lead a healthy lifestyle as much as I can.

So people dying because they can't afford heath care is somehow compliant with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and CESCR General Comment 14? Get real.

You're not representing what I said nor saying anything intelligent with this comment.

So you want a linkage? Here 'tis:

Harvard Gazette - New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Doesn't have a link to the actual study (which is what I requested), just to the homepage of the place that did the study. Plus, their studies are behind pay walls...not interested.

The Guardian - Will losing health insurance mean more US deaths? Experts say yes

Full of nothing but speculation, and it cites the same study that I can't access (but appears to be a study of other studies, from what I can gather).

Obamacare Facts - Facts on Deaths Due to Lack of Health Insurance in US

From the link:

It’s estimated there are between 20,000 and 45,000 deaths a year due to lack of health insurance.

Estimates...ranges...nothing concrete. These are guesses, and there's no way to prove or disprove that health insurance would have saved any of these people. This is the problem with these types of studies...sure, the likelihood of dying without insurance is higher if it causes you to no seek medical attention, but that's just common sense.

Annals of Internal Medicine - The Relationship of Health Insurance and Mortality

From the link:

About 28 million Americans are currently uninsured...

The problem with these studies is that they don't explain WHY people are uninsured. I work with someone who had insurance before the PPACA went into effect, and now he can't afford it and gets penalized because of it. Also, this link cites the same IOM study that the other study cites as well...it too was a study of polls and studies. (as an aside...wasn't the PPACA supposed to fix the issue with the amount of uninsured Americans?)

Regardless, a range of 20,000-45,000 deaths per year is equivalent to (at least in 2014, where the total of registered deaths was 2,626,418) 0.7%-1.7% of the total deaths in the United States each year. While I believe that ever human life is precious, if you're trying to tell me that is a massive problem as far as people dying in the United States, I'm going to have to point and laugh while you do it.

My son had a terminal cancer and is now in remission after chemo/radiation/gene therapy treatment. If we had been required to pay for it at at US cost levels, he'd be dead (I know because I researched it at the time).

Americans die of lack of level of insurance coverage. The TV shows "Scrubs", "House" and "ER" (among others) often were about that. How can you deny something publicly portrayed for over a decade?

Congratulations on your son's apparent defeat of cancer! That truly is awesome, and I hope that he wins the war.

But that said, stop conflating "health care," which is what I said, with "insurance coverage," which is what you're talking about in this response.

All our citizens are universally covered, and it's not just in New Zealand.

And?

Again, call me nuts, but I feel like there should be some really dramatic life issues happening before someone should rely on the American taxpayer to pay for their healthcare.

You are okay with taxpayers paying for everyone's healthcare.

So be it--we can differ in opinion, countries can approach healthcare differently.

I wonder, though, how much of your healthcare technology came from American innovation that was paid for with our ridiculously high costs of medical care...yes, that's a red herring argument, but one worth considering before you condemn Americans for subsidizing the world's access to medical innovation and technologies through our higher costs. I'm not saying that we're the only ones being innovative, but I posted in a thread a while back a break down of medical innovations by country, and we led the way by more than a 2-to-1 margin over second place.

I don't recall New Zealand being very high...

Health care in the US is over priced (the highest in the world) and unfair (it is not universally available). That is a fact. It has nothing to do with anything else at all.

No, it's an opinion. Look up "fact" and "unfair," and you'll see that you misrepresent what a fact is, and you'll understand that "unfair" is subjective.

I think that it's unfair that your country forces everyone to pay for your healthcare. I don't think that your country contributes enough to medical innovation, yet reaps the benefits of cheaper costs because of America's and other countries' contributions, and that is unfair.

Where in your constitution does it determine the percentage of budget spent?

It doesn't, but that's a red-herring argument that doesn't pertain one bit to what I said or the reality that healthcare is not something over which our government was designed to have control.

But if it makes you feel better, I bet that we could shave 50% of our military budget off, better utilize our troops to protect our borders instead of be the world's police and nation builders, and make our taxpayers very happy.

Of course, this would leave many nations to fight their own battles, and that would make many people unhappy in the world. America can't win for trying, to be honest--we are both the devil and the savior in so many respects on the national stage.

... and after a thousand years, you'll all be nearly like the rest of the world, except they have free universal health care, working capitalistic systems and where their poor are better off than the average American.

Edgar Cayce you are not.

... and, just out of interest, which health insurance company do you work for?

Out of interest, where did you cultivate such amazing skills of deduction? [/sarc]

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Edumakated

With the greatest respect for what you do if I lived under a sucession of governments that created a situation where members of the public had to fund raise to pay for sick kids to be treated in hosptals then I would be seriously thinking about changing the way the political system works.

It's funny how subjective opinion works: I'd rather live in a society where dependence on the government is limited and willingness to be individually charitable is higher.

America's St. Jude's Children's Hospital would 9most likely) not exist if we had a national healthcare system, yet the work that it does in our country and around the world is leaps and bounds what could happen under a government system.

Every single dollar that allows St. Jude's to exist is from charitable donations. I cannot fathom how someone would think that this is a bad system.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Edumakated

With the greatest respect for what you do if I lived under a sucession of governments that created a situation where members of the public had to fund raise to pay for sick kids to be treated in hosptals then I would be seriously thinking about changing the way the political system works.

It's funny how subjective opinion works: I'd rather live in a society where dependence on the government is limited and willingness to be individually charitable is higher.

America's St. Jude's Children's Hospital would 9most likely) not exist if we had a national healthcare system, yet the work that it does in our country and around the world is leaps and bounds what could happen under a government system.

Every single dollar that allows St. Jude's to exist is from charitable donations. I cannot fathom how someone would think that this is a bad system.

Why would you not have the childrens hospital if you had nationalised healthcare?

I think the issue here may be with the awful state of US politics and the corruption and lobbying and less about nationalised health care if I am honest.

It seems that the average American has no trust whatsoever in whichever gornment they elect.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: incoserv
A friend who's an expat resident of Mexico (where I'm about immigrate) just had for stints put in near his heart. Total bill was $4,000. He said every aspect of the process was totally Professional.

The two stints I had put in five years ago the hospital bill was $250,000 for 3 days in hospital in Jersey City. That is more money that I could ever possibly save up in my lifetime.

See, you could have taken two months off from work, paid your travel down there, paid your accommodations for two months and the entire medical bill and still come out cheaper. Likely even cheaper than your deductible if you had insurance.

When I lived in Outer Mongolia, my mother traveled there, spent two weeks with me and had major dental work (several crowns) done there by a German trained Mongol dentist. The whole bill - travel and all - came out to about half of what here stateside dentist had quoted here. Her dentist in the US told her before the trip that he didn't recommend it, gave all kinds of dire warnings. When she went to see him several months later, he complimented her on the quality of the work and asked where she'd gotten it done. --

originally posted by: nonspecific
Why would you not have the childrens hospital if you had nationalised healthcare?

I don't think that you understand what St. Jude's Children's Hospital is--it's not just a normal hospital, it is primarily a hospital that pioneers advances in cancer research and procedures, focusing on children with cancer, and doing every single bit of it without cost to the patient or their family. They also cover or help cover travel costs and lodging costs.

This absolutely would not happen if it was run by the federal government.

I think the issue here may be with the awful state of US politics and the corruption and lobbying and less about nationalised health care if I am honest.

It seems that the average American has no trust whatsoever in whichever gornment they elect.

First and foremost, we don't elect a "government," we elect representatives and politicians who are supposed to work within the already-existing construct of our government.

This being the case, you are absolutely correct that the "problem" when it comes to discussing nationalized healthcare is that our government wasn't set up to be the administrators and provider of healthcare for the American people. Our governing documents actually exist in the spirit of keeping our federal government limited, not expanding it to control some of the most important aspects of the individual citizen's life.

So, you are correct that the issue is our government and its track record of administering massive departments, but the solution is not to alter the purpose of our government to fit the idea of nationalized healthcare, it is to run our government within its specified confines in lieu of the attempted perpetual expansion that the two major parties always want, even if said expansion is in different directions.

Our nation was meant to be basically run by the states, barring things that only a centralized government should do (such as national defense and acting internationally on behalf of America). People who want nationalized healthcare are trying to smash a start-shaped peg into a linear slit, and when it doesn't or won't work (the size of our nation has a lot to do with it, too), the rally cry is that there's something wrong with our government.

I disagree--I think that there's something wrong with attempts at making nationalized healthcare work in America...and that's not even taking into account the philosophical arguments about taxation and self-reliance and personal responsibility and the like.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: nonspecific
Why would you not have the childrens hospital if you had nationalised healthcare?

I don't think that you understand what St. Jude's Children's Hospital is--it's not just a normal hospital, it is primarily a hospital that pioneers advances in cancer research and procedures, focusing on children with cancer, and doing every single bit of it without cost to the patient or their family. They also cover or help cover travel costs and lodging costs.

This absolutely would not happen if it was run by the federal government.

I think the issue here may be with the awful state of US politics and the corruption and lobbying and less about nationalised health care if I am honest.

It seems that the average American has no trust whatsoever in whichever gornment they elect.

First and foremost, we don't elect a "government," we elect representatives and politicians who are supposed to work within the already-existing construct of our government.

This being the case, you are absolutely correct that the "problem" when it comes to discussing nationalized healthcare is that our government wasn't set up to be the administrators and provider of healthcare for the American people. Our governing documents actually exist in the spirit of keeping our federal government limited, not expanding it to control some of the most important aspects of the individual citizen's life.

So, you are correct that the issue is our government and its track record of administering massive departments, but the solution is not to alter the purpose of our government to fit the idea of nationalized healthcare, it is to run our government within its specified confines in lieu of the attempted perpetual expansion that the two major parties always want, even if said expansion is in different directions.

Our nation was meant to be basically run by the states, barring things that only a centralized government should do (such as national defense and acting internationally on behalf of America). People who want nationalized healthcare are trying to smash a start-shaped peg into a linear slit, and when it doesn't or won't work (the size of our nation has a lot to do with it, too), the rally cry is that there's something wrong with our government.

I disagree--I think that there's something wrong with attempts at making nationalized healthcare work in America...and that's not even taking into account the philosophical arguments about taxation and self-reliance and personal responsibility and the like.

I think that sadly you may be right in that America cannot have a nationalised health care sytem but would also say that the problem liew with the US and not nationalised health care as a viable option.

I will say again that if you can find the time you should watch the documentary I posted.

As to the childrens hospital I would say that we also have similar setups that specialise in childrens medicene with specialists and accomadation for parents and teachers and the like and this is paid for by the NHS but a lot of people do charitable work and fundraising for them as well.

As to the fear of govenment running things that is not quite the case if the US were ever to set one up, you would form the institution and then use all of the relavant specialists in the fields required to take on the roles needed not a bunch of greedy politicians to make a hash of everything and still have private healthcare if you so wanted.

originally posted by: nonspecific
I think that sadly you may be right in that America cannot have a nationalised health care sytem but would also say that the problem liew with the US and not nationalised health care as a viable option.

It's the chicken/egg argument, but since our constitution is the guiding document on which our nation is founded, I say that it takes precedent over the idea of nationalized healthcare.

And even if it didn't, I'd still argue that it's not a viable option for a country our size, both geographically and in population.

I will say again that if you can find the time you should watch the documentary I posted.

I have it open in a window, waiting to maybe let it play in the background while I work after lunch.

As to the fear of govenment running things that is not quite the case if the US were ever to set one up, you would form the institution and then use all of the relavant specialists in the fields required to take on the roles needed not a bunch of greedy politicians to make a hash of everything and still have private healthcare if you so wanted.

That is all theoretic

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: nonspecific
I think that sadly you may be right in that America cannot have a nationalised health care sytem but would also say that the problem liew with the US and not nationalised health care as a viable option.

It's the chicken/egg argument, but since our constitution is the guiding document on which our nation is founded, I say that it takes precedent over the idea of nationalized healthcare.

And even if it didn't, I'd still argue that it's not a viable option for a country our size, both geographically and in population.

I will say again that if you can find the time you should watch the documentary I posted.

I have it open in a window, waiting to maybe let it play in the background while I work after lunch.

As to the fear of govenment running things that is not quite the case if the US were ever to set one up, you would form the institution and then use all of the relavant specialists in the fields required to take on the roles needed not a bunch of greedy politicians to make a hash of everything and still have private healthcare if you so wanted.

That is all theoretic

I agree I could never expect you to embrace something so alien in concept even though to me it is as natural and sensible as eating or breathing.

Enjoy the vid.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Im starting the immigration process to live in another country because im so sick of how things run around here. I fly out on dec 2nd. Leaving my whole life behind because things are so crappy in the usa these days.

Personaly i see a ship floundering, listing hard and the bows already under. Shes not coming back. Time to jump ship if you can.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0nautoriginally posted by: SlapMonkey
But I live in a country with both 'free' and 'universal' healthcare...

So, your anecdotal experiences put you in the category of people who think that it's okay for a central government to force everyone to chip in on your personal healthcare just so that you don't have to pay for anything out of pocket?

Everyone benefits, not just me.

I mean, I get the appeal, I just can't bring myself to think that it's okay for the American government to force others to provide part of their hard-earned income to what would be the new middle-man insurance industry (the federal government) so that I have a false sense that overall healthcare costs are lower in America.

I don't mind that I have to spend part of my income paying for my own healthcare costs--call me crazy. I chock it up to personal responsibility, I suppose...and it also reminds me that it's a good idea to lead a healthy lifestyle as much as I can.

You're not representing what I said nor saying anything intelligent with this comment.

Doesn't have a link to the actual study (which is what I requested), just to the homepage of the place that did the study. Plus, their studies are behind pay walls...not interested.

Full of nothing but speculation, and it cites the same study that I can't access (but appears to be a study of other studies, from what I can gather).

From the link:

About 28 million Americans are currently uninsured...

The problem with these studies is that they don't explain WHY people are uninsured. I work with someone who had insurance before the PPACA went into effect, and now he can't afford it and gets penalized because of it. Also, this link cites the same IOM study that the other study cites as well...it too was a study of polls and studies. (as an aside...wasn't the PPACA supposed to fix the issue with the amount of uninsured Americans?)

Regardless, a range of 20,000-45,000 deaths per year is equivalent to (at least in 2014, where the total of registered deaths was 2,626,418) 0.7%-1.7% of the total deaths in the United States each year. While I believe that ever human life is precious, if you're trying to tell me that is a massive problem as far as people dying in the United States, I'm going to have to point and laugh while you do it.

Congratulations on your son's apparent defeat of cancer! That truly is awesome, and I hope that he wins the war.

But that said, stop conflating "health care," which is what I said, with "insurance coverage," which is what you're talking about in this response.

Again, call me nuts

Okay, you are nuts.

but I feel like there should be some really dramatic life issues happening before someone should rely on the American taxpayer to pay for their healthcare.

You are okay with taxpayers paying for everyone's healthcare.

So be it--we can differ in opinion, countries can approach healthcare differently.

I wonder, though, how much of your healthcare technology came from American innovation that was paid for with our ridiculously high costs of medical care...yes, that's a red herring argument, but one worth considering before you condemn Americans for subsidizing the world's access to medical innovation and technologies through our higher costs. I'm not saying that we're the only ones being innovative, but I posted in a thread a while back a break down of medical innovations by country, and we led the way by more than a 2-to-1 margin over second place.

I don't recall New Zealand being very high...

New Zealand is ranked as 21st in the world in innovation and the US is ranked in fourth place. But since our population is only 4,565,180 and yours is 324,119,000, I think that we punch well above our weight on a per capita basis.

By the way, all the countries ranked higher in innovation than the US have free universal healthcare.

No, it's an opinion. Look up "fact" and "unfair," and you'll see that you misrepresent what a fact is, and you'll understand that "unfair" is subjective.

Health care in the US is the most expensive in the world. That is a fact. Not all citizens of the US earn enough to insure themselves adequately to cover the health issues which are likely to arise. That is a fact. The situation is made all the worse because the healthcare in the US is the most expensive in the world. That is a fact.

I think that it's unfair that your country forces everyone to pay for your healthcare.

I don't think it is fair that your country should go around the world interfering with other countries to justify its obscene scalping of its citizens with a defense budget larger than its social and operational support costs.

I don't think that your country contributes enough to medical innovation, yet reaps the benefits of cheaper costs because of America's and other countries' contributions, and that is unfair.

Some New Zealanders whose research & inventions have contributed to medicine:
- Earnest Rutherford, the father of the nuclear age (including nuclear medicine).
- Colin Murdoch - inventor of the disposable syringe (and the tranquilizer gun).
- Norma McCulloh invented the hand vacuum pump.
- David Strang - invented the drying process that is used in preparation of penicillin, streptomycin and blood plasma.
- Dr John Baeyertz developed the Baeyertz Tape for accurately estimating. birth dates, still used worldwide today.
- Warren Robinson, founded the company Rakon, which invented and supplies crystal oscillators (and were apparently used in US smart-bombs until our government legislated against it).

We even have a colloquial term, "a number 8 wire mentality".

It doesn't, but that's a red-herring argument that doesn't pertain one bit to what I said or the reality that healthcare is not something over which our government was designed to have control.

But if it makes you feel better, I bet that we could shave 50% of our military budget off, better utilize our troops to protect our borders instead of be the world's police

There is no such thing as "world's police", other nations in the world describe what the US does as 'military invasion'. It does it even to its allies. You are the 'bad guys', the thug nation-state that thinks its 'protection racket' is beneficence.

and nation builders, and make our taxpayers very happy.

Of course, this would leave many nations to fight their own battles

... and they aren't fighting now? ... and if US forces are doing the fighting, who is it against? You aren't keeping the peace. You are making war, off your own turf, to justify your obscene defense spending.

and that would make many people unhappy in the world. America can't win for trying, to be honest--we are both the devil and the savior in so many respects on the national stage.

So, who have you guys ever saved? Surely if you are saviors, you must have saved someone?

Edgar Cayce you are not.

No, he was an American and, typically, got less than random chance would dictate, right.

Out of interest, where did you cultivate such amazing skills of deduction? [/sarc]

The islands of the pacific (mainly Australia and New Zealand).

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: dfnj2015

Im starting the immigration process to live in another country because im so sick of how things run around here. I fly out on dec 2nd. Leaving my whole life behind because things are so crappy in the usa these days.

Personaly i see a ship floundering, listing hard and the bows already under. Shes not coming back. Time to jump ship if you can.

Where are you going and do they have a national health system?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Everyone benefits, not just me.

Sure, some just more than others, even though everyone must pay the same (presumably).

If I went to a restaurant, and everyone paid the same price at the door, and all I got was an appetizer while others got a 5-course meal, I wouldn't be singing the praises of such a system.

New Zealand is ranked as 21st in the world in innovation and the US is ranked in fourth place. But since our population is only 4,565,180 and yours is 324,119,000, I think that we punch well above our weight on a per capita basis.

By the way, all the countries ranked higher in innovation than the US have free universal healthcare.

Okay, you already confused health care versus health insurance, and now you're conflating generic innovation with medical innovation, which you should well know was what I was referencing. (and you keep misusing the word "free"...maybe it has a different definition in the NZ?)

So, let's look at real numbers in areas relevant to what I was referencing, shall we?

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Dentistry
Health Professions
Immunology and Microbiology
Medicine
Neuroscience
Nursing
Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics
Psychology
and for fun,
Veterinary

That site ranks countries by their contributions of published scientific white papers. In any of those links, please let me know how New Zealand compares to America.

Health care in the US is the most expensive in the world. That is a fact. Not all citizens of the US earn enough to insure themselves adequately to cover the health issues which are likely to arise. That is a fact. The situation is made all the worse because the healthcare in the US is the most expensive in the world. That is a fact.

Citizens who don't earn enough have other ways to access health insurance and associated health care, even if it's not through a "Cadillac policy." That is a fact. There are many, many variables that cause our expensive health care--pretending that giving control the government would reduce that cost has no precedent in American government, but has plenty of precedent to show how that would not work out. That is a fact.

Some New Zealanders whose research & inventions have contributed to medicine:
- Earnest Rutherford, the father of the nuclear age (including nuclear medicine).
- Colin Murdoch - inventor of the disposable syringe (and the tranquilizer gun).
- Norma McCulloh invented the hand vacuum pump.
- David Strang - invented the drying process that is used in preparation of penicillin, streptomycin and blood plasma.
- Dr John Baeyertz developed the Baeyertz Tape for accurately estimating. birth dates, still used worldwide today.
- Warren Robinson, founded the company Rakon, which invented and supplies crystal oscillators (and were apparently used in US smart-bombs until our government legislated against it).

We even have a colloquial term, "a number 8 wire mentality".

Neat.

Real exciting stuff there.

There is no such thing as "world's police", ...

[blah blah blah] ...

... You aren't keeping the peace. You are making war, off your own turf, to justify your obscene defense spending.

This thread isn't about military spending or war, it's about American healthcare. I'm done with the off-topic nonsense.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I get the resteraunt analogy and not trying to flog a dead horse but....

If everyone pays an affordable income based percentage but gets the same level of care is that not a good thing?

Some sleazy salesman can earn more than a school teacher and so he and his family get better medical care is that right?

And what do you do about those in your life less fortunate? What do you do if say a neighbour looses his job and can no longer afford insurance payments? His kids grew up with yours and are in your house and fridge like they own it and vice versa. What happens if that kid gets sick but they don't have the cover, how do you deal with that?

These are genuine questions as living my whole life in a world where that is something that would never happen it is hard to get my head around.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0naut
Everyone benefits, not just me.

Sure, some just more than others, even though everyone must pay the same (presumably).

No, those with higher income pay more in tax, because they can afford it most.

If I went to a restaurant, and everyone paid the same price at the door, and all I got was an appetizer while others got a 5-course meal, I wouldn't be singing the praises of such a system.

Nope, in that analogy, everyone gets unrestricted access to the full menu, the cost of which scales with income.

Okay, you already confused health care versus health insurance

No I haven't. I specifically was referring to healthcare when I mentioned healthcare and insurance when I mentioned insurance. Any confusion must be your own.

No one would pay for health insurance, if it did not pay for healthcare. They are fiscally bound together in your country due to the unaffordability of most health services there.

In my country, health insurance still exists and allows for contributors to get their healthcare in more luxurious accommodation than the public healthcare.

and now you're conflating generic innovation with medical innovation, which you should well know was what I was referencing.

(and you keep misusing the word "free"...maybe it has a different definition in the NZ?)

Nope free as in; "free beer" or "freely available open source software".

So, let's look at real numbers in areas relevant to what I was referencing, shall we?

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Dentistry
Health Professions
Immunology and Microbiology
Medicine
Neuroscience
Nursing
Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics
Psychology
and for fun,
Veterinary

That site ranks countries by their contributions of published scientific white papers. In any of those links, please let me know how New Zealand compares to America.

I added all the documents produced by each country, then divided by their population for a per capita figure.

The US has 6,753,707 documents, divided by an adult population of 324,119,000, gives a per capita count of 0.020837122

NZ has 116,117 documents, divided by an adult population of 4,565,180, gives a per capita count of 0.025435361

Looks like New Zealand beats the US on a per capita basis.

Neat.

Real exciting stuff there.

There is no such thing as "world's police", ...

[blah blah blah] ...

... You aren't keeping the peace. You are making war, off your own turf, to justify your obscene defense spending.

This thread isn't about military spending or war, it's about American healthcare. I'm done with the off-topic nonsense.

Like the stuff you said about American contribution to health science being "superior" and it being "unfair" that other countries can use the technology

Perhaps you shouldn't be using stuff not invented in the US, you know, in the interest of fairness?

... or about how you didn't deny that that you worked for a health insurance company?

(Sorry for the late response; I take the weekends off of ATS)

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If everyone pays an affordable income based percentage but gets the same level of care is that not a good thing?

No, it's not. And it's not about "same level of care," it's about equal return on investment. In general, lower-income households also have lower levels of health and require more medical care.

If I, a middle-class, single-income family of four, were paying the same percentage as a low-income family of four, and their statistically probable lower health causes them to use two-to-three times as much healthcare, that is not a good thing because, as I've noted before, it's a case of forced income extraction in order to redistribute the wealth in the form of healthcare.

I would much rather have lower taxes and be able to choose to donate to clinics and hospitals in lower-income areas in lieu of forced taxation that does a similar thing, but less efficiently and less responsibly.

Some sleazy salesman can earn more than a school teacher and so he and his family get better medical care is that right?

Well, to be fair, not all salesmen are sleazy, and not all school teacher make low wages. But, yes, that would be a just outcome in our society, because that's how it was designed to work. And you really should take this into account: The median salary for high-school and elementary-school teachers hovers right about the same as the average household income in America (~$57,500 for teachers, ~$59,000 for average income). So, with that in mind, a teacher could be a single-income household and be average in America.

Just something to consider when using the teaching salary as an emotional appeal. Personally, I know many teachers, a couple in my close family, who make well more than that median amount that I just posted.

And what do you do about those in your life less fortunate? What do you do if say a neighbour looses his job and can no longer afford insurance payments? His kids grew up with yours and are in your house and fridge like they own it and vice versa. What happens if that kid gets sick but they don't have the cover, how do you deal with that?

There are things called charitable donations, gofundme drives, donation drives, etc., that people can do to help their family and friends. But, the reality is, I've found myself in exactly that situation before, and you know what I did? For a few months, I paid 100% of the insurance cost for myself and my family in order to maintain a steady insurance coverage so that when I got hired again, I wouldn't suddenly have "pre-existing conditions."


This is why it makes sense to rid ourselves of the mandatory insurance industry altogether. If we had that choice, many of us would be much better off because situations like what you noted and what I actually went through wouldn't be such a problem.

If it wasn't for the policies and laws concerning pre-existing conditions, I would have opted to just forego health insurance while looking for a new job.

These are genuine questions as living my whole life in a world where that is something that would never happen it is hard to get my head around.

I understand that--I really do. And the reality is that many of these laws just don't make any sense, as they only serve to line the pockets of the health-insurance industry. This is why I advocated ridding our society of this middle-man standard--leave it as an option for those uncomfortable with going in a different direction, but it absolutely should not be mandated like it is now.

(Sorry for the late response; I take the weekends off of ATS)

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, those with higher income pay more in tax, because they can afford it most.

Depends on the plan and how it would be implemented. I was using a generic example to show the imbalance on the ROI of such a system...arguing specifics has no place in that analogy.

No one would pay for health insurance, if it did not pay for healthcare. They are fiscally bound together in your country due to the unaffordability of most health services there.

I think that you have put the cart before the horse.

Funny thing about our country--healthcare used to be affordable, before the health insurance industry sprouted like weeds and lobbied our government to help make it become a normalized thing.

In my country, health insurance still exists and allows for contributors to get their healthcare in more luxurious accommodation than the public healthcare.

So, then, it's still biased based on income...

But to be fair, I've mentioned in other threads that, if done properly, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a baseline of tax-funded healthcare in the U.S., but when I say baseline, I mean it emphatically. The problem is, our government can never place a limit on itself, and it would keep adding on and adding on and adding on because it would appeal to certain parts of their base voters (on both sides of the aisle), and it would soon get too costly and inclusive and lose any semblance to a baseline healthcare plan.

This is really where my concerns lie on this issue.

Looks like New Zealand beats the US on a per capita basis.

That's the incorrect metric to base it on, because I'm the one that defined this argument, and I'm talking about total contribution, not per capita contribution. You can move the goalposts all that you want to, but that doesn't mean that it's an appropriate way to debate my claim.

Like the stuff you said about American contribution to health science being "superior" and it being "unfair" that other countries can use the technology

So, your air-quotes around "superior" shows that you think NZ has contributed just as much innovation to the global medical arena? Is that what you're doing there?

Keep in mind, those links, as I pointed out, are only about published white papers--it doesn't break down based on innovative work versus other, so we'll never know that slice of the pie, I suppose. I do think that it's fair to say, though, that by the numbers, America certainly leads the way in scientific papers in the medical field. Odds are that means that they lead it in innovation as well, but in the interest of provable points based on my links, I won't make that absolute claim.

And I never said that it's unfair in an absolute sense--I noted that your country and others all around the globe benefit off of innovation that is partly funded by our high medical costs, yet you find it appropriate to bitch about our costs. Are you tracking on that? It's a point noting that we American citizens help pay for the R&D of the innovations for which you don't pay for any of the R&D. It's a pretty simple point.

Perhaps you shouldn't be using stuff not invented in the US, you know, in the interest of fairness?

That's the thing--I'm not concerned about fairness, it's all of you who are so adamantly opposed to our system who keep bitching about fairness. I'm just trying to state reasons why things are or why I think a certain way on things. I don't want life to be fair--it's a philosophical impossibility.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TrueBrit

At the end of the day, I get about 54% of what I make. The rest is taxes and fees. It's always been that way. So I feel as if I pay plenty of taxes. And I get that there are some who are just poor and can't afford things. But if I didn't work, I'd be poor too. Hell, I do work, and I'm not far from it. Before we give the government more money and control over yet another aspect of my life, I think a good hard look at where the existing tax dollars goes should be had, and see if anything could be changed. I don't trust that "they" can deal with this based on their previous track record. I'm a bit scared that you do.

I'm sure that some have heard that the Republican Governor of Maine refused to extend Medicaid to the citizens even tho they passed an initiative to extend Medicaid to all. Thankfully, the legislature of Maine will put the bill into law in January. The Republican has to go and take Trump with.