Social healthcare?

[Greenday]

That's overly simplistic. Canada also treats everyone who comes to their emergency rooms, and our health care costs per capita are half that of America's.

Would you say Canada's health care is only half as good as America's? Because if not, that's just further proof of being extorted by the health care system.

[Andara Bledin]

Would you say Canada's health care is only half as good as America's? Because if not, that's just further proof of being extorted by the health care system.

No. No it's not.

You like capitalism? Our health care costs what the market will bear. Not all of the market, mind you, but enough to keep the profits rolling in.

Unfortunately, the health of the citizenry is not something that should be allowed to be left to the whims of capitalism; it's too important a task. Just think what we'd have if the public roads were handled in the same manner; only the biggest cities would ever be served.

^-.-^

[bara]

I like that arguement Andara.

But I see where Greenday is going. Yes, the current system in the US does rampant overcharging. This is because the system in the US is a for profit system. As long as it is allowed to remain so, this problem will not be going away.
In a system where profit isnt an issue, then prices are able to be maintained at managable levels. There isnt any reason why most services cannot be provided at cost with enough added in to provide health care workers a comfortable wage.

But to do this, we either have to implement socialized health care, or provide so much governemnt oversight then it would stil be so close to a socialized system the lines would be fuzzy as to whether it is or not. With all the other services that are socialized, police, fire rescue, military, roads, water, sewage, social security, welfare... I dont see a big issue with socializing health care as well.

[Boozy]

Would you say Canada's health care is only half as good as America's? Because if not, that's just further proof of being extorted by the health care system.

No, in some ways it's much better. In other ways, it's a little worse.

The biggest benefit of the Canadian style of healthcare is the overall quality of life it provides. When the poor and middle-class aren't getting saddled with exhorbitant insurance premiums, they have more money in their pockets for healthy food, gym memberships, stress-free living, and time off to relax and recuperate after an illness.

The emphasis here is on preventative care, which is something you don't see in a purely capitalist health care system, because there's no money in it. However the two systems stack up in regards to cutting-edge treatments, Canadians are generally healthier than their American cousins. We're doing something right.

[Rapscallion]

Unfortunately, the health of the citizenry is not something that should be allowed to be left to the whims of capitalism; it's too important a task. Just think what we'd have if the public roads were handled in the same manner; only the biggest cities would ever be served.

I suspect the road analogy would be better served by saying that only the truly wealthy would be able to afford to build the roads and others would be unable to use them. Of course, then they'd just lease time or distance on the roads to others, leaving them with more and more money and those who really need the roads to work with less.

Perfect system!

Well, if you appreciate how the US is working right now...

Rapscallion

[Beckpatton]

I can't quite wrap my head around the US Health care system, it seems awfully complicated! I'll admit I am not an expert on the topic, but from what little I have read it does seem that an awful lot of people are being denied healthcare purely because they can't afford it. That saddens me deeply!

I am in Australia, yes we have a "government run" social healthcare system. I just checked my last tax return, I paid $411.88 as my medicare levy, that was 1.5% of my taxable income for last year.

- I don't have private health insurance.

- I can see whatever doctor I want

- If that doctor does not do "bulk billing" (that is take Medicare) you take your receipt to your nearest medicare office and lodge a claim, you will then get the fee for your visit back.

- Currently my husband and I are under the threshold for the additional medicare levy, which is $160k per couple, it is $80k per single before you pay any additional levy towards Medicare. When you hit that threshold you pay an additional 1% of your taxable income. The threshold also increases $1500 for each dependant child you have up to age 25. FYI- you can avoid the additional levy by getting private health insurance.

- I have never had to pay for a specialist visit where I have a referral. I haven't had to pay for xrays, CT scans, colonoscopy, and other minor procedures.

- With non emergent cases, where people require surgery, (non emergency gall bladder removal for example) you will go on a wait list, could be 6 months, could be 2 years depending on the procedure. But when it comes to your turn, it costs you nothing. People have the option of getting private health cover, some will cover you with pre existing conditions (but they will have a wait period before you can use it). This might get you the surgery faster, but in reality the waiting period for the public surgeries is usually much shorter than they predict. My mother got her gall bladder out after being on the list for 4 months. A friend of mine had a more severe case and got hers in 2. Another friend ended up needing emergency surgery to remove hers, but again it cost nothing! They aren't going to deny someone in urgent need the surgery they require just because they're on the public system, and haven't been waiting as long as others.

- I have had back issues over the last couple years, trips to the physio are not covered, and cost me $55 a pop. I also spent about $700 on dental this year alone. I probably could have benefited from private health insurance this year, maybe saved a few bucks, but I'd rather not pay hundreds every year and then not use it. I think $700 on dental in 16 years is pretty good, (I'm 33, and that's how long it had been since my last dental appointment.. naughty I know!) As for my back, it's something I can avoid through keeping fit and exercising.

-With regards to prescription meds, we pay for our own, they are not part of medicare. However if you are considered low income, or are on a pension, you can apply for a 'health care card' which gives you certain benefits. The top one being that all medications, no matter what they are, cost you (I think) $3.50.. It used to be $3.20 when I was younger and had a healthcare card, but I think it's gone up.. may even be closer to $4 now. As for those without a HCC, birthcontrol pills can be as little as $18 for a 4 month supply, antibiotics I've paid between $16-$24 a pop. There are of course more expensive meds out there, depending on your condition, but there are still things you can apply for to get them subsidised. I had one med for a fungal infection in my toenails that was close to $100. However there was a program my doctor sorted for me, where I got the first (and hopefully only) script for about $10. I would only have to take the meds the one time, but IF by chance I needed another dose I would have to pay full price. I think it was a yearly thing too, so if it came back the next year I could get it subsidised again. My parents spend a few hundred bucks every couple months for their current meds, (blood pressure, cholesterol management etc). So yes it can add up, but if they were struggling financially, they could get them cheaper as I mentioned before.

-I also know friends who have paid hundreds each month for FULL coverage, only to find out it's not really FULL coverage. My friend had a baby girl in April, she and her hubby were on the highest plan their provider had. She gave birth in a private hospital, with all the fancy stuff private hospitals have, but still had to fork out another $2000 for the anaesthesiologist! That was for the epidural! My mum and the majority of my family and friends all had their babies on the public system, cost them nothing! Still got healthy bouncy babies!

My point is, I have no desire to spend money on private health cover, as I trust the public cover to take care of me just as well. I think we have a really good system, with very little red tape. Of course we have our issues, what system doesn't. Our biggest complaint seems to be in regards to a shortage of beds and nursing staff. But deaths that occur as a result of those issues are a rarity, deaths that occur as a result of people being denied care doesn't happen. (and I'm not counting cases of negligence, they still received care, it just wasn't the right kind)

I'm not here to say "ner ner our system rocks, you guys suck!" I just wanted to share how our system works, it was my understanding that the changes in the American Health System were going to shift more towards what we have, but the more I hear the less it sounds like ours. I could be wrong about that... I guess you'd call ours a hybrid system, and more like the UK and Canada. Note the points I have made are primarily based on my own personal experience.

I just hope it is sorted sooner rather than later, as the idea of people being denied basic health care for whatever reason in any country disturbs me, let alone a country that is supposed to be a 1st world powerhouse!

[Skunkle]

One of the things that seems to drive opinions such as Greenday's is the notion that the changes are intended to force the wealthy to literally give away their hard-earned money. This, of course, doesn't take into account the countless people who are wealthy simply because they were born into a wealthy family, but the notion that anyone is trying to rip money right out of their pockets is absolutely not correct. Yes, I'm sure many would love to do exactly that, but that's not the plan in regards to the laws.

As I understand things, the problem isn't so much health CARE reform as it is health INSURANCE reform. Every single citizen of these United States should have access to health care they can realistically afford. I personally don't really care how that's paid for - I'll pay slightly higher taxes. I think the flat across-the-board rate is a horrible idea; you should pay an amount relative to what you make. If you make millions a year, you pay more-- significantly more. "They're taking away my hard-earned money!" essentially means "I should have to pay more taxes because I make more." Why the hell not!? Why does it not make sense?

The opposition often seems to run on the notion that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who can't afford care is a lazy freeloader. EVERYONE on welfare is a mooch. This assumes we're still in the kind of economy we had decades ago, wherein anyone can work their ass off and make it to the top. Fact is-- we're not. And it seems that's partly due to those who ARE at the top making sure of it-- the idea of "the less people there are at my level, the more money there is for me." Either way, the average joe these days who works his hands to the bone stays very close to the bottom.

The system as it stands bites. Simply put. And in some way, it needs to be fixed, repaired, overhauled, rebuilt, whatever so that every man, woman and child has access to affordable health care. What it comes down to right now is, "I got mine. You can curl up in the cold and die. I don't care. I don't have to care, and no one should be able to make me care."

[Bardmaiden]

I love the NHS, it's not perfect by a long way but I'm sure it has saved the lives of my loved ones or helped them to not be in pain when they died.

I can go to my practice and see any doctor that works there, something of about 10-15 doctors and I have chosen to see certain doctors or just left it to the receptionist.

I have had operations without having to consider the cost of the bed, doctor, knock out doc and the nurses that looked after me, I take prescribed medications without having to budget a few hundred pounds for them I will pay £7.40 per item. If I require birth control (I do) I do not pay for it at all I get my precribed medication and take it to a chemists and get my pills. Condoms are not included.

I can call an ambluance without having to pay it, be treated for my condition and go home happy and healthy.

When the NHS was introduced communicable diseases dropped significally, so paying a bit in your tax can save you money in the long run because that person who is too poor to be treated for a communicable disease will get it treated and will not spread it so much.

Mono which I hear so much from my american friends I had to look up to find out what it was, I have known only one person in my 34 years in England who caught this, I knew it by a different name in the end.

Yeah a unversial healthcare system is such a bad thing, it saves the lifes of people, helps people to afford birth control and helps to prevent disease and helps to catch those with long term serious diseases or illnesses from getting worse...

Maybe I have a simple view of it but thats how I see it.

[Andara Bledin]

When the NHS was introduced communicable diseases dropped significally, so paying a bit in your tax can save you money in the long run because that person who is too poor to be treated for a communicable disease will get it treated and will not spread it so much.

Good catch. This is something that doesn't often get brought up when discussing socialized medical systems.

There is a massive cost to everybody associated with the spread of communicable diseases of all types, from venereal diseases to the common cold. How much of that could be saved by making a trip to the doctor no longer a major budgetary decision?

^-.-^

[Seshat]

Socialised healthcare can also reduce the disability burden.

* If you know you'll be able to afford treatment for those burns/that busted elbow/that stroke, you're more likely to get it seen to early: thus less likely to become disabled by it in the first place.

* If you develop a type of disability that's curable, you can afford the cure, and can get back into the workforce.

* If you develop a type of disability that can be treated to the point where you can return to the workforce if the disability is accommodated, and the govt subsidises the cost of the accommodation, you can get back into the workforce.
(Often this cost is 'a few hundred for a special chair', or some other effectively trivial amount from the POV of society-as-a-whole; but enough to be a barrier to getting the person into the workforce if the person themselves, or the prospective employer, has to pay it.)

* Even if you're permanently disabled (as I am), treatment can - and often does - lead to greater independence. If you don't need a bed in a nursing home, you're significantly cheaper to care for. If you don't need to be bathed and toileted, you're cheaper to care for. If you can manage your own meals and housekeeping, you're cheaper to care for.
Putting the care of disabled people onto their families doesn't take it off society-as-a-whole. The burden is there regardless: the question is whether you spread it as evenly as possible across society, or whether you concentrate it on those who got a bad roll of the dice.

* Disabled people who are not cared for have a high rate of homelessness, and often turn to petty crime (of the 'stealing enough for a loaf of bread' variety).
Those who are untreated may turn to addictions to dull the pain (physical or mental). Alcohol is a common self-treatment for psychoses and hallucinations, for example.
Because the disabled are often immune-vulnerable as well, they can quickly become a kind of 'pool' for communicable disease to hide in. But if they have decent food, shelter and adequate care, and available, affordable medical treatment, this can be prevented.


I could rant on and on and on about the various reasons for ensuring the disabled have decent food, shelter and care. But it boils down to this: kill us, or look after us. Either will minimise the cost to society. But leaving us alive and without our needs met will maximise the burden.

[Seshat]

It's like, we are taught all our lives that to be successful, making a lot of money is part of that. Then when you achieve that, you start being told, "Great job! Now fork it over so others can have it."

In Australia, we're taught all our lives to be ... Um. I don't have a single word for it other than 'Australian'.
To be Australian is to be happy.
To be Australian is to care for your mates. (mates = friends, also = 'the guy down the street' or 'the guy who fixes my plumbing' or 'the nice girl at the butcher shop', or ....)
To be Australian is to love the land and the country.
To be Australian is to work hard when you're working, play hard when you're playing, rest well when you're resting.
To be Australian is to give things a fair go.
To be Australian is to ask for a fair go, and have the right to expect it.

Most importantly, I think:
To be Australian is to acknowledge that life isn't always fair, but it bloody well ought to be, and we're bloody well going to DO something about it!

We're here on a mission and we can't do that mission if people get sick and have to deal with financial issues preventing them from getting better.

We're on the most important mission in Australia: making a better Australia for the next generation, and the generations to come, to inherit.

We can't do that if we get sick and financial issues prevent us from getting better, either.

A healthy, happy workforce is more productive and less costly (even when paying for maintenance) than a sickly, disgruntled workforce.

That is the single best argument for both health care and welfare, distilled to its essence.

[Mytical]

Now I want to move to Australia. Seshat, I wish here was more like that. Instead of everybody only looking after themselves. Funny thing is, despite being one of those 'Americans' I was always taught the golden rule (no not he who has the gold makes the rules). Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I tend to take it a bit further, and treat others better then I want treated myself, but that is neither here nor there. Sure, we can be about "I have mine, to heck with everybody else" but mankind is capable of so much more when we work together.

[Seshat]

Don't get me wrong: we have lazy, greedy, and wilfully ignorant people; just like every other country in the world.

Just because that's (what I believe to be) our cultural ideal, doesn't mean we live up to it. I can point to an enormous number of failures! But we do have a decent percentage of Aussies who try to, and I can point to successes, both large and small.

[Gravekeeper]

Most importantly, I think:
To be Australian is to acknowledge that life isn't always fair, but it bloody well ought to be, and we're bloody well going to DO something about it!

Replace "bloody" with "dam" and stick an "eh" on the end and you've got Canada too. ( Never met an Australian I didn't like, now I see why ;p )

The dichonomy is fascinating though. Canada is a country that's very socially concious as a whole and the attitude of the average Canadian vs the average American on this topic can get so incredibly opposed despite us sitting right next to each other.

We do things because, well, they're the right thing to do and the right thing to do makes sense to us. We have universal health care and social safety nets because hey, its the right thing to do. We're peacekeepers because it seems like the right thing to do. We legalized gay marriage because it felt like the right thing to do.

Its still extremely hard for me to understand the attitude of some Americans on universal healthcare, something which is a benefit to society across the board. I just don't understand this "Fuck you! I got mine! Hands off!" attitude when the other option is give a little to improve the welfare of your entire country and all of its people.

How can you be so patriotic yet so opposed to doing anything for your country? -.-

[fireheart17]

In Australia, we're taught all our lives to be ... Um. I don't have a single word for it other than 'Australian'.
To be Australian is to be happy.
To be Australian is to care for your mates. (mates = friends, also = 'the guy down the street' or 'the guy who fixes my plumbing' or 'the nice chick at the butcher shop', or ....)
To be Australian is to love the land and the country.
To be Australian is to work hard when you're working, play hard when you're playing, rest well when you're resting.
To be Australian is to give things a fair go.
To be Australian is to ask for a fair go, and have the right to expect it.

Most importantly, I think:
To be Australian is to acknowledge that life isn't always fair, but it bloody well ought to be, and we're bloody well going to DO something about it!

Don't get me wrong: we have lazy, greedy, and wilfully ignorant people; just like every other country in the world.

Just because that's (what I believe to be) our cultural ideal, doesn't mean we live up to it. I can point to an enormous number of failures! But we do have a decent percentage of Aussies who try to, and I can point to successes, both large and small.

And just like in the US, we have people who will rort the system. We do have some failures in other areas, however most of our health-care system is up to scratch. And I didn't quote Beckpatton's post because it's so long, but a couple of clarifications:

-Regarding the meds and low-income cost, it depends on the medication itself. My Implanon was $30 (that included the freaking huge applicator) however I have heard that on a low-income health care card it's around half that.
-To be eligible for a low-income health-care card, generally if you make a certain amount over a 2 month-period, you can qualify. However the form alone for said card is 60 pages long (and no, it's not all filler)
-Dental care still needs to be worked on BADLY. Even with health insurance, you're looking at around $300 a pop.
-You can choose to be treated as a public or private patient at a public hospital, the only real difference between the two is that with the private, you can pick your specialist provided that he or she can practice at that hospital.
-In regards to the doctor visits, the practices that don't bulk-bill will generally charge you a gap fee, but it depends on the visit. For instance, if you just went in for a quick consult, it might be $30 and you get $25 of that back, if it's a longer consult, you might pay $50 and get $35 back.

Replace "bloody" with "dam" and stick an "eh" on the end and you've got Canada too. ( Never met an Australian I didn't like, now I see why ;p )

If I remember correctly, wasn't one of the Aussies pantsless?