Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4912 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 246  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: On the issue of universal health care
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Here's another one of these discussion threads that I've wanted to start for a long time, but never got around to it until now.

I'm sure that as the boomers get older, this is going to become a more contentious issue here in the U.S. However, I see a series of questions that will have to be resolved before any action is taken:

--Should the gov't pay for health problems caused by easily-preventable habits? The best example, of course, is smoking, but you could extend this into alcohol & drug abuse, or improper eating.
--What kind of quality of lfe should the gov't pay for? For example, is it worth it to extend someone's life from 90 to 100 if they are going to be bedridden and mentally hindered for those ten years?
--How heavy of an income distribution would you allow? That is, how much should taxpayers give up in order to provide a service they may not enjoy?
--Which brings us to, can a multiple-tiered system work both functionally and fairly? Or would you require a "single-payer" type system?
--Finally, what level of gov't should be entrusted with such a task? Can the feds do it without bureaucracy getting in the way, or is it better for the states to handle, so they have fewer citizens to oversee?

A lot of these questions are moral, as well as practical, so there may not necessarily be a right or a wrong answer. But I'd be curious to see your take on it.

Also, if you don't live in the U.S. but are in a country which does have universal care, I'd be really curious to hear how your country has resolved the issue as a society.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:37 pm 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:08 pm
Posts: 1664
Location: sarnia
I'm canadian and I've never really had to use the healthcare system so far. I'm glad we have our public health care system though, my dad has some kind of immune system thing and now has to go to the hospital and get some kind of booster infusion thing once a month. It's been working so far and hoepfully it continues working, if not they want to stop using it immediatly because it's pretty damn pricey i guess. So glad we don't have to pay a couple thousand a month or wahtever.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: On the issue of universal health care
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
Green Habit wrote:
Here's another one of these discussion threads that I've wanted to start for a long time, but never got around to it until now.

...............



Image


A topic I am very interested in, but way to heavy for posting during work. I prefer to post slightly racist and facist things.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Stone's Bitch
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:40 pm
Posts: 4668
Location: Belfast
We have the National Health Service here, it's good at the thin end of the wedge, in that if you're going to die you'll get seen to, but you can wait around a long time for routine operations etc. I'm very happy with the treatment I've received when needed, and I consider it my duty to fund this ever-expanding black hole through my National Insurance contributions, which are deducted at source from my wages. When I have children, I expect to go private, but that's more because I can see myself as a 'worrier' type.

I think that, overall, there is no efficient way to administer a publicly-funded healthcare system; every other country in Europe makes you pay to some extent (although the e111 form provides free health care to UK citizens within the confines of the EU), but I consider it a personal point of pride that no matter what happens, you can go to hospital and receive expert care for no charge. I'm in good physical shape right now, but you never know how long that will last; in cases like this I think it's best to pay your share and hope that you never need to make use of it.

_________________
denverapolis wrote:
it's a confirmed fact that orangutans are nature's ninja.


proud member of team corduroy_blazer


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: On the issue of universal health care
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
Green Habit wrote:
--Finally, what level of gov't should be entrusted with such a task? Can the feds do it without bureaucracy getting in the way, or is it better for the states to handle, so they have fewer citizens to oversee?


As much as I don't like Federal bureaucracies, I don't think the California State government can manage anything at this magnitude, as they seem to fuck up just about everything that comes their way.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:40 pm 
Offline
Got Some
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:40 am
Posts: 2114
Location: Coventry
I don't believe on conditional healthcare. Should we not treat someone who crossed the road, didn't look both ways, and got knocked down?

_________________
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them" -Karl Popper


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
Devil's Advocate
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am
Posts: 18643
Location: Raleigh, NC
Gender: Male
I just don't have faith that the US Government can run anything efficiently. Red tape and bureaucracy in health care can and does cost lives and it would only get worse if Uncle Sam was in charge.

If I could re-prioritize national spending, I think I would find a way to make sure poor people didn't die or suffer needlessly.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:23 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
Athletic Supporter wrote:
I just don't have faith that the US Government can run anything efficiently. Red tape and bureaucracy in health care can and does cost lives and it would only get worse if Uncle Sam was in charge.

If I could re-prioritize national spending, I think I would find a way to make sure poor people didn't die or suffer needlessly.


Do any other countries have more expensive health care? There has to be some way of making it more affordable, because at this rate its just going to get worse.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:28 am 
Offline
User avatar
In a van down by the river
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:15 am
Posts: 33031
in the US, i think only children and elderly should get a free ride

everyone else, if work doesnt provide it, you should get a discount

_________________
maybe we can hum along...


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:31 am 
Offline
User avatar
Devil's Advocate
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am
Posts: 18643
Location: Raleigh, NC
Gender: Male
simple schoolboy wrote:
Athletic Supporter wrote:
I just don't have faith that the US Government can run anything efficiently. Red tape and bureaucracy in health care can and does cost lives and it would only get worse if Uncle Sam was in charge.

If I could re-prioritize national spending, I think I would find a way to make sure poor people didn't die or suffer needlessly.


Do any other countries have more expensive health care? There has to be some way of making it more affordable, because at this rate its just going to get worse.


I think a lot of the expense can be blamed on insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and for-profit health care. Just look at what a hospital charges for Tylenol when a person needs it. It's nuts, just nuts.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
I will just breifly talk about a small part of this issue. Health care costs...

Here in Texas, people routinely go to Mexico to buy thier drugs. Pharmaceutical companies have a collective monopoly on drugs, obviously, with nothing to bring the prices down. It is pretty commonplace for people over 60, with only moderate health problems to pay over 500 dollars a month on drugs. Shit, a lot of people in that same category pay 1500 a month for ONE drug. It's fucking ridiculous, as is the cost of staying in a hospital, operations, etc. I have no idea what to do about it.

My father works in health-care analysis. Right now he works for the Texas State Department of Health, but he has worked for many other agencies as well. I wish I had the time to sit down and talk with him about it, because he is heavily involved with things like hospital financing, and has worked in the past on medicaid, cancer and diabetes research funding, etc.

If there is one thing I have learned from my Dad, it is that the health-care system is probably the most complicated program in this country, run by the government. There is just a mind-boggling number of factors and variables to take into account.

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
In order for our healthcare system to be in tip top shape, reform needs to occur in a multitude of area's.

A state run department of health would be nothing short of a disaster. What America needs, or feel people to be dependent on themselves, and not on the government. This idea can be applied to a broad base of issues, but particularly healthcare. It would definitely create a more health conscious society if everyone was truly responsible for their own health.

But alas, I imagine America will continue to grow with the "government ows me" attitude.

Ya know. A couple years ago Oregon proposed making a state run healthcare system. I prayed that it would get voted in, because it should surely set the example of how this program will never work. Unfortunately, the state legislature wisely voted it down.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
What would happen if all health insurance was done by non-profit groups? Insurance companies providing healthcare would not be allowed to generate "stock"....

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:36 am
Posts: 399
Location: New York
For the most part I like the idea of universal health care, but right now in the US we are not even close to ready for such a system. We would need to reduce the over all costs of health care, but as long as people think it is perfectly expectable to get rich off the sick and dieing that won't happen.
I have been a Registered Nurse for 6 years, working in a hospital all that time, and have been working in healthcare since 1991; I've worked in Nursing Homes and spent 3 years in the ARMY as a medic.
Now the amount of waste and leeching off the government and patients I've seen would really disgust most people. I think one of the main problems with the high cost of health care today is ignorance at all levels.
One day I was looking in our computer at work for medication info and what I found made me ill, I found on average the price of a medication given in just our Hospital is usually marked up from cost about 300 - 400%, for example 2 regular strength Tylenols (650mg) cost the hospital 8 cents, but you know what they charge $1.11. I was looking at another med this morning cost the hospital 63 cents, they charge $2.43 The thing that amazes me is no one seems to think there is anything wrong with this.
I work on a Med-Surg(medical-surgical) tale(cardiac monitor) unit, Now the basic room rate for a med-surg bed at my hospital is a little over $500 a day(mind you this is upstate NY, in area with higher cost of living 3-5thousand a day) and that is just for the room; meds, doctors, test all of that stuff is extra. If the doctor wants a Tele monitor on the patient that’s another $300. Now I regularly see some doctors admit patients on tele for no good reason, except as far as can see they can charge Medicare more for a patient on a monitor than one not on a monitor. Also I see some Doctors leave patients in hospital a lot longer than they need to be, again they can charge more for seeing patient in the hospital than on an out patient basis. Another thing is ordering labs way more frequently than needed. For instance, 2 common labs, CBC and CMP, being ordered every day whether a patient needs them or not, that costs about $150 a day. I’m not even going to get to what an ER visit cost and this where most people that don’t have any form of health coverage go to be seen by a doctor. I would guess about $5000 - $10000 a visit, a cost most hospitals have to just suck up because it’s money they will never see.
Let me just say I'm not trying to make Doctors look like a bunch of greedy bastards, the vast majority of the Doctors I know are good caring people that have there patients best interests at heart, but the problem is even a very few Doctors in any area(say about 1%) that milk the system costs millions and millions of dollars a year, just for that area. The sad thing is by and large the patients that get used the most, to get people like Pharmaceutical company execs filthy rich, are the elderly. To say people that lead unhealthy lives are the problem is just ridiculous. Everybody gets old and gets sick before they die, people don't just walk around merrily and healthy until on day they just suddenly drop dead. In truth I expect the average lifespan of US citizens to go down due to the unhealthy life styles so many of us have.

_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/KillingZoe/

LostTraveler> If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it or see it, do the other trees point and laugh at it?


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
KillingZoe wrote:
One day I was looking in our computer at work for medication info and what I found made me ill, I found on average the price of a medication given in just our Hospital is usually marked up from cost about 300 - 400%, for example 2 regular strength Tylenols (650mg) cost the hospital 8 cents, but you know what they charge $1.11. I was looking at another med this morning cost the hospital 63 cents, they charge $2.43 The thing that amazes me is no one seems to think there is anything wrong with this.


Well.... what type of profit margin does the hospital have? Does it earn enough to give people yearly raises greater than inflation? Does it need to sell $1.11 tylenol to buy a new MRI machine? Or pay for research into rare diseases? Perhaps the cost of complying with Homeland Security regulations effect this. I guess what I'm saying is it's probably not a simple (in terms of greed) as it appears.

KillingZoe wrote:
Another thing is ordering labs way more frequently than needed. For instance, 2 common labs, CBC and CMP, being ordered every day whether a patient needs them or not, that costs about $150 a day.


What would happen if a doctor didn't order a particular lab and they missed something?

KillingZoe wrote:
I’m not even going to get to what an ER visit cost and this where most people that don’t have any form of health coverage go to be seen by a doctor. I would guess about $5000 - $10000 a visit, a cost most hospitals have to just suck up because it’s money they will never see.


Again, how much of that is profit? How many ER patients walk out on the tax payers dime, forcing them to increase prices for everyone else to compensate?

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
I've never heard it mentioned before, but I like the idea of possibly not providing health care for smoking/drinking/drug related illness. I like that idea a lot. I don't think this should apply to the obese, people that ate at McDonalds every day of thier life, etc. I don't think that can be lumped into the same group as people who use drugs/alc/nic.

The hospital cost issue is extremely complicated. I don't even know where to begin to try to sort it out. One thing though, that I have always been very disturbed by, involves the birthing department or whatever you call it. I will probably be flamed into oblivion for this viewpoint, too... but here goes:

We have all seen on TV, and heard in the newspaper etc, the stories of the baby who was born with x problem. The hospital does this and that miracle treatment to keep the baby alive, but this baby will have a severe retardation or disability etc because of it. Now I have also seen stories about how a lot of these procedures cost upwards of a million dollars. And I have seen tons of these stories. "This hospital saved my babies life, it only cost the government/hospital 1,500,000 dollars."

I have always been wary of this. Is it worth it? It just seems like cheating nature sometimes. It's not that I am uncaring or unaware of the pain involved when a mother loses her child. But is it reasonable to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep a child alive, when they are doomed to disability or whatever else anyway? I would have to see how often it happens and some other numbers to make a final decision for myself.

I guess the way I see it, as callous as it may seem, is that just because a baby comes out of its mothers womb does not mean this baby is meant to live a full and normal life. Birth is not a surefire process, and I don't think hospitals should try to make it surefire with extremely expensive and unnatural machines etc. Oh, and I also think the exact same thing should apply to those who are dying. After certain incidents sometimes people are kept alive on machines, they are a vegetable. A lot of times this process is tremendously expensive, and is it really worth it? At what cost to the hospital?

Basically, I know nothing of any of this. My opinions are only based on the small amount I have read or seen on TV.

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:06 pm 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:43 pm
Posts: 2398
Buffalohed wrote:
I've never heard it mentioned before, but I like the idea of possibly not providing health care for smoking/drinking/drug related illness. I like that idea a lot. I don't think this should apply to the obese, people that ate at McDonalds every day of thier life, etc. I don't think that can be lumped into the same group as people who use drugs/alc/nic.

The hospital cost issue is extremely complicated. I don't even know where to begin to try to sort it out. One thing though, that I have always been very disturbed by, involves the birthing department or whatever you call it. I will probably be flamed into oblivion for this viewpoint, too... but here goes:

We have all seen on TV, and heard in the newspaper etc, the stories of the baby who was born with x problem. The hospital does this and that miracle treatment to keep the baby alive, but this baby will have a severe retardation or disability etc because of it. Now I have also seen stories about how a lot of these procedures cost upwards of a million dollars. And I have seen tons of these stories. "This hospital saved my babies life, it only cost the government/hospital 1,500,000 dollars."

I have always been wary of this. Is it worth it? It just seems like cheating nature sometimes. It's not that I am uncaring or unaware of the pain involved when a mother loses her child. But is it reasonable to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep a child alive, when they are doomed to disability or whatever else anyway? I would have to see how often it happens and some other numbers to make a final decision for myself.

I guess the way I see it, as callous as it may seem, is that just because a baby comes out of its mothers womb does not mean this baby is meant to live a full and normal life. Birth is not a surefire process, and I don't think hospitals should try to make it surefire with extremely expensive and unnatural machines etc. Oh, and I also think the exact same thing should apply to those who are dying. After certain incidents sometimes people are kept alive on machines, they are a vegetable. A lot of times this process is tremendously expensive, and is it really worth it? At what cost to the hospital?

Basically, I know nothing of any of this. My opinions are only based on the small amount I have read or seen on TV.


:shock:


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
Athletic Supporter wrote:

I think a lot of the expense can be blamed on insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and for-profit health care. Just look at what a hospital charges for Tylenol when a person needs it. It's nuts, just nuts.


At a glance this is also what I feel is part of the problem. Obviously most of these insurance companies and providers are generating profit, which of course is going to run up the cost. I worked at a doctors office for a couple of years and we had one staff member dedicated to dealing with insurance companies and trying to approve tests and whatnot. Would such a position be necessary for a single provider system? I would think that at least some of these positions that exist just to deal with the insurance system could be eliminated with universal healthcare.

As to for profit medical providers: it disturbs me that I see all these advertisements for open MRIs and hospitals telling all of their prowess in whatever speciality. These are well put together marketing campaigns, and I would really like to know where they are getting the money for this. It seems just as wasteful as pharmaceutical commercials. Although I did love those multitude of free lunches we got from the drug reps. I once even got a Viagra race car computer mouse. And the coveted Viagra pen was hard to hold onto due to the high demand. You know what? I think I'm just jealous that I no longer work in the medical field. :(


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Good stuff so far, everyone.

simple schoolboy wrote:
As much as I don't like Federal bureaucracies, I don't think the California State government can manage anything at this magnitude, as they seem to fuck up just about everything that comes their way.


Good point, considering that California has more people than many whole countries. But, not every state is California.

Athletic Supporter wrote:
I just don't have faith that the US Government can run anything efficiently. Red tape and bureaucracy in health care can and does cost lives and it would only get worse if Uncle Sam was in charge.


This tends to be my feeling as well. but I'm willing to be shown otherwise, hence why I started this thread.

simple schoolboy wrote:
Do any other countries have more expensive health care? There has to be some way of making it more affordable, because at this rate its just going to get worse.


One point that I've brought up before to attack in this regard is the length of patents for drugs.

LittleWing wrote:
Ya know. A couple years ago Oregon proposed making a state run healthcare system. I prayed that it would get voted in, because it should surely set the example of how this program will never work. Unfortunately, the state legislature wisely voted it down.


It's funny you mention this. I was in Oregon when it went down, and it was actually a voter initative, not a legislative proposal. The restrictions were so low that it could have meant that non-Oregonians would easily flock to the state just to take advantage, throwing an already cash-strapped state into chaos. It was heavily voted down.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
Green Habit wrote:
One point that I've brought up before to attack in this regard is the length of patents for drugs.

That is a fascinating idea. Never even occured to me. Can you elaborate, post a link, or something to that effect please?

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4912 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 246  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:48 pm