My liberal boss: Universal Healthcare is a failure

Here is a person who would give anything to get Bush out of office and agrees with everything she saw in F-911.

But when it comes to universal healthcare, well gee the idealist in her would rather not admit to its failure in Canada and the U.S.

Huh??

Well, you see, people over there have been waiting months for desperately-needed surgery. And universal healthcare is bankrupting Canada.

How to respond to this?

that argument implys that we aren't paying for others health care here, by higher prices.

But at least the Canadians try to provide health care to ALL of their people.

Tell her we need to care and have compassion for the poor--even if we can't come up with a "perfect" system.

...treatment of the subject?

I know people in this country who wait years for surgery on painful conditions because they are looking for a decent employer with a health plan. Something that demonstrates this disparity and makes a case of universal health's successes would be a good resource.

I have an aunt who needed emergency surgery...they took her in, pumped her full of drugs, did the prep work, and sent her out on the street for 24 hours with an IV machine tied to her arm...THEY HAD NO BED FOR HER!...in either hospital! In America, she would have had the surgery within an hour, rather than waiting a full day while they cleared the backlog of rooms.. God knows what damage was done while she waited..

You can always find a bad example in anything...As a Canadian I am so tired of these lies about our "failed" health care.....I can personally attest to how thankful my family has been for it.....We have seen heart specialists (and NOT had to wait unnecessarily), and every member CHOOSES THEIR OWN DOCTOR, contrary to what I have heard reported in American media.....Everyone has access to the same specialists........Recently a family member was hospitalized over a month and passed away after receiving the best of care by wonderful nurses etc.....He had many tests and procedures while in hospital......The family paid NOTHING.....Certainly there are some problems, which are being worked on, but all polls show that the population of Canada WANTS TO KEEP our system....I wish you in the United States had the same....

When my sister was diagnosed with leukemia, she was hospitalized and had a bone marrow transplant - her treatments began IMMEDIATELY.

My father woke up with a irregular heartbeat - we ambulanced him into the emergency room - and he was hospitalized and had pacemaker surgery 3 days later.....I could go on and on about our health coverage up here in Canada - it is far better than you are led to believe - but it is not perfect.

...from both sides.

What I want to know is, on what scale does each system fail/succeed.

From what I do know about the two systems is that someone in Canada is more likely to be scheduled for care (surgery or otherwise) as a preventative measure, whereas in the U.S. this care would not even occur because of economic and cultural reasons.

with healthcare in Europe have been excellent.
Much better than here.

...through his HMO he is waiting 6 weeks just to get in for testing...


Further more, even though the information your boss has is skewed, I'd say that I'd rather wait for healthcare than have NONE AT ALL.

is another way of saying emergency medicine. Anyone who needs emergency care in Canada simply walks into a hospital and gets it.

For non-emergency medicine, there can be a waiting list.

There is no financial catastrophe from the health care system. Canada's per person expenditure on health care is lower than the US's, in fact.

Actually, Canadians reaffirmed their commitment to universal health care coverage for all Canadians just last year.

It isn't a problem. People are happy with the system. People want to system to continue.

Unfortunately, your boss has been brainwashed by the so-called liberal media.

And wait lines in the US are concealed by HMO multi-expert requirements.

Indeed the part 2 of the Medical Boards makes a big deal out of how you delay correct treatment (can we call this conservative treatment first?). The correct treatment (the one that ends the problem) is listed, but the correct answer in the written part 2 of the Medical Exam is of the type "take two asprin and call if it is not getting better".

...that the Canadian system is what any universal healthcare system would be like?

their horrible system whose hallmark of late has been to provide CHEAPER medications to their (and many US) citizens. terrible. It just sucks. omg.. how I'd hate to have inexpensive medication.

I'll take anything at this point!

Maybe your liberal boss needs to keep things in perspective.

we also pay twice as much per person as Canada. Imagine for instance if we stopped paying for drugs, Dr appointments, and any out of pocket health care. The only payments we would have to rely on are government payments for health care( cost of gov workers insurance, Medicare, Medicaid). This is what Canada spends today. Canada has a much better health care system then we do in cost, citizen satisfaction, overall quality of care, infant mortality, and life expectancy at birth.

wait months for desperately-needed surgery?

Because I can think of circumstances where people in the US wait months for desperately-needed surgery. Namely, some organ transplants.

had to wait thee months to see a nephrolgist, because there is only one accepting new patients in the Milwaukee area.

WAITING LISTS WAITING LISTS!

Just one example- the normal wait for prostate surgery is three to six months. When the Minister of Health needed surgery he was in and out of hospital in five days.

How can he declare something that does not exist in this country a failure?

Would it not be possible always provided when needed? And what about the many people here who never get any care, or care that is much too late to do any good, because of their lack of insurance?

What about the cost of the uninsured? Or the economic losses caused by workers being unable to change jobs or embark on new ventures because they would lose or be unable to afford coverage?

And the loss of health caused when bureaucrats at insurance companies make medical decisions based on cost, not need? Is that not a failure?

The Clinton admin would've had a health-care plan had not the Repubs scuttled it. The plan didn't fail because it was bad, it failed because the Repubs put politics above the people. They were afraid that had it passed that the Dems would get the credit and the Repubs would've been marginalized. Now here we are 10 years later with nothing to show for it.

Yet there are lots of studies suggesting that it is one of the most cost effective health care services in the world. Waits for non urgent surgery are quite common, but treatment for life threatening conditions is normally prompt. The NHS team that carried out the heart bypass on my wife worked for Dr Magdi Yacoub one of the best specialists in the world. Ironically, his deputy who performed the surgery was an American. He did not seem to have any problem with the system. I think that it is the mark of a civilised society that it provides proper health care for all its citizens regardless of their ability to pay. For all its minor irritations and faults the NHS is still one of the best things about living in Britain.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The new jobs that are being created don't provide any health insurance, and when Bush's medical savings plans get passed, the ranks of the uninsured will swell tremendously because corporations will drop health coverage for all of their employees. Why?

Let's say a corporation has highly paid and lowly paid workers. Right now, that corporation buys a group plan for all of their workers, but if their highly paid workers can get a Medical plan deduction by buying their own coverage, then the corporation won't continue the health plan just for their lowly-paid workers because it would be too expensive.

Market based health care leaves too many people uncovered. I'd rather have some healthcare then none at all. Sure, there may be limitations on the care, but that still beats no coverage at all.

It occurs to me that the average lifespan has not really improved considerably since recorded history. Many of the founding fathers of this country lived well into their eighties, with no access to modern science. Many of them even lived active lifestyles; Jefferson travelled cross country on horse well into his eighties!

In fact the world record for longest lifespan is still held by a french peasant during the reign of their monarchy.

And this was despite the fact the doctors of the time did more harm than good (such was certainly the case with bloodletting)!

And now we consider Health Care to be necessary.

There are two possible reasons:

1) We are less healthier than we were 200 years ago
2) We do not actually need anything more advanced than "country doctors" to set broken bones and perform other basic surgeries, and we are just fooling ourselves.

It is evident to me that the answer is 1), if you've ever been into the trauma ward of a hospital you would probably agree.

So lets examine this. Why is it that we are less healthy than we used to be? For this question, I see two possible answers:

1) Our lifestyles are not healthy
2) We have used evolution against us, allowing ailment-prone DNA to thrive under modern science to a point which where many persons cannot survive without the science that allowed their parents to live.

I have no real evidence for or against 2), so I cannot verify the claim.

But there is plenty of evidence for 1). Most of our population spends 8-10 hours a day, if not more, sitting in front of a computer (myself included) and lacking excersize. Consuming substances nature never intended our bodies to absorb (myself included). Travelling at 60 miles an hour in a machine made from jagged pieces of metal on a daily basis (myself included).

It is pretty clear to me that as a society we are probably to blame for the atrophy and destruction of our bodies. Our economy requires that the majority of workers must slowly kill themselves in order to pay rent and put food on the table.

Somehow, I don't think a universal Health Care scheme is the solution. I think the solution lies in improving work enviornments and forcing companies that do not to take financial responsibility for the medical condition of their employees that their work enviornments produce.

Medical science has greatly expanded life expectancy. At the beginining of the 20th century life expectancy was in the 60s. Today, it's in the 70s.

Healthcare costs have skyrocketed in this nation because less and less people are getting covered. The less people covered, the higher the price for coverage.

And if less people were getting covered, then supply-and-demand would drop the price, not rise it. There are many health insurence companies, and they are all competing.

That's just plain wrong. If there are less people in a plan, the premiums on the remaining people goes up because premiums are used to pay the actual health care costs AND leave a profit for the HMO. The more people paying the premium, generally the cheaper the premium. The less people paying the premium, the higher the premium. That's why healthcare costs are higher for a small business than a large business.

Obviously what you say is true for a single company -- buying goods/services in bulk is always cheaper than not, because there's less overhead.

But when multiple insurence companies are allowed to compete, fewer people on health care means a smaller demand, which drives the prices down.

Think of it this way: If you are losing customers because they don't like your prices... do you raise your prices or lower them?

For health insurance companies, they also have to pay for the actual health services that you receive. So, for an HMO having only a few patients could bankrupt them if these patients need a lot of health services.

So, it's not a simple supply/demand model because of the risk exposure, which they all have. The more people that buy into the plan, the lower the overall exposure. The less people that buy into the plan, the greater the exposure. Thus, the premiums have to go up in order to cover the increased exposure AND to maintain a profit margin.

Health insurance companies cannot compete on price alone. They have to take the exposure risk into account. In fact, it's required by law that insurance companies have the ability to cover their exposure or they'd lose their license to sell health insurance.

So, going back to my example. If ABC company lays off 5,000 of their employees, then their health premiums would go up for the remaining employees, but the overall revenue to the HMO from ABC would go down because of less workers, but their exposure risk would probably stay the same.

That made sense up until the end. See, if the health premiums go up enough the company would merely switch to a different provider (who may have a different deductable, more limited treatment, whatever).

Now health care is actually a huge factor when people accept job offers.

It would stand to reason that if ABC lays off 5000 workers, (and thus don't get a good package deal with X Insurance Company), they might indeed switch to Z Insurance Company who gives them a better plan.

Now X Insurance Company has fewer customers, so they may have to readjust their rates or go under. Z Insurance Company now provides crappier coverage for ABC, but for cheaper.

Bob is a skilled laborer. Bob wants health insurance for himself and his kids. ABC makes him an offer, and so does DEF. DEF might pay him less, but they're still with X Insurance Company. So Bob might take DEF's offer.

Anyway, you see where I'm going with this...

Z Insurance Company would be taking on the same exposure risk that X Insurance had but at lower revenues. Z Insurance Company would be taking on a considerable risk if they offered a premium lower than X insurance co. offered.

I've gone through this myself. I work through a temp agency which use to have twice as many temps as they do now. We've gone through two insurance companies, and our premiums have gotten higher each time.

The premiums that a company pays to HMO have to do four things:

1) Pay for the escalating cost of the actual health services, which go up every year.

2) Pay the operating costs of the HMO

3) Maintain a fund to cover their exposure risk

4) Return a profit to the HMO

So, if Health insurance companies competed with each other solely on cutting the premiums to get business, they's go under in a heart beat. This is why health care costs outpace inflation.

Isn't taking on risk a fundamental facet of private enterprise?

From what you are saying it seems that the problem is the regulation which says "you have to cover your exposure risk."

Without it, the worst that could happen is what? Bunch of people get cancer accidentally, and the Insurance Company goes under because they can't pay for it. Now, nobody has coverage and all the money they paid went into a black hole. Okay, that's bad.

But somehow the concept of insurance never sat well with me. We pay a small-considerable subscription, and in the event whatever is insured breaks... we get a payout. So it's purely speculatory. In fact, the insurance company is betting on stuff not breaking more than it does. Otherwise, you'd have higher premiums. So it's sort of like a reverse lottery.

And what really screws things up is when an overworked surgeon accidentally sews up a sponge inside of a patient, who dies from massive infection.

Then, in order to exact justice you end up applying an injustice to everyone else (increased premiums).

I just think we're going about this the wrong way. Because as you pointed out, it doesn't follow normal supply and demand models.

Maybe we should concentrate more on making treatment affordable and scrapping the whole insurance model. Insurence wouldn't be needed if cancers didn't cost 10s of thousands of dollars to treat. And drugs were actually affordable.

If they don't require insurance companies to have a fund to cover their exposure, then anybody could walk in, sell insurance, and rip off the public.

I mean, yeah I could sell an pretty box with a blank CD and call it software. (More realistically, I could claim a ton of features on the back of the box that the program doesn't have).

Under most laws, you cannot return opened boxes of software, so the user gets ripped off. You settle the dispute in court.

Why does insurance deserve special regulation?

of diseases and conditions that are largely preventable or curable now. It was not uncommon for couples to lose half or more of their children before adulthood.

I'm talking about diabetes, cancer, tuberculosis, complications of childbirth, heart disease, diptheria, typhoid, typhus, smallpox, measles. various types of injuries, and so on.

Lfe expectancy has gone up not because old people are living longer--there have always been people with long lifespans--but because young people are no longer dying at the rates they used to.

I'm just saying...

private doctoring is bankrupting the US.. 1.6 Trillion in a GDP of 10 Trillion. National Debt is at historic high { = bankrupt, if Debt is $1, right ? }.

UN's WHO ..WORLD HEALTH REPORT 2000.... US population health status is ranked seventy-second.

Now consider the ATTITUDE problem of most doctors. And consider the deadly stress of medical bill collectors. Must kill thousands a year.

Private fails... nationalized a brilliant success.

Opinions change usually, in the quiet of the night , mulling over something in print... not during ego-involved debate.

Just hand her this printed out, to keep, and let her read it at leisure.

google for a link to my WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ...WHO... source too.

TELL HER SHE IS PART OF MY 1000th post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have seen it used several times regarding overseas social programs. Seems to be a handy slap-on label the RW now favors for a fast reaction to any program they hear of.

It is after all forceful-sounding, and who here knnows enough about foreign national budgets to refute it immediately?

Would national health bankrupt the US? Not if we made use of the

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
105 Trillion national wealth,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

which now goes to .. as i said.. $2 million birthday parties, and $1000 each omlets... see my other post in Economics Forum, Vets Day post.

Stock mkt return on that wealth would be 10 Trillion vs. healthcare cost now, about 1 Trillion.. exact is 1.6 Trillion.
We could expand health costs about 6 times. And never touch the wealth itself. No threat of bankruptcy. None.

see bottom line for total wealth...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/accessible/l5.htm

last I heard Canada was still running a surplus, the inflation is increasing in the U.S. as it decreases in Canada, and hardly any of their taxes are wasted on interest payments.

People wait longer in the U.S. for desperately-needed surgery than in Canada, and if you're uninsured..just forget it! People don't go bankrupt because of chronic medical problems or overpriced drugs in Canada. Employers in Canada don't fire employees because of Diabetes or Cancer as they do here.

The day our party stops fighting for universal coverage is when I stop being a Democrat.