Thread: Health Care in the USA

My biggest fear is letting congress into the exam room. There is so much room here for medical decisions to become political ones. There are so many opportunities for government to screw things up.

The observation about most $ being spent late in life (It is actually in the last 6 months) can lead to some unpalatable solutions like having some kind of criteria that marks someone is likely to die and denying services other than palliative ones. (ie, you can't have chemo, but you can have morphine).

When will assisted suicide become a billable procedure?

I can see people who are obese, smokers, alcoholics, or other self damaging behaviors having higher premiums.

Then there is the whole family planning/abortion issue. One group that thinks public money shouldn't pay for the termination of a pregnancy. Another that feels Dr's should be compelled to give the "morning after pill" regardless of personal convictions. This one is sure to be part of the debate once congress is involved. It may not have happened in other countries, but does any one here believe it won't happen in the US?

What about forcing Catholic sponsored hospitals to perform abortions?

What about coverage for chiropractic, homeopathy, therapeutic massage, nutrition supplements, acupuncture, colon cleansing, health club memberships, diet programs, yoga, meditation, etc. They will all be lining up with their hands out and it will not depend on what is proven by investigation or evidence, but on who has the best organized lobby.

Has congress ever done business any other way?

Originally Posted by Pyment

My biggest fear is letting congress into the exam room. There is so much room here for medical decisions to become political ones.

With the system we now have it isn't politicians making those decisions it is largely insurance companies whose main object is to maximize their profits. They are primarily interested in stockholders not policy holders. If a person is ill and does have insurance God help them if they don't have an advocate to do battle with the adjusters who are trying by any contrivance to deny care and cancel their policy if and when they suffer a major illness. Cases of hospitals 'dumping' uninsured people who come to their emergency rooms aren't heard of in countries with nationalized health care. Who decides if those poor souls live or die ?

Now, for those of us in the future who don't buy the mandated insurance, will we be turned away at the doors of the emergency room? "What, no proof of insurance?" "Gidouddahere."

Now, say that an unfortunate soul was truly poor and could not afford the mandated insurance and dies right there on the doorstep of the ER, who pays for the funeral? I'm assuming that there will be a "final" expense clause in new omnibus unhealthy bill. Oh, oh, the guy who just croaked didn't have any "cost assumed by all" coverage.

Or will it still be as it is now that the non-covered will still get the ER care they walk in for, and the costs of that care will be properly inflated and re-inflated, and the passed on to whomever pays now: and that's us folks.

Likely not much will change, other than the fact it will cost a lot more because we will have to pay for that new, additional layer of administration, and care will be more rationed and slower, and the government will control your health records and make the info available to all but the insured.

Look at the highway infrastructure and tell yourself that the (any) government does things well and cheaply and promptly. And now transfer that careful scrutiny to the ripe and ready health care system and jump up and down in delightful anticipation that the same institutions will be putting your health care workers into a version of hard hats, steel toed boots, and chartreuse vests. And that those who will control the entire process will be the standers, leaners, pointers, and nodders we have all come to love.

Oh, the joy of it.

Is self-esteem of no importance?

Are we serving the poor by imposing charity upon them? or are they better off being self sufficient? Better to maintain a nation of needy, broken spirited people?

I value, and sleep better at night, paying my own way.

Originally Posted by honedright

Is self-esteem of no importance?

Are we serving the poor by imposing charity upon them? or are they better off being self sufficient? Better to maintain a nation of needy, broken spirited people?

I value, and sleep better at night, paying my own way.

People who live in countries with nationalized health care pay for it. It ain't free. They sleep better at night because insurance companies aren't denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or canceling their policies at the slightest excuse when they need them most.

Regarding the argument that we would be allowing government to interfere with health care decisions.

Well, right now your insurance company controls what operations you get and meddles in the affairs of health care providers. So, if the government takes the place of the insurance company, we're trading a group of people we can actually hold accountable, for one that we cannot. We can vote our politicians out of office and influence their decisions. We cannot influence the insurance company unless we own a big chunk of their shares.

Even if government is more bureaucratic, and I'm not convinced it will necessarily be worse, at least we can hold them accountable. The insurance company can drop you at any time, refuse countless procedures, deny any and all experimental procedures, and do all sorts of immoral things in the interests of the bottom line. Government has no bottom line to watch out for, only your/our health.

As for cost. I have no problem paying 2%-5% more in income tax to have free health care.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

People who live in countries with nationalized health care pay for it. It ain't free. They sleep better at night because insurance companies aren't denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or canceling their policies at the slightest excuse when they need them most.

If they are already paying for it, as you say, then why the need for the government as an intermediary?

Are they incapable of creating a system as good as, or better than what the government can create for them?

Originally Posted by honedright

If they are already paying for it, as you say, then why the need for the government as an intermediary?

Are they incapable of creating a system as good as, or better than what the government can create for them?

This is going to sound controversial, and a lot of people are probably going to disagree with me. But I'm going to say it anyway, as I really do believe this.

People suck at making rational/good decisions. And yes, I have an economics background and I don't buy into the rational decision fundamental theory at the heart of classical economic theory.

A lot of people don't have health insurance right now. Plus if everyone was forced to have it, it would drive the cost down. Thus, those already paying for it will see a savings for the same coverage. Assuming everyone who doesn't have health insurance then gets insurance through the same provider.

Being forced to have anything is too high a price already.

Originally Posted by Leighton

This is going to sound controversial, and a lot of people are probably going to disagree with me. But I'm going to say it anyway, as I really do believe this.

People suck at making rational/good decisions. And yes, I have an economics background and I don't buy into the rational decision fundamental theory at the heart of classical economic theory.

A lot of people don't have health insurance right now. Plus if everyone was forced to have it, it would drive the cost down. Thus, those already paying for it will see a savings for the same coverage. Assuming everyone who doesn't have health insurance then gets insurance through the same provider.

No competition will bring down the costs? When has a monopoly ever worked this way?