OK, fine, you allow doctors to turn away people who dont need to be treated, but that doesn't mean more people should be denied healthcare coverage. I cannot express the importance of good preventative medicine that can stop people from racking up expensive hospital bills as problems worsen without treatment.

I do want to point out that there are also policies to the right that also harm healthcare in our system. As I mentioned before, it is now illegal to file a law suit against your insurance company if you receive your plan through work. That means I can have a very legitimate medical problem that is supposed to be covered and they can deny my claim for no reason at all and nothing can be done to prevent that.

To put everything in perspective, if government shouldn't be involved in helping to provide healthcare to the poor and say a 10 year old kid is very sick with cancer, do we find some sort of way in the private sector to get the kid quality healthcare or do we simply have the kid go to a clinic, because it's not our fault the mother shouldn't have had a child without enough money to raise it? I would hope as a nation we're a little more of a community than the latter. If that is the case, my argument is moot because there's nothing that can be said to find common ground if there's not even a concern for those with less.

Lastly, the point that you should beware of too much government and beaurocrats dictating things, why then is the right (not all but many) trying so hard to mix government and religion? That perspective is exactly what the left feels about that issue, but we're branded as atheists and recently we were accused of trying to destroy Chirstmas. Things like the faith based initiative are directly mixing beaurocrats with religion and it is overwhelmingly supporting Evangelical Christianity, which is not the majority of the country. If the trend the Bush administration has started were to continue, why would I want government spending my money to enforce Evangelical ideas when I'm a Catholic? Why should the government be saying who can and cannot have a secular, legal marriage based on a certain relgious view? And furthermore why should government be making decisions about giving aid to the private sector? With all the spending the GOP has been doing and many of he new programs they've introduced, it is very difficult to see them as a party who does not like big government. There's no way you can deny the "Contract with America" has had quite a few breaches.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Last edited by wolverine16 on Jan-13-2005 at 19:41

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I do want to point out that there are also policies to the right that also harm healthcare in our system.

Certainly. I never claimed there was some perfect system, I just stated my opinion about what's reasonable to expect from who and what the implications of having too much government in your life would be.

quote:

Lastly, the point that you should beware of too much government and beaurocrats dictating things, why then is the right (not all but many) trying so hard to mix government and religion? That perspective is exactly what the left feels about that issue, but we're branded as atheists and recently we were accused of trying to destroy Chirstmas. Things like the faith based initiative are directly mixing beaurocrats with religion and it is overwhelmingly supporting Evangelical Christianity, which is not the majority of the country. If the trend the Bush administration has started were to continue, why would I want government spending my money to enforce Evangelical ideas when I'm a Catholic? Why should the government be saying who can and cannot have a secular, legal marriage based on a certain relgious view? And furthermore why should government be making decisions about giving aid to the private sector? With all the spending the GOP has been doing and many of he new programs they've introduced, it is very difficult to see them as a party who does not like big government. There's no way you can deny the "Contract with America" has had quite a few breaches.

Wait, I thought we were talking about healthcare--don't change the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Certainly. I never claimed there was some perfect system, I just stated my opinion about what's reasonable to expect from who and what the implications of having too much government in your life would be. Wait, I thought we were talking about healthcare--don't change the subject.

It is on subject though, because it questions how government can be so inefficient and dangerous in dealing with healthcare and be considered such a positive in other areas. I fail to see how those stances can coexist, especially when religion is so much more personal.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 It is on subject though, because it questions how government can be so inefficient and dangerous in dealing with healthcare and be considered such a positive in other areas. I fail to see how those stances can coexist, especially when religion is so much more personal.

Well, I don't think more government is the answer to any problem, including religion. Although I do think that point is off topic.

There are countless charities that are there to help those in need. A 10 year old cancer patient has many resources in which to find care, including just going to a hospital. They MUST treat him and his cancer, that is the law. I'd guess that about 1/8 of the cancer patients I see don't pay for their services, or pay a reduced amount, but they recieve exactly the same care as those that do.

One other thing I find interesting in this whole situation is our priority system. People will spend thousands of dollars for a new TV, cars beyond their income or house payments that are above their means, but when it comes to health insurance, something that protects your life, people complain when it gets pricey. To me it's flabbergasting because without that life, all those other toys and payments are pretty pointless. If I'm going to spend a good chunk of change on anything, it would be in protecting my life, not toys.

I remember one summer I was working construction and I was having a conversation with a forman about health care. He went on and on complaining that his most recent triple bypass cost his insurance company (not him, he only paid the premium) $5000 for the operation. Then he drove off in his new Ford pickup truck, which replaced his "old" 2-year old truck. The irony was amazing to me that a guy would complain about the cost of an operation that saved his life, only to drive off in a new truck he didn't need. I felt like telling him the next time he needs a triple bypass and he thinks it's too expensive, tell them he doesn't want it. He can die of an MI a happy man with lots of money in his brand new truck.

While there are some options available, the original post that started this thread suggests that not enough is being done to cover all people, because there are significant gaps. This is especialy in early stages when serious problems can be detected before they become life threatening.

I have had a little experience in the medical industry and from what I saw, there was a great difference in how people covered by medicare received treatment and how people who were on another assistance program of some sort when they could not pay were treated. In some ways medicare actually is better than for those who pay privately or are covered by health insurance, because there are a number of strict rules and goals that must be followed in care, particularly in rehabilitiation efforts.

I'm more than willing to agree that I don't think govenment is the cure-all for any problem, but my stance is that I think people. particularly children, should have access to healthcare when it is needed, the same way we have public schools. The public school system is nowhere near perfect and not equal, but it is a step further to ensure access than to not have access at all. Additionally if people want to pay for private doctors out of pocket, like with private school, that should be an option. Otherwise I think if we don't want to change from the HMO system, the policies promoted by Bill Bradley, where we add a system to cover uninsured children would be a positive step. If these children are all, in fact, being covered by various other means, the cost to declare them insured should be minimal.

Not much more to really say I guess, because it's largely based on ideology it seems, but if anyone wants to continue discussion, I'm down. Where's all the Europeans on healthcare perspectives?

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Interesting debate, many interesting arguments from both sides. although i agree more with wolverine16

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Where's all the Europeans on healthcare perspectives?

since im from sweden i can tell the pros and cons about that system. In sweden everyone have equal rights to good health care, covered by the government. All hospitals used to be owned by the government, but nowadadys many of them is contracted out to private companies (but still publicly accessable). It is also possible to get private health care, although that is very unusual (there is no need for it really). Personally I think that the swedish system is very good. It was for example ranked nr 1 by a big british investiagion in 2003 or 2003, dont remember (based on the WHO list but also taken into accout more aspects).

the main backside with the swedish system is the waiting time for some of the non so urgent operations (although its getting better). This is as far as i know a problem with most socialized healthcare systems (as well as with canadas).

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Interesting debate, many interesting arguments from both sides. although i agree more with wolverine16 since im from sweden i can tell the pros and cons about that system. In sweden everyone have equal rights to good health care, covered by the government. All hospitals used to be owned by the government, but nowadadys many of them is contracted out to private companies (but still publicly accessable). It is also possible to get private health care, although that is very unusual (there is no need for it really). Personally I think that the swedish system is very good. It was for example ranked nr 1 by a big british investiagion in 2003 or 2003, dont remember (based on the WHO list but also taken into accout more aspects). the main backside with the swedish system is the waiting time for some of the non so urgent operations (although its getting better). This is as far as i know a problem with most socialized healthcare systems (as well as with canadas).

I agree there is a problem in many socialized healthcare systems with wait times for some non-emergency care. Do you have any details on how Sweden on is cutting down these wait times right now while maintaining access?

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I agree there is a problem in many socialized healthcare systems with wait times for some non-emergency care. Do you have any details on how Sweden on is cutting down these wait times right now while maintaining access?

more resources i think. I think most waiting times in swedens system was built up during the beginning of the '90s when sweden was in an ecnomic crise and had to cut down drastically on everything... and it hasnt really got back to a low level since that, even tho its better now...

i know tranceaholic was saying something about that denmark had cut down their waiting times to almost none with the help of additional founds, which is probably a good investment.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew more resources i think. I think most waiting times in swedens system was built up during the beginning of the '90s when sweden was in an ecnomic crise and had to cut down drastically on everything... and it hasnt really got back to a low level since that, even tho its better now... i know tranceaholic was saying something about that denmark had cut down their waiting times to almost none with the help of additional founds, which is probably a good investment.

That's what I thought it might be. Sorry, but do you know by any chance what % of taxes go for healthcare? I just really would like to know what other places are doing and what can feasably be done here to improve the system. Thanks.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 That's what I thought it might be. Sorry, but do you know by any chance what % of taxes go for healthcare? I just really would like to know what other places are doing and what can feasably be done here to improve the system. Thanks.

hmm okay so i tried, its quite complicated, since the healthcare in sweden is mainly covered by local counties and not the national governemtn, but i took stockholm as an example. I did not compare it to our taxes either since that is kinda irrelevant (due to swedens huge taxes, not because of the health care system i think tho )... hehe..

20 billion SEK for drugs for Sweden in total (about 300 USD per person and year, covered by the national government).

40 billion SEK for ALL health care costs in stockholm county (including more drugs, staff, locals, contracting etc etc). That would be about 3000 USD per person and year.

So total cost for health care in sweden would be 3 300 USD per year, donno if thats good or bad, what is it in the US?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew So total cost for health care in sweden would be 3 300 USD per year, donno if thats good or bad, what is it in the US?

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/09/pf/...yerhealthplans/

quote:

Since 2000, that annual premium paid by employees to insure themselves and their families has increased nearly 49 percent. In 2003, the employee's cost for family coverage increased 13 percent to $2,412 a year, which accounts for 27 percent of the total premium. Premiums for single coverage increased by less than 8 percent to $508 a year.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/09/pf/...yerhealthplans/

yeah, but that only says how much the employees are paying? and does the government not pay for anything?