• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
cupper said:
E.R. Campbell said:
We need, in my opinion:

1. A highly rationed, single payer system that protects everyone from the costs of catastrophic illness;

2. A competitive (maybe even including a public competitor) health care insurance market that caters to both groups (most commonly employees) and individuals; and

3. Something akin to the US Medicare system for those retirees who have paid into a programme ~ it should be commonly "topped up" with private insurance.

People should not be forced to buy insurance, but nor should doctors and hospitals be required to provide other than real emergency care.

Aren't 1 & 2 mutually exclusive?


No; they are, more or less, what most European countries offer: a pretty well universal system that covers pretty much all serious medical problems - no one is denied care and no one has to go broke paying for essential care. (It's what Tommy Douglas had in mind circa 1960.) But the public system is limited in capacity - long waiting lists. You can jump the queue with you gold card by buying (or getting as a benefit of employment) private insurance which will cover more (not quite catastrophic, not quite bankruptcy inducing) ailments and which will buy faster access to treatments.

Counties like France have systems like this and, according to the OECD, their healthcare costs less than ours and produces better outcomes.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Aren't 1 & 2 mutually exclusive?



No; they are, more or less, what most European countries offer: a pretty well universal system that covers pretty much all serious medical problems - no one is denied care and no one has to go broke paying for essential care. (It's what Tommy Douglas had in mind circa 1960.) But the public system is limited in capacity - long waiting lists. You can jump the queue with you gold card by buying (or getting as a benefit of employment) private insurance which will cover more (not quite catastrophic, not quite bankruptcy inducing) ailments and which will buy faster access to treatments.

Counties like France have systems like this and, according to the OECD, their healthcare costs less than ours and produces better outcomes.

Certainly makes better sense than what we have in either Canada or US. I've always thought a combination of the two systems would be the ideal solution. I enjoy the quick response of what I have in the US, but the fights with insurance is a hassle I could do without. The premiums are a pain, but when you consider it balances out with what I was paying in tax back in Canada it makes it somewhat more tolerable. But there is always the fear of going into financial dire straits if you become seriously sick.
 
What could possibly go wrong . . .

""HHS has a huge amount of work to do and the states do, too. There will be new health insurance marketplaces in every state in the country, places you can go online, compare health plans."

The IRS, Health and Human Services and many other agencies will now write thousands of pages of regulations -- an effort well under way: 

"There's already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they're not even done yet,"



This boondoggle is going to make Solyndra  look like an efficient, effective and coherent business investment.






www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/03/efforts-to-implement-obamacare-law-raise-concerns-massive-government-expansion/#ixzz1zmlhsQgK
 
Denial of claim <> rationing.  Rationing occurs when supply < demand.  In the case of health care, triage or a triage-like approach is generally how rationing is managed.

The difference between rationing and eliminating coverage (de-listing a service) is almost negligible, particularly if the rationing results in a delay/denial which forces the patient to seek service outside the system (ie. as if he had no coverage).

I am curious who the mythical "free riders" are.  People who can afford insurance are not necessarily "free riders".  If they pay for their medical needs now - and most providers are at least capable of figuring out whether a patient/consumer can pay, and making billing arrangements to suit if necessary - they are not "free riders".  If they choose to start buying health insurance later, presumably the health insurance companies are smart enough to charge premiums accordingly, which means the consumers are - again - not "free riders".  People on a low-cost (high deductible, catastrophic coverage) plan which will not pass federal muster to qualify for the tax credit are not "free riders".

The tax essentially targets people who can afford insurance (ie. can afford their health care already, and already pay for it) and gives them an option (ie. forego the tax credit) which in most cases still leaves them with a better net position than buying a sufficiently comprehensive plan to qualify for the credit.  So they continue paying for their health care, plus they pay a tax.  It is not about spreading "risk"; it is really just another way of transferring money from younger people to older ones.  Once you understand that, you are in a position to judge just how "fair" it is.
 
I am curious who the mythical "free riders" are. 

The "free riders" are the ones who have no health insurance, and show up at the emergency rooms because they have no insurance. Since the publicly funded hospitals are required to provide service beyond emergency care, knowing that they will not be reimbursed (even for profit hospitals that do provide care for such people knowing that they will not receive full reimbursement) will make up the loss by charging their insured patients higher rates.

Even if they do not have insurance, all hospitals are required to provide emergency treatment to stabilize you to the point where you can be moved to another facility that is willing to provide further treatment.

Denial of claim <> rationing.  Rationing occurs when supply < demand.  In the case of health care, triage or a triage-like approach is generally how rationing is managed.

And don't for a minute believe that denial of claim is not rationing by another name. If the insurance company wants to keep payouts down to maximize return for investors, the first thing they will do is deny a claim with the thought being that a significant percentage of insured will not appeal. They force insured to go through a process of try this cheaper alternative first, even though your doctor knows that it won't be effective in your particular case, or is contra indicated for you specifically, but the more expensive alternative will work, and doesn't have the contra-indications.

The problem with your discussion is you are applying what will happen under the ACA to the current system, which doesn't reflect the reality of the system.

Take for example a 20 something who is just starting out, and opts not to purchase health insurance, or takes a job with a small company that cannot afford to offer health insurance because their pool is so small. The have a gall bladder attack and need to have it removed. Your looking at a $15K or larger bill. How do they pay for that with little no credit? They may not be considered to be a "free rider", but their situation results in rates for insured to go up to cover the costs that the hospital is unable to recoup.

As for fairness, the whole argument for transferring money from the young to the old can be used to describe both the social security program and medicare. And yes it is fair, when you consider that they will be old some day and will be looking for their social security and medicare.
 
Just for clarification, how many people that are responding to this tread have personal experience (current or past) with the US health care system?

I'm not looking to make a "well you haven't been there so you don't know / can't comment" argument. I'm just curious as to whether the arguments are generated from personal experience or from what is / has been stated in various media sources, research or other knowledge bases.
 
cupper said:
Just for clarification, how many people that are responding to this tread have personal experience (current or past) with the US health care system?

I'm not looking to make a "well you haven't been there so you don't know / can't comment" argument. I'm just curious as to whether the arguments are generated from personal experience or from what is / has been stated in various media sources, research or other knowledge bases.

It comes from personally knowing a number of people that OHIP has sent across to Detroit for treatment, and people that have sought their own treatment there, on their own dime.

In all cases, it was because of the expertise, short wait times (hours or days, compared to months and years) and superb equipment available.

Nothing to do with media, or your other stated sources.
 
recceguy said:
It comes from personally knowing a number of people that OHIP has sent across to Detroit for treatment, and people that have sought their own treatment there, on their own dime.

In all cases, it was because of the expertise, short wait times (hours or days, compared to months and years) and superb equipment available.

Nothing to do with media, or your other stated sources.

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your candor.
 
cupper said:
Just for clarification, how many people that are responding to this tread have personal experience (current or past) with the US health care system?

I'm not looking to make a "well you haven't been there so you don't know / can't comment" argument. I'm just curious as to whether the arguments are generated from personal experience or from what is / has been stated in various media sources, research or other knowledge bases.


I live, part time, in Texas - with friends (adults in their 40s with two teen-aged kids) who are both employed. I understand, from them and their friends, the values and shortfalls of company provided health insurance. I also know, because I checked (at my age one does): how much it costs, per night, for an ICU or critical care bed in a Texas hospital and how much an air ambulance costs, too.

What I'm well aware of is that health insurance schemes are different - my friend's plan (provided by a very posh private school), for example, has 'better' prescription drug benefits than her husband's plan (provided by a (Japanese) high tech giant) and even covers some 'holistic medicine' treatments. One of the (several) reasons she moved from a major US research university to the private school was the benefits package, including the "health and wellness" plan.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I live, part time, in Texas - with friends (adults in their 40s with two teen-aged kids) who are both employed. I understand, from them and their friends, the values and shortfalls of company provided health insurance. I also know, because I checked (at my age one does): how much it costs, per night, for an ICU or critical care bed in a Texas hospital and how much an air ambulance costs, too.

What I'm well aware of is that health insurance schemes are different - my friend's plan (provided by a very posh private school), for example, has 'better' prescription drug benefits than her husband's plan (provided by a (Japanese) high tech giant) and even covers some 'holistic medicine' treatments. One of the (several) reasons she moved from a major US research university to the private school was the benefits package, including the "health and wellness" plan.

Thank you sir.
 
>The "free riders" are the ones who have no health insurance, and show up at the emergency rooms because they have no insurance.

I figured as much, and most of those people are not "free riders"; they are recipients of charity - they can not afford health insurance and can not afford to pay over the counter.  The people you think of as "free riders" are in fact another source of funds to providers trying to make up their losses - if this were not true, there would not be legions of complaints about the fee differentials between what is charged to insured people and what is charged to people who pay out of pocket.

Again, denial of claim <> rationing.  There is no point having a language if the meaningful differences between words and phrases are going to be blurred in the service of rhetoric.

"Take for example..."  Fine, but if the example boils down to someone who can not pay - regardless whether it is because of low income, zero assets, no credit - it is an example of charity.  The alternative is to not be charitable, not to pretend the person is a "free rider".  These recipients of care are not imposing themselves on the system: the care is an obligation imposed by the state or undertaken voluntarily (in the case of hospitals run by truly charitable organizations).  Where the state has imposed the obligation and does not provide the funds, it is really the state which is the "free rider".
 
Brad Sallows said:
>The "free riders" are the ones who have no health insurance, and show up at the emergency rooms because they have no insurance.

I figured as much, and most of those people are not "free riders"; they are recipients of charity - they can not afford health insurance and can not afford to pay over the counter.  The people you think of as "free riders" are in fact another source of funds to providers trying to make up their losses - if this were not true, there would not be legions of complaints about the fee differentials between what is charged to insured people and what is charged to people who pay out of pocket.

Again, denial of claim <> rationing.  There is no point having a language if the meaningful differences between words and phrases are going to be blurred in the service of rhetoric.

"Take for example..."  Fine, but if the example boils down to someone who can not pay - regardless whether it is because of low income, zero assets, no credit - it is an example of charity.  The alternative is to not be charitable, not to pretend the person is a "free rider".  These recipients of care are not imposing themselves on the system: the care is an obligation imposed by the state or undertaken voluntarily (in the case of hospitals run by truly charitable organizations).  Where the state has imposed the obligation and does not provide the funds, it is really the state which is the "free rider".

OMG Brad. You're sounding like a liberal ;D

I agree that this debate gets lost in the definitions. What gets me is the mindset that health care is a business, or an industry. It seems that they have lost sight that access to affordable health care is a basic fundamental right. Yes there is a place for business entities to provide it, and that they should be able to make reasonable returns on their investments. But when you add layer upon layer of for profit entities looking for their fair share, cost control goes out the window.

What the right model is, I could guess at a mix of government run basic and emergency health care and private provider options for non critical specialized care, similar to what was described in a previous post.

But you still haven't heard anything from the GOP other than repeal and replace. We don't know what they would replace it with, other than the parts of the ACA that are already in force (which would be hellishly hard to pull back from those using it now), and some of teh parts that will come in in 2014.

And this seems to be the biggest problem with Romney's message. He's campaigning against Obama, but what concrete policy proposals have were gotten out of them?
 
A good friend of mine owns 2 Liberty Tax Offices (small franchises like H&R Block). He was going to open another office next year; since the SCOTUS decision, he has decided not to. It would put him over a threshold of 25 employees and the added employee healthcare costs are substantial enough (to a tax accountant) to decide not to open any more offices in spite of the relative success of his other 2 locations. (1 boomed, the other not so much).

I can't imagine he is the only businessman to reach such a conclusion but I do concur that one anecdote is a small sample size.
 
One anecdote is certainly a small sample size, but it can equally be the tip of the iceberg.
 
Health care is a business, and should be run like one.  If health care providers ran their operations as well as Walmart, I suppose it would be the people too snobby to shop at Walmart who would go without health care (the clinics and hospitals would be filled with Mr and Mrs Average - yuck).

Health care is not a fundamental right.  A fundamental right is something like life, liberty, or property.  Health care is a civil right (privilege/entitlement).  Misrepresenting it as a fundamental right tends to obscure the fact that an entitlement for one person imposes an obligation on another.  A person is not a means to an end for other people.

The flip side of private profit is layer upon layer of government bureaucrats running their little fiefdoms, submitting new reasons every year why they need more minions to oversee and more processes to execute, queueing up at the bargaining table periodically to demand more benefits.  Different, but not better.  There is always "squeeze" to be paid.

The right model is government-funded (not government-run) catastrophic care (ie. single payer for big-bill services and emergencies), and government-subsidized health spending accounts for people on low incomes.  I doubt government needs to be involved any more deeply than that, because otherwise the most effective (really, the only) cost control of all - consumer shops and pays - is lost.

I have read plenty from the GOP.  I realize the web is full of ostriches pundits in denial that the GOP has put anything on the table, but that is just rank dishonesty in the service of partisanship.
 
:goodpost:

And the same logic can be applied to virtually every government office or function. The minimal exceptions is the Courts to enforce the Rule of Law, and I will allow that for very large scale operations there are some efficiencies to letting the State do the job.
 
Rationed healthcare isnt good for anyone. In the US if you show up at the ER they have to treat you. Thats not necessarily the case in the UK for example.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

A group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.

“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.

Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.

“There is no one size fits all approach.”

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.

“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.

It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.

The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.

"The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.

"Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”
 
Health care isn't a fundamental right?  I find it hard to understand how it is possible for a person living in a first world country and having citizenship in that country could find themselves in a position where a simple procedure such as  repairing a few broken bones from a car crash or treating a kidney stone could result in financial hardship.

The idea of NOT having a universal health care plan is ridiculous.  Our system in Canada may not be perfect, but at least we have access to preventative medicine, don't worry about going bankrupt over a rough pregnancy and have access to a doctor, either you own or at a medicentre, for any reason or no reason.

I find it truly mind boggling that the US hasn't been able to come up with 1st world medical care for all of its citizens when so many different systems exist that they could emulate if only they had the political will.

Why are our wait times longer than in the US?  Simple - its because we ALL have access to the system.  Unlimited demand with limited supply = wait times. 

Another interesting thread idea may well be 'will the US collapse under its debt load and corrupt government and become a series of 3rd world countries"
 
exabedtech said:
Health care isn't a fundamental right?  I find it hard to understand how it is possible for a person living in a first world country and having citizenship in that country could find themselves in a position where a simple procedure such as  repairing a few broken bones from a car crash or treating a kidney stone could result in financial hardship.

The idea of NOT having a universal health care plan is ridiculous.  Our system in Canada may not be perfect, but at least we have access to preventative medicine, don't worry about going bankrupt over a rough pregnancy and have access to a doctor, either you own or at a medicentre, for any reason or no reason.

I find it truly mind boggling that the US hasn't been able to come up with 1st world medical care for all of its citizens when so many different systems exist that they could emulate if only they had the political will.

Why are our wait times longer than in the US?  Simple - its because we ALL have access to the system.  Unlimited demand with limited supply = wait times. 

Another interesting thread idea may well be 'will the US collapse under its debt load and corrupt government and become a series of 3rd world countries"



:bullshit:

I'm hoping you're just trolling, looking for a fight ... if you really believe most of what you wrote then your are hopelessly disconnected from reality. Only your fourth sentence makes any sense at all; the rest is sophomoric drivel. (300 milpoints deducted for trolling)


 
E.R. Campbell said:
:bullshit:

I'm hoping you're just trolling, looking for a fight ... if you really believe most of what you wrote then your are hopelessly disconnected from reality. Only your fourth sentence makes any sense at all; the rest is sophomoric drivel. (300 milpoints deducted for trolling)

No, not trolling.  Outside of the US, i'd imagine it to be the prevailing view in 1st world countries.  Certainly it is the way most see things around here  :cdn:
 
Back
Top