Category: Health and Wellness
So it would seem that the burning topic of the day is health care reform within the United States. Some people are in favor, many others, (make that many many others if the media and republicans are to be believed), aren't. I read an article a few weeks ago which revealed the astonishing statistic that polls showed that a staggering 87% of people in Texas were against the new legislation, yet more than 60% of Texan's would benefit from health care reform. I can't explain it, how is it that so many people can be apposed to something that would so clearly improve the standard of their lives? It's like saying no to seatbelts in cars, or to anti-smoking campaigns. Though of course should you look hard enough, you probably could find people who'd readily say no to both those things. But while you could find some, they certainly wouldn't make up the majority. So just what exactly is it that upsets the masses about health care reform.
Well, the good ol' Republican party would be a logical place to start as they're leading the anti reform charge. For one thing they're convinced that any reform will ramp up the national deficit. In plain speak that is the amount of money owed to the US treasury by us the public, or the government itself. However democrats make completely the opposite claim. They say that the deficit will be reduced, to the tune of $143bn over the next ten years. An impartial third party opinion put forward by the Congressional Budget Office claims that national debt will be reduced by $138bn. Large and frankly incomprehensible numbers I know but the bottom line is that the independent surveyors of the financial situation believe that the deficit will be reduced and I tend towards believing them because, well, they're independent. No political drum to beat.
Let's leave the boring numbers though and get back to the republicans. They're much more interesting. Apparently their biggest concern, at least from everything I've read doesn't actually seem to be the national debt. No no, their biggest concern seems to be... *gasp*! socialism! Actually we shouldn't be too surprised by this. Socialism you see is a dirty word in America. It isn't just the idea of taking a little from the rich to better the lives of the less well off though heaven knows, that's a barmy enough notion in of itself but what really gets the patriotic heart pumping is the thought deep down that by doing anything socialist, that we just might be straying into the realms of communism. After all, what was the point of accruing all that national debt during the second half of the twentieth century building bombs and missiles that could destroy entire cities and account for hundreds of thousands of lives in a single mushroom cloud puff just to be taken from behind in a rear-guard action by the commies. This might on the surface sound like a far fetched linguistic association but really, when you think about it it wasn't all that long ago that people right here in the States were being thrown in jail for voicing socialist, therefore communist opinions. Actually the paranoia grew to such a frenzy that it is entirely possible that considering red curtains a good idea would have meant a mandatory 6 months in the state penitentiary.
Actually I do get it at least up to a point. Communism meant socialism and there for was juxtaposed to everything that democratic capitalist America stood for. I'm not sure I completely follow the logic from there to daring to be so bold as to suggest that a 1% increase on income tax to help feed the poor and needy automatically meant that you were trying to bring your country down from within so had to be removed from society as hastily as possible lest some other impertinent soul get similar foolish notions about sharing. But hey, I never lived in 1950's America so what do I know.
In fairness to the American public part of the problem is confusion. Something they can hardly be blamed for. This is a huge bill with a lot of changes involved and if there's one thing I can tell you about human nature, it is that we do not generally like change. To add to the confusion is the fact that what changes we should expect keep changing. Put simply this is because the republicans, (yes them again), hate everything about this bill. Consequently it has meant that the only chance of getting it through for the Democrats has been to keep making concessions. So many in fact that at this point, nobody really knows what they're getting, or how it is going to impinge upon their lives.
A few facts would seem to be in order then. For starters an estimated twenty four million American's will be eligible for tax credits to help purchase medical insurance. A further sixteen million will be eligible for Medicaid. So in total it is thought that some thirty two million previously not-covered citizens will have health coverage as a result. Just to put that number into context that is somewhere in the region of 10% of the population. Further to that, (and incidentally it is incomprehensible to me how this isn't already law), insurance companies won't be able to drop coverage for people if they fall ill. (I mean hang on a second, surely selling insurance is a gamble just like any other gamble, If I backed a horse to win and lost I wouldn't be able to retract my bet would I? Great way to gamble though...) Nor will insurance companies be able to refuse people coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Low income individuals and families will be able to obtain subsidies to help with the cost of health insurance. The list goes on but that's a few of the benefits to reform.
As with any legislation there are of course down sides. Two obvious ones stand out. The one that gets the republican goat is the fact that all Americans will be required to carry medical coverage. It is, according to their rhetoric unconstitutional. Never mind that it makes very good sense. What I say to anybody who follows this line of logic is this. Next time you break an ankle; or fracture your skull; or suddenly find yourself with an uncomfortable bout of lung cancer just sit it out, unless you actually happen to have the money laying around to pay for your treatment out of your own pocket because that's what not having insurance amounts too. I mean somebody has to pay for it and that somebody is going to have to be you if it isn't an insurance company. I hope you're super rich too because believe me as somebody who has seen bills from hospitals here in the States, a mere visit to one isn't cheap never mind an over night stay, and this comes from somebody who has spent time in a Hilton hotel!
The other down side is actually only a down side should you happen to live in a household where your family collectively brings in more than $250,000 a year. Should that be the case then your taxes are going to go up. Of course I can't help but think that any family living on that kind of money can afford to give a little more back, but again, I seem to be in the minority with this way of thinking. I mean that equates to $4800 a week, you can't seriously be telling me that people on that kind of money don't have a few spare dollars to put back into the system?
I realize of course that many Americans have bought into the idea that things are better in America than anywhere else and that of course extends to health care facilities and indeed it is true, except of course that this is a wildly misleading claim at the same time because it is only true if you can afford it, which of course many can't. In 2000 the World Health Organization studied every nations health facilities and it might surprise you to know that America scored very poorly. Actually given the amount of money that the average citizen pays for health care currently in this country it didn't just do poorly, it did disastrously. In fact in the year 2000, America was ranked just the thirty seventh best country in the World to be treated in yet for that service it spent a comparatively whapping 13.5% of it's GDP, (Gross domestic product). It was ranked considerably below many of the countries that are so often held up as examples of how bad things could get if America embraced some form of national health service. Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, all offered better health care to their citizens. That isn't you understand that the health care they offered was as good as the very best that the states has to offer, but that over all they offered a better service across the board and yet all these countries managed to achieve this while spending less of it's GDP. Britain ranked 18th in the World whilst spending just 6% of it's GDP. For the record I don't throw that statistic at you by way of one-upmanship but just to illustrate how crazy it is that one of the big complaints about health care reform is cost, when America already spends way more than anybody else in the developed world on health care.
But do you want to know the really ironic thought in all of this? I bet a very high percentage of people in the United States today couldn't afford the very best health care that the country has to offer, and I'm willing to bet that that percentage would be comparable to the percentage of people that currently don't want health care reform. I can't explain it. Then again perhaps I shouldn't even try. After all, somebody might get the wrong idea and report me to the authorities and before I know it my house is swarming with FBI agents, and just imagine the consequences if they find any red curtains...
harp, you bring up many interesting points. I'm of two minds about this health care bill. There is a definite need for one. Insurance companies have priced themselves out of a job. The amount we pay for what we actually receive is ridiculous.
My concerns is that the more the government gets in to stuff the larger amount of paper is generated. My doctor's receptionist told me that currently when every medicaid patient visits a doctor, over five pages of forms must be completed. Ridiculous.
Our health care system is hurting and terminally ill. If this current measure will help, I don't know. Time will tell. I expect that like amany other things in life there will ge positives and negatives.
I also am of 2 minds. My job consists of answering phone calls for people who need health insurance among other needs. I have heard these people crying for reform and cursing reform. With out trying to break hippa let me try to give you some samples here of callers
parrents with kids in college make too much money for their kids to get public assistance because it looks at the parrents income, but parrents can't afford private or cobra coverage. I'll put here the prices for one of the most popular plans in newyork city and a link for you to see the rest of the prices.
a private hmo and pos plan for empire blue cross and blue shield
1 person
hmo 1169.71
pos $1,489.71
family
hmo $3,509.13
pos $4,469.13
link for all hmos in manhatton.
http://www.ins.state.ny.us/hmorates/html/hmonewyo.htm
so yes that is a good reason for health care reform.
there is also that group of people though that are willing not to get treatment because they can't afford the health care, and they are not eligable for the public assistance. Mostly people who work part time, or who work full time and the employer says yes you can have health insurance, but we only pay 30 percent so it will be 800 bucks a month. I wonder how much the health plan will take care of this?
I only hope that our government has taken in to consideration both sides of the argument, and that they've consulted the right people. I will admit I'm a bit nervice about how it will turn out, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Laws have been overturned before, and I hope our government really watches what this does.
I've read 2 of the articals so far from this last link I'll share with you. It seems to describe parts of the bill with out using scare tactics, so maybe it will help us all understand it a bit more.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bill-101-What-will-it-mean-for-business
Coming from a country that has universal health care, but having spent much time in the U.S., I can see both sides of this argument:
On one hand, I think this is a very good thing. After all, you wouldn't want a loved one to die because nobody in the family could afford the health care to give them the necessary treatment. Money seems like a very sad reason for a person to die.
On the other hand, I can see why private health care is, in some cases, a good thing. In Canada, because health care is universal, you have to spend anywhere from six months to two years on a waiting list to get surgery, unless your condition is life threatening. Where does that leave all the people who need wisdom teeth removed, tonsils removed, hip replacements, back surgery, and all other conditions that are not life threatening, but leave the patient in great pain if left untreated.
So, I guess it's all a matter of what is more important: Neglecting those in chronic pain for years, or saving someone from death who could otherwise not afford his or her treatment.
having said that, I do believe that a lot of people seem to be against Health Care Reform for all the wrong reasons. I wasn't around for any part of the Cold War, and I'm sure this new reform will probably leave some of our older population uneasy, as it might bring back some memories, but surely it is time for a change.
another reason people are tripping out about this is that republicans think that the reform will also benifit illegal immigrants, the bill says something like all individuals, not all citizens, although obama clearly stated that he meant citizens...lol dunno it's crazy. It's making me really irritated though living in texas after living in canada for so long, a lot and i mean a lot of people in texas are outraged to say the least. I say fuck em, if it doesn't work, like candace said, laws have been overturned. There will be both positive and negative effects of this bill, we'll just have to see in time how bad or how good of an idea this really was. It's gonna take a few years for this to actually come into effect and surely by then it'll be all watered down anyways. I think however it's ridiculous that republicans have no problem spending trillions of dollars in the last 10 years on a stupid war, but have an issue for keeping our country's people healthy? like really? Anyways i do see the otherside, not as many doctors and long waiting list for surgeries and/or what not...very complicated this is for sure
Well, I definitely say no to antismoking campaigns and smoking bans, since most rely on propaganda that's wildly exagerated at best and downright untrue at worst. But I don't understand why Americans are so against reforming healthcare. the only reason I could think of is that they're really antisocialist. Gods forbid they actually start doing things to help the people and to make things easier. Some actually believe, and I've met a few, that healthcare and education aren't rights but are privelages. they don't mind helping others, so long as the money's not taken from their purses. they actually believe that it's a family's responsibility to take care of their own, regardless of whether they have other dependents like children etc. or whether they have the money. This sort of thinking truly angers me. I can't speak for this bill in particular, since I don't follow American politics, but I'm glad that something is finally being done. good points about communism. these people have a huge chip on their shoulder. they seem to forget that many other countries have socialised healthcare and more and are far from communist. I didn't know, though, that they were that insane back then. I knew many were violently anticommunist but didn't know that america imprisoned people for bying red things or for voicing their opinions. so much for the freedom bullshit they're always spouting. I do know, however, that they supported the Junta in Greece, which ruled from 1967-74, trained it's leaders and were directly involved in the invasion of cyprus by the turks. so I'm not all that surprised. thanks for clarifying some of the points of this bill. I completely agree with you about these people just sitting it out. And they can forget sending their children to hospitals if they're dying of terminal illnesses or even if they have a preventable childhood disease if they don't have the money. Where do they think the money is supposed to come from? This bill also sounds good for homosexuals, since federal law still hasn't caught on to accepting gay marriage. There were many, I'm sure, with spouses who could offer them a decent healthcare plan if that weren't an isue. at least now they can get the coverage that they deserve. again, I agree about the wealthy. They should be taxed far more than the middle class and I don't think that people who make below a certain amount should be taxed at all. as for things being better in america, that has to be some kind of huge joke. Other countries offer not only healthcare but education for free, including college. these days, a regular BA or BS is the equivalent of what a high school diploma used to be. So if you don't go to college or a trade school, you're pretty much out of luck unless you own your own business or know someone who's willing to hire you. and in the current economic situation, the former is very difficult. Where did you find those statistics? what were the top three countries and where did Greece rank?
I don't think the antisocialists, in this case, should be able to put their beliefs before the health of the nation. it just seems selfish, in my opinion. They can, of course, believe whatever they so choose, but the law should really benefit the people, not the beliefs of the antisocialist extremists.
well, they seem to think that the people don't matter. But then again, that's capitalism in it's extreme. Money money money, and who cares if people die, can't afford their medications etc? No one seems to be able to settle on a balance in this country. It's all about "me" and "I" never "we" or "us".
My issue is with forcing people to buy health care. I don't believe the government has the right to say you must pay for health care or be fined. If I'm making $100000 a year I should have the right to chose not to buy health care. Would it be a stupid choice yes but it should still be my choice. Instead of forcing people to buy health care I believe everyone should be provided with very basic catastrophic coverage regardless of income. Rather then saying everyone has coverage so you don't get anything else the sliding scales for tax credits and subsidies that were passed should remain which would allow lower income individuals and famalies to get more then very basic health care.
Hi Tif, Greece was ranked 14th in the World Health organization table produced in 2000.
Click here for full table.
By the way I was being sarcastic with the red curtains comment. Paranoia was definitely high in the United States in the post-war years, but I don't believe they ever quite reached those levels. Though surprisingly close at times. Should I ever get the inclination I'll see if I can dig out some of the stories of people that were ludicrously persecuted during that period.
Dan.
lol I figured you were being sarcastic, but knowing how crazy things were then, it wouldn't really surprise me.
Eleni
Also, there's a difference between the government taking taxes in order to pay for healthcare and them forcing someone to buy and to pay for it on their own. I don't agree with the second approach.
Actually, I just heard about that part of the bill last night on the news. Perhaps I didn't read it in detail before then. No, I don't agree that you should be forced to buy health insurance either. I just think it should be more readily available, and less costly.
I have to say I don't understand all this resentment about the government insisting on people having health insurance. It's something that makes perfect sense to me. I was listening to a TV debate just yesterday on this topic and the question was asked why is being forced to have health insurance such a big deal when we're already faced with the same thing on car insurance? You wanna know what the answer to that was? The answer was that it isn't the same thing because owning a car isn't a necessity, it's a luxury. Now you might well argue what a nonsense answer that is just by taking a look at public transport options in many areas of this country. We live in a city of more than thirty thousand for example and yet have just one or two buses running here a day. So forgive me for pointing out the bleeding obvious here but, buses don't have that many seats, a fact apparently hither too unknown by republicans. I'd say a lot of people wouldn't make it to work, or to the grosery store; or to doctors appointments; or be able to get their kids to school; or hell, even just have a fun day out at the park without their so called luxury vehicle. But even if you do subscribe to that view in the face of logic, it is still a meaningless point. You see if there's one thing that is guaranteed in life it is that at some point, our bodies are going to break down. We're going to have to see doctors, we're going to have to take trips to hospitals. It is something that nobody can escape. So to my mind things are actually completely the reverse. If the car is a luxury.Then why make insuring one of those manditory as apparently they're not essential to living. Our bodies on the other hand, we absolutely have to have them to live. Without a body we don't have an aweful lot. Ask any dead person.
Still, complaining won't solve a great deal. Voting on the other hand will. So if you really hate the Democrats for caring about things to the point that they were actually willing to make changes then go and ensure that they don't get the chance again next election. Perhaps the Republicans can restore order to this great country and spend trillions on wars against arab nations for no especially good reason instead of on the health of their own citizens. I mean to say, what could possibly make more sense than that?
Dan.
I love your logic and especially the end part. As for cars, I know several sighted people who don't drive, so I'm one of those who do think it's a luxury. That said, I agree that healthcare certainly isn't and is absolutely necessary for everyone.
I understand your logic as well, but are they going to change health insurance so it provides better coverage, if everybody is going to have to buy it? My relatives who live in the States have what they consider to be a really good plan, yet they still had to pay $600 just for two hours in the hospital, and this was after the deduction from the insurance company.
In response to OceanDream's post 8, the only reason you have to wait under universal healthcare, is that those who can't afford the treatment they need aren't denied the treatment. Though private healthcare nmay enable you to receive quicker treatment, while you're being treated, somebody who can't afford to be treated for the same thing is waiting until they can afford it, or until they can no longer wait due to death.
Senior, I definitely understand your logic here. That's why I'm really on the fence with this one.
I live with a family member who is in extreme chronic back pain every day due to a serious injury. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they just keep trying to cover it up by prescribing her oxycotton, and antidepressants to deal with the frustration of not being able to do much outside the house. She has no income, and as of now, they are telling her there's nothing they can do. There are so many reasons I think that's unfair, but I guess it can be justified by the fact that someone is currently being saved from a heart atack that otherwise would have killed them.
lmao "ask any dead person"
I don't agree with having to buy healthcare. If somebody is in so much pain, they should be in hospital receiving treatment. It's 2010!
I agree!
lol considering how much squawking the people are doing about this, could you imagine if a real socialised bill, one that would allow the people, as you said, to be in the hospital, would get? I too agree that this should be government funded for all, with the option to purchase private healthcare or to go to a private hospital if desired. But I highly doubt that'll happen in this country any time soon.
There are a few things I'd like to add to this.
Firstly, thye idea of insurance is simple, from a business perspective. You calculate the probability of a certain event happening, you add a mark up for cost and then you charge a price to the individual for insuring that individual against said disaster. It follows that the individual has to pay a premium over what the absolute cost is given the straight probability of the actual disaster, because you factor in costs and profit margin before you charge the price. In some instances private companies offset this by being more efficient than government, e.g. good contractors, of course by hiring illegal immigrants, outsourcing or doing something else that leaves their employees worse off, however insurance has little or no effect on the actual efficiency of the patient treatment, that is the hospitals problem, and since they get paid either way they don't care. This, inevitably, leads to a complicated and expensive system.
Secondly, since people are obsessed with the idea of privacy, the same paperwork has to be generated pretty much every time they visit any doctor, because they feel uncomfortable with storing their health information in a system somewhere, apparently it threatens their freedom or something. This leads to an almost Soviet era style amount of paperwork, you have to fill in pages and pages of questions every time you happen to go see a doctor. If a system where in place to share a patient's information between hospitals and doctors it would eliminate the paperwork, speed up diagnosis, make drug prescription abuse much more difficult and so on. Just watch any "Intervention" episode regarding drugs and you see all these people going to 10 different doctors in order to get prescriptions for the same drugs to get high on, and apparently it is no problem.
Thirdly the way this system is set up people sue every doctor for every single spot on their hairy arses and the average doctor, in 2000, had to pay $30000 a year for extra insurance against law suits. If the frivellous law suits were eliminated or simplified there is a huge amount of cost that could be saved. All this cost falls on us through doctors premiums and insurance. There are certainly cases where negligence does lead to damage to an individual that needs to have rights, but these are used liberally at best, damagingly at worst, nowadays.
Forthly, people without health insurance are afraid to seek help with a problem. I had a year where I was not coverred, because there was a hugely complicated amount of paperwork I had to fill in to be covered and no one expalined it to me. Now people, like me, wait and wait if they get sick and do not dare see a doctor for fear of cost until something drastic happens or worry puts them over the edge, in which case they run to emergency, which is the most expensive and critical care facility you can find. I had certain pains that someone told me were often associated with cancer and somehow I freaked and went there. Afraid of law suits the doctors gave me all sorts of scans and then charged me $3200 for it, even if it turned out I had the wrong posture at work and therefore my back was in need of some massage, some stretcing and some pain killers while it was getting better. A cheap doctors visit earlier could have prevented this altogether.
Finally people find it much more difficult to pay after thei lives have been saved, or health anyway. I know if we faced $3000 in healthcare bill for an operation and we have $1500 to use we rather spend $100 on a movie and dinner date once and the rest on every day life, rather than pay up immediately, the service has already been performed and we feel it is unjust we have to pay in the first place. Look, it is figure of speech, I am implying nothing about my private life here, but I have had issues like this in the past and it is true, it is hard to force yourself to pay so much for something that turned out to be no big deal and lots of medical scans about nothing. This way debt collectors may get involved who want commissions, and the cost is still calculated as losses, for insurance or hospital or whoever, and lots of people are paid a lot of money trying to obtain it, most likely lawyers to the tune of $1000 an hour to recover costs, something that would never be necessary if insurance was prepaid.
These are just a few examples of the inefficiencies generated in this beautiful, or not, healthcare system of America today, something that at least the healthcare bill is trying to address to some degree. I think everyone should be forced to have a basic health insurance, may be it is a very basic one that only covers costs of above, say $3000 a year, for major sickness, then additional insurance is available for lower premiums or better services or some such.
As for two, it would certainly make sense to have medical records stored for later retrieval. Usually, the only alopathic doctors I go to ar the gynaechologist and the eye doctor, and the latter maybe every two years to check that I don't have glaucoma or something. Mom usually fills out my paperwork. I remember that when changing gyns we had to fill out stuff, but when I kept going to the same one, we didn't have to do that. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I thought that individual doctors keep your records so that you don't have to fill them out again during repeat visits.
It is nice to see a constructive dialog about the new health care bill for a change. It seems as though most of the debate surrounding this issue was focused more on scare tactics and attacking the opponent rather than the issue at hand. It will definitely be interesting to see how this new bill plays out in the long run.
I do not necessarily agree with the requirement that everyone must buy health insurance or pay a fine, but then again, I can also understand the need to find a way to fund the new health care reforms. Although, I am still not quite sure if this bill goes far enough to fix the health care system in the United States. As far as I know, it does nothing to address the shortage of doctors so that everyone can actually receive health care, nor does it address the huge sums of money that we spend in the life saving measures that take place in the final week of a patient’s life. If we do nothing to address these two concerns, it is possible that the new health care reforms may not be as effective as we would like them to be.
lol It's america. what do you expect? It took them forever to do this, let alone anything really drastic. Hopefully, I won't be here in four years time, when this bill actually comes into effect, but it will be interesting to hear what my friends still living here have to say about it when it does.
If everybody has to buy health insurance, it should be really good. There should have to be no money, over and above the premiums, that should have to be paid.
I've been on the Canada side of the border a couple of times. I ruptured my Achilles tendon right outside my home in October of '08. Anyone who has experienced this injury can attest to its aftermath as doing the flatfooted shuffle. You are actually better off breaking a bone. How interesting to see that on the Canada side, had I done this, I might still be waiting for the graft that repaired it and chasing a four year old in flatfooted shuffle mode.
This is why many Americans in the U S are not willing, at least, to go for a public healthcare option. They are afraid of a decline in the level of care they get. I can attest to our neighborhood public health clinic being good for diagnoses of some problems, like asthma, but not so good for others, like orthopaedic problems (was misdiagnosed with a sprain there). Some of the nurses there don't even speak English, and my MIL once spent EIGHT HOURS there to be seen for a very minor problem.
We have had staff members who were either from the U K or countries that had a universal public health option, and all of them came right out and said you were better off saving your money for a private doctor. The wife of one of my BIL's almost died in one of these countries delivering a very large baby when she probably would have had a C section here. And having worked for a V A, I can personally say this is NOT the quality of care I want for myself or any family member.
The only healthcare reform I support is facilitating individual coverage. Maybe it is time for an overhaul of the employer sponsored healthcare focus. After all not many have homeowners', or car insurance through their employer. Maybe private corporations should be able to give what they pay in employee premiums to the employees to buy policies of their own, that way people don't have to worry about coverage should they lose their job, of feel bound to a toxic workplace for fear of loss of health benefits.
Canada has really good quality health care, I find. It's just the waiting. Unless there's a possibility that you could die from your condition, you have to wait your turn on a list of possibly hundreds of people.