Selfish Health Care Question To Those In The US

[Moderate Right]

I think the way you are wording this question is revealing as to your insight on the question. It seems to suggest that people who want single payer want it because they are freeloaders and want society and big government to give them free healthcare.

That is not the case. I have my own health insurance. But I still think there should be some kind of single payer basic safety net for those who can't afford it. This would be like a system of public education for those who can't send their kids to private schools. That was the model Obama originally had in mind. I see healthcare just as important a public good, if not more, than public education.

I end up paying for their healthcare anyway. But the question is: do I want to pay for $10/mo high blood pressure medicines, or wait until the guy ends up with a heart attack at 3 am in the ER because of undetected and untreated high blood pressure, and pay for emergency bypass surgery and 2 weeks in the ICU. They may be my employee, so think about the time lost at work, which I end up paying for. Think about the total social cost of time away from family, from other responsibilities, etc...

So rather than a "selfish" perspective, I think you are thinking about a "shortsighted" perspective.

No. No. No. That is completely wrong. Take me, for instance. I do OK for myself. I'm middle income. Not rich, not poor. For almost all of my life, even when I was poor, I had decent health insurance through my employer that has always been far superior to any nationalized health care system any country has or has had. Many who are much poorer than I and who work for a respectable company, have better healthcare than single payer would be. The "freeloaders" actually have decent healthcare. For the most part, when they need healthcare they get it and they don't pay for it. It is usually subsidized in some fashion or other, even when it is just written off. The poll question is sincere. In my case, I would be much worse off if I lost my current employer based health insurance (through my wife) and had to go on single payer. I'm not alone. Single payer is a system of winners and losers. Those who have no or crappy insurance would be better off under single payer while those, such as myself, with good employer based coverage would be worse off. I don't want it and voted that way.

 

[Beaudreaux]

In Canada we actually have at least 10 payer health care. Funding is a mix between federal and provincial with the province administrating it. The Fed sets minimum standards which provinces can go above. Other than that it is up to the province how it arranges health care in the province.

Where i am we have walk in clinics all over the place. So for general check ups i can actually go to a grocery store which has a clinic attached, get an appointment time do some shopping and then wait for my appointment to come up.

Depending on the nature of the problem referrals to other doctors and services will be made.

For us to that here in the US it would take a Constitutional amendment. Plus, I don't think it would work here - too, many differences in capabilities and needs geographically, and we have 330 MILLION people (not including the millions of those that aren't counted but are still here illegally anyway). State by state? Maybe - probably. Federal control? Doubt it would ever work.

 

[Moderate Right]

From a purely selfish point, yes, I want single payer. Maybe if I lived in a world where other people being physically or mentally sick didn’t have a negative impact on me then I would be against single payer, but people interact with each other, and that includes me.

In other words, you would personally be worse off under single payer, other that thinking of your fellow citizen. Guess you didn't read the parameters of the poll question. You were supposed to ignore the physically and mentally sick and just respond and vote based on whether you personally (financially) would be better or worse off going to single payer.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The issues we currently have arise in part from the providers having more say in the laws and regulations than those who need care.

Our medical system is so jacked up that I have concluded that the only good answer is to nationalize it for 20 years, remake it, then sell if off.

Its a real shame that the courts would never allowed it.

But then again the justice system is jacked too.

We are deep into the weeds now.

SAD

 

[Moderate Right]

I would like a system like they have in Germany.

It can't happen here because the leeches in our current system have grown rich enough to become "stakeholders" that can dictate policy. They are the ones that turned Obamacare into the abortion it became.

Democrats rammed through Obamacare without a single Republican vote and arrogantly thought they would be in power forever. In other words, when you ram through a purely partisan program (don't give me any crap about how Obamacare was actually Republican), you can't expect the other side to fix all of the kinks and other problems that develop afterwards. If they wanted bipartisan fixes then they should have passed a bipartisan plan. It's not Republicans duty to fix a Democratic plan.

 

[Moderate Right]

I would prefer a system that took a portion of my income (and everyone else who could afford it ) to provide at least some basic level of healthcare to everyone.
Including me.

I could work with that starting framework.

 

[Moderate Right]

Part of the reason I want some form of program that provides healthcare to everyone, no matter their means, is because I do not think means should determine whether someone can address health problems they have and avoid death from them.

But the same thing happens in nationalized health care. In fact, I personally know someone from the UK whose brother died due to the limitations of their system. He died waiting for surgery when in the US he would have had surgery in time to save his life. There have also been other similar stories.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

In other words, you would personally be worse off under single payer, other that thinking of your fellow citizen. Guess you didn't read the parameters of the poll question. You were supposed to ignore the physically and mentally sick and just respond and vote based on whether you personally (financially) would be better or worse off going to single payer.

Part of my problem when I start thinking about such things is I go down the rabbit hole and start anticipating all the other expenses my tax dollars would have to pay for in the forms of paying for other people’s ER visits and all the additional crime that goes with the increased poverty due to debt. I know I am still going to have to end up paying for that.

But I like hypotheticals also and I too get frustrated when people don’t play by my rules when I start such threads. So, in a world where there is no butterfly effect or law of unintended consequences, then yes, the selfish thing for me to do would be to oppose single-payer since it means I pay more in taxes for services that I don’t personally use. I just pay my family’s medical bills out of pocket as the need arises.

 

[Moderate Right]

No, I'm just thinking of other single payer systems that seem to be able to provide similar coverage at less cost than what is actually delivered in the United States.

My poll question doesn't take cost into account because those who have decent insurance do not have excessive costs. I don't really care about cost somewhere else compared to cost in the US. The poll question merely asks individuals if they would be better or worse off under single payer.

 

[The Mark]

But the same thing happens in nationalized health care. In fact, I personally know someone from the UK whose brother died due to the limitations of their system. He died waiting for surgery when in the US he would have had surgery in time to save his life. There have also been other similar stories.

Any system we implement must provide for the recruitment, training, and adequate compensation for enough medical professionals to provide the care necessary to meet the demand.

Obviously there's more too it than that, but at this time the most problematic bottleneck I can see is/will be trained personnel.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The issues we currently have arise in part from the providers having more say in the laws and regulations than those who need care.

The system has lots of problems, the biggest is that those who hold the capital are determined to skim as much wealth off this society as they can get away with.

And we let them get away with a lot.

Because we are stupid like that.

SAD

 

[brothern]

No, I'm just thinking of other single payer systems that seem to be able to provide similar coverage at less cost than what is actually delivered in the United States.

My poll question doesn't take cost into account because those who have decent insurance do not have excessive costs. I don't really care about cost somewhere else compared to cost in the US. The poll question merely asks individuals if they would be better or worse off under single payer.

That's why I specifically mentioned my family with the genetic issues. Their private insurance is not suited. My aunt's family has this issue with something called Ehlers–Danlos syndromes. No cure to it and treatment for the various symptoms are supportive only.

Having had to deal with the the medical system and insurance (and constantly sharing about it on Facebook), my aunt believes that single payer would be more helpful for them and I tend to agree with that.

Obamacare's pre-existing conditions was also immensely helpful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehlers–Danlos_syndromes

 

[Amelia]

My poll question doesn't take cost into account because those who have decent insurance do not have excessive costs. I don't really care about cost somewhere else compared to cost in the US. The poll question merely asks individuals if they would be better or worse off under single payer.

I do take cost into account, because I think of how much better care everyone could have if our funds were focused on care and we didn't have people specializing in trying to figure out how to get the most money possible beyond what the healthcare delivery actually costs. Jacking up drug prices. Automatically pricing MRIs and colonoscopies at the maximum amount allowed by law instead of at the actual amount it costs to deliver them. Charging hundreds or thousands just for walking through the emergency room door even if no services are delivered. All the other ways hospitals famously pad their bills. Plus all the money which goes to advertising and lobbying and CEOs.

Your spouse's employer-provided insurance could be even better or your spouse could be making higher wages if the employer didn't have to spend so much on a system which is more focused on turning a profit than on actual healthcare.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I think a single payer Medicare for all system in a nation of our size and with our type of government (not a parliament) would not work. Most countries with a Medicare for all type system have a parliament system, and while the head of government and the party in control might change hands with an election, the professionals managing large agencies like a Medicare for all system don't change with every election. Thus even if the people go crazy and elect an incompetent nut, that incompetent nut will not fire everyone running their healthcare system and hire the people they want.

That said, we do have a big problem in our healthcare system in that its way too expensive and its unprofitable for private insurers to provide health insurance to sick people, old people, and so on. So I think the best system would be some kind of universal state run catastrophic health plans for everyone with say a 20k deductible. Anything catastrophic you are covered for, preexisting or not. Then if someone wants to put money into an HSA to cover their routine care any or any care up to that 20k deductible they can, or if they wanted to buy a supplemental private sector policy to cover routine care and any care up to 20k they could. However, we would get insurers out of the unprofitable business of providing coverage for catastrophic injuries / illnesses like cancer, heart attacks, severe trauma and so on. Health insurance would be pretty inexpensive if the insurer knew they would only be on the hook for a maximum of 20k a year.

Now granted, it would probably require paying more in taxes to fund that, but since everyone is covered by that catastrophic plan, and everyone is paying in via taxes, the risk is spread to a huge pool. Plus you get the government completely out of all your routine care.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I agree with your first part, but Obamacare was the worst thing that could have happened to this country.

As long as you have lawyers that can play on the emotions of a jury and get multi-million $$$ compensations for a lost arm during surgery, you will never be able to get a system similar to the German health insurance.

As long as you have the majority of doctors who are free agents to set their own prices, you will never be able to get a system similar to the German health insurance.

As long as you have Americans that can sue a hospital for not getting the attention they "deserve" - no German health insurance possible.

As long as you have Americans who expect the hospital to provide them with the basic necessities like a robe or slippers - no German health insurance possible.

As long as you have Americans who can chose which hospital to go to - no German health insurance possible.

Etc. etc. etc.

Basically, everything Americans think they are "entitled to" or they "deserve" it, would have to go out of the window first.

We basically agree. Note the part where I said Obamacare became an abortion. There are a lot of unnecessary jobs and companies that would probably die if we fixed the system, and those folks have financial leverage and bleeding heart defenders.

We can discuss the reasons our system became the mess it is in another thread if you like.

 

[Superfly]

I just had to write a paper on the difference between maternity visits, childbirth and c-sections in the UK vs. the US.

I was absolutely astounded at what I read.

The average cost to have a child in the UK is $2300 USD for a normal childbirth, and $3400 for a complicated childbirth, neither of which cost is borne by the parents.

The average cost to have a child in the US is $30,000 USD for a normal childbirth, and $50,000 for a complicated childbirth, and the cost is borne by either the insurance companies, or the parents.

The mortality rate for infants, as well as the mothers, are far far lower in the UK, because of the standardized system that the UK uses. The US does not have any standardized level of care, so our mortality rates are higher.

This is not anti-American sentiment. This is real, and verifiable.

 

[Superfly]

Democrats rammed through Obamacare without a single Republican vote and arrogantly thought they would be in power forever. In other words, when you ram through a purely partisan program (don't give me any crap about how Obamacare was actually Republican), you can't expect the other side to fix all of the kinks and other problems that develop afterwards. If they wanted bipartisan fixes then they should have passed a bipartisan plan. It's not Republicans duty to fix a Democratic plan.

So because they did something several years ago, we are supposed to just sit on our hands and do nothing? "**** them sick people. The Democrats forced Obamacare on us, so everybody has to suffer." Why not try to fix what the Democrats screwed up? Or is it easier to sit in the dark and blame Obama, instead of changing that light bulb?

 

[Gaea]

Selfishly: it's a mixed bag. In the near term my taxes would definitely go up by more than my healthcare costs would decrease; I'm still relatively young and don't require much.

On the flip side, my extended family has had a wide range of issues including Alzheimer's & multiple deaths from lung cancer. I don't want to have to worry about healthcare costs when I'm older. So I'm fine with paying more now in exchange for peace of mind when I'm older.

 

[Surrealistik]

I just had to write a paper on the difference between maternity visits, childbirth and c-sections in the UK vs. the US.

I was absolutely astounded at what I read.

The average cost to have a child in the UK is $2300 USD for a normal childbirth, and $3400 for a complicated childbirth, neither of which cost is borne by the parents.

The average cost to have a child in the US is $30,000 USD for a normal childbirth, and $50,000 for a complicated childbirth, and the cost is borne by either the insurance companies, or the parents.

The mortality rate for infants, as well as the mothers, are far far lower in the UK, because of the standardized system that the UK uses. The US does not have any standardized level of care, so our mortality rates are higher.

This is not anti-American sentiment. This is real, and verifiable.

Why should this surprise you?

Massive, rampant disparities in procedure costs across the board, sometimes an order of magnitude higher, have been the norm for decades at the least.

All Americans need to really sit down and take a long, sober look at how they're getting ****ed on the matter of health care for the sake of lining the pockets of insurers, suppliers and providers.

 

[Superfly]

Why should this surprise you?

Massive, rampant disparities in procedure costs across the board, sometimes an order of magnitude higher, have been the norm for decades at the least.

All Americans need to really sit down and take a long, sober look at how they're getting ****ed on the matter of health care for the sake of lining the pockets of insurers, suppliers and providers.

Would it matter if we did find out? The doctors, insurance companies and big pharma are lining the pockets of the legislators. Nothing we say will ever matter. This will never change.

 

[holbritter]

I've lived in Germany 9 of the last 12 years. The healthcare system there is phenomenal.

It costs less than half per capita what the US system costs and it covers every man, woman and child from cradle to grave for everything. If the doctor of your choice thinks you need something, you get it, no questions asked and almost always no money changes hands. You're free to take your money and go private if you choose, I prefer to stay on public because private gets more expensive as you age and public is based purely on income (7.3% for you and 7.3% for your employer) Healthcare outcomes are consistently ranked better and life expectancy is longer.

The fact of the matter is we're all vulnerable sacks of meat that will need maintenance at some point in our lives. It's not necessary for us to demand millions go bankrupt and millions more get no healthcare at all. We can do better.

How does that work? Do they take that percent out of your pay and that's it? How about people that don't work?

 

[holbritter]

Would it matter if we did find out? The doctors, insurance companies and big pharma are lining the pockets of the legislators. Nothing we say will ever matter. This will never change.

It certainly feels like we are so deep into it, that it will never change. Kind of depressing. I'm stunned at what you found out while writing your paper. Now that is depressing!

 

[PirateMk1]

So because they did something several years ago, we are supposed to just sit on our hands and do nothing? "**** them sick people. The Democrats forced Obamacare on us, so everybody has to suffer." Why not try to fix what the Democrats screwed up? Or is it easier to sit in the dark and blame Obama, instead of changing that light bulb?

Problem is to fix the health care problem correctly requires a general agreement on how to fix it and or a constitutional amendment. That does not exist because people don't have basic agreement on a lot of things. Until we chill out its going to remain SSDD for the foreseeable future. Chilling out is going to be difficult to do because government has become much more entwined and noticeable in our daily lives than it used to, which means the stakes for winning and losing are far more noticeable and the requirement to stake out a side more important.

 

[X Factor]

I like my costs, I like my doctor, I would like to keep my doctor. I've had to see several specialists recently and would hate to be on Canadian style waitlists for each.

I was watching a Netflix series about people in New Zealand wanting gastric bypass and the weight time was, like, a year after approved.

 

[X Factor]

Selfishly I don’t want to be part of a health care system that actually prevents parents from seeking alternative treatments.