Well my idea was to expand Medicaid to include every US citizen, but it was a basic level of care. Then you could buy an a la carte policy to cover stuff like surgeries and whatnot.
Of course the idea of making Medicaid just straight up our NHS system isn't bad either.
Awesome! But your party doesn't want to do that. They are against that ideology. So why are you supporting them when they don't want to do what you'd like to see?
Well my idea was to expand Medicaid to include every US citizen, but it was a basic level of care. Then you could buy an a la carte policy to cover stuff like surgeries and whatnot.
Of course the idea of making Medicaid just straight up our NHS system isn't bad either.
That is a very reasonable idea. I really like that idea. Too bad the Republican party shot it down before it could get off the ground.
Equating the NHS to Medicaid because they both are publicly-funded healthcare sources is like saying a Ferrari Enzo is like a rusted-out Model A because they're both cars.
I totally acknowledge that I need to read more. Could you stick in layman terms for me?
Well my idea was to expand Medicaid to include every US citizen, but it was a basic level of care. Then you could buy an a la carte policy to cover stuff like surgeries and whatnot.
Of course the idea of making Medicaid just straight up our NHS system isn't bad either.
Why would anyone agree to sell you a la carte policies that cover surgery? Obviously, the only reason you would buy it is that you plan on having surgeries.
It was a little simplified, I admit. My point was the a la carte policies cover what medicaid doesn't.
One interesting thing is to note the efficiency of the various health care systems out there. I don't have the link handy and quick Googling has failed to find it, but an article I read stated that the NHS only spends 5% of the money it takes in for overhead, with the other 95% going to patient care. Canada's single-payer system (which would be akin to Medicaid for all), spends 6% for overhead and 94% for patient care. In the US, the typical insurance company spends 15-20% on overhead, with the rest going to patient care.
It was a little simplified, I admit. My point was the a la carte policies cover what medicaid doesn't.
You're still advocating government-run socialized basic health care. The Republicans are straight-up against this. The Democrats advocated originally FOR this, and were blocked.
So what constitutes surgery? What's the "most expensive" issue this would cover?
Also, how do you address the self-selection problem (meaning that the only people who buy further insurance are people who are likely to need it, driving the price up heavily on all but the so-called "basic" healthcare)?
The issue has always been with access to AFFORDABLE health care.
You don't make enough money to have income tax withdrawn. A single overnight stay in a hospital immediately generates 10's of thousands of dollars in medical bills. If you don't have insurance, you get the bill. Can't pay? Welcome to collections and ruined credit. All because of bullshit that is literally beyond your control.
Yes, this is the primary issue. Uninsured and not rich, it is impossible to get the medical care you need and still maintain any kind of financial stability. So many things in our society require credit checks, and you will get denied for having collections records or low credit ratings. So yeah, you got your healthcare, but now your life prospects are ruined and you must CONTINUE to use government aid programs to subsist.
It is a self-perpetuating cycle, and the Republicans don't want to acknowledge that everything is related. Getting free healthcare at a hospital severely increases your likelihood to need government assistance. They don't want to provide either one.
Switzerland has a sort of a basic/a la carte system that would kind of work, but it's probably not quite what you had in mind. Switzerland has an individual mandate for so-called "basic" insurance, but the government requires that these basic policies be offered not-for-profit and that the "basic" care covers everything, including surgeries, pregnancy, chemotherapy, etc., that you actually care about in a health plan. The a la carte insurance (which can be sold for a profit) covers things such as nicer hospital rooms, cosmetic dentistry, and so on. This kind of a la carte plan is probably okay as it doesn't deny people any life-saving care. However, an a la carte surgery plan is probably not okay.
You address the problem by taxing the fuck out of things that cause health problems while also insuring that monies collected only go to health care expenses related to what is being taxed.
We don't need cigarette taxes paying for roads .Those taxes should fund cigarette related health care.
Equating the NHS to Medicaid because they both are publicly-funded healthcare sources is like saying a Ferrari Enzo is like a rusted-out Model A because they're both cars.
I totally acknowledge that I need to read more. Could you stick in layman terms for me?
So, the NHS provides healthcare to anyone at all, and it's good healthcare. Like, a UK citizen can waltz into A&E, they can diagnose him with a malignant glioma, and the government will not only pay for top-notch gamma knife treatments and chemo, but they will pay for helicopters to get him to a facility with those things. You have some waiting to do and the trust system makes transportation inconvenient, but the NHS ultimately gives you whatever you need. There are funding problems, but the government tweaks the system every five years and people keep breathing, and most importantly, staff get paid.
Medicaid only applies to the poorest of the poor in America. In addition to this, Medicaid/care reimbursements are so broken that most healthcare centers I've worked in have maybe one doctor seeing Medicaid patients, and most refuses Medicare referrals. This is because the government is not prompt in reimbursements and some are just never paid, and more often than not, accepting these patients means that both the doctor and the hospital never get paid. So, the flaws inherent in this system mean that the US government only provides care for the weakest of our citizens, but since there is no monetary benefit to physicians, they in fact receive the worst, cheapest care they can get and still survive. If a patient with a malignant glioma had Medicaid and was diagnosed in a US ER, dollars-for-donuts they'd get a bottle of Seroquel for the horrifying personality changes and a fentanyl script to deal with the agonizing pain, and then sent back to their home to die.
This ties into why most doctors hate the idea of socialized medicine in the US; most expect a system in which they are required to see everyone but never get paid, because that's what they're used to under the present system. Now, Obamacare (the POTUS's preferred term!) contains reforms to prevent this situation, but most docs and nurses are too obstinate to read the legal reviews that detail this. You end up with a whole lot of people very mad about something very good, because they mistakenly believe it will drive them into poverty.
You address the problem by taxing the fuck out of things that cause health problems while also insuring that monies collected only go to health care expenses related to what is being taxed.
We don't need cigarette taxes paying for roads .Those taxes should fund cigarette related health care.
You address the problem by taxing the fuck out of things that cause health problems while also insuring that monies collected only go to health care expenses related to what is being taxed.
We don't need cigarette taxes paying for roads .Those taxes should fund cigarette related health care.
Okay, so let's tax the fuck out of sex, since sex leads to pregnancy and pregnancy leads to pre-natal care, actually giving birth in a hospital, and so on.
Equating the NHS to Medicaid because they both are publicly-funded healthcare sources is like saying a Ferrari Enzo is like a rusted-out Model A because they're both cars.
I totally acknowledge that I need to read more. Could you stick in layman terms for me?
Read; a lovely and informative summary
So why then is there not more being done to educate people that this is not the case and why then are the Republicans against it.
US citizens pay like the lowest taxes of any people in a developed nation. I support a tax increase; if we had universal healthcare, the money you save not needing health insurance would show a net profit on your pay stubs.
US citizens pay like the lowest taxes of any people in a developed nation. I support a tax increase; if we had universal healthcare, the money you save not needing health insurance would show a net profit on your pay stubs.
Might be that I've only know highish taxes but I'm more than happy pay a high tax if it takes out stress from my life. I can never get my head round the idea of having to worry if job and insure you or if you can afford to go to hospital. It seems like a basic right to get medical care if you are sick or hurt.
Equating the NHS to Medicaid because they both are publicly-funded healthcare sources is like saying a Ferrari Enzo is like a rusted-out Model A because they're both cars.
I totally acknowledge that I need to read more. Could you stick in layman terms for me?
Read; a lovely and informative summary
So why then is there not more being done to educate people that this is not the case and why then are the Republicans against it.
That's the $64,000 question, and the answer is pretty complex. A lot of it boils down to the pharmacomedical complex lobbying heavily because the private healthcare system allows them to make a LOT more money. Couple that with the investments of certain GOP businessmen, along with an unhealthy American distrust of both change and European cultural norms, and you have a situation in which no one who is against universal healthcare wants to learn enough to realize that it's actually the best thing for us.
Also, a lot of people use medicine as a political weapon, which is horrible. The biggest obstacles to universal healthcare in the US right now aren't even the education aspects, but the fact that the religious right is juking the argument towards "Free Abortions! Free OC!" which blinds people who are probably living very unhealthy lifestyles to the fact that they are actually voting against something that will likely save them due to a miniscule and purely optional aspect of the healthcare bill.
What pays for Alzheimer's, Steve? Crohn's? Leukemia? You're going to supply universal healthcare solely with vice taxes?
Where lifestyle choices lead to health problems , yes.
I have clinical depression and general anxiety disorder. What part of my lifestyle leads to me spontaneously thinking about putting out cigarettes on my arms every few days? Because I'd really like to fix that, if you could help me out.
This ties into why most doctors hate the idea of socialized medicine in the US; most expect a system in which they are required to see everyone but never get paid, because that's what they're used to under the present system. Now, Obamacare (the POTUS's preferred term!) contains reforms to prevent this situation, but most docs and nurses are too obstinate to read the legal reviews that detail this. You end up with a whole lot of people very mad about something very good, because they mistakenly believe it will drive them into poverty.
The "Mistakenly" portion of that statement remains to be seen. If the current system sucks balls then it's not unreasonable to assume that a new system put in place by the same folks, with the purpose of expanding the old system, will also suck balls. Our government has a long history of functionary not implementing parts of legislation that would be to their disadvantage. You can claim that this system will have better oversight, but until it actually appears most folk will be justifiably skittish.
That's the view of the few medical professionals I've talked too.
Equating the NHS to Medicaid because they both are publicly-funded healthcare sources is like saying a Ferrari Enzo is like a rusted-out Model A because they're both cars.
I totally acknowledge that I need to read more. Could you stick in layman terms for me?
Read; a lovely and informative summary
So why then is there not more being done to educate people that this is not the case and why then are the Republicans against it.
That's the $64,000 question, and the answer is pretty complex. A lot of it boils down to the pharmacomedical complex lobbying heavily because the private healthcare system allows them to make a LOT more money. Couple that with the investments of certain GOP businessmen, along with an unhealthy American distrust of both change and European cultural norms, and you have a situation in which no one who is against universal healthcare wants to learn enough to realize that it's actually the best thing for us.
Also, a lot of people use medicine as a political weapon, which is horrible. The biggest obstacles to universal healthcare in the US right now aren't even the education aspects, but the fact that the religious right is juking the argument towards "Free Abortions! Free OC!" which blinds people who are probably living very unhealthy lifestyles to the fact that they are actually voting against something that will likely save them due to a miniscule and purely optional aspect of the healthcare bill.
Thats fucking crazy man, just crazy. Its like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Comments
So what constitutes surgery? What's the "most expensive" issue this would cover?
Also, how do you address the self-selection problem (meaning that the only people who buy further insurance are people who are likely to need it, driving the price up heavily on all but the so-called "basic" healthcare)?
It is a self-perpetuating cycle, and the Republicans don't want to acknowledge that everything is related. Getting free healthcare at a hospital severely increases your likelihood to need government assistance. They don't want to provide either one.
You address the problem by taxing the fuck out of things that cause health problems while also insuring that monies collected only go to health care expenses related to what is being taxed.
We don't need cigarette taxes paying for roads .Those taxes should fund cigarette related health care.
Medicaid only applies to the poorest of the poor in America. In addition to this, Medicaid/care reimbursements are so broken that most healthcare centers I've worked in have maybe one doctor seeing Medicaid patients, and most refuses Medicare referrals. This is because the government is not prompt in reimbursements and some are just never paid, and more often than not, accepting these patients means that both the doctor and the hospital never get paid. So, the flaws inherent in this system mean that the US government only provides care for the weakest of our citizens, but since there is no monetary benefit to physicians, they in fact receive the worst, cheapest care they can get and still survive. If a patient with a malignant glioma had Medicaid and was diagnosed in a US ER, dollars-for-donuts they'd get a bottle of Seroquel for the horrifying personality changes and a fentanyl script to deal with the agonizing pain, and then sent back to their home to die.
This ties into why most doctors hate the idea of socialized medicine in the US; most expect a system in which they are required to see everyone but never get paid, because that's what they're used to under the present system. Now, Obamacare (the POTUS's preferred term!) contains reforms to prevent this situation, but most docs and nurses are too obstinate to read the legal reviews that detail this. You end up with a whole lot of people very mad about something very good, because they mistakenly believe it will drive them into poverty.
Hint: we need to raise taxes in a general sense.
Also, a lot of people use medicine as a political weapon, which is horrible. The biggest obstacles to universal healthcare in the US right now aren't even the education aspects, but the fact that the religious right is juking the argument towards "Free Abortions! Free OC!" which blinds people who are probably living very unhealthy lifestyles to the fact that they are actually voting against something that will likely save them due to a miniscule and purely optional aspect of the healthcare bill. I have clinical depression and general anxiety disorder. What part of my lifestyle leads to me spontaneously thinking about putting out cigarettes on my arms every few days? Because I'd really like to fix that, if you could help me out.
That's the view of the few medical professionals I've talked too.
Bad news: A lot of voters would rather live maimed than risk not getting their Sky Cake.