Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Yes, much like how the insurance companies are "held accountalbe." Right. That's right, and here's the news: There will not be a single payer plan, according to those who are drafting Obama's plan. Ummm, btw, did you know that we already have government healthcare insurance? It's called Medicare. You can read more about it here:

http://www.medicare.gov/

 

But Chandos, at least you can sue the insurance company with at least a small chance of success. Do you really think you while have a chance in hades of sueing the gov't and winning?

 

I have an appeal out against an insurance company even as we speak. I'll keep you posted.

 

Apologies. Apparently it is the administrators of Tri-Care that fail to understand how Single-Payer works. According to the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus, a single-payer system is

If Tri-Care is Single Payer, so is Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Absolutely.

 

You misunderstand. Everyone knows that a government job is basically a job for life. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fire a "civil servant". Do you want to fight with a civil servant to make sure your family gets the treatment it needs? I would much rather fight with an employee at a private company who has to worry about keeping his job, and really doesn't want anyone to complain about him.

Medicare is for the elderly, and does anyone think it runs efficiently? I would never bring it up as a shining example of how efficient government run healthcare can be

 

Wow, you must have a really crappy GP!
Oh just for Sh*** & giggles, was your VA doctor named Patel? It seemed like half of the doctors at the VA were Indians named Patel(nothing against this just that it could get confusing when you had like 10 different DR. Patels listed)

PS as far as medicare goes, little horror story about it.
I have a good friend that started exhibiting various symptoms that his doctor finally diagnosed as M.S. They got bad enough that he couldn't keep working, so he lost his car, his apartment & all of his savings.
Family took him in but for a 32 year old man that was hard for him to have to depend on others(i know as i went by at least once every 2 weeks to make sure that if he needed anything he didn't have to ask his folks for it).
He tried to sign up for medicare & disability but was denied for almost 3 YEARS until he was finally able to get a court hearing before a disability judge.
By this time, since he couldn't afford the medicine that would have helped control his symptoms, he had to use a walker or a wheelchair as his equilibriam was shoot. He also had such bad light sensitivity(in addition to the blurriness) that he coildn't go out in the daytime & the weakness in his right arm made it virtually useless.
The judge took one look at him & called the disability representative "an idiot" for denying the claim.
So don't expect me to think the gov't will run anything better than even the idiots at the insurance companies.(and yes this colors my view of gov't run institutions.)

 

That's hilarious. That's not a dig on you, TGS. You just have to know my personal experience with health insurance companies and how we have fought with them over the last several years. They are absolute crooks as far as I'm concerned.

 

Not at all, and I can fairly easily counter any VA/Medicare/Title 19 horror stories you can come up with by simply digging up some HMO horror stories that run along the same vein. My mother has several (my father is retired Army, but he only uses Tri-Care as his secondary, since his employers' coverage along with Tri-Care as a secondary is a little cheaper than just paying for Tri-Care Prime).

 

We well just have to agree to disagree Drew.

 

About what? My health? Tri-Care is an insurance plan, so any Tri-Care horror stories would be physician specific and apply to more than just Tri-Care. Title 19 and medicare are also insurance plans, so the same rules apply there, too. What we're left with is instances of refusal to cover necessary medical treatments. I've heard just as many horror stories about HMO's doing this as I've heard about medicare. Hopefully, new regulation will mitigate this type of thing in the future.

I've left your VA example alone (despite the fact that I've had medical care at my local VA without incident several times) primarily because no one is recommending the VA as a model for health care reform. Single-Payer isn't even on the table, let alone actually socializing medicine.

 

We won't know for sure until Obama actually releases his plan, which is supposed to happen tomorrow. However, unless everything we have heard up to this point (in his speeches as president and while he was campaigning) is wrong, any health care reform will include the option of keeping the insurance you currently have if you are happy with it. The main purpose of the health care reform is to help people who are uninsured (some of whom can afford insurance but cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions).

Well Patel is like the Indian version of Smith or Jones. So it's not that surprising - I know several people of Indian decent named Patel, including - ironically - my GP.

This is one of the things I hope is included in the plan. For the vast majority of cases, if a kid doesn't have insurance, it's not the kid's fault. I think it's unconscionable that we don't have coverage for kids already. I mean really - this is the United States - aren't we better than that? But the same thing will apply to kids as for everyone else - if you already have insurance for your kid(s) you can keep that insurance if you are happy with it.

Out of curiosity, how can you disagree that in Drew's opinion he received high quality medical care while on a government run health care plan? I don't have any personal experience with the VA, but seeing as how I work on an Army base, I know a lot of people who do, and by and large they are satisfied with their care. I'm sure there are people who get lousy care from the VA, but I'm sure there's people who get lousy care from private insurance, HMOs, PPOs, etc.

 

Considering Obama's track record on these things so far, I'd keep a good eye on that plan proposal.

 

NOG, as much as I wish it weren't so, Obama hasn't been willing to even hear from Single-Payer proponents. You really have nothing to worry about.

 

OK, I was confusing government-run medical program and universal health insurance, so thanks for clearing this up. I would like to address a couple of things you said though.

I don't know how likely this is to happen if the USA goes with government medical coverage, but I can tell you that this has not happened and has zero chance of happening in the other Western countries with government medical coverage. You can still go see a private GP, there are even private hospitals in the UK (not sure about Canada, but I think some hospitals have private wings). About the only thing that cannot be privatised in this system is the Emergency section; with government medical coverage anyone entitled to health care who shows up at any Emergency, in any hospital, has to be let in. To be honest I have never understood how people can accept even the idea that someone, anyone, can be turned away from Emergency because they can't pay up, but that may be out of habit considering the countries I've lived in.

I fully agree with this, but then this becomes a matter of how the system is run, and not a fundamental flaw (or advantage) of the system itself. Any system run poorly will be bad, and almost any system run well will be a good thing. Government medical coverage varies; from personal experience I think it's run better in Canada than in the UK, but even in the UK it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be (my apologies to the Brits, but you lot truly love to complain ). Mistakes happen of course, but they will happen regardless of the system or who runs it and how well it's run (the frequency of these mistakes will vary of course). Now as for universal health insurance, if (as Chandos points out) it becomes an option, then there is absolutely no harm in having one extra option on top of all the other one. More choice is always a good thing.

 

NOG - I received this message today:

There you have it.

 

Aldeth & Drew, i was saying that drew and i would have to disagree on whether the gov't can run an effective health plan.

 

This is quite true, and very much my point. The reason I do consider this to be a fundamental flaw is because, by the very nature of the system, the US government will be running it, and I've had too much experience with them (state and federal) to trust them that much.

 

The advantage is obvious: With the curent system, if you are unemployed you lose your insurance. With a government option you are no longer tied to your employer, and if you get a new job there is no longer any of that "pre-existing" crap that the insurance companies pull-off, like they do now. The current system is an absolute disgarce. Why do you think the insurance companies are fighting it? Because another option would benefit them? I think not. They are scared that the customers they have been abusing for years can tell them where to "stick it."

 

This reminds me that in the Canadian system (well, at least in Quebec; not sure about the other provinces and territories) you are only entitled to the governmental insurance on prescription medicine IF your current job doesn't provide you with an insurance to cover it (and if you're unemployed, obviously). I think that employers are forced to provide insurance depending on the type of contract you have (I think that a full-time, one year or more contract has to have insurance provided). It's a bit of a mixing of the systems but the obvious advantage is that the government can save money (which translates to us paying less income tax) while those who cannot get insurance through their job are still covered. It's not ideal but it seems to work better than most other systems.

 

These guys sure have a lot of money to throw around. What chance does the little guy have against all this fire-power? The most annoying point is that a part of the premium I pay those fools every month is going to be used against reform.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/06/1986447.aspx