More "free" national health care failure

[russianrocket]

BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

and you guys want to emulate them?

ours ain't pretty, but theirs ain't better.

It's just unfortunate, that when they finally do run out of money for health care, there won't be a viable private system to fall back on.

[James81]

It's kinda funny the way certain things have been sold to us SO WELL, that we literally could not imagine life without them anymore.

For example: the credit card/debt model of personal finances. There's a model of finances that has been so engrained into our society, that people will actually call you an IDIOT for paying for everything with cash. (Yeah, I've been called that many times for my couple year stint without credit.)

The other, and more relevant to this thread, is the notion of healthcare/health insurance. It's so engrained into our heads that we NEED healthcare, that, at this point, we can't imagine a system or life without it in some fashion. The dichotomy has been set up for us nicely: Private healthcare vs. Government healthcare. And people argue either side to DEATH.

And in doing so...they both, both sides, fully accept the presupposition that healthcare is something we NEED because of rising health costs in this country. When, and this is what is really ironic, health insurance and healthcare are what is CAUSING the rise in health costs. Don't believe me? Do you think that you get charged the same amount of money for the same procedure when you don't have healthcare vs. when you DO have healthcare? Do you really belive that doctors are charging the same prices whether you do or don't have healthcare?

I've literally had doctors tell me that when someone has health insurance, they have to charge more because they are being taxed more. So, they have to bill the healthcare provider more to recoup the cost of the taxes. Insane, isn't it?

But take a look at the numbers...lemme give you an example from my own life...My current healthcare costs as a carrier of private health insurance:

Billed: $180 per month for the insurance itself, that's $2160 PER YEAR just to pay for the health insurance itself.

Deductible: $1000 per year.

Copays: they vary, but for certain procedures it can be as much as 20%.

In other words, OUT OF MY OWN POCKET, I pay $3160 JUST for the insurance and the deductibles. How much do you think I use that? I use it for my kids when they get sick (and they usually each have an episode of sickness that requires some antibiotic of some kind, usually ear infections and the like).

But aside from that, I rarely need to go to the doctor. I just realized this recently that I would be FARRRRRR better off just dropping my insurance entirely and opening up my own medical savings account and sending my money there. I carry insurance at this point on the off chance something catastrophic happens. But, a coworker mentioned to me that there are plans for catastrophic stuff (but I haven't looked into them).

How about you guys? What are you paying for insurance and how much of that insurance are you actually using?

I'm going to go ahead and say that most of you are most likely overpaying for your healthcare and not using near what you pay in. Why do I say that? Because Health Insurance is a for-profit business...meaning, their goal is to make money, and their money comes from the pool of people paying in. Which, ultimately, means there's more of you out there paying more IN than you are taking out. And you do it all in the name of believing you need it..."just in case."

How many years would it take to amass a nice sum of money for your health insurance costs? For me? At $3000 per year and only spending maybe $500 of that? I could amass a pretty nice little health savings account within ten years.

In other words, the situation has become such that we have been convinced, hook, line, and sinker that we need health insurance. When the truth is, health insurance is what is CAUSING the problems.

[beast]

Paying $130/month since August, haven't seen a doctor yet. For shame, it would be nice to actually have that money saved up.

Anyways, it is odd to pay for something which I desperately hope to never have to use.

[NoJobRob]

Originally Posted by James81

people will actually call you an IDIOT for paying for everything with cash. (Yeah, I've been called that many times for my couple year stint without credit.)

My comeback for that is "Credit is for people who don't have money. I have money. I don't need a stupid credit card to build my unneeded credit so I can take out loans that I'll never need."

Shuts them right up.

[SnerpGoodWord]

I do think eventually the current insurance model will have to break down. I believe, within our lifetimes, it will be possible for one person to consume more healthcare than the average person's total lifetime contribution to economic production. And I'm only talking about healthcare that can be scientifically proven to be effective. Clearly that situation is not economically feasible, and rationing health care on the basis of effectiveness will have to be replaced with some other method.

That said, socialized medicine has proven to be horrible for the middle class. It's great if you're dirt poor and need to sponge, but everyone else's quality of care is degraded accordingly. And the wealthy of course flee the medical system in favor of private medicine.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by NoJobRob

My comeback for that is "Credit is for people who don't have money. I have money. I don't need a stupid credit card to build my unneeded credit so I can take out loans that I'll never need."

Shuts them right up.

It's also for people who want to get a job, car insurance, utility services, rent an apartment, buy a house (unless you happen to have a few $100,000 in the bank). There is absolutely nothing wrong with credit. Only ignorant people don't know how to use credit to their advantage. Credit is not just for people who have money, but also for people that know how to leverage it to get what they want. You have to at least admit that your financial model is not for everyone, and the only reason you shut them up, is not your great argument, but their lack of argument. You proving ignorant people wrong, doesn't prove your argument right : D

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

RR, why are you back to pot-stirring? Did you stop your 30 day trial of agreeing with people?

The US healthcare system SUCKS, by the way. I was sick until I got out of the system myself, and took control of my own health.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

RR, why are you back to pot-stirring? Did you stop your 30 day trial of agreeing with people?

The US healthcare system SUCKS, by the way. I was sick until I got out of the system myself, and took control of my own health.

I don't consider it stirring the pot. I consider it debating, which is the reason I'm in forums. I'll say things that some people will agree with, and others who will hate it. That's the nature of the beast. Trying to please everyone is a futile effort. If people didn't "stir the pot" and just let everything be, nothing would ever change. Blacks were told not to stir the pot. Same with us Jews

Taking control of your health is the best health care, but that's an argument for self reliance, which kinda goes against the idea of the government being responsible for us. The US health care system doesn't suck. Law suits suck. Prescription drug companies suck. Lack of good health education sucks. But, who's the first to blame? With enough education, any one can make informed choices and use the US health care system properly. We are the fattest country, all concerned with outward appearance, and don't care what happens to us in the future. REALLY hard to fight that by using health care alone.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting
and you guys want to emulate them?
ours ain't pretty, but theirs ain't better.
It's just unfortunate, that when they finally do run out of money for health care, there won't be a viable private system to fall back on.

Ideally I'm a libertarian.
That and $2.25 will get you to Coney Island on the subway.
I generally agree with the tea party's ideals but can't help
but notice the effect of what they're doing--enabling corrupt corporations to run amock.
They passionately rail against "greedy" teachers but have little to say about the bankster's thievery.

Some government influenced medical systems are doing much better than ours. (Germany, Hong Kong, Switzerland)

In a perfect world, without government corruption, a private medical system should be better
than government mandates added to the system, but marginally.
Until I'm sure there's no government/corporation corruption, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about
the government trying to keep things fair.
.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

and you guys want to emulate them?

ours ain't pretty, but theirs ain't better.

It's just unfortunate, that when they finally do run out of money for health care, there won't be a viable private system to fall back on.

Yes, of course there are shorter waiting lists in the U.S, after all providing healthcare is so much more efficient when you can discriminate between the rich and poor. It's truly the mark of a stellar healthcare service when one person in a hundred is provided with the best healthcare in the world, where the other 99 were too poor to even be considered worthy of good health. I hate our archaic European system where every person is treated... urgh... equally (cue scary music and thunderclap). 100 people being given the same level and quality of treatment for their illnesses is absurdly inefficient. And they get it for free, WTF? Only the most productive members of society deserve life. Money is the best indicator of worth so it makes perfect sense that people should have to pay for healthcare that would be free elsewhere.

...

Your criticism is redundant in the face of the fact that we have private health care for those who want it and can afford it. The U.S system of healthcare apparently lets people rot and die if they don't have enough money. The UK/European/Socialist system provides a high-quality thorough service for free, and a very high-quality service for those who want to pay for it. The best of both worlds, no?

U.S healthcare overall is, of course, better quality. Money has a way of driving up quality like that. The issue is and always has been that it costs money. A lot of it. It's pretty much extortion, and the whole system is designed around that basic principle of extortion.

[russianrocket]

Oh that's just bull and you're pulling numbers right out of where the sun don't shine. Anyone who needs it can get it. My step mom works for a county hospital. ANYONE can get treatment. But you know why even our system is going broke? Because giving out free health care is not sustainable.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by James81

I've literally had doctors tell me that when someone has health insurance, they have to charge more because they are being taxed more. So, they have to bill the healthcare provider more to recoup the cost of the taxes. Insane, isn't it?

When I was a full time student I went to a clinic that charged on a sliding scale if you didn't have insurance. When I switched to having insurance they said they were required by law to bill at the highest rate, making my co-pay three times what I was paying without insurance.

Now my employer provides health insurance. I don't pay anything on a monthly basis for regular health or dental, while my employer pays over $500 per month per employee. My fiancee pays ~$150 per month for her own private plan selected from an internet search. It won't be worth switching her to my insurance when we get married, because it would cost $500 monthly to add her. If paying for my own insurance, I'd get a high deductible catastrophic policy for under $100 per month and see one of the local doctors that gives good rates to people that pay cash. Neither of us takes any medication on a regular basis, but we do get regular checkups.

For me the main use of health insurance is to not go bankrupt from illness, making it important to get a policy that caps off the most I might have to pay in any given year. Some don't have a cap, just a percentage, meaning they'll cover 80%, but you might end up being billed $200,000 if total costs were $1 million (which is very likely in a catastrophic case), while others might limit what you pay to $5000 even if the total cost was several million $. I'd opt for the latter, even though the deductible is usually higher.

It's very worthwhile to go online and look at the many different types of policies available, how the monthly rate is affected by what you want covered, and what the maximum you would be expected to pay is. Some major carriers like Blue Cross have such calculators online for you, but there are also sites that compare multiple carriers for you. Google is your friend.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Oh that's just bull and you're pulling numbers right out of where the sun don't shine. Anyone who needs it can get it. My step mom works for a county hospital. ANYONE can get treatment. But you know why even our system is going broke? Because giving out free health care is not sustainable.

No, my mother works in a hospital, too, and she believes in a tiered public health care system that would offer basic healthcare to everyone.

There is no reason an aspirin should cost $50. Yes, it does if you go to the hospital, I've been in the hospital before. It's always nice to receive a bill when you are still bleeding slightly from your illness, and then have a relapse because you are so distressed at how little your insurance actually covers...

and I have also worked for the billing and insurance claims department of a cancer center, where I had the joyous job of calling the family members of loved ones who had died receiving cancer treatment that costs tens of thousands of dollars, which the insurance company later denied, leaving the grieving family to pay in installments until the end of time.

I hated that job and it's probably the reason why I think the US healthcare system is atrocious and designed entirely to make money rather than help and support sick people.

I stopped going to the hospital. The last time I had a miscarriage, I just did it at home. I've been the hospital 3 times for a miscarriage, it was horrific each time, and I actually ended up delivering one fetus in the bathroom of the ER by myself! Fun stuff. Thanks, hospital.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I believe, within our lifetimes, it will be possible for one person to consume more healthcare than the average person's total lifetime contribution to economic production.

That is actually very likely in the case of something like cancer, as witnessed last year with my fiancee's dad.

[James81]

Originally Posted by openeyes

For me the main use of health insurance is to not go bankrupt from illness,

I hear the rest of your post, but I thought I might comment on this.

As someone who has been through bankruptcy, it's not that bad. To be honest, the worst part of a bankruptcy is the negative social vibe people give for doing it. Other than that, it's pretty awesome. All your bills go away permanently (except taxes and student loans) and you immediately start building credit again should you want a car loan or a credit card.

In terms of going bankrupt from medical bills, though? At the end of the day I think that if you get slapped with medical bills out the yin yang, then the stress free way to handle that without having it mess up your credit would be to set your bank to automatically pay $10 per month towards those bills and then forget about them. As long as you are paying something each month, they can't do anything about it.

[openeyes]

A friend in her 50s didn't have health insurance since she was self-employed. She led (and still leads) a very healthy lifestyle, preparing most everything from scratch from local foods and her giant garden, never smoked, jogs with her dogs daily, and is surrounded with loving family/friends. Breast cancer showed up, and to receive treatment she had to mortgage her house. After getting better, quoted insurance rates were over 20 grand per year, if anyone would even offer it, but luckily she was able to go back to working as a nurse and get insurance via an employer.

I don't know anyone that literally filed bankruptcy as a result of health issues, but know multiple people that had their finances virtually destroyed as a result (losing 90%+ of net worth when at retirement age, for example), even with insurance, since it wasn't catastrophic coverage.

[gigij]

Originally Posted by James81

In terms of going bankrupt from medical bills, though? At the end of the day I think that if you get slapped with medical bills out the yin yang, then the stress free way to handle that without having it mess up your credit would be to set your bank to automatically pay $10 per month towards those bills and then forget about them. As long as you are paying something each month, they can't do anything about it.

But what if you are bankrupt and still sick? How do you pay for continuing health care?

I dunno - we have universal health care up here in Canada, plus I have additional coverage through my work. But with uncovered stuff and hitting my limits on the private my medical expenses were still over $7000. last year out of pocket just due to treating a shoulder injury for my daughter.

If you have cancer or something and no universal coverage ... and you run out of money ... that would be pretty stressful.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Oh that's just bull and you're pulling numbers right out of where the sun don't shine. Anyone who needs it can get it. My step mom works for a county hospital. ANYONE can get treatment. But you know why even our system is going broke? Because giving out free health care is not sustainable.

I didn't recite any numbers or statistic whatsoever. If you're counting that "one in a hundred" thing I was obviously choosing random numbers to make a point about equality.

"Anyone" being able to get treatment contradicts the stories I keep hearing about people being outright denied treatment because they don't have the money for it. Unless you're saying that "anyone can get treatment as long as they don't mind being in debt for the next 20 years" is a balanced alternative.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by openeyes

That is actually very likely in the case of something like cancer, as witnessed last year with my fiancee's dad.

Certainly it's been the case with oncology for a long time. I expect the situation will go mainstream though as some of the anti-aging and tissue growth/stem cell stuff which is now in early research is proven out.

I expect we will hit an asymptote where life expectancy barring trauma or infectious disease goes to infinity. I'm guessing it will happen in my lifetime, but that I might well be too old to take advantage of it. But when that happens, watch out!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Alstar

I didn't recite any numbers or statistic whatsoever. If you're counting that "one in a hundred" thing I was obviously choosing random numbers to make a point about equality.

"Anyone" being able to get treatment contradicts the stories I keep hearing about people being outright denied treatment because they don't have the money for it. Unless you're saying that "anyone can get treatment as long as they don't mind being in debt for the next 20 years" is a balanced alternative.

You can't make a point with made up numbers.

99 out of 100 people get all the care they need....

See, I can say it, but it doesn't make it either true or false. All it does is throws out a number that people see, and think is real. Yeah, it makes a point, but a point that has no merit or is even rooted in reality.

The stories you keep hearing, are they from the 99 out of 100? Or are they 1 out of 100? The people whos voices are heard the loudest, are usually the minority, not the majority. Coming from a business owner, you can please 99 out of 100 people, but that 1 person out of 100 will make a huge stink about it, and tell all his friends, and his friends will tell their friends, and it just spreads like wild fire. Someone that is happy, rarely bothers to discuss it, unless they received completely above and beyond service.

The people coming into my moms hospital, they get treatment, and don't owe anything. They don't even need ID. They are homeless coming in from everywhere. Some of them just go in for a shower and bed. On the tax payers dime.

As as was already stated, someone that comes in, can easily arrange a $10 a month payment.

Remember people, that the only reason that there are such services ( life extending services) available, is because of all the people that have put in a lot of money into the system. They aren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. If they received no money, or barely any money, they wouldn't spend billions on research. The heart surgeons and brain surgeons wouldn't get into it for $70,000 a year.

Ask me how that worked out in Russia when people who spent 8 years in school got paid as much as a farmer or construction worker. Doctors in this country are already leaving the practice, and or planning on doing so. You have 8 years of school and a huge mountain of debt to become a doctor.

And with that said, at what point does a person deserve what kind of treatment? If they came up with a treatment to grow new bodies for everyone, would everyone deserve that, if their bodies are failing? How much treatment for free is beyond the scope of what a person is entitled to? Is there even a limit? Do you deserve to get a heart transplant? How about people that caused their own health issues? Do they also deserve everything to fix their self created issues, or are the people who did not cause their own illness the ones entitled to it? Who determines all that?

The way this world is, just doesn't work in the socialist way that everyone envisions. You will always require people to give up their time and energy so that someone else can be entitled to something, while ignoring the entitlement of the person to not have to give up their time or energy for the receiver of said entitlement.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The way this world is, just doesn't work in the socialist way that everyone envisions.

Really? Saying that doesn't make it so either.
If I had to move to Denmark I'd enjoy all the "socialist" benefits Denmark offers.

I wish the US would seriously look at other systems that do work.
But it can't because of all the blind hysterical dogma from people who think the marketplace
is the answer to every question.
.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by sorter

Really? Saying that doesn't make it so either.
If I had to move to Denmark I'd enjoy all the "socialist" benefits Denmark offers.
.

Yeah, and Denmark has a smaller population then the entire population of just the CITY you live in. Nice try tho : D .

Much smaller community. Less free loading. Less immigrants, meaning the majority of the people have put in generations into the country.

And when all said and done, it's still not free, and you are paying for those benefits through taxes.

AND, there are no lawyers trying to get money out of every single bad situation, and no medical insurance companies. They have much much less to deal with over there, then we have over here. You can't even compare the two countries. Their entire lively hood is completely different from ours.

You wanna compare something, compare the soon to be bankrupt countries health care all over the world.

Not to mention, you need to prove residency status in Denmark, yet people in America ( big bad mean, let everyone die America) will treat you with out even an ID to your name.

America already has universal health care, even if people don't want to see it as such. And it's a failure. Ask any military vet, how great the nationally funded health care is.

[sorter]

You're talking out your butt.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Yeah, and Denmark has a smaller population then the entire population of just the CITY you live in.

And how does that make a difference, exactly?
Economy of scale should make their system even cheaper here.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

And when all said and done, it's still not free, and you are paying for those benefits through taxes.

Of course, and it works fairly well.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

AND, there are no lawyers trying to get money out of every single bad situation, and no medical insurance companies. They have much much less to deal with over there, then we have over here. You can't even compare the two countries. Their entire lively hood is completely different from ours.

And that can't happen here? How so?

Again, I've been a libertarian since probably before you were born.
(can't believe I used that line)
I'm just not a dogmatic ideologue.
.

[1by1]

On what grounds do you believe US healthcare to be better than that of other countries? I'm just curious, it's not meant as a dig.

Because, the way I see it, life expectancy is probably a good measure, and in the UK life expectancy is 79.4 years while in the USA it is 78.3 years.

Additionally, the UK spends ~8% of GDP on healthcare while the USA spends ~15%. What benefit does all that extra money give you? To me it indicates that the american system of insurance is much more inefficient.

The UK does also have private healthcare you know, if you want to pay then you can go and be treated privately. But since the government runs a pretty good healthcare system already a lot of people will choose to use that over the private system.

I never understand all the american criticisms of the NHS. People here are pretty happy with it, why do you feel the need to do it down all the time? Concentrate on your own system, and get it to work properly, then you can start criticising other countries.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by 1by1

On what grounds do you believe US healthcare to be better than that of other countries? I'm just curious, it's not meant as a dig.

Because, the way I see it, life expectancy is probably a good measure, and in the UK life expectancy is 79.4 years while in the USA it is 78.3 years.

Additionally, the UK spends ~8% of GDP on healthcare while the USA spends ~15%. What benefit does all that extra money give you? To me it indicates that the american system of insurance is much more inefficient.

The UK does also have private healthcare you know, if you want to pay then you can go and be treated privately. But since the government runs a pretty good healthcare system already a lot of people will choose to use that over the private system.

I never understand all the american criticisms of the NHS. People here are pretty happy with it, why do you feel the need to do it down all the time? Concentrate on your own system, and get it to work properly, then you can start criticising other countries.

The Governments health care system in America is CRAP. They run everything in to the ground, so there is no need for them to take over everyones health care as well.

UK's life expectancy might be higher, but that has nothing to do with health care, and more to do with life style.

Why it's 15%, is because we have a ton of law suits, and prices sky rocket because of it. Because we treat every single person off the street. Because we keep people "alive" longer then any other country, because it's some how wrong to let a person die peacefully. Because we keep premies alive, while other countries, like UK, doesn't even register them as a baby dead baby, which is also a reason why most countries infant mortality rates are so low compared to ours.

I can go on and on, but I'll end with saying that the American system is not "better" then other countries. They all equally aren't great, but changing the American system to resemble other failed systems, will not make it better. Nor will comparing it to smaller countries, and changing it to theirs, make it better. The criticism of your system, comes from fighting against criticism FROM your country. It's also to stop our country from going with your system, so of course we will criticize it. Not a god damn person in America is trying to change your health care system, so we can say anything we want until such a time as America decides to come in and tell you how to run things.

There are many ways to change health care, and most of them to not involve mimicking NHS of other countries. Tort reform alone would probably bring costs down to 8%, easy.

[1by1]

Why do you think the system in the UK failed?

It was set up to provide free healthcare for those that need it, and thats what it does.

The article you quote is a fairly common thing really, the media like to kick up a fuss every now and then that the quality of service is about to collapse, although it never actually does.

This particular article states that the big buget cuts that the UK government is pushing through will increase waiting lists. Well yes, and part of the debate is how much government and society want to pay for healthcare. There is always the option of private care if people want it.

Btw, these cuts are far bigger than anything the US government has yet proposed. Sooner or later some kind of similar cuts are going to have to take place in America. Leave it longer and the cuts will be bigger.

[NoJobRob]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

It's also for people who want to get a job, car insurance, utility services, rent an apartment, buy a house (unless you happen to have a few $100,000 in the bank). There is absolutely nothing wrong with credit. Only ignorant people don't know how to use credit to their advantage. Credit is not just for people who have money, but also for people that know how to leverage it to get what they want. You have to at least admit that your financial model is not for everyone, and the only reason you shut them up, is not your great argument, but their lack of argument. You proving ignorant people wrong, doesn't prove your argument right : D

A bad credit score won't keep you from getting car insurance or utility services. That's a load of crap. LOL As far as a job, not every employer checks your credit score. I actually don't know anyone who's employer checked their credit score. And if you're self employed then it's not an issue. Cash is king, so if you have money, no one's going to give you a hard time about anything. Even Suze Orman says so.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I believe, within our lifetimes, it will be possible for one person to consume more healthcare than the average person's total lifetime contribution to economic production.

By healthcare consumed, do you mean what they're billed or what they cost? That would be different in a for profit system. And in a for-profit system, their health services consumption would be contributing to the economy...

But in any case, this is all the more reason to have a centralized health care and health prevention system to nip those costs in the bud when possible.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

That said, socialized medicine has proven to be horrible for the middle class.

Could you please explain this in more detail? It doesn't fit my own experience of growing up middle class in a socialzed medical system, but I'm open to hearing your arguments.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

and you guys want to emulate them?

ours ain't pretty, but theirs ain't better.

It's just unfortunate, that when they finally do run out of money for health care, there won't be a viable private system to fall back on.

US private system:
What's Wrong With The Healthcare System
18 Ridiculous Statistics About The Health Care Industry That Will Make Tear Your Hair Out

And some facts on US. Source is White House.

1.Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind

2.Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: Hidden Costs of Health Care Report

3.Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: Roadblocks to Health Care

4.Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: Health Care and the Rural Economy

5.Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage

6.The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: Escalating Health Care Costs

7.Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: Diminishing Access to Care

8.The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/doc...are_Report.pdf

So in US the waiting lists are waiting lists for death, not surgery. Death does not like to call the press.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by aelle

Could you please explain this in more detail? It doesn't fit my own experience of growing up middle class in a socialzed medical system, but I'm open to hearing your arguments.

Generally speaking the middle class is fully insured in both the US and Canada/Europe unless they choose not to be in the US. But care quality is fairly radically different - in the US you generally have access to a better palate of procedures, medicines and medical devices, faster, from better doctors (since the best medical talent in the world frequently emigrates to the US). This results in better outcomes in many cases, especially on time-sensitive procedures.

The opposite is true for the poorest Americans - they're generally provided healthcare by the government, and it's very poor by first world standards. The analogous poor in Europe do better.

On that basis, going to a Canadian style system would presumably be better for the poor and worse for the middle class.

I'm not necessarily opposed to socialized medicine in the US - it would actually do me some good in some ways because of my family and insurance situation. But I have a ton of concerns:

1. If the US stops de-facto funding drug and medical device development, development more or less stops. Then what?
2. Would socialized medicine be run as poorly as Medicade? If so, no thanks.
3. Who's going to pay for it? We need to shrink our government, not grow it.
4. Socialized medicine creates medical shortages. Hence middle class medical "tourism" from Canada to the US. What happens if there isn't a first world commercial medical system to be a tourist to?

A lot of this boils down to Canada and Europe sponging off the US medical industry to develop a lot of their drugs, devices, procedures, and education.