thanks for doing to homework, I think people would be surprised that we could get universal healthcare for all and still pay LESS than we already do a year for our own covereage.

 

One thing that was brought up by several interviewees in Sicko that is being pretty much left out of the equation (and in the US in general) is the idea that we all have a responsiblity to the rest of our countrymen to help them out when it comes to health. People from England, Canada, France, and Cuba all basically said that they don't mind the tax because they know that people are healthier for it, even if it never benefits the payer directly. It's nationalistic compasion...something we have totally abandoned in the US.

It's sad to read this whole thread, with people saying "A 'socialized' health care plan is a rip off for ME" and others saying "No, it's a good deal" when the real issue is noone here wants to give tax money so their neighbors can have the health care that they need, when they need it, without the stress of having money be part of the equation. (there are some people here who seem to understand this...)

Doctors take an oath saying they'll always do what they can to improve the health of anyone they have as a patient; however, when you have an entire industry that profits when people are NOT treated, or treated less, the doctors are put in a tight situation.

I don't think a completely socialized health care system would work right away; it needs to be phased in over time, with intermediate systems that involve not-for-profit insurance companies. But due to the very nature of heath care and that of a capitalist society, there can never be a for-profit health insurance system that benefits both share holders and patients. It's impossible by the very nature of the costs involved.

 

Some moderator threw this into the politics forum. The fact healthcare is a bi-partisan issue is part of the problem.

 

Good point. One interesting thing to note is that at least here in the US, public insurers have a legal fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, but no concomitant legal responsibility to their customers.

 

that was me. Wasnt meant to make this a 'political' issue, just wanted to get it to a wider audience than BAIC and thought we would get more meaningful discussion about it here than in 'random thoughts', wouldn't you agree?

 

I know and wasn't trying to point fingers. I just hope people realize health care concerns everyone.

 

Again, how often does that happen? Furthermore, for me, at that point my life would be over. The time at which I can't do the things I do now, where I am denied the physical freedom to do the things I like to do, my life is over. I couldn't possibly give a damn how much insurance I have if I am stricken to a hospital bed.

Reform is one thing but the revamp that is suggested is like killing a minnow with a depth charge. Insurance reform would change things greatly as I have been a strong advocate for for many years in every respect.

Lastly, the insurance that I have is pretty damn good. Very good if you ask me, I am sure Salty and gpatmac are familiar with it. My concerns of being dropped are near zero.

The "half a million burns up pretty quick" agreement is rather arbitrary as it burns up because of the crippling insurance has put on the market. I happen to know a guy that got burnt over 90% of his body (worked for Exxon) underwent over 50 surgeries and never was dropped by his insurance. I guarantee if I asked him today if he'd like to give up 1/2 his income he'd probably go ballistic. You get what you pay for, even if you buy good insurance you can be confident in I still don't see that being 1/2 anyones income. Granted, that's a worst case scenario.

I'm going to "optimistically" stick to reform. I don't understand how people see changing the entire system as "solving all our problems". Fix what needs to be fixed on an obvious basis and work from there.

 

Perfect, so I'd be paying into a system that's incompetent. What a great way to stress the effectiveness of such a program. I pay X amount of my money and then if I want insurance that's worth a damn I pay "addl private insurance". Isn't that negating the fact of being covered by what you pay with your taxes? Sounds like something similar to what we pay already.

This arguement about "what if you got hit by an atomic bomb and had no coverage and couldn't work for the rest of your life"............NO KIDDING, you have no coverage, that's what happens. That's the equivalent of saying, I applied for many jobs and never found one, so I live of welfare and food stamps, FOREVER. If you have no coverage and have never paid into anything why would you expect to be fine and dandy after such an incident?

 

I think it's important for us to recognize just how expensive healthcare is in the united states.

A thousand dollars a month is a lot and I am glad my employer pays more than that for me and I pay less. We spend 2 trillion dollars a year on healthcare in the united states. For 300 million people that averages out to about to nearly 7 thousand dollars per person per year. In a 4 person family, that would average out to twenty eight thousand dollars (about 26 thousand dollars) a year. We are number ONE in the world in the unfortunate situation of spending far more money for healthcare than anyone else. We spend 16% of our GDP (#2 is Switzerland at 11%). And, I think it drives home the fact, that if universal coverage is a moral obligation as I think it is - it also becomes important for us to figure out a way to contain our costs so we can afford decent coverage for everyone that is a HUGE problem for our system.

I do think all solutions will have it's advantages and disadvantages. But, I think it is important also to note that the theorectical divide between "single-payer" and other systems. Is it if other systems have a multiplicity of payers it creates an incentive for competition to try to figure out better and more effective and less expensive way to provide care?

If you've got a "single-payer" system you lose that potential competition. Whether or not that competition is worth the additional costs that come with having multiple payers is the bigger question.

Most of us agree with Moore on one thing: In a nation as rich as the United States, it is dumbfounding that over the course of any 12-month span, 45 million residents will go without health insurance. And, yes, some (but far from all) attempts by insurers to control costs have taken a harsh toll on unlucky individuals.

Moore celebrates Canada's government health system but ignores the rationing that forces cancer victims to seek MRIs in the United States or wait weeks for Canadian care.

And in depicting the profits of U.S. drug companies as sinister, he ignores the fact that these profits don't just fund research into a new generation of erection pills but into path-breaking drugs that will never be developed by heavily regulated foreign (or domestic) firms.

Moore might have chosen to focus on the headaches inherent to a system in which most consumers and providers don't have much of a motive to control costs. Or on the huge complications posed by aging baby boomers.

Instead, he just points out the obvious – we have a problem – then pretends the problem would quickly go away if common sense drove U.S. policy instead of greed. But, it's just not that simple.

 

I'd venture to say it happens to probably several hundred people in this country every day, if you live much past 40 I'd expect you have somewhere in the range of 15-30% chance of one of those things happening to you.

Last I heard, Dr Kervorkian isn't practicing anymore, so that kind of limits your options- You might wish your life was over, but the people left taking care of you probably won't quit billing because you say you want to die- if the amount of insurance you have determines whether you get to stay in a hospital bed, or an extended care facility versus suffering in a cardboard box on the street, I think you would indeed give a damn about it no matter how "stricken" you were.

I am curious to know how many of you people ragging on Moore have even seen the movie? or are you just going on what Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter told you about the bad fat man who hates america?

 

In 2005, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $46,326,The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) in the year 2003 was $23,535.


this would indicate that statistically at least half of the population of this country either pays 50% or more of their income on health care- or else go without adequate health care.

Good for you if you're making more than the median,

everybody else, after all that's the american way, right?

 

Actually, here you're going to get all the wing-nut Moore bashers parroting Bill O'Lyelly talking points, certainly we'll get a more passionate discussion, but probably less meaningful.....