Universal Health Care

[bytor2112]

I would be curious to learn the pros and cons of government run health care. I have read Elgama' posts regarding it and she seems very positive about it.

My questions are: What percentage of your income do you pay for it? What services does it include? What services are excluded? Can you exempt yourself and family from it and buy private insurance? What is the best thing about it and what is the worst. Are there provisions that may potentially diminish the level of care or the timely delivery of care?

Any thoughts from our Canadian and UK friends would be great. Thanks- Bytor

Side note: I pay approximately $3400.00 annually for major medical insurance for my entire family. We have a high deductable...$1500.00 per person.

Edited March 19, 2009 by bytor2112

[Jbs2763]

I have no insurance since I got laid off so I'm screwed if I get sick or hurt, beyond the limits of duct tape.

[pam]

I have not done enough reading on the subject to give an opinion. In reading your post bytor and your question...the one thing that stuck out to me was "government run." That last thing I would want right now is another thing that the government controls in my life.

Again, I am pretty ignorant on the pros and cons. That just stood out to me.

[Guest Alana]

Also, those in the UK or Canada, if you need to see the doctor, how long do you usually need to wait? For instance, lets say you got a bad cold but you're worried the cough is developing into something worse, or if you've had a sore knee for a while and you want to get it looked at. Also, do you get to choose your doctors or change if you don't like them?

[Churchmouse]

A person I have been posting to on-line lives in Canada. He says he has to wait six months to see a doctor. Doesn't sound too good to me. I will lose my company paid insurance when I retire in May. I can get free care at the Veterans Clinic. My wife is out of luck unless I can find something we can afford for her.

Something has to be done. This is a major problem with all of us baby boomers aging.

[Jbs2763]

I have not done enough reading on the subject to give an opinion. In reading your post bytor and your question...the one thing that stuck out to me was "government run." That last thing I would want right now is another thing that the government controls in my life.

Again, I am pretty ignorant on the pros and cons. That just stood out to me.

but Pam, a liberal, socialist governmet knows how to run our lives better than we do!!!!

[FunkyTown]

All right:

Pros: I spend far less than $3500/year for health care. I can go whenever I'm sick, I can show up any time for a checkup and not worry about eating that month.

Cons: Long, long wait times. Seriously - Canada loses most of the Doctors who graduate to the US because the US's laissez faire rules pay them more. This also means that small town Doctors lose out. Frankly, if I were a Doctor, I'd love to work in a tiny town - Government subsidized, normal working times, being the only Doctor in town. Aww, yeah.

[Jbs2763]

All right:

Pros: I spend far less than $3500/year for health care. I can go whenever I'm sick, I can show up any time for a checkup and not worry about eating that month.

Cons: Long, long wait times. Seriously - Canada loses most of the Doctors who graduate to the US because the US's laissez faire rules pay them more. This also means that small town Doctors lose out. Frankly, if I were a Doctor, I'd love to work in a tiny town - Government subsidized, normal working times, being the only Doctor in town. Aww, yeah.

except you would have to post all your signs in FRENCH

[tubaloth]

Just more questions then answers probably

BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)

[pam]

A person I have been posting to on-line lives in Canada. He says he has to wait six months to see a doctor. Doesn't sound too good to me. I will lose my company paid insurance when I retire in May. I can get free care at the Veterans Clinic. My wife is out of luck unless I can find something we can afford for her.

Something has to be done. This is a major problem with all of us baby boomers aging.

It's a shame that continued healthcare isn't one of the benefits of the company you work for when you retire. I know many do provide this, unfortunately the limitations are greater but at least something. But I agree that healthcare is a huge problem for us baby boomers.

[Traveler]

I would be curious to learn the pros and cons of government run health care. I have read Elgama' posts regarding it and she seems very positive about it.

My questions are: What percentage of your income do you pay for it? What services does it include? What services are excluded? Can you exempt yourself and family from it and buy private insurance? What is the best thing about it and what is the worst. Are there provisions that may potentially diminish the level of care or the timely delivery of care?

Any thoughts from our Canadian and UK friends would be great. Thanks- Bytor

Side note: I pay approximately $3400.00 annually for major medical insurance for my entire family. We have a high deductable...$1500.00 per person.

The lie being presented by the government proponents of universal health care is that government involvement will help control costs. The opposite is reality. Involvement of government in universal health care will at least double health costs.

I use Social Security as an example. By law in the USA it is illegal to run any investment program for retirement that exceeds 7% overhead costs. Most company programs for employees and insurance programs operate at less than 3%. This means that for every $97 that is actually paid out to recipients that less than $3 was used to accomplish it. The cost of running Social Security is about 60% - this means that for every $100 set aside for people on Social Security the retired person would receive $40 and the bureaucracy needed to oversee the program would suck up $60. (Note that this does not include mismanagement of the program but actual dollars appropriated for dispersal.)

The great error currently in health care is that things have gotten so out of whack that most health care providers will avoid providing services to any one paying for it themselves. The underlying theory of insurance was never to cover day to day costs but to help with catastrophic needs. I personally believe we will not solve the health care problems until we are willing to hold individuals responsible for their general health and use insurance and government recourses to help in extraordinary and unusual circumstances.

The Traveler

[pam]

I agree with many of your comments Traveler. Holding individuals responsible for the use of their insurance helps to keep costs down.

I worked in the medical insurance field for 6 years. There were many companies that were beginning to see the logic in this and offered some incentives to their employees.

There was one company that offered a reduced rate in their monthly premium if they went through some required testing. For example...women were required to have an annual pap test and show proof. Unless of course they had gone through a hysterectomy) Men over a certain age a prostate screening. Women over a certain age a mammography. Preventative care helped reduce the cost of major care required.

However, that being said..I was appalled at the plans that only allowed a $250 annual maximum for well child care. We all know newborns, toddlers etc require well child check ups as well as the associated immunizations to go along with it. Yet these same plans would pay for gastric bypass.

I'm not saying that there are those who would not greatly be helped by gastric bypass but...come on....we also know how important well child checkups are as well.

I think there is some education that needs to be made not only among employers but among the employees themselves when involved in group plans.

Edited March 19, 2009 by pam

[Madriglace]

The health care system is totally out of whack. I can't complain now ... my new job gives my full benefits that I pay nothing for with $500 deductable and $2000 out of pocket limit. However, I had some testing done and saw the lab statement to the insurance carrier. The charge was $241, $200 was discounted because it was in-network and the carrier paid $41 ... if it had been a private pay I would have paid $241 ... so basically the private pays carry the burden and doesn't go to the DR until it is too late ... that's just so wrong. This is the first time I have ever had good health insurance and I am 55.

[pam]

Just goes to show how much labs etc charge that don't need to be charged. If they are willing to settle for in network discounts...why do they have to charge such outrageous charges to begin with?

Though don't quote me on this..I do believe those that sign up for networks (doctors, labs etc) pay a fee to be in that network. It brings more business to them. So while it would appear they are getting less money...they have an increase in patients due to those searching for providers who are participating.

[Celica]

except you would have to post all your signs in FRENCH

LOL when you live here you don't even notice it, its that way on products. But it depends what part of the country you live in, East is more french than West. I live in Alberta and the only french i've seen is on product things like Cheerios Boxes.

[bytor2112]

I don't know if this accurate...maybe Funky does....

[lestertheemt]

What people tend to forget is that we do have universal health care in the US. It is called medicare and medicaid. IF that is what is going to be the basis for our healthcare then I can see huge problems.

[mustang90]

The problem is, people have the argument that health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians.

But reality is in the U.S right now, health care decisions are being made by insurance companies, not patients, not doctors, and not even politicians.

[Elgama]

The NHS is old and clunky and can be a bit of a zip code lottery, I know I live in a very good area in many ways for it. But then talking to American's I gather your system works better in some states than my experience of it in California. It does need tweaking but it is oldest of its kind. Growing up my parents had private health insurance which was cheaper than the US equivelent and when I went into hospital as a kid it was like going to a hotel. My in Laws between taxes and health insurance pay out a lot more than we do (we had to pay insurance for my husband first year) and don't seem to receive any better care than an average NHS area. its certainly not as good as I receive in a good area.

if I make an appointment at 8.30-10am in the morning and I will be seen later that day, unless I want to make a specific Doctor then I may need to wait, some things we may need to wait longer for. if I phone out of hours then a decision will be made by nurse on other end about whether an appointment is made at my surgery the next day, a house visit is made, we go to the out of hours surgery or an ambulance is called. I am lucky that my local A&E (ER) has a relatively short waiting time usually no more than 45 minutes but some of the bigger cities its bad. .... It has shocked me when 4 or 5 times in this sites chatroom, it has been suggested someone has been ill phone an ambulance by the European members to be told they can't afford it which is something that wouldn't enter my head, you phone 999 and get taken to hospital no thought, and I remeber coming back from my Father in Laws funeral to phonecalls demanding to know who would pay for things and my Mother in Law saying she expected it to take a year to sort out.

I am not in anyway saying my countries system is perfect, there are mistakes, problems and frustrations, but situations like my husband being adopted because he was born 6 weeks early and his parents health insurance only covering basic resuscitation for him, meant they needed him to be adopted as otherwise he would die, my good friend and husband best friend both had daughters with the same rare condition, my friend;s daughter received keyhole surgery in womb and has suffered no further problems, her parents continued to improve their financial lot . My husband's friend had to find a new job paying thousands less but with different health insurance before she could be operated on. she was born before treatment could happen still is causing problems with her health, and her parents are struggling financially. My own situation I often wonder about would I have gone in with a swollen face if I had needed to find a portion of my Doctors visit, if I hadn't we would now be dead.

Of course there are someways your system is better, but I was shocked at the state of the hospitals they were no better than some of ours and worse than others, some of the nursing staff were appalling and we were paying double what we do here for our whole family for my husband to receive that care.

I grew up with people who remembered what it was like pre NHS and worked as Drs and nurses in the system not one no matter how bad the NHS treated them at times wanted to return to the medical care of before.

-Charley

[Canuck Mormon]

A person I have been posting to on-line lives in Canada. He says he has to wait six months to see a doctor. Doesn't sound too good to me. I will lose my company paid insurance when I retire in May. I can get free care at the Veterans Clinic. My wife is out of luck unless I can find something we can afford for her.

Something has to be done. This is a major problem with all of us baby boomers aging.

6 months???? I call my doctor and I can get in the next day or sooner. Maybe for a specialist, but not a regular doctor. My wife has to go for a CT scan and it was a 6 month waiting time, but it won't cost a cent. There are benefits to a National Health Care System, like no major outlay for treatments, but there are drawbacks, like waiting times for some procedures. I know of some people who go to the ER complaining of pains and illnesses and have long wait times, but a lot of those things can be taken care of by a regular doctor. These are the people complaining of horrific wait times and such. My Dad went into the ER saying he had a small pain in his chest. He was rushed into a room and told he was staying the night for observation, all within 5 minutes. Another drawback to our health system is the cost. I believe, and I'm not 100% sure about this, that it costs us 55% of our annual national budget to fund it, and it needs more to reduce wait times. We do have plans that supplement the system, like dental coverage and prescription drugs, room upgrades for Hospital stays, out of country costs (some), etc. That costs me nothing because my employer pays it, but it is a taxable benefit.

Hope that helps and I'm sure some people will disagree with me, but you can't please everyone.

[Elgama]

6 months???? I call my doctor and I can get in the next day or sooner. Maybe for a specialist, but not a regular doctor. My wife has to go for a CT scan and it was a 6 month waiting time, but it won't cost a cent. There are benefits to a National Health Care System, like no major outlay for treatments, but there are drawbacks, like waiting times for some procedures. I know of some people who go to the ER complaining of pains and illnesses and have long wait times, but a lot of those things can be taken care of by a regular doctor. These are the people complaining of horrific wait times and such. My Dad went into the ER saying he had a small pain in his chest. He was rushed into a room and told he was staying the night for observation, all within 5 minutes. Another drawback to our health system is the cost. I believe, and I'm not 100% sure about this, that it costs us 55% of our annual national budget to fund it, and it needs more to reduce wait times. We do have plans that supplement the system, like dental coverage and prescription drugs, room upgrades for Hospital stays, out of country costs (some), etc. That costs me nothing because my employer pays it, but it is a taxable benefit.

Hope that helps and I'm sure some people will disagree with me, but you can't please everyone.

almost exactly what I could have posted with our system

-Charley

[bytebear]

I don't like the idea of government health care run at the federal level. I really don't like it at all, but I am ok with states trying different programs to see which ones work out. I would rather have 50 states all trying different things, and being able to tailor them to the specific needs of the people living there, than having a single program run for everyone. If I don't like the coverage my state affords, I can move to another state. Of course, this mentality has been a contributing factor in the bankruptcy of California which provides free health care to millions of illegal residents.

[Canuck Mormon]

I don't like the idea of government health care run at the federal level. I really don't like it at all, but I am ok with states trying different programs to see which ones work out. I would rather have 50 states all trying different things, and being able to tailor them to the specific needs of the people living there, than having a single program run for everyone. If I don't like the coverage my state affords, I can move to another state. Of course, this mentality has been a contributing factor in the bankruptcy of California which provides free health care to millions of illegal residents.

Here in Canada this is the way it works. The Provinces run the system for their Province, but it is funded by the National Government.

[Elgama]

I don't like the idea of government health care run at the federal level. I really don't like it at all, but I am ok with states trying different programs to see which ones work out. I would rather have 50 states all trying different things, and being able to tailor them to the specific needs of the people living there, than having a single program run for everyone. If I don't like the coverage my state affords, I can move to another state. Of course, this mentality has been a contributing factor in the bankruptcy of California which provides free health care to millions of illegal residents.

like Canada ours is different - England, Wales and Scotland run their own. Its then split into Trusts which run it for each area. Personally I think it ran better when Drs and Nurses rather than administrators were in charge, but thats progress lol Each hospital also gets a say over how its run

-Charley

[Traveler]

One of my main concerns about any kind of health care in the current atmosphere of health in the USA: The two biggest health care problems in the USA are caused from overweight and lack of exercise. The two primary means of offering health care comes in the form of drugs and surgery.

I do not care if the government is involved or not until the above discrepancy is addressed health care will continue to become less effective and more expensive.

There is another issue that involves malpractice that needs to be addressed regardless of who pays for health care. If a doctor has not treated their patients competently they should not be allowed to ever practice ever again without supervision (if at all) to correspond with any fine that is paid. If they have treated their patients competently there should not be even a penny granted and the lawyers for the plaintiffs and plaintiffs should be required to pay all attorney fees and court costs of all involved in the ligation.

The Traveler