Obama sucks.

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

Well... I'm not an expert in the subject and never really needed much medical care.........

I hope you are right that if things change here (the USA) it will be better, but does the US government do anything efficiently or better?

And as a side note, the USA wasn't set up to be "freebies" for everyone. People came here to be individuals and escape the government control.
I don't understand, though, why it should be expected that if you break your arm it should be taken care of for free?

To quote our Morrissey, "I'd hate to be like certain people I know they, break their necks and can't afford to get them fixed..."

About the other things, bankruptcy, etc....I believe it can all be traced back to trial lawyers. If doctors weren't in fear of being sued at every turn, costs would not be high like they are. That is probably why there was a squabble with your friend about the anesthesia.

I do believe things need changing, but the government does nothing well, except tax us and spend our money, but that is too much to discuss.

 

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

Yes - I've never quite understood the US health system. Here (Australia) if you need treatment eg: broken arm then you don't have to pay anything. Hospital treatment is free, doctors visits are free but you can pay for private cover which means you can choose your own doctor, have a private room etc.

We have been getting 'stimulus payments' here of about $1,000 - which has been because the government wants us to spend, spend, spend!

So, if you want better treatment, you pay for it yourself. Why? Why isn't the best treatment there for everyone. What if someone wants better treatment or a private room and can't afford it? That isn't fair that a more wealthy person gets a private room. Why can the wealthy choose his doctor and the poor gets the short straw for his doctor, hoping that he is competent?

 

[M-in-Oz]

But what is the alternative? If health care is in the hands of private insurers/companies - then aren't they just in it for the money? I think governments do have some responsibility to look after people. If taxes were reduced then maybe it would be more viable to pay for your broken arm to be fixed. As it stands here if you can afford to go private health then you probably would but if you cannot then you can still get the health treatment that you require.

 

[M-in-Oz]

So, if you want better treatment, you pay for it yourself. Why? Why isn't the best treatment there for everyone. What if someone wants better treatment or a private room and can't afford it? That isn't fair that a more wealthy person gets a private room. Why can the wealthy choose his doctor and the poor gets the short straw for his doctor, hoping that he is competent?

I don't think that the treatment differs as the doctors work in both the private and public system.
But I do agree with your point - however I think it is a better system that you get treated without having to pay for anything and if you have to share a room that is better than not being able to afford the hospitilisation.

 

[Flax]

I hope you are right that if things change here (the USA) it will be better, but does the US government do anything efficiently or better?

And as a side note, the USA wasn't set up to be "freebies" for everyone. People came here to be individuals and escape the government control.
I don't understand, though, why it should be expected that if you break your arm it should be taken care of for free?

To quote our Morrissey, "I'd hate to be like certain people I know they, break their necks and can't afford to get them fixed..."

About the other things, bankruptcy, etc....I believe it can all be traced back to trial lawyers. If doctors weren't in fear of being sued at every turn, costs would not be high like they are. That is probably why there was a squabble with your friend about the anesthesia.

I do believe things need changing, but the government does nothing well, except tax us and spend our money, but that is too much to discuss.

I don't know if the government will be competent enough to make it better, but from what I see, it would be hard to make it worse than it already is.

Now, for the broken arm being taken care for free, I think that should be free because that's a basic need. I'm not saying that all medical treatment should be free. If I need laser surgery in my eyes, I'll get the money and pay for it gladly, because it's not an emergency and not a basic medical need.

If somebody attacks me and a police officer jumps in, shoots the person, chases them and get them arrested, I wouldn't expect a bill for the bullets, the running, the rental of handcuffs and mileage on the cop car.

But if I want private guards, I know I would have to pay for them.

I remember when I had this horrible flu for about a week about 2 years ago, I was freaking out on a Sunday and my friends said I couldn't really go see a doctor because it was Sunday (whaaaaaa???). My only choice would be an emergency room, which according to them, would leave me hanging for hours, give me some aspirin and charge me $500.

I didn't really go to an emergency room to see what it's like, but it certainly does not sound like a 1st world country health system.

 

[Buzzetta]

I don't know if the government will be competent enough to make it better, but from what I see, it would be hard to make it worse than it already is.

Now, for the broken arm being taken care for free, I think that should be free because that's a basic need. I'm not saying that all medical treatment should be free. If I need laser surgery in my eyes, I'll get the money and pay for it gladly, because it's not an emergency and not a basic medical need.

If somebody attacks me and a police officer jumps in, shoots the person, chases them and get them arrested, I wouldn't expect a bill for the bullets, the running, the rental of handcuffs and mileage on the cop car.

But if I want private guards, I know I would have to pay for them.

I remember when I had this horrible flu for about a week about 2 years ago, I was freaking out on a Sunday and my friends said I couldn't really go see a doctor because it was Sunday (whaaaaaa???). My only choice would be an emergency room, which according to them, would leave me hanging for hours, give me some aspirin and charge me $500.

I didn't really go to an emergency room to see what it's like, but it certainly does not sound like a 1st world country health system.

Just curious... Under the above example where should the financial responsibility be placed for medical bills for smokers that have lung cancer?

 

[Flax]

Just curious... Under the above example where should the financial responsibility be placed for medical bills for smokers that have lung cancer?

Then quit smoking and get ready to spend a lot of money on treatment if you don't have health insurance. However, nothing that would force you to lose your house.

If you've been paying for health insurance and you develop cancer after you signed the contract with them, it's their responsibility to pay for your medical bills.

 

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

I don't know if the government will be competent enough to make it better, but from what I see, it would be hard to make it worse than it already is.

Now, for the broken arm being taken care for free, I think that should be free because that's a basic need. I'm not saying that all medical treatment should be free. If I need laser surgery in my eyes, I'll get the money and pay for it gladly, because it's not an emergency and not a basic medical need.

If somebody attacks me and a police officer jumps in, shoots the person, chases them and get them arrested, I wouldn't expect a bill for the bullets, the running, the rental of handcuffs and mileage on the cop car.

But if I want private guards, I know I would have to pay for them.

I remember when I had this horrible flu for about a week about 2 years ago, I was freaking out on a Sunday and my friends said I couldn't really go see a doctor because it was Sunday (whaaaaaa???). My only choice would be an emergency room, which according to them, would leave me hanging for hours, give me some aspirin and charge me $500.

I didn't really go to an emergency room to see what it's like, but it certainly does not sound like a 1st world country health system.

Well, lets hope they don't make it worse, but the government has a track record of screwing up everything.

I don't want to go point by point with everything, but I don't know of any large city that doesn't have some kind of 24 hour medical service that one could go to and they bill your insurance. One doesn't always have to go to the emergency room. There have been a couple times that I didn't have a doctor appointment and went to the emergency room because I needed care and couldn't wait a week or days for an appointment. When I went in they determined it wasn't a real emergency like a stroke or broken neck, etc, and sent me to doctors that are on staff for such things. They just don't make appointments for it. I didn't have to pay emergency room fees, just normal "co-pay" things.

At what point and who will make decisions and say that a broken arm should be covered for free but some other procedure should have a cost.

If the government gets involved with the decisions, will their decisions them have political reasoning behind them: that persons on the verge of retirement, if they have such and such illness, we won't cover that, because we will save all that pension money if they die.
I know it sounds conspiratorial, but once the gov't gets involved who's to stop such things?

 

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

I don't think that the treatment differs as the doctors work in both the private and public system.
But I do agree with your point - however I think it is a better system that you get treated without having to pay for anything and if you have to share a room that is better than not being able to afford the hospitilisation.

I don't want to be nosy, but may I ask what the income tax rates are in your country? Maybe it appears that your health services are free, but your taxes are higher and you are just paing for it in a different way.

 

[McLovin]

About the other things, bankruptcy, etc....I believe it can all be traced back to trial lawyers. If doctors weren't in fear of being sued at every turn, costs would not be high like they are. That is probably why there was a squabble with your friend about the anesthesia.

Untrue. GE Medical Protective, the largest insurer for medical malpractice in the US, relied on their own well funded research, and then admitted in court filings that damage awards have little to no effect on insurance premiums for physicians.

Also, caps have already been in place in several states like California and Texas. Insurance companies have been pleading with the public for years that this was necessary to reduce premiums. Yet somehow, insurance premiums in those states have increased substantially (this was even before the recent downward spiral in the economy). GEMP’s own admission is correct: caps on damage awards have virtually no effect on insurance premiums.

Contrast that with a state like Washington that has no caps on damage awards. Somehow, not too long ago, Washington's largest provider of medical malpractice insurance actually decreased insurance premiums.

Then, there's the nonprofit nonpartisan Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights whose research indicated that increases in premiums were not intended to cover claims, but instead were used to increase profits for the insurance companies. Yet another collateral evidence that supports GEMP's own admissions in court that court awards hardly register as blips on the screen.

If there are caps in your jurisdiction, this means that your right to legitimate recovery has been potentially significantly diminished because of the scare tactics employed by the insurance companies, which they now admit are false. Should there be tort reform? I think it's always prudent to engage in analysis and reformation should they become necessary, but it shouldn't be dictated by the terms of the insurance companies.

 

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

Untrue. GE Medical Protective, the largest insurer for medical malpractice in the US, relied on their own well funded research, and then admitted in court filings that damage awards have little to no effect on insurance premiums for physicians....

I didn't mean that insurance premiums are more costly because of the lawyers, I meant that the overall coat of health care is up because of trial lawyers. Doctors "have to" perform more tests and more expensive tests to cover themselves in case of litigation. I have heard stories where, say that years ago, if a child had come in after having bumped their head, the parent would have been told to observe the child and if "such and such" happens then come back in, but now, CAT scans and MRI's are routinely performed, not because they are really needed at the time.but so if the doctor gets sued, he/she can say that they performed all tests and are not at fault.

So instead of a emergency room visit cost of $100, it is thousands, because of the tests and procedures.

 

[M-in-Oz]

I don't want to be nosy, but may I ask what the income tax rates are in your country? Maybe it appears that your health services are free, but your taxes are higher and you are just paing for it in a different way.

You might have a point there & as I was thinking about this it did occur to me that the tax might be higher here...I'm not even sure what the tax rate is. The tax is applied to income over $6,000 and also depends on whether you have children or not. If you earned between $35,000 - $80,000 the tax is $4,200 plus 1c for every $1 over $34,000. I have heard that Australia is pretty high taxing.

 

[Flax]

I don't think I understand... Does that mean that if you make $50,000 you pay roughly $5,000? If that's the case, this sounds like one of the lowest taxes I've ever heard of.

 

[M-in-Oz]

I don't think I understand... Does that mean that if you make $50,000 you pay roughly $5,000? If that's the case, this sounds like one of the lowest taxes I've ever heard of.

That sounds about right, plus we would add in compulsory superannuation payments, maybe union fees, University repayments and a medicare levy (which goes towards healthcare). Never thought of it as low before.

* I just went and checked a payslip and $50,000 is taxed $15,000 (I've never been good at maths)

 

[Anaesthesine]

People here are arguing about health care as if it's a hypothetical situation - it's not. I don't see how anyone can condemn their fellow human beings to a life of bancruptcy and death for the unforgivable sin of being poor.

I have an old friend who is one of the working poor; three "unskilled" jobs just to keep her head above water. She's older than I am, and in poor health. She recently lost two of her other jobs, and I'm now her sole employer. My shop sometimes struggles to make the rent, and we employ her for as many hours as we can, but it is not enough.

Recently she was having so much trouble with her knee that she could neither walk nor bear weight. Some days she could barely make it to work, and had trouble getting to her 5th floor walk-up apartment. She is on food stamps and medicaid.

She went into the hospital on Tuesday, and they went in and discovered that she had much more extensive damage than had previously been suspected. She had reconstructive surgery and was sent home the next day. The hospital stay was awful - no food for 36 hours because she wasn't on the admittance list, miscommunications between nurses and doctors, bureaucratic nightmares galore. A perfect example of the sorry state of public health.

However, she had her surgery - thank goodness. I cannot imagine a country where she would have been allowed to lose everything (and I mean everything) just because she can't afford private insurance. The current system is deeply flawed, but to use that as an argument against public healthcare care is disingenuous, heartless and ultimately damaging to society as a whole; there are many things we can do to reduce costs and improve efficiency, but medicaid (sorry as it is) just saved my friend's life.

People should not lose their homes and their lives because they cannot afford basic health care.

 

[Flax]

That sounds about right, plus we would add in compulsory superannuation payments, maybe union fees, University repayments and a medicare levy (which goes towards healthcare). Never thought of it as low before.

* I just went and checked a payslip and $50,000 is taxed $15,000 (I've never been good at maths)

So that's 30% of your income. Which is roughly what we pay in the US.

 

[McLovin]

I didn't mean that insurance premiums are more costly because of the lawyers, I meant that the overall coat of health care is up because of trial lawyers. Doctors "have to" perform more tests and more expensive tests to cover themselves in case of litigation. I have heard stories where, say that years ago, if a child had come in after having bumped their head, the parent would have been told to observe the child and if "such and such" happens then come back in, but now, CAT scans and MRI's are routinely performed, not because they are really needed at the time.but so if the doctor gets sued, he/she can say that they performed all tests and are not at fault.

So instead of a emergency room visit cost of $100, it is thousands, because of the tests and procedures.

That's a distinction without a difference because defensive medicine is also a red herring. Indeed, studies by, for instance, the Congressional Budget Office concludes that defensive medicine is more motivated by maximizing profits rather than preventing lawsuits. This is one of several congressional studies that conclude that the notion of defensive medicine has a very small impact on the cost of healthcare in the US.

Lawsuits, damage awards and so forth constitute about 1% of the overall cost of health care. So, let's say that we get rid of all those lawsuits. Then, the MRI that you need will cost $990 instead of $1,000. I think it stands to reason that that is not a fair return on the evisceration of your legal rights.

There are numerous reasons why health care costs are so high in the US. But blaming it on trial lawyers and award damages is like worrying about the wallpaper when the house is on fire.


And for the record, I don't necessarily advocate socialized medicine either. That's not the one and only model just like the current model isn't the one and only model either. My concern is for the millions of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, and whose lives are turned upside down because of an onset of significant medical problems. Personally, in this day and age, I find that quite bizarre to say the least.

 

[Deleted member 6305]

The $8,000 home buyers tax credit is going to help make it possible for me to buy my first home.

Come tax time. This is gonna bite you in the ass.

 

[smith4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PqI12R8YNU

 

[Flax]

Come tax time. This is gonna bite you in the ass.

If I could vote for either:
a) Being able to buy a house but having ass bitten later.
b) Not being able to buy a house, therefore ass not bitten.

I vote for option "a".