What do YOU like or dislike about govt. healthcare?

[si-lo]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

How is military health care messed up? The care I received was cutting edge and I just had a minor injury?

Well I have had more than just minor inujuries of which I won't go into here. But when it takes almost six months and 2 calls to the IG to get something as simple as an MRI I wouldn't call that efficient. The mental healthcare is very substandard with tricare, and it just gets worse with dependents. As a matter of fact the only benefit to having tricare on active duty is that it's free. Well that is as long as they don't screw up the approval paperwork then have a collector looking to me for $15K and a 1st sgt who thinks I should pay it and then work it out or he will kick me out. I was just an E-3 at the time so where was I going to get that kind of money? Almost a year fighting that one until Champus(that's what it was then) finally fessed up the error and corrected it. Of course it was another 8 months to clear up all the disciplinary action against me. So kudos to your excellent healthcare, but it's not that great for everyone.

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

Education is run by the individual states, even lower to counties really so it is tough to blame the federal government for this one.

Actually the county has to follow state curriculum which has to meet some national standard laid out by the fed. Need I remind you of "No child left behind"? If that's not fed involvement/control I don't know what is.

[si-lo]

Originally Posted by rockadaous

I've had free health care for the past 20 yrs.
Likes-free
dislikes-waiting! especially emergency room. PA's that don't have a clue. The thought motrin fixes everything

Vitamin M does fix everything you just have to take 2 percocets and shotgun a beer.

[Dino]

Originally Posted by si-lo

Well I have had more than just minor inujuries of which I won't go into here. But when it takes almost six months and 2 calls to the IG to get something as simple as an MRI I wouldn't call that efficient. The mental healthcare is very substandard with tricare, and it just gets worse with dependents. As a matter of fact the only benefit to having tricare on active duty is that it's free. Well that is as long as they don't screw up the approval paperwork then have a collector looking to me for $15K and a 1st sgt who thinks I should pay it and then work it out or he will kick me out. I was just an E-3 at the time so where was I going to get that kind of money? Almost a year fighting that one until Champus(that's what it was then) finally fessed up the error and corrected it. Of course it was another 8 months to clear up all the disciplinary action against me. So kudos to your excellent healthcare, but it's not that great for everyone.
I have had some bad experiences also but I am talking in general. No system is perfect but I bet you could find as many people with good things to say as bad when it comes to military health care. I would say overall it is pretty good. Having now dealt with both I'll take the team doc anytime.


Actually the county has to follow state curriculum which has to meet some national standard laid out by the fed. Need I remind you of "No child left behind"? If that's not fed involvement/control I don't know what is.

The national standards are not curriculum based there is no federal curriculum standard that I have ever heard of.

[99'busa]

Gardzilla's quote from another thread. I thought it was good input for here.

I live in the Canadian Province of Ontario and my wife is an E.R. nurse. This province has 11 million people and at least 1.1million people are without a family doctor (10%). If you go to a hospital with an emergency, typical wait times in any E.R. range from 3-8hours in most hospitals.
If you need a procedure for something that is not considered immediately life threatening you will find yourself on a waiting list for 2-8 months and to get a referral to see a specialist you are looking at 6 months to a year.

When my mother had cancer she had to wait 6 weeks for a CAT scan and she had to travel 1 hour to another city to have it done.

This crappy system costs Canadian tax payers the equivalent of 11% of our GDP. Which for us works out to $172 Billion each year, which explains why are taxes are so unbelievably high. 11% of US GDP would equal 1.5 Trillion Dollars. Health care doesn't grow on trees - YOU are going to pay for that!

[Jaysus]

Dislike..........


Being Mexico's HMO

[afterhours]

the problem with national helathcare?

like all other things, i pay for services i do not use.

plain and simply i am tired of paying for things i do not use. that others will abuse.

regular checkups are cheaper than treatment full major illness, this is true.....and seems to make sense. the problem is that the people that are going to the ER's and without helathcare, often will not see a doctor for regular visits anyways....

most hospitals spend tons of money, on outreach programs trying to reach the :

poor
immigrants
children
elderly

get some education about all the free services that are available to them.

[si-lo]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

The national standards are not curriculum based there is no federal curriculum standard that I have ever heard of.

True but the curriculum must concentrate on the national standard, therefore the fed in an indirect way is dictating to the states what to teach.

I'm sure I could find just as many who have had good experiences as bad, but using that logic there would be no point to universal health care because no matter what, it's going to have problems.

[Gardzilla]

Originally Posted by Rev. 6:5

I'm not a socialist. Just the opposite, I'm a strong conservative. However, universal healthcare is affordable and can be done with sin taxes.

In the US, sin taxes are already being gobbled up as fast as you can collect them and you are still left with a large deficit each year. In Canada our disfunctional system costs us 11% of our GDP. A similar system would add 1.5 Trillion to the yearly US deficit.

Personally I would prefer having US style healthcare and not getting taxed to death as I currently do. Not everyone would agree, that is just my preference. I am just trying to point out that the Canadian system is very far from perfect and is very expensive to the tax payer. The saying "The grass is not always greener on the other side" definitely applies here!

[Gardzilla]

Adding fuel to the doctor crisis | Macleans.ca - Science - Health
Five million Canadians are currently without a family doctor-and things are only getting worse

"Today, five million Canadians are without a family doctor. A 2005 survey found that just 23 per cent of Canadians were able to see a physician the same day they needed one—placing this country last among the six studied, including the U.S., Britain and Australia. Canada’s doctor-patient ratio is among the worst of any industrialized nation: with just 2.2 physicians per thousand people, it ranks 24th out of 28 OECD countries (well below the average of three). And among the G8 countries, Canada ranks dead last when it comes to physician supply."

[99'busa]

If we think the wait times in America are high now. Wait till it's free for everyone.......

[Red05]

Originally Posted by 99'busa

Gardzilla's quote from another thread. I thought it was good input for here.

....and another Canadian example...

That's all the same for my health care in Canada, "cept I don't pay insurance, and the goverment covered the cost of my cancer drugs, sugery, tests and scans, and paid me for time off from work.

Anybody who can't find a family doctor in Canada is an idiot. There is three in my small town. Walk in clinic are avaiable in larger centers, free.



cheers
ken

...which goes to show that there is good and bad in both styles of health plans, and that a National plan could possibly work. Kind of like our Busas, a little tinkering and voila!!

[mrsBusawhipped]

Originally Posted by 99'busa

If we think the wait times in America are high now. Wait till it's free for everyone.......

Yeah, I spent 2 hours in a ER waiting room with my nephew 26 at the time. Having problems with his tonsils, had trouble breathing, bleeding into his throat, nausea and running a serious fever. All the welfare people coming in to get their kids sniffles check out took precedence over someone who could barely breath.

I have also been in ER where I was with the only patient there waiting to be seen and it still took 30 minutes for them to get him back to the examination area. Geesh!!!! Luckily he wasn't suffering any life threatening injuries.

Something has got to change, for sure. But I don't think the govt running the healthcare is a good idea either. They have already proven they can't handle social security and Military health care.

There has been a lot good suggestions so far. Maybe we can put something together that we can all send to our represenatives in DC. If they like they make bring it up. Probably take credit for it too, but hey thats Ok if it is for the good of the Country!! Or what Red05 said "...which goes to show that there is good and bad in both styles of health plans, and that a National plan could possibly work. Kind of like our Busas, a little tinkering and voila!!"

[runeight]

Great points here. Take the time to listen. It gets to Health Care topic around five (5) minutes.

r8

Mark Levin Show Audio Rewind

[Red05]

I still think that a paid National health plan, much like Social Security is paid, would work. It would omit those not working, leaving Medicade as their only option. One of the problems with health insurance is the relationship between the insurance companies and doctors or hospitals which in some cases is downright unethical. I've had MRI's both covered by insurance and paid out of pocket, and the difference in charges was huge. Identical procedures and roughly a 30% difference in charges. The higher rate paid by the insurance company reflects in our premiums, and the snow ball effect is horrendous. There has to be regulation here, and rates mandated by a National plan could be a solution, maybe with some hard a$$es like the IRS to watch things (runeight, your experience with the IRS hopefully not being the norm). I'm not so much a supporter of a National Health plan as I am a supporter of regulating what goes on in medical billing.

[BusaWhipped]

Originally Posted by 99'busa

For me what I see happening is it being a great deal for some people and a death sentence to others. Here's what I mean: When something is FREE there becomes unlimited demand. We will have unlimited demand but limited budget. So SOMEONE is going to have to be denied due to funding.


I believe our current healthcare plan can become more affordable with some changes but they wont be easy changes for some. IE no more 0 deductibles, limited visits, common check ups not covered, physicals not covered. ect....Some people are paying for coverage that they will never need such as substance abuse. The mojority of people are paying for stuff they likely wont ever use.


So I'm interested in hearing POS and NEG so maybe all of us can collectivley learn more about this.

I do agree that there are problems with the current health care system. Most of these are caused by Government regulations, lobyists, and lawyers. So turning the entire system over to them is not the answer.

1) Government has proven time and time again that it cannot effectively and efficiently administer programs. Pork, abuse, beuracracy, special interest groups all significantly increase the cost of the program without providing any benifit to the program. I know that there are folks who don't care about the increased cost becasue they are expecting someone else to pay the bill. Everytime someone gets something for nothing, someone else gets something from nothing.

2) Once the Government becomes the health care monopoly, there is no incentive for them to improve service, or even to keep the current level of service. Moreover, the Government will be pressured into keeping the estimated $1,500,000,000,000 (Trillion and a half dollar) per year costs down. They will do so by reducing the service available. Competing health care providers keeps service levels high and cost to the consumer down at the same time.

3) While I agree with SS that prevention is less costly than curing illness, Government run health care will do little to change the current situation in that area. Most insurances cover preventative health care, how many folks actually get the covered annual physical? How many people smoke? Quiting is a very effective way to prevent illness, but people keep smoking. Same with drinking. How about eating right and excersizing? There would be far less illness if people took care of their bodies, but they don't. Government health care will not change that.

4) A factor in the rapid rise in health care costs are from Americans paying a lower share of their health care expenses than they used to. When it isn't coming out of their pockets, people tend to overuse or abuse things. For example an emergency room visit becasue they have the sniffles. That is why insurance companies have co-pays, if you have to part with $10-$20 for the visit, you are less likely to abuse it. Free health care will cause increases in unnecessary visits and additional costs, unless the waiting time to actually get care becomes too painful.

So, if you are looking to another country as an example of the theoretical Utopia oif socialized health care, you need to spend some time there and use their system. I have not found the level of care or available services in the countries I've visited to be up to the level we have grown to expect here.

[BusaWhipped]

Originally Posted by Red05

I still think that a paid National health plan, much like Social Security is paid, would work.

The Government mishandled the Social Security funds, so why to you think they can handle the health care funds?

The surplus revenues "borrowed" from Social Security to, artifically, lower and disguise the true size of the U.S./Federal annual budget deficit and the ever-growing national debt has never been repaid. Either as a payment to the"fictional" trust fund/s of either program or to subsidize future payments or benefits. As long as there is a tax revenue"surplus", the law does not require this to be done. Which is why these taxes continue be raisedand benefitscut.

In the 1980's, Social Security payroll taxes were increased and benefits were cut by raising the retirement age/s for those born after 1945 and eliminating college education benefits which surviving dependents had been receiving, until then. This was all done to increase the size of the Social Security "surplus" revenues.

Social Security and Medicare "surplus" revenues are always made part of the annual federal revenue stream. Again! To mislead the tax-paying public by, artificially reducing and disguising the true size of the annual U.S. Federal Budget deficit and ever growing National Debt.

In the 1990's, Social Security benefits, paid to recipients, began to be treated, for the 1st time,as taxable income. For U.S.Income Tax purposes. After 2000, some Medicare recipients are, now, forced to pay higher monthly Medicare premiums, deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, on the basis of income levels which are inflated by the wrongful taxation of those same monthly payments.

Many medical procedures, for which patients were covered by their health insurance policies, prior to retirement and receiving Social Security and Medicare, are no longer covered and provided by Medicare. These same medical services are declared, wrongly, as "medically unnecessary". This is just a form of health care rationing, for medical services (paid for, in advance, by the retiree during their years of working and paying Social Security and Medicare taxes) which, in turn, will result in shorter life spans for many. Again! Another cut in benefits.

[Red05]

Dennis, good points but again why would a national plan have to be free? As it stands now, many people are tied to groups at work for the health insurance. Being tied to Joe who's kid is on Ritalin when a swift kick in the butt in their earlier years may have served better or Mary who runs to the doctor with every sneeze will raise premiums for everyone on the plan. A National paid plan could give every person their own health policy and the premium based on usage. My wife Deb and I are currently on a private plan because my work has a high maintenance group, but our premiums are still overly greedy. Eliminate the insurance companies' profit and perhaps we would see a difference in our premiums. Another irritating issue is drug companies advertising directly to the public, actually telling people to "ask their doctor". This is a politically correct way of saying "tell your doctor you need this", in effect supporting self diagnosis, figuring that if 20% of the public is successful in convincing the doctors, profits would be huge. I'm sorry for this rant....this health issue is quite irritating for old Red....

[BusaWhipped]

Something I thought of in my first post as I was finishing the second.

The average annual health care costs for people age 25-44 is roughly double that of those unser 25. It roughly doubles again between the ages of 45 and 64. It then quadrupals afer the age of 65. So what's the Government's incentive to provide premium health care service and increase the average lifespan? Seems to keep the budget in check, you'd want people to pass on as soon as they were not producing taxable income.

[BusaWhipped]

Originally Posted by Red05

Another irritating issue is drug companies advertising directly to the public, actually telling people to "ask their doctor". This is a politically correct way of saying "tell your doctor you need this", in effect supporting self diagnosis, figuring that if 20% of the public is successful in convincing the doctors, profits would be huge. I'm sorry for this rant....this health issue is quite irritating for old Red....

Don't get me started on the drug companies. But once again, the lobbyists and the Government are in bed on this one, and you can see where its going. The FDA has decreed that only a drug can cure an illness. So when the drug companies come up with a new drug, they lobby for whatever symptoms it cures to be declared a disease. Not only are people being told what to have their Dr. prescribe for their "illness", the Dr. can't even discuss any non-drug alternatives. ADHD wasn't a disease until after Ritalin was on the market. Like you pointed out, prior to "discovering" this disease that reportedly effects 5% of the children under 7 (I must not know the right people since most of my friends have kids that fall into that 5%). But parent's are shown this miracle cure to get their hyperactive kids to settle down, and the stuff the pills in their little mouths without any thought about potential adverse effects.

We agree that there are alot of things that are broken in health care today. Its only the approach on how to mend it that we don't see eye to eye on. When big brother gets involved, everyone gets less for more.

[Gardzilla]

Originally Posted by BusaWhipped

So what's the Government's incentive to provide premium health care service and increase the average lifespan? Seems to keep the budget in check, you'd want people to pass on as soon as they were not producing taxable income.

My 84 year old grandmother had her bowel perforated in a nursing home while getting an enema. She was taken to a hospital in Windsor, Ontario, Canada for treatment. The doctors told our family that she was not a good candidate for surgery because of her age - so they did not operate. The only problem with that is that you are 100% likely to die without corrective surgery.
Pref'ed Bowel->Peritonitis-> Blood infection-> Kindney failure-> Shock->Death
It took her 16 days to die. BUT that was better than putting her through expensive surgery...