"Obamacare" - The USA Hard Right vs. the NHS

Spotts1701 wrote:

$80: The amount that could have saved 12-year-old Deamonte Driver's life. Driver died of a infection caused by a toothache. His family had no insurance, and had lost their Medicaid coverage.

You just reminded me of that. The case is so sad. People shouldn't have to shop around for their health at all.

I've heard it argued that health insurance in America is widely available for ten bucks.

All that tells me is that ten bucks will buy you really, really, shitty insurance.

Penguin wrote:

I've heard it argued that health insurance in America is widely available for ten bucks.

All that tells me is that ten bucks will buy you really, really, shitty insurance.

I have a friend who has insurance like that - she calls it "coupon insurance".

And it does exactly what it says on the tin. It's about as useful as clipping something from the Sunday paper and handing it in at the counter when it's time to pay.

The reason I'm violently against this bill is because it is wasteful, idiotic, and purposefully turns a blind eye to many of the major reasons our health care is so goddamn expensive. For instance, the fact that malpractice is out of control.

We have such a trigger-happy approach to malpractice lawsuits that doctors are forced to order all sorts of unnecessary tests to cover their asses in the all-too-common event of a frivolous lawsuit. You would literally recoil in horror at some of the shit people sue for, it's that outlandish. And this isn't about putting money into doctor's pockets. They pay through the nose for malpractice insurance and are bogged down by red tape at every turn. This is a lose/lose situation for everybody.

As a conservative-leaning libertarian, I feel that the following article, Universal Coverage, OK - Obamacare, Not OK, does an excellent job highlighting the real problems with Obama's plan. Instead of frothing at the mouth about how Obama wants to kill your grandmother, it intelligently points out how counter-productive the bill really is and provides a working solution.

So, in short, I'm all for an intelligently crafted approach to universal health care coverage. This bill Misses the Point in such a painfully stupid way that I cannot possibly support it.

Another reason people are hating the bill is because of the inevitable tax increase that will come along with it. Sadly, the poor can't pay those taxes, and the middle and upper class won't want to, as the tax burden will shift to them.

One thing I've heard is that the Obama plan... isn't. It was basically, "Congress: Figure it out, and have it on my desk by ____."

There really isn't anything to work with, yet. So it's really not a surprise that we're left with a 1,000+ page legal labrynth.

Narwhal wrote:

We have such a trigger-happy approach to malpractice lawsuits that doctors are forced to order all sorts of unnecessary tests to cover their asses in the all-too-common event of a frivolous lawsuit. You would literally recoil in horror at some of the shit people sue for, it's that outlandish. And this isn't about putting money into doctor's pockets. They pay through the nose for malpractice insurance and are bogged down by red tape at every turn. This is a lose/lose situation for everybody.

1) Medical malpractice cases are exceedingly difficult to win in court, extremely costly, and take up a tremendous amount of time for the lawyer who brings them. A very small fraction of cases are even taken up by lawyers, and an even smaller fraction of those go to court.

2) Medical malpractice as a whole accounts for less than 2% of overall health spending in the U.S.

3) The biggest expense for doctors may be malpractice insurance, but the cause is not an overwhelming amount of litigation against doctors. The cause is bad doctors being allowed to continue practicing medicine.

Having a doctor's medical license revoked is an extremely difficult process, and even if successful a doctor can simply pick up, move to another state, and get a new medical license there. These "bad docs" drive up insurance rates for the other doctors around them because malpractice insurance companies spread the cost of that bad doctor among all the others.

Best solution would be to treat a license to practice medicine like a license to practice law. When an attorney is disbarred in one state, they are in effect disbarred everywhere. Similarly, a doctor who has their license revoked should be barred from getting a license anywhere else.

Ouch. I didn't know it worked that way Spotts. I thought if they did get their license revoked, it was revoked everywhere. That's... really disturbing that it isn't.

Yeah, I can't recall the name, but there was a a serial killer who was a woman who worked as a nurse, and killed her patients in a way that made it look like complications. There was never enough evidence to charge her, but she got fired several times after suspicious deaths, and just moved to another state and started working there.

Lysander wrote:

Yeah, I can't recall the name, but there was a a serial killer who was a woman who worked as a nurse, and killed her patients in a way that made it look like complications. There was never enough evidence to charge her, but she got fired several times after suspicious deaths, and just moved to another state and started working there.

I know who you are talking about, but there's another female serial killer like that too, but her victims were babies. I saw them both on Most Evil.

Gyro's Grillz wrote:

I know who you are talking about, but there's another female serial killer like that too

Another female serial killer like that, who was caught. We don't know about any of the ones who weren't! :unskilled78:

Lysander wrote:

Yeah, I can't recall the name, but there was a a serial killer who was a woman who worked as a nurse, and killed her patients in a way that made it look like complications. There was never enough evidence to charge her, but she got fired several times after suspicious deaths, and just moved to another state and started working there.

Are you talking about Nurse Nancy Waddingham? She killed people in the mid-1930s with morphia. Only she got hanged.

Not only that, but when doctor's are caught behaving badly and brought before the Board of Medical Examiners (which licenses doctors) the outcome is often unsatisfying.

Two recent cases from Nevada:

Dr. Sean Su operated a cosmetic surgery clinic in Las Vegas. He was not trained or board-certified in cosmetic surgery (despite claiming he was), used medicine and medical supplies well past their use by dates, and mishandled medical waste. His punishment? Suspension of his cosmetic surgery practice by the state medical board, but he was allowed to continue practicing medicine. His California medical license was revoked in 2006 for failing to disclose a misdemeanor conviction for petty theft when he applied for that license.

Dr. Eladio Carrera was one of three doctors operating a endoscopy center in Las Vegas that reused syringes and vials of medication. 9 people tested positive for Hepatitis C, and thousands more were put at risk due to this lapse in safety. In exchange for his testimony against the other two doctors, Dr. Carrera will be allowed to keep his license to practice medicine. One of the other doctors involved used to sit on the state licensing board.

WHAT. Seriously?! Holy shit that's really scary! D: Was it thought up in the 1910's and they just left it that way or something?!

Shocked exaggeration over, that's really fucked. I had no idea. I can't grasp a western country taking medical practice so lightly. Damn it, stop crashing down the hippyutopianland in my head. >_<

You'd be surprised of how many plastic surgeons aren't board-certified.

Narwhal wrote:

The reason I'm violently against this bill is because it is wasteful, idiotic, and purposefully turns a blind eye to many of the major reasons our health care is so goddamn expensive. For instance, the fact that malpractice is out of control.

We have such a trigger-happy approach to malpractice lawsuits that doctors are forced to order all sorts of unnecessary tests to cover their asses in the all-too-common event of a frivolous lawsuit. You would literally recoil in horror at some of the shit people sue for, it's that outlandish. And this isn't about putting money into doctor's pockets. They pay through the nose for malpractice insurance and are bogged down by red tape at every turn. This is a lose/lose situation for everybody.

As a conservative-leaning libertarian, I feel that the following article, Universal Coverage, OK - Obamacare, Not OK, does an excellent job highlighting the real problems with Obama's plan. Instead of frothing at the mouth about how Obama wants to kill your grandmother, it intelligently points out how counter-productive the bill really is and provides a working solution.

So, in short, I'm all for an intelligently crafted approach to universal health care coverage. This bill Misses the Point in such a painfully stupid way that I cannot possibly support it.

Not to mention that no solid document is prepared. That's MY major problem with it. There is no definite information available to the public OR the Senate & the House. I really don't like that.

I know that the government controls a lot of things here already, but I'm still not comfortable with them having access to my medical information any more than they already do. I don't like the way the US government does a lot of things, and just because we may be safe from some of the crazier uses of that information now, does not mean when another president gets into office we will still be safe from it. I have had Tricare before (through the military) and it SUCKED. I had a rough time and ended up with a lot of shitty doctors who missed obvious signs of gallbladder trouble and contributed to not getting proper care for both that and my vision problems. I honestly don't want to deal with that again. I really like my private health care right now, and I don't want to have to give it up, and I'll admit freely that this is a huge reason for my concerns with the possibility of private health care companies having to meet the same requirements as a public health care company, or losing the option for private health care. It may not currently be an issue, but it may eventually be if we aren't careful, and that's what I'm concerned about.

Plus, I have to wonder what will happen to the pay rates and job availability for the people currently working in the medical profession. If their pay rates stay the same, won't the taxpayers (coincidentally the same people who are already the ones paying the taxes for Medicare and already paying for private health care - yes, they have the money now, but if they keep getting slammed for more taxes, they might not have the money eventually) start getting hit with higher and higher taxes?

I've also seen notes of a 7% tax on income to account for the public option - whether you take the option or not - which is going to hit lower-middle class the hardest.

I also wish that we would step back and keep in mind that a large percentage of the people who "don't have health care" choose not to have it. Not all of them, by any means, but it does weight the numbers significantly. I worry that people who choose not to have health insurance would end up being forced to pay for it or risk being penalized for not having health care, depending on how some of this debate goes.

And, while health bills are a huge contributor to people going bankrupt, I think an even bigger problem is the cost of schooling. I saw an article earlier today that the costs have increased 450% for tuition, books, etc., since '82, and that the rates on defaulting on college loans are increasing incredibly. Maybe if people didn't have to pay more for college than for a house (sometimes per semester!) and then have to deal with predatory loan practices, people would have more money for health care, more people could get an education and get a job that pays enough to have private care or get health care through their job, or something. There are more contributing factors to people not having health care than just people not having access to anything but private health care.

I don't know. I'd support a mixed system of public and private care so long as it was done properly and the system was transparent, or at least more transparent, and there were better systems in place to address issues of health information being improperly accessed and malpractice, and things like this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] . I have never really trusted the US Government when it comes to being objective about things and keeping things from being weighed down by personal opinions as opposed to what the people want.

I dunno. It's a tough thing, but if they do it right, it could be great, but if they do it wrong, it could make a lot of people suffer and be punished for other people's stupidity.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

Not to mention that no solid document is prepared. That's MY major problem with it. There is no definite information available to the public OR the Senate & the House. I really don't like that.

Actually, there is.
except, it's over 1 thousand pages of legalese so thick you could cut it with a machete.

Good Luck.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

I also wish that we would step back and keep in mind that a large percentage of the people who "don't have health care" choose not to have it. Not all of them, by any means, but it does weight the numbers significantly. I worry that people who choose not to have health insurance would end up being forced to pay for it or risk being penalized for not having health care, depending on how some of this debate goes.

So what's the alternative? The GOP hasn't offered an alternative plan - neither House Minority Leader John Boehner or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is out there with opposing legislation. So it really appears that the Republicans in Congress are arguing for the status quo, which sucks. And saying "NO!" and banging on the table is good theatrics, but it's not good policy.

Look, at this point the solution I would like to see for the people who need insurance and can't get it would be expanding Medicare to cover them. Eliminate the "donut hole" on Medicare D coverage, and repeal the ban on the government negotiating lower prices with the drug companies (a practice that every insurance company except Uncle Sam has the power to do).

But no one is pushing for that. So I look at the odd lot coming out of the House and the Senate and basically hope for the best.

This can't wait another 16 years - in the last 8 years alone, a family of four has seen their average insurance premiums double. Within the next decade, insurance premiums will become the majority cost of these families.

I don't know what the answer is to the problem of healthcare in the US - I freely admit that. I do know that the situation over there at the moment sucks for the poor, particularly the working poor, and it's out of step with the rest of the world.

Plus, if you're spending [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] you'd expect the outcomes in terms of longevity and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to be a bit better than it is. You'd expect, for example, that it would come somewhat better than 37th in the World Health Organisation's list of healthcare outcomes. The UK's system, with all its many interesting quirks, comes 18th (spending as a % of GDP 8%). The country at #1 is France (spending as a % of GDP 11%). Value for money? Not so much on the US system, but go France!

It also annoys the living bejeasus out of me when right wing pundits in the US slag off the NHS. Like most British people I love the NHS to little tiny minty balls, and seeing it being abused by people who know nothing about it is like nails on a blackboard.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

I also wish that we would step back and keep in mind that a large percentage of the people who "don't have health care" choose not to have it.

Nice to know I choosed to be denied coverage because of my pre existing conditions.

Gyro's Grillz wrote:

Nice to know I choosed to be denied coverage because of my pre existing conditions.

You know, it strikes me that the most useful change they could make in the short term is to make this 'pre-existing condition' shit illegal when supplying insurance as they do in places like Belgium. (Basically, an insurance system sucks.)

People are acting like, if America gets free healthcare, suddenly all those doctors are going to lose their jobs and Health Insurance Companies will go bankrupt. That's just stupid.

True, Psy-4. While not everybody CHOOSES to have health care, the percentage who CHOOSE not to have it are not so huge that they outweigh the lives of the people who can't afford it.

But as we've discussed, poor people are sub-human and it doesn't matter if they die.

You know what amuses me? All that money the American government spends on nuclear armament programmes, those billions of dollars a year? Just 4-5% of that would pay for National Heath of an equal or higher standard for the entirety of America.
Besides England and Canada do it and we're still around, what the hell is Americas excuse?