National Healthcare. What do you think of it?

[Hawks]

I'm quite surprised there wasn't already a thread about this. It'd be interesting to find out what you think about a national healthcare system...

 

 

 

-Do you have one where you live?

 

-Have you had experience with it? (either with specialty/emergency care or standard care)

 

-Do you think the US should switch to it?

 

-Why/why not?

 

 

 

Some of the details in the plan that Congress is currently working through:

 

-You would go before a panel and they would decide if you needed this treatment or not.

 

-Obama has said that private insurance companies would be allowed to remain operating

 

-I'm unsure exactly about general care and how it would work. If you have details, please share.

 

 

 

I'll post back with my thoughts in a bit. Gonna try and find the bill online somewhere.

 

 

 

Here is a link to the United States National Health Care Act (or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676)) in pdf form.

 

Full Bill: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

 

Shortened version (30Pgs) http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final1.pdf

 

 

 

Also the Wikipedia page on the bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... h_Care_Act

[forestfrolic]

There is no such thing as a 'death panel'.

 

 

 

http://factcheck.org/

[Flyingjj]

Here's the link to the BIG U.S. Healthcare reform bill:

 

WARNING: 1018 pages in PDF format. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[Kenshinjapan]

I believe that it would be nice to have one, but not at this time. America is already in debt and I believe that a country should be profiting before it begins spending again.

[forestfrolic]

I believe that it would be nice to have one, but not at this time. America is already in debt and I believe that a country should be profiting before it begins spending again.

 

 

 

Compared to a lot of other things, the cost of this program is small.

[Kenshinjapan]

I believe that it would be nice to have one, but not at this time. America is already in debt and I believe that a country should be profiting before it begins spending again.

 

 

 

Compared to a lot of other things, the cost of this program is small.

 

 

 

I know, but I don't encourage ANY spending. I was practically raised to believe that credit cards and debt were one of the worst things you could get in to :?.

[Hawks]

This is the text from the Library of Congress, I'm pretty sure it's the actual text of the bill.

 

 

 

[hide=SEC. 102]SEC. 102. BENEFITS AND PORTABILITY.

 

 

 

(a) In General- The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including--

 

 

 

(1) primary care and prevention;

 

 

 

(2) inpatient care;

 

 

 

(3) outpatient care;

 

 

 

(4) emergency care;

 

 

 

(5) prescription drugs;

 

 

 

(6) durable medical equipment;

 

 

 

(7) long term care;

 

 

 

(8) mental health services;

 

 

 

(9) the full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry);

 

 

 

(10) substance abuse treatment services;

 

 

 

(11) chiropractic services; and

 

 

 

(12) basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).

 

 

 

(B) Portability- Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.

 

 

 

© No Cost-sharing- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.[/hide]

 

Covers all 'medically necessary procedures' as deemed medically necessary by who? My doctor can say I need an insulin pump and at this point, almost all private insurance companies will cover it, even if the person is 80. If you're on Medicare/Medicaid/Children's Special Health they don't cover the pump. (however if you already have it, they do cover the supplies). A person can't afford to buy one themselves. They're $4000-$5000.

 

 

 

[hide=SEC. 104]SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.

 

 

 

(a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.

 

 

 

(B) Construction- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary.[/hide]

 

Can't keep your own insurance under the text of this bill. Unless this means something totally different from what it says, but I don't know how they could pull that off.

 

[hide=SEC 203]SEC. 203. PAYMENT FOR LONG-TERM CARE.

 

 

 

(a) Allotment for Regions- The Program shall provide for each region a single budgetary allotment to cover a full array of long-term care services under this Act.

 

 

 

(B) Regional Budgets- Each region shall provide a global budget to local long-term care providers for the full range of needed services, including in-home, nursing home, and community based care.

 

 

 

© Basis for Budgets- Budgets for long-term care services under this section shall be based on past expenditures, financial and clinical performance, utilization, and projected changes in service, wages, and other related factors.

 

 

 

(d) Favoring Non-Institutional Care- All efforts shall be made under this Act to provide long-term care in a home- or community-based setting, as opposed to institutional care.[/hide]

 

So there will be a set amount of money available for long-term care in each region. How will they decide who gets what? Hmmm.... RATIONING. And their defense is that it happens already:

 

 

 

So I'm obviously against this bill.

 

 

 

And if you want to see some really poor defenses/propaganda... http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/?e=10&ref=text

 

 

 

Oh and you DON'T SPEND MONEY TO MAKE MONEY!

[forestfrolic]

EDIT.

[Racheya]

I think that a national healthcare system should be brought in. I don't see why as human beings, we must pay to stay alive. Sure, like the NHS over here it'll probably take months to get an operation, and the quality won't be outstanding. But it's free. Nobody should have to pay for good health.

[Nero]

I always found it funny how America pays the most for health care, has one of the lowest quality of health care (out of the first world industrialized nations), and yet so many Americans still think they have the best care in the world. Yay propaganda!

 

 

 

Seriously, you guys are getting scammed so hard.

[fastortoise]

Ce que le gouvernement donne, il doit d'abord le prendre!

[Hawks]

By the way, the other bill is H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) That one's a lot longer and covers a lot more crap.

[Earth_Poet]

-Do you have one where you live?

 

No

 

 

 

-Have you had experience with it? (either with specialty/emergency care or standard care)

 

Yes, in the military.

 

 

 

-Do you think the US should switch to it?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

-Why/why not?

 

It probably won't matter. The same fear mongering tactics look like they'll work like they always have in the past with this issue. I laugh when I hear "death panels". That was born out of the "they're going to ration healthcare" farce. Healthcare is already being rationed in this country.

[Kaida23]

If the USA does go to a national health care system, they should work it so that people can still use the private facilities that their insurance currently pays for. That way, they get the best of both worlds.

 

 

 

A bit of food for thought: right now in Canada (at least in Ontario) the health care system can take upwards of 3 months to get an MRI at an "approved" clinic, usually in a hospital. If I go to a private clinic I can get one in under a week, but I have to pay for it myself.

 

 

 

I've heard a lot of Americans want national health care. If they're not careful about how it is administered, it could be a case of getting what they want, but not wanting what they get.

[Lateralus]

If the USA does go to a national health care system, they should work it so that people can still use the private facilities that their insurance currently pays for. That way, they get the best of both worlds.

 

 

 

A bit of food for thought: right now in Canada (at least in Ontario) the health care system can take upwards of 3 months to get an MRI at an "approved" clinic, usually in a hospital. If I go to a private clinic I can get one in under a week, but I have to pay for it myself.

 

 

 

I've heard a lot of Americans want national health care. If they're not careful about how it is administered, it could be a case of getting what they want, but not wanting what they get.

 

 

 

Each system has its merits. I once heard a Canadian remark that he'd rather be in Canada if he sprained his ankle, but like to be in America if he needed an MRI. I think some states (or tri-state areas) have more MRI machines than the whole of Canada.

[The Dark Lord]

We've already been discussing this topic for pages on the other thread: "American Propaganda Commercial".

 

 

 

Anyway, I think it's a great idea for the people that can't afford health insurance. I doubt that national healthcare would be perfect, but I don't think that it'll be some doomsday scenario that most Republicans are claiming that it'll become. I think it's a good system as far as medical treatment goes, but it definitely needs reform in other areas, which includes the people that can't afford health insurance (and thus prevents them from getting treatment because of the astronomical prices without insurance) and the fact that frivolous medical lawsuits have been increasing over the past few years.

[StrOwez]

let's put it this way; it will save more lives.

[Kaida23]

let's put it this way; it will save more lives.

 

Not necessarily. Part of saving lives is timely care, right? Remember my MRI example from before? That's the kind of "timely care" sociallized health care has brought people in my country/province.

 

 

 

FYI: No hospital in the states can turn you away if you need life-saving medical care. There is legislation in place to prevent it. They may send you a bill afterward, but they will help you.

[1_man_army]

let's put it this way; it will save more lives.

 

Not necessarily. Part of saving lives is timely care, right? Remember my MRI example from before? That's the kind of "timely care" sociallized health care has brought people in my country/province.

 

 

 

FYI: No hospital in the states can turn you away if you need life-saving medical care. There is legislation in place to prevent it. They may send you a bill afterward, but they will help you.

 

 

 

Some people in the US who have existing health care plans may receive better care by staying on their current plans but a national system will undoubtedly help save the lives of some of the 45 million people in America who don't have any health care/insurance and benefit those who don't have enough. The beauty of the plan is that people with plans that are better the the government system can choose to stay on the plan they are on. A national system may not be perfect but it is better than the nothing that many receive.

 

 

 

Sure no hospital can turn you away for life threatening ailments but they can send you away for everything else including care that could help prevent life threatening ailments from happening in the first place. So people without health care will still clearly suffer from it.

[deathdrow]

I think it'd work eventually, but now isn't a good time for it to happen.

[Rebdragon]

It's a stupid idealized idea that's going to bankrupt the country, permanently damage the economy and destroy the private health sector.

 

 

 

So no, I dont think it's a good idea.

[Giordano]

The United States has two options.

 

 

 

1) Pass this socialzied health care and provide free treatment, but of less quality.

 

 

 

2) Lower the GOD DAMN MOTHER[bleep]ING PRICES! $8 for a painkiller pill during pregnancy? What the hell? $500-600 dollars a month for insurance? The heads of the insurance companies are getting richer with our suffering. THEY'RE the problem here.

[1_man_army]

It's a stupid idealized idea that's going to bankrupt the country, permanently damage the economy and destroy the private health sector.

 

 

 

So no, I dont think it's a good idea.

 

 

 

If you guys actually worked it properly it isn't too hard to pay for. Currently, the UK spends 8.4% of GDP on healthcare (primarily the NHS) while US spends 16.2%, that tells it's own story. If the money is spent correctly, there should be no effect on the economy.

[Rebdragon]

I'm not extremely familiar with European healthcare systems, but if I remember correctly the UK is fairly socialized, right? I'm asking 'cause I'd like to know how much of each of those percentages is payed for directly by the government\ and how much of them is payed for by individuals and private insurance companies.

 

 

 

EDIT: I think I'm reading your post wrong. Are those numbers purely based on government spending? And if so, what exactly is the country doing wrong?

[1_man_army]

I'm not extremely familiar with European healthcare systems, but if I remember correctly the UK is fairly socialized, right? I'm asking 'cause I'd like to know how much of each of those percentages is payed for directly by the government\ and how much of them is payed for by individuals and private insurance companies.

 

 

 

EDIT: I think I'm reading your post wrong. Are those numbers purely based on government spending? And if so, what exactly is the country doing wrong?

 

 

 

I'm not sure if they're based just off of government spending or not but I did find them surprising when they were mentioned on BBC in fact, I had to double check before I posted.

 

 

 

This was from the article I looked up to check the figures:

 

Q. How does he propose to control costs?

 

 

 

A. That's a bit vague. In 2007 the US spent $2.2trn (£1.34trn at then prevailing exchange rates) on healthcare, against the UK's £118bn. The UK's spend was 8.4 per cent of GDP, the US's 16.2 per cent. Since wages and salaries represent 60 per cent of costs, big cuts are hard to find. Obama has talked about cutting out ineffective treatments but is unlikely to find huge savings that way. Hard as it is to stop costs rising, it is much easier than cutting them once they are high.