Why people are afraid of universal health care

[Elixir]

“But I do not lack the means of feeding myself.“

Might that have to do with not being incarcerated?

 

[Elixir]

I has one prblem with a pharmcy. I called Medcare to complain and it was quicky resolved.

Heh! Medicare reps carry a VERY big stick, at least in the minds of insurance companies. One call always does it IME.

 

[bilby]

The fundamental problem is that voters will look at how the system fares for them. So long as it does a good job with the routine and does a good job with emergencies a very large number of voters will consider it to be working acceptably. The patients that get royally screwed of course say it's not working, but there aren't enough of them to make the politicians vote for increasing the spending.

Congratulations, you have identified the key differences between a democracy and an aristocracy.

Democracy sucks, if you are a wealthy aristocrat.

That doesn't mean that we should fear democracy.

 

[bilby]

I suspect that what's happening is bashers...

Not agreeing with your incorrect position does not make someone a "basher", it just makes you "wrong".

 

[Toni]

Needing to eat is neither an indulgence nor an offence, but a misfortune. So if the above quote attributed* to Bevan were valid reasoning then it would imply agriculture should be socialized food should be provided to hungry people

FTFY.

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

If you lack the means of feeding yourself, it should be.

But I do not lack the means of feeding myself. Do you have any other grounds to think the cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community?

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

ummm... soup kitchen? Food banks? DUH!

Soup kitchens and food banks have better uses for their limited resources than providing breakfast to a rich guy like me. DUH!

What appears to have escaped you two, though probably not bilby, is that this is not a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to poor people who can't afford it should be shared by the community. It's a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to people who can afford it should also be shared by the community anyway even though we're perfectly capable of paying the doctor or a private cost-pooler ourselves. It's a debate about the U.S. model vs. the British model. The U.S. has long socialized the cost of care for the impoverished; it's called "Medicaid". (The U.S. even abolished private medical insurance, back in 2010 -- although what we have instead is still labeled "insurance", it stopped being the real thing when the ACA outlawed exclusion of preexisting conditions.)

The point of Marshall's philosophical claim Bilby quoted upthread (and of similar claims Bevan actually made*) was never that poor people should get their care paid for by the rest of us, but rather that "no element of commercialism should enter between doctor and patient".

My point is that that's an idiotic way to decide public policy. Whether socialized care of the poor and/or socialized feeding of the poor is better done by socializing the whole system from top to bottom, or instead by providing subsidies and directed attention to the poor while leaving those capable of fending for ourselves to do so, is a complicated technical question with costs and benefits in both directions to be traded off. Any intelligent attempt to answer it for health care needs to focus on the problems specific to health care, not on philosophical nonsense that doesn't know the difference between a medical clinic and a kitchen.

(* For instance, "The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.")

So why shouldn’t the wealthy assist those less fortunate?

Bilby and I are ion a reasonable income, but we still help those less fortunate than us - particularly in my job as a teacher. I buy fruit for brain break, and so many pencils (fuck me can those kids eat them or what?), just so my kids can learn.

Only arrogant selfish people think that the poor shouldn’t receive assistance.

Hey, if I can afford to go to a better dr for surgery through private health insurance, sure.. my arugument is that that same surgeon should, and mostly would, offer their services to someone not insured. The only difference, IMO, is the use of private to ‘jump the queue’ for non essential life saving surgery.

Case in point, a lady at school and I are the same age. We both have horrible knees….. she waited a year for a knee replacement because she went public. It was deemed category three with means get to it within a year. I needed knee surgery and it was was done within a few weeks. I still didn’t pay much (as per above), which is how insurance is supposed to work.

The US system sucks! Plain and simple. Health care should be for everyone. Simple.

The US system sucks in its willingness to afford everyone good access to excellent care. Unfortunately, the will to do this varies by state and to some degree proximity to excellent health care centers. My state does a good job protecting biding free/low cost care to those who need it. Unfortunately, there are still employers who refuse to provide adequate affordable insurance to their employees. Also concerning is that local governmental bodies, including school systems cannot afford to provide the best insurance options for their employees and generally, neither can smaller employers. However, the state offers pretty good insurance plans at affordable rates to all state employees. It is my absolute firm belief that every single governmental body: turn, county, etc. should be included in that state insurance plan or have that option, as well as farmers and they’re employees and small businesses. It would be, in fact, a test run of UHC.

The drawbacks I observe are that a lot of providers limit the number of their Medicaid ( low income) patients and increasingly, Medicare patients because Medicare and Medicaid pay so poorly, often not covering the actual cost of treatment. THAT needs to change. NOW. Otherwise, we stand at very serious risk of losing our excellent health care.

 

[steve_bank]

National health care would require a compromise that is near impossible.

Bernie Sanders would say all health care should be free without qualification. No concerns about cost.

Conservatives would say socialized medicine would lead to the end of free market economics and personal freedom of choice.

Another related problem I heard from doctors is that the government effectively controls the number of doctors.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well I hope our future President Harris and our future Democrat controlled legislature can advance the ACA a little further.

As I get older I've been distancing myself from the VA and moving more towards Tricare. It costs a bit but not so much I can't afford it. The only thing they really hit you on is the copays. It can be as much as $150 per visit. So when Cleveland Clinic tries to send me on the rounds in consult purgatory, I know to ask questions and get solid answers. My first carpal tunnel surgery had me see four different individuals before I finally got to the surgery. They were all just $50 each but still. This time, my surgery being in two weeks, I only have the presurgery and then surgery: $119 total so says my portal access. The good doctor gave me his direct contact and told me not to go through my PCM. Though the doctor has an office in Bath, more near me, I have to go all the way to Akron because while it says Cleveland Clinic on the building and the doctors are Cleveland Clinic employees, the actual facility is owned by someone else and they do not accept my low payout government coverage. Probably owned by a group of rich fuckers who live in Bath. I can come up with a humorous turn of phrase or two it being in Bath and all but I'll spare you.

No matter what lame reasons others may come up with arguing against UHC comparing the US to other countries, we can afford to do this and do it well.

 

[zorq]

I just saw this thread and it pissed me off so much. Argument from annecdote? WTF?

Let me tell you my own anecdote. My mom was a wonderful person. She was a public school teacher in the US and therefore had pretty good insurance. During a routine test the doctor saw something concerning and ordered the logical followup test. Insurance denied coverage. She could have paid for the followup test out of pocket, but she didn't have the money after a divorce. So she didn't wait 6 months, she waited 3 years for that followup test because that was when Federal law required insurance companies to cover that test. 3 years later she gets the test and she has stage 4 cancer. She fights it but she is dead within a year.

Fucking shit it pisses me off.

Sad irony is that if the insurance company had covered her test they wouldn't have had to cover all her expensive cancer treatments. Plus I would still have my mother. (She was 50 when she died) This OP feels like a sick joke.

 

[steve_bank]

There has to be a cutoff point. Otherwise there is no bounds on costs.

Not knowing the specifics of Zorg's mother's case it is an anecdotal story.

 

[bilby]

There has to be a cutoff point. Otherwise there is no bounds on costs.

Not knowing the specifics of Zorg's mother's case it is an anecdotal story.

Enough specifics were provided to note that in that case, the costs to the insurer were greater because of their penny-pinching policy.

So, yes, there has to be a cutoff point; But US medical insurance providers are far worse than physicians at deciding where that cutoff point belongs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Heh. Before he hooked up with his PA, pulled up stakes and left town, my previous Doc referred me to a slew of specialists. I started cancelling screenings/tests immediately, but kept the consultation appointments. So far the only consult that did NOT make me feel free and unconcerned about declining stuff, was with the dermatologist, who helped me get rid of the pre-cancerous lesions that came from sun exposure. Other than that …I took a pass on most all the rest. I cancelled the “follow up consultation” with the cardiologist yesterday. He had some concern about swelling of the lower aorta, but all they can do is scan after scan after scan - no mention of interventions in case they don’t like what the scans show. From what I gather, it would come down to “ok you’re gonna die, go into hospice”.
I am not interested in spending the rest of my life trying to extend the rest of my life. But I am very interested in how much of our total medical resources are going to unnecessary, possibly harmful, and manifestly ineffective procedures, tests and treatments. I think UHC would cut down on that crap.

I have been on an Advantage plan for five years. It's criminal how much money they waste trying to get my wife and myself into these additional procedures. I just got another call today to remind me about their additional "free" service. If it was actually insurance and not a money making boondoggle it wouldn't be so expensive.

I chose to forego the Advantage (scam) offer. The number of private Vompaies advertising it is a dead giveaway. Instead I have enlisted an advisor who helped me shop the Medicare menu and order a la carte. Advantage would have “disadvantaged” me to the tune of another 3k/yr. The only tangible upfront “benefit” would have been the “Silver Sneaker” program that would have gotten me a free pass to the pool (my main regular exercise is lap swimming). But the pool pass only costs around $300 annually, so … no.

Around here you save money by going the MA route. When I hit that age I'm not going to, though--they make their money by limiting access.

It depends what you can take “advantage” of. I did a realistic assessment and there was no contest. Your situation - and the plan benefits - may vary.

The problem comes from the stuff you can't assess as well--access to providers and the like.

 

[Elixir]

The problem comes from the stuff you can't assess as well--access to providers and the like.

Zackly.
The challenge of bringing together the best hardware and software, with the best medical specialists in an array of fields, and delivering it all to people including those in rural areas … I dunno. Quite daunting. Air medical transport is a thriving institution around here, despite the fact that the local hospital is geared up real good. .

 

[bilby]

The problem comes from the stuff you can't assess as well--access to providers and the like.

Zackly.
The challenge of bringing together the best hardware and software, with the best medical specialists in an array of fields, and delivering it all to people including those in rural areas … I dunno. Quite daunting. Air medical transport is a thriving institution around here, despite the fact that the local hospital is geared up real good. .

Under UHC, no provider is out of plan, because there's only one plan, and everyone's in it.