How good is American health care?

[bonnie]

I merely pointed out the priorities. For Ukraine, with little resources it did have starting out as independent country, it never abandoned the basic public healthcare system. There are private clinics that do get better treatment due to better technology.

To start "My dad is better than yours because he is landing your dad money" type of argument is immature, and avoids the real issue.

[fccool]

Quote:

I am sorry you don't feel you are getting any benefits from living here.They will become less and less,but overall the benefits from living in the US far exceed those that would have been received in any other country as far as I am concerned

Bonnie, I see that it's a habit of yours to misrepresent people's ideas and attack personally, and suggest them to leave this country... whoever has any conflicting arguments to present that does not match your view.

I believe that you trully hate this country because you don't agree with what I have to say . I am a true patriot, because I care about the people, and because you don't care about the people, I see that you want all of them to be dead . Also, your statement about America should not give any aid to other countries ignores our friends in Israel, you must be an anti-semite. Why do you hate Jewish people, Bonnie? On top of that, you seem to think that Ukrainian people are arrogant. Why do you hold such racist views?

Lol. I really hope other people don't speak to you, the way you speak to them.

[bonnie]

Bonnie, I see that it's a habit of yours to misrepresent people's ideas and attack personally, and suggest them to leave this country... whoever has any conflicting arguments to present that does not match your view.

[fccool]

Quote:

I do not know what circumstance led you to come to this country and obviously the US is much less than you anticipated. Leaving a country that has it's priorities straight and plenty of tax money which would mean a booming economy and coming here must have been hard.If you are disappointed in this country I hope you are not forced to stay unless that is your choice.

You are telling me that in the above there's no hint of invitation to leave? If I you had a roommate in college, and she said to you "I hope you can appreciate the things I have here, otherwise I hope no-one is forcing you to stay in this room, unless this is your choice"... that's pretty much a hit that one should leave if one does not like something, or stay and put up with things they don't like. So, let's not play dumb here.

I appreciate what this country has to offer. Just because I disagree with some things, does not mean that I hate everything, and it does not mean that I should not try to voice my opinion of things that need to be fixed.

You constantly bring up this idea that I as a person from other country should just sit back and appreciate, no matter how much I may disagree with certain things. I understand if I would be alone in my concerns, but there plenty of Americans who would agree with me. They come from various walks of life, and social status.

I this thread you implied that my views are racist/bigoted. You brought up irrelevant issue of Ukraine receiving aid, and you being tired of complaints from people who receive aid (I'm a legal US resident for almost 15 years now and I paid taxes all that time just like you did, and I have little benefit from aid in Ukraine). Then you imply that I should leave if I don't like something, and then you deny that you've ever implied that.

When I do the same thing to you (as a joke to demonstrate how you treat people in conversation), you call me arrogant and impolite?

Lighten up!

If you are ready to discuss this issue without name-calling, or invocation of "so, if you have so much money, why do we give you aid" type of arguments... I welcome it.

I brought up the instance in Ukraine not to show you that Ukrainian healthcare is better, but that it's more accessible. I don't have to worry about losing my life savings in order to get treatment for a broken leg, or for passing out somewhere in the middle of the mall.

[bonnie]

You are telling me that in the above there's no hint of invitation to leave? If I you had a roommate in college, and she said to you "I hope you can appreciate the things I have here, otherwise I hope no-one is forcing you to stay in this room, unless this is your choice"... that's pretty much a hit that one should leave if one does not like something, or stay and put up with things they don't like. So, let's not play dumb here.

[fccool]

Quote:

You are right,but it does not mean you try to fix it by the standards of another country. You seem to think there is a superior medical experience to be gained in the Ukraine,good.I don't want medical care that comes with a warning by the US Embassy.

Why not? What was the War in Iraq all about then, if not trying to take standards of one country and apply it to other?

Quote:

You are quite right.This country is becoming a country of dependents.Everyone wants subsidized something. Day by day more and more are getting in the wagons,demanding more and more from those left to pull it.

First and foremost no one should be sitting on their backside while others pull them along.

You seem to think it a disgrace someone might actually have to pay their own 2,000.00 medical bill.

No, it's not a disgrace. Just like it's not a disgrace when someone can afford a 100,000 car. They deserve it, if they indeed worked hard for it and brought plenty of benefit around them.

It's hard present to you an honest argument which you won't turn into some conspiracy theory, or attack on your Republican/tea party worldview.

Quote:

It would be a disgrace and humiliation to me to demand others pay for that until when and if I had done all in my power to pay it myself.

Well, in this case, I hope you are staying in this country of demanding freeloaders by choice. I hope that no one is keeping you here

Quote:

Leaving that behind it is not that hard to understand why the US disappoints you. It isn't just the medical care as I have seen various other posts of yours. I believe 9/11 was the work of the US.Whatever your reasons for coming I hope the benefit of those reasons outweigh your negatives.Nothing more,nothing less

I have no need to keep misrepresenting your views, the way you misrepresent mine.

[bonnie]

Why not? What was the War in Iraq all about then, if not trying to take standards of one country and apply it to other?

[dialoguewithus]

There are a few major flaws in the US health system.

One is that healthcare is considered more of a commodity than a right. This affects the poor most severely, although there is supposedly a universal right to emergency care, that is obviously too late for optimal health outcomes.

Another problem is the overemphasis on drugs and surgery. Again this is a business, not public service, and that's where the money is. There's insufficient attention to prevention, to nutrition and systemic shortcomings such as lack of access to affordable produce or safe places (such as sidewalks) where people could walk.

Our child mortality rate is twice what is seen in some countries, so obviously the "right to life" movement doesn't necessarily focus its attention quite where they should.

Our cost of healthcare is sky-high, twice what it is is some developed nations. There are many reasons for this, but those listed above probably have something to do with this.

[CoAspen]

[bonnie]

One is that healthcare is considered more of a commodity than a right. This affects the poor most severely, although there is supposedly a universal right to emergency care, that is obviously too late for optimal health outcomes.

[briankkatz]

What are the special outcomes? Have you experience it?

8mm film to DVD

[Sylvia49]

If you have a debilitating, or possibly fatal, disease, no one will treat you without insurance. And if you are on a fixed income, it's either insurance/medicine/or food...

[bonnie]

If you have a debilitating, or possibly fatal, disease, no one will treat you without insurance. And if you are on a fixed income, it's either insurance/medicine/or food...

If you are on a fixed income that generally means medicare age.

There are Dr's and facilities that accept medicare payments only.For those that do not you will not be denied treatment but put on a payment plan. Many of those payment plans go uncollected.

If you do not have prescription part D for medicines there are other avenues to obtain affordable drugs.

During the same period recently I lost two close friends to cancer.One with excellant insurance and one without. Both received great care and treatments.

My nother passed away from cancer pprior to Prescrption D being available.

She was taking Tomoxifan which is a very expensive drug. My siblings and I paid for her insurance and she could not afford the prescription.

Had we chosen to submit her circumstances to the drug company directly she would have paid a fraction of the retail cost.We chose to pay it for her

[fccool]

As I've noted before, the issue is not the availability, it's affordability of healthcare. For uninsured patients, it's generally a choice between their health, and life of medical debt and horrible credit.

Bonnie's argument is that it's not job of the Government to manage healthcare, I really think that it is. Protecting people's heath is as important as protecting them from invasion. Both are life related, and the former costs fraction of what US currently spends on its military expenditures.

In the US people pay over 4 Trillion in taxes. I think part of that should be able to afford them decent healthcare, and not just for seniors and those who can't pay.

If US government can afford a billion dollar Bomber, it can afford decent healthcare for people, without socializing the hospitals.

[bonnie]

As I've noted before, the issue is not the availability, it's affordability of healthcare. For uninsured patients, it's generally a choice between their health, and life of medical debt and horrible credit.

[Naomi]

Quote:

What you think does not a right make.In the US,many people that don't carry insurance could.Eliminate needless spending,the computer,the cell phones,eating out,fast food,cable TV,large screen TV's.All the unnecessary spending in the lives of most would go along way towards taking care of their insurance costs.

Absoluely!!

[bonnie]

Quote:

What you think does not a right make.In the US,many people that don't carry insurance could.Eliminate needless spending,the computer,the cell phones,eating out,fast food,cable TV,large screen TV's.All the unnecessary spending in the lives of most would go along way towards taking care of their insurance costs.

Absoluely!!

When I claim something as a right that takes from others or forces their participation,I have taken away their rights.

[LynnDel]

Paying for insurance is outrageously expensive, and that is partly because people have been duped into getting and are required to get full coverage plans when what most really need is coverage only for catastrophic illnesses or hospitalization. Why pay 600 a month insurance for doctor office visits or prescriptions when you would pay less out of your pocket for the same services?

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Eliminate needless spending,the computer,the cell phones,eating out,fast food,cable TV,large screen TV's.All the unnecessary spending in the lives of most would go along way towards taking care of their insurance costs.

I always find it interesting when people define for others what they need and don't need...regardless of the issue. Round file time!!!!~

[bonnie]

I always find it interesting when people define for others what they need and don't need...regardless of the issue. Round file time!!!!~

Doesn't have anything to do with file time.

If as has been stated people are facing disaster because of lack of medical care,priority in their lives does matter.

Medical insurance should not be expected to pay for all medical costs at a cheap price.

If that is the type of insurance you demand,pay for it.If not,make payments and don't tell me that isn't possible.If you have all the unnecessary services/items mentioned you should be able to handle a minimum payment for your own medical care.

I don't care who it is.Mothers on welfare should not be using medicaid for a routine visit if they have cable/large TV/fast food/computers/.That would more than pay for it. When we did not have insurance and two of our sons needed surgery by specialists

it took some time to pay for it.Unnecessary expenses were stopped. The idea that the majority without medical insurance are on the verge of financial collapse daily is not true.

As for determing what others need and their rights,there isn't any right to infringe on mine so they get theirs

[fccool]

Quote:

If "life related" is the criteria used to determine personal rights,where do you stop that?

It's simply. Life is a right and priority. Anything that threatens it should be diminished by both public and government sectors.

Quote:

What the US spends on military doesn't have anything to do with it.Food is definitely life related.Can we assume then that the government should manage what we eat,how much each person gets as their "right"?

Government does manage what we it through an agency called FTC. It's sole purpose is to eliminate harmful products and make sure that the best and healthiest options are available to US citizens. FTC is sponsored by taxpayer money.

Quote:

What "right" unless you pay for it do you have to the labors of others?

Do you have right to be protected by cops if you don't pay taxes? How about FTC, should it only protect the tax-paying consumers? It makes no sense Bonnie... it's a double standard that you can't get around.

Not having adequate health care is just, and even more dangerous than not having a fire or a police department.

Quote:

Forget about the humanitarian or christian aspect.I live in MN,heat and shelter are obviously "life related".Do I have a "right" to either without paying for it?

Your point is that we should not give these because people abuse it. But it does not have to be that way. We already paying disproportionately for plenty of things that you don't complain. I've already shown you the examples of military.

Universal health is simply as common sense as universal police force. You can have it be managed by states and municipalities, but it should not even be an argument. It's common sense.

Quote:

My husband and I unfortunately are on Medicare.My right to provide my own health insurance was taken from me in favor of the rights of those without. In theory I can opt out of medicare.Practically speaking I cannot. Once you are of medicare age there is no insurance company that will touch you for 80% of your medical costs.To help make sure you do not exercise the "right" to take care of your own costs,opting out of medicare for those that can are penalized.

Right now, without adequate insurance, child delivery for me and my wife would cost us 20k, since she had to deliver cesarean. And given that the child had congenital heart condition, we are expecting a mountain of bills that no insurance will cover due to it potentially considered a "pre-existing condition". Fortunately, my business is doing well-enough that we can handle it.

It's not mine, or child's fault to be born with such condition. Our healthcare penalizes both child and parents with extreme financial hardship if they lack adequate protection from the state or proper insurance.

Once again, it's a common sense that we, as developed nation should be against such. It's not a matter of "what right do you have to my stuff". It's a matter of life and death in many cases. Any person who screams "what's mine is mine" while letting his neighbor die should have no place in healthy society. I think we already established certain social responsibilities and relationships that make sense... and help you.

Quote:

My brother was covered by his business insurance.He and his wife opted out as the coverage continued for awhile after they retired and closed down their business. After trying to get coverage thru other companies and being denied

medicare was their only choice. They could and did do so but are now charged a penalty for their foolishness.

I oppose current establishment. I think we can take the best of our system, and the best from others and create some sort of middle-ground that will be viable.

Part of the issue is that Medicine is a biggest business in US right now. It's 20-25% of the economy. Some of it is great, much of it is negative. It creates a vast gap, and sends the poor further into poverty, and rich are better protected.

Both poor and the rich are members of the same society that we benefit from. Rich benefit far more from the society, thus there's a greater responsibility on their part to return and help. It's not some weird principle from Marx, it's embedded in Biblical ideals. In OT the poor did not pay tithe. Tithes were for them. What right did they have to the tithe of other?

Isn't that your argument?

Quote:

In addition insurance companies that covered 20% could not then cover prescription drugs,enter the government again and forcing me to have a separate plan to ensure the so called "right"of another.

Doesn't even touch on the real cost of government health care.

If I go in with a broken hip it will be treated.

Once again, I don't disagree with you. My relatives are doctors, and the way things work out with current government structure it's an extortion in terms of what they get from Medicare and Medicaid and still have to run a business with employees and etc.

Things can be better, but it does not mean that things are better with no socialized healthcare. We should oppose Obama care. It improves nothing. It just puts more unnecessary burdens on people without providing anything of legitimate advantage.

However, it does not mean that we can't take the best of other countries and fuse with what we have to make thing more affordable.

Quote:

When I needed hip and knee replacement my surgeon advised me to have all "voluntary" medical procedures down before Obama care was fully implemented.Having practiced in countries where "government" considers medical care a right his words to me were "That right is a little bit for everyone and for the rights of others you may be denied based on your value to society".

Once again, I don't disagree with you, but even in these countries you always have an option of seeing a paid specialist. For example, in Ukraine the medicine is socialized, but if you do need an expensive procedure the high-paid specialists are available.

I don't think it's a good idea to homogenize all of the medicine, but there can be great benefit from government-run facilities that are available to anyone. US Military hospitals are government-run and are doing quite well. They are one of the best-managed hospitals in the country, so any "inefficiency" arguments are really fear-mongering.

We should weed out the terrible (Obama care) and provide alternatives.

PS a viable alternative would in fact be voluntary work on part of doctors as their gift back to the society.

Check out projecthugs.org . It's a Chicago initiative by doctors to provide ambulatory surgery free of charge to those who are under-insured or lacking insurance.

The idea is fairly simple. There's downtime in every hospital, and willing doctors (if protected by law adequately) could provide free surgery and care out of abundance of resources. The voluntary nature on part of doctors and administrators is what really makes this thing work.

Quote:

The "rights" of medical personal is being stripped in favor of what you consider "your right"

The "rights" of the medical personal end when a life is threatened. Their job is to preserve life. It's a huge responsibility in a society for which they are more than adequately compensated. I have not meat any needy doctors and nurses yet. All of which I know of are extremely well-paid, and they should be. But they have a responsibility to give back out of abundance that their position provides. Such position is created in constraints of society that each of us help to build. It's an intricate network, to which each of us contribute, so "what's mine is mine" does not work well in such arrangement. It's just a poor argument. We live in a collaborative society.

Quote:

The anesthesiologist that I had for five surgeries is not sure how long he can stay in the profession he loves and has paid a great deal for the education.

The fix is fairly simple. Sponsored education for doctors, supplied by the taxpayer. It's a give-give situation that works well in other countries.

Quote:

His right and my right to have the services of this man is removed for those that claim the "right" to have what they want from the medical community.

I think you got this thing wrong. It's privilege to practice medicine in a community, just like it's a privilege to drive. One has to earn it, and we demand quite a bit in terms of accountability, stress, and sacrifice for those who go through it. That's why these people generally are paid so much.

Medicine is one of the most heavily regulated fields. People don't have "the right" to practice it. It's a privilege given to them.

On the other hand, it's a patient-doctor symbiotic relationship that makes it work. It should never merely be restricted by the ability of the patient to pay for the services. Many simply can't. Doctors are expected, and should give back out of abundance.

Quote:

I made more in a good day cleaning house than he did for the risks involved in his job for medicare patients.In addition his yearly medical malpractice insurance was more than most of us pay for a median home.

Medical malpractice problem is very much due to the medicine falling from government protection into the private sector. It's much tougher to sue government for ridiculous things. Most of the lawyers would not even be willing to waste their time.

But, because current medical field is an extremely profitable business (20% of the economy, the largest sector of the GDP), there's an intensive from both lawyers, jury, and the patients to make a buck by seeking the "wrong".

Socialized healthcare would be a proper remedy, not without pitfalls though.

Quote:

The medical clinic I use is currently weighing the options and the ability to accept medicare patients.Their costs keep rising and what they are paid keeps falling.

Show me if you can where my contribution to your medical care is your right.

It's a really poor argument. Much of the doctors I know, who are friends are terrified at the prospect of loosing Medicare patients. Those are generally the "filler" patients, and even though government pays 30%-%40 of the actual treatment cost, it still keeps many medical businesses running because they would simply not have enough paying patients to fill the schedule.

As far as your demand, if you would be walking by a dying person on the street, I think it's your social responsibility to do something. Medical right is not that different. As a collective society, we can solve the problem with mere buck per day from those who are able. Even if half of us pay in $30/month into some sort of socialized healthcare initiative, that would make up 450 million of available resources per month. If we could focus those resources on education, and prevention, encouraging healthy food choices... then we would not have to spend more.

Healthcare should be more of a priority than police, fire, or military forces.

The chances of me dying of some sort of medical condition are much higher than of being robbed, killed, or our country attacked or invaded.

Quote:

What you think does not a right make.In the US,many people that don't carry insurance could.Eliminate needless spending,the computer,the cell phones,eating out,fast food,cable TV,large screen TV's.All the unnecessary spending in the lives of most would go along way towards taking care of their insurance costs.

This is once again, very terrible and oversimplified argument of "beggers will just buy booze with it" type of reasoning.

In our society cell-phone is a cheap necessity for a job. I don't have a land-line, and it costs me next to nothing to own one.

Likewise, cable, LCDs and etc is just your way of latching on to materialistic abundance aspect of the argument, and avoiding the problem. It's generally the last resort argument that I hear people with such view make.

And it really makes little sense. Just because people can afford LCD TV at certain point of time, does not mean that they can eventually afford healthcare. Things can turn around for people in a heartbeat, it does not mean that they should not buy things like TVs.

We really can take that argument so far as to say that people really don't need cars, houses, or apartments, and can live on rations of PB&J and share room with 5 other people.

[fccool]

Quote:

Doesn't have anything to do with file time.

If as has been stated people are facing disaster because of lack of medical care,priority in their lives does matter.

Medical insurance should not be expected to pay for all medical costs at a cheap price.

If that is the type of insurance you demand,pay for it.If not,make payments and don't tell me that isn't possible.If you have all the unnecessary services/items mentioned you should be able to handle a minimum payment for your own medical care.

I don't care who it is.Mothers on welfare should not be using medicaid for a routine visit if they have cable/large TV/fast food/computers/.That would more than pay for it. When we did not have insurance and two of our sons needed surgery by specialists

it took some time to pay for it.Unnecessary expenses were stopped. The idea that the majority without medical insurance are on the verge of financial collapse daily is not true.

As for determing what others need and their rights,there isn't any right to infringe on mine so they get theirs

I think it's a rather naive and desperate view to hold on to this idea that poor really have everything they need to, but they are cheating all of us by buying TVs and driving expensive cars.

Just because you single a few out does not mean that the rest are such. There's no real way of separating those who need help from those who do... unless you are planning for social visits and regulation of what people can and can't buy.

Our societal system is based on trust. Some will abuse it, but it should not stop us from maintaining certain ideals.

[CoAspen]

[bonnie]

I think it's a rather naive and desperate view to hold on to this idea that poor really have everything they need to, but they are cheating all of us by buying TVs and driving expensive cars.

[bonnie]

While you may disagree with personal comments by the author the stats are a matter of record.

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

A bit dated, but an interesting article.

Published on August 27, 2007 by Robert Rector Backgrounder #2064

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.