Health Care for Everyone

[Swift]

Because ideally, they would have to provide a service that meets a set standard - in theory a set standard voted for by the public, not to mention any decisions would be taken (again, ideally) in the best interests for keeping the organisation running and providing a service.

I would argue that most companies are more concerned about public image then the government. I say that because without the public support, most companies can't survive. So, while they do of course keep the bottom line in mind when determining what to pay for(the insurance company not employer) too many denials and people will get wind of that and split. How can you get off the government plan when there is nothing else?

Whereas an private company has no duty to the public, it is driven by profit. If a part or all of its services are not profitable it can choose to completely shut down those services - something that perhaps government-run services cannot do (or rather, finds more difficult to do).

Granted, the government has never shutdown a welfare-like program, they just make them so they keep the people they "help" in the same position.

There are pros and cons for both sides, a private company has the prospect of competition that drives services to improve and beat each other on quality whereas a government organisation does not need to improve, only match the public's lowest expectations.

Ok, this link here:
Percentage of Denied claims by company/

Granted it's a few years old. But guess what? Medicare was at the highest percentage just above Aetna. It is conventional wisdom that the government would be more "compassionate" then a private company. But the numbers don't bare that out if you consider denials a lack of compassion.

 

[Keef]

I know I'm only 16, but I am in support of high taxes and big government. The whole point of the government is to help the people, IMHO. Also, the healthcare industry can charge people ridiculous amounts of money for a policy, then not pay for things. Although the government is very bureaucratic, I think it would be better than the large corporations at providing good healthcare.

The reason private business can do the job fundamentally better than government is because private business has a profit-motive and government does not.

If a private business does not profit, they do not survive, and therefore they must satisfy the customer in order to survive and make money.

Conversely, governments are not motivated by profits. By definition, government controls with force. Government actually translates into Latin literally as "control mind", or more contextually, "control of the people". It operates based on force, not profit. It's goal is not to please customers, but to control the populace. There is no motivation to satisfy the people. That's why our Constitution severely limits the power of the Federal government, giving most powers to the people - powers with which we are supposed to keep our government in check so it doesn't overstep its bounds. When you put a bunch of powerful people in one room without the threat of failure through bankruptcy as in a corporation, then they will attempt to seize as much power as possible because that's all they can do. It's up to the people to make sure they only do what they're allowed to do.

And that's why government should not be in charge of such things. It sets a precedent that can potentially allow them to control everything, and that's how you end up with communist and fascist regimes which oppress the people and ultimately fail.

I know it sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory to many people but all they have to do is pick up a history book and realize that societies have failed countless times throughout human history specifically because of out-of-control governments abusing their powers socially and economically.

 

[arora]

It really is nothing more then giving the majority rights to trample the minority is it?

I'll say this; The gran ol party is perverse in it's desire to throttle abilities, the left whatever they say, are strict in bringing everyone down.

 

[Keef]

It really is nothing more then giving the majority rights to trample the minority is it?

I don't know what "it" is but you've just described Democracy.

 

[arora]

Oops, "is'nt" lol, yes you are correct of course.

It being, those dirty louse who actually do anything?

 

[FoolKiller]

Because ideally, they would have to provide a service that meets a set standard - in theory a set standard voted for by the public, not to mention any decisions would be taken (again, ideally) in the best interests for keeping the organisation running and providing a service.

Sadly, I can't find a single government-run group that meets this. The closest thing to a business that they have is the US Postal Service, which is losing millions every year while constantly reducing service and/or charging more while rarely meeting the quality desired by the people. If I am shipping something I always choose the private competition and we have transferred all bills to electronic transfer. The one bill that doesn't have that option, the water bill, we drive to the office ourselves.

But then it is easy to see how things get screwed up by government so much. The agency that is supposed to find ways to foster effective and transparent government was busted throwing an $822,000 party in Vegas.

So all evidence points to government being unable or too corrupt to do the job they are supposed to do. Why do I want them in charge of my healthcare?

 

[Encyclopedia]

That's like forcing somone to go out and buy McDonalds because the government said you had to. It's just silly.

Well no one needs McDonalds. Unlike medical services.

 

[arora]

Well no one needs McDonalds. Unlike medical services.

So because the government says I need medical services I'm forced to pay by law? I might need to cut my toenail because it keeps cutting my socks, maybe I like holy socks.

What we actually need is less regulation in order to encourage competition, leading to lower prices and better services, if they feel so compelled to regulate let them put a stop to all the frivolous lawsuits and such.

 

[Encyclopedia]

So because the government says I need medical services I'm forced to pay by law? I might need to cut my toenail because it keeps cutting my socks, maybe I like holy socks.

What we actually need is less regulation in order to encourage competition, leading to lower prices and better services, if they feel so compelled to regulate let them put a stop to all the frivolous lawsuits and such.

Not quite what I meant. I was just thinking the comparison was a little off.

 

[arora]

Well if Obama care goes into effect, it's much more likely the gov will tell you you can't buy Mcd's.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Well if Obama care goes into effect, it's much more likely the gov will tell you you can't buy Mcd's.

Obamacare seems very odd.

My government doesn't force me not to eat McDonalds and we have free healthcare.

 

[Danoff]

Obamacare seems very odd.

My government doesn't force me not to eat McDonalds and we have free healthcare.

*yet*

"free"

"healthcare"

 

[FoolKiller]

My government doesn't force me not to eat McDonalds and we have free healthcare.

The trend in the US is to ban or regulate the selling of what they deem to be unhealthy. They already told McDonald's what kind of cooking oil they can use, they've begun finding ways to regulate sugar, and are looking to find ways to do it with salt.

They won't make it illegal for me to buy McDonald's, but they'll make it illegal for McDonald's to sell me certain things. The result is the same. They do the same thing with things like light bulbs and toilets now. In a few years it will be illegal to sell me a certain kind of bulb, which happens to be the kind I prefer. I can still use them, just no one can sell it to me.

 

[arora]

Don't you sleep better at night knowing you're being saved from your reckless lighting behaviors?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

The trend in the US is to ban or regulate the selling of what they deem to be unhealthy. They already told McDonald's what kind of cooking oil they can use, they've begun finding ways to regulate sugar, and are looking to find ways to do it with salt.

They won't make it illegal for me to buy McDonald's, but they'll make it illegal for McDonald's to sell me certain things. The result is the same. They do the same thing with things like light bulbs and toilets now. In a few years it will be illegal to sell me a certain kind of bulb, which happens to be the kind I prefer. I can still use them, just no one can sell it to me.

That's like cigarettes here, you can smoke them when you are 16, but can't buy them unless they're 18 or 19 I believe?

 

[Encyclopedia]

*yet*

"free"

"healthcare"

Well it hasn't happened yet. And we've had socialised healthcare for a very long time.

I was actually going to add "" to free as it is not technically free. But oh well.

 

[Danoff]

Also technically not what I would consider healthcare since socialization does its best to neuter research and development.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Also technically not what I would consider healthcare since socialization does its best to neuter research and development.

We're doing pretty well in medical research. Not as good as you guys maybe but still pretty good. Considering what a tiny country we are populationwise. There's only 9 million of us.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

Obamacare seems very odd.

My government doesn't force me not to eat McDonalds and we have free healthcare.

Your tax money goes toward healthcare. So technically it's not free.

In Canada there is healthcare for everyone because most believe healthcare is a right for everyone, as it should be. Why doesn't America feel this way, it boggles my mind.

But then again, Canada's population (30 million) is smaller than the US, we have less criminals (So we spend less on our prison system).

Maybe if, I don't know.

It's as if Americans think doing something that could be beneficial to every US resident is bad. As if doing one thing that is socialist goes against everything you stand for. Kind of ridiculous.

I support "Free" Health Care, however the Obama care idea is stupid. Forcing people to buy health insurance which is privatized is just awful. If you are a government and want healthcare to be available for every citizen, shouldn't you use tax money from the citizens to fund it? Rather than say "YOU HAVE TO GET THIS."?

 

[FoolKiller]

Don't you sleep better at night knowing you're being saved from your reckless lighting behaviors?

I would, but I can only admire their work when the lights are on, which keeps me awake.

Why doesn't America feel this way, it boggles my mind.

Everyone has access to health care. No one can be turned away from emergency treatment.

But when you guarantee a service and government pays all doctors the exact same there is little incentive for a doctor or office to be better than another. I've switched doctors based on receptionist behavior when the doctors are the same. I also have doctors 50 miles from home, despite similar doctors being less than 5 miles from home, because of doctor quality or bedside manner. If enough patients react similarly the office has to get better or lose money. If government pays them then they don't have an incentive as long as they feel they are doing their jobs how they think they should.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Your tax money goes toward healthcare. So technically it's not free.

I know. How does it get financed in Canada?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

In Canada healthcare is run by the provinces, not federally. Basically in Ontario, if you are a citizen, you have an Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) card. This card allows you to have doctors visits, go to the emergency, have surgeries etc. This method has been in effect for a long time and works. And foolkiller, doctors shouldn't need incentives, they should simply do the job right in the first place. That's like me demanding a chocolate bar so I do my best on my homework. You realize how dumb that sounds right?

 

[Encyclopedia]

In Canada healthcare is run by the provinces, not federally. Basically in Ontario, if you are a citizen, you have an Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) card. This card allows you to have doctors visits, go to the emergency, have surgeries etc. This method has been in effect for a long time and works. And foolkiller, doctors shouldn't need incentives, they should simply do the job right in the first place. That's like me demanding a chocolate bar so I do my best on my homework. You realize how dumb that sounds right?

I see. But where does the money come from if not the people?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

From taxes of course. My whole problem with Obamacare is, that if you are the government and you force people to get healthcare, surely the healthcare should be run by the government, because forcing citizens to pay for a private service goes back to the whole McDonalds example. The whole point about Canadian healthcare is that it isn't free, but being that the taxpayers fund it, it is available for every citizens. Also, not every doctor gets paid the same, we're not communist. The more qualifications you have, the more you are paid. Also worth noting is that hospitals are privately owned and run, albeit with government oversight.

 

[Encyclopedia]

From taxes of course. My whole problem with Obamacare is, that if you are the government and you force people to get healthcare, surely the healthcare should be run by the government, because forcing citizens to pay for a private service goes back to the whole McDonalds example. The whole point about Canadian healthcare is that it isn't free, but being that the taxpayers fund it, it is available for every citizens. Also, not every doctor gets paid the same, we're not communist. The more qualifications you have, the more you are paid. Also worth noting is that hospitals are privately owned and run, albeit with government oversight.

Ah I see. I somehow interpreted your first reply as saying we don't have free healtcare but you do.

 

[Ardius]

I'm not going to quote everything a page ago (as there 3 or 4 responses to my post its going to be a bit much) but to add my response;

I'm not arguing one way or another which is best, only presenting the "why" for why government-owned healthcare.
I personally don't think its as straightforward as either side likes to make out. Many people overhere naturally believe that government-run services can be the only conclusion to this question. They only worry that private-run companies will focus too much on profit and shut down parts of services or operate in a way that isn't particularly favourable for the general public.
But it seems in the US the opposite is true - you guys seem to only worry that a government-run service will lack the incentive that profit brings and that the overall quality and standard will be dropped in favour of simply running the service.

I'm just explaining there are positives to go with the negatives for both sides. I don't think I really have a stance on this issue as its difficult to really say which is better. I would prefer a "best of both worlds" if that was at all possible but I guess I'm naturally always going to lean towards government-run services being a better overall principle simply because that is what I have grown up with.
But I can totally see why private-run services can be better. I'm not arguing against that at all.

Personally I'm not sure the US should have government healthcare simply because it is not how their culture currently works. It seems difficult for many people to accept such a dramatic turn in how their society works and I'm not sure its really such a great benefit overall. Its not so much trading a poor service for a better service or vice versa. Just changing it to a different one with different pros and cons.

 

[Encyclopedia]

^ That pretty much sums up what I think about it.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not going to quote everything a page ago (as there 3 or 4 responses to my post its going to be a bit much) but to add my response;

I'm not arguing one way or another which is best, only presenting the "why" for why government-owned healthcare.
I personally don't think its as straightforward as either side likes to make out. Many people overhere naturally believe that government-run services can be the only conclusion to this question. They only worry that private-run companies will focus too much on profit and shut down parts of services or operate in a way that isn't particularly favourable for the general public.
But it seems in the US the opposite is true - you guys seem to only worry that a government-run service will lack the incentive that profit brings and that the overall quality and standard will be dropped in favour of simply running the service.

I'm just explaining there are positives to go with the negatives for both sides. I don't think I really have a stance on this issue as its difficult to really say which is better. I would prefer a "best of both worlds" if that was at all possible but I guess I'm naturally always going to lean towards government-run services being a better overall principle simply because that is what I have grown up with.
But I can totally see why private-run services can be better. I'm not arguing against that at all.

Personally I'm not sure the US should have government healthcare simply because it is not how their culture currently works. It seems difficult for many people to accept such a dramatic turn in how their society works and I'm not sure its really such a great benefit overall. Its not so much trading a poor service for a better service or vice versa. Just changing it to a different one with different pros and cons.

It's a nice post. Very even handed, no judging.

Unfortunately this has nothing to do with personal opinion or cultural norms. This is pure economics. It's math. The mathematical problem with our healthcare system is the same as the mathematical problem with all healthcare systems around the world - lack of direct incentives not to over consume.

 

[Swift]

It's a nice post. Very even handed, no judging.

Unfortunately this has nothing to do with personal opinion or cultural norms. This is pure economics. It's math. The mathematical problem with our healthcare system is the same as the mathematical problem with all healthcare systems around the world - lack of direct incentives not to over consume.

That's the point. Everyone goes to the ER for everything. This if course keeps the hospital costs high.

Yes this is a generalization, but every hospital exec I've talked with has said their er is always having financial issues. Pulling on other parts of the hospital.

 

[Joey D]

That's the point. Everyone goes to the ER for everything. This if course keeps the hospital costs high.

Yes this is a generalization, but every hospital exec I've talked with has said their er is always having financial issues. Pulling on other parts of the hospital.

It's because urgent cares aren't promoted like they should. Hospitals pretty much only ever advertise their ED's and OR's. If they tried to get the word out about the urgent cares it would greatly reduce the visits to the ED for useless things like a cold, upset stomach or even a broken bone.

I'm currently working at our health system's urgent care to get an EMR up and running and it amazes how many people don't use it. It also amazes me how many people show up at the urgent care that should be going to the ED, if you're stroking out an UC is probably not the best place to be, although I suppose it's better than laid out on your floor at home.

On the topic of having to treat patients, yes ED's must treat anyone who walks through their doors with an emergency but all the need to do is stabilize them. If you don't have insurance when you walk into an ED, South Park Instructor says "You're going to have a bad time." Typically those with insurance get bumped to the head of the line in triage with preference only going to those at an acuity level of 1 or 2.