dakota44

You are wrong on many levels. Right on the excessive cost, but the answer to that is a single payer system. Proof if that is the fact that Insurance Companies force lower prices out of Doctors and Hospitals. No Insurance? Expect to get a bill much higher than the insurance company would. You mentioned shopping for doctors. Next time you're in a life threatening situation, dig out your cell phone and shop for the best price. See if you live long enough to find one you like.

I lived in Canada for 29 years. That Health Care system so many in the Health Care debate deride as Socialist and supposedly bad. Well, three kids born there, paid not a nickel. Seven kidney stone attacks, emergency room care, meds, xrays, blood tests, urine tests, paid not a nickel. Two hospitalizations for kidney stones (once for a week) paid not a nickel. Four MRi's, three ultra sounds, 2 CT scans, 5 visits to a specialist for a growth behind my eye, not a nickel. Two daughters hospitalized for about 10 days each, paid not a nickel. Countless Doctor visits and emergency room visits over all that time, paid not a nickel. Elective surgery, ditto. We won't even go into the medical visits for my ex. All medical care was excellent and timely.

Of course I paid a lot more in income tax than anyone in the States with the same income, but I never had to worry about losing my house or filing bankruptcy because of medical bills. And I lived just fine. The Government of Canada controls Medical costs, including prescription drugs which are significantly less expensive in Canada than the U.S.

The failing of Obamacare is that it is not a single payer system that covers everyone. The only first world country that can brag about not having National health care. Sad.

Michael

Health care by nature is uncompetitive. That is why all developed countries (excluding the US) have universal health care with some form of government controls.

First there is the AMA which is probably the most powerful union in the world keeping doctors wages very high. Why is it that doctors from developed countries are very restricted from working in the US just because they did not attend American medical schools? How is it that over 100,000 highly educated foreign individuals can work in other industries but not in the medical field?

Then there is the problem that you mentioned about employer provided health insurance. With the vast number of Americans being provided employer based health insurance or government health insurance (medicare, VA, or medicaid), there isn't any concern either by the patient or the health care provider about costs. In my opinion, tax advantages for employer provided health care should be eliminated. This would likely cause employers to drop health care coverage and that would wake up people to the real problem.

However, I do disagree about the cost of lawsuits. In 2007 (the last reported year), lawsuits cost $30 billion which is between 1%-1.5% of the total medical costs in the US. This is far less than the approximate $200 billion annual cost due to bankruptcies and defaults due to the lack of health insurance or people being under insured.

Another major problem are the health insurance and pharma companies. Health insurance companies (with an antitrust exemption) fix prices and territories to keep profits and inefficiencies high. Why is it that health insurance companies has an overhead of 20%-40% of the premiums collected but medicare has an overhead cost of only 5%? Pharma lobbies for import restrictions on drugs on the pretense that drugs from other developed countries are unsafe even though the drugs are from the same plants as drugs sold in the US.

However, fixing the problem is not that simple. During the 1960s, medicare was passed when it was determined that it was impossible for the average American to acquire health insurance when over 65. The choice at that time was to either pass medicare or have the vast majority of senior citizens live in poverty due to health care costs. Prior to the 1960s, this was not a major problem since the average life expectancy was 65 and very little medical treatment could be done to extend the life of a person.

Conservatives claim that selling insurance across state lines would solve the problem. However what they really mean is that they want to allow insurers to sell health insurance across state lines based on the regulations of the state with the weakest regulations (high deductables, excluding care for many illnesses, easy to cancel insurance, etc.). Would that reduce health care costs of just increase the number of medical defaults and bankruptcies? In my opinion a better solution would be national health care regulations that would apply to all states allowing health insurance from all health insurance companies to be available in all states. Then it would only be up to the insurance company as to whether they want to offer health insurance in different states.

As far as reductions in health care costs, the current bill does have some features to reduce costs. Once the exchanges are in place, health insurance companies will not have to spend endless hours going over health care records looking for some reason not to insure individuals or to raise the price of health care coverage. There will only be three different policies with the same coverage that will be offered that health insurers will be able to provide. Since the coverage will be the same from all companies, customers will be able to shop around for the best price and won't have to wait a month or two to see if they are accepted. Also health insurers will need to reduce the overhead costs from the current 20%-40% to 20% for providers of individual policies and 15% for providers of company provided health insurance.

Michael

I think you have a misunderstanding about VA medical care. During most of (except 1996-2003), the VA only provided medical care for veterans that were disabled, were living below the poverty, and retirees. It wasn't until Clinton signed an executive order in 1996 and repealed by Bush in 2003 that all veterans became eligible for VA medical treatment. If a veteran signed up during that period, they were grand fathered in but new veterans without service related disabilities are not covered.

As far as medical benefits for retirees as well as education grants and mortgages, that isn't much different than what was provided by many employers during the 1960s and 1970s. It is just part of the benefit package for being in the military. Many private companies today will pay for educational expenses to further education and provide many benefits that the military doesn't provide.

dunroving

Interesting, thanks for the clarification.

willmore

Ill never understand why people equate an allegedly "socialist" healthcare system as "bad" and are against it. Surely it has to be better than what is being offered now in the states......why does the term "socialist" scare people so much.....

Michael

When Americans think of socialism, they think about the DMV or the post office which by no means are places of efficiency.

Calling health care reform socialism is a misnomer. In fact it is less of socialism than medicare since private insurers collect premiums and pay for health services. Even classifying medicare as socialism is a far reach since the government only pays the bills and does not provide the services.

It is used by the right as a scare and fear tactic. After all who in their right mind would want something like the DMV or the post office to provide health care services?

Bob

because it means "communist", don't you know...

Desdemona

robin1234

I think that Americans (if they are aware of foreign healthcare systems at all) assume that in the UK NHS all services are provided by government, whereas in Britain, as in the US, doctors are independent professionals running a small business.

AmerLisa

Paid for by the government....

AmerLisa

If you are old enough (you probably are, Willmore, but living in Canada you weren't "educated" about it ) It really has to do with fear mongering....educating people against anything that had to do with communist or socialist activities.

Desdemona

And that's the bottom line Hi Lisa

AmerLisa

Well that explains a lot of running scared when "socialist" or "communist" is mentioned. Maybe not so much in today's generation, well you'd hope not.

Desi....

Desdemona

You called ?

Bob

and private sector too...they help johnny foreigner and private customers as well....