# Universal Healthcare



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

I have decided that this is my new pet project... advocating for Universal Healthcare. A person gets sick, and they can't keep their job. They lose their job, and they lose their medical benefits. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

What can I do? (I'm checking out links right now)

What do you do for the cause?


----------



## CrazyCatLady (Aug 17, 2004)

I don't do much. But I'm green party and always do what I can to help them out and their cause. I always vote green party when I can (except for things like the president election, I had to try and beat bush somehow). So hopefull that helps them out some and gets us a little closer to our goal. I wish I knew how to help more. If anyone knows ways to pitch in, let me know. I'd love to help out.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I am out of work. I have never really had health benefits. Of my four children, I only had insurance for one; all homebirths.

I had physical therapy last summer for bursitis.

The total bill was $8,900.00. I have already paid $675.00 up front and I negotiated the rest of the bill down to $3,650.00. I still think that is an outrageous amount for only six weeks worth of physical therapy, twice a week, two hours each session.

I had chiropractic and acupuncture before I went to the physical therapy, and it did not cost as much.

I still have the bursitis and I doing exercises on my own.

My problems with Universal Care are:

that people would over use the system.
This is the first time I have been to the doctor in 14 years. If I was paying taxes for my healthcare, I would be in there every year at least.

that I would not be able to negotiate for the kind of practitioner I want or need.
I first went to a chiropractor, then acupuncturist, then I HAD to see a medical doctor to go to physical therapy.

that I would not be able to negotiate for the kind of care I need.
see above.

that I would have to wait months for the care and treatment I need.
I discovered I had the pain in April
I saw the chiropractor in May.
I saw the accupuncturist in June.
I saw the medical doctor in July.
I went to physical therapy in August and September.
Granted, this is not a live-threatening illness but it was debilitating. I was able on my own $ to find my way around the system.

Would I still be able to do this with a Federal Health Care System? Look at the Veteran's Administration and their Hospitals; my DH died two years ago, and I still receive phone calls for him to set up an appointment.

If you can look at the VA system and fix the problems with it, you have a Federal Health program that can help all Americans.


----------



## swimswamswum (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Journey*
I have decided that this is my new pet project... advocating for Universal Healthcare. A person gets sick, and they can't keep their job. They lose their job, and they lose their medical benefits. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

What can I do? (I'm checking out links right now)

What do you do for the cause?











I don't do much for the cause, except complain- I am not sure if that counts







I guess I write my representatives sometimes too, that's something.

I think many of the arguments against Universal Care assume that everyone currently has access to the best available care, which is a flawed assumption. I always get a laugh out of the argument that "I'll have to wait for months for an appointment and I'll have no choice". Currently, I have an HMO where I have almost no choice about who I see. I also recently waited two months for an appointment with a specialist. Why is our current system lauded as something to be preserved? I don't get it.

Also, although I understand wanting choice, how is Universal Biomedical Care worse than no care?

I believe that health care is a basic human right and feel that it is deplorable that we (in the US) have allowed our health care system to become an industry that values profit over people. I think that our history of rugged individualism in this country often prevents people from really caring about their fellow citizens. We need to rise above only seeing and considering the experiences of ourselves and those close to us.

Universal Care is also important because a population with sick people unable to access treatment is dangerous for everyone- diseases thrive in such conditions.


----------



## Avocado123 (Oct 20, 2003)

In the US, people without resources are elegible for medicaid.
My father got a quadruple bypass within a week of being diagnosed as needing one. It was medical care at its finest and it was funded by medicaid.

My friend's father, overseas in a system with universal national health care, got the same diagnosis.
Then he languished on waiting lists for 4 years! while his health deteriorated, his work vanished and more "urgent" cases preceeded him.
Finally, he got the bypass.

I'm not saying the healthcare system is anywhere near ideal for all the folks in the middle and the working poor, but it definately serves the very neediest, with some of the best medical care available.

In Atlanta, for example, Emory medical school is affiliated with and runs the inner city hospital serving the city's neediest and most troubled residents, including many incarcerated patients. Many people even use the hospital for primary care. Not ideal, but they are treated by bright professionals. There are similar facilities in other big cities, like NYC.


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
I am out of work. I have never really had health benefits. Of my four children, I only had insurance for one; all homebirths.

I had physical therapy last summer for bursitis.

The total bill was $8,900.00. I have already paid $675.00 up front and I negotiated the rest of the bill down to $3,650.00. I still think that is an outrageous amount for only six weeks worth of physical therapy, twice a week, two hours each session.

I had chiropractic and acupuncture before I went to the physical therapy, and it did not cost as much.

I still have the bursitis and I doing exercises on my own.

My problems with Universal Care are:

that people would over use the system.
This is the first time I have been to the doctor in 14 years. If I was paying taxes for my healthcare, I would be in there every year at least.

that I would not be able to negotiate for the kind of practitioner I want or need.
I first went to a chiropractor, then acupuncturist, then I HAD to see a medical doctor to go to physical therapy.

that I would not be able to negotiate for the kind of care I need.
see above.

that I would have to wait months for the care and treatment I need.
I discovered I had the pain in April
I saw the chiropractor in May.
I saw the accupuncturist in June.
I saw the medical doctor in July.
I went to physical therapy in August and September.
Granted, this is not a live-threatening illness but it was debilitating. I was able on my own $ to find my way around the system.

Would I still be able to do this with a Federal Health Care System? Look at the Veteran's Administration and their Hospitals; my DH died two years ago, and I still receive phone calls for him to set up an appointment.

If you can look at the VA system and fix the problems with it, you have a Federal Health program that can help all Americans.

applejuice,

WOW about your response on this. Don't know where I stand on this after you reply.

Thank you.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
I am out of work. I have never really had health benefits. Of my four children, I only had insurance for one; all homebirths.

I had physical therapy last summer for bursitis.

The total bill was $8,900.00. I have already paid $675.00 up front and I negotiated the rest of the bill down to $3,650.00. I still think that is an outrageous amount for only six weeks worth of physical therapy, twice a week, two hours each session.

I had chiropractic and acupuncture before I went to the physical therapy, and it did not cost as much.

I still have the bursitis and I doing exercises on my own.

My problems with Universal Care are:

that people would over use the system.
This is the first time I have been to the doctor in 14 years. If I was paying taxes for my healthcare, I would be in there every year at least.

that I would not be able to negotiate for the kind of practitioner I want or need.
I first went to a chiropractor, then acupuncturist, then I HAD to see a medical doctor to go to physical therapy.

that I would not be able to negotiate for the kind of care I need.
see above.

that I would have to wait months for the care and treatment I need.
I discovered I had the pain in April
I saw the chiropractor in May.
I saw the accupuncturist in June.
I saw the medical doctor in July.
I went to physical therapy in August and September.
Granted, this is not a live-threatening illness but it was debilitating. I was able on my own $ to find my way around the system.

Would I still be able to do this with a Federal Health Care System? Look at the Veteran's Administration and their Hospitals; my DH died two years ago, and I still receive phone calls for him to set up an appointment.

If you can look at the VA system and fix the problems with it, you have a Federal Health program that can help all Americans.

I have to agree with applejuice on this one, unfortunately. My heart wishes that Universal Healthcare were a magical answer, but my brain knows it is not. We happen to have pretty good insurance coverage, compared to most plans now, but we are still making some fairly hefty medical payments because if I only sought care from the conventional medical community, I would probably have been dead two years ago.

I don't really know exactly what I think about this. I think Universal care is definitely a better option than no care, but it's not always that simple for everyone. I could see advocating a potentially beneficial plan if there is a specific outline of how it would function, but not just Universal Care and leave it up to those in office to decide how it would function. Is there any outline on this available anywhere?


----------



## Sepia (Oct 7, 2003)

I'm in the middle of getting my masters in public health, and this issue came up a couple of times in my health economics class last semester









I'll come back later if you want names of studies, but nationalizing our health care system would actually save billions of dollars, even if underserved populations overused the system at first. although applejuice, i think being seen by an md once a year wouldn't be considered overuse. check out the Moral Hazard Myth by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker

the majority of the money would be saved in administration. we have so much administrative waste in this country, compared to Canada or Great Britain for example.
Also, the waiting lists in countries with universal health care are not as bad as we are lead to believe in the US
And not having health ins often leads to neglecting small problems that turn into big and expensive problems. that's not cost effective.

will try and link some articles...


----------



## Sepia (Oct 7, 2003)

here are a few to start with

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050829fa_fact

http://www.iom.edu/?id=14980&redirect=0

http://www.acponline.org/uninsured/lack-contents.htm

Evans, R.G., Lomas, J., Barer, M.L., Labelle, R.J., Fooks, C., Stoddart, G.L., Naderson, Geoffrey M., Feeny, D., Gafni, A., Torrance, G.W., Tholl, W.G., "Controlling Health Expenditures -- The Canadian Reality," N Engl J Med, March 2, 1989, 320(9), pp. 571-577.

Himmelstein, D.U., Lewontin, J.P., Woolhandler S., "Who Administers? Who Cares? Medical Administrative and Clinical Employment in the United States and Canada," American Journal of Public Health, February 1996, 86(2), pp.172-178.

Katz, S.J., "Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians and U.S. Health Care," Health Affairs, May-June 2002, 21(3), pp. 19-31.

Cheng, T.-M., "Taiwan's New National Health Insurance Program: Genesis and Experience So Far," Health Affairs, May/June 2003, 22(3), pp. 61-76.

Lu, J.-F., and Hsiao, W.C., "Does Universal Health Insurance Make Health Care Unaffordable? Lessons from Taiwan," Health Affairs, May/June 2003, 22(3), pp. 77-88.


----------



## Anuska (Nov 13, 2005)

Applejuice. I agree with you.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Me too.


----------



## swimswamswum (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sepia*
I'm in the middle of getting my masters in public health, and this issue came up a couple of times in my health economics class last semester









I'll come back later if you want names of studies, but nationalizing our health care system would actually save billions of dollars, even if underserved populations overused the system at first. although applejuice, i think being seen by an md once a year wouldn't be considered overuse. check out the Moral Hazard Myth by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker

the majority of the money would be saved in administration. we have so much administrative waste in this country, compared to Canada or Great Britain for example.
Also, the waiting lists in countries with universal health care are not as bad as we are lead to believe in the US
And not having health ins often leads to neglecting small problems that turn into big and expensive problems. that's not cost effective.

will try and link some articles...









:


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sepia*
... although applejuice, i think being seen by an md once a year wouldn't be considered overuse.

I don't either. My point is that I have not *HAD* to see a doctor in 14 years.

I probably could have gone in for checkups, but I have not.








Although, I have gone in for TB tests for employment....does that count?


----------



## Sepia (Oct 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swimswamswum*
I think many of the arguments against Universal Care assume that everyone currently has access to the best available care, which is a flawed assumption.

Also, although I understand wanting choice, how is Universal Biomedical Care worse than no care?

I believe that health care is a basic human right and feel that it is deplorable that we (in the US) have allowed our health care system to become an industry that values profit over people. I think that our history of rugged individualism in this country often prevents people from really caring about their fellow citizens. We need to rise above only seeing and considering the experiences of ourselves and those close to us.

ita swimswamswum. we certainly do NOT have the best available care in this country. prime example is maternal and infant health. we have all the expensive bells and whistles, but last i read we are ranked 27th in the world for maternal and infant mortality and morbidity. not good. most of the countries at the top of the list have universal health care and use midwives.

i also strongly agree that health care is a human right, and with the amount of wealth in this country there's absolutely no excuse that somewhere around 60 million americans, many of them children, are uninsured.


----------



## Sherra (Jun 27, 2005)

I'm not sure which states have it or not..but I do know several states have medical care for those who lose their job and have no income. I live in california and I know they have it.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sherra*
I'm not sure which states have it or not..but I do know several states have medical care for those who lose their job and have no income. I live in california and I know they have it.

I am in CA.

I am out of work.

How do I get this?

I have $10,000 bill to pay for physical therapy. No one advised me of this.


----------



## whimsy (Aug 6, 2004)

My main concern is the under employed and self employed. DH and I are pouring our heart and soul into our business. Unfortunately that is leaving us without health insurance. We made $24K last year (family of 6) and that is too much to qualify for state insurance. Our kids are covered (thank God for keeping Matt Blunt away from that) but we are not. I just want a way to get coverage and still have enough money to eat.


----------



## Deirdre (Dec 1, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama*
Is there any outline on this available anywhere?


One of the best outlines I have read on this topic can be found here:

Physicians for a National Health Program

They have what I would consider a very a good proposal. I encourage anyone who cares about this topic to read their website.

This area is also a passion of mine. I do say it always makes me go







when people dismiss the idea by using the VA system as the "model of national healthcare". I think people really do not have a concrete understanding of what the possible models are that we could use in this country. I believe Avocado123 gave an example of her friend on Medicaid and their very good care vs. someone they know in Britain and their lousy care. Medicaid is *national healthcare*. The proposals that most people are putting forward look nothing like the VA system... They are mostly modeled on the single payer idea of MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. It has its many faults but the last time I checked my mother (who is on Medicare) can pick her DR. and never waits more than a week or two for tests.

I really, really encourage people to actually look at the proposals out there before dismissing it because they believe they will end up in gov't run hospitals. This is not the case at all. I believe in a SINGLE-PAYER system
where the gov't pays the bills but the services are carried out similar to now with private dr's and hospitals.


----------



## Deirdre (Dec 1, 2001)

Okay I am back again because I was NAK before and wasn't feeling very coherent! This is a huge passion of mine so I am going to bore you with some of my thoughts on the topic!

First, I will list what I believe are some of the "myths" surrounding universal care and then tell you why I believe they are untrue.

*Myth #1 - If we have universal care I will have to go to a gov't run hospital staffed by gov't employees.*

This is simply not true. We can look to the VA and Great Britain's system ( which is really socialized medicine) and learn from their mistakes. An exellent model would be a *single payer* program where the gov't finances the healthcare system but delivery is carried out by private {mostly nonprofit) practitioners and organizations. This is the type of system they have in Japan, Canada and Western Europe and they enjoy universal coverage. The gov't does not own, run or manage the private Dr's offices and hospitals.

*Myth #2 - If we have universal coverage I will have to wait longer than I currently do to see a Dr.*

I will begin by saying that the essential message here is that "MY" wait is reduced by essentially blocking people from access to our medical system. I find this to be inherently selfish and a horrible way to treat other people. But that aside, I believe this fear tactic is bunk. The last time I tried to make an OB//Gyn appt. here it took 6-8 weeks. And this is so much "better" than what???? The median time for non-emergency surgery in Canada is 4.3 weeks, comparable to the US.

*Myth #3 - My taxes will be raised to finance this system*

I will let Physicians for a National Health Program debunk this for us:

Our current system:

Quote:

Currently, about 64% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees' health insurance. About 17% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 19% of health care costs. In all, it is a very "regressive" way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.
Under National Healthcare:

Quote:

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. *For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness.* It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance - so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.
*Myth #4 - Medical Research will go away*

Again, this is simply untrue. A lot of research is already paid for with public $. The National Institutes of Health funds a huge portion of medical research in this country. Some of the greatest discoveries in modern medicine have been made in countries with universal healthcare.

*Myth #5 - People won't want to become Dr's*

The biggest complaint of every Dr. I know in private practice is the time and $ spent on administrative paperwork. They complain they have no time to see their patients. The forms and approvals from numerous insurance companies consumes a huge amount of resources and time. Trying to get procedures approved and trying to overturn denials takes a lot of time. If we had a universal system this would be hugely reduced. It is estimated that administrative costs currently consume 20-25% of every healthcare dollar. Under Medicare (you know, that enormous "beaurocracy") the administrative costs are *3%*.

For me the issue is human rights. But logically and economically a universal system makes perfect sense. Someone here said their "heart wishes universal care were the magical answer but the brain knows it isn't". I am {almost] the opposite - my heart and especially my brain knows it absolutely is the answer. Our system is completely broken - and the fact is there is a model that can work and cover everyone!


----------



## Deirdre (Dec 1, 2001)

Oh, and one last question:
What does it mean when people say they fear "people will overuse the system?

Can someone explain that to me?

Thanks!


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

I have no clue how I feel about it. I simply do not have enough information to have an informed opinion as of yet.









Thank you for posting links.

I am concerned based on what I have heard from friends who live in England. They (2 seperate people) had to wait on a waiting lists for a couple of YEARS before getting a hip replacement. I have to look more into why though...


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

MY Definition of "People Who Overuse the System":

There are people in every community who go to the ER just for the attention. They are mentally ill of course, but they go in with various symptoms and go through tests, wasting everyone's time and then are released only to be back the next day. Legally, the hospital cannot turn them away, but if the ER does, the person goes to another hospital nearby. They are either hypochondraics or just like the attention.

Yes, this does happen.

I have a friend who as a SAHM would take her DD in everyday to Kaisar because her DD liked to have her BP and HR taken. She liked the attention. Her mom paid the copay each and every time, but, call me crazy, this is overusing the system, in my estimation. She could have taken her to a library or park to just get out, but the little girl liked the doctor's office. I do not know why the doctor or nurses allowed this to go on since I am sure it took time from other patients.

I think this is overusing and abusing the system.

But then, I have only been to a doctor (MD) once in fourteen years. I go to the dentist once a year, I go to the chiropractor biannually. Or as needed. I take care of myself in between as I do not care for sitting around a doctor's office for entertainment.

Hope that answers the question.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Have any of you ever been to a VA hospital, the American prototype of a federal healthcare system?

Personally in the best of the most perfect of utopian worlds, I think everyone should have healthcare.

Yet,

I am afraid of what our government will do with MY healthcare that I have so far negotiated for myself and my family in my lifetime, judging from what the Federal Government has done with housing, education, and social services in the last seventy years.


----------



## Deirdre (Dec 1, 2001)

Applejuice- thanks for the explanation. I guess my feeling is that the amount of people who would actually do this for "attention" is so low that it is not a valid reason for denying universal coverage. I am far more concerned with the MILLIONS who don't access care because they don't have $ than the few who do because they like to get the "attention" of others.

Quote:

Have any of you ever been to a VA hospital, the American prototype of a federal healthcare system?
Yes I have. And with all due respect did you read _any_ of what I posted??? Everytime I post on this subject you give the example of the VA system as if this is the *only* national health program we have. MEDICARE AND MEDICAID are also "American prototypes of a federal healthcare system". MEDICARE AND MEDICAID look nothing like the VA system. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason that a universal single payer healthcare system in this country has to look like a VA system. I just posted that the VA system AND Great Britain's system are described as "socialized medicine" systems. Japan, Australia, Canada and most of Western Europe have universal systems in which the gov't (the payer) funds a system of private dr.'s, clinics and hospitals. We can have the same system here. We essentally already do in that private employers only now currently pay 19% of all healthcare costs. The rest is paid for by us - through income and other taxes. The only difference is with a universal system EVERYONE is covered and the administrative costs will plummet because the middle man - the insurance company - will be gone!

I just don't get it









Edited to add: I don't know why the idea of universal healthcare has to only exist in a "utopian world". It already exists in almost every Western country on earth! And most of them have better stats on longevity and infant mortality!


----------



## morgainesmama (Sep 1, 2004)

overusing insurance system: (I used to register ER patients) -- 3am a family walks in. "My son needs to be seen. I think he might have an ear infection." OK. I register the baby. "Oh, and I need to be seen too because I've had this cough for a few days." (Oh, my, it's one of THOSE.) OK. I register the father. "Oh, and my wife has a bad headache and couldn't sleep tonight, and she needs to be seen also." Yes, real story, and not an isolated one. They call them "Frequent Flyers." They're ALREADY on public healthcare (medicaid) and a Universal Payer wouldn't change that.

Next: Where I live I can apply to the local nonprofit hospitals for free care if I'm living below 200% of poverty. I can also get medication assistance for some medications. However, if I grow my business larger than 200% of the poverty level, suddenly I'm left with an illness that requires expensive medication for proper treatment and risk bankrupting my company by not having insurance. If the company bankrupts, though, the hospital will forgive all the outstanding bills once I'm living below the 200% poverty level again.

Finally -- the above is my precise situation. My ex covers the kids' insurance. You have to be very, very poor and not own a home to qualify for medicaid in this state (NH). My friend owns a home, and her mortgage is half the going rental rate. Her income of $900/monthly was too much to qualify her for medicaid, though they did cover her three children.

Since getting divorced, healthcare has become a very dear issue for me. I would love to know what I can do to make healthcare more readily available to those living without insurance but above the poverty level.


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

Can I add my experience with a large "hole" in the private system?

I was a teacher, I had my son and we COBRA'ed on excellent insurance. No problems! My husband got a new job and with the university saving some cash, made his title officially "graduate student" instead of "employee" (hmmmm. Yes, but...). This only enabled him for really slim benefits and no maternity for me. So we searched for other options... What I found out was:

1. In many places, including Colorado, you cannot buy materinity coverage. For any amount of money. That means that if you are just "you", have a part time job, or whatever, you cannot buy maternity care for any amount of money.

2. For many private insurance companies, you can buy maternity coverage, but for a huge added cost. Essentially, if you start clicking away at this in your head, you realize that women (or families with women in them) of child bearing age or possibility are responsible for enormous added costs by merely being a mother (meaning, men, just being men, would never pay more for their reproductive costs. If they had a baby with a woman that was not on their insurance, they wouldn't pay a dime for their child. Yet, a woman in the reverse, would pay through the roof).

You may have known all this, but I was/am outraged.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
My problems with Universal Care are:

that people would over use the system.
This is the first time I have been to the doctor in 14 years. If I was paying taxes for my healthcare, I would be in there every year at least.

that I would not be able to negotiate for the kind of practitioner I want or need.
I first went to a chiropractor, then acupuncturist, then I HAD to see a medical doctor to go to physical therapy.

that I would not be able to negotiate for the kind of care I need.
see above.

that I would have to wait months for the care and treatment I need.
I discovered I had the pain in April
I saw the chiropractor in May.
I saw the accupuncturist in June.
I saw the medical doctor in July.
I went to physical therapy in August and September.
Granted, this is not a live-threatening illness but it was debilitating. I was able on my own $ to find my way around the system.

Would I still be able to do this with a Federal Health Care System? Look at the Veteran's Administration and their Hospitals; my DH died two years ago, and I still receive phone calls for him to set up an appointment.

If you can look at the VA system and fix the problems with it, you have a Federal Health program that can help all Americans.


This has not been my experience at all.

1. I am sure some people overuse the system, but not anyone I know, and I don't think that is a reason that some peopel should go without health care. I know, here in Ontario, the Ministry of Health will do audits of a particular person or health care provider if there are a lot of visits or something fishy going on.

2. I don't have that problem. Acupuncture is not covered by our provincial health plan, but chiropractic care and physical therapy are. I have not had the need for physical therapy but I self refer to a chiropractor with no problem.

3.I have not had to wait for any kind of care. Some people have if there are shortages in their area, but that is something the government is trying to improve.

Our system is not perfect, but I don't think that is any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and improvements are always being made.

Plus, there are other styles of universal health care, particularly in Europe.

I think health care is basic human right.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alexsam*
Can I add my experience with a large "hole" in the private system?

I was a teacher, I had my son and we COBRA'ed on excellent insurance. No problems! My husband got a new job and with the university saving some cash, made his title officially "graduate student" instead of "employee" (hmmmm. Yes, but...). This only enabled him for really slim benefits and no maternity for me. So we searched for other options... What I found out was:

1. In many places, including Colorado, you cannot buy materinity coverage. For any amount of money. That means that if you are just "you", have a part time job, or whatever, you cannot buy maternity care for any amount of money.

2. For many private insurance companies, you can buy maternity coverage, but for a huge added cost. Essentially, if you start clicking away at this in your head, you realize that women (or families with women in them) of child bearing age or possibility are responsible for enormous added costs by merely being a mother (meaning, men, just being men, would never pay more for their reproductive costs. If they had a baby with a woman that was not on their insurance, they wouldn't pay a dime for their child. Yet, a woman in the reverse, would pay through the roof).

You may have known all this, but I was/am outraged.


I think it is sad that so many women are coerced into births theyd on't want or health care providers theyd on't want in the U.S. because of stupid insurance.

And what is with copays? I would be livid if I had insurance and had to pay copays all the time.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

the lissa:

Health Care and Health are largely cultural from nation to nation. If the U.S. has a National Health Program, it will be based on what is here already; see the VA, medi-care and medi-caide. What Hilarycare would have done would have had all births in the regional highlevel medical facilities. I would have had to deliver at U.C.L.A. medical center thirty miles away.

I never had health insurance for the births of my babies - four of them - but I saved the $ that would have been spent on health insurance/maternity insurance and spent it on a midwife lead homebirth each time.

I doubt I could have coerced an insurance company to pay for what I negotiated for myself.

I think I know what is better for myself than some bureaucrat 4000 miles away in Washington, D.C.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

I can see your point applejuice, and that sounds kinda scary.

The idealist in me just thinks there has to be some kind of workable universal healthcare system.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

ITA, but that is why I alluded earlier to a utopian world where it would be possible.

The problem here in the U.S. may be with the American Culture.


----------



## Deirdre (Dec 1, 2001)

applejuice - you never responded to my post









But I do want to address your issue about being able to negotiate the care you want. You gave the example of not being on insurance but saving $ for your homebirths. I am not sure why having a universal single payer system would change this? I mean, you yourself said you have not had (or did not have, I forget) insurance for many years. You therefore took matter into your own hands, rarely saw a Dr. yourself and paid for your own homebirths.

While I wold love love love it if a universal plan included paying for homebirths, if it did not I don't think universal coverage would take away your ability to pay for your own homebirths yourself. You gave the example of Hilary's plan and said that meant you would have to go to UCLA which is 30 min away. All of my friend's with private insurance through Kaiser currently have to drive 30 min. to their birthing center. Do you see any difference between the two scenarios?? The only difference I see is that EVERYONE who wanted to give birth in a hospital would have their bill covered by the gov't, not a few who are luckly enough to afford private ins. or poor enough to be on Medicaid. Those who choose homebirth can still do so and pay for it out of pocket. I mean people on medicaid and people who are part of the VA system can still "choose" to homebirth ther babies, right?
In other words, you would just get to leave out the second part of your sentence - "which I would have spent on maternity/insurance".

The second example you gave of not seeing the Dr for 14 years. Well, I am sure that wouldn't need to change under universal coverage. I don't see anyone proposing that people be "forced" to go to the Doctor.

Lastly, I do agree that the issue is deeply tied to the American culture. We live in a society that feels that people have to "earn" everything and that there are very little basic rights people should have just for being a human being. Oh we love to talk about rights like free speech, freedom of religion, liberty and "happiness". We never want to talk about the nitty gritty like food, shelter, and healthcare. We forget that none of those rights mean a damn thing if people are malnourished, homeless and sick. I also believe much of the attitude stems from fears that the insurance industry has fostered about "the big bad gov't" running the healthcare system. As if "for profit big business insurance companies" really care about my family and it's well being


----------



## pumpkinsmama (Aug 20, 2005)

Check out your local High School or College debate teams. Our topic (the year I was in) was Canadian vs. US health care. Part of the process with developing a debate strategy is intensive research. If any of them are currently using that as a topic (it was very popular) they could provide all kinds of resources to you.

I was a huge fan of Canadian health care at the end. It blew the US out of the water.


----------



## momtwoboys (Mar 14, 2005)

Any canadians want to chime in on if they like the care they receive? I have a few friends from Canada that have (I guess the best way to put it ) a love hate relationship with their system.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:

While I would love love love it if a universal plan included paying for homebirths,
In the U.S. it would since it is illegal even for a spouse to deliver his wife at home in some states (IA, NB) and midwifery is illegal (GA, AL) in other states. It is cultural here, and the medical profession is stronger. Health/police services, despite the Federal Department of HHS are determined by the individual states.

Quote:

You gave the example of Hilary's plan and said that meant you would have to go to UCLA which is 30 min away. All of my friend's with private insurance through Kaiser currently have to drive 30 min. to their birthing center.
I said thirty miles.

Those thirty miles are along I-5/I-405 which carries traffic from Edwards AFB to the VA, LAX, Century City, the beaches, all of the studios, and UCLA. Typically, a commute for me is 2 to 3 hours, longer for others.

There are other areas as Pomona, Yorba Linda and Whittier which would be forced to use UCLA.

There was nothing new about this aspect of HilaryCare as that was in the works in 1980 when I had my first child.

Quote:

The second example you gave of not seeing the Dr for 14 years. Well, I am sure that wouldn't need to change under universal coverage. I don't see anyone proposing that people be "forced" to go to the Doctor.
This is true for adults, but for children, they would be force to visit the doctor and vaccinated, or the state, CPS, DCFS, intervene. Sad, but true.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtwoboys*
Any canadians want to chime in on if they like the care they receive? I have a few friends from Canada that have (I guess the best way to put it ) a love hate relationship with their system.


I love it personally, especially that I could choose a midwife assisted home birth like I wanted without worrying about money or not having to worry that if I need surgery, it might bankrupt us. I read that bankruptcy is most commonly due to medical bills in the U.S.


----------



## pumpkinsmama (Aug 20, 2005)

I don't believe the US would ever go to Universal Health care, though. I think the pharma/medi lobbying tentacles are so wrapped throughout our government that it will NEVER happen.


----------



## cee3 (Oct 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtwoboys*
Any canadians want to chime in on if they like the care they receive? I have a few friends from Canada that have (I guess the best way to put it ) a love hate relationship with their system.

I'm an American living in Australia, so I've lived as an adult using both health insurance with the private system in the U.S. and using the public health system in Australia. Neither system is perfect, but both have their benefits for different people. In the U.S., I was only able to get affordable health insurance through group plans, as I have lupus, which is considered a high-risk existing condition. If I didn't have a job with good benefits, or a husband with a job with good benefits, I'd have been SOL. There was no way I could have afforded the state-sponsored health insurance programs. I can easily see how people would be bankrupted if they didn't have insurance.

Living in Australia, even people who would not be able to get insurance in the U.S. are covered. My overall medical care here, though, is not nearly as good as it was in the U.S. I had a baby in the U.S. and I'm pregnant in Australia right now. In the U.S., I had one doctor who took care of me throughout my pregnancy and attended the birth of my son. Here, I have to go to a public clinic. I've seen three different doctors and a few different midwives. None of them seem to have any idea how to manage a pregnant woman with lupus. They're relying on my American doctor's notes to guide them. Besides my own situation, there are constant stories in the media about a lack of beds in hospitals, a lack of doctors, medical malpractice, etc., etc. The facilities here are pretty lacking, too, compared to the U.S. Our huge local hospital is now in negotiations with the government to get funding for an MRI. There are no other MRIs in the area. The small town I lived in in the U.S. had five MRI providers. Some may say that's overkill; I don't know.

Anyway, I would say the U.S.'s system is head and shoulders above the Australian system for people who can afford good health insurance, but the Australian system kicks butt for people who would normally be swept under the carpet in the U.S.


----------



## Sepia (Oct 7, 2003)

yeah deirdre!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deirdre*

Lastly, I do agree that the issue is deeply tied to the American culture. We live in a society that feels that people have to "earn" everything and that there are very little basic rights people should have just for being a human being. Oh we love to talk about rights like free speech, freedom of religion, liberty and "happiness". We never want to talk about the nitty gritty like food, shelter, and healthcare. We forget that none of those rights mean a damn thing if people are malnourished, homeless and sick. I also believe much of the attitude stems from fears that the insurance industry has fostered about "the big bad gov't" running the healthcare system. As if "for profit big business insurance companies" really care about my family and it's well being


----------



## flyjawn (Nov 13, 2004)

i have to agree that our canadian system is not perfect (mostly because it has been ravaged over the years by conservatives) but it does work. every person in this country has access to the same healthcare.

my daughter recently had to have heart surgery and if i'd been in the u.s. without insurance what would i have done? here in canada, my daughter got her surgery in one of the best children's hospital in the world and all i had to worry about was my child, not the cost of the surgery or who was doing the surgery or whether i filled out the right insurance forms...


----------

