Replies: 3
| visibility 400
|
Hall of Famer [20542]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11687
Joined: 10/15/02
|
This is probably the wave of the future
Jul 23, 2019, 4:39 PM
|
|
In places where the costs of health care are dramatically lower - Canada, England, Hong Kong, Taiwan, most of Europe, even Costa Rica - this seems to be the model, a mix of Medicare and private supplemental insurance, with the option of substituting employer or private insurance plans if you would prefer those.
I'm not a big believer in "Medicare for all" precisely because I do believe you need to continue to utilize the free market to keep government bloat from, well, bloating excessively. If you're like myself because you're leery of "Medicare for all" and don't want to see the government throw $25 trillion (or more!) into that particular pot this is probably the way to go.
Well, unless you're a working-class person who for whatever reason is into completely de-regulating an insurance industry that has already driven America's health -care costs into the red zone and is trying to go still further and do things like dumping those with pre-existing conditions...and even backdoor genetic profiling, where they quietly test your DNA to see if you're genetically predisposed to certain conditions.
This is an insane cause for the Republican party, by the way, and one that makes me shake my head. People can be had (for awhile!), but even the dimmest working stiff will realize the fix is in once 50+ million Americans find themselves without health care. Okay, you're going to rip up Obamacare...so now what are we replacing it with? (If you want to see Democrats win the next 10 elections, using these newly-stacked Federalist courts to destroy the Affordable Health Care Act with no replacement is probably exactly the way to do it.)
Whatever, if you don't want a completely government-run system, this is probably the long-term compromise: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/23/20699958/medicare-extra-center-american-progress-single-payer-health-reform
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97732]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64871
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Way I see it the problem is the 14th Amendment and the equal
Jul 23, 2019, 5:03 PM
|
|
protection clause. Canada, Australia, England, etc. don't have that.
I can only speak for the socialized system I very personally experienced in Australia two decades ago. In Australia they have medicare for all. Free public healthcare for EVERYONE. Even American tourists who have a heart attack and need an emergency bypass surgery.
Dad had his issue in the morning after breakfast, which is the standard time these things usually happen. He was rushed to the nearest hospital in Australia by ambulance. The nearest hospital was a public hospital. While there they did an immediate heart cath and found a blockage. Bypass was needed and immediately. At that point, in the public hospital, we had a choice to make. We were offered to have the byass done there, completely free of charge, or go about 30 minutes south to a private hospital and have it done there. Well, the public hospital was NOT impressive. Food stunk, rooms stunk, place was just meh. We opted for the private hospital further south. Took dad there, slapped down the old Amex card, and for $20K he had a double bypass. The hospital was immaculate. Nurses were amazing, and FAR better than in the US. Doctor studied at Emory in the US. In 7 days dad was released and we flew back on the flight we were scheduled to leave on. Amex also cancelled and rebooked our trip free of charge (amazing).
Got back, submitted the bill to our insurance company, AND THEY PAID IT IMMEDIATELY. Come to find out $20K was half the cost of that same surgery at the time in Columbia, SC. It was cheaper paying out of pocket in Australia because their public system takes care of the non-payers, allowing those who pay MUCH cheaper prices for procedures. And I would LOVE to see that in the US. Have public health that's VA-level for everyone, then let those who can afford it get private health insurance. The problem is that the quality of medical care for ALL Americans would then be unequal. We had this discussion with many people in the hospital in Coolangatta. Most of the patients there had private medical insurance, which meant they paid where non-payers could not get care there. The nurse in the public hospital who advised us to go to the private hospital I'm sure violated some policy to be candid with us.
Anyway, I would be fine with a system like Australia. Our Congress and federal government, however, would NOT be fine with two systems and two levels of medical care. The problem we have is with non-payers and a system that's no longer market driven. And most Americans overpay for insurance because most without it or with little underpay and force those with it to pay more. But the non-payers are costing everyone who does pay, more. Yet they receive the same level of medical care and the cost is then passed on.
If they can keep private insurance private, and cover everyone else who wants "free" medical care in a federal system, AND they keep the two separate, I'm for that. Won't happen though. Oh, and we can't afford it. What we can afford is nothing, but what we'd have would suck. The time for us to have done something like Australia was about $15 trillion dollars ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: This is probably the wave of the future
Jul 25, 2019, 12:00 PM
|
|
I get the points that both of you are making, very wise I think.
But as someone who's worked in healthcare for decades one of the most obvious omissions in the health care debate is the outrageous profits doctors make.
They can charge you $150 for a visit or $500 for a visit and no one is the wiser because the operate completely outside of the free market system. They can charge what they want, when the want and for what they want....and you have nothing to compare their prices to. You are walled off from comparing what doctors charge.
I have a friend of mine who owns a few dental practices...he's worth well over $150,000,000. And that's not an exaggeration.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I don't pretend to have any answers, but
Jul 25, 2019, 3:03 PM
|
|
surely we can do better than what we have.
It's a shame that healthcare costs factor into our decisions. When I had my heart attack the costs of the emergency room (despite having good insurance) were entirely too prominent in my decision making process (luckily I went).
It broke my heart earlier this week to see a (mostly former) Jounger post on Facebook about living with abdominal pain for weeks and trying to wait it out another few weeks because they were between jobs and insurance. Luckily they went and had surgery, but now they get to wait on the bill. This just should not happen in the greatest country on Earth.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 3
| visibility 400
|
|
|