My Healthcare Solution

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGuardian, Jun 6, 2010.

  1. iGuardian macrumors 6502a

    iGuardian

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    #1
    How about this for a healthcare solution -- we combine the accessibility of public healthcare with the ingenuity and competition of private industry.

    The insurance companies need to be removed or regulated to the point where they cannot deny anybody for any reason at any time. Then we allow the public the choice of which hospital, or which insurance company to go to. This allows competition, etc. Finally, we make the government pay for your care. Meaning, the industry is private, and still making profits off "you" but the government is actually paying them.

    Of course, there would need to be regulations to make sure that insurance companies/hospitals would not gouge the government, and in turn, the taxpayers.

    Of course, this is just some musings, I don't possibly thing I have a solution to healthcare. But at the same time I think this idea, or something similar to this, has potential.
     
  2. KeriJane macrumors 6502a

    KeriJane

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Location:
    ЧИКАГО!
    #2
    How about this, because we'll probably end up there anyway:

    Pay as you go.
    No Insurance, No Government interference, just You, your Doctor and your Credit Card.

    No Money? No Treatment.
    Cruel? Yes, that's right, Life is Cruel.

    Why such a grim outlook?

    Because so many people scam the system of private and public insurance it's bound to implode. The few are eventually going to stop paying for the many.
    Sooner or later we will end up with Pay As You Go.

    Sorry, it doesn't sound like fun to me either,
    Keri
     
  3. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
  4. Leareth macrumors 68000

    Leareth

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #4
    insurance companies are businesses
    out to make money

    if the government is paying for your treatment to the insurance companies
    you are taking your taxpayer money and giving it to a private corporation.

    how can this be a better solution ?

    plus in the current system we d decide hospital policies and such
    its called the Elections.
     
  5. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #5
    Competition won't thrive of the government takes the bill. The whole idea of a free market economy is to let the consumer decide if a good or service is worth the amount of time for which said person worked. If they are not paying that bill then there is no reason for the consumer to find the best deal.
     
  6. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #6
    However this is not the case when one looks at the gross clinical outcomes of countries with UHC and the cost per capita. The US with a relatively free market approach fares very poorly. Heathcare is not like shopping for saucepans.
     
  7. Simgar988 macrumors 65816

    Simgar988

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    UYBAATC
    #7
    Don't forget to include quality of care
     
  8. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #8
    True. Equitable quality of care is also much better in countries with UHC.
     
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    How would you define quality of care if not by clinical outcomes?
     
  10. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #10
    I don't know that much about the US health care system, so I'll give an example of a problem.

    Say if I fall down some stairs, fracturing my kneecap. I can't afford to pay for the surgery. The longer I leave it, the lower the chances are of me ever being able to walk again. Under your scheme of PAYG, would I have to wait until I can pay the surgeon to have my surgery?
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    I don't know what world you live in, but I want no part of it.

    Here's a better plan...

    Universal Health Care that at least takes care of basic needs that is supplemented by private insurance.
     
  12. KeriJane macrumors 6502a

    KeriJane

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Location:
    ЧИКАГО!
    #12
    First, I thought that I made it clear that I didn't particularly like the direction that I see things going. Apparently some think that I favor Pay As You Go. Seeing a Train Wreck coming doesn't mean that I like it.

    But yes, you're correct. If your cash, credit or bank account isn't good enough, OR if someone ( family, friiend, employer, good samaritan) doesnt pitch in, you will be left by the side of the road to die. Possibly you'll be harvested for organs. While still alive.

    Again, I don't particularly like this turn of events. I just see it as the inevitable outcome of decades of entitlement mentality. Right now, in the USA and much of the civilzed world, the Few pay for the Many, usually by Government Decree. This is an un-natural situation and will not last. Ultimately and eventually you will have to pay for what you want or need.

    There Aint No Free Lunch,
    Keri

    PS. Up until recenty, the USA had a semi-workable system where people thought they were getting a free ride or at least substantial discounts via a complicated Insurance system and Charities. They actually were paying via the taxes and insurance premiums. The costs were paid and spread out enough to sort of work. Unfortunately, rampant abuse, entitlement mentality and government meddling raised the price of this system to the point where the government felt compelled or able to take it over. UHC is coming and it will ultimately result in collaspe. Sorry.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    Okay... you don't like throwing your hands up and surrendering... but you reluctantly do it anyway. But why only give up on healthcare, when there's so many other areas where we can be gutless as well...

    The government should have nothing to do with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP will stop it when they stop it. And they'll lose enough money in wasted oil that there's no reason to fine them. Any environmental damage should disappear in a hundred years or so. No big.

    Our crumbling infrastructure is really too big to fix. So if you want roads, you'll have to pave as you go. Bridges falling down? Grab a few 2 x 4's and patch that baby. All you gotta do is cross it once. If it collapses, that's the person who's behind you concern. Water systems not working? You can always drink your own urine. Some people do. You just have to get over your cultural squeamishness.

    I don't like it. But the government can't take care of your every need you big baby. You people will have to figure out the rest of it on your own.

    What does that have to do with healthcare? Beats me. But I do feel better, having gotten that off my chest.
     
  14. KeriJane macrumors 6502a

    KeriJane

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Location:
    ЧИКАГО!
    #14
    Well, that's the important part! ;)

    Heading for the "Russian Health Care System" (under Soviet Rule)... "Don't Get Sick!"

    There are things governments do well and are essential for.

    Heath Care isn't one of them or hasn't been up till now.

    Hoping I'm wrong,
    Keri
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Governments all over the world have already proven you wrong. Have you listened to any of our European members here?
     
  16. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #16
    I suggest you take a peek at Québec's healthcare system.

    Sure, we pay a lot of taxes for that. But when you get cancer, you're happy that it won't cost you a cent to get the 200K+ $ treatment.

    Or, when your son breaks his leg. It won't cost you a cent. All you have to pay for is the crutches, and they refund you when you bring them back at the hospital.
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    The fact is the U.S. doesn't perform as well as it should. For example, the U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.3 per 1000, ranking 33rd in the world and under 5 mortality is 7.8 which is 34th in the world.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

    We're well behind the countries that anti-UHC types like to malign:
    Canada: 4.8 / 5.9
    U.K.: 4.8 / 6.0
    France: 4.2 / 5.2
    Germany: 4.3 / 5.4
    Japan: 3.2 / 4.2
    Sweden: 3.0 / 4.0

    even countries significantly poorer than the U.S.:

    Cuba: 5.1 / 6.5
    Portugal: 5.0 / 6.6
    South Korea: 4.1 / 4.8

    The U.S. has actually made great strides in infant mortality, as have almost all countries, in the last few decades. However, with a private health care mentality rather than a public health care mentality, solutions to health problems in the U.S. tend to be reactive, very expensive, medical solutions. As a result, almost all the progress in the U.S. over the last few decades has been achieved through better management of low-birth-weight neonates rather than tackling the prevention of low birth weight, which would require a focus on prevention, public health, and more involvement of other sectors. So instead of cheaper, broader solutions we are left with expensive medical solutions, which don't achieve as much and cost far more.

    There are lessons to be learned from high performing systems. The challenge is to not be so chauvinistic as to believe we have nothing to learn and so pessimistic as to believe that we cannot improve.
     
  18. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #18

    BUT WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
    ---Oh yeah, there are already countless federal and state programs keeping children from going without care....


    My Healthcare plan is just about the same as yours, except with a footnote encouraging those generous liberals to pick up the tab for as many uninsured as they would like, on their own dime. It lets the evil republicans keep their evil money, and lets those saintly democrats keep that warm fuzzy charitable feeling all to themselves. Win/Win!

    Quick Math Check:
    Populations of America: 307 Million.
    Uninsured Americans: 45 Million
    Approx Liberal Voters (Half of Population): 154 Million

    If each Liberal voter sponsored 1/3rd of an uninsured person, BINGO. Everyone is insured, everyone is happy, and no one is unconstitutionally required to buy stuff. Will this ever happen? Not a chance.
     
  19. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #19
    Much as I am a supporter of single-payer, there is one angle by which a United States implementation of it would fail miserably, and it's because we would treat it like shopping for saucepans.

    Think of an illness where a long-established treatment successfully treats 90% of cases for a dollar per treatment, but a further 9.9% can be successfully treated with a newer treatment costing $100 per treatment. In a reasonable system, the total cost of treatment will be $11,000 per thousand patients, because everybody gets the dollar treatment, and then the hundred for whom that doesn't work get the hundred-dollar one.

    In an American "free market" system, the reasonable solution would never happen. The cost of treatment would be $100,000 per thousand, and the reason is that whatever company invented the new treatment would successfully market it as the universally superior "why take chances" solution to both doctors and patients. It would be given a memorable name like "Squibiflex" and a brightly colored and distinctive pill shape, and patients would be subtly instructed to demand it of their physicians. The ads would be carefully constructed to condition the patient to believe that he is deeply entitled to the more expensive solution, and to be offended at any attempt to substitute some old-fashioned treatment that is ninety percent likely to work just fine.

    And because neither the doctor nor the patient bears the direct cost, and that individual $100 treatment seems so relatively minor, everyone would, as the adverts would no doubt say, "Live Life: Live Squibiflex" right out of the gate.

    Any attempt by the people holding the pursestrings (on behalf of the taxpayers) to control these costs by insisting that doctors try the good old fashioned cure (let's call it "Aspirin") first would be met with bawling, kicking, screaming outrage by a large portion of American suckers who can be persuaded by the makers of Squibiflex that doing something sane is "the government running their lives like it's some sort of Soviet gulag or something," and that getting collectively fleeced for thousands and thousands of dollars is some sort of traditional God-given American Right.

    And that's why we can't have nice things here: we're too damned stupid.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    This is all you guys can ever trot out. Just keep ignoring the evidence that UHC works and the free market does not with regard to health care. The evidence is all over the world, but yet you just can't bring yourselves to open your eyes.

    All you can do is trot out the same tired talking points with absolutely nothing to back them up. Aren't you tired of spewing empty ideology instead of figuring out what works and doing it? Are you really even interested in being part of society and working out problems? I'm serious- because I really do want to know. It doesn't sound like you are interested in solving these issues at all. It sounds to me as if all you are interested in is yourself.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Do you have buildings insurance?

    Enjoy the riots that would result from letting people die in the streets.

    Quite.

    @ Gelfin, nice analogy as usual.
     
  22. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #22
    Spot on.

    It is true, I am more interested in myself than anyone else. Your a liar or an anomaly if you claim otherwise. That being said, I am also interested in other people's well-being as well.

    "Aren't you tired of spewing empty ideology instead of figuring out what works and doing it?"

    Nope. It's "empty ideology" that our nation was founded on! You did not respond to my proposition though, so I will lay it out again...

    "Populations of America: 307 Million.
    Uninsured Americans: 45 Million
    Approx Liberal Voters (Half of Population): 154 Million

    If each Liberal voter sponsored 1/3rd of an uninsured person, BINGO. Everyone is insured, everyone is happy, and no one is unconstitutionally required to buy stuff. Will this ever happen? Not a chance."

    What is the problem with that plan? All of these voters who are so eager to provide everything for everyone can certainly pool together some resources, quit the bitchin, and handle these problems, right?

    Over half of the country elected Obama on the grounds that everyone should have health care, in addition to all the other entitlements "progressives" generally support. Would it not be more, dare I say, noble to just handle the problem yourself, rather than forcing your neighbor to pay for the stuff you think that other guy has a "right" to?

    I don't get it. The left gets off on this righteous high horse, badmouthing and demonizing the right. No one is stopping you guys from fixing the problem!!!

    There is NOTHING "good" or "right" or charitable" about forcing someone to do something. And that is what it all boils down to. If you are going to have mandated coverage, you are forcing someone to do something, and that makes you the bad guy, no matter how you try to spin it or what words you choose to use.

    My Point: When is the last time you paid for someone else' MRI? X-Ray? CT Scan? Until you chose to do so, you and all the other "compassionate" liberals are hypocrites, plain and simple.

    PS: Me "being part of society" has nothing to do with health care. I owe nothing to anyone, except my parents for making me. Call me a callous bastard, but it doesn't change the fact that YOU want to tell people what to do, and I don't.

    PPS: Why do American liberals gush over Europe so much? We left Europe to start a new, non-European country...Right?
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    The problem with the current US system is really that it costs a vast amount more than any other country for worse results.

    The free market has failed on this one.

    I can source the well known pro-business source the Economist on this if needed, but you'll probably need a subscription to read the relevant articles.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    The world doesn't stay still forever, let alone over the vast changes of the past 200 years.
     
  25. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #25

    You are 100% correct. EXCEPT that it was not a free market.

    I just had the pleasure of singing up for health insurance last month, and its expensive. Luckily my work subsidizes. Welcome to the world of mandates. Compassionate folks feel that a health insurance plan should be FORCED to provide certain services, raising the price for everyone, most importantly, the people that do not really use health insurance, they just have it to be safe. Lets look at some of these things...

    -Alcoholism
    -Anti-Psychotic Drugs
    -Birthing Center Fees
    -Breast Reconstruction
    -HPV Vaccine
    -Contraceptives
    -In Vitro
    -Maternity Stay
    -Hair Prosthesis
    -Mammogram
    -Morbid Obesity Treatments
    -Port-Wine Stain Removal
    -Smoking Cessation
    (These are about 1/5th of the most common mandates, they vary from state to state. These are also from 2008, so there are probably more now)

    So lets say I am a fit, non smoking male who eats healthy, does not drink in excess, has a stable head on my shoulders, don't plan on adding breasts any time soon, and am not sexually active. Looks like I got screwed pretty hard with my $160 a month premium, considering I probably wont use a single service mandated...

    And why can't I buy a health insurance plan from, lets say, New Hampshire, that does not mandate any of that stuff? Because it was not a free-market system. If I could pick and chose what I want covered, considering I have not been to a doctor or hospital in the past 5 years, I bet I would be paying no more than $50 a month.

    A lot more people could afford that, I bet.
     

Share This Page