If a democrat wins the election, there is a high likelihood that universal healthcare will be forced on us in the near future. If McCain wins, the status quo will continue deteriorating, and the issue will become more urgent. Is univeral healthcare inevitable at this point?
Universal health care is as inevitable as carbon taxation / regulation. Both will be equally “successful”.
Our healthcare system is seriously lacking and I have no desire to pay for someone’s drugs or their sedentary lifestyle.
It’s not “public health care”.
It’s public health insurance.
“The government” isn’t going to come in, annex all of the hospitals and private practices, and tell everyone where to work and what to treat like some Stalinist uber-state.
At least if it’s done right.
Doc’s will still have their private practices, hospitals will still be run by private corporations, and they will save significantly on administration costs because they won’t have to deal with all the paperwork involved in sorting out the 1000’s of insurance providers and their various coverage plans.
I hope they cut the money grubbing ins. companies out of it . And out of the 4 posters ,who is insured ?
← Citizen = Insured! ;D
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I hope they cut the money grubbing ins. companies out of it . And out of the 4 posters ,who is insured ?[/quote]
I have an HSA and we have some bunk ass blue cross thing from my employer. I personally though would never see a traditional MD or go to a hospital unless I was involved in an accident and needing a bone set or stitches.
My wife and I are insured and she’s working a $10/hr job while I finish up college. Insurance is rarely a case of rich/poor. More often it’s simply a case of priorities.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
My wife and I are insured and she’s working a $10/hr job while I finish up college. Insurance is rarely a case of rich/poor. More often it’s simply a case of priorities.
mike[/quote]
Well stated. How many people would rather spend extra cash on a new Xbox or car radio or an iPhone rather than a monthly premium on catastrophic insurance?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
My wife and I are insured and she’s working a $10/hr job while I finish up college. Insurance is rarely a case of rich/poor. More often it’s simply a case of priorities.
mike
Well stated. How many people would rather spend extra cash on a new Xbox or car radio or an iPhone rather than a monthly premium on catastrophic insurance?
[/quote]
Exactly. And to quote PJ O’ourke, “if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
to quote PJ O’ourke, “if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”[/quote]
Except that public health care in Britain, Canada, and many other countries costs significantly less per patient for equal or better care.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
to quote PJ O’ourke, “if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Except that public health care in Britain, Canada, and many other countries costs significantly less per patient for equal or better care.[/quote]
What you mean is, they cap and ration healthcare to keep costs down. Do you call that “equal or better?” I have family in Britain & France and by no means do they believe that healthcare services are “equal or better” to that of the US. For example, my sister in Paris has absolute horror stories of giving birth in a Parisian hospital - she’s a French citizen, her accent is undetectable, etc , so it’s not something like that. My mother - who went over to help her - was once pro-national-healthcare, until she saw it in operation.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Except that public health care in Britain, Canada, and many other countries costs significantly less per patient for equal or better care.[/quote]
Bolded portion incorrect.
And, part of the costs savings - whatever their measure - are in large part due to the research dividend provided by the larger private medicine sector of the US.
As for the topic, there was a recent poll that showed a significant percentage of Americans still not interested in converting to UHC. It’s just a one poll, but it was suggestive there is hardly a large mandate to emulate the European model.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
to quote PJ O’ourke, “if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Except that public health care in Britain, Canada, and many other countries costs significantly less per patient for equal or better care.
What you mean is, they cap and ration healthcare to keep costs down. Do you call that “equal or better?” I have family in Britain & France and by no means do they believe that healthcare services are “equal or better” to that of the US. For example, my sister in Paris has absolute horror stories of giving birth in a Parisian hospital - she’s a French citizen, her accent is undetectable, etc , so it’s not something like that. My mother - who went over to help her - was once pro-national-healthcare, until she saw it in operation. [/quote]
Don’t judge the whole thing based on an exception. True, Paris is crappy on so many level, but that’s because it is crowded, not because of some failure of the healthcare system.
Now, obviously, it is not as great as the prestigious American hospitals, but there’s something about everyone having the right to decent treatment that the French (and so many others) find appealing. There are much less noble causes (actually, downright reprehensible ones) that a government can use its money for than universal healthcare. Get it?
[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
to quote PJ O’ourke, “if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Except that public health care in Britain, Canada, and many other countries costs significantly less per patient for equal or better care.
What you mean is, they cap and ration healthcare to keep costs down. Do you call that “equal or better?” I have family in Britain & France and by no means do they believe that healthcare services are “equal or better” to that of the US. For example, my sister in Paris has absolute horror stories of giving birth in a Parisian hospital - she’s a French citizen, her accent is undetectable, etc , so it’s not something like that. My mother - who went over to help her - was once pro-national-healthcare, until she saw it in operation.
Don’t judge the whole thing based on an exception. True, Paris is crappy on so many level, but that’s because it is crowded, not because of some failure of the healthcare system.
Now, obviously, it is not as great as the prestigious American hospitals, but there’s something about everyone having the right to decent treatment that the French (and so many others) find appealing. There are much less noble causes (actually, downright reprehensible ones) that a government can use its money for than universal healthcare. Get it?[/quote]
So now, more or less everyone in the French system has sub-par healthcare, except for the wealthy who fly to the US. Meanwhile, the high taxes made necessary by this nearly collapsing system are strangling economic growth and employment. How is any of this good for the “average” person?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Now, obviously, it is not as great as the prestigious American hospitals, but there’s something about everyone having the right to decent treatment that the French (and so many others) find appealing. There are much less noble causes (actually, downright reprehensible ones) that a government can use its money for than universal healthcare. Get it?[/quote]
The right to decent treatment? The right??? What the hell are you talking about? You have a right to find and pay for decent treatment.
This is not some entitlement. It is an opportunity. Get that straight.
I’ve turned my own company healthcare offer down, as it was too expensive, and picked up my own. It’s a bummer, but I have to protect my interests - the health of me and my wife.
There are certain things - I hate to say it - that should be regulated, as they are too vital to the public welfare. Energy is one. Insurance, due to the litigious nature of this country, should be another. And that’s the only way “universal healthcare” could be instituted. Anyone see that coming? With the lobby group the inurance industry has? Bah.
As I’ve stated before: medicare and medicade will go bankrupt within the next twenty years, possibly bankrupting the government that offers it. If anyone thinks that the government can offer another social network of security without serious repurcussions, they are completely clueless.
This is not the land of entitlement as so many have come to believe; it is the land of opportunity, where you make your own way.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
to quote PJ O’ourke, “if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Except that public health care in Britain, Canada, and many other countries costs significantly less per patient for equal or better care.
What you mean is, they cap and ration healthcare to keep costs down. Do you call that “equal or better?” I have family in Britain & France and by no means do they believe that healthcare services are “equal or better” to that of the US. For example, my sister in Paris has absolute horror stories of giving birth in a Parisian hospital - she’s a French citizen, her accent is undetectable, etc , so it’s not something like that. My mother - who went over to help her - was once pro-national-healthcare, until she saw it in operation.
Don’t judge the whole thing based on an exception. True, Paris is crappy on so many level, but that’s because it is crowded, not because of some failure of the healthcare system.
Now, obviously, it is not as great as the prestigious American hospitals, but there’s something about everyone having the right to decent treatment that the French (and so many others) find appealing. There are much less noble causes (actually, downright reprehensible ones) that a government can use its money for than universal healthcare. Get it?
So now, more or less everyone in the French system has sub-par healthcare, except for the wealthy who fly to the US. Meanwhile, the high taxes made necessary by this nearly collapsing system are strangling economic growth and employment. How is any of this good for the “average” person? [/quote]
No. French healthcare might be many things (bloated, bureaucratic, etc.) but sub-par it ain’t. Do not twist things to suit your view.
I don’t know how you deduced that the system was “collapsing” or that treatment for the poor was “strangling economic growth”, but the French people would never change it for anything else. So, if you want to talk about the “average” person, go ask him/her why is it that they’d rather pay a few bucks to help their fellow less-fortunate citizens than not. And while you’re at it, try to explain to them how it is that your system is better than theirs, and how spending a trillion dollars to fsck up countries half way across the world makes it somehow more acceptable.
Seriously, they are better suited to defend their system than I am.
[quote]kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
Insurance, due to the litigious nature of this country, should be another. [/quote]
I agree with much of your post - but what dost thou mean by this?
[quote]kroby wrote:
The right to decent treatment? The right??? What the hell are you talking about? You have a right to find and pay for decent treatment.
This is not some entitlement. It is an opportunity. Get that straight.[/quote]
You obviously know squat about French law. There’s a profusion of legal texts that guarantee that right. I’ve listed a few below:
[i]
* DECRET N°74.27 DU 14 JANVIER 1974 :
ARTICLE 2 : << l�??admission à l�??hôpital est prononçée par le directeur général ( ou le directeur ) sur l�??avis d�??un médecin ou d�??un interne de l�??établissement (�?�) >>
ARTICLE 4 : << Si l�??état d�??un malade ou d�??un blessé réclame des soins urgents,même en l�??absence de toutes pièces d�??état civil et de tout renseignement sur les conditions dans lesquelles les frais de séjour seront remboursés à l�??établissement ; plus généralement , il prend toutes mesures pour que ces soins urgents soient assurés .>> .
ARTICLE 31 : << Les étrangers sont admis dans l�??établissement dans les mêmes conditions que les ressortissants français >> .
* LA LOI N°92.722 DU 29 JUILLET 1992 (portant adaptation de la loi n°88.1088 du 1er décembre 1988 relative au minimum d�??insertion et relatif à la lutte contre le chômage d�??exclusion ) :
ARTICLE 187.1 : <<Sous réserve des dispositions de l�??article 186 , toute personne résidant en France a droit , pour elle-même et les personnes à sa charge au sens des articles L.161.14 et L.313.3 du code de la sécurité sociale , à l�??aide médicale pour des dépenses de santé qu�??elle ne peut supporter (�?�)>>.
* CIRCULAIRE N°33.93 DU 17 SEPTEMBRE 1993 (relative à l�??accès aux soins des personnes les plus démunies , du ministère des affaires sociales , de la santé et de la ville ) :
<< (…) L�??article L.711.14 du code de la santé publique rappelle que les établissements assurant un service public garantissent l�??égal accès de tous aux soins qu�??ils dispensent. Ils sont ouverts à toutes les personnes dont l�??état requiert leurs services…
"Ces règles s�??appliquent tout particulièrement aux démunis pour lesquels le service public est le dernier recours . (…)Hors cas d�??urgence , lorsque l�??état du patient ne nécessite pas une hospitalisation ou lorsque ce dernier se présente dans l�??établissement sans connaître son état réel , il importe qu�??il puisse être examiné par un médecin ou un interne qui lui prescrira les soins qui lui sont nécessaires , même s�??il est dépourvu de pièces justificatives permettant sa prise en charge ou de moyens financiers.Je vous rappelle qu�??il n�??appartient pas aux membres du corps médical de refuser de donner les soins que requiert l�??état du patient si celui se présente sans prise en charge (…) >>.
* LOI N°93.1027 DU 24 AOUT 1993 (relative à la maîtrise de l�??immigration et aux conditions d�??entrées , d�??accueil et de séjour des étrangers en France ):
ARTICLES 186 DU CODE DE LA FAMILLE ET DE L�??AIDE SOCIALE : <<les personnes de nationalité étrangère bénéficient dans les conditions prévues aux titres 2, 3 et 3 bis :
1-des prestations d�??aides sociales à l�??enfance ; 2- de l�??aide sociale en cas d�??admission dans un centre d�??hébergement et de réadaptation sociale ; 3- de l�??aide médicale en cas de soins dispensés par un établissement de santé ou de prescriptions ordonnées à cette occasion , y compris en cas de consultation externe ; 4 -de l�??aide médicale à domicile , à condition qu�??elles justifient soit d�??un titre exigé des personnes de nationalité étrangère pour séjourner régulièrement en France, soit d�??une résidence ininterrompue en France métropolitaine depuis au moins trois ans (…) >>.
* DECRET N°94.294 DU 15 AVRIL 1994 (fixant la liste des titres exigés des personnes de nationalité étrangère pour l�??application de l�??article 186 du code de la famille et de l�??aide sociale ) :
Article 1er : << la liste des titres et documents attestant la régularité de la résidence en France des personnes de nationalité étrangère pour l�??attribution des formes d�??aide sociale visées au 4 et à l�??avant dernier alinéa de l�??article 186 du C.F.A.S est fixée ainsi qu�??il suit : 1-carte de résident ; 2-carte de résident privilégié ; 3-carte de séjour temporaire ; certificat de résidence de ressortissant algérien ; 5-récépissé de demande de renouvellement de l�??un des titres ci-dessus ; 6- récépissé de première demande de carte de séjour d�??une validité supérieure à trois mois ; 7-autorisation provisoire de séjour d�??une durée de validité égale ou supérieure à trois mois ; 8- récépissé de demande de titre de séjour portant la mention " reconnu réfugié " d�??une durée de validité de six mois renouvelable ;9-récépissé de demande de titre de séjour portant la mention " étranger admis au titre de l�??asile " d�??une durée de validité de six mois renouvelable ;10-récépissé de demande d�??asile intitulé " récépissé constatant le dépôt d�??une demande de statut de réfugié " d�??une durée de validité de trois mois renouvelable ;11-carte d�??identité d�??Andorran délivrée par le préfet du département des Pyrénées Orientales ; 12- passeport monégasque revêtu d�??une mention du consul général de France à Monaco valant autorisation de séjour ; 13- livret ou carnet de circulation >>.
* Code de la santé publique :
L.711.4 : Les établissements publics de santé garantissent l�??égal accès de tous aux soins qu�??ils dispensent. Ils sont ouverts à toutes personnes dont l�??état requiert leurs services. Ils doivent être en mesure de les accueillir de jour et de nuit, éventuellement en urgence, ou d�??assurer leur admission dans un autre établissement. Ils dispensent aux patients les soins préventifs, curatifs et palliatifs que requiert leur état et veillent à la continuité de ces soins, à l�??issue de leur admission ou de leur hébergement. Ils ne peuvent établir aucune discrimination entre les malades en ce qui concerne les soins.
* Loi du 31 juillet 1991 :
L�??accueil de toute personne est une obligation du service public hospitalier.
En situation d�??urgence, chacun doit être admis à l�??hôpital. Ce dernier ne peut exiger une pièce d�??état civil ou des renseignements relatifs aux modalités de prise en charge avant de procéder aux soins.
Hors urgence, dans le cas d�??une hospitalisation ou pour des soins programmés en consultation externe, l�??hôpital peut demander les cartes d�??assuré social ou d�??aide médicale ou à défaut une provision en application de l�??article R.716.91 du code de la santé publique.
* Loi du 29 juillet 1998 :
Il est demandé aux directeurs des établissements de sensibiliser à nouveau le personnel hospitalier pour qu�??ils exercent une particulière vigilance afin de faciliter l�??accueil des plus démunis. L�??ouverture à la cité des établissements sanitaires est renforcée par la possibilité pour les institutions sociales et les associations d�??être plus souvent et plus systématiquement présentes à l�??hôpital. L�??hôpital doit s�??ouvrir à une dynamique de réseau. Si l�??état médical du patient ne justifie pas une hospitalisation, il convient :
- d�??informer cette personne de ses droits sociaux, des structures d�??accueil social et d�??accompagnement et de faciliter ses démarches dans ce sens
- de l�??inviter à prendre contact avec ces structures
- ou encore de l�??adresser à un interlocuteur participant au dispositif de veille social qui doit être mis en place à l�??initiative du représentant de l�??Etat dans le département. Ce dispositif est chargé d�??informer et d�??orienter les personnes en difficulté et fonctionne en permanence tous les jours de l�??année et peut être saisi par toute personne, organisme ou collectivité.
Article L.711.3 : l�??hôpital est un des acteurs engagés dans la prévention et la lutte contre les exclusions dont la coordination devra être assurée par le comité départementale de coordination des politiques de prévention et de lutte contre les exclusions. (article 155 de la loi ). Le service public hospitalier concourt à la lutte contre l�??exclusion sociale, en relation avec les autres professions et institutions compétentes en ce domaine, ainsi que les associations qui oeuvrent dans le domaine de l�??insertion et de la lutte contre l�??exclusion, dans une dynamique de réseaux
Article L.711.4 : les établissements doivent s�??assurer qu�??à l�??issue de leur admission ou de leur hébergement, tous les patients disposent des conditions d�??existence nécessaires à la poursuite de leur traitement. A cette fin, ils orientent les patients sortants, ne disposant pas de telles conditions d�??existence, vers des structures prenant en compte la précarité de leur situation. Les établissements de santé public ou P.S.P.H contribuent à l�??objectif global de réinsertion des patients dans le circuit de droit commun d�??accès aux soins dés l�??accueil de ceux-ci dans les services de soins et aux urgences (rapport de l�??assemblée nationale n°856, tome 2, Le Garrec, page 106 ).
* Constitution du 4 octobre 1958 dans son préambule :
"Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l�??homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu�??ils sont définis par la déclaration de 1789, confirmée et complétée par le préambule de la constitution de 1946. "
Préambule de la constitution du 27 octobre 1946 : " La Nation assure à l�??individu et à la famille les conditions nécessaires à leur développement. Elle garantie à tous, notamment à l�??enfant, à la mère et aux travailleurs, la protection de la santé, la sécurité matérielle, le repos et les loisirs. "
* Code de déontologie (décret n°95-1000 du 6 septembre 1995 portant code déontologie médicale)
Art 7 :Le médecin doit écouter, examiner, conseiller ou soigner avec la même conscience toutes les personnes quels que soient leur origine, leurs m�?urs et leur situation de famille, leur appartenance à une ethnie, une nation ou une religion déterminée, leur handicap ou leur état de santé, leur réputation ou les sentiments qu�??il peut éprouver à leur égard.
Art 9 : Tout médecin qui se trouve en présence d�??un malade ou d�??un blessé en péril ou, informé qu�??un malade ou un blessé est en péril, doit lui porter assistance ou s�??assurer qu�??il reçoit les soins nécessaires.
Art 48 : Le médecin ne peut abandonner ses malades en cas de danger public, sauf sur ordre formel donné par une autorité qualifiée, conformément à la loi.[/i]
Translation: Do not speak about what you don’t know. If you think French law should be changed, take it up with them. But don’t throw “What the hell are you talking about?” to my face when you clearly have no idea which way the wind blows.
Actually, following your logic, there are no inalienable right. And it may come as a shock to you, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issue has been settled 60 years ago. Go read it, and see what your country’s position on it was.
[quote]lixy wrote:
No. French healthcare might be many things (bloated, bureaucratic, etc.) but sub-par it ain’t. Do not twist things to suit your view.
[/quote]
Sub-par, meaning that French healthcare isn’t as good as it is here in the US.
I have a brother (I come from a huge family…) who married into a French family, the head of which has spent his whole life high in the bureaucracy that administers the healthcare system there. According to him, it is nearly on the verge of collapse. I’ve read that this is true of most of the European systems.
high taxes to feed the “healthcare” monster = low growth/high unemployment. What’s not to understand?
They like the idea of universal healthcare - true. But that does not mean they are happy with their own healthcare. It is the converse here in the US. If you ask a broad swath of the population how the American healthcare system is faring - you will get mostly negative answers, up to 70-80%. However, if you ask those same people how happy they are with their own healthcare - they invariably answer that they are very happy with it.
Ask the average French person (who hasn’t been infected with erroneous visions of Americans dying in the streets for lack of healthcare) where they would rather get an operation, or give birth, or get cancer treatment, etc. I have done so, and the answers are revealing. See above.
In general, why do you think many European companies are starting to offer “private” healthcare for their employees? I’d be willing to bet that we are increasingly going to see people/organizations trying to “opt out” of national healthcare, in favor of small private systems.