Health Care in US bad even for Insured

[opebo]

Even insured US children recieve poor health care, according to a study by the Bland Corporation.

Oh if only one could be French.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Even insured US children recieve poor health care, according to a study by the Bland Corporation.

Oh if only one could be French.

Oh, Opebo.. don't you realize that health care is a privilege, not a right, and the best quality health care goes to the highest bidder!

It's obvious that the government regulation of medicine and procedures is strangling our health care system.  If only insurance companies and providers had free reign to do as they please, quality would skyrocket and costs would plummet!

A private system with no regulation where profits are the number 1 priority is clearly better for people than a public system where access to quality health care for everyone is the primary goal!

Canadians have to wait for procedures and French people smell bad!  That's enough right there to keep the stagnant, inefficient, costly health care system that we have!

If you can't get your way, don't compromise... just drag your feet and make the system worse!!!

[John Dibble]

It's obvious that the government regulation of medicine and procedures is strangling our health care system.  If only insurance companies and providers had free reign to do as they please, quality would skyrocket and costs would plummet!

A private system with no regulation where profits are the number 1 priority is clearly better for people than a public system where access to quality health care for everyone is the primary goal!

Canadians have to wait for procedures and French people smell bad!  That's enough right there to keep the stagnant, inefficient, costly health care system that we have!

If you can't get your way, don't compromise... just drag your feet and make the system worse!!!

Ah, sarcasm.

Obviously a stab at libertarian and conservative beliefs on the subject, though I take exception to the idea that we just want to drag our feet and make the system worse. Health care is a complex issue, and let's be intellectually honest and admit that both government and private sector forces are part of the problem. I certainly would love to change the system we have now, though doing that would certainly be a problem. The compromise part is especially problematic given that what the different sides want is in many ways completely opposite.

I personally don't believe that moving to a completely public system is going to solve all our problems, nor is it necessarily going to make things fair. As mentioned, Canadians have long waits in some cases - if you've got cancer and need an MRI to be sure then you might just die in the months of waiting. Doesn't exactly sound fair, now does it? On the flip side if you live in the US and can get an MRI and treatment quickly but can't afford to do so and die you're just as dead. Hardly seems fair either. In the end dead is dead, and whether you die during a long wait for free care or die just because you can't afford the treatment you're just as dead.

Frankly I think we're a long, long ways off from seeing a fair system no matter what direction we move in. So the real question is is what you personally think would be the better system. Personally I prefer a private one, and I've got lots of reasons for that. Sure, it seems less fair than one that provides for everyone, but after reviewing all the data I've seen I still think it's better than a public one. You've obviously come to a different conclusion.

[The Duke]

It's obvious that the government regulation of medicine and procedures is strangling our health care system.  If only insurance companies and providers had free reign to do as they please, quality would skyrocket and costs would plummet!

The same policy that costs $750 in Massachusetts costs only $150 in Missouri.  Right now, residents of Massachusetts are prohibited by law from buying cheaper insurance if it comes from an out of state provider.  So, yes, allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines (or, as you put it, to have "free reign") would make costs plummet.

A private system with no regulation where profits are the number 1 priority is clearly better for people than a public system where access to quality health care for everyone is the primary goal!

I don't think anyone here thinks profits should be the #1 priority.  I do think efficiency should be a high priority, and I know that socialized medicine is horribly inefficient.  I also think quality of care should be a priority, and under socialized medicine, quality is notoriously low.

Canadians have to wait for procedures and French people smell bad!  That's enough right there to keep the stagnant, inefficient, costly health care system that we have!

Wait times are not a trivial matter.  If you were sick with cancer, you'd mind greatly having to wait two months to see your oncologist.  This is one reason why cancer survival rates are far far lower in britain than in the US.  Wait times cost lives.

[opebo]

It's obvious that the government regulation of medicine and procedures is strangling our health care system.  If only insurance companies and providers had free reign to do as they please, quality would skyrocket and costs would plummet!

The same policy that costs $750 in Massachusetts costs only $150 in Missouri.  Right now, residents of Massachusetts are prohibited by law from buying cheaper insurance if it comes from an out of state provider.  So, yes, allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines (or, as you put it, to have "free reign") would make costs plummet.

This is completely irrelevant as purchased health care is useless for workers - if they get seriously ill they lose their jobs, and thus their ability to buy health insurance.  Besides, it is the norm for private insurers to jettison patients that are expensive, attempt to claim that conditions were 'pre-existing', or to limit care to save money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, quality is consistently rated better under 'socialized medicine' than in the US - most European systems are better.  Anyway, profits are not the #1 priority under private health care, they are the only priority.  Do you understand capitalism?  The steps that get you to profits are irrelevant, the profit is the goal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct, and poor working class people in the US will wait forever for access to any care.  Better a few months than never.

[The Duke]

It's obvious that the government regulation of medicine and procedures is strangling our health care system.  If only insurance companies and providers had free reign to do as they please, quality would skyrocket and costs would plummet!

The same policy that costs $750 in Massachusetts costs only $150 in Missouri.  Right now, residents of Massachusetts are prohibited by law from buying cheaper insurance if it comes from an out of state provider.  So, yes, allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines (or, as you put it, to have "free reign") would make costs plummet.

This is completely irrelevant as purchased health care is useless for workers - if they get seriously ill they lose their jobs, and thus their ability to buy health insurance.  Besides, it is the norm for private insurers to jettison patients that are expensive, attempt to claim that conditions were 'pre-existing', or to limit care to save money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, quality is consistently rated better under 'socialized medicine' than in the US - most European systems are better.  Anyway, profits are not the #1 priority under private health care, they are the only priority.  Do you understand capitalism?  The steps that get you to profits are irrelevant, the profit is the goal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct, and poor working class people in the US will wait forever for access to any care.  Better a few months than never.