Originally Posted By dsnykid You are free to pick your doctor and change it if you are not satisfied with your care... I've been fortunate and have had the same doctor since I was 2, he's getting ready to retire and has been helping me find a new doctor based on my medical history. He would like it if I stay with his partners of course, as he will get a larger referral fee, but has no say in my final decision.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Am I still allowed to pick my own doctor or does the government do it?<< I would certainly think so since everyone would be covered. People will most likely be able to choose the doctor they feel most comfortable with.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>>Am I still allowed to pick my own doctor or does the government do it?<< I would certainly think so since everyone would be covered. People will most likely be able to choose the doctor they feel most comfortable with.< I really don't think so -- it's not even the case in many coverages today ( although in many HMO's you do get to choose from 'in network' people, so you do have a choice, just not unlimited choice. You could be 'assigned' to a location / group - except when specialization is needed. People need to spend more time talking to others in countries with health care - many posts here make it sound like it is all upside, I assure you it is not. Much like current coverages for many, if you don't use it often, and have no critical issues it is fine... my wife's cousin who now lives in Ireland ( for the past 15 years) - was diagnosed with cancer....it was determined she needed surgery ( after many well spread out visits / exams) - then when she got the news on surgery was told it would be 4 months before they could get her scheduled. btw - the surgery was performed in England, that is where she was sent, no choice. I am not saying there is no upside, but once again I feel the group that will take the biggest financial hit on this ( as well as lowered health care services) is the middle class .... already today some individual physicians have started their own 'groups' and one pays a set fee - per person in the family for unlimited visits - care from that physician, and they limit how many people they handle. Those are their only patients. In some of these the costs can range from $2500 - $5000 per person - no insurance coverage - cash ! This is becoming very popular in the area where I live - so the wealthy will be able to afford what they want also.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Many people in HMOs don't get to pick their own doctor now. >> Not entirely true. My doctor switched to a different provider and I was able to switch along with him. <<Or if they are uninsured, don't have any doctor. >> No kidding. But when we are all insured is what I was wondering. <<How is this not understood?>> Well it's a rather complex issue and I feel it's best to ask questions. Do you understand that?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Not entirely true." Many is not all. "it's a rather complex issue" No, it's really not. People don't have healthcare. In large numbers. We spend more than anyone else in the world, and have very bad coverage. There are models all over the world from nations where this is a much better situation than what we have here. We simply need to adopt one.
Originally Posted By ecdc So many of the arguments against universal health care are already things we deal with in the U.S., but for some reason we don't recognize it. As jonvn pointed out, many Americans can't pick their own doctor right now, or have a very limited selection given to them by their HMO. Then we hear about how long you'll have to wait for a doctor. Anybody try and schedule an appointment with an in-network specialist in the U.S.? My wife just dealt with this; it was a short, breezy 3 month wait to see the specialist she needed. My doctor gave me a choice on a follow-up visit: come in the next day when he had a cancellation (and miss school and work since I hadn't planned on it and hadn't made other arrangements) or come in two months later. And what of all the red tape in universal health care? Ever try and deal with your U.S. insurance company? I recommend a strong drink (get the good stuff, you'll need it) before calling. Taxes will go up in the U.S. we're told. Most likely true, but what do you pay taxes for right now? You pay Halliburton $100 for every load of laundry they do in Iraq, and you pay $45 for a six-pack of Coke for soldiers in Iraq. You already pay taxes for the most expensive people to be insured. Is the solution to say "No more taxes", or is it to demand better accountability for our tax dollars. Not to mention, when your company stops paying for your insurance, depending on where you work, you get that back (I will at my job in the form of bonuses and profit-sharing). There's really no compelling reason to argue against universal health care anymore.
Originally Posted By DAR <a href="http://www.balancedpolitics.org/editorial-solution_to_health_care_crisis.htm" target="_blank">http://www.balancedpolitics.or g/editorial-solution_to_health_care_crisis.htm</a> Here's another interesting article about what can be done. The first part of the solution struck me. It's says we have 600,000 doctors in this country and we're fast approaching 300 million citizens in this country. Isn't that going to create more problems? That averages out to 500 per doctor, you're going to tell me that those of us who have health care will still receive the same care we have been? And if so, won't we have to relax medical school standards?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ not blindly though please - we do enough of that already - the scale we are talking about here is huge... I also feel it safe to say some people will realize coverage / better coverage - and some will realize worse -- this is not a win - win situation for everyone, so there is going to be controversy. My wife works for a hospital and I can tell you one of the additional reasons for the overtaxing of the system today are illegals that do not have coverage - and I know that is not a popular statement but it is reality. Now maybe soon that situation will change as far as legal / illegal, but the volume again is the x factor, just like trying to cover a nation this size. I am not totally against, but a lot of work has got to be done before someone pushed the button, and i don't believe any current system out there is a 'turn-key' solution.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Not to mention, when your company stops paying for your insurance, depending on where you work, you get that back (I will at my job in the form of bonuses and profit-sharing). < and trust me, plans for many companies already in the works for this....it will be down to the few sectors I mentioned earlier within 5 years is my best guess.. and that is an educated guess based on groups I have been and am a part of...
Originally Posted By jonvn There are about 12 million illegal aliens in this country, of about 300 million. That's what, 4% of the entire population? Our entire national health care system is in the dumper for 96% of the people because these few are destroying it? In any case, that simply goes further to show that our health care system as we have now is simply broken and ridiculous. If everyone was allowed access to medical facilities, this problem would also simply evaporate.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < Is the solution to say "No more taxes", or is it to demand better accountability for our tax dollars< I absolutely agree with this statement which is why I have a concern over the next one.. <There's really no compelling reason to argue against universal health care anymore.< I disagree here for 2 reasons. As stated above our country does such an 'excellent' job handling things like SSA today, to just turn over a national health care system to a group of patronage workers who gives a rats behind about you, concerns me quite a lot! yes, dealing with the insurance companies is never fun, but deal with someone like SSA and then talk to me. the second reason is I do have a concern about paying more for less...maybe that is self centered but sorry, my family is very important to me ( as I am sure all of yours are to you) - and I do believe this is a reality for many of us.
Originally Posted By jonvn But...you ARE paying more for less. We pay more for our health care in this country than anyplace else, and we rank close to #40 in the world (around where El Salvador is) in being able to provide services to its people. I really don't see what a "patronage" system has to do with this. What do you expect to happen?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 You turn any control over to a bureaucracy like the SSA - and see what happens to scheduling / records / approvals etc... sorry, not the crew I want controlling anything that affects my health -- as for paying more, again I likely am in a smaller group than most - and although I may pay out the ying for my coverage, I have access to the best care possible and full choice - so yes, I expect a decline. Do my needs outweigh everyone else's -- no. But as I get older and need more healthcare than I used to, understand I am very protective about what I have.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>There are about 12 million illegal aliens in this country, of about 300 million. That's what, 4% of the entire population? Our entire national health care system is in the dumper for 96% of the people because these few are destroying it?<< What's funny is that people say it's "is not a popular statement but it is reality." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "Illegal aliens" are blamed for EVERYTHING in this country from traffic to global warming...and it's one of the few socially acceptable prejudices, like hating fat people or people who smoke. I wouldn't worry about being "unpopular." I don't think that a mere 4% are going to bring the whole country down, even on health care...unless that 4% is on the OTHER end of the socio-economic scale and are CONTROLLING the system.
Originally Posted By DAR <<There's really no compelling reason to argue against universal health care anymore.>> Should we be forced to pay for someone who chooses an uhealthy lifestyle? About two years ago thanks my doctor decided to put me on Lipitor and Niaspan for my cholesterol which was over 250 at time. I still ate what I wanted because I figured that the medication would keep it down. My cholesterol numbers are consistently in the acceptable level. My totals were 150 last time I went. But when I first went on this medication, I weighed 185. Now? I'm up to 225. This could create a whole set of other problems that medication won't exactly help. I'm the one that caused this. Why should someone else pay for my carelessness?
Originally Posted By ecdc The "against" arguments on here all seem to come from those who have good insurance and are wary to give that up in favor of something that might not be as good. While that's understandable, I see two key problems with it that Sicko deals with very well. The first is the assumption that your insurance is good and will take care of you. These are for-profit companies. Their bottom line is not to take care of you or your family; it's to make a buck. When you pay your premiums and have routine doctor visits, you may not be a threat to that bottom line, but as soon as that changes, you may (as thousands of Americans have experienced) suddenly run into problems. Maybe they determine that your condition was pre-existing; maybe (as Dabob noted) you're told you don't need a check-up every three months, but that once a year is plenty. Maybe (as my wife and I experienced) you'll go to the emergency room in pain and be told you need to go somewhere else because it's not in-network. Or maybe your insurance is completely fantastic and they'll do every single thing your doctor says without blinking an eye. But don't be foolish enough to assume that's how it is for everyone and that's how it will always be for you. The second problem, I'll admit, is more subjective and open to debate. It's the moral aspect. I won't attempt to hide my disgust on this one. It sickens me that I live in a country where the President vetoes stem-cell research in the name of morality and interferes in a personal family matter to let a woman die (Schaivo) but does nothing to stop Americans from being scammed by their health insurance. We have time to debate intelligent design, Janet Jackson's boob, and boys kissing, but we routinely fail the neediest among us. We're not even close to being the Christian country we pretend to be; we're materialistic, selfish, greedy people with fake moral outrage over issues that aren't even moral questions. Watch Sicko and when the hospital sends homeless people in a cab back to the homeless shelter without giving them any care since they aren't insured, or when 9/11 workers can't get the care they need here but can get it in Cuba, tell me America's the greatest country in the world and that we're a good, Christian nation. We're an embarrassment, and it's time to get outraged over real issues (as upset as we all are, no doubt, over Mitt Romney's hunting lies or John Kerry's botched joke) so we can fix it and return to truly being the greatest instead of just pretending.
Originally Posted By DAR Here's a solution start cutting things that don't benefit this country. No more libraries,centers,bridges or roads named after politicians, those are a compelete waste of taxpayers money. Another thing we could get rid of is the funding we're doing for AIDS and malaria in Africa. What benefit is that to any of us? But then do we cut the budgets for education? The military? The environment?
Originally Posted By jonvn "You turn any control over to a bureaucracy like the SSA" But we already have a massive bureacracy in the insurance companies. ""Illegal aliens" are blamed for EVERYTHING in this country from traffic to global warming..." Well, I can see the global warming one. Those tacos produce a lot of gas in the people who eat them. "Should we be forced to pay for someone who chooses an uhealthy lifestyle?" OK, again: YOU DO NOW. "The first is the assumption that your insurance is good and will take care of you." This is what the "Sicko" movie is actually about. That these companies do ANYTHING but take care of you. They go out of their way where they can to deny claims. You think you are insured, until you find out you're not going to be covered. So all this "I already have insurance" stuff is predicated on a lack of understanding that they can and will cut you off if they can. I know personally an individual this has happened to. It seems many people here do, too. Or it has happened to people here directly. That's a pretty serious indictment, in that in this little grouping, it's a common occurrence. "Here's a solution start cutting things that don't benefit this country. No more libraries,centers,bridges or roads named after politicians, those are a compelete waste of taxpayers money." Libraries and bridges and roads don't benefit the public? I will simply assume you are trying to make some sort of joke.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Should we be forced to pay for someone who chooses an unhealthy lifestyle?<< Yes, for two reasons. First, it's the right thing to do. Second, because it's impossible to say what should qualify as an "unhealthy" lifestyle. Do we not cover any smokers at all, or do we just say we don't cover those that started smoking after 21 when they should know better? Do we not pay for coal miners, with the logic that they chose a profession that is known to cause black lung disease? Do we say people who go hiking, surfing, skydiving, or skiing have to pay more than those that don't? If DAR has three speeding tickets, do we not pay for him but we pay for vbdad who has none? There's simply no way to qualify an unhealthy lifestyle. >>Another thing we could get rid of is the funding we're doing for AIDS and malaria in Africa. What benefit is that to any of us?<< I really, really hope this is sarcasm.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You turn any control over to a bureaucracy like the SSA>> I'm curious -- what's your beef with the SSA? Social Security has been one of the most successful social programs in U.S. history. It has virtually eliminated poverty among the elderly in this country.
