Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Your plan assumes that people are overusing health care services in a frivilous way.>> No, that is not an assumption I'm making. It happens occasionally but is not the major factor in driving the cost of health care up. I believe costs are driven up because with insurance companies picking up the tab there is no reason to try and be competitive. Doctors order tests that are not necessary just to bring the clinic money. Every podunk clinic and hospital orders up a CT Scanner and a MR Imager because they are cool and hugely profitable. They are also very expensive and are not needed in nearly the quantity we currently have. If people were paying the bill themselves there would be incentive for clinics to offer services in the most cost effective manner. Given equal quality, people would go to the low cost clinics. This would reduce the overall cost of health care in this country.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Well, I never knew that Brits say preventative. Over here, we just take the root word and add the "ive" E.G. - Active, Directive, Subjective, etc. So, you learn something every day. I will have you know, however, that I am constantly trying to convince people over here to use the British word "ensure" instead of "insure" when used to mean that you wish to assure something, as opposed to insuring (with an insurance policy!)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm just at a loss as to why people in the U.S. are so opposed to something that clearly works in other countries.>> Europeans pay approximately twice as much in taxes as Americans... largely to fund their superior social programs (health care, education, family assistance). Do you think people would be willing to pay the increased taxes that would be needed to provide similar service in the United States? I doubt it. What you would end up with is a shoddy system like today's Medicare, where increasing numbers of doctors refuse to treat patients because the reimbursement rate is so low.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Do you think people would be willing to pay the increased taxes that would be needed to provide similar service in the United States?<< Yes. It would be easy to make the case for what the taxes would provide. More and more employers are dropping or reducing health insurance benefits. As a result, more and more people are paying out huge premiums anyway. The huge cost savings to companies could free up revenue for pension plans -- those are a distant memory at most companies these days -- or free up money that could be reinvested in growing their business. Plus, people not worried about losing health benefits could more easily change to better jobs.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo No worries John. In many ways, American English is much more logical than British english. Have you ever read Bill bryson's works? He is great. Another American expat in Britain. One thing he talked about was early American thinkers like Ben Franklin started to change the language on purpose to differentiate it from Britain. But it is interesting to see how British, South African, American, Canadian, West Indian, Australian and New Zealand English differ. Just like Castillian and New World Spanish, or French and Canadian French.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Oh, and... >>preventive or preventative The words are often used interchangeably to denote whatever prevents something else happening or occurring, especially when it is undesirable. However, preventative is often applied to an actual object, especially in noun form, while preventive is mostly reserved for an abstract concept, and remains an adjective: Preventive medicine regards vitamin C as an effective preventative against colds. © From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia. Helicon Publishing LTD 2007. All rights reserved.<< But what do they know? They can't even spell encylopedia.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 The Hutchinson encyclopedia is probably equivalent to the SONIE electronics company.
Originally Posted By jonvn "They can't even spell encylopedia." A trait not restricted to them, it appears. I think health insurance in this country costs several hundred dollars a month. So, if taxes gets raised by that amount to cover medical anyway, and that goes away, then there's really not much of a difference.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>A trait not restricted to them, it appears.<< LOL! I hate when that happens.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Yes. It would be easy to make the case for what the taxes would provide.>> I really don't think so. It has become about impossible for school bonding referendums to pass in this country because people are so anti-tax. Do you really think people would accept a tax increase to provide something that the majority of people in this country already have at a relatively low cost? I doubt it. This isn't the 60's anymore. No one cares about anyone else. I think the best we can do to help the uninsured is to make the present system lower cost.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <to provide something that the majority of people in this country already have at a relatively low cost?> You may be describing your situation, but I don't think it applies to the majority any more. In addition to the roughly 50 million uninsured, many people who get insurance through their employers now have to pay monthly premiums anyway, and watching them rise alarmingly fast (ask vbdad55 about that one), and no longer consider it "relatively low cost." Plus, few people are crazy about the hoops you have to jump through these days if you DO have insurance, and the gaps in coverage you can sometimes drive a truck through. You're right in that we won't change to single payer until a solid majority of Americans favor it (more than 51%, since the interests to keep the status quo are powerful and loaded with cash, which means political access); but if things continue the way they are, I think we'll get there. Just way after the rest of the world.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No one cares about anyone else." Then they need to understand this is not about anyone else, but them as well.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>to provide something that the majority of people in this country already have at a relatively low cost?<< Like Dabob said, I am not sure that's such a large majority, if it is a majority at all. There are huge, huge numbers of people now that have no health insurance whatsoever. Did you take a look at the article I linked to? You asked a simple question -- how much is an office visit? The article details why the answer to that is complex... and perplexing. Part of the larger question is whether we think that health is important enough that we will do what we can to ensure that a maximum number of people are covered. We all benefit when more people are healthy, from productivity levels to stopping the spread of illness. Will some people abuse "free" medical care? Absolutely. We should do all we can to prevent and punish that. But because some might abuse it doesn't mean we should simply not try and fix what almost everyone agrees is a broken, inefficient, wildly wasteful and sometimes cruel system.
