presidential election 2012: Romney v Obama

[BigJohn]

I think the US is a mainly private system and it has failed, or at least is far below other systems in terms of affordable, high quality distribution of health care services to the population as a whole.

[fred smith]

I think the US is a mainly private system

agreed

and it has failed,

Disagree.

or at least is far below other systems in terms of affordable, high quality distribution of health care services to the population as a whole.

Perhaps because the poor and lazy and irresponsible abuse the system but then this is why the conservative Heritage Foundation pushed for the insurance mandate.

The issue that you seem to be clouding is one of affordability. In a perfect world, this, that or the other might be nice... and we should all strive for... and we should all and the world would be so much better if everyone were kind to kittens BUT when it comes to picking up the tab and how long that same group of people can pick up the tab... well, Europe is bankrupt for a reason and a major part of it is that its "affordable" health care was only "affordable" to those who were reaping the benefits but then why discuss something so distasteful as money? This whole discussion reminds me of one where we need to do more to help Africa... and we have and do and continue to strive but the results? are often more the results of those who are directly living those lives... or we must do more to fight climate change and never mind the economic costs because polar bears are drowning... or falling from buildings (haha). Why cannot the left think? Why cannot the right feel? has it come back to this old saw yet again?

[BigJohn]

and it has failed,

Disagree.

Oh, so this is not failure to you?

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 49.9 million residents, 16.3% of the population, were uninsured in 2010 (up from 49.0 million residents, 16.1% of the population, in 2009).[1][2] According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (15.2%), than any other nation in 2008.[3] The United States had the fourth highest level of government health care spending per capita ($3,426), behind three countries with higher levels of GDP per capita: Monaco, Luxembourg, and Norway.[3] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.[4] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[5]

From Wikipedia. Full article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

[Dr. McCoy]

Social Darwin has selected the underachievers for elimination. We must improve the herd.

[Winston Smith]

Social Darwin has selected the underachievers for elimination. We must improve the herd.

Mother Nature must be a Republican.

On the other hand I keep thinking about that trillion plus dollars the U.S. spent chasing hallucinations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and then shoveling money into futile attempts to rebuild what it destroyed. That would have probably been enough to paper over this whole health care insurance gap in the U.S. and then some.

[Gao Bohan]

the real question is whether it is affordable and sustainable in the long run. If it is NOT sustainable then it becomes merely yet another "good idea" of the left that is "the right thing to do" but
one that is not realistically sustainable in the long term. THAT does make a difference and I don't think that anyone here has adequately addressed the cost to fair to need argument in a satisfactory way.

It has been stated repeatedly that public health care systems, whether single-payer (like Taiwan's NHI) or fully socialized (like Britain's NHI), cost less per capita and less a percentage of the GDP than America's mixed public/private system. The better question is whether the US can afford to maintain the status quo. If it is NOT sustainable, then it becomes merely yet another "good idea" of the right that is the "right thing to do" but one that is not realistically sustainable in the long term.

While government management might make for more efficient pooling of patients and the like to drive down costs... the other solution would be to open the insurance market completely as it is for cars and other products and junk the state residency and other restrictions. This would make the system more privatized while the government intervention for preconditions and poverty would be a social instrument or social democrat (whatever that means in this context) that would not inherently change the free market system that would in my view result in a definition of the existing system as PRIVATE.

Even if that occurred, we'd still be faced with the same problem: uninsured patients showing up at emergency rooms, costing tens to hundreds of thousands per patient per vist, driving up premiums for those who are insured. You could repeal EMTALA, but that won't necessarily stop hospitals from treating uninsured, emergency condition patients. In fact, we know that historically it won't stop them, because they did so long before EMTALA passed in 1986. Putting aside the moral aspect for the moment, you'd still be perpetuating a costly and inefficient system.

Obamacare institutes an individual purchase mandate to address the free rider problem. To keep this on topic, Romney is avidly opposed to the individual mandate and to Obamacare in general. To put it simply, a vote for Romney is a vote to repeal Obamacare and a return to the status quo. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obamacare and key health reforms supported by the Republican leadership for 20 years.

[MikeN]

Mitt Romney agrees US health care system is expensive failure compared with socialized system:

During a trip to Israel, Mitt Romney hailed the nation’s health care system for holding down costs and broadening coverage more effectively than the U.S.

The irony: Israel contains costs by adopting a very centralized, government-run health care system — anathema to Romney’s Republican Party.

“Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? Eight percent. You spend eight percent of GDP on health care. You’re a pretty healthy nation,” he said Monday at a breakfast fundraiser, according to the New York Times. “We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care, 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, compare that with the size of our military — our military which is 4 percent, 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways — not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to fund and manage our health care costs.”

Israel’s health care system is an instructive exercise in all that rankles American conservatives — replete with government mandates, price controls and centralized payments funded mostly by high taxes.

Reformed in 1995 on the basis of a European model, Israelis are forced to buy insurance from one of several competing not-for-profit plans, which are heavily regulated by the government, according to the journal Health Affairs. The state requires them to cover everyone regardless of health status, and establishes a broad benefits package insurance policies must provide, updated annually by a committee of appointed experts. The government pays the full cost of these policies, mostly through higher taxes. The state also caps the level of annual revenue hospitals can earn from an insurance plan. Care is largely delivered through government-owned facilities; there are private providers, but they tend to charge more.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ ... ?ref=fpblg

[Winston Smith]

Mitt Romney agrees US health care system is expensive failure compared with socialized system:

During a trip to Israel. . . Care is largely delivered through government-owned facilities; there are private providers, but they tend to charge more.

As is true here in Taiwan. I've found that if you want truly expert health care here, you need to go the private route. Private care at Cathay Hospital, for example, or the private option at NTU. Connections also make a big difference here also as to whether you receive expert health care, particularly if the problem is at all complicated or less than obvious.

It could be worse though. Last week there was a report in the local press about a famous show host who was in Canada on vacation with his family. He passed out and was taken to a local hospital "emergency" room where he had to wait twelve hours before he was seen by a doctor.

[hansioux]

As is true here in Taiwan. I've found that if you want truly expert health care here, you need to go the private route. Private care at Cathay Hospital, for example, or the private option at NTU. Connections also make a big difference here also as to whether you receive expert health care, particularly if the problem is at all complicated or less than obvious.

It could be worse though. Last week there was a report in the local press about a famous show host who was in Canada on vacation with his family. He passed out and was taken to a local hospital "emergency" room where he had to wait twelve hours before he was seen by a doctor.

That should be true anywhere. National health care should be providing basic health care so that average people won;t wait till they need emergency care to go to the hospital. And those who have money can go to private health care and get a more detailed and expensive package and receive care that are not absolutely necessary.

The Canadian or the Taiwanese system aren't perfect (especially when the richest city refuses to pay medical fees they collected back to the health care system...) but from what I saw, US need a public health care option. The wait in some of the US emergency rooms is horrible as well, especially when you don't have insurance.

I tend to see the health care bill as pretty centrist. I think hardcore liberals would prefer a public option or single-payer system. The hardcore conservatives wants to keep private insurance as profitable as they are now. So the bill forces private companies to compete and provide healthcare that public groups will choose (real free market is about fair competition. free as in liberty, not as in beer and anything goes), and still makes sure everyone is covered. If the implementation is as good as the description, I think it's kind of the best of both worlds.

But seriously, I don't think a universal public option would in anyway damage the private health care anyway. Those who are already paying through their noses for health care that should be available to everyone will simply use the money they now saved to pay for higher quality health care. In the end it should still be a win win. But who cares, except those who wants the status quo....

[Winston Smith]

Mitt Romney agrees US health care system is expensive failure compared with socialized system:

During a trip to Israel. . . Care is largely delivered through government-owned facilities; there are private providers, but they tend to charge more.

As is true here in Taiwan. I've found that if you want truly expert health care here, you need to go the private route. Private care at Cathay Hospital, for example, or the private option at NTU. Connections also make a big difference here also as to whether you receive expert health care, particularly if the problem is at all complicated or less than obvious.

It could be worse though. Last week there was a report in the local press about a famous show host who was in Canada on vacation with his family. He passed out and was taken to a local hospital "emergency" room where he had to wait twelve hours before he was seen by a doctor.

That should be true anywhere. National health care should be providing basic health care so that average people won;t wait till they need emergency care to go to the hospital. And those who have money can go to private health care and get a more detailed and expensive package and receive care that are not absolutely necessary.

I'm talking necessary care -- as in walking pneumonia. Two public clinic doctors completely missed it over a two week period and many office visits while prescribing worthless pills. Meanwhile the problem worsened. A private clinic doctor at Cathay picked it up in five minutes, prescribed antibiotics, and the problem was cured in a few days. Total out-of-pocket cost: $120 including x-rays. They didn't even ask for our NHI card.