population without insurance

[Trigg]

Here is a pretty good article regarding who those people in Sicko without insurance are. I know some will have a problem with the source of the article, but keep reading the report is from the census bureau.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56725



WASHINGTON – While "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore is blaming greed and a broken health care system for the inability of Americans to get health-care insurance, it turns out a heavy percentage of those without coverage are illegal aliens.

According to the latest Census Bureau figures, 43.6 percent of non-citizens in the U.S. are without health insurance. In addition, 33.6 percent of those born elsewhere are without coverage.

By contrast, only 13.4 percent of native-born Americans are without health insurance. And 17.9 percent of naturalized citizens are without coverage.

The statistics will be no surprise to health-care providers. Hospital emergency rooms in Florida and California have been forced to close their doors as a result of increased demands by uninsured and under-insured patients – many of them illegal aliens

[glockmail]

Here is a pretty good article regarding who those people in Sicko without insurance are. I know some will have a problem with the source of the article, but keep reading the report is from the census bureau.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56725



WASHINGTON – While "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore is blaming greed and a broken health care system for the inability of Americans to get health-care insurance, it turns out a heavy percentage of those without coverage are illegal aliens.

According to the latest Census Bureau figures, 43.6 percent of non-citizens in the U.S. are without health insurance. In addition, 33.6 percent of those born elsewhere are without coverage.

Now that BushCo has introduced the Health Savings Account, anyone without an insurance plan at work would be a fool not to use this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account It essentially allows you to spend as little as possible on insurance with a high deductible, pay routine expenses with pre-tax dollars, and use the fund as an investment.

Now that BushCo has introduced the Health Savings Account, anyone without an insurance plan at work would be a fool not to use this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account It essentially allows you to spend as little as possible on insurance with a high deductible, pay routine expenses with pre-tax dollars, and use the fund as an investment.

By contrast, only 13.4 percent of native-born Americans are without health insurance. And 17.9 percent of naturalized citizens are without coverage.

The statistics will be no surprise to health-care providers. Hospital emergency rooms in Florida and California have been forced to close their doors as a result of increased demands by uninsured and under-insured patients – many of them illegal aliens

I heard the other day that about 40% uninsured are those 20-35 who choose not to carry it, as they would rather have the extra cash for themselves. Also about 30% have incomes over $50K, and 20% over $75K. Sorry, no source. But the Democrat's claim that these are all po' folk is BS.

[glockmail]

Now that BushCo has introduced the Health Savings Account, anyone without an insurance plan at work would be a fool not to use this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account It essentially allows you to spend as little as possible on insurance with a high deductible, pay routine expenses with pre-tax dollars, and use the fund as an investment.

[Trigg]

Now that BushCo has introduced the Health Savings Account, anyone without an insurance plan at work would be a fool not to use this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account It essentially allows you to spend as little as possible on insurance with a high deductible, pay routine expenses with pre-tax dollars, and use the fund as an investment.

i had not even heard of this insurance plan.

[waterrescuedude2000]

As far as I'm concerned they dont need insurance. They shouldnt even be in our country period. I have good insurance my job provides it and not a dime out of my check for it. The only thing that i pay is my co pays and deductibles. I do have to pay my own dental though big deal 6 dollars a month

[Joe Steel]

i had not even heard of this insurance plan.

It's not an insurance plan. It's a tax scam.

[nevadamedic]

It's not an insurance plan. It's a tax scam.

You are such an asswad, your retardedness is scary.

[waterrescuedude2000]

You are such an asswad, your retardedness is scary.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Nukeman]

It's not an insurance plan. It's a tax scam.

dispute the following information for me if you can!!!!!! The part I like best is that Moore is always right in his assertions and everyone else is wrong even though they have MUCH MORE research and ligitimate research..:poke:

Here's the link:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx




Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
Michael Moore, politicians and the media use inflated numbers of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage.


Fact Sheet about Michael Moore

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
7/18/2007 4:01:33 PM



Michael Moore was wrong about health insurance.



So were President Bush, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), presidential candidates former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Mike Huckabee and The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, People magazine and Time magazine, as well as CNN, CBS and ABC.



Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up.



Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.



Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.




Breaking It Down: Who’s Uninsured?



The number of the uninsured who aren’t citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million “Americans” without health insurance.



“It’s really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a May 31 speech.



It was typical spin and easy to find. ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal coverage plan on the April 26 “Good Morning America.”



“It’s bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years,” said Johnson.



In his propagandumentary “SiCKO” that favored the socialist health care systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, Michael Moore made the fantastic claim that almost 50 million Americans are uninsured.



“SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance,” quoted Moore’s Web site.



However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.



A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.



Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being “an American” matters to get health insurance.



“That’s the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. That’s it,” said Moore in footage aired by ABC’s “Nightline” on June 13.



That isn’t the only problem with the numbers currently being used.



Moore’s Trouble with the Facts



Recently, CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta accused Michael Moore of “fudging” some numbers in his recent film “SiCKO.” This sparked a temper tantrum by Moore who threatened to become the network’s “worst nightmare” if they didn’t apologize and recant.



CNN did “correct and apologize” for one transcription error, but stood by Gupta’s statement “CNN’s numbers and Moore’s numbers aren’t far off, but we believe ours are a fairer comparison.”



In his film and television appearances, Moore left out quite a bit of information about the uninsured.



On his Web site, Moore claimed the Census Bureau had “underreported” the number of people without health insurance.



But Cheryl Hill Lee, a co-author of the Census Bureau study Moore was citing, told the Business & Media Institute that the data showed the exact opposite of what Moore said.



The Census “underreported” the number of people covered by health insurance – meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.





They Can’t Afford Insurance …



Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot “afford” insurance.



“And when you’ve got 47 million people in this country with no health insurance, they don’t go to the doctor because they can’t afford it,” Moore said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” July 10.



Katie Couric echoed those sentiment on the CBS “Evening News” May 23.



“The number of Americans with no health insurance is continuing to grow as more and more employers say they can’t afford to offer group insurance … People who try to buy insurance on their own often find the price beyond their reach,” said Couric as she introduced a two-part “investigation of the health insurance industry.”



But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.



On the July 13 “Larry King Live,” Gupta did make that point, providing more context than Moore and most journalists about the affordability of health insurance.



Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left – less than 7 percent of the population.


“Many Americans are uninsured by choice,” wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book “The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.” Gratzer cited a study of the “nonpoor uninsured” from the California Healthcare Foundation.



“Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health,” explained Gratzer.





A Lie that Promotes Big Government



Moore, Clinton and Obama have used the lie about 40-some million uninsured Americans to promote universal health insurance plans. Moore asserted in his film that providing health insurance to everyone is a moral and even religious obligation.



The mainstream media have played along, championing “ambitious” universal coverage plans and referring to the U.S. system as “deeply flawed.”



“California’s ambitious plan to make health insurance available to almost everyone in the state is getting a lot of attention all over the country, and here’s why. According to the latest figures, the number of uninsured Americans has grown to more than 46 million,” said Katie Couric on the “CBS Evening News” January 9.



Journalists’ failure to question that high figure has furthered the cause of nationalized care.



“Proponents of universal health care often use the 46-million figure -- without context or qualification. It creates the false impression that a huge percentage of the population has fallen through the cracks,” Gratzer told BMI. “Again, that’s not to suggest that there is no problem, but it's very different than the universal-care crowd describes.”



Dr. Grace-Marie Turner, a BMI adviser and president of the Galen Institute, agreed that “the number [on uninsured] is inflated and affects the debate.”



Turner also pointed out that “45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office],” because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.



So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.



Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more. It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office.

[Nukeman]

Here are some other links that might shed some light as well, I know these are from the same web sight but they reference other media outlets interaction with Moore...


http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718-sidebar.aspx

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070713180224.aspx

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070711133049.aspx

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070622174827.aspx

[diuretic]

I must admit I don't understand why some Americans are so ideologically blinkered as to fail to appreciate the usefulness of a single payer health system.

For a start it removes all those insurance companies that are all about profit and refusing your claims.

It also takes the burden of big corporations that have such huge liabilities for employee health benefits.

I was listening to a radio report that discussed the pending negotiations between the UAW and, I think it was GM, anyway one of the big auto companies and the amount of unfunded liabilities for employee health insurance was staggering. If the company didn't have that liability then apparently it would be much more competitive (in terms of dollars per hour paid to its employees).

The unfunded liability for health insurance and the pension scheme (another topic I know) apparently threaten the viability of the company so the UAW is on notice (although it says it's not in a mood for concessions in these areas).

I just don't get it.

Now, if it's possible to explain why the US system is better than the single-payer system used in many countries, I'd really like to read about it. And it would be good to have information instead of slams against Moore, rants about "socialist health schemes" and the like. And also it would be good to read your ideas rather than anecdotes about how bad the system is elsewhere.

[JohnDoe]

I must admit I don't understand why some Americans are so ideologically blinkered as to fail to appreciate the usefulness of a single payer health system.

For a start it removes all those insurance companies that are all about profit and refusing your claims.

It also takes the burden of big corporations that have such huge liabilities for employee health benefits.

I was listening to a radio report that discussed the pending negotiations between the UAW and, I think it was GM, anyway one of the big auto companies and the amount of unfunded liabilities for employee health insurance was staggering. If the company didn't have that liability then apparently it would be much more competitive (in terms of dollars per hour paid to its employees).

The unfunded liability for health insurance and the pension scheme (another topic I know) apparently threaten the viability of the company so the UAW is on notice (although it says it's not in a mood for concessions in these areas).

I just don't get it.

Now, if it's possible to explain why the US system is better than the single-payer system used in many countries, I'd really like to read about it. And it would be good to have information instead of slams against Moore, rants about "socialist health schemes" and the like. And also it would be good to read your ideas rather than anecdotes about how bad the system is elsewhere.

Because their "Party" told them it would be bad? ;)

-Actually, I have heard the argument, that a "free market" system such as ours, produces better doctors and better research and development because of the Competition. The idea that the government would be the ones paying their bills would only mean that there would be "price controls" of some sort put in to place...and of course there is a big Lobbying movement to prevent any changes in our Healthcare.

-Taking the Burden off of businesses and putting it ALL on to us COULD BE very expensive to us and a HUGE tax break to Big Businesses if they don't raise our pay to compensate for the once paid by them "Benefit" but now paid by us, through higher taxes. And many of us working any kind of white collar job, take much less in pay but more in benefits from a company to compensate....we include what benefits they pay us in to our total compensation...at least the last 2 companies that I had worked for, sent me a yearly statement of what my Total Compensation was and that included my salary, my bonus, and what they contributed towards my Social security in my name, their 401k retirement match, and what they paid in health insurance for me and what they paid in Life Insurance for me....then Wa la', my TOTAL COMPENSATION....

And Health Insurance was a big chunk....about $9,ooo.
-----------------------------

What the people on this thread fail to recognize is that even though 10 million of the 40-47 million mentioned without Health Insurance doesn't make the situation any less dire or any less need for reforms.

No one in the Hospital Business or the Health Insurance Business pays for the Healthcare of these individuals, but WE DO.

We pay it with our own tax dollars already giving them "humane" coverage through our emergency rooms, rquired by law.... the most expensive way to get health coverage is through the Emergency Rooms.

If you are buying your own Health Insurance you are paying a higher price for it to cover this health care for all of the uninsured too.

And the Businesses buying our Health Insurance are paying a higher price for this insurance to cover the cost of the health care of the indigent and others too.

So basically, it is alot more complicated than you would think for those on either side of the issue.

There are many other things involved too that would have to be figured out...

(Of course there is the opposition to that mentioned above, who say that Healthcare will cost less without the Insurance companies as the middle men collecting their part, which you mentioned and I happen to believe is true.)

[diuretic]

Thanks for those points, that makes me much better informed.

[Joe Steel]

dispute the following information for me if you can!!!!!! The part I like best is that Moore is always right in his assertions and everyone else is wrong even though they have MUCH MORE research and ligitimate research..:poke:

Here's the link:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx


I was talking about Health Savings Accounts.

Why are you going-off on the uninsured?

Just for the record, though, I acknowledge the point: a significant portion of the uninsured are uninsured by choice.

[Nukeman]

I was talking about Health Savings Accounts.

Why are you going-off on the uninsured?

Just for the record, though, I acknowledge the point: a significant portion of the uninsured are uninsured by choice.I understand you were talking about HSA's, however you have also been a big proponet of government run heatlh care.

I read your response to Diuretic, I can agree with soome of what you say, however I take exception to the following statement.


No one in the Hospital Business or the Health Insurance Business pays for the Healthcare of these individuals, but WE DO.

We pay it with our own tax dollars already giving them "humane" coverage through our emergency rooms, rquired by law.... the most expensive way to get health coverage is through the Emergency Rooms.

If you are buying your own Health Insurance you are paying a higher price for it to cover this health care for all of the uninsured too.

And the Businesses buying our Health Insurance are paying a higher price for this insurance to cover the cost of the health care of the indigent and others too.

Contrary to what you believe the Hospitals in question take an enormous hit in thier bottom line by "writing off" bad debt, uncollectable debt, failure to pay, and insurance fraud.

For your information most hopitals PAY for insurance like every other business (some hospitals have some of the worst insurance out there for the price). The employees' PAY for thier insurance just like everyone else out there. Guess what? They also all pay taxes. So yes the burden is being shared by ALL. This is just the price of doing business!!

For profit hospitals pay a large amount of taxes and other fees that non-for-profit hopitals don't. If you want to see a change start with eliminating the non-for-profit status and make all hopitals pay thier fair share of local and federal taxes..

I will agree with you that this is a very complicated issue. I would point out that if we were to utilize a single payer system most of our research and development would cease due to lack of funds or incentive. Due to the fact that we have such monatary incentives the research will continue and we will still have access to the best healthcare in the world...

On a side note have you ever looked at the VA system. This is a single payer system that is run ultimately by the federal government. They are exempt from a number of government regulation that affect all other hopitals in the US. The system is very flawed. IF and this is a very big IF the government could straighten out all of these issues with the VA system than maybe more Americans would be willing to listen to them about a single payer system.

[Psychoblues]

Oh Lord, the conversation is going South. Do you really know about the South?

[Nukeman]

Oh Lord, the conversation is going South. Do you really know about the South?Thanks for adding to the conversation there sparky!!!!

[JohnDoe]

I understand you were talking about HSA's, however you have also been a big proponet of government run heatlh care.

I read your response to Diuretic, I can agree with soome of what you say, however I take exception to the following statement.



Contrary to what you believe the Hospitals in question take an enormous hit in thier bottom line by "writing off" bad debt, uncollectable debt, failure to pay, and insurance fraud.

It is a numbers game imo, yes they use it as a tax right off at double and triple the prices that these same services would cost if these people had insurance and what the hospitals would charge insurance companies for them.

And the Prices they charge Insurance companies are much higher than needed to make a decent profit off of them, so that they can cover the costs of the uninsured in another manner, while still benefiting from the tax write off.

For your information most hopitals PAY for insurance like every other business (some hospitals have some of the worst insurance out there for the price). The employees' PAY for thier insurance just like everyone else out there. Guess what? They also all pay taxes. So yes the burden is being shared by ALL. This is just the price of doing business!!

For profit hospitals pay a large amount of taxes and other fees that non-for-profit hopitals don't. If you want to see a change start with eliminating the non-for-profit status and make all hopitals pay thier fair share of local and federal taxes..

Think about what you just said for a minute....Not-for -profits should pay taxes too...

Our tax structure for any business is based on their profits, they pay taxes on their PROFITS.

If these are non-profit or not for profit hospitals, THERE IS NO PROFIT TO TAX! :poke:

I will agree with you that this is a very complicated issue. I would point out that if we were to utilize a single payer system most of our research and development would cease due to lack of funds or incentive. Due to the fact that we have such monatary incentives the research will continue and we will still have access to the best healthcare in the world...

Most all medical research is done by our Universities, funded by the USA government. PHARMA spends MORE of their operating funds on Advertising direct to consumers on TV to ask their doctor about this "New" medicine... than they do on research and development.

And increased gvt funds for Research could be reformed around a new system so I would not let this consideration to get in the way of a single payer plan.... INSURANCE COMPANIES do not do the RESEARCH, so cutting them out would not hurt the Research and development in place right now imo.

On a side note have you ever looked at the VA system. This is a single payer system that is run ultimately by the federal government. They are exempt from a number of government regulation that affect all other hopitals in the US. The system is very flawed. IF and this is a very big IF the government could straighten out all of these issues with the VA system than maybe more Americans would be willing to listen to them about a single payer system.

I don't object to trying to fix the VA system of healthcare, however, if a single payer healthcare plan was in place, there would be no need for a separate Va system in my opinion, and they could get their care at any of the best hospitals out there....

btw, you began with Joe steel's quote and then you went to my quote? JD

[glockmail]

i had not even heard of this insurance plan. It was/ is a victory for the Bush Administration, so the media has buried it.

[glockmail]

I must admit I don't understand why some Americans are so ideologically blinkered as to fail to appreciate the usefulness of a single payer health system.

For a start it removes all those insurance companies that are all about profit and refusing your claims.

It also takes the burden of big corporations that have such huge liabilities for employee health benefits.

I was listening to a radio report that discussed the pending negotiations between the UAW and, I think it was GM, anyway one of the big auto companies and the amount of unfunded liabilities for employee health insurance was staggering. If the company didn't have that liability then apparently it would be much more competitive (in terms of dollars per hour paid to its employees).

The unfunded liability for health insurance and the pension scheme (another topic I know) apparently threaten the viability of the company so the UAW is on notice (although it says it's not in a mood for concessions in these areas).

I just don't get it.

Now, if it's possible to explain why the US system is better than the single-payer system used in many countries, I'd really like to read about it. And it would be good to have information instead of slams against Moore, rants about "socialist health schemes" and the like. And also it would be good to read your ideas rather than anecdotes about how bad the system is elsewhere. Because we believe in freedom and the free market system, and the benefits of same.

[Nukeman]

It is a numbers game imo, yes they use it as a tax right off at double and triple the prices that these same services would cost if these people had insurance and what the hospitals would charge insurance companies for them.

And the Prices they charge Insurance companies are much higher than needed to make a decent profit off of them, so that they can cover the costs of the uninsured in another manner, while still benefiting from the tax write off.
The reason for the "double and triple" in prices in your opinion is that they are paying for the bad debt. period.. You have to make money some how. So you and I with good insurance or the ability to pay, pay more to make up for the slackers that dont pay or the underinsured..

I would also note that for the most part the "charge" is not what is actually payed think of it this way, the sticker price on a new car is always negotiable. So are hospital prices. If your a cash customer you can generaly write off 1/3 to 1/2 your bill because you pay in cash.

The equipment utilized by hospital is so very expensive. A simple piece of X-ray equipment is over 300 thousand dollars and than you have the cost of a service contract of over 30 thousand dollars a year just incase in breaks. Now multiply that by an average of 4 this is just for a simple x-ray machine. Throw in a MRI and your looking at 1-2 million just for the equipment than there is building requirements that go with it. What I'm trying to say is the hospital is not getting "rich" off of the services and the prices they charge are to make up for non-payment.


Think about what you just said for a minute....Not-for -profits should pay taxes too...

Our tax structure for any business is based on their profits, they pay taxes on their PROFITS.

If these are non-profit or not for profit hospitals, THERE IS NO PROFIT TO TAX!

Here's where you have a misconception on Not-for-profits. They cant show a profit ON PAPER. this means that if they have a profit over a certain % they have to spend it on services for the community or employee or for the general fund of the hospital. This is by far the biggest numbers game played by hospitals. They get a tax exempt status and dont give any more services to the community they ALWAYS roll thier profits back into building and purchasing and perks for the administrative/executive staff.

here is part of an article that tell you a little about not-for profit's


Tax-exempt
The Republican-controlled Congress conducted investigations last year into the levels of charity care provided by nonprofit hospitals throughout the nation.

A December study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found negligible differences in the amounts of uncompensated care provided by nonprofit and for-profit hospitals.

“Nonprofit hospitals were more likely than otherwise similar for-profit hospitals to provide certain specialized services but were found to provide care to fewer Medicaid-covered patients as a share of their total patient population,” the report stated. “On average, nonprofit hospitals were found to operate in areas with higher average incomes, lower poverty rates and lower rates of uninsurance than for-profit hospitals.”

Here's the link to the article yo might find it intersting and also it will dispell any misconception you may have about not-for -profits..

http://www.biztimes.com/news/2007/1/5/wisconsins-nonprofit-hospitals-are-flush-with-cash


Most all medical research is done by our Universities, funded by the USA government. PHARMA spends MORE of their operating funds on Advertising direct to consumers on TV to ask their doctor about this "New" medicine... than they do on research and development.

And increased gvt funds for Research could be reformed around a new system so I would not let this consideration to get in the way of a single payer plan.... INSURANCE COMPANIES do not do the RESEARCH, so cutting them out would not hurt the Research and development in place right now imo.

I agree with the bolded part but with out financial incentive ther will be no future research. There is sooooo much more to medicine than "drugs" We have the ability in the US to have SAME DAY DIAGNOSIS AND SURGERY if needed. Single payer system in the rest of the world dont have this luxery unless it is life-or-death..

The average wait in the US for a MRI is 24 hours for non-emergent. The average wait for an MRI in Finland is 2 months for non-emergent (the same can be said for Canada). This is the biggest problem with socialized health care as I see it. Socialized or single payer health care is great is you are young and health but when you have a serious condition thats when you start having lots of problems.

What happens when the government decides to not renew a budget and shuts down all services?? This has happend before but thankfully they dont run our private health care..


I don't object to trying to fix the VA system of healthcare, however, if a single payer healthcare plan was in place, there would be no need for a separate Va system in my opinion, and they could get their care at any of the best hospitals out there....

I think they should do away with the whole VA system!!! Instead of trying to maintain all of these VA hospital, staff them, purchase new equipment, etc..etc... that money could be better spent just implementing a simple insurance plan so they could go anywhere. Once the government gets this right than I will say they might have a chance of going to a single payer system but untill than I dont think soo IMO...

[diuretic]

Because we believe in freedom and the free market system, and the benefits of same.

Do you accept that a single-payer system might be better than the current US system?

[diuretic]

Nukeman, that's an interesting post but be wary of making claims like this:


We have the ability in the US to have SAME DAY DIAGNOSIS AND SURGERY if needed. Single payer system in the rest of the world dont have this luxery unless it is life-or-death..

Just a point. Is same day diagnosis and surgery always available to everyone in the US if it's not a life or death situation?

Why should same day diagnosis and surgery be available if it's not required? It seems like a tremendous waste of resources. For mine it would be better to have timely surgery available (outside of a life or death situation) if it's required.

Timely surgery is available - we call it "elective" surgery here - in our single-payer system. True, due to our federal government cutting back funding to the states for their hospital systems the time someone has to wait for elective surgery has grown longer. That can be cut immediately by proper funding. It's not a systematic problem, it's a policy problem. Fortunately for those who can afford it (me for example) private care is available via health insurance and those of us with private cover can pretty well pick the time for treatment. And all we pay is a small monthly premium (different plans of course have different rates). We did have a full care system years ago where private insurance wasn't required and the single payer scheme paid for everything. That was dismantled by governments ideologically hostile to the scheme and who were pandering to the private health insurance lobby. So that has given us the situation we have now where hospitals are underfunded. The ideology of our federal government has triumphed. Our current federal government would dearly love to go the US system but they know no government would be able to insitute that here and then stay in government, they would be driven from office.

I don't see the point of the profit motive in health care.

[Nukeman]

Nukeman, that's an interesting post but be wary of making claims like this:



Just a point. Is same day diagnosis and surgery always available to everyone in the US if it's not a life or death situation?

Why should same day diagnosis and surgery be available if it's not required? It seems like a tremendous waste of resources. For mine it would be better to have timely surgery available (outside of a life or death situation) if it's required.

Timely surgery is available - we call it "elective" surgery here - in our single-payer system. True, due to our federal government cutting back funding to the states for their hospital systems the time someone has to wait for elective surgery has grown longer. That can be cut immediately by proper funding. It's not a systematic problem, it's a policy problem. Fortunately for those who can afford it (me for example) private care is available via health insurance and those of us with private cover can pretty well pick the time for treatment. And all we pay is a small monthly premium (different plans of course have different rates). We did have a full care system years ago where private insurance wasn't required and the single payer scheme paid for everything. That was dismantled by governments ideologically hostile to the scheme and who were pandering to the private health insurance lobby. So that has given us the situation we have now where hospitals are underfunded. The ideology of our federal government has triumphed. Our current federal government would dearly love to go the US system but they know no government would be able to insitute that here and then stay in government, they would be driven from office.

I don't see the point of the profit motive in health care.

The point I'm making is not that everyone has same day diagnosis and surgery. What I am saying is that in the US you dont HAVE to wait for your services. You can elect to have things done in a very timely fashion to what suits you and not the payer or the "backlog". We have no backlog to speak of here in the US for our health care. Our health care is always available to all patients that are in need. I can give you first hand accounts of friends and family in government run health countries that have had to wait for months on end because their condition was not consisderd "life threatening". This is a rideculous way of treating patients. The stress alone of having to wait does more harm than the condition in a lot of circumstances. I shouldn't have to wait 2 months for a MRI because thats the only time the mobile one comes tomy area. I should be able to have it in the same week my doctor orders it, or do you disagree...

If a hospital makes money they spend money. That means they acquire more and better equipment and staff. The better the staff and equipment the better your care is going to be so the the bigger the profit ultimately the better your care is going to be.... Quite simple actually...

[diuretic]

The point I'm making is not that everyone has same day diagnosis and surgery. What I am saying is that in the US you dont HAVE to wait for your services. You can elect to have things done in a very timely fashion to what suits you and not the payer or the "backlog". We have no backlog to speak of here in the US for our health care. Our health care is always available to all patients that are in need. I can give you first hand accounts of friends and family in government run health countries that have had to wait for months on end because their condition was not consisderd "life threatening". This is a rideculous way of treating patients. The stress alone of having to wait does more harm than the condition in a lot of circumstances. I shouldn't have to wait 2 months for a MRI because thats the only time the mobile one comes tomy area. I should be able to have it in the same week my doctor orders it, or do you disagree...

If a hospital makes money they spend money. That means they acquire more and better equipment and staff. The better the staff and equipment the better your care is going to be so the the bigger the profit ultimately the better your care is going to be.... Quite simple actually...

All points taken and they make sense. Where I differ with you is how it's financed. Can I just make this one point. You wrote, "If a hospital makes money they spend money."

If the hospital is being run on a profit basis then they will restrict the outgoings as much as they can in order to make a profit. You also wrote, "That means they acquire more and better equipment and staff." No it doesn't. You also wrote, "The better the staff and equipment the better your care is going to be...." sorry I did parse that. I agree with you there. Now you also wrote "....so the bigger the profit ultimately your care is going to be..." No it isn't. If a hospital is run on a profit basis then care is a secondary consideration. Getting that bottom line healthy, not the patients healthy, is the real aim.

I understand what you're asserting but my point all along has been that the profit motive is fine for a company that makes cars for example, but I don't believe it's the way to run a health system. I accept that I can be accused of over-simplification and yes, the argument is much more complex than this but again, I believe that patient care should be the aim of the a system, not profit, profit can be made elsewhere, where people's lives aren't treated as items in a balance sheet.

[Trigg]

All points taken and they make sense. Where I differ with you is how it's financed. Can I just make this one point. You wrote, "If a hospital makes money they spend money."

If the hospital is being run on a profit basis then they will restrict the outgoings as much as they can in order to make a profit. You also wrote, "That means they acquire more and better equipment and staff." No it doesn't. You also wrote, "The better the staff and equipment the better your care is going to be...." sorry I did parse that. I agree with you there. Now you also wrote "....so the bigger the profit ultimately your care is going to be..." No it isn't. If a hospital is run on a profit basis then care is a secondary consideration. Getting that bottom line healthy, not the patients healthy, is the real aim.

I understand what you're asserting but my point all along has been that the profit motive is fine for a company that makes cars for example, but I don't believe it's the way to run a health system. I accept that I can be accused of over-simplification and yes, the argument is much more complex than this but again, I believe that patient care should be the aim of the a system, not profit, profit can be made elsewhere, where people's lives aren't treated as items in a balance sheet.

My husband works for a non-profit and I work for a for-profit. Boths hosptials work in the same city and have other hospitals in the area that they own. BOTH hospitals offer excellent care and only difference I see in them is the hosp. my husband works for has better insurance for it's employees.

I see you arguing for your system of health care, but didn't you admit that you pay for added insurance in order to get different care? Above and beyond what the gov. pays for?????

[Nukeman]

All points taken and they make sense. Where I differ with you is how it's financed. Can I just make this one point. You wrote, "If a hospital makes money they spend money."

If the hospital is being run on a profit basis then they will restrict the outgoings as much as they can in order to make a profit. You also wrote, "That means they acquire more and better equipment and staff." No it doesn't. You also wrote, "The better the staff and equipment the better your care is going to be...." sorry I did parse that. I agree with you there. Now you also wrote "....so the bigger the profit ultimately your care is going to be..." No it isn't. If a hospital is run on a profit basis then care is a secondary consideration. Getting that bottom line healthy, not the patients healthy, is the real aim.

I understand what you're asserting but my point all along has been that the profit motive is fine for a company that makes cars for example, but I don't believe it's the way to run a health system. I accept that I can be accused of over-simplification and yes, the argument is much more complex than this but again, I believe that patient care should be the aim of the a system, not profit, profit can be made elsewhere, where people's lives aren't treated as items in a balance sheet.

I bolded these two parts to illustrate that your way of looking at US heathcare is skewd.. The fact of the matter is that there is sooo much competition for a patients healthcare dollars that hospitals and clinics go out of thier way to make sure thier patients are well taken care of.

I will point out to you that the private for-profit hospitals have a higher standard of care than the not-for-profit state run subsidised hopitals.

You can not compare a US health system to the rest of the world that is like apples to oranges. The fact remains that without patients the hopitals and clinics don't operate so if they dont spend money they sure as hell dont make any.


The hospitals in the US are all dependent upon thier communities if the hospital does not reinvest in itself and provide better care with more ease of access than they dont last long. Ultimately the patients of the hospital will determine what they spend thier profits on... If not on them than they dont go there. This is the biggest advantage to the US health system its called CHOICE

[glockmail]

Do you accept that a single-payer system might be better than the current US system?
No. Private, profit motivated people are always more efficient and inventive.

BTW, why not call it what it is: socialized medicine. Are you ashamed of the reality?

[diuretic]

No. Private, profit motivated people are always more efficient and inventive.

BTW, why not call it what it is: socialized medicine. Are you ashamed of the reality?

For-profit systems are not always more efficient and inventive, that's such a blanket statement that it's only an illustration of ideology. You can't back it up and I can show you evidence of where the private sector has screwed up just as I can show you evidence of where the public sector has screwed up. The truth is that some things are best done by the free market (or what passes for the free market) and some things are best done by government.

Some folks are so wedded to the ideology of the fabled and increasingly rare "free market" as envisaged by Adam Smith (which doesn't exist any longer), that they don't understand that it's not always appropriate to provide some services on a for-profit basis. Apart from nutters like Grover Norquist, most people understand that a mixed economy is far preferable to an economy that's solely free market based or solely command-based. It's just a question of the construction of the mix.

On terminology. No, socialised medicine (eg France) isn't the same as a single-payer system (Canada, Australia). There's a difference and it's important to use the most accurate terminology. I know that you would like to use the term "socialised medicine" inaccurately because for you and those who share your opinions it's a nice, easy pejorative, a slogan that removes the need for thinking (slogans without thinking are not the sole preserve of the Left), but it's best to be specific in a discussion like this.

[glockmail]

For-profit systems are not always more efficient and inventive, that's such a blanket statement that it's only an illustration of ideology. You can't back it up and I can show you evidence of where the private sector has screwed up just as I can show you evidence of where the public sector has screwed up. The truth is that some things are best done by the free market (or what passes for the free market) and some things are best done by government.

Some folks are so wedded to the ideology of the fabled and increasingly rare "free market" as envisaged by Adam Smith (which doesn't exist any longer), that they don't understand that it's not always appropriate to provide some services on a for-profit basis. Apart from nutters like Grover Norquist, most people understand that a mixed economy is far preferable to an economy that's solely free market based or solely command-based. It's just a question of the construction of the mix.

On terminology. No, socialised medicine (eg France) isn't the same as a single-payer system (Canada, Australia). There's a difference and it's important to use the most accurate terminology. I know that you would like to use the term "socialised medicine" inaccurately because for you and those who share your opinions it's a nice, easy pejorative, a slogan that removes the need for thinking (slogans without thinking are not the sole preserve of the Left), but it's best to be specific in a discussion like this.

I've worked for government before and they do not reward risk or productivity. Private corporations do. Those two things are both good in the long run. Its as simple as that.

Perhaps you could explain the difference between socialized medicine and single payer then.

[diuretic]

My husband works for a non-profit and I work for a for-profit. Boths hosptials work in the same city and have other hospitals in the area that they own. BOTH hospitals offer excellent care and only difference I see in them is the hosp. my husband works for has better insurance for it's employees.

I see you arguing for your system of health care, but didn't you admit that you pay for added insurance in order to get different care? Above and beyond what the gov. pays for?????

In our system, which is state-based in terms of the provision of service (funded by the federal govt) we also have private and public hospitals. I've had to be treated at both. I got very good care each time, no complaint.

Yes I do have added insurance. I have to pay for it. The reason I have to do that is that successive conservative governments dismantled parts of our previous universal health scheme due to a mix of ideology and really heavy lobbying by the private insurance sector who wanted a bigger slice for themselves. But that's gone as far as it can go without the electorate throwing the government out. It's not necessary for me to have that insurance but it does cover things such as dental (not covered in the current heatlh scheme unfortunately) and other items which were covered but taken away as I mentioned. I have insurance because I don't want to have to pay the gap that can arise. I had a very serious condition a few years ago and was in hospital for some time. When I left hospital I didn't see a bill, the single-payer scheme and my additional insurance paid for it all. But if I hadn't had the additional insurance I still wouldn't have been out of pocket because it was life-threatening.

Can I say that for me this is not a question of ideology so much as practicality. I just happen to think that a single-payer scheme is best for a society in practical terms when it comes to health service provision.

[diuretic]

I bolded these two parts to illustrate that your way of looking at US heathcare is skewd.. The fact of the matter is that there is sooo much competition for a patients healthcare dollars that hospitals and clinics go out of thier way to make sure thier patients are well taken care of.

I will point out to you that the private for-profit hospitals have a higher standard of care than the not-for-profit state run subsidised hopitals.

You can not compare a US health system to the rest of the world that is like apples to oranges. The fact remains that without patients the hopitals and clinics don't operate so if they dont spend money they sure as hell dont make any.


The hospitals in the US are all dependent upon thier communities if the hospital does not reinvest in itself and provide better care with more ease of access than they dont last long. Ultimately the patients of the hospital will determine what they spend thier profits on... If not on them than they dont go there. This is the biggest advantage to the US health system its called CHOICE

If someone falls over and breaks their leg, who treats them and how is it paid for? Just a question. The reason I ask is this. Some years ago I was in Monterey and got chatting with an Australian bloke in a restaurant. He was living and working there and he told me that while he loved it he was seriously thinking about coming back to Australia because the cost of health insurance was killing him. I didn't get into financial details with him but he made it clear that it was a huge concern to him. So, if a person without health insurance falls over and breaks their leg, how do they go about treatment. If they want to visit their doctor for a relatively minor ailment, how is it paid for if they have no insurance. If they need tests and they have no insurance, how is it paid for?

[Trigg]

So, if a person without health insurance falls over and breaks their leg, how do they go about treatment. If they want to visit their doctor for a relatively minor ailment, how is it paid for if they have no insurance. If they need tests and they have no insurance, how is it paid for?

If they carry no insurance they are responsible for paying the bill themselves.

People who do not carry insurance can have a private Dr. they are just responsible for paying for the visits.

The hospital cares for them, including any surgery or rehabilitation that is necessary, I'v stated before they CAN NOT be turned away.

People who are below poverty or on preminant disability because of an accident or physical problem are eligable for gov. insurance. Medicare/medicade.

In my area the Amish (religious group) do not carry insurance, they have their children in hospitals and have surgeries and exams just like everyone else. They pay in cash.

Forgot to add: Many hospitals regardless if they are for profit or not will take a percentage off the bill for people paying in cash and they will set up reasonable payment plans also.