We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Are we there yet?
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Kind of hard to have the right to life when so few have health care insurance - or affordable health care. Our country is one of the few in the world that does not have universal health care - and yet, we spend twice as much money on it, and our country lags behind horribly in quality of health care, lifespan & infant mortality. I've heard the arguements about other countries who do have it - long waiting lists for procedures, etc. - but from what I've been learning recently, that isn't really true today as it used to be years back. Can't be the high cost of drugs either - other countries use the same drugs as we do, at 1/5 th the price we pay. Many of those other countries have come a long way to catch up in terms of quality & plentiful enough equipment. Letter to the Editor of the Blade spoke about this recently - he'd had a heart bipass & yet seemed to think our health care system is fine as it is. But those with no health care insurance probably wouldn't be able to get the bipass he got - and would DIE. This same writer used the logic that if Canada's system was so good (and other countries) then why do their doctors come to our country to practice medicine - that is a no-brainer. Doctors in the USA make more money.
I won't disagree that changes are necessary so that all Americans can not only afford and access medical care and appropriate prescription drugs, but can prevent costly health catastrophes. However, Universal Health Care is not the answer...and statements in this post--long espoused by the UHC bandwagon drivers--aren't evidence that UHC "works."
While we do in fact spend more money on health care than any other nation (2.4 trillion in 2008), one-third of that is in Medicare and Medicaid, which are government/citizen- subsized health plans--essentially, a weakened version of the UHC other nations have.
The statement that our country "lags behind horribly in quality of health care, lifespan, and infant mortality," is inflammatory and hyperbole. How do you measure quality of health care? By World Health Organization standards? By cost-efficiency, as Health and Human Services does? By polling the consumers, as the authors of this New England Journal of Medicine study did? (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/26/2635)
Notably, the article above DOES identify about 50% consumer dissatisfaction with health care, but with what can we compare this to? I have searched databases and cannot find similar-caliber studies
conducted in other countries with which we could compare.
Further, differences in life expectancy and infant mortality cannot be solely attributed to universal health care--there are many other factors at work.
Canada, Japan, France, the UK, Sweden, to name a few, all have COMPARABLE infant mortality rates. These are the 2009 estimates for infant mortality for some developed countries with UHC :Canada 5.04/1000, France 3.33/1000, UK 4.05/1000. The US: 6.26/1000. (CIA World Factbook,) I hardly call this "lagging behind horribly."
On the other hand, you could say that these nations
are behind Japan (2.79/1000), and Singapore (2.31/1000)...BUT, you have to take other things into account-- For instance, birth rate... By contrast, the US birthrate is higher than these nations (14/1000), UK 12/1000, Canada 10/1000, Japan 8.3/1000, Singapore (8.2/1000)..
Fertility rate (births per woman est. in 2009: Singapore 1.06, Japan 1.21,Canada 1.58, UK 1.66, Sweden 1.67, US 2.05...
Fewer woman having babies, means fewer infant deaths.
Japanis an anomoly. It has been experiencing a low birth/fertility rates since 1993. These have been attributed to the changing work ethic, family dynamic, etc...
Singapore, ranking 6th on the W.H.O list of Health Systems, is only 3.5 times the size of Washington DC. All citizens live in one climate, under similar conditions. Conversely, the US comprises diverse climates and environments. Oh, yes, and Singapore's government controls many aspects of the citizen's private lives--including how many children they may have...which also affects its birth rate and infant mortality rate.
Life expectancy can be viewed similarily...Japan 82.1, US 78.4, Canada, 81, Japan 82.1, Singapore 80. Again...not "lagging behind horribly. More like bringing up the rear. We have to consider what accounts for the disparity. Is it UHC? Not likely. Preventative health care is more likely a factor, education, health and medical literacy, diet, environmental factors, etc....
The Japanese are not weaning their babies onto Happy Meals. The people of Singapore and Finland eat low-fat, high diets high in anti-oxidants., etc...Every American has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Some choose to exercise their rights by sitting on the couch with a Big Mac, and plumping their kids up with potato chips, sugar drinks and processed meat and cheese. Others choose not to exercise, eat balanced meals, etc...Still others choose to use tobacco and alcohol with reckless abandon.
Hard to believe that we have a 99% literacy rate when you take this behavior into account, but it's the American way....choice.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Kind of hard to have the right to life when so few have health care insurance - or affordable health care."
Yeah, we're without life, liberty and pursuit of happiness BECAUSE we don't have universal health care!?
Just how do you think the founding fathers got all of those without ANY health insurance or health care at all?
MikeyA
This from the WHO & the latter from wikipedia -
Ranking countries in quality of health care -
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=ranking+of+health+care&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=0&u=htt...
Rank Country
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar
***************************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States.[1][2] It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide............
......The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[1][2] The government directly covers 27.8% of the population[18] through health care programs for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and some of the poor, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and TRICARE.[19][20] Federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.[21] However, this unfunded mandate has contributed to a health care safety net that some analyses say is increasingly strained.[22] Certain types of medical spending and particularly health insurance benefit from significant tax subsidies; in particular, employer-sponsored health insurance is a non-taxable benefit. In all, government spending accounted for 45.1% of total health spending in the U.S. in 2005.[23] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at more than 15% of GDP, a greater portion than in any other United Nations member state except for the Marshall Islands.
*********************************************
I'm sure our Founding Fathers never imagined the nightmare & expense health insurance would become in this country - I'm sure the concept of health insurance never crossed their minds. I have no idea if a type of universal health care system would work better in our country - remains to be seen. I do know, that in our country if you are rich or poor, you get health care. I do know, that the health insurance in my family is horrible (a Big Three) & has been for years. I do know that most people in our country do not have health insurance at all, and if they do, the amount the insurance co's pay gets smaller & smaller.
I just think we're being a little smug when we assume that America's health care system (insurance co's, medicare, welfare) is superiour to the systems that the rest of the world uses. We assume it won't work or will be wose than what we have now - but as a middle class American who is not rich & is not poor enough to qualify for welfare, the system we now have, is not working.
"I'm sure our Founding Fathers never imagined the nightmare & expense health insurance would become in this country - I'm sure the concept of health insurance never crossed their minds."
And I am sure that the notion of their being ENOUGH doctors for everyone would leave them pleasantly surprised. Lord knows in their day you were lucky to find a doctor let alone be able to pay them.
MikeyA
I do know that most people in our country do not have health insurance at all
Not true. According to the CDC and the Census bureau, 42.6 million Americans--about 15.5% of the population--do not have health insurance.
The majority of Americans do have what amounts to coverage...though these figures do not take into account that so many in the manufacturing sector have lost coverage in the last year due to layoffs and plant closures.
The health insurance industry is a BIG part of the problem. Our litigious society is a BIG part of the problem. Our culture is BIG part of the problem...and an entitlement mentality is a BiG part of the problem...the solution is not putting the government at the helm to muddle it. The solution is to somehow--and I don't pretend to have the answers--put control back into OUR hands and the hands of the doctors and the researchers who should be allowed to set and determine rates at their free market value.... Take for example these small drug-store clinics that have started opening up nationally.(The Pharm stores had them briefly locally). I saw a segment on these on CBS This Morning today. These set a $62 fee for basic diagnosis and care via LPN. To compete in the market, I might open one of these clinics and charge $34 / visit, which might bring the rates down in other shops.
I know, this is not taking into account the expenses of long term care for terminal illness, debilitating illness, etc...I'm just thorwing this out as an example of how eliminating the middle men (insurers and lawyers) could make a difference in access.
I hear & read different figures/percentages of who is & is not insured. But I know too many people that even though they have insurance, it didn't cover much, left them with staggering bills. I have an uncle who;'s condition landed him in a nursing home - until the insurance co woyldn't pay anymore & then medicare kicked in, briefly - then they were on their own, and left with 40 grand of what insurance & medicare did not pay while he was in the nursing home (he's been at home since) My husband has been with one of the big 3 for 30 years & the insurance is horrible, gets worse every year - a $4,200 deductable currently. i have not had mammograms or pap tests in over a decade because it took forever for us to get out of debt after paying almost 5 grand in ER bills for us & my son (that insurance did not cover) - there were not intensive ER visits. My husband' s back went out bad (I have no idea what he thought they could do to help) & I fell on ice & fractured my pelvis, and my husband had a bleeding injury (no stitches, just spewing blood & wouldn't stop, an artery) - this treatment was for xrays, anticeptic & bandaids. (didn't even get any drugs out of the deal).
There's too many people getting dropped by their insurance co'[s for pre-existing conditions that are absurd (insurance co's pay employees to search for ways to avoid paying or to drop people).
I imagine how good your insurance IS will color your thinking on all of this. There's too many people who go without the meds because they can't afford them, or the surgeires, or transplants - many of them die.
I do not think the answer is letting the govt 'take over' health care - If you read the wikipedia article, there are many different forms of universal health care & how they each work, and most do not sound like they are govt run at all.
My internist told me years ago, that as long as the Medical Board & insurance co's control what the doctors are able to do to treat the patient, medical care will suffer. The medical board is made up of people who don't even practice medicine he said - and yet they dictate. Insurance so's dictate by what they will pay for or not. Most insurance co's dont pay that much towards the end costs - unless of course you are a city or govt employee - those employees seem to have it made health insurance wise.
There is a difference between not having insurance and not having ENOUGH insurance.
Most Americans are underinsured across the board. Not enough car insurance, not enough home insurance, hell most don't have disability insurance yet have life insurance and you're more likely to be disabled than you are to die.
MikeyA
My father works a union job. A few years back he had a heart attack.
His health insurance is good. His medical bills were taken care of. However he was not cleared to work. He then received for a paycheck what his employer was obligated to by contract. Which was less than 1/20th what he normally made. My parents almost lost their home which was 95% paid off.
Of course out of that check the union still took their dues because "they look out for his interests".
It was after that when he finally said he would never support a candidate for any position if the unions backed them and he made each one of his boys promise that we'd never work for the union.
And last year the pension was taken out of the union's control and given back to the company. My father will finally retire next year since his pension is now higher than it was under union control.
Americans can buy more insurance on their own. Hell we're told that's the reason to raise the minimum wage every time they do it.
MikeyA
I understand where you are coming from.I'm glad to hear that you, too, do not believe having the government take over health care is the answer. I think we really agree on this more than we disagree. You have personally experienced this so you have expertise that I do not. And you make a good point that applies to most controversial subjects--whether or not you have good insurance will affect your thinking about it.
I am in good health, as is my family. My 74-year-old mother is covered by my dad's old Libbey retirees plan. My 80-year-old in-laws are covered by their Dana-retirees plan. Our generation will not have these benefits in our senior years.
I went without insurance for a brief time--a couple of years-- before I was married, and paid my medical and dental and optical bills out of pocket. I considered it part of the cost of living. I still consider medical expenses part of the cost of living; however, their prices are out of control because of their administration, the health insurance industry, etc...
My husband has been in his job for 30 years with a big-3 supplier....we've been switched to BCBS, Med Mutual, Paramount, Great West repeatedly so that the employer can get the best deal...I don't blame them--they are just trying to keep their costs down. The problem is elsewhere in this system--with the health insurance industry, malpractice insurance industry, litigious society and as you say, the medical board.
My sister had acute myleogeonous leukemia. She was diagnosed at 24, worked retail and had no health insurance.She and her husband had to file bancruptcy to afford the months of hospitalization, bone marrow transplant, etc... They sold their house, sold one of their cars, and went without a lot of things in order to keep up treatments and make partial payments. They negotiated with hospitals, that forgave a lot of payments, and they eventually filed bancruptcy, but they survived,,,and she has survived.
BTW, I gleaned my stats from the CDC and Census Bureau, which are strong primary sources, not Wikipedia, which I do not trust. (you mentioned that I should read the wikipedia article to understand how UHC can be free from government administration).
I'd be totally open to talking about insuring those who go without coverage who have a job or are a student. Likewise I'd gladly talk about covering those who have prior illnesses that exempt them from coverage.
But the private option as it stands is nonsense. It's too big, damages the privat sector too much, and the costs are through the roof.
Also, it's important to note that if you were to be a part of the private option it would eliminate the ability to sue for malpractice. The gov't cannot be sued. I receive gov't health care for my military service and as long as I got to a gov't doctor I cannot sue even if they are blatantly negligent. I'm all for some type of tort reform but to completely take away that option is a disservice to the people.
MikeyA
Once you hit age 50 - 55, the cost of buying health insurance is staggering, even for just one person. Add a spouse & it's impossible for most people. Even those under 55 yrs old who have kids, it's staggering to buy private health insurance. So staggering, that the cost of it leaves little to pay the rest of the bills & to live on. Unless you're poor & on welfare - then I guess it's free. If you're rich, you're set I guess. It's become more & more common for companies to not provide health insurance anymore - and if they do, it's often for "full time" & they make sure the employees work hours fall a shade short of "full time". That's a game companies have been playing for years. The Big Three auto cos used to have decent health insurance - Chrysler does not anymore, it gets worse every year (they've switched co's 3 times in 3 years). And insurance rarely pays enough on claims - we always got huge bills for what the insurance did not pay.
I've come to realize though, that if you are a city or government worker, you have it made as far as health care insurance. And for getting raises. My husband has not had any type of raise in 8 years, and yet city workers are complaining they wont get another one for 2 years? And they're complaining they will have to start paying something towards their own health insurance? Boo, hoo. Sounds like they've never had to do that before - unlike the rest of the country.
"Once you hit age 50 - 55, the cost of buying health insurance is staggering, even for just one person. Add a spouse & it's impossible for most people. Even those under 55 yrs old who have kids, it's staggering to buy private health insurance."
Well too bad the largest uninsured part of the population is the 18-25 age bracket.
The problem is these people normally are students who have minimum wage jobs (which we keep raising so they can afford health coverage they never end up buying). Then when they find out the reason they need health coverage is normally when they learn of a condition that leaves them uninsure-able or pushes them further into a life of debt they will never recover from. Yet they still drive nicer cars than me.... hope it was worth it.
MikeyA