Saturday, 22 August 2009
-
Who would God Deny?
With the rising cost of health care and prescriptions many people are caused to go without preventative or immediate care for illnesses they have causing progression of the disease or even worse death. Even if the care is offered the person is denied by their medical insurance if they are lucky enough to have insurance due to their qualifying health questions. We are taught to love our neighbors as our selves and to help our fellow man or woman. So the question is who would God deny? Who is unworthy of life saving medical care?
Some of you may know that March 2007 I was hospitalized with pneumonia. We had insurance (crappy insurance) but of course the insurance doesn't cover everything. The bills started coming in. We called the hospital to set up payments. We were told that they don't do payments. They wanted all the money in one payment. We didn't have that type of money. They had the nerve to tell us we should put it on a credit card. (We don't do credit cards) So they ended up sending us a letter telling us we were banned from the whole network (that is all the drs in this area and the hospital). The bill was sent to collections which were very nice and allowed us to set up payments and the bill was paid off.
This whole experiences really made me think. It is bad when a person has to sit at home and tell their husband that they could have afforded for the person to died better then going to get help.
There are many people dying because they can not afford the treatments that they need. There are people loosing everything to pay for the treatments they need. All this is happening here in American.
One-fifth of all Americans, 48.8 million individuals, were in families spending more than 10% of their family income on healthcare in 2003, an increase of 11.7 million persons since 1996. Of these, 18.7 million (7.3%) were spending more than 20% of family income, a figure normally associated with home ownership. The percent of middle-income Americans (22.7%) spending over 10% of their income on healthcare was almost identical to the percent of low-income Americans (23.7%) on healthcare (JAMA, Dec. 13, 2006).
Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by illness or medical bills. The number of medical bankruptcies has increased by 2200% since 1981 (Health Affairs, February, 2005). Two-thirds of people with a medical bill or debt problem went without needed care due to cost (Commonwealth Fund,Aug. 2005).
Nearly 30% of low and middle-income households with credit card debt cite medical debt as a contributing factor; 69% of those had a major medical expense in the previous three years (Borrowing to Stay Healthy: How Credit Card Debt Is Related to Medical Expenses, Demos,The Access Project, January, 2007)
Uninsured, national — 46.8 million (15.9% of the population), 2005, up from 45.3 million in 2004. Hispanics highest rate of uninsured – 32.7%; African-Americans, 19.6%; Asians, 17.9%; whites, 15%; children, 11.2%; middle-income ($50k–$75k), 14.1%; work full-time, 17.7% (U.S. Census Bureau). 82 million, or one in three non-elderly Americans, went without health insurance during 2003–2004 (Washington Post, Dec. 13, 2006).
Lack of health insurance causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year (Institute of Medicine, January 14, 2004), the equivalent of six times the number who died in 9/11. (Louisville Courier-Journal, Jan. 30, 2006)
Underinsured, national — 17.1 million people under 65 in 2003 (JAMA, Dec. 13, 2006). "Underinsured" person defined as someone with health expenses exceeding 10% of his or her income. Among the underinsured, 38% did not fill prescriptions due to cost, 32% went without seeing a doctor when needed, 30% avoided medical tests, treatment or follow-up care. 18% declined care from specialists. 46% reported being contacted by a collection agency about unpaid medical bills. 35% reported changing their lifestyle to cover medical expenses (Health Affairs, June 14, 2005).
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
Whether a government mandated system of universal health care should be implemented in the U.S. remains a hotly debated political topic. What are your thoughts?
Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:
* Health care is a basic human right or entitlement.
* Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.
* About 60% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.
* A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.
* Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal healthcare system over the current U.S. system
* Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.
* Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.
* America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
* A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.
* The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.
* A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal healthcare plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.
* According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of healthcare dollars are spent on healthcare, the rest go to various middlemen and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on healthcare.
* In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also Two-tier health care.
* Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.
* Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.
Common arguments forwarded by opponents of universal health care systems include:* Health care is not a right. As such, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care.
* If universal health care is provided by federally mandated purchase of health insurance, it may be unconstitutional, since the Constitution does not give the federal government this right and reserves all non-mentioned rights to the States or the People.
* Universal heath care would result in increased wait times, which could result in unnecessary deaths.
* Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.
* Universal health care would reduce efficiency because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which could lead to fewer doctor-patient visits. Advocates of this argument claim that the performance of administrative duties by doctors results from medical centralization and over-regulation, and may reduce charitable provision of medical services by doctors.
* Many problems that universal health insurance is meant to solve are presumed caused by limitations on the free market. As such, free market solutions have greater potential to improve care and coverage.
* The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide emergency care to anyone regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. The health care safety net, which includes free medical clinics, charity care, nonprofits and government-run community hospitals, provides necessary care to the uninsured.
* The widely quoted health care system ranking by the World Health Organization, in which the US system ranked below other countries' universal health care systems, used biased criteria, giving a false sense of those systems' superiority.
* Empirical evidence on the Medicare single payer-insurance program demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates. As an open-ended entitlement, Medicare does not weigh the benefits of technologies against their costs. Paying physicians on a fee-for-service basis also leads to spending increases. As a result, it is difficult to predict or control Medicare's spending. Large market-based public program such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and CalPERS can provide better coverage than Medicare while still controlling costs as well.
* Universal health care systems, in an effort to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power, sometimes outlaw medical care paid for by private, individual funds.
So what are your thoughts? Are you for Universal Health care? Why? Are you against it? Why?
Do you have insurance? Any insurance horror stories?
Post a Comment
- Back to momaroo's Momaroo Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in momaroo's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)



True
Lifetime












Comments (15)
I don´t know which is worse, the healthcare system in the U.S. or the one in my country (Mexico). People should stop complaining about how universalizing health care would promote socialism. C´mon, the countries that have that are far better off that us. And I hate bureocracy. It is a waste of time and money, plus it gets in the way of so many things.
Not for universal health care in this house. I don't want the government telling us what I must do with my uterus (if, after all, they're "paying" for it), nor that I'm not allowed more than one asthma inahaler a year, etc. I might have sucky choices right now, but they're *my* choices, not anyone else's. Besides, when has the US gov't actually balanced a budget or stayed within a budget or done anything besides add a boatload of red tape and paperwork? Does anybody really expect anything different of the government as a whole?
Not to mention, if something as all-encompassing as universal health care did actually happen, think about all the small business sector (isn't the US made up of about 60-70% small businesses?). The increase in taxes will either drive employers out of business, force them to lay off employees, or force them to cut salaries. Which of those are preferable to the majority? I don't know many folks who would happily/willingly take a 30% pay cut nowadays, but maybe that's just me. In the same train of though, who then, in their right mind, would even want to open up a new business with even more of a financial strain to even be able to open their doors in the first place?
I just think that everyone should be entitled to affordable health care, universal or not. I find it absolutely ridiculous that it would cost me $170 for a 10 minute doctor visit if I was not insured (luckily it only costs me about $20 after insurance). I guess I'm kind of against paying for someone else to receive free health care if they're not chipping in. But I definitely would be for everyone chipping in a percentage of their income so that everyone is affected equally. In a perfect world cost would not be an issue and people would just get the care they need, but unfortunately that is not an option.
As usual, "universal care" has been confused with a single payer system. The two things are not, in any way, interchangeable. This is a very, very long post to have the main point wrong. Universal care simply means everyone has insurance, whether it be through a government system (like millions of people on Medicare already have) or through a regular insurance company. Universal care is not a system, it is an idea. I have no idea what "monopsony" power is, I assume the OP means "monopoly", but, again, that would be a single payer system. Which has not been proposed by the President.
@LannaM@xanga - I agree!
I kinda don't see what God has to do with this post, or universal health care for that matter.
I disagree with the idea of universal health care. Our government has so many flaws and inefficiencies that it is the last organization I'd trust with the health care of those around me and myself.
I absolutely agree that health care needs to be reformed, but I believe we should first try to do that by fixing the system we have. I've heard too many horror stories from health care systems in Europe (I just studied abroad in England this summer) as well as Canada to feel we shouldn't first do everything we can to reform our current system.
I believe every person should have the right to SEEK out healthcare and pay for it. I do NOT believe that healthcare is a right.
So no, the government can keep their hands out of the healthcare industry in my opinion.
I agree with this post. It is awful that people are dying of treatable conditions simply because they can't pay for those treatments.
It almost amuses me how many people believe in "the right to life" but not "the right to health care". Hahahahahahahahahaha. Except it isn't really funny.
@averyswife@xanga - So "life" is not a right? The whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit..." thing is just a joke? Is healthcare not a fundamental extension of the right to life? Do you know anyone who has lived very long without healthcare? So if I get into an accident and will die without medical attention, I have the right to pay for some, but if I cannot pay, I can go ahead and die because my life isn't worth anything to you anyway unless I have money?
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - "Life" is definitely a right. That's why emergency rooms are required to provide life-saving treatment for free. Healthcare beyond that is just an added bonus though. The Declaration says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." NOT "the BEST quality of life."
@averyswife@xanga - It's not free at all. Taxpayers pay for that in most cases, or the hospital takes it as a loss and passes it along to other people and their insurance companies. Do you know how many emergency room visits are for lifesaving treatment? Fewer than 10%. It's not about everyone having great quality of care. Don't you think that if the hundreds of thousands of people who visit emergency rooms for basic care had real guarantees health-care, where they could see a doctor for basic prevention, that would save everyone money over time? An emergency room visit, on average, costs 20 times as much as a doctors office visit.
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - Sorry, bad choice of words: I should have said "emergency rooms are required to provide life-saving treatment regardless of the patient's ability to pay." That's the basic "right to life." And yes, everything you just mentioned is true...but I fail to see your point. Personally I think ER's should have the right to turn people away if their ailment isn't life-threatening and they can't pay; free up space and money for people who really need saving. Sorry, but I remain unmoved in my opinion...people should have to pay to see a doctor. If they don't have the money they can appeal for help from Medicaid, CHIP, private charitable organizations, their families, their churches, whomever. But they should NOT feel they have the RIGHT to have it for free. Nothing in life is free and we should have to WORK HARD to have a good life, period.
@averyswife@xanga - OK, if you fail to see my point then my point is lost on you. There is no further discussion. I see it as a moral issue, obviously you see it as an economic one. It's a difference in how we view life and humanity.
I have to wonder how many of you that are against universal health care have ever been without a job and/or insurance, and had your life at risk. What about having one of your children's lives at risk and having no way to pay? How many of you have really walked in the shoes of the uninsured? What if you were about to lose your house due to medical bills? Would you still feel the same?
Unfortunately, so many people think that emergency room visits are the answer. Let's look at it from my point of view as an asthmatic, shall we? If I keep regular appointments with the hospital's asthma clinic, and regular appointments with my doctor, who keeps tabs on my meds, I keep emergency visits down to maybe one of two a year and have very few attacks. If I couldn't afford these visits, I would have to run to the hospital for treatment every time I have an asthma attack, it would be a detriment to my health, as my lungs would collect more and more scarring and function less and less. So in this case, emergency room visits are like putting a bandaid on the cut instead of preventing the cut to begin with.
I'm thankful that I only have to pay for medication, here in Canada...our system may have a lot of flaws, but after a week in the hospital, the grand total of my bill was $0.00.