Spending for health care

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I'm not claiming it is perfect in other countries, but that they have access to it. I think we should look at what other countries do, and adopt things that would work here. There is no such thing as a perfect system, I don't believe. Ours certainly doesn't work very well though, unless you are fortunate enough to work somewhere that still has good benefits, or unless you can afford good insurance (which doesn't always end up being as good as you think).

Why is OK that taxpayers end up subsidizing health care for employees of rich corporations like WalMart, when they can obviously afford to supply it? Why do we put up with that? Those people don't make enough to buy insrance on their own, so they are mostly on some kind of Medicaid. And WalMart is one of the richest corporations in the world. Why aren't you pissed off about that?

OOPS! I meant to say medicaid, fixed it.

Originally Posted by jinx

I noticed these 2 articles when I was reading about the fires is AUS...
Don't assume everything is all rainbows and gummy bears in government health care land. You don't even have to read about it other countries, ask the people here who are on government health care how much they like it...

Universal affordable and accessible health care does not necessarily mean government health care.

What Obama envisions in the longer term is more quasi-governmental, with a government body overseeing the administration of a program that provides citizens with a range of choices through private health care providers. The citizens would have little or no contact with the government and would interact with their health care provider in much the same manner as they do now if covered by an employer-based plan.

In the short term, the goal is to contain the costs of employer-based plans since they represent over 2/3 of those currently with health care coverage and to provide incentives for small business to create health care pools in order to provide affordable coverage to those small business employees.

Is it doable? I hope we might see steps in that direction if all the fear mongering about government taking over our lives is put aside...and if the economy doesnt keep tanking.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Universal affordable and accessible health care does not necessarily mean government health care.

Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.

As opposed to you speaking for the millions of Americans you have heard from who believe Obama' has pledged free universal health care?

Gimme a fucking break.

I try to gain an understanding of his heath care policy agenda by reading his policy agenda! Damn...why not start there and supplement it with articles and analyses of his proposed policy that provide more than one person's opinion! Makes sense, doesnt it?

Or does it really make more sense to draw such sweeping conclusions as your based on the opinion of an editorial writer who offers nothing to support her opinion and public hearsay?

Perhaps it does for you...not for me.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.

What the hell?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.

Good grief Merc. I have supplied you with links to what his plan looks like. In fact, I got one of them from a link YOU posted (at SMN) to PBR. WTF?

[TheMercenary]

We have only just begun to be divided IMHO.

[Aliantha]

When I see the words 'universal healthcare' I don't see the words free. In fact, it really doesn't tell you much except that it'll be available to everyone 'universally'.

eta: and I don't think I'm any smarter than anyone else, so if i can understand the definition of the word, then why can't others?

We have what you'd probably call universal healthcare here. It's not free, but it's a lot more affordable than private healthcare.

[Aliantha]

Just as an example, if you go to see your GP over here, it'll cost you anywhere from $40 - $100 per visit depending on the length of the appointment, time of day and particular practicioner. Of that amount, let's suggest $60 as the mean average, you'll get back somewhere between half and two thirds. Some clinics 'bulk bill' which means the bill goes straight to the government for less financial patients such as pensioners, for the rest of us, if we choose to see a public GP, we get a substantial saving. Depending on how much you 'spend' at the doctors throughout the year will depend on how much you might have to either pay or not when it's time to pay your taxes. Of course, if you're a pensioner with no other income for example, you're not required to submit a tax return, so you're exempt.

The system here is designed to try and help those who can least afford healthcare while still giving the more wealthy a break too, depending on how much they draw from the system.

It's not too bad, but it has its faults just like every other government funded initiative.

eta: For the more wealthy, there are tax breaks for having private health insurance from the age of 30. Unfortunately, if you don't have PHI before the age of 30, any tax benefits that might have been available to you are no longer applicable. This is one of the bad parts of the legislation in my opinion.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Just as an example, if you go to see your GP over here, it'll cost you anywhere from $40 - $100 per visit depending on the length of the appointment, time of day and particular practicioner. Of that amount, let's suggest $60 as the mean average, you'll get back somewhere between half and two thirds. Some clinics 'bulk bill' which means the bill goes straight to the government for less financial patients such as pensioners, for the rest of us, if we choose to see a public GP, we get a substantial saving. Depending on how much you 'spend' at the doctors throughout the year will depend on how much you might have to either pay or not when it's time to pay your taxes. Of course, if you're a pensioner with no other income for example, you're not required to submit a tax return, so you're exempt.

The system here is designed to try and help those who can least afford healthcare while still giving the more wealthy a break too, depending on how much they draw from the system.

It's not too bad, but it has its faults just like every other government funded initiative.

eta: For the more wealthy, there are tax breaks for having private health insurance from the age of 30. Unfortunately, if you don't have PHI before the age of 30, any tax benefits that might have been available to you are no longer applicable. This is one of the bad parts of the legislation in my opinion.

But your system and the one in the UK and Canada are highly supported by your tax system. No?

[Aliantha]

Of course. There aren't any fairy god mothers here either. Where do you think Obama would be planning on getting the money to fund a universal health care system in the US?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Of course. There aren't any fairy god mothers here either. Where do you think Obama would be planning on getting the money to fund a universal health care system in the US?

I know exactly where he plans on getting it. And that was the point.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I know exactly where he plans on getting it. And that was the point.

Much of the cost savings that will be passed on to consumers will result from computerizing the health care system.

I dont know how it is in Australia, but in the US, a relatively small percentage of doctors and hospitals are using or maximizing their use of health information technology systems

A Rand report (pdf)found that implementing health IT would result in a mean annual savings of $40 billion over a 15-year period by improving health outcomes through care management, increasing efficiency, and reducing medical errors.

In terms of the $20 billion for health care IT in the stimulus package, a Harvard researcher suggests that the $20 bill investment in health care IT is in fact a both stimulus (creating thousands of jobs) and a means to make health care more efficient and less costly over a period of a few years.

I dont take these studies at face value, but I am inclined to take them as more credible than the unsubstantiated opinion of the editorial writer in the initial article that suggested the health IT investment in the stimulus bill would be "dangerous to your health" and was to "enable the government to dictate to doctors how to treat patients."

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Much of the cost savings that will be passed on to consumers will result from computerizing the health care system.

Cost savings passed on to consumers? I'll believe that when I see it.

Originally Posted by Redux

Harvard researcher suggests that the $20 bill investment in health care IT is in fact a both stimulus (creating thousands of jobs) and a means to make health care more efficient and less costly.

Well for 20 BILLION, it better create tens of thousands of jobs!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Cost savings passed on to consumers? I'll believe that when I see it.

It's pie in the sky feel good stuff. I work at a number of places that use computerized record making it hasn't saved patients a dime and it costs thousands to maintain and update. It does give you an occassional longer coffee break. How does the data get into the computer you ask? Oh, yea, that's right SOMEONE HAS TO TYPE IT IN. It is not always faster, in some cases it does. There are so many problems with it I could go on and on. The only people who will profit are IT guys who can interface with companies who already specialize in medical record keeping and there are hundreds of companies out there.