Healthcare? More specifically Obama-care.

[gb2000ie]

I don't know much about the healthcare deal in U.S.A. and Obama.
but with health care comes high taxes.

That seems logical, but the US is a special case because of the unusual status quo.

Right now, healthcare is done for profit. The profit margins are quite high, between 20 and 30% (Obamacare limits it to a theoretical max of 20%). This means that if you nationalised healthcare, you can get 20% more care without raising prices. I guess you could say tax would go up because what is now a bill would become a tax, but in terms of money spent per household per year, it would not have to go up.

If you look at the % of GDP spent on healthcare in a country, the US is top of the pile, but, if you look at medical outcomes, it is NOT top of the pile. The US is spending more than it needs to, and the money is being diverted away from actual healthcare towards corporate profits.

US healthcare is just not efficient (unless you are a shareholder in a medical company of course)!

This chart says it all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.png

I think that it's hard to introduce the healthcare pack because of that.
Who wants to pay 40% of there income to taxes, if they are not guaranteed
100% healthcare. Well.. yeah it's hard to start but why not just do it?

Healthcare for everyone from to day! (but you have to pay higher taxes)

I can speak for my country. We in Denmark have healthcare for everyone.
You get paid to go to school. You don't pay anything for doctor visits.
If you got no home the state finds you a place to live. You don't got any money
- the state gives you money every month. Seems like a fairytale, but we pay high taxes.

Is it worth it? - My answer is yes.

This way we can help anyone.

of course some might use the system, but you don't get
a lot of money from the state. You get just enough to live
and no more.

In other words - living in a socialist state is actually very nice, despite what the right-wing extremists would have you believe!

 

[777]

Simple translation, no matter what lunacy Americans come up with, sooner or later The European Union will follow suit...

And to answer the question of why Americans are so reluctant to embrace universal health care, well...That's complicated.

For many it would be better, but most worry that it will mean much higher taxes. The real problem is that health care and pharmaceuticals in America are not that well regulated. The reason that drugs are cheaper in other countries is because they are regulated and drug companies sell them at little or no profit. So to make up the difference, Americans are taxed with much higher prices, so without regulation, American tax dollars spent on drugs would actually be subsidizing drug cost in other countries. There is also a problem with regulating health care services because health care is a huge business here with huge profit margins. The people in charge have formed powerful lobbying groups to keep it that way. So any politician pushing for regulation of health care that would limit their profits is committing political suicide...

It all boils down to greed...

I totally agree what you said about greed and huge profit margins! There's one thing though (of which I'm not 100% sure if I understood your meaning correctly), namely it's not true that in other countries people pay less for their drugs and Americans would pay more because they'd be paying the "actual" prices. The reality is that because there's no regulation, they take as much as they think they can. In here for example, the government tries to regulate the prices some, making people use generic drugs and all that, but the state has a certain coverage percentage for different drugs and illnesses, for some the patient gets 100 % coverage, to some less or none at all. The ones that get the 100 % coverage are insanely expensive and it's because there's no rivals for it, so the companies take a high price. Also they bribe (money, gifts, travelling, dinners...) doctors to prescribe the more expensive ones. The baseline still is that drug companies make huge profits everywhere.

The costs of drugs after research are quite low to the company and they are usually made nowadays in places like India where they dump the basically toxic waste to water ways and other places to maximise profit. Also the amount of research is very small compared to the profits companies make. The big companies often produce the so called generic drugs too, just to take the markets away from any smaller ones, so basically often when you buy a generic drug it's actually the same as the pricier one, just in a different package.

In poor countries people pay a lot higher prices if you compare the prices to living costs in the country, and the companies also try their best to prevent the countries to have affordable meds (for example HIV, malaria). In rich countries people use a lot of drugs that aren't necessary because the drug companies try their best to get people use as much as they can, and the American system makes the most money because there's not much regulating other than the doctor's conscience, as you said, the whole health care system is a huge business. It wants people to be sick because that's where the money comes from.

Basically like gb2000ie said, the system isn't efficient unless you're a shareholder. In universal health care the aim is to get the patient to never come back with the same problem, where as in private market based health care the aim is to get the patient to come back, to make the most of the expensive equipment, to keep the company profitable, to keep the patient needing drugs, to make sure they pay their insurance. That way the insurance bills stay very expensive too since the insurance is used wrong all the time by the hospitals and other health care facilities, but that's not a problem because the same people own both anyway. Like josh_the_hot_biy said,

The middle class is a pawn in the chess game of life.

PS. One of the reasons why USA keeps trying to both support the current system in EU and disrupt the EU becoming a more tightly knit area with different politics, whether it's military or economical is because EU as a whole is a bigger market area with more people in it than the USA has, hence if the EU would turn from the current neoliberal politics to something else, it would have a huge impact on USA too. The balance might turn the other way around, especially as the Asian countries are pretty big economical factors too nowadays, and despite what the opinions about the euro are, USA is actually in deeper shit economically. Making a huge fuss about euro is convenient as a distraction though.

 

[tonka]

I have no problem with big pharm making profits. It's hugely expensive and risky to develop new drugs and bring them to market. They make new pricy drugs; older drugs get cheaper. There's now a vast array of drugs at every price point.

There's plenty of money in the US heathcare system now. It does need to be regulated differently. But there will be a huge pushback. US doctors make MUCH more money than other advanced countries (It's why half of the doctors at my local hospital are foreign born).
You think they'll be happy with less? Probably not.

As to the larger socialism question, generous state benefits will become harder to sustain. There are billions of third world people who want to do YOUR job, and will do it much cheaper. As they become more capable, the competitive pressure will grow.

 

[shannon]

I don't understand. It is not like doctors do anything anyway. It's not like they can cure anything they treat anyway. Overpaid whiny ass doctors and politicians. Lets get rid of them all.

 

[brmstn69]

I have no problem with big pharm making profits. It's hugely expensive and risky to develop new drugs and bring them to market. They make new pricy drugs; older drugs get cheaper. There's now a vast array of drugs at every price point.

There's plenty of money in the US heathcare system now. It does need to be regulated differently. But there will be a huge pushback. US doctors make MUCH more money than other advanced countries (It's why half of the doctors at my local hospital are foreign born).
You think they'll be happy with less? Probably not.

As to the larger socialism question, generous state benefits will become harder to sustain. There are billions of third world people who want to do YOUR job, and will do it much cheaper. As they become more capable, the competitive pressure will grow.

The top pharmaceutical CEO last year made an average of over $38,000 per hour and that was based on a 50 hour work week. You can be sure that a great many of those work hours actually took place in 5 star restaurants (charged to the company) or at the country club...

This guy made more in two hours than most of his employees did in an entire year.

His hourly wage is higher that the median yearly wage for my entire state...

That is pure fucking greed...

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

Just do it.

Australia has had national health care for many years, as have most developed countries. Our system is not perfect, but it works to the extent that most essential treatment can be obtained even by those on low income or no income. I can't believe the US is incapable of organising something similar.

 

[777]

I have no problem with big pharm making profits. It's hugely expensive and risky to develop new drugs and bring them to market. They make new pricy drugs; older drugs get cheaper. There's now a vast array of drugs at every price point.

There's the problem that they aren't interested in developing drugs that wouldn’t necessarily profit much but would save millions of lives. They also use universities, public money basically, to developing drugs that they then patent and get all the profits from them. The old drugs also get cheaper because there's laws for patents expiring in certain time and if there wouldn't be that, the old drugs would never get any cheaper.

In Finland, Sweden and Ireland some people got problems from not enough tested swine flu vaccinations (this is also one of the problem with market based drug industry, they want to push new drugs to the market as fast as they can). A lot of children got narcolepsy and since the Finnish government bought the vaccines to everyone, the Finnish government is now paying for the consequences, not GlaxoSmithKline as one would expect. There's been talk about the government demanding some kind of compensation but it's not going to be even near the amount that the Finnish government is going to have to put for it. These kind deals are very sweet for the companies. This is one of the biggest problems I see in neoliberal economy, the losses are shared with everyone but the profits belong only to some.

There's plenty of money in the US heathcare system now. It does need to be regulated differently. But there will be a huge pushback. US doctors make MUCH more money than other advanced countries (It's why half of the doctors at my local hospital are foreign born).
You think they'll be happy with less? Probably not.

The doctors come from other countries because they are offered better deals in the US, very true. But the reason the doctors are foreign is that there's not enough American born doctors who would like to take the low paid shitty jobs at your local hospital. They have paid a lot for their education unlike the foreign ones so they can afford very easily to come and USA reaps the benefit from the money other countries put into educating these people. It's the same problem in Europe too though because the system has been changed to be more like the American. Is it better to look after the doctors' best interests, or the states', and patients', tax payers'... The doctors would make a nice living even if they wouldn't be paid so much, but in US that would demand education that wouldn't cost so much. There's another big industry. But yeah, there's a lot of money in the healthcare system there, the trouble is that the money is benefiting only some, not all. It might feel ok if you're rich enough to use the system, but for those who can't, it's a situation where they probably spent the rest of their lives in because in reality, for someone to win, someone has to lose.

As to the larger socialism question, generous state benefits will become harder to sustain. There are billions of third world people who want to do YOUR job, and will do it much cheaper. As they become more capable, the competitive pressure will grow.

They wouldn't do if they wouldn't have to, cheaper that is. Companies use child labour and/or pay so small wages that people cannot support themselves with them and make them work around the clock, even sleep in the factory floor. In those countries corruption is a huge problem and makes it easier for the companies to use the system. The losers are the poor, the uneducated. The educated people aren't any cheaper nowadays anywhere, they can move easily enough and get better wages from the rival.

Generous state benefits wouldn't be so hard to sustain if the politicians wouldn't follow the liberal economics thinking of small state and as little regulations as possible. If the state doesn't get taxes and doesn't own businesses that are important to the country, then of course it doesn't have money. The talk about states being in debt and needing to cut consumption which means lay-offs and cuts doesn't really make any sense either since states aren't private persons, it's not the same thing. Those actions don't benefit most people living in that state, only the ones who make money from lending to states and getting businesses that are used by nearly everyone, even mandatory, but still they get privatised as we have seen before and are seeing the same now with the Euro-crisis. For loan givers it's very secure business, to give money for the states especially if they can get them to pay high margins, so of course they lobby for this thinking and of course if politicians only think their own interests then the result is this.

Also, I remembered this article about the US banking crisis, the same thing keeps just happening because the current system is broken... the banks and investors use the system without offering anything back http://nullrefer.com/?http://www.wa...2/01/AR2010120106870.html?sid=ST2010120106876

 

[JamesL]

The Affordable Care Act is just one of the issues facing Americans in the upcoming elections. In addition, since Reagan, we have seen the incomes for working and lower classes shrinking while income at the upper end of the income scale have been rising. This is incompatible with democracy. We've already seen Republicans pass Voter ID laws in many states in an effort to disenfranchize lower class people, urban and the poor who don't have drivers licenses. These people also are Democratic Voters. In Pa. the state acknowledged that there is no evidence of voter fraud showing their real intentions. The Pa. case is being reviewed by the courts but its estimated that up to 1 million Pennsylvanians will not be allowed to vote. If this income gap continues to grow we'll seem more efforts by Republicans to limit the right to vote of the poor to make sure they don't need to pay for things like health care and unemployment, medicare and social security. I feel this is a very important election impacting the U.S. over many years. Make sure you vote, I'm voting Democratic.

 

[bigsal]

American democracy is a strange one.

The constitution gives you the right to gun ownership, but does not guarantee basic health care.

There is not a problem of socialism or other, a state that defines itself democratic should guarantee the security to the population, and security also mean that health.

 

[tonka]

American democracy developed differently than European.
The American character, and it's laws, reflect the history of the frontier. Many of the places where our members live (Denver, Los Angeles, Kansas) really were frontier less than 200 years ago.
The laws that came from that were heavy on rights (to guns, to privacy, to land) and heavy on self reliance.
The frontier is long over, but we struggle to move to the modern reality. Part of that is the laws that are in place. Much of that is the romantic self image of the self sufficent frontiersman. A sexy image, of course!

 

[XMan101]

American democracy developed differently than European.
The American character, and it's laws, reflect the history of the frontier. Many of the places where our members live (Denver, Los Angeles, Kansas) really were frontier less than 200 years ago.
The laws that came from that were heavy on rights (to guns, to privacy, to land) and heavy on self reliance.
The frontier is long over, but we struggle to move to the modern reality. Part of that is the laws that are in place. Much of that is the romantic self image of the self sufficent frontiersman. A sexy image, of course!

A lot of that myth of course came from Buffalo Bill and his Wild West Shows that toured the globe. He was perhaps the first to create the modern vision of the old west that has since permeated the movies and gone into folklore.

There were never any shoot outs in the street, most were killed by a shotgun in the back, and the biggest killer of cowboys was prostrate cancer from riding horses for so many years.

Six-guns were seldom used and owned, but that would make the movies far less interesting

 

[bigsal]

American democracy developed differently than European.
The American character, and it's laws, reflect the history of the frontier. Many of the places where our members live (Denver, Los Angeles, Kansas) really were frontier less than 200 years ago.
The laws that came from that were heavy on rights (to guns, to privacy, to land) and heavy on self reliance.
The frontier is long over, but we struggle to move to the modern reality. Part of that is the laws that are in place. Much of that is the romantic self image of the self sufficent frontiersman. A sexy image, of course!

I accept your point of view, but we talk about 200 years ago.

It seems that since then there has been considerable industrial development,
culture and education.

But it seems to serve little if there are people willing to deny medical aid to the poorest.

 

[tonka]

The self reliant frontiersman isn't so self reliant if he has a heart attack! He relies on society...or he dies.

Omabacare will move us forward....if we still have Obama.
"Know Hope" as the prez says. Though I'm sad to say it's a phrase he no longer uses.

 

[bgboyblu]

I agree with earlier post ... The healthcare reform isn't about you and me, or grandma... The coverage you get with the "required coverage" isn't going to save your life. And even if it does, you are going to leave the hospital with a co-pay that will bankrupt you. It's minimal coverage. It's not blue cross blue shield. Try getting an appointment with it. Try seeing a specialist with it and find yourself waiting 6 months to get an appointment with your primary to get a referral to a specialist.

I believe it is a necessity... But what really needs to be in place is unilateral coverage, not minimal stop gap drop in the bucket - token coverage. But it's a start. Will it go any further? Can we keep Obama in office for the next 24 years?