quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

The American health care system is so distant from anything I recognize.

The British NHS haven’t exactly had an easy time of it. It’s been long painful journey.
Even now, if I want to make an appointment with my doctor in the UK, I will be asked if its an emergency and if it isn’t, I will be told in no uncertain terms that there are no available appointments for two weeks and to phone back in two weeks. When I phone back Ill be told the same thing!! When I eventually do get to see my general practitioner, I will of sat in a waiting room for a good hour (over the scheduled time) and if I’m lucky, Ill get to see my GP for five minutes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

I haven't asserted anything. I just gave consideration to those countries where they clearly believe that universal healthcare is not the country's responsibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, the costs are simply higher because...?

There may not be Constitutional authority for the Federal government to run health care providers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Different things in recent decades? Like what? Education? Um, no. Teachers are not Federal employees. They are more akin to State employees, but, as I said, there are different rules for State governments compared to the Federal government.

Perhaps it's your not understanding our PoV that is causing the misunderstandings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I think you mean that providers are making a mint off Medicare because Medicare is the Federal government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If the costs of providing care and services isn't lower than reimbursements, how profitability can be considered. It doesn't matter how much you sell, if you're losing money on each product.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

Who would give a flying fuck if an insurance company went bust because there are cheaper alternative (nationally run) plans to the product they are offering?

As it sits right now, there is no "nationally run" insurance plan available. There are State-accredited plans, but one of the issues that has been brought up is that insurance isn't purchasable across State lines. That limits competition that could reduce premium costs.

And, none of these things would impact the individual costs of procedures and services (which is what drives the cost of insurance).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You are showing that you have no clue what I can or can not grasp. You are not grasping the realities of our Constitution-limited Federal government format.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I disagree. It is not becoming the norm. It is the norm and became so decades ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's already happening here. It's easier to prevent someone from getting something from government than it is to stop someone from getting something they have been getting (especially if the cost isn't borne by the receiver). In general, those who stand to gain are going to support the law more than those who are going to have to pay more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Constitution only grants limited authorities. If the Constitution doesn't grant the authority, the Federal Government isn't allowed to do it. There doesn't have to be specific limitations stated in the Constitution to prevent an action. Without an action being necessary and proper for the fulfillment of an enumerated power, the action isn't allowed.
Your driver license requirement isn't a Federal requirement. It's a State requirement. State governments and the Federal government are not constrained the same way. Any power not granted to the Federal government is left to either the People or the State governments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

The American health care system is so distant from anything I recognize.

The British NHS haven’t exactly had an easy time of it. It’s been long painful journey.
Even now, if I want to make an appointment with my doctor in the UK, I will be asked if its an emergency and if it isn’t, I will be told in no uncertain terms that there are no available appointments for two weeks and to phone back in two weeks. When I phone back Ill be told the same thing!! When I eventually do get to see my general practitioner, I will of sat in a waiting room for a good hour (over the scheduled time) and if I’m lucky, Ill get to see my GP for five minutes.

That's not much different from what a lot of Americans with insurance go through.

Although it was my understanding from friends in the UK that it was relatively easy to get in to see a nurse practitioner who could get things going if need be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

The American health care system is so distant from anything I recognize.

The British NHS haven’t exactly had an easy time of it. It’s been long painful journey.
Even now, if I want to make an appointment with my doctor in the UK, I will be asked if its an emergency and if it isn’t, I will be told in no uncertain terms that there are no available appointments for two weeks and to phone back in two weeks. When I phone back Ill be told the same thing!! When I eventually do get to see my general practitioner, I will of sat in a waiting room for a good hour (over the scheduled time) and if I’m lucky, Ill get to see my GP for five minutes.

On the other hand, once your on the right conveyer-belt, you fall into a system of excellence. If I’m in an accident, have a heart attack or stroke or I’m found to have a devastating illness, I am guaranteed all the top treatment along with excellent after-care and Ill go home without a bill, even though I don’t have my own private insurance.
`I can of course take out private insurance as an addition to my NHS care plan and that at least would ensure an on the day appointment with no waiting time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
I believe getting on the right conveyor-belt when you are ill, is problematic with the NHS. When my mum got breast cancer she was thobbed off by her GP until she paid to go for a private consultation. They quickly discovered her lump was ominous and at that point she was strongly advised to go back to the National Health System because the technology and treatment on that side were far better than on the private side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
Don't get me wrong, I think the NHS is a good thing... a very good thing and I consider myself fortunate to be of British birth but there are many things the NHS need to iron out before I would be prepared to say its a perfect system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
On a side note, some friends of ours, she's American, he's English and they have a son who is duel national, can't afford to go and live in the US because their son has an ongoing illness. I can't imagine being kept away from my own country because I can't afford to live their.

quote:

I can't imagine being kept away from my own country because I can't afford to live their.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

I believe in the Constitution you will fine "promote the general welfare"

Yep. And that certainly covers matters of public health like communicable disease, but why don't you go find the bit of the Constitution that makes individual/family welfare the job of government?

(typo, or Freudian slip?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, the costs are simply higher because...?
There may not be Constitutional authority for the Federal government to run health care providers.

The costs are higher simply because the whole gammut of healthcare is run by people and companies only interested in making a profit - not providing a healthcare service.
If their costs go up, they just pass it on down to the patient and be damned - they don't give a fuck.
And I didn't say to run healthcare providers, I said to be one! Big difference.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Different things in recent decades? Like what? Education? Um, no. Teachers are not Federal employees. They are more akin to State employees, but, as I said, there are different rules for State governments compared to the Federal government.
Perhaps it's your not understanding our PoV that is causing the misunderstandings.

What about departments like the FDA and similar others?
They certainly have national jurisdiction and are funded by the federal state taxes.
What I am proposing is no different than the Australian system - just have a healthcare department.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I think you mean that providers are making a mint off Medicare because Medicare is the Federal government.

Medicare is still a private insurance venture out to make a profit and still run as a business.
It might have some state funding but it isn't on a national scale as the alternative I'm suggesting.
This is where O'Bummercare will trip up and why they are having to make sweeping changes since it was first approved way back in 2010. Last I heard (before the current set of changes being discussed), there have been 11 million words added to the original ACA agreement.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If the costs of providing care and services isn't lower than reimbursements, how profitability can be considered. It doesn't matter how much you sell, if you're losing money on each product.

That's the whole point of a single-payer system - it doesn't have to make a profit.
In many departments, they actually run at a loss but that's what the taxes pay for and the profits from other healthcare departments.
Sure, it's not a bottomless pit but that's the same everywhere there is such system.
The point is, it's only as dismal if you compare it with current prices. The whole point of the single-payer system is that it significantly drives down the overall costs across the board so it wouldn't be fair to compare current rates with what they would be under a single-payer scheme.
Australia made it work as a 50/50 private/national health system and both sides still make a profit.
We tried that in the UK with Maggie Thatcher and the insurance companies couldn't compete with the national system and there aren't that many left to choose from if you wanted to go private. That's what happens when a single-payer system becomes popular - it's relatively cheap and all-encompassing with no deductables and no exclusions and for many national hospitals, better equipment because it is bought at a huge discount that private hospitals can't compete with.
Also bear in mind, we didn't have our NHS until 1944; so it's relatively recent.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

Who would give a flying fuck if an insurance company went bust because there are cheaper alternative (nationally run) plans to the product they are offering?

As it sits right now, there is no "nationally run" insurance plan available. There are State-accredited plans, but one of the issues that has been brought up is that insurance isn't purchasable across State lines. That limits competition that could reduce premium costs.
And, none of these things would impact the individual costs of procedures and services (which is what drives the cost of insurance).

And therein lies the problem - trying to shoe-horn a single-payer style scheme into a business-run profit-making model; They just don't fit and never will.
And all the while things like healthcare are driven on a local scale, you will never be able to achieve the gains of a single-payer system across the nation.
That's why I said it needs a different way of thinking and application.
No more thoughts of insurance or profits or crap like that - nationwide healthcare run by a federal government department. Not a federal department running 'other' insurance schemes... no, a federal department running their own nationwide healthcare initiative for everyone, independant of state boundaries.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You are showing that you have no clue what I can or can not grasp. You are not grasping the realities of our Constitution-limited Federal government format.

And I'm saying there's no need to change any format and what is currently in the constitution does not conflict, limit or impinge on setting up a new federal department to run a healthcare scheme.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I disagree. It is not becoming the norm. It is the norm and became so decades ago.

I said you'd been doing it for decades and it's become the norm (past tense, not becoming).

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's already happening here. It's easier to prevent someone from getting something from government than it is to stop someone from getting something they have been getting (especially if the cost isn't borne by the receiver). In general, those who stand to gain are going to support the law more than those who are going to have to pay more.

This is the essential difference... it's not a law - it's a service provided by the federal government and funded by general taxes just like the military. People aren't getting penalised and fined for not having it or using it - it becomes a choice for a competing product on the market; just like the Australian scheme is now.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Constitution only grants limited authorities. If the Constitution doesn't grant the authority, the Federal Government isn't allowed to do it. There doesn't have to be specific limitations stated in the Constitution to prevent an action. Without an action being necessary and proper for the fulfillment of an enumerated power, the action isn't allowed.
Your driver license requirement isn't a Federal requirement. It's a State requirement. State governments and the Federal government are not constrained the same way. Any power not granted to the Federal government is left to either the People or the State governments.

Did you have to change the constitution to have submarines as well as ships in the military? No, you didn't.
Did you have to change the constitution to 'invent' the FDA and its legal powers? No, you didn't.
A nationally funded healthcare scheme would run the same way that the FDA is run; autonomously, state independant, with national authority and license across the whole country.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden
In fact, I would suggest that if you move to a country where the policy coincides with your philosophy on the subject, if you just keep your opinions to yourself and be sure to be armed at all times it will definitely contribute to your well-being.

quote:

Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. Government responsibilty for individual healthcare is not a given. Appeals to emotion don't make the cut, and attempts to demonize the very question only establish that those trying the tactic don't have an answer.

quote:

In fact, I would suggest that if you move to a country where the policy coincides with your philosophy on the subject, if you just keep your opinions to yourself and be sure to be armed at all times it will definitely contribute to your well-being.

quote:

So, yes, it very well may require a Constitutional amendment for the Federal government to provide a nationally funded health care system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?

It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

The only way something like this can work is through a single payer system like in Europe, Canada and Australia.
Of course we'd have to cut back or simply do away with other things like foreign aid, Education and Energy Depts, EPA, and cut the state dept by 50% and also the military so we wouldn't be a "global power" anymore which is fine by me.
If you want to get something you have to give something. (I.E. we'd have to do away with other things to be able to pay for it.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

*shrug* for some reason the "poor people should die on the emergency room curb" view of health care just doesn't poll very well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden
In fact, I would suggest that if you move to a country where the policy coincides with your philosophy on the subject, if you just keep your opinions to yourself and be sure to be armed at all times it will definitely contribute to your well-being.

Now let me see if I have this right... Because I question whether something some people in my country want to do, and are fucking up quite badly in the initial efforts, is something that ought to be done in a country set up the way mine is, I'm going to leave the country?

And then, when I get to some third world hellhole, I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut, and go around armed all the time?

Why the fuck would I do any of those things? Because asking my questions makes developmentally disabled, allegedly liberal, Obamabots splutter their dentures into their decaf latte? I enjoy that, and it's obviously done the job on you.

Nope. Get over it. I like the free speech here, and only going about armed when I feel like it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, the costs are simply higher because...?

There may not be Constitutional authority for the Federal government to run health care providers.

The costs are higher simply because the whole gammut of healthcare is run by people and companies only interested in making a profit - not providing a healthcare service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I can't imagine being kept away from my own country because I can't afford to live their.

An old friend of mine married an American and went to live with him in the US. Then he made her pregnant . . . and she had to come home. He couldn't afford to travel with her, so she returned alone.

They 'couldn't afford for her to be pregnant in the US', she said. His parents, with whom he didn't get on, wouldn't help: their view was that 'it was in the hands of God'.

*Sigh*. Start looking for ironies in that story, and you'll never stop.