State-run health care

[Crusher Disciple]

We have had UHC in Australia for more than 30 years and we still have private insurers.

How does that work, exactly?

 

[ST-One]

We have had UHC in Australia for more than 30 years and we still have private insurers.

Same here in Germany. And we have UHC for almost 100 years now.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I like to stay informed. Did you see Keith Olberman's Special Comment on health care? It was very moving.

Keith Olbermann? Yeah, he'll tell it to you in an unbiased fashion!

I never said he would. He's clearly very liberal. He also never makes the claim that he's anything but a liberal, unlike some "news" folk who say they're "fair and balanced".
You failed to address the data I provided which shows that your statement about Americans being against a public option "2 to 1" is complete and utter bollocks. Most Americans are for it.

Show me how the question is framed in each poll.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Keith Olbermann? Yeah, he'll tell it to you in an unbiased fashion!

I never said he would. He's clearly very liberal. He also never makes the claim that he's anything but a liberal, unlike some "news" folk who say they're "fair and balanced".
You failed to address the data I provided which shows that your statement about Americans being against a public option "2 to 1" is complete and utter bollocks. Most Americans are for it.

Show me how the question is framed in each poll.

First you provide the same background on YOUR information.

 

[cultcross]

We have had UHC in Australia for more than 30 years and we still have private insurers.

Same here in Germany. And we have UHC for almost 100 years now.

Ditto England, after 60 years.

How does that work, exactly?

You are free to buy private care if you wish to. It doesn't release you from UHC contribution, though, and won't cover you for emergencies - there aren't any private hospitals with A&E departments (ERs). (Well that's an unfairly blanket statement, more accurately I don't know of any.)

 

[Pingfah]

I never said he would. He's clearly very liberal. He also never makes the claim that he's anything but a liberal, unlike some "news" folk who say they're "fair and balanced".
You failed to address the data I provided which shows that your statement about Americans being against a public option "2 to 1" is complete and utter bollocks. Most Americans are for it.

Show me how the question is framed in each poll.

First you provide the same background on YOUR information.

Actually, the wording of each question, including the poll TLS is using for his statistic, is right there in the link in the original post presenting the graph. Had he bothered to actually read it.

 

[thestrangequark]

Edit: ^You beat me to it!

Keith Olbermann? Yeah, he'll tell it to you in an unbiased fashion!

I never said he would. He's clearly very liberal. He also never makes the claim that he's anything but a liberal, unlike some "news" folk who say they're "fair and balanced".
You failed to address the data I provided which shows that your statement about Americans being against a public option "2 to 1" is complete and utter bollocks. Most Americans are for it.

Show me how the question is framed in each poll.

I already did. I sourced the article in the same post as the graph; it shows how each question is framed and analyzes the bias. If you'd read my post you'd know that:

I truly believe that we are on the right path, and hopefully we'll have a true, "robust" public health care option that may very well lead to a true single-payer system some time in the not too distant future.

Which Americans are against 2-1.

You mean like this?

Source. The article goes on to analyze each poll (a couple of which are biased), but overall is good evidence that most Americans support a public option.

See, I can do numbers too, except I don't pull them out of thin air.

 

[Captain Ice]

You are free to buy private care if you wish to. It doesn't release you from UHC contribution, though, and won't cover you for emergencies - there aren't any private hospitals with A&E departments (ERs). (Well that's an unfairly blanket statement, more accurately I don't know of any.)

So then, does private health insurance over there just pay for elective procedures and/or insure that I can get in to see a doctor quickly in a non-ER situation or is there more to it?

 

[Miss Chicken]

We have had UHC in Australia for more than 30 years and we still have private insurers.

How does that work, exactly?

The public provider (Medicare) covers every Australia for treatment as a public patient in a public hospital. This includes treatment in specialist clinics at public hospitals. It also covers 85% of the scheduled fee when a person goes to their general practioner (GP, in America I think they are called MD). Some GPs bulk bill i.e they accept the 85% and do not bill the patient any extra. Some doctors charge more than the schedule fee.

People are usually also generally covered for things like X-Rays, cat scans, and pathology tests.

The Medicare Levy is 1.5% of a person's taxable income.

Private health insurance covers treatment in a private hospital, the gap between the 85% paid by Medicare and what the doctors bills etc. It also covers things like dental, eyeglasses etc.

As a pensioner I can get dental treatment for $29 a visit (this is though my state government not Medicare), I can also get help from the state government for things like eyeglasses.

One can get non-elective surgery done much quicker at private hospital whereas those relying on Medicare usually have a wait for non-urgent surgery.

 

[Squiggy]

We have had UHC in Australia for more than 30 years and we still have private insurers.

Same here in Germany. And we have UHC for almost 100 years now.

Ditto England, after 60 years.

Clearly the Aussies, Germans, and Brits are all horrible Americans.

 

[Crusher Disciple]

We have had UHC in Australia for more than 30 years and we still have private insurers.

How does that work, exactly?

The public provider (Medicare) covers every Australia for treatment as a public patient in a public hospital. This includes treatment in specialist clinics at public hospitals. It also covers 85% of the scheduled fee when a person goes to their general practioner (GP, in America I think they are called MD). Some GPs bulk bill i.e they accept the 85% and do not bill the patient any extra. Some doctors charge more than the schedule fee.

People are usually also generally covered for things like X-Rays, cat scans, and pathology tests.

The Medicare Levy is 1.5% of a person's taxable income.

Private health insurance covers treatment in a private hospital, the gap between the 85% paid by Medicare and what the doctors bills etc. It also covers things like dental, eyeglasses etc.

As a pensioner I can get dental treatment for $29 a visit (this is though my state government not Medicare), I can also get help from the state government for things like eyeglasses.

One can get non-elective surgery done much quicker at private hospital whereas those relying on Medicare usually have a wait for non-elective surgery.

Well, that makes perfect sense.

Sadly, it'll probably make too much sense to pass here.

 

[StolenThunder]

You are free to buy private care if you wish to. It doesn't release you from UHC contribution, though, and won't cover you for emergencies - there aren't any private hospitals with A&E departments (ERs). (Well that's an unfairly blanket statement, more accurately I don't know of any.)

So then, does private health insurance over there just pay for elective procedures and/or insure that I can get in to see a doctor quickly in a non-ER situation or is there more to it?

Basically. It means faster access to scans in non-urgent situations, to surgery and to specialist consultations.

Not just 'non-ER' though - if you found a breast lump you'd be seen by a surgeon within a week or two whichever way you did it.

Musculoskeletal problems are a good way of illustrating it. If you had chronic ankle pain it might well take a few weeks to a few months to see a hospital specialist. With private care that would definitely be weeks. Any imaging - e.g. an MRI - would then generally occur sooner too. Any surgery would therefore be performed more quickly under private care - because everything else has moved faster with lower pressure on services. Perhaps oddly, it would likely be the same surgeon performing the procedure in both cases. Same for procedures like varicose vein surgery: it's not absoluvely vital so while you'd eventually get the operation with the NHS, it'd be much faster to 'go private'.

 

[Crash]

Benjamin French was born with his right arm missing below the elbow. In his 12 years, he has been fitted with seven prostheses. His most recent replacement will cost nearly $30,000 and his doctor says he will soon grow out of it.

But, according to his insurance company, the boy is ineligible for further coverage of prosthetic devices because he has already spent his lifetime maximum benefit.

Link

I blame the kid. He should have been smart enough to have been born with two arms or just had the good sense to stop growing. Pft.

Seriously, this is healthcare in the States. We can't even allow for a twelve year old kid to better function because of currently rationed care.

 

[Crusher Disciple]

If Benjamin's family were poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, most if not all of the cost of his new arm would be covered.

And therein lies the problem for the Middle Class- not poor enough to qualify for adequate government healthcare, and not wealthy enough to cover it through a private insurer. Squeezed out in either direction.

 

[Leroy]

But, according to his insurance company, the boy is ineligible for further coverage of prosthetic devices because he has already spent his lifetime maximum benefit.

That's another flaw with health insurance lifetime benefit caps I think on the university plan where I am the cap is a pathetic $500k I personally think such things should be illegal.

I blame the kid. He should have been smart enough to have been born with two arms or just had the good sense to stop growing. Pft.

/sarcasm Yeah he chose to be born that way after all remember folks it's all about choosing your destiny and making your own way through life socialism just robs you of your god given right!/sarcasm

 

[iguana_tonante]

So then, does private health insurance over there just pay for elective procedures and/or insure that I can get in to see a doctor quickly in a non-ER situation or is there more to it?

Basically. It means faster access to scans in non-urgent situations, to surgery and to specialist consultations.

Not just 'non-ER' though - if you found a breast lump you'd be seen by a surgeon within a week or two whichever way you did it.

Musculoskeletal problems are a good way of illustrating it. If you had chronic ankle pain it might well take a few weeks to a few months to see a hospital specialist. With private care that would definitely be weeks. Any imaging - e.g. an MRI - would then generally occur sooner too. Any surgery would therefore be performed more quickly under private care - because everything else has moved faster with lower pressure on services. Perhaps oddly, it would likely be the same surgeon performing the procedure in both cases. Same for procedures like varicose vein surgery: it's not absoluvely vital so while you'd eventually get the operation with the NHS, it'd be much faster to 'go private'.

It works like that in Italy, too.

Well, just with more pasta, I suppose.

 

[Miss Chicken]

How does that work, exactly?

The public provider (Medicare) covers every Australia for treatment as a public patient in a public hospital. This includes treatment in specialist clinics at public hospitals. It also covers 85% of the scheduled fee when a person goes to their general practioner (GP, in America I think they are called MD). Some GPs bulk bill i.e they accept the 85% and do not bill the patient any extra. Some doctors charge more than the schedule fee.

People are usually also generally covered for things like X-Rays, cat scans, and pathology tests.

The Medicare Levy is 1.5% of a person's taxable income.

Private health insurance covers treatment in a private hospital, the gap between the 85% paid by Medicare and what the doctors bills etc. It also covers things like dental, eyeglasses etc.

As a pensioner I can get dental treatment for $29 a visit (this is though my state government not Medicare), I can also get help from the state government for things like eyeglasses.

One can get non-elective surgery done much quicker at private hospital whereas those relying on Medicare usually have a wait for non-elective surgery.

Well, that makes perfect sense.

Sadly, it'll probably make too much sense to pass here.

Makes sense except the last sentence I wrote should have said

"One can get non-elective surgery done much quicker at private hospital whereas those relying on Medicare usually have a wait for non-urgent surgery."

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Benjamin French was born with his right arm missing below the elbow. In his 12 years, he has been fitted with seven prostheses. His most recent replacement will cost nearly $30,000 and his doctor says he will soon grow out of it.

But, according to his insurance company, the boy is ineligible for further coverage of prosthetic devices because he has already spent his lifetime maximum benefit.

Link

I blame the kid. He should have been smart enough to have been born with two arms or just had the good sense to stop growing. Pft.

Seriously, this is healthcare in the States. We can't even allow for a twelve year old kid to better function because of currently rationed care.

And how many more millions out there are in situations like this? *sighs*

It shows how bad a nation is if it doesn't take care of even though that can't take care of themselves.

What is his parents suppose to do in a situation like this?

Those things are soooooo expensive.

 

[MarianLH]

Seriously, this is healthcare in the States. We can't even allow for a twelve year old kid to better function because of currently rationed care.

But how can that be, when according to Gertch everyone in the US has access to medical care?


Marian

 

[Crusher Disciple]

"One can get non-elective surgery done much quicker at private hospital whereas those relying on Medicare usually have a wait for non-urgent surgery."

Well, that answers rhetoric about people supposedly languishing on waiting lists for months having to wait for a procedure.