Obama in trouble

[Strix]

I know that virtually no one here will agree with me, but I just want to say YIPPEE!!!!!
And in Massachusettes no less. Who'd have guessed?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8470187.stm

I believe health care show be offered to all by the government because it is the only way for us to have equal opportunity. If poor gets get crapp health care and rich kids get good health care then all those kids obviously don't have equal opportunity. I think it is not realistic for the people (i.e. parents) to provide such equal health care without the state.

"Now, why not the same for health care?"

Exactly...

You've said before "I believe that government's purpose is to do those things which private industry and the people cannot do for themselves. Things like education and armed services"

Why is it not realistic for the people to provide education but they can provide health care?

Why do you believe that the Government can, and indeed should, efficiently provide "free at point of use" education yet they cannot manage the same with health?

I'm not actually trying to argue the merits of a Government provided "free at point of use" system or a privately run "insurance based" system but just saying that surely if you believe that Government is inefficient and the Private Sector is efficient then the same method should be used to provide both education and health?

Funny, I though that post was directed at the person whe mentioned the technology as an explanation. Why were you expecting a response from me?

Mainly because you used it as an answer.....

Here's your one: the mortality rates were explained by someone else saying they were a result of advanced technology. You have not proven otherwise. In fact, you have stated your point as if it is a proved cause and effect whereby all you really have is a positive correlation, which in fact does not establish cause and effect.

I'm just so, so unconvinced that OP actually has any kind of valid argument

I've seen nothing backed up

barely any points answered

Can't see any real intelligent argument going on from that side at all. Just a statement of the view they hold and an almost complete resistance to questioning it.

Sad really.

Badger, because I am not convinced that an effective healthcare system needs to be run by the government. And as you already mention I belive the government should only run those things which cannot be run privately.

Tarty, I not only don't know what the causes of higher infant mortality are in the states, but I don't even know what the rates are. I simply directed you to someone elses post. If you think you do know the cause and effect relationship than it would be most helpful if you would demonstrate your point. To be convincing you will need to provide more than a positive correlation.

Tarty, What is wrong with buying insurance across state lines?

I don't think the government has a duty to "provide" healthcare.

It does have a duty to provide funding for it, which is different.

Strix you keep saying this but you're not actually backing up any of your own points.

FLightattendant, I have spent quite a lot of time explaining why I don't believe in big governemtn, how I think it is wasteful, and will result in a more expensive bu lesser quality of care. I have also explained that my experience doesn't match the staatistics being quoted on her. I have agreed with several points about what is wrong with the current system.. My only really huge sticking point is government ownership.

I have had "I'm alright" and wide variety of other false assumptions lobbed at me. Yet, I remain civil and to the point.

If yougys want to bombard me with personal attacks, I will probably ignore them, and possibly the rest of the opost that surrounds them.

Righty ho

"I don't think the government has a duty to "provide" healthcare.

It does have a duty to provide funding for it, which is different. "

Now, THAT I might agree with... depending on how we define "health care". I think basic neds should be available, but probably not boob jobs.

I am sorry but ROFL @ 'My point is that if Americans were going round telling other countries how they should be more like Americans there would be uproar.'
that is priceless

and I said further down thread...if you are concerned about all money put into health by government not going directly into health because of inefficiencies etc then why is it ok to siphon money off for the profits of private companies? am not so sure that that is that a better use of money...

surely people only get 'boob jobs' eg reductions on the nhs for medical reasons...?

I'm lost on the private companies thing. Do you mean the hospitals? If so, I really don't know how hospitals are organised, but are they not non-profit organisations whose income goes to running the hospital and not to say shareholders? If this is not what you meant, then I'm sorry I have missed this one.

No idea how one qualifies for a boob job on the NHS. Never wanted one and can't imagine I'll ever enquire about it. Come to think of it, if I was in America, I don't think I would expect it to be covered on my insurance either.

I have friends who decided to leave the US for one sole reason - healthcare. They were so terrified when they realised they didn't have the right kind of insurance to cover their daughter when she had an allergic reaction to a sting (which required a hospital stay and a huge bill) that they decided that with 3 children they were far better off in the UK. And she was a sales director and he was a teacher so hardly poor.

They also felt very uncomfortable with the fact there was little concept of "society" which was very obvious when it came to views on healthcare.

And I simply don't understand the financial argument. Surely US insurance companies are rolling in cash. What if the money that went to paying shareholders dividends was actually spent on healthcare? Surely there would be loads more available in the system?

"I don't believe in big governemtn, how I think it is wasteful, and will result in a more expensive bu lesser quality of care."

But why is Government provided education not wasteful, more expensive and lower in quality?

Why are Government run and funded Schools something that "private industry and the people cannot do for themselves" and not "government meddling"?

This isn't any kind of attack or even me trying to argue for one approach or the other but a genuine attempt to understand why the "small Government" argument is not being consistently applied.

As it stands this argument is in danger of sounding like "the Government should not provide that why I can afford to get privately, health care, but it should be funding that which I can't, private education."

I'm not saying that you believe that, but can you see how applying the "small Government" theory differently to similar areas of "social welfare" can look?

"And I simply don't understand the financial argument. Surely US insurance companies are rolling in cash. What if the money that went to paying shareholders dividends was actually spent on healthcare? Surely there would be loads more available in the system? "

I totally agree that the insurance companies are a problem. They are a pain in the arse!

"I really don't know how hospitals are organised, but are they not non-profit organisations whose income goes to running the hospital and not to say shareholders?"

Well the "private run hospital" theory is that private institutions are more efficient and achieve better value for money.

Therefore although money is "lost" to the hospital through payments to shareholders this is not as much as would be lost to inefficiency and waste in a state run institution.

Therefore there is a net gain in the money available to the hospital.

This isn't a comment on my feelings on that theory but just trying to explain how the theory works.

The difference, badger, is that I think healthcare is still reasonably managable by private industry and so it does not need big government to run it.

I think the system needs to change so it is more affordable, so pre existing conditions can transfer, so people can buy insurance from anyone they like, and so on. What I do not want is government telling people what service they can have based on what state they live in.

And, I want all the ideas to be properly debated before we try to push through one plan with no discussion for other alternatives... which Obama will now have to do and that is a good thing.

Badgers, do hospitals in the states have shareholders? This is a genuine question. I have no idea!

"The difference, badger, is that I think healthcare is still reasonably managable by private industry and so it does not need big government to run it."

So something should stay managed by private industry as long as it's "reasonably manageable", after which the Government takes it over.

Why or when did education stop being "reasonably manageable"?

There are an awful lot of private schools out there who do find it very reasonable to manage themselves and make a nice profit doing so.

I do get confused as to why state run health care is "socialism", "big Government" and "inefficient" while state run education is seen as eminently sensible.

Governments can educate us but they can't heal us?

I'd imagine hospitals in the US do have shareholders, they are after all businesses. But I admit I'm not too sure, however the insurance companies certainly do.

What I was trying to do is show the argument for why the private sector making a profit from something can actually be better than the state running something as a "not for profit" thing.

Tarty, I not only don't know what the causes of higher infant mortality are in the states, but I don't even know what the rates are. I simply directed you to someone elses post. If you think you do know the cause and effect relationship than it would be most helpful if you would demonstrate your point. To be convincing you will need to provide more than a positive correlation.

So are you really saying that although basic healthcare is not available to a huge amount of very impoverished people and so women in pregnancy do not get the ante natal care reuired that you don't think that this has anything to do with maternal and infant mortality rate???? Passing me onto someone elses thread is not what I asked for, I asked what you thought and you provided that as my one answer.

I can tell you in my own case for instance without medical care in my first pregnancy I would have probably have died during labour because I had an until then undetected illness that could have been catastrphic for me and the baby. All was well because I had access to as much care as I needed rather than as much care as I could afford. One of my DDs has diabetes and I can tell you for a fact that she has had the most amazing state of the art care available anywhere in the world - free of charge. we have access to free and constant advice and support whenever we need it to manage this illness. She and her sister have coeliacs which was picked up during routine screening, that wouldn't have been done if I had to pay and left untreated this again could be very damaging for their long term health - all of this free absolutely free to me at the hospital. We have free prescriptions of insulin and coeliac food, my list goes on and on, I rely heavily on the NHS without then my childrens lives would be blighted beyond recognition.

We all have a bit of a horror story about the NHS but honestly to be able to access acute care immediately without cost to the service user is not about socialism or politics, it should be, in a developed country, an absolute human right.

Interestingly, children with type 1 diabetes in the states have much worse outcomes both in the long term and the short - do you really imagine that this has nothing to do with the care you receive not being linked to an ability to pay??? My own Mum had the best care she could all through her terminal cancer. They treated her again with very expensive spinal surgery to remove a tumour even though she was terminally ill at the time, she had weeks in intensive care and rehab and then care at home and a hospice, and all without any of us having to add anything extra. This prolonged her life and made her last 18 months or so pain free.

These sorts of things are what you should be considering when you make your arguments - these events can happen to any of us and what if you had no insurance - would you be destined to just die in agony or have a shortened life because you could not pay. Or else your family take on immense crippling debt to sustain treatment.

You do need to put this on a human level because ths is about human rights.

I think everyone privately insured or not has a right to antenatal care and hospital birth. It is available in Chicago anyway. Not sure about elsewhere.

And I would expect a poor child with diabetes also to have access to medical care/drugs/etc.

I guess I'm a bit of a skeptic on all the horror stories because they don't seem to match up with my experience. Where is it that pregnant women are refused antenatal care? And where is it that sick poor children are not treated?

Is it so different outside of Chicago???

(I'm ducking as I don't really want to get stuck in the crossfire)

Currently, in the USA, all poor children and pregnant women are covered via Medicaid (fact!). All people over 65 have state health insurance. The group this does not have health insurance are the working poor in the middle (they earn too much to qualify for free insurance, but not enough to afford paying for it). That is the group who would be helped by the reforms (sort of - they will have to pay for it, or be fined, so it's not entirely clear how much they will be helped!) so that can get routine health care. Unfortuately, the illegal aliens (a significant % of the poor population) will not be helped by reforms and will continue to get treated when only when things get serious (and yes, they are treated in the emergency rooms).

Another problem with the health reform on the table is lack of 'reforming' the insurance companies (they stand to make even more money!!), the pharmaceuticals, tort (lawsuits against hospitals, doctors), profiteering of those with medical equipement (CAT, MRI scanners) who highly encourage doctors to refer them.

There are shining examples of good health care in the USA that don't cost insane amounts (Mayo, Kaiser) and there are serious rip-off places (usually in the poorest regions (they do way too testing procedures - indicated less qualified doctors and possilby kick backs).

Back to the original post. I think it's good that a republican was elected in MA as it's part of democracy. The newly elected senator made the most respectful speech. For the first year, President Obama had a majority in both houses and struggled - which implies he is not politically leading effectively. A more normal goverenment is a split between the exective and legislator which required the parties to talk and sort things out - this is how the people are represented. Politically navigating the system is part of the presidents job.

I wish the President the best. I wish the American people the best. It's tough times ... high unemployment, lots of people losing their homes...

For a real example and some real figures:

As a permanent resident, married to an American, I couldn't get insurance while pregnant and Medicare wouldn't help me. Fortunately, I had a home birth with a midwife for $3000. If I'd gone into hospital, it would have been over $30,000 for a repeat caesarean (and this was guaranteed as my labour was over 24 hours which the ob/gyn would never have never allowed with a VBAC.)

I now pay over $800 for us and our three children for Anthem Blue Cross coverage, per month because my dh lost his job.

Even with that, I have since had some brand new medical issues which required a couple of hospital tests (endoscopy and ultrasound) and the insurance didn't cover them in full, leaving me with a couple of thousand in debts. One blood test alone was $900 but the insurance covered most of that.

We can't afford to stay here much longer unless some amazing job shows up for dh or me (and dh spends all day, every day jobhunting)