Show of Hands

Actually make them only charge the average....

S, what we

So what we had in the days of Carnegie and Vanderbilt? How is that helping anyone but the rich get health care at that point?

A lot different. I have posted on this topic several times, and don't mind doing so again. I just want to warn you that it's about 15 replies. If you don't mind, I can do that when I get home from work.

Ok I'm about to go to a class but sure

OK, (sorry for being late, and sorry for the next 15ish posts lol. All my goal here is to present my case, you can take from it whatever you want and with a grain of salt).

First, lets go back in time to examine the history of our healthcare: Lets start at 1900: cost - 5$ a year, less than roughly 100$ in today's standards. Very basic, rudimentary services.

1909: first drug to cure an illness - Salvarsan (cures syphilis). This was basically a change in expectations from doctors. Public starts to expect to be cured by doctors. This was the basic start for the evolution of hospitals from poor houses.

With all this happening in the 1910's and 1920's. Costs go up, in fact, the costs were so great that people began to avoid going unless it was life or death/urgent. With Hospitals transformed something new happened happened. The Great Depression:

This takes us to Baylor University in Dallas Texas. An official at the hospital there observed that the beds were going empty each night due to the costs. What were Americans spending money on? Cosmetics.

"We spend a dollar or so at a time for cosmetics and do not notice the high costs, the ribbon-counter clerk can pay 50 cent, then 75 cents or $1 dollar a month, yet it would take about 20 years to set aside (money for) a large hospital bill."

What does this mean? This official at Baylor who made this statement wanted to get everyone in his hospital beds. So he offered a deal to a group of public school teachers in Dallas 50 cents each month for a hospital visit.

Baylor university would pick up the tabs on those visits. This all happened just before The Great Depression, but as soon as it hit, hospitals around the USA became empty, and this Baylor idea became very popular during the depression.

This idea is now known as "Blue Cross," and is the grandfather of the employer-based system. Basically, the idea grew out of the Baylor model. Selling insurance to people who didn't need it who had money, mainly corporations.

People started using and paying for hospital/health care on a regular basis. Going to war in WWII again changed the landscape. The costs, labor demands, and all around inability to raise wages led to fringe benefits (health care/pensions).

The IRS in 1943 made a routine ruling coupled with the rise of fringe benefits were: First, employers based health care doesn't pay taxes on premiums (tax breaks for offering health care), this became officially part of the IRS code in 1953.

In 1940, that's about 9% of people on health insurance premiums, 1953, is roughly 63% of the population, and by the 60's it's up to 70% if people on "voluntary health insurance" plans. This is how our current system (horrifying I might add) happened.

I'll make a comparison now that that's out of the way. That's like having your employer buying your groceries. You go in, pay the co-pay (like 20 dollars), and take what you want. Not skipping on anything, including the luxuries.

Why get chicken, when you can have steak, lobster, and caviar? From the grocers point of view, why keep prices down? After all, your plan is paying the bill. Eventually prices would get so high that anyone not on an employer plan wouldn't eat.

Eventually people would be fed up and call congress and demand universal food coverage. This is what we have today. No consumer responsibility, and with the ACA, we're going to see the system slammed, costs skyrocket, not to mention long lines.

I also forgot to mention Nixon. It's really scary as he is talking about offering less healthcare for more $$. This is also why I don't trust Obama or the government on this issue.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qpLVTbVHnU

In 2006, Massachusetts passed health care reform that implemented a number of policies that are mirrored by the ACA. The average wait to see a doctor was 50 days at $600+ per month. On comparison with other states like Georgia, 11 days at $200.

All this tells me that we are headed into a storm of dangerous magnitudes. Sorry for all the comments, but there is a lot of ground to fully cover when discussing the ACA and health insurance/healthcare... We're all in trouble if you ask me.

I concur.

If we can manage to cover the basics for everyone, in theory, we could PREVENT a lot of the issues that are seen in the currently uninsured (who have the $$$$$ of unpaid medical bills...)

At least that's where my thoughts come from...

Medicare is already killing us financially. And the acknowledged fraud is crazy high...

Wait, I thought you were an an-com?

Nope, I'm in favor of a mixed economy.

Fair enough. Must be thinking of someone else...

I considered myself to be an Anarchosocialist for a while, but that isn't entirely accurate. I consider myself a capitalist first.

Why'd you change?

My opinions didn't really change. I think that capitalism is the best system, and I always have, but I just think that a fair amount of regulation is needed to ensure maximum equality of opportunity and a higher average standard io living.

European style? Canadian style? Or what?

Either one honestly, their both so much better than ours it's hard to choose

This user is currently being ignored

k: Exactly. If it's not working in countries 1/10 the size of ours, it would be nothing short of a complete disaster here.

Sorry, wrong thread.

That's worked well for us in the past. Not.

If it's best to let the free market do it's thing than why do the countries with single payer systems beat us in every measurable category

Single payer is theft, plain and simple. If it's so great, move to Scandinavia - because if I have any say we won't be implementing such a large scale redistribution of wealth any time soon. Farväl!

This user is currently being ignored

This user is currently being ignored

Cole, why should anyone that wants a more efficient healthcare system move to Scandinavia? If you want a limited government, why don't you go to Somalia? وداع!

k: Exactly. If it's not working in countries 1/10 the size of ours, it would be nothing short of a complete disaster here.

Skarface: I suggest you do some research on that country - it's not a libertarian paradise. Big myth.

The assertion among republicans that universal healthcare is failing is a myth. One of the biggest lies that the republicans in Washington have repeated over and over again and now their naïve, gullible followers believe it

This user is currently being ignored

Look at the countries that do have it. That's obviously what I was referring to. All of the countries that are ranked ahead of us (in price, quality, efficiency, and % of people insured) have universal healthcare

This user is currently being ignored

Any parts that a FEW of those countries move is a small part that's not contributing to the better healthcare that they have. Nobody is trying to copy our system, people try to copy the best and were constantly ranked near the bottom among...

...developed countries

This user is currently being ignored

Freemarketcure

They sound unbiased.

How about you actually look at the healthcare in other countries instead of giving opinions based on emotion? There is no factual basis behind the idea that our healthcare system has been better than SP systems

The universal healthcare RIGHT NOW in other countries is proof that government involvement isn't bad for healthcare. There's no way you can dispute that, it's actually happening all over the world

This user is currently being ignored

This user is currently being ignored

Another myth

The quality and efficiency is better in those countries too. Once again, no study that has ever ranked the healthcare systems and examined the quality, price, etc. has concluded that our system is better. None. Its simply not as good

About the unbiased source

Exactly, what he wrote was a bs opinion.
What I'm talking about is the actual healthcare that can be easily examined, ours is more expensive, less efficient, lower quality, and leaves tens of millions of people uninsured

For those who think that's the answer, put its fine. Since I know you don't, what do you think?

Because of the risk of malpractice, doctors would rather do test after test to be sure what the problem is. These tests cost a lot of money. Much more than other first world countries.