What Did You Sacrifice to Afford Health Care?
By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future. Posted June 26, 2009.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140918/what_did_you_sacrifice_to_afford_health_care_/?page=1 (http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140918/what_did_you_sacrifice_to_afford_health_care_/?page=1)
Sometimes, when you're up to your chin in alligators, it's hard to focus on the fact that there's a big, broad, alligator-free world waiting somewhere out there, beyond the edge of the swamp.
In this case, it's hard for most Americans to even imagine that nobody in the rest of the developed world lives this way. We've been living inside the restrictions and making the trade-offs required to hang onto our all-important health care coverage for so long that we don't even realize that we're cutting those deals, or what we're giving up, or how thoroughly those choices have come to dominate and limit our lives.
And were still not going to get the simple, obvious fix.
Quote from: tekla on June 26, 2009, 10:35:09 AM
And were still not going to get the simple, obvious fix.
No, prolly not as we seem to think we need to have "bi-partisan" support for passage when a straight up 51 would do fine, thank you.
Why do I suspect that the "bi-partisan support" is because members of Cong from both parties line-up for the trough at the end of the hospital/pharmaceutical/insurance sluice and they are just hoping the goobers don't realize that in all of the effort to get a single-payer system?
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
A single payer system works, it could be extended to those who need it, it does not necessarily replace private coverage that might well be better for more money (and hey, what's not) but it would provide basic access and care, and that's a start.
QuoteUnless we put medical freedom into the constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privilege to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic. The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.
Benjamin Rush, M.D., signer of the Declaration of Independence and physician to George Washington
The AMA, Drug and insurance companies main goal is to make money. Healing and good health take a back seat.
Preventive and holistic cures that do not make a profit for this Bastille of medical science.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 26, 2009, 02:24:13 PM
Benjamin Rush, M.D., signer of the Declaration of Independence and physician to George Washington
The AMA, Drug and insurance companies main goal is to make money. Healing and good health take a back seat.
Preventive and holistic cures that do not make a profit for this Bastille of medical science.
That is certainly one of your more poetic and lyric efforts, Lisa. Well done. Lydia's been rubbing off, no? :) Nice comment.
Mind if I use "Bastille of Medical Science" sometimes? :)
QuoteMind if I use "Bastille of Medical Science" sometimes?
Benjamin Rush coined it.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 26, 2009, 04:01:41 PM
Benjamin Rush coined it.
Then all I'll need to do is visit Byberry and ask his ghost. :)
QuotePolls say most Americans who have health care are satisfied with it. But nobody ever asks them if they're satisfied with what they've had to do to get it, keep it, or afford it.
Every time I hear a Republican in Congress complain about how this or that plan will threaten current coverage, I think about this. Sure, the coverage is great (well, some of it) -- until you lose your job.
QuotePolls say most Americans who have health care are satisfied with it.
That is because most Americans have never experienced anything else and something is better than nothing.
Every persons health, is a matter of public health. Since most of this stuff - i.e. drugs, treatments, facilities - were designed, invented or built with public money, it at least makes some modest sense that some of that stuff might be used for public uses.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/public_opinion_polls/topic/health_care/ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/public_opinion_polls/topic/health_care/)
RCPs collection of health care related polls.
includes pretty graphs and pie charts. pie now im hungry.
Universal healthcare, inluding public sector, private sector and third sector , for children under 18 years is nearly ''the'' question in politics that wants to advance social justice
Socialized medicine or universal health care is expensive. Even the Canadian health care system is expensive.
Quote from: Pierre Lemieux @ theadvocates.com
The Costs of Free Care
The first thing to realize is that free public medicine isn't really free. What the consumer doesn't pay, the taxpayer does, and with a vengeance. Public health expenditures in Quebec amount to 29 per cent of the provincial government budget. One-fifth of the revenues come from a wage tax of 3.22 per cent charged to employers and the rest comes from general taxes at the provincial and federal levels. It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan.
http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html (http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html)
Can America really afford higher taxes to pay for substandard care? Or would it be better to have private insurance that is regulated by the government to include everything.
Private insurers can pick and choose what they will cover. SRS, FFS, BA are all considered as cosmetic and almost never covered.
Even the Flexible Medical Accounts, while non taxable, must be used within the year or be lost. If it was not for that part, one could save for these things. Or adopt the AMA resolution 122 which would mean that what we require would be covered.
I have short term and long term disability insurance, but it specifically excludes gender reassignment surgery.
Janet
Quoteat least makes some modest sense that some of that stuff might be used for public uses.
Jackson found plenty of uses fro them.
Every time I hear a Republican in Congress complain about how this or that plan will threaten current coverage, I think about this. ...
That they have national healthcare and it works out pretty good for them? That's what I think about when I hear them yammer on.
Well, I for one haven't needed to sacrifice anything. Exept maybe a fair amount of my income...
I live in Europe, and I'm just as baffeled as the canadians each time I hear about the health care system in the US. I've never paid much to go see a doc, it usually cost about 40$US to go see a doctor in my country. And that's any doctor, from a family doc, to a full blown surgeon. The rest of the cost is covered by the national health care system. We even get everything for free if we spend more money than 270$US on health care per year. The downside is, of course, taxes. The tax level in my country is fairly high, with 30-40 % of the income going straight back to the national treasure.
But i don't really mind. Just as the americans, I'm used to paying a lot of taxes. The pro's outwheighs(?) the con's. The fact that "anti-transsexual treatment" is for free, makes it worth the while, as far as I'm conserned. And when I shattered my hip wehile skydiving last year, I only ended up paying for the cruches, which an insurence would have covered had I had one.
The morale is, I think, screw any politician that is against any form og national health care, and the same with insurance companies that have any form of no-coverage, be it for SRS, BA, sport or stupidity.
I'm Icelandic.
I'm a low income person with disabilities.
Thus, I "sacrifice" nothing because I have nothing to sacrifice.
Last I checked though, Top surgery is not covered by our national health system, but SRS might be...
There are good reasons to justify coverage of vaginoplasty/SRS/GRS in the Europe (where it is in some cases in some countries even to transsexuals) but in the USA many cannot afford basic healthcare for children. So that is there the first priority.
You realize that blanket coverage for SRS would add pennies per year to amount we spend on health care, don't you? It's completely unrelated to the issue of covering uninsured people.
Well, the American argument - for what's it's worth, and not much I'm on a Union Health Plan that's very good - is that I'm going to be paying for health care for 20-30 years before I really need it. So why do it?
Quote from: tekla on June 29, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Well, the American argument - for what's it's worth, and not much I'm on a Union Health Plan that's very good - is that I'm going to be paying for health care for 20-30 years before I really need it. So why do it?
Well, from the european argument - for what's it's worth, is that tomorrow morning, you might step on a bar of soap in the shower at the gym, fall flat on your back, and crack your skull. A textbook example of "->-bleeped-<- happens". If you're not insured, or your insurance won't cover sports related injuries, than a free health care system would come in handy. Unless your able to file a lawsuit against the owner of soap...
In the end, if I'm to tryand see both sides of the argument, I'd guess we'd have to look at each country's mentality. Americans seem to be quite happy with their system, with insurance, poor coverage, and everything else that's been mentioned earlier. On the other side of the coin, we have canadians and most europeans, who are just as happy paying taxes that amercians probably would never allow. It's what we're used to, and it's the system we seem to prefer.
But, in case i get hit by a car driven by a bum with no insurance or money, I'd sure appreciate getting the best care available, without having to worry about who's going to pay for it...
Oh, like almost everything else in America, our health care system has some stuff that makes it world class, and other stuff that makes it, like, kinda funky. For the people it works for, it works great. For others, not so much.
There seems to be a whole lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) thrown into the socialized medicine debate. The NHS system here in the UK is far from perfect but I'm very glad it exists - pretty much every member of my family has been helped by it at some point, in particular my daughter who was born with a severe visual impairment.
In terms of taxation, when I compare overall cost of living and taxation between my US colleagues and folks here, there doesn't seem to be a drastic difference in overall monthly contributions.