Quote from the AP article (full article link below):

"The country's 1999 constitution guarantees free universal health care to Venezuelans, who sit on the world's largest proven oil reserves. President Nicolas Maduro's government insists it's complying. Yet of the country's 100 fully functioning public hospitals, 9 in 10 have just 7 percent of the supplies they need, Natera said..."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VENEZUELA_SICK_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-06-00-10-00

Anyone other than me find this scary? I'm interested to hear from those who support this type of system, why you feel it will result in a much different outcome here in the U.S.

Quote from: Nikko on November 06, 2013, 04:21:16 PM
Quote from the AP article (full article link below):

"The country's 1999 constitution guarantees free universal health care to Venezuelans, who sit on the world's largest proven oil reserves. President Nicolas Maduro's government insists it's complying. Yet of the country's 100 fully functioning public hospitals, 9 in 10 have just 7 percent of the supplies they need, Natera said..."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VENEZUELA_SICK_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-06-00-10-00

Anyone other than me find this scary? I'm interested to hear from those who support this type of system, why you feel it will result in a much different outcome here in the U.S.

Your argument against universal healthcare using only Venezuela as an example is like using Enron as the only example of capitalism.

Compare Venezuela to Sweden... better yet compare the U.S. to Sweden...
For that matter compare Costco to Walmart; similar merchandising, very different applications of the same system, ne?

Quote from: Yukari-sensei on November 06, 2013, 05:04:06 PM
Your argument against universal healthcare using only Venezuela as an example is like using Enron as the only example of capitalism.

Compare Venezuela to Sweden... better yet compare the U.S. to Sweden...
For that matter compare Costco to Walmart; similar merchandising, very different applications of the same system, ne?

Ok, see article below for Sweden's healthcare woes:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

Just an excerpt from the article... "With county councils now operating with fixed budgets and citizens facing few restraints on demand for health care, county councils needed to ration health care services.  An increase in wait times was the result.  By 1988 the wait time for an angiogram - a heart X-ray - was up to eleven months.  The wait time for bypass surgery could be an additional eight months."     Sounds a little like death panels?

But why will our system work so much different from Venezuala's? If the comparison is so poor, then you should easily come up with specific reasons for a much different outcome.

Quote from: Nikko on November 06, 2013, 05:57:28 PM
Ok, see article below for Sweden's healthcare woes:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

But why will our system work so much different from Venezuala's? If the comparison is so poor, then you should easily come up with specific reasons for a much different outcome.

Impartial source please?        http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/national-center-policy-analysis

That out of the way, I have a very simple reason for believing we can do better, American exceptionalism. If we are indeed exceptional, then it should be a cakewalk to assemble a new health care plan that covers vulnerable Americans while providing superior quality health care! If we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to find a way to provide healthcare to every American, without breaking the bank!
           Our current system (pre-ACA) prioritizes profits over patient care. Why should a hospital treat an indigent patient for an minor respiratory infection for $12, when it can wait for pneumonia to charge $12K for an emergency hospitalization? These patients cannot be turned away for a life-threatening disease but cannot afford to pay to get the preventative medicine necessary on their own to stay healthy... All of this is eventually paid for by the taxpayer and at TOP DOLLAR PRICES!

Related to this is also the lack of available sick time for all workers. How can a person go to the doctor when they need every workday to simply keep food on the table (since SNAP is just for moochers )?! A person should be able to go to the doctor when they need to without being put into financial dire straights. However, this would de-emphasize hospitals as patient care centers and prioritize clinics he much cheaper option, but this is bad for the bottom line.

What it all boils down to is that the American system allows a woman to work full time hours (from 2 part time jobs), without any healthcare coverage (and before the ACA, coverage that she dare not use, lest she be cut!) to work without the chance of ever seeing a provider (most clinics are M-F 9 to 5) until her cancer causes her breast  to fall off... so she sits in the ER asking if it can be reattached... (mind you, if she can get on Medicaid, the oncologist will order as many procedures and treatments as possible... since it maximizes profits and is guaranteed to be paid) This is not the exception... I have seen many people get turned away for colds from the ER only to see them admitted later for something much more advanced.

So why not have single payer care? Why not have drug companies competing to provide all of a certain prescription provided by said system (knowing they will make their profit in volume)? Why not ensure hospitals are being run for the benefit of patients rather than shareholders? Why not put a system in place that restricts drug companies from withholding new treatments that would disrupt their profitable captive market?

Like I said. We are supposed to be exceptional... and being the last on the block to do it allows us to benefit from other's hindsight. We can, should, and must do better!

If I was uninsured, I'd rather wait the 11 months you cite for an x-ray than not get one at all.

No system is going to be perfect. Whatever system we have, we should strive to always improve it. Pre-ACA wasn't working, ACA hadn't been around long enough to make a final determination, but no matter what Anericans would want serious problems remedied. If we ever get universal healthcare, I'd expect there to be some problems, but I'd also expect we'd work on fixing them.

What we had before didn't work, I am willing to see how ACA goes once its in full swing, and I'd do the same if we ever got universal healthcare. I've experienced the horrible effects of being uninsured (due to lack of insurance tgat would cover my husband with spina bifida and FL wrongly denying him disability, he got an infection and has been in the hospital for 2 years 2 months so far) I think trying something new is worth it. Like yukari said, Americans don't just copy other nations, we do things are own way.

Quote from: LearnedHand on November 06, 2013, 07:14:38 PM
If I was uninsured, I'd rather wait the 11 months you cite for an x-ray than not get one at all.

No system is going to be perfect. Whatever system we have, we should strive to always improve it. Pre-ACA wasn't working, ACA hadn't been around long enough to make a final determination, but no matter what Anericans would want serious problems remedied. If we ever get universal healthcare, I'd expect there to be some problems, but I'd also expect we'd work on fixing them.

What we had before didn't work, I am willing to see how ACA goes once its in full swing, and I'd do the same if we ever got universal healthcare. I've experienced the horrible effects of being uninsured (due to lack of insurance tgat would cover my husband with spina bifida and FL wrongly denying him disability, he got an infection and has been in the hospital for 2 years 2 months so far) I think trying something new is worth it. Like yukari said, Americans don't just copy other nations, we do things are own way.

First of all, we'll all be waiting 11 mos to get a chest x-ray, that's a lot worse than my current day or two wait time. Before ACA, health care WAS affordable, my policy was $120 a month, I don't expect my replacement policy that I don't want to be affordable. NOW, I'm likely uninsured, great plan that ACA is already.

So, you all have been saying we have to do single-payer to copy the rest of the world (BTW, their economies are in the toilet much worse than ours because of socialist policies that have been a part of their bloated system for years). Now you say we don't copy others, we do it the American way. We we're doing it the American way before... we're now copying others  and I'm asking how we'll fair differently.

So far, no answer. But I appreciate the attempts.   

I don't really care what we have as long as it works.

I know people from countries with universal healthcare who like it and think we're all nuts over here. I understand there's down falls to any system. I just know the old system didn't work and no one seemed interested in fixing the cracks and now my husband, who couldn't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition has wasted over 2 years in a hospital on state dollars because he couldn't get medical care in the first place.

Either fix the cracks or try something new. I am not an expert on healthcare policy, so there's no way I'd be able to convince you universal healthcare is the way to go, and ultimately it doesnt matter to me as long s we find a way to prevent or minimize innocent and vulnerable people from being harmed.

Universal health care does not equate to single payer health care. ACA is not single payer.

Quote from: LordKAT on November 06, 2013, 08:12:19 PM
Universal health care does not equate to single payer health care. ACA is not single payer.

Based on the government's own projections uncovered in the Federal Registry, ACA will effectively be single-payer very soon. It was projected 93 million Americans would end up in the subsidized exchanges immediately following the enactment of the law. The employer mandate was delayed a year, so the majority of these numbers won't occur until next year. 90% of the enrollee's thus far have been Medicaid (single-payer).  So, the ACA will be largely single-payer and it was designed to get us there quickly.

So my question remains, I'll rephrase a bit, what keeps us from heading down the path of Venezuala? You can say you have no problem with 11 month waits for chest x-rays, but what about 2 year waits for chemo for cancer? Read the article if you haven't.

And note, you will have NO recourse. There is no court of law to demand chemo sooner, you can't sue the government, you just take it.

Quote from: LordKAT on November 06, 2013, 08:12:19 PM
Universal health care does not equate to single payer health care. ACA is not single payer.

Keenly aware of that, wish we had actually fought harder to get single payer health instead of the ACA.

But for what it is, the ACA is a step in the right direction, hopefully a place to gain political traction from in pursuit of a universal single payer health system.

Quote from: Nikko on November 06, 2013, 07:41:26 PM
First of all, we'll all be waiting 11 mos to get a chest x-ray, that's a lot worse than my current day or two wait time. Before ACA, health care WAS affordable, my policy was $120 a month, I don't expect my replacement policy that I don't want to be affordable. NOW, I'm likely uninsured, great plan that ACA is already.

So, you all have been saying we have to do single-payer to copy the rest of the world (BTW, their economies are in the toilet much worse than ours because of socialist policies that have been a part of their bloated system for years). Now you say we don't copy others, we do it the American way. We we're doing it the American way before... we're now copying others  and I'm asking how we'll fair differently.

So far, no answer. But I appreciate the attempts.   

OK. You want to sidetrack into socialist economic policies and their impact? OK.

So the base of your economic argument is that American economic policy has saved us from economic woes (which could be worse)?!

How about Australia? GDP growth of 3.4% versus our 2.2%... Unemployment rate of 5.6% versus our 7.2%...

How about Norway with a median income of 32K in PPP versus our median income of 29K in PPP?

All of these countries are socialist by American conservative/libertarian standards and yet ironically they are doing better. May I present to you: Keynesian economics! It's not socialism! Better yet, we have had it here before!

Now please note, both of these countries have universal health care (note I did not say single payer) and are performing better than us. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Health_systems_comparison_OECD_2008.png

On the main point, Venezuela's health system is not an adequate representation of socialized medicine, there are places it works. There are hybrid systems as well. We in the US can try to find a new system that works better for us and gets us a better yield on our health care expenses. The ACA is flawed, but it is a place to move forward from and is better than the current, "let them die" plan that has been offered as an alternative. For that matter, the "let them die plan" is also inferior to the problem of having to wait in queue for treatment.

That being said, what is your modest proposal Niko?

Pray tell...

Australia has long delays to get medical treatment. I often get in to see the doctor the same day, certainly no less than 48 hours, but if it's urgent, they have always accommodated me. BTW, the U.S. has by far the greatest healthcare system, no one comes close.

So why the long waits? Can you take a shot at that? (I know the answer, just trying to get you to take a try  )

From my understanding of the situation a big part of Venezuela's issues have to do with price controls enacted by Chavez to gain popularity with the people. Price controls look good on paper but when they are tried they inevitably lead to shortages and rationing. The costs of medical procedures and drugs are capped in Venezuela, to the point that it often costs more to provide a medical service than the doctor can legally charge a patient for it. From my reading on the subject many doctors are refusing to engage in that system, and many more doctors and nurses have left the medical profession because of that system.

When the shortages in Venezuela began to manifest Chavez reacted by throwing people in jail and nationalizing companies. That didn't really help the situation any but it was very popular with the people and it made for good speeches. It also made foreign vendors wary of doing business with Venezuela lest they have their assets nationalized or didn't get paid, further tightening the shortage issue.

IMO Venezuela's current problems were largely caused by Chavez's policies. Attempting to dictate economics by fiat just doesn't work.

As far as whats going on with the ACA - I have my opinion on it and we will see what happens. I will say that I think that a lot of people are going to be unpleasantly surprised by what is going to happen to them personally when the ACA gets into full motion.

If America's health system is so great without ACA, why can I not get my medical needs met?

Usually because the cost is too high and clinics won't see you without cash and even hospitals give you minimum care unless you have great insurance. The high deductibles in the ACA plans will not improve that. The  deductibles are even higher than the premiums making it even more unlikely with the current set up for ACA. The only hope is that less people being uninsured will bring health costs down.


BTW, I do not want  a single payer system, there does need to be competition. You should have an option of going private.

QuoteFrom my understanding of the situation a big part of Venezuela's issues have to do with price controls enacted by Chavez to gain popularity with the people. Price controls look good on paper but when they are tried they inevitably lead to shortages and rationing.

That's a huge part of it. The other part is removing the profit motive. Like Peter Gibbons says in Office Space... 'why should I bust my azz when I don't ever see another dime??".

The problem is, single-payer leads to price controls, Medicaid and Medicare have fees that are far too low and drive doctors out of those programs, some leave the profession all together. The reason single-payer leads to price controls (caps) is because of huge increases in utilization rates and bureaucratic waste/fraud. When someone else pays for people's medical care, they use it more.

There have been many solutions presented by many good congressmen over the years, these include risk pools for pre-existing conditions, portability of coverage, allowing interstate competition for insurance carriers, tort reform, health savings accounts, etc. Unfortunately, many don't want to fix the free market system for political reasons.

I think we make the mistake of thinking certain people are born doctors. They're not, it's a profession they choose. People are way too comfortable experimenting with systems that have led to substantial problems and misery.

The answer to my original question is there's nothing that prevents government run programs to ultimately lead to massive waste and fraud, rationing of services, huge wait times for urgent care, etc., just like in Venezuala. If choice of programs is allowed which we're losing, these government programs would never see the light of day.

That's all I got. 

Wait, just saw this, it's hilarious....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRP8Do-IyRU&feature=player_embedded