Obamacare implosion

Annachie wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Which has exactly what to do with the accurate dissemination of American political attitudes or beliefs?

It was a tongue in cheeck way of pointing out that it's not just the US that is affected by US policies/attitudes.

Although thinking about it, Murdoch.

Michael Riddell wrote:Well, I can't answer for Nameless, but, in my case, the answer would be, mainly, yes. My reply to him above was purely to point out that the article he posted isn't without ideological bias, and is therefore skewed. If you look at my previous posts in this forum, they have been primarily to inform and correct some misconceptions, not to pass withering comment on American politics. I'm not American, after all!

As for Israeli politics? We (the UK) just don't get that coverage unless there's some ruckus going on in the region. Even then it's Israel's foreign policy that's scrutinised, not the domestic stuff. Apart from Likud, I can't name any other political party off the top of my head.

As for the fact that US critics use the Canadian and UK health systems as examples is probably down to language, in the main. The information is easy to get and doesn't have to be translated! And as biochem posted, Canada is close by.

Mike.

Eyal wrote:Thing is, that while the misconceptions can occasionally be annoying, I've found that the outside perspective can actually be informative. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

biochem wrote:

Quit it with the ridiculous "Obama is a socialist" drivel.

It all depends on what it would take to be called a socialist. Obama is a leftist true believer and he has given every indication that if he had a magic wand, he would magically transform the country into a socialist one. That said, socialism is a non-starter in US politics and any politician that advocates socialist policies is dead in the water. So, many politicians who like socialist ideas (Obama among them) have adopted an incremental approach attempting to move the US closer towards socialism. The policies they advocate are not socialist ones but simply a step closer to socialism than the policies that they wish to replace.

So if to be a socialist you must openly advocate for socialist policies, then you are correct Obama is not one. But if to be a socialist is to believe in socialist ideals and advocate for policies that move the US step by step in that direction, than Obama is a socialist. It's all in the definition.

real conservatives don´t run the national budget into the shitters BTW

Agree with that one. I'm not very happy the the Republicans either. Both parties seem intent on wrecking the country for their own short term political gain.

I´m really NOT happy about how healthcare works here, but i am oooh so happy that i don´t have to deal with the US version, because it´s only better if i pay through the nose, while the total costs of GDP are almost double than here.

There are good things and bad things about how health care works here. On the bad side pre-Obamacare we had about 15% of the population uncovered by insurance. In an attempt to fix things for that 15%, Obama has managed to screw things up for the 85%. And at the end of this we may very well STILL have 15% uninsured!

I'm not entirely sure Obamacare IS fixable. It is such a massive boondoggle and so poorly written that if I had the magic wand I'd get rid of it entirely and start over from scratch!

Step 1 - Take the few item in Obamacare that have genuine widespread support (the ability of young adults to stay on their parents insurance until 26 is the only one I can think of but their could be others) and implement them into law immediately.

Step 2 - Sit down with the governors of all 50 states and work out some experimental solutions for the 15% uncovered. Set a timeframe, say 10 years. And at 10 years evaluate which plans are working well and which plans are not by the criteria of "Biggest Bang for the Buck". At that point withdraw Federal support for plans which are not working well, but offer those states the ability to continue to receive Federal support if they switch to a different experimental solution that has been proven to work in other states.

Don't just impose nationwide solutions! Test them first. And no Romneycare in Massachusetts and Obamacare in DC aren't the same. Obamacare was based in part on Romanycare, not in its entirety. Second, Romneycare isn't working that well. It is failing the bang for the buck test. It is costing a lot of bucks but producing relatively little bang for the money. Local bureaucrats and politicians have continued to tinker with it, producing some improvement in results but were still trying to get it fixed when it was superseded by Obamacare (Federal law supersedes state law).

Daryl wrote:As the British say about the US "Two countries divided by a common language". In this particular topic it appears to be one country (USA) divided from the rest of the developed world by different cultures, different values and different language terminology, even though on the surface it appears to be similar.
A simple obvious example is the word SOCIALISM. Very different interpretation between cultures. Firstly if an American politician from a hundred years ago was to look at the current USA system they would be horrified as to how socialistic they would perceive it has become, yet a citizen of current Sweden regards it as anything but socialist. All democratic developed countries have some socialist aspects to varying degrees. The alternative would be to have the aristocracy living in utter splendour while the peasants die of starvation. Generally we outside the US are surprised to observe just how vehemently the US citizenry react to the term. The USSR, China, and Vietnam were not bad places to live because of socialism but because of totalitarian dictatorships. By all means have informed discussions about the degree and type of socialistic policies you support but don't say you reject the all. Too late, you already are partially socialistic.
Media bias to left or right is another issue that is relative to the viewer's stance. In Australia we have a government funded broadcaster (ABC) that is very popular due to high production values and professionalism. Regularly the conservatives declare it is biased to the left and call for independent inquiries. When these are held they get down in the weeds counting news articles that are pro progressive or pro conservative, among other exhaustive audits. These inquiries (even the conservative stacked ones) invariably state that the broadcaster is neutral. The reason this is so is that most of our other media is controlled (directly or indirectly) by Murdock and is so biased to the conservative side it make all else look leftish. All the free world now has access to most media and an amusing game is, in the event of an international significant happening check out Fox's report compared top the rest. Pure fantasy and most unprofessional, aimed at their client base of closed mind LCDs.
I'm sorry Fly to hear of your situation and wish you the best in getting it sorted. I do agree with Donnachaidh that you do come across as very angry and negative, neither of which is helpful for anyone with cardiac difficulties. I would suggest that you chill out, relax and calmly try to find a solution. A close friend of mine in the UK had an almost identical situation (displaced pacemaker and defibrillator leads) that was recently sorted for free by their universal health system, so it can be done.
Finally to come back to the different cultures, I see on this thread that the suggestions to fix things are to ensure that everyone has individual and easily transportable personal contracts. Elsewhere we would say, stuff the whole contract thing, everyone has an implicit contract with their government that they will be looked after, so just do it. If corporations won't provide affordable solutions tell them to get out of the way.

Michael Riddell wrote:

namelessfly wrote:I thought that I would post this just to illustrate what healthcare in many of the "civilized nations" is like.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2014/01/ ... aming.html

Nameless, that may hit an unfortunate nerve with you considering your circumstances, but it's being filtered through a website that conforms to your political ideology.

There are no such things as "death panels" in the NHS. Euthanasia is illegal in the UK - there's a HUGE debate about it. Do a search. You'll find that both sides are thoroughly entrenched in their views, but the government is not in favour of it.

EDIT: This is the official NHS in England position:http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/euthanasiaandassistedsuicide/Pages/Introduction.aspx

The Health Services in the other parts of the UK will have similar positions.

You can get a rough idea of the UK debate from some of the comments displayed at the bottom of the page. Do not assume, however, that the comments apply to the entire population. 11 comments is too small a selection.

When something like what's in the cited article happens, it's purely based on what the patient themselves wish, or if they are so far gone, the relatives make the decision, yay or nay. I've had friends and work colleagues who have lost loved-ones from cancer and it's an utterly horrific disease if can't be beaten into remission permanently. It just comes back until it kills you. That's not a reflection on the medical help available, sometimes cancer cannot be beaten, especially if it's aggressive and spreads.

You may not agree with this, our societal experience is much too different for that, but there's a general feeling in the UK that there comes a time when you just want to slip "quietly into that good night", rather than being kept alive in some Frankenstein like manner in hospital. It's something I dread happening to myself or my parents. Technology has it's limits, after all. (shrug)

Mike.

namelessfly wrote:I am quite aware of the political filtered source that I am citing to make this point. The UK is not Denmark where euthaniasi is not only legal but is becoming almost mandatory.

-SNIP-

namelessfly wrote:
The healthcare debate is the result of advances in medical technology and changing demographics that have resulted in healthcare expenses becoming a huge segment of the economy. No country can afford to provide all of it's citizens with the best possible healthcare. The countries with "socialized" healthcare have considered this aspect soon because their populations are older and the governments have controlled access to healthcare for generations. Your healthcare costs are lower than the US partially because you don't have an underclass that experiences unusually high mortality rates due to genetics and life style choices, you are better at providing basic, preventive care, and because you severely limit the availability of very advanced medical care. It is arguable that the most advanced medical care does not produce enough benefits to justify the costs. However; should that decision be made by government experts or by individuals and their doctors?

One should not forget the original justification of Obamacare is that it will control costs. This will occur because government will have more authority to limit payments to doctors and other healthcare providers. As a result, the healthcare providers will have less capability to provide advanced healthcare.

Another justification for Obamacare articulated by President Obama himself after it passed is that no American will be allowed to have better healthcare than anyone else. Of course the President, Congress and other elites will be exempted from this. This is the elitist totalitarianism that offends and frightens conservatives. While there are no officially designated "death panels," Obamacare does have provisions for national, government mandated standards on what procedures will be allowed under what circumstances and local panels to determine which patients meet these standards. Unless Americans are fortunate enough to have political influence or deep pockets, they will be judged by these defacto death panels.

Spacekiwi wrote:Actually, I pointed out a few weeks back that New Zealand does have a sort of underclass of poverty similar to Americas with the indigenous Maori and Pacific Island ethnic groups here being on average the poorest and largest part of our poor, to a slightly higher level than the US though, due to a stronger and quicker acting safety net from our government. Nz's average Life expectancy is 81 years as opposed to 79 for the US, partially due to our automatic coverage of everyone for healthcare through our Accident Compensation Corporation, which is turning a profit after expenses for healthcare at the moment.


Yes we dont cover as much of the advanced stuff as the Americans do due to population size, but for that which we dont cover, people often head over to australia which has the population base to support it, which has an average lifespan of 82, despite having treated the aboriginal population worse than the US treated black people.

So we spend a lot less on healthcare per person than the US does, and have it done by an inefficient government body, yet still have healthcare good enough to have an average life expectancy around 3 to 4 years longer than the US. So our socialised medicine systems are cheaper than the capitalistic US system, yet according to the WHO, Australia has a better performing healthcare, and NZ an almost equal performing healthcare system, despite NZ and Australia spending around half as much as the US as a percentage of GDP.

From this, I would say that if Obamacare is broken, its not because of Obamacare. Its because your whole system is broken, and needs to be rethought. When your system is worse than that of a country which is smaller than cities in other countries, a country often thought of as at the ass end of nowhere, somethings wrong.

namelessfly wrote:
The healthcare debate is the result of advances in medical technology and changing demographics that have resulted in healthcare expenses becoming a huge segment of the economy. No country can afford to provide all of it's citizens with the best possible healthcare. The countries with "socialized" healthcare have considered this aspect soon because their populations are older and the governments have controlled access to healthcare for generations. Your healthcare costs are lower than the US partially because you don't have an underclass that experiences unusually high mortality rates due to genetics and life style choices, you are better at providing basic, preventive care, and because you severely limit the availability of very advanced medical care. It is arguable that the most advanced medical care does not produce enough benefits to justify the costs. However; should that decision be made by government experts or by individuals and their doctors?

One should not forget the original justification of Obamacare is that it will control costs. This will occur because government will have more authority to limit payments to doctors and other healthcare providers. As a result, the healthcare providers will have less capability to provide advanced healthcare.

Another justification for Obamacare articulated by President Obama himself after it passed is that no American will be allowed to have better healthcare than anyone else. Of course the President, Congress and other elites will be exempted from this. This is the elitist totalitarianism that offends and frightens conservatives. While there are no officially designated "death panels," Obamacare does have provisions for national, government mandated standards on what procedures will be allowed under what circumstances and local panels to determine which patients meet these standards. Unless Americans are fortunate enough to have political influence or deep pockets, they will be judged by these defacto death panels.