Health Care

[Fuzzbucket]

I can't understand why it is against the constitution. I know people keep saying it is - but hasn't the US signed up to the Declaration on Human Rights - which says that health care is a basic human right ?

 

The most "fun" post I EVER saw about this was shown to me (I don't do fartbook) - from an American who had moved to Canada, who, watching a load of reactionary Americans asking how come anyone could say it was better elsewhere, simply posted "All I know is that when you go to hospital you pull out your credit card. I just pull out my health card. End of."

 

And yes, politicians all over the world don't give a stuff about people, only about scoring points off the other guy. And their pensions and the shares they hold in - hey - HEALTH CARE COMPANIES of course

[KageSora]

Personally, I'd like to see a balance between privatized and nationalized insurance.

 

The national stuff would cover all the basics. But, if you wanted fancier care or something, then you could get privatized on top of it.

 

Like, say you need glasses. The nationalized stuff would pay for some basic frames and lenses--not inferior quality, just not something really fancy. So if you wanted fancy frames and specialized lenses that do things like be ultra thin or tint in the sunlight, you'd get privatized insurance to cove that kind of cost.

 

The basic care would be good stuff, mind you, not some crappy stuff. Just that if you wanted more than what you strictly needed private insurance would let you get it.

[Kyrieath]

I can't understand why it is against the constitution. I know people keep saying it is - but hasn't the US signed up to the Declaration on Human Rights - which says that health care is a basic human right ?

 

The most "fun" post I EVER saw about this was shown to me (I don't do fartbook) - from an American who had moved to Canada, who, watching a load of reactionary Americans asking how come anyone could say it was better elsewhere, simply posted "All I know is that when you go to hospital you pull out your credit card. I just pull out my health card. End of."

 

And yes, politicians all over the world don't give a stuff about people, only about scoring points off the other guy. And their pensions and the shares they hold in - hey - HEALTH CARE COMPANIES of course

Brief step back in on this just to explain the Constitution problem as best I can.

 

Keep in mind the Constitution was written by a combination of idealists and people who were paranoid as all get out after fleeing from a government-controls-everything society that they didn't want to live in a second time.

 

That means everything that could be considered private/personal is kept so. The government doesn't own our banks, our public hospitals- that's all in the hands of the people, so there is never the risk the government might decide it can go "we don't like this part of our citizenry; don't let them have access to this." and promptly block/remove services.

 

The downside: that means if private service providers want to be greedy, what the government can do about it as long as they stay within certain lines is very limited. That's the huge loophole the founding fathers and such didn't consider/think about or just figured they'd try to sort out later. Unfortunately, that is not a part of our Constitution that can be simply amended- that sort of 'government can't have/control it' is one of our core founding principles.

 

Admittedly the wording on the Constitution is vague- it's not like they had any concept of such things back then and it's difficult to transition into fully modern terms. But medical treatment and options were often shuttled under the same header as one's spiritual and religious beliefs and other such highly personal affairs that it was decided the government had no right to meddle in. There's been a marked reluctance to try to change/"modernize" it though- not entirely out of greed though no doubt it plays a part in it, but also because if we decide we can change something that central to the Constitution at will- what else will Congress wind up deciding they want to "modernize" to suit them?

 

So- no national healthcare unless a private nationwide company decides they're going to tackle that. -Which technically they can't do because then it provides them a monopoly- a thing strictly forbidden in the US, even if some companies find ways around it.

[Rosedamai]

You're misinterpreting my comment about 'deeming who they need to see the most'. A government official is rarely a trained doctor- they wouldn't know who needs care more than the next in line unless one of them's on a death bed. A doctor would be far more likely to know. That is what I mean by 'deeming' who needs their care most over letting a government official tell them who they have to treat.

You think governments can't hire, take advice from, have think tanks consisting of, or any other help needed from medical professionals? Really?

[HeatherMarie]

I don't really care to get into a whole debate over health care here, but I feel the need to point out a few positive things about healthcare in the United States (or at least the states I've lived in).

 

Non-profit hospital. Despite the bad rep the US seems to have as a whole, there ARE hospitals and urgent-care centers that will take in any type of medically-needy patient for NO COST. When I was young there were multiple such places in San Diego; Where I live now, my mom would have died without the 2-week hospital care that didn't cost a thing because we could prove we couldn't afford it.

 

Health insurance geared towards the mentally ill. Doesn't matter what changes are made or who says what or if I'm able to work regularly, as long as I'm diagnosed as Seriously Mentally Ill I get FREE health insurance. Again, I'm only speaking for my state. (My mother is not mentally ill, has the same insurance type that I have, and only pays $5 for doctor visits.)

 

Maybe I'm just lucky to live where I do, I don't know. But with all the US-healthcare bashing going on, I had to point out a few good things.

[TikindiDragon]

@Kyrieath - are you seriously suggesting that it's the First Amendment that would make Universal Healthcare an impossibility in the US? Really? Something else I might be able to take you seriously on, but there is no single part of the first Amendment that could possibly deal with healthcare - and as recently as 2000 the Supreme Court has applied the 'Lemon test' to discern if something is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment.

[Kyrieath]

@Kyrieath - are you seriously suggesting that it's the First Amendment that would make Universal Healthcare an impossibility in the US? Really? Something else I might be able to take you seriously on, but there is no single part of the first Amendment that could possibly deal with healthcare - and as recently as 2000 the Supreme Court has applied the 'Lemon test' to discern if something is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment.

I was answering a question about the views some people hold about what makes it unconstitutional; and noted that some take issue with it from the stance of core articles as well. I didn't even reference the first amendment until well into the post; I certainly never said or even implied it was the only argument.

 

To explain the reference to the first amendment: I brought that up mostly as an example of how it is interpreted and argued in some areas, such as the South-East and Deep South in particular. Religious healing and spiritual orientated medicine is still very much a thing in some communities. For such people, the fact it gives the government the right to possibly indirectly state their belief is not legitimate via refusing to offer such services while it offers standard medical care through such a thing would be seen as a direct violation of the First Amendment to people who hold this view. You might find it hard to take it seriously but some take it very seriously.

 

Waving aside the particulars of various arguments great and small, so long as people believe it would be unconstitutional- whether they couch it in the first amendment, the core articles, or under some other amendment they interpret as imperiled by putting healthcare into the government's hands- people will vote against it. They will vote against any changes to the Constitution that would allow for it specifically. So long as that does not change, national healthcare will not happen.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Kyrieath

[TikindiDragon]

I was answering a question about the views some people hold about what makes it unconstitutional; and noted that some take issue with it from the stance of core articles as well. I didn't even reference the first amendment until well into the post; I certainly never said or even implied it was the only argument.

 

To explain the reference to the first amendment: I brought that up mostly as an example of how it is interpreted and argued in some areas, such as the South-East and Deep South in particular. Religious healing and spiritual orientated medicine is still very much a thing in some communities. For such people, the fact it gives the government the right to possibly indirectly state their belief is not legitimate via refusing to offer such services while it offers standard medical care through such a thing would be seen as a direct violation of the First Amendment to people who hold this view. You might find it hard to take it seriously but some take it very seriously.

 

Waving aside the particulars of various arguments great and small, so long as people believe it would be unconstitutional- whether they couch it in the first amendment, the core articles, or under some other amendment they interpret as imperiled by putting healthcare into the government's hands- people will vote against it. They will vote against any changes to the Constitution that would allow for it specifically. So long as that does not change, national healthcare will not happen.

Eh, it's not up to voters to decide whether or not something is unconstitutional though, is it? That's the role of the Supreme Court. I've also noticed that there's more of a tendancy in US politics to decide that something must be unconstitutional because people don't like it, rather than decide they don't like something because they think it may be unconstitutional. It's effectively an attempt to prove that the bias they already hold is backed up by the Constitution, and some of the logic involved in doing so can get very twisted (actually like your medical example - which would be directly in *violation* of the 1st Amendment to provide something faith-based as a government service. See bans on prayers in public schools as further example.).

 

Just as many people in the US would not consider a UHC system unconstitutional because they support it to start with.

 

Which boils down to - arguing about whether it is Constitutional or not is a bad arguement, because as a general rule if a person can be persuaded to see how much of a benefit it could bring to the country then they'd stop seeing it as un-Constitutional.

 

Unless you can point me to a person whos *only* objection to the idea is that it's un-Constitutional, and at that point you'd argue that the legislation should be drawn up anyway and given to the experts (the Supreme Court) to make that judgement.

[MysticTiger]

A universal health care system will only work in the US if they follow other countries policies on regulations. The US already pays more than any other country in health care taxes alone. Government Regulation is KEY but our system of "Rich get Richer, Poor get Poorer" doesn't allow for that. It's stupid that you could drive 20 minutes to the next hospital and get the same procedure for 20,000 dollars less. Or that someone in Canada would pay 4 dollars for the same prescription that costs 3,000 dollars in the US.

 

This is a fascinating informational video about American Health Care costs:

[Cecona]

I don't know if this has been brought up or not, but my mom said that free health care would never work in the U.S. because then we wouldn't have the skilled doctors we do. She claims the best doctors are here because they get paid a lot of money, but take that money away and she thinks all or most of the doctors will leave/quit.

 

I don't think that would be right, but I honestly don't know enough and I don't want to read every long long post in this thread to catch up lol

Edited September 25, 2013 by Cecona

[MysticTiger]

I don't know if this has been brought up or not, but my mom said that free health care would never work in the U.S. because then we wouldn't have the skilled doctors we do. She claims the best doctors are here because they get paid a lot of money, but take that money away and she thinks all or most of the doctors will leave/quit.

 

I don't think that would be right, but I honestly don't know enough and I don't want to read every long long post in this thread to catch up lol

Sorry, but I disagree completely. By stating that, she's saying that American doctors are better than all the doctors in the UK, Canada, and other countries with UHC. And, from what doctors i've been to and what doctors my family has been to, I can guarantee you that's not the case. American doctors tend to be in the business of making money. That's why you have doctors like Farid Fata who decided to tell patients they had cancer WHEN THEY DIDN'T so he could charge the insurance companies a ton of money to pay for surgeries and procedures they didn't need. All so he could make money.

 

We don't have skilled doctors because they make a lot of money. We have skilled doctors because they go to skilled schools to learn. The amount of money they make after they learn means nothing in the long run. How many people are going to pay the amount of money it takes to go through medical school, just to quit. We need people who are passionate about their jobs, not those who are just there for the money. That's how we end up with corrupt doctors like the one I mentioned above.

Edited September 25, 2013 by MysticTiger

[TikindiDragon]

I don't know if this has been brought up or not, but my mom said that free health care would never work in the U.S. because then we wouldn't have the skilled doctors we do. She claims the best doctors are here because they get paid a lot of money, but take that money away and she thinks all or most of the doctors will leave/quit.

 

I don't think that would be right, but I honestly don't know enough and I don't want to read every long long post in this thread to catch up lol

Potted version is - the healthcare actually provided in the US is below the standard of that provided in countries with Nationalised Healthcare, so US Doctors aren't quite the Gold Standard your Mum probably thinks they are.

 

 

[Cecona]

Thanks for the explanation. I had the same conclusion that the doctors passionate about people and their health would stay even if their pay was lowered, but they still need to make enough money to live comfortably. It's not like you can pay them the same way teachers are paid.

[TikindiDragon]

Thanks for the explanation. I had the same conclusion that the doctors passionate about people and their health would stay even if their pay was lowered, but they still need to make enough money to live comfortably. It's not like you can pay them the same way teachers are paid.

Oh goodness no, not with the amount of training they have. Pay for Consultants starts at £75k per annum in the UK, and can rise to just over £100k (That's starting at $120k and rising to $160k if the comparison helps). It's a little more complex to say exactly how much a GP earns (it can depend on the type of contract they have with the NHS, how the practise is set up etc) but GPs can be earning between £54k and £81k.

 

Teachers, OTOH, are around the £22k - £31k mark.

 

Please also bear in mind that Tuition fees are capped in the UK (I think currently at £9000 a year) - so no degree will cost the student or their family more than that (although living expenses are obviously not included). Our Doctors aren't starting their life with the same insane amounts of debt some of yours are.

[Cecona]

I don't think the U.S. would ever put a price cap on anything ever. This country is run by money and greed and putting a maximum cap would interfere with that. My sister was lucky enough to get a scholarship that paid for most of her tuition and stuff. She went into psychiatric studies, like she is one of the people that would hold experimental tests on people and record how they behave/react. So she isn't at the forefront dealing with the patients, but she still holds an important part by collecting the information.

[MysticTiger]

Thanks for the explanation. I had the same conclusion that the doctors passionate about people and their health would stay even if their pay was lowered, but they still need to make enough money to live comfortably. It's not like you can pay them the same way teachers are paid.

Teachers wouldn't need raises if the school systems did their jobs and provided teachers with what they needed instead of paying some idiot school board leader 300% more for doing absolutely nothing. But that's a discussion for another topic.

[Fuzzbucket]

A Canadian doctor friend of mine who has worked in the US and who traimed and started out in the UK says one thing he likes about UK and Canadian medical practice is that people come to the doctor because they are actually sick, and need to see a doctor.

 

In the US, he said, they either go because their insurance can pay so they have the right to that service and like to exercise that right, or they are really sick and can't afford to so they stay home... And, he said, the doctors encourage them to visit so that they get paid more. I read somewhere that doctors in the US order ZILLIONS of unnecessary tests as they get paid for those too.

 

ETA @tikindi - my sister was a GP - don't forget that out of that pay they have to provide their own malpractice insurance and pension provision, as well as buy into their practice and pay their staff. Salaried GPs earn a lot less.

Edited September 25, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[MysticTiger]

In the US, he said, they either go because their insurance can pay so they have the right to that service and like to exercise that right, or they are really sick and can't afford to so they stay home... And, he said, the doctors encourage them to visit so that they get paid more. I read somewhere that doctors in the US order ZILLIONS of unnecessary tests as they get paid for those too.

 

ETA @tikindi - my sister was a GP - don't forget that out of that pay they have to provide their own malpractice insurance and pension provision, as well as buy into their practice and pay their staff. Salaried GPs earn a lot less.

The people who go JUST because they have insurance are generally rich people who either have great insurance or can easily pay co-pay. I don't think it's a matter of 'exercising that right', I think it's more of the doctor's pushing of creating appointments that make people constantly go.

 

I had a doctor that refused to give me my thyroid medication, something that if I was off of for a while could potentially put me in a coma or kill me, until I made an appointment for a physical. I explained that my insurance wouldn't cover a physical that was done only a month after the last one and that I also couldn't take time off of work, but she still refused. I got a new doctor. It's that kind of ridiculous practice that makes people go to the doctors more than necessary. I had no legitimate reason to go to the doctor but she was going to MAKE ME GO in order to get a refill of a pill I have to take FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE IN ORDER TO LIVE NORMALLY.

Edited September 25, 2013 by MysticTiger

[Cecona]

A Canadian doctor friend of mine who has worked in the US and who traimed and started out in the UK says one thing he likes about UK and Canadian medical practice is that people come to the doctor because they are actually sick, and need to see a doctor.

 

In the US, he said, they either go because their insurance can pay so they have the right to that service and like to exercise that right, or they are really sick and can't afford to so they stay home... And, he said, the doctors encourage them to visit so that they get paid more. I read somewhere that doctors in the US order ZILLIONS of unnecessary tests as they get paid for those too.

That's pretty much correct. They advise you get multiple check-ups a year or get certain tests "just to be sure". They'll do what they can to drain as much money from you as possible

 

They heavily rely on the hypochondriacs that think they are sick but actually aren't, they can easily play those people.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Cecona

[TikindiDragon]

That kind of behaviour is a result of a profit driven medical system, though. The Doctors make money for everyone that walks in the door, so they really *want* people to be walking in the door. In the UK, it costs money for everyone that walks in the door so they don't encourage hypochondria.

[Kyrieath]

Eh, it's not up to voters to decide whether or not something is unconstitutional though, is it? That's the role of the Supreme Court. I've also noticed that there's more of a tendancy in US politics to decide that something must be unconstitutional because people don't like it, rather than decide they don't like something because they think it may be unconstitutional. It's effectively an attempt to prove that the bias they already hold is backed up by the Constitution, and some of the logic involved in doing so can get very twisted (actually like your medical example - which would be directly in *violation* of the 1st Amendment to provide something faith-based as a government service. See bans on prayers in public schools as further example.).

 

Just as many people in the US would not consider a UHC system unconstitutional because they support it to start with.

 

Which boils down to - arguing about whether it is Constitutional or not is a bad arguement, because as a general rule if a person can be persuaded to see how much of a benefit it could bring to the country then they'd stop seeing it as un-Constitutional.

 

Unless you can point me to a person whos *only* objection to the idea is that it's un-Constitutional, and at that point you'd argue that the legislation should be drawn up anyway and given to the experts (the Supreme Court) to make that judgement.

Nope; they just elect the people who will keep their views in mind and vote and appoint other seats accordingly if they want to keep their own seats. And plenty in various positions hold such objections themselves- mostly Republicans, but there's a few Democrats who aren't so keen on the idea either. Don't forget the Supreme Court's decisions can also be challenged and overturned.

-And yes, it's a mix of arguments beyond this one, but the "it's unconstitutional!" argument set is what someone asked about so it's what I've been attempting to explain.

 

It's also one of the arguments that will continue to be one of the major roadblocks to national healthcare and one of the harder ones to overcome because it is so open to interpretation. Many Americans hold the Constitution as borderline sacred, so using "It's unconstitutional!" as an argument is actually a pretty good way to cause trouble for a motion unless/until it's proven beyond a doubt to be in keeping with the Constitution. So far- no one's managed it on this issue.

 

I'm..not even going to go into trying to explain why convincing the general public on national healthcare is an uphill battle. Explaining a simple matter like the "It's unconstitutional!" argument set is proving taxing enough. Explaining something this deeply entrenched in American culture requires a course in American culture, not a forum post.

 

-On a side note, I will note in terms of the school ban, you're misunderstanding the issue somewhat. The ban was due to the fact the First Amendment also protects a person from being exposed to/having religion forced on them as much as it protects a person's right to a religious belief. The prayer was viewed as in violation of this as it was seen as often geared to a specific faith and some religions don't require prayer at all- or have prayer only at certain times in the day- meaning people were being forced to observe/partake in a ceremony they did not necessarily feel comfortable having to be part of. And of course there are those who do not hold to a faith that did not appreciate being forced to endure it.

In short- the government is required supply a means to follow one's religion under certain circumstances- chaplains and such that work in the military and prisons- but it may not endorse, enforce, or otherwise support a religious faith above any other or force it onto a person who does not wish to participate.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Kyrieath

[Cecona]

Do other countries have Christian Scientists or similar? I ask this because those are some of the people that would heavily prefer religious healing/prayer over modern medicine, especially in the U.S., and claim UHC to be unconstitutional. These people will refuse life saving treatment in favor of prayer and wishing the illness away. I know faith can be powerful but it's not powerful enough to heal a chronic or severe illness/injury- especially if the sick person themselves isn't as religious or believe as much. It's sad to see people suffering so much when there is a solution to their problem that could make them all better. Especially when the issue isn't money but personal beliefs. I honestly think a person's health trumps any religion/faith and if a person is going to die without medical attention... they should get it.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Cecona

[KageSora]

I don't know if this has been brought up or not, but my mom said that free health care would never work in the U.S. because then we wouldn't have the skilled doctors we do. She claims the best doctors are here because they get paid a lot of money, but take that money away and she thinks all or most of the doctors will leave/quit.

 

I don't think that would be right, but I honestly don't know enough and I don't want to read every long long post in this thread to catch up lol

There ARE people who don't want to give up their cushy paychecks. However, there are also a number of doctors who really want more universal healthcare because they genuinely want better care for the sick/injured even if it means taking a pay cut.

 

My dad works with doctors, he's in the Academy of Family Physicians for my state and helps out with the paperwork and if there are disputes between doctors who are members sometimes and various health campaigns (he was heavily involved in the efforts that got smoking in public buildings banned in my state), as well as organizing the educational programs and whatnot that they attend.

 

So, he's seen both sides of the issue and generally from what he's seen, around here the ones who oppose it are the same ones who refuse to give up mountains of paperwork for digital copies of records that they can easily send over to a hospital or something for a patient and who are old and resist any measure that would force them to change their ways--y'know, the same people who try to rely on medical techniques they learned 20 years ago. :/

 

Obviously that's not gonna be ALL of them, but those are the ones he's seen who are loudest when they decry the idea of more socialized health care.

 

 

 

Re: Religious healing:

 

Personally, I agree that a person should seek medical attention over faith-based measures. However, as long as it is THEIR choice... Then I respect that, even if they end up dying from it. I may think it's a stupid choice, but if they make it of their own free will... That's their choice to make.

 

Faith-healing CAN work in some cases, though--but I personally believe it's more of a "mind over matter" kind of thing. You THINK the prayers are going to make you feel better, so you start to feel better because you convince yourself of it.

 

I mean, if the reverse can happen--that your mind can make you feel sick when you aren't--then it would make sense that it can make you feel better, too.

 

But hey--whatever works for people.

 

But the government COULDN'T do faith-healing, because there are too many possible faiths to try to cover, there would be no way they could cater to every single set of non-scientific beliefs, and that would have people screaming about being discriminated against if they couldn't find a practitioner in their area who met their spiritual healing needs...

[Cecona]

What about the children of people with such a faith? A couple could have a child that will die without medical attention, but because of their faith they refuse the help hospitals and modern medicine offer. It's not up to the child even if they may not feel the same way, or too young to understand it.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Cecona

[KageSora]

What about the children of people with such a faith? A couple could have a child that will die without medical attention, but because of their faith they refuse the help hospitals and modern medicine offer. It's not up to the child even if they may not feel the same way, or too young to understand it.

Personally... I feel in those cases, it's abuse or neglect.

 

They can make the decisions for themselves just fine. But a child is incapable of making an informed decision of that nature. In that case, it needs to be considered what method will cause the least amount of harm to the child to allow that child to survive until the point in time where they're capable of making informed decisions regarding their health and/or life. Relying strictly on faith-based healing often results in worsening conditions or death. Not always, but it happens too often for my liking.

 

At that point, the child probably can't even decide for itself if it honestly believes in what it's parents do, or if it's just emulating them because faith is all they've taught it.

 

As a kid I certainly didn't realize the difference between actually believing something and parroting what I thought my parents wanted to hear about what I believed.