Universal Health Care group
I created the above group as a result of this post and this post. In the former I questioned why single payer health care was not the defining issue in the 2008 U.S. election. Some Voxers, including Henesua, replied with their reasons as to why they thought this was so. In the second post, Kirk posted on the tired state of the Right in the U.S. today. Several Voxers commented, and one comment from Patricia Velonakis Davis regarding the divisiveness of politics seemed to resonate with my thoughts on Universal Health Care, (UHC). If there is one issue that may unite people across the political spectrum, it is this.
Yes, I know as soon as the issue is raised, some will retreat to their preconceived notions about "socialised medicine" and so on. But I think that the mainstream, who really only want to see affordable, accessible health care, would be keen to investigate the possibilities. I can only speak of the Australian Universal Health Care system, Medicare, with which I am familiar. Anyone expecting a system without any problems need read no further. In common with all health systems Medicare has its problems. The newly elected Federal Government together with the states is addressing those problems.
That said, Medicare does have some very real pluses which I would like to outline. Anyone who wishes to delve further into Medicare may do so here. I should point out that the U.H.C. system Australians enjoy provides for both Public and Private health care.
Every Australian is entitled to "free" health care. That is, every Australian can choose their own private doctor. Any consultation will either incur no charge, or a partial charge subsidised by Medicare. If necessary, that doctor can prescribe medication which can be obtained at a private pharmacy. There is NO consultation with any health fund as to whether the medication can be prescribed. This is purely a matter for the doctor to decide. When the prescription is filled, there will be maximum charge of $30 if the medication is on the Government Pharmaceutical Benefits list. If not, the patient will pay full price. Most of this can be recovered if the patient cares to take out "Extras" private health insurance.
Any Australian is also entitled to "free" hospitalisation at any public hospital, where there is no charge for all treatment including Xrays, CAT scans, MRI scans, or medication. If they so choose, they can take out Government subsidised Private Health Insurance which will cover their stay in a private Hospital. I have Private Top Hospital and Extras cover which costs me $220 a month for my wife and myself. If you want to know what this covers you can find out here.
So, is the system really free? No, of course not. It is paid for through taxes and the Medicare levy. Is there any chance of anyone being bankrupted through medical bills? No. Is that all there is? No. There is much more, but that is enough for now to give anyone interested in UHC an overview of how it works in Australia.
So, where to from now? This group was created as a meeting place for those interested in advocating UHC in their own countries, including the U.S. If you wish to join the group, you can do so here. The group is public. I look forward to answering any questions that I can answer, and any future discussion.
Comments
I look forward to some terrific discussions, Snowy.
"We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things, whilst those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders. This indifference arises in part from fear of their adversaries who were favoured by the existing laws, and partly from the incredulity of men who have no faith in anything new that is not the result of well-established experience. Hence it is that, whenever the opponents of the new order of things have the opportunity to attack it, they will do it with the zeal of partisans, whilst the others defend it but feebly, so that it is dangerous to rely upon the latter.''
Only if the constituents want it. And I believe most are in the dark about the long term effects of the health system currently in place here in the US. Reason being? Most people have coverage and don't know whether it's any good or not until they get really sick. Most people are healthy. Most people don't understand that the last year of their lives, if they linger, instead of dying quickly, the hospital/doctor costs will cut into their estate like nobody's business. The problem is that most people don't see these problems, until it effects them, personally, of course. Thats' why I'd have to disagee with the idea that UHC would be a priority to enough voters to make a difference. Most voters right now are concerned with a) national security- "are we safe? are we safe?The goverment says we're not safe" b) the economy- "am I going to get laid-off? Can I sell my house for what I need to? Will fuel prices go back down to $2.00 a gallon, or will I have to start taking the bus to work? What about my kid's college costs- are those going to go up? What about my retirment fund- is it losing money because of the stock market fluctuations?" and c) the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No- if we want to get every American on board with health system changes, we've got to get US doctors on board. Somehow we've got to convince doctors in a capitalist system that we can offer them something else besides money that they are willing to trade to charge less for the more expense surgeries, thus lowering insurance cost,which as a result, will lower insurance company expenses when an insured person becomes really ill. We also have to put a ceiling on malpractice awards. You ask why a UHC can't work here- it can, but the question is- do the majority of the American people want it to? That what's we need- a majority.
No.no.no- I am not at all suggesting that people wouldn't like a change, as long as someone else thought about what it should be and instituted it, that is. It seems that the average person can only absorb so many issues at a time. I'm only suggesting that going through the presidential candidates might not be the most effective way to do it. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind immigrating, if you let my husband and me live in your garden shack where you make your moonshine. : )
Seriously, though, my thoughts are unfinished in that to my mind, the only way to institute change is to get the doctors here on board. We have to be able to offer them something else they want besides money, to lower their fees on the more expensive surgeries. But how and what? Perhaps some relief on malpractive insurance costs, which are astronomical in some areas, such as obstetrics, for example. I have to mull this one over while I'm on the plane today,going to NY. I have seven hours to think about it. Unless a terrorist gets my plane, of course. George W. warns me that's a very likely possibility. Our 'terrorist alert' is up to Code Orange today. ; D