--- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], bettyblue109 <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > While the US has its faults, please tell us what country does > > it > > > > > > better than the US? > > > > > > > > > > > Does what better? Gee, the US might be the only industrialized > > > > > country to not have national health care of some sort, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why the fuck do I bother? > > > > > > > > FOR ABOUT THE 10,000th TIME: WE HAVE TWO -- COUNT 'EM TWO -- > > NATIONAL > > > > HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS: > > > > > > > > 1) MEDICAID; AND > > > > > > > > 2) MEDICARE. > > > > > > > > BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM WE SPEND ABOUT $800 BILLION A YEAR. > > THAT'S > > > > MORE THAN 90% OF THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD (SEE: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/9rz4x ) > > > > > > > > SO PLEASE EITHER GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT...OR (EXPETIVE DELETED). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with 46 million > > > > > uninsured, yet it spends more on health care than any other > > country > > > > > per capita. Gee, even with all that spending the US does not > > have > > > > > the longest life spans. Gee, the people in the US are not the > > > > > happiest people. Gee, the US has less class mobility tham the > > > > > Scandinavian countries and most European countries. > > > > > > > > > > We do have a lot of stuff though. > > > > > > > > I do know my facts. > > > > > > I have no question that I know more about national health care > > > programs than most people as I have been working on health care > > issues > > > for several years. Medicare--it is for the elderly. Medicaid- -it > > is > > > for the very poor who are also disabled or elderly or, in some > > > circumstances, families with young children. If you are simply > > poor, > > > or uninsurable you are not entitled to Medicaid. There are 46 > > million > > > uninsured in the US. The largest growing group of uninsured is the > > > middle class. In part this because a good number of small employers > > > are dropping health care benefits for their employees because the > > > employer cannot afford the insurance. > > > > > > There is no continuity in the marketplace, with states wildly > > varying > > > on the extent they regulate the health insurance market. The feds > > > offering little beyond HIPAA, which does not regulate price and > > offers > > > little regulation of non-group insurance. > > > > > > As far as how much the US spends, this is meaningless in a vacuum. > > > What matters is what we get for the money. We spend more per capita > > > on health care in the US than anywhere else without as favorable > > > outcomes. We spend too much on specialists and not enough on > > primary > > > care. About 1/3 of our health care costs go to administration. > > This > > > is way too high. > > > > > > I could go on. Be glad that I am not. :) > > > > > > > For someone who obviously knows so much about the subject, I'm > > surprised that you used the wording that I objected to, namly when > > you wrote "the US might be the only industrialized country to not > > have national health care of some sort..." when that is patently > > incorrect. > > > > Perhaps you meant "universal health care" because, obviously, both > > medicare and medicaid ARE national health care programs, Ruth. If I > > am wrong, please correct me. If you're wrong, please acknowledge it. > > > > I do have a question for you, however, regarding what you wrote above: > > "If you are simply poor, or uninsurable you are not entitled to > > Medicaid." > > > > Yes, my understanding is that being "uninsurable" is not a > > requirement for getting on Medicaid, e.g. you can have a multi- > > millionaire who, for health reasons, is uninsurable but would NOT be > > entitled to Medicaid because of his wealth. As it should be. > > > > But if one is "simply poor" -- conditional, of course, upon both a > > means test and a verification of assets to determine that poorness -- > > that most certainly IS a criterion for getting Medicaid, is it not? > > Isn't it, basically, the ONLY reason one can get Medicaid? If my > > understanding is not correct, please correct it for me... > > > OK, I admit I should have said universal rather than national. My bad > and that was sloppy. Yes, the two programs you mentioned are national > programs. > > States set eligibility for Medicaid, but the feds have some minimal > requirements. Most all states only provide Medicaid to the poor > disabled, the poor elderly, and to poor families with young children. > Yes, you have to be really poor to get Medicaid. But being poor alone > is not enough. If you so poor that you are homeless, you are not > eligible for Medicaid unless you meet another requirement, such as > being completely disabled. I have worked with a number people who > have mental health and other health issues who are not eligible for > Medicaid because they are not completely disabled according to federal > rules. > > There are scattered programs out there in some places. Free clinics > exist in some cities but waiting lists can be very long and what they > will do are limited. Subsidized prescription programs exist in some > states, but some can't afford the copays or they don't meet program > eligibility requirements. Hospitals have to treat emergencies to the > point of stabilization, but you still owe for the treatment and > non-emergencies are not included. > > It's a bitch. The estimate is that about 18,000 people in the US die > each year because they were not able to get health care because they > could not afford it.
Interesting figure that 18,000. I wonder what the figure is for Canada. Of course, the issue there wouldn't be "because they could not afford it" but, rather, because they didn't take advantage of the free health care. I'm from Canada. And although the following is anecdotal evidence it is true: About 20 years ago I made an acquaintance with a young woman about 25, pretty, and yet had a "bad" arm; that is, it had atrophied. Well, it turned out that she had been into drugs, had had a minor and fixable accident with the arm but because she was too into the drugs, she never got around to getting medical help for it which, because it was Canada, was free and available. So now the arm didn't work and, I assume, would never work. How would she enter into a study had she been in the States? She was indigent and, presumably according to what you write above, would not have been eligible for Medicaid...would she have been a statistic that would have been recorded as "had a debilitating injury due to her poverty and the lack of universal health care"? But, of course, she herself was the sole reason she had the bad arm. My point is: regardless of universal health programs, you are going to have people that just don't want to better their own health. I mean, hey, people commit suicide in Sweden and from what I hear, it's a pretty high rate. I'd really like to see what caused 18,000 to die, according to that study.
