Obama and EMS - the roll-on effect of universal health care

[Melbourne MICA]

I was wondering what the impact of trully universal health care will have in the US should Obama become president and and go on to introduce such a scheme.

In Australia we have had universal health care since the early 1970's. The "Medicare" system here is free to every Australian. It is funded by a small annual levy charged to all taxpayers.

This means all "public" hospital system based care is free irrespective of the procedure or time spent in hospital. You can have a heart transplant for free.

The system has been complicated by the idelological desire of conservative federal governments here to push people to "user pays" private health insurance models. This is fine for those able to afford it. But the fall back position, even with all its failings, is that you can still get free care in the public system for just about anything even dental care.

Unless I am mistaken this is where your system differs from ours.

What do you guys think will be the impact on EMS/ALS/BLS provision/funding/dispersion by the changes mooted by Obama to your private health insurance system and its level of coverage?

MM

PS (The latest polls in Australia have about 70% in favour of Obama).

 

[Ridryder911]

First thing one finds out in life is nothing is for free. One of the reason your health care is free and can be managed by a small levy is due to the population, the type and restrictions placed upon the citizens as well as the public perception of health care. It is much different and truthfully much better than those in the U.S. I also ask what is the waiting time for those that are in need for a CABG or transplants. When comparing the number performed daily and those that are in need to that of those in the U.S.

As well, majority of the pharmaceuticals and medical research is performed here in the U.S. Want to see a decrease in advances in new medications and procedures? Just place socialized medicine in place. Again, someone has to pay for it. I do believe you would see a crumbling effect upon the countries with socialized medicine. U.S. no longer or able to willing to perform, pay for research and implementation of medicine to other countries. Hey, maybe it would not be a bad idea after all?

Truthfully, I realize Obama is lying. How do I know? His lips are moving. Alike McCain and any other politician that has ever ran for political office they will promise anything for a vote. The Clinton's (President Hillary and VP Bill) attempted and almost changed the medical payment structures in the U.S. Thankfully, AMA and other PAC's was able to shut them down before doing so. The demise of what would had occurred would had set medicine back decades in the U.S.

There is NO easy answer. Someone will have to pay for it. Who that will be is the problem. Taxing the fat cat will never solve it. They will only raise the prices to off set their loss,and taxing the middle income..is joke. The reason we are in a recession is because middle income is now in debt up to their ears. So we only have the rich and the poor left..

Yes, we need better way of doing things. Is socialized medicine the answer? Probably not. Preventative medicine and requiring one to be more responsible for their health and families health will have to be enforced.

 

[ffemt8978]

First thing one finds out in life is nothing is for free. One of the reason your health care is free and can be managed by a small levy is due to the population, the type and restrictions placed upon the citizens as well as the public perception of health care. It is much different and truthfully much better than those in the U.S. I also ask what is the waiting time for those that are in need for a CABG or transplants. When comparing the number performed daily and those that are in need to that of those in the U.S.

As well, majority of the pharmaceuticals and medical research is performed here in the U.S. Want to see a decrease in advances in new medications and procedures? Just place socialized medicine in place. Again, someone has to pay for it. I do believe you would see a crumbling effect upon the countries with socialized medicine. U.S. no longer or able to willing to perform, pay for research and implementation of medicine to other countries. Hey, maybe it would not be a bad idea after all?

Truthfully, I realize Obama is lying. How do I know? His lips are moving. Alike McCain and any other politician that has ever ran for political office they will promise anything for a vote. The Clinton's (President Hillary and VP Bill) attempted and almost changed the medical payment structures in the U.S. Thankfully, AMA and other PAC's was able to shut them down before doing so. The demise of what would had occurred would had set medicine back decades in the U.S.

There is NO easy answer. Someone will have to pay for it. Who that will be is the problem. Taxing the fat cat will never solve it. They will only raise the prices to off set their loss,and taxing the middle income..is joke. The reason we are in a recession is because middle income is now in debt up to their ears. So we only have the rich and the poor left..

Yes, we need better way of doing things. Is socialized medicine the answer? Probably not. Preventative medicine and requiring one to be more responsible for their health and families health will have to be enforced.

This post has my nomination for the post of the year.

Well said, Rid. Truthfully, it would be great if we could provide healthcare to everyone. Realistically, it will never happen because of these reasons.

To all of those that think socialized/universal healthcare is great, and point out those countries that have it I issue you a challange. Please name ONE important advancement in either drugs or treatment procedures that has come from those countries in the past 30 years. Pretty much every significant advancement in medicine has come from countries that don't have this type of health care.

In addition, there are large numbers of people that come to the US just to have a medical procedure done. Why is that, if they have free health care at home?

 

[EMTinNEPA]

In addition, there are large numbers of people that come to the US just to have a medical procedure done. Why is that, if they have free health care at home?

Ooh, ooh, I know, I know!!! Pick me!!

Because universal healthcare causes extensive waiting lines for every procedure known to man because every hypochondriac and mommy or daddy afflicted with NPS will sign up for every test in the book so you wind up waiting six months to have your appendix removed.

 

[Melbourne MICA]

Please name ONE important advancement in either drugs or treatment procedures that has come from those countries in the past 30 years. Pretty much every significant advancement in medicine has come from countries that don't have this type of health care.

Australia had a conservative government ideologically opposed to universal health care for 12years but which was unable (or unwilling) to find a way to provide care to the many who can't afford to pay. We have "medicare" - a "socilaized" system of universal health care if you like, and a also a taxpayer subsidised pharmaceutical benefits scheme as well.

The conservatives almost gave it away at the behest of US pharaceutical companies in our free trade agreement with the US. (Sorry for that little dig)

They are now out of power and a Labor government is in.

Cohlear implants, heart and neuro surgical devleopments, breast cancer, diabetes, genetics advances and breakthroughs - We seem to manage research and development and have socialist health care at the same time.

Abuse of systems is a common theme for all of us. If its greedy Doctors or citizens taking shortcuts at others expense the result is the same.

MM

 

[ffemt8978]

Cohlear implants, heart and neuro surgical devleopments, breast cancer, diabetes, genetics advances and breakthroughs - We seem to manage research and development and have socialist health care at the same time.

MM

While your system may benefit from those procedures you listed, where were they developed? I'm willing to bet that they weren't developed in a country with socialized medicine.

 

[Hastings]

More money for EMS companies. Higher wages for EMTs. No more stress for companies in regards to collecting money.

 

[Melbourne MICA]

Home grown

While your system may benefit from those procedures you listed, where were they developed? I'm willing to bet that they weren't developed in a country with socialized medicine.

I would beg to differ. Both the UK and less so Australia have a "socialised" ( do you mean socialist?) that is, nationalised health system and each country has produced many outstanding developments in science even when under "socialist" or politically left leaning governments such as the Labor Party.

The examples I gave came from Australia not overseas. Here's one.

Dr Graham Clarke of Melbourne University developed probably the worlds most effective multi channel cochlear implant. (It wasn't the first I realise).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implants

Thats an aussie bloke working in a partly "socialist" type health system in the 1970's (when a Labor Government is in power). Our "medicare" system, by the way, has been retained by our conservative governments as well and has operated since 1973.

The University of Melbourne by the way, receives a sizeable percentage of its research funding from the taxpayer and some from private investment. There is also a substantive governments grants scheme in Australia for research and development and a specialist govenment organisation, the CSIRO. There is also much private sector involvment as well often from overseas companies.

MM

 

[John E]

Does anyone really believe...

that medical research will simply stop if and when the U.S. starts doing what every other civilised nation in the world does and provide health care to it's citizens?

Really?

Are we to believe that all medical research has been profit driven?

Really?

I think with a minimum of research one might find that a great number of actual medical research breakthroughs were discovered by scientists and doctors that are NOT employed by pharmaceutical companies and the like. Unless one counts Viagra and Cialis as ground breaking medical research. And of course there's that drug that claims to cure "restless leg syndrome", a created cure for an imaginary disorder but I digress.

I suppose some of you folks think that Exxon/Mobil are leading the way in research for alternative energy too...

By the way, if in fact all this amazing medical research that is apparently only being done here in the U.S. by for-profit companies, doesn't it speak rather poorly of a society that life saving research is only done with a profit motive? Is that really something to be proud of?

John E.

 

[Ridryder911]

Actually, I believe if you research you will find the majority of new medications (including erectile dysfunction* and antibiotics, cardiac medications, oncologic as well) are developed, researched and then copyrighted by U.S. based companies. Even if the company makes the product out of country, it may still be owned and funded by a U.S. firm.

The top twenty pharmaceutical companies :

Revenue Rank 2006 Company

1 Johnson and Johnson U.S.
2 Pfizer U.S.
3 Bayer Germany
4 GlaxoSmithKline United Kingdom
5 Novartis Switzerland
6 Sanofi-Aventis France
7 Hoffmann–La Roche Switzerland
8 AstraZeneca UK/Sweden
9. Merck & Co. U.S.
10 Abbott Laboratories U.S.
11 Wyeth U.S.
12 Bristol-Myers Squibb U.S.
13 Eli Lilly and Co. U.S.
14 Amgen U.S.
15 Boehringer Ingelheim Germany
16 Schering-Plough U.S.
17 Baxter International U.S.
18 Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Japan
19 Genentech U.S.
20 Procter & Gamble U.S.


If you don't believe there is some hand shaking and deals for the development of drugs, products, and exclusive rights .. then I have some land to sell you.


* erectile dysfunction med.'s are actually vascular medications
R/r 911

 

[bonedog]

To all of those that think socialized/universal healthcare is great, and point out those countries that have it I issue you a challange. Please name ONE important advancement in either drugs or treatment procedures that has come from those countries in the past 30 years. Pretty much every significant advancement in medicine has come from countries that don't have this type of health care.

Why is that, if they have free health care at home?

Insulin-Banting/Best...CANADA

Glad we have FREE TRADE with you guys and can access your excellent-world leading medical proceedures, while our government pays for it. THANKS cousins, sure glad we don't have them HMO's here, I like my house.

Tommy Douglas was voted our GREATEST CANADIAN also the man responsible for Universal Health Care here.

 

[karaya]

The United States has lead the world in medical innovations for nearly three decades. In a 2001 poll, of the six most important medical innovations (MRI, CT scan, ACE inhibitors, balloon angioplasty, mammography, and bypass grafts) four were developed in the United States and others were improved in the United States to the point of making them "workable commercial technologies." No other country in the world spends as much their gross domestic product on medical care as the United States.

In the last 10 years up to 2006, fifteen Nobel Prizes in medicine were awarded to American scientists working in the United States and three of those to foreign scientists also working in the United States. Only 7 awards went outside the United States.

These medical innovations have benefited other countries worldwide (including Canada and Australia) in improving their health care and life expectancy at the expense of American research and development. The expensive American health care system, complete with its flaws, has been the driving economic engine to support world wide life saving research.

The funding for the bulk of this research comes from the private sector. Biomedical research in the United States ( in 2003) was estimated at nearly $94 billion dollars with more than half of that coming from the private sector. While all European Union governments combined spent only $3.7 billion. This may in part explain why 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States. (Source: Tyler Cowen, New York Times, Economic Science)

Yes, we do have problems in our health care system. But to suggest that a socialized program here in the United States is the answer would be disastrous to the advancement of medical research worldwide. Canada and Australia can afford such a programs in their countries because in part they have benefited from our medical developments and advancements.

The costs for socialized care is prohibitive here in the United States and not just in the monetary sense. Money used and generated by the private sector for research would be dramatically reduced and therefore advancements in health care would decline. There is just too much at risk with such a proposal and it is a risk that would impact the world as a whole.

 

[MMiz]

Who is suggesting socialized health care? As far as I can tell neither candidate supports socialized health care.

 

[Hastings]

Who is suggesting socialized health care? As far as I can tell neither candidate supports socialized health care.

Or economic communism, but enough people still believe Obama does.

 

[karaya]

Who is suggesting socialized health care? As far as I can tell neither candidate supports socialized health care.

It can be debated as one's interpretation of socialism or even Obama's intent to develop a single-payer health system; something Obama has gone on record in the past as supporting.

For instance, under Obama's proposal, employers would be forced to offer and contribute a "meaningful" contribution toward health coverage or pay a tax. His plan would also require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health condition can get health care insurance.

Now some will argue that these two provisions alone teeter on socialism. But, I feel the intent of Obama is to eventually get to a single-payer health system via his proposed health care plan should it get implemented.

The Obama plan to force insurers to approve all applicants will in effect lead to a reduction of healthy people from obtaining health insurance. People will save on premiums by waiting until they need the coverage should they become ill then obtaining coverage at that time. In the past, some states had mandated a "guaranteed coverage" law which saw the same results as described above and therfore forced the insurers to withdraw from providing coverage in that particular state.

The Obama plan could have the same effect, but will result in the collapse of the private health care system. Guess where this will then force everyone to get health insurance? Yup, the government universal plan that will then become a single-payer program and can be dutifully labeled socialized health care!

 

[enjoynz]

This post has my nomination for the post of the year.



To all of those that think socialized/universal healthcare is great, and point out those countries that have it I issue you a challange. Please name ONE important advancement in either drugs or treatment procedures that has come from those countries in the past 30 years. Pretty much every significant advancement in medicine has come from countries that don't have this type of health care.

OK here is an article of a few from New Zealand!
http://www.natlib.govt.nz/collections/online-exhibitions/contemporary-scientists/medicine

Cheers Enjoynz

 

[MMiz]

Though I respect many of the people in this thread, what you're saying makes very little sense. No presidential candidate in the past two decades has delivered on any sort of or form of socialized medicine, and with good reason. I see that both candidates in this election want to provide easier and cheaper access to health care, but go about it differently. I would imagine that no matter who wins the election, their campaign platform will evolve during their presidency, just like every other candidate in U.S. history.

You can put on your tinfoil hats and hide election day, but I don't see either candidate's health care goals as revolutionary or worrisome.

 

[BossyCow]

Though I respect many of the people in this thread, what you're saying makes very little sense. No presidential candidate in the past two decades has delivered on any sort of or form of socialized medicine, and with good reason. I see that both candidates in this election want to provide easier and cheaper access to health care, but go about it differently. I would imagine that no matter who wins the election, their campaign platform will evolve during their presidency, just like every other candidate in U.S. history.

You can put on your tinfoil hats and hide election day, but I don't see either candidate's health care goals as revolutionary or worrisome.

Now wait a minute.. we have to draw the line at bringing common sense into a political discussion... Admin???? Are you watching????

 

[ffemt8978]

Now wait a minute.. we have to draw the line at bringing common sense into a political discussion... Admin???? Are you watching????

Ummm...it was THE ADMIN that did that. h34r:

 

[wxduff]

Just a counter argument, I'm sure we can make up for the loss of research funding by funding research as a nation.

When John Doe pays for their HMO you realize that 31% of what they pay is pure profits, after all costs like workers salaries, paperwork, and costs of procedures and other health care?

And a Universal Healthcare system could eliminate up to 350 billion dollars in paper?

Between the two of those I think it's safe to assume the following:
1. Everyone can get good, solid, affordable coverage.
2. An increase in the demand for medical services would allow for job creation in the medical field, including EMS.
3. We could still afford to fund research.
4. No-one would have to be in fear of being dropped by their provider when they get really sick. No fine print, you're covered.

I'm sorry but some things don't work when run for profit. The world health organization ranked America 37th in the world as a health care system, right below COSTA RICA and DOMINICA. I mean seriously... The worlds economic super power, yet #37 in health care?

And you're list is nice Rid, but every other country on that list has a better healthcare system then us, and I'd rather have theirs.

Healthcare research is not going to disappear if we get Universal Healthcare, instead its going to be run by people doing it because they care, instead of profit. And seriously, WHAT GOOD IS ALL THIS MEDICAL RESEARCH IN THE U.S IF SO FEW AMERICAN'S CAN EVEN AFFORD IT.