Using The Advantageous Asset Of Hindsight, Would The United States Have Been Better Off Determining Healthcare Reform Under Clinton?

[dolaidh64]

Did we get far enough down the course to realize what alter may well have appeared as if in those days? Can there be a technique to reckon that it'd have been much better, worse or specifically the very same compared to result right now?

[bevan]

[Tabbart]

I think that universal healthcare should have been included in the Constitution! Of course, medicine was in its infancy in those days.

[danil70]

  .... the same problems with the big bussiness of insurance, pharma and related lobbies we have now.   So I really don't think Bill or Hillary -- or Billary -- would have had any interest, let alone success, in getting us the kind of national health care coverage we need today.   The only politician who's health care plan I think would have been close to perfect is the one Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed:   Below is the summary of this ammendment that went before the Senate on December 15, 2009 and, obviously, failed.     Sanders-Brown-Burris Amendment to Create a Universal, Single Payer Health Insurance System Why is this amendment important? The United States spends $7,129 per person on health care, which is almost double the amount spent by nearly any other industrialized country. Despite this fact, we still do not insure all of our citizens. There are currently 46 million Americans without health insurance, 100 million Americans who cannot access dental care, and 60 million Americans who do not have access to primary care. The United States ranks among the lowest of developed countries are far as health outcomes, according to both life expectancy and disease metrics. One reason we spend our money so ineffectively is that there is tremendous waste in our system. Healthcare providers spend $210 billion on administrative costs, mostly to deal with insurance paperwork, and the ranks of administrative personnel have grown by 25 times the number of physicians in the past 30 years. This waste and the high costs of insurance associated with it place a tremendous burden on American employers and makes it difficult for them to compete internationally. Why Support the Sanders Single Payer Amendment? Single payer systems have consistently shown lower administrative costs and higher quality health outcomes. For example, as compared to the United States? per capita health spending of $7,129, Canada spends $3,895 and Austria spends $3,763 on health care costs. Both of these countries have higher quality health care outcomes than the United States. By creating a single payer, Medicare-for-all type system, this amendment would provide every United States citizen with comprehensive health care and dental coverage in a cost-effective manner. It would save our country money, improve our health outcomes, and, at the same time, fulfill the administration?s promise of universal coverage.   Cost: This amendment pays for itself through progressive payroll and income taxes. A common fear or complaint about a national health care system is that it would be beurocratically more confused and inept, but it really couldn't be more so -- or more expensive -- than it is today.                                                                                                                                                              Many people get brief glimpses into publically run systems in the U.S., see how sparce they are -- only because the U.S. government does not fund them well -- but assume that this is what an American public health care system would look like today.  But in truth, your health care providers, doctors offices and hospitals would look like they do now.  Drs. would simply be on a more equal basis in a medicare-like system than they are now, as medicare has been robbed by government funding that has been discouraged from competing with insurance companies that won't fully cover drs charges made to patients as would be fair to doctors. The biggest thing in the way, to the benifit of big business and especially insurance companies is the continuing American and wholly unfounded fear that their taxes will rise to the level that people in a Scandanavian country like Norway pays.  As Sanders points out here, we currently pay more than most countries for our health, and receive much less than other most other countries by way of quality and comprehensive care.   Summary   This amendment would establish a single payer health insurance system that would cover every person legally residing in the United States. The single payer system would be regulated and funded by the federal government through a payroll tax and an income tax, but it would be administered by the states. It would replace the coverage and revenue titles of the current bill, but it would leave in place most of the provisions in the quality, prevention, and workforce titles of the bill. This amendment starts from the premise that health care is a human right, and that every citizen, rich or poor, should have access to health care, just as every citizen has access to the fire department, the police, or public schools.      

[cailean]

rhine44 said: 1 No. Richard Nixon. 48 months ago

[Treffen]

No. Richard Nixon.

[Renfield]

Predator said: 2 I think that universal healthcare should have been included in the Constitution! Of course, medicine was in its infancy in those days. 48 months ago

[Honovi]

> I think that universal healthcare should have been included in the Constitution!I'm not crazy about it. It sounds great in theory, and certainly the Europeans have had some very good results from it.But health care is a very different thing from other constitutional rights. It's a "rival good": the more you get, the less somebody else has. Apportioning it fairly is hard.It's also hard to say what a good minimum should be. As you point out, 200 years ago "zero" was probably better than what they had. The doctors probably did more harm than good, at least until they figured out that washing their hands was a good idea. Until then they were practically designed as disease vectors.We keep getting more medical innovation, and it's not clear how much we should each be entitled to at a minimum. I like the idea of patching people up after car accidents and ensuring basic physicals and prenatal care, as well as vaccinations. Beyond that, though, there are more and more things we could throw at people, and the costs clearly outweigh what we have to spend.Apportioning that is usually best left up to people themselves, though health care is a case where they're particularly prone to make bad choices. It's a difficult and complex topic, and what they want in advance is very different from what they want when medical care is necessary.