Senate Health Bill Reels as C.B.O. Predicts 22 Million More Uninsured

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, ccneat said:

The history of how Employment and HealthCare became linked goes back to WW2.  After a long depression the competition for workers heated up in the shipyards and factories causing Inflation.  Roosevelt mandated that Defense suppliers could not bid up wages to  poach workers from each other.  The wage restriction did not apply to healthcare and benefits which became the new tool to poach workers , additionally health insurance was tax free income.  After the war Truman tried to uncouple employment and healthcare with Universal coverage, but congress balked at the "socialism" 

 

I'm aware. My research interests are in Value-based care so I have more knowledge than most physicians have on our healthcare system and the associated costs. In fact I'm working on a talk on this topic as we speak, my powerpoint is up in the background. 

 

Healthcare in the WW2 and immediately Post-WW2 era is quite interesting when you compare us to the other major "victor", the UK. 1946 saw the passage of Universal Healthcare in the UK, while Truman failed to do similarly here. UK had been decimated though, and they had already established an Emergency Hospital Service during WW2 to provide free care to civilians and soldiers who were wounded at home. The idea of "welfare" was quite welcoming to a country that had just survived years of conflict. We came out of the war relatively unscathed and instead were faced with a ton of able bodied young man coming home looking for employment. The nail in the coffin was likely the change in 1951 that made group premiums tax-deductible for businesses. At that point the incentives of employer-based insurance were too strong. Keep in mind that rationing in the USA ended in 1946, whereas it continued until 1954 for in the UK. 

 

Sadly Social Security in the 30's was originally intended to include a publicly funded healthcare provision but it was removed after backlash by none other than the AMA (American Medical Association).

[berber_wife 90]

On 6/27/2017 at 8:05 PM, cyberfx1024 said:

I totally agree with you on a majority of this except for the bolded part. You have to agree with me that a large majority of the illnesses people have can be prevented if they lead a healthier lifestyle and helped cured if caught early. Genetics DOES play a role in people's health and I am not denying that at all. But sometimes people use their genetics to try and let them lead a unhealthy lifestyle, which eventually will lead to ruin.

Ah, the personal responsibility argument. I led a healthy lifestyle, did all the recommended medical screenings and still got breast cancer at 28 which progressed to Stage IV at 30. Why did I get breast cancer? Maybe because my mom and grandmother had/have it. Why did it become Stage IV? Because breast cancer in young women is much more aggressive than in older women. Why did I get it so young? Don't know, but my docs say that unless one has an exceptional unhealthy lifestyle (drinking in excess, smoking, fast food daily) they can't do enough damage in 25 or 30 years to cause their own cancer.

 

Modern medicine has me living a normal life but it's expensive and I will be on it forever or until they find a cure, whatever comes first. There's simply no option for me other than to take these expensive treatment if I want to stay alive (and I do, I'm 32 years old and not ready to check out for at least another 30 years...)

[OriZ 3,165]

8 hours ago, berber_wife said:

Ah, the personal responsibility argument. I led a healthy lifestyle, did all the recommended medical screenings and still got breast cancer at 28 which progressed to Stage IV at 30. Why did I get breast cancer? Maybe because my mom and grandmother had/have it. Why did it become Stage IV? Because breast cancer in young women is much more aggressive than in older women. Why did I get it so young? Don't know, but my docs say that unless one has an exceptional unhealthy lifestyle (drinking in excess, smoking, fast food daily) they can't do enough damage in 25 or 30 years to cause their own cancer.

 

Modern medicine has me living a normal life but it's expensive and I will be on it forever or until they find a cure, whatever comes first. There's simply no option for me other than to take these expensive treatment if I want to stay alive (and I do, I'm 32 years old and not ready to check out for at least another 30 years...)

Another 30? Don't sell yourself short. By the time you reach 62 average life expectancy should be in the 90's...I wish you to make it even past that. Cancer is terrible but thankfully alot of progress is still being made.

[Boiler 47,499]

3 hours ago, OriZ said:

Another 30? Don't sell yourself short. By the time you reach 62 average life expectancy should be in the 90's...I wish you to make it even past that. Cancer is terrible but thankfully alot of progress is still being made.

Not likely in the US due to the lack of a Health Care system plus rise of the super bugs.