Universal Health Care

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

where did you get the idea that the armed forces are efficient? ever heard of $600 hammers?

Ever heard of $10,000 medical procedures or a $100.00 prescription that cost a fraction outside the US in places with comparable cost of living? It's sort of the same thing. Just to counter the point that only the government is wasteful.

[Amby 490]

at this point in my life I'm pretty healthy so I don't really worry about insurance. my mom is a dr and my regular dr knows I don't have insurance and just charges me like $10 or $20 or something whatever he feels like charging me. I'm pretty lucky. We just always try to make whatever script I get is one of the cheaper ones or free ones. The only thing I pay tons for is BC and that is $65/month but I must admit I do get quite a few sample packs since my mom is an ob/gyn so probably 50% of the time I don't have to pay for it. We do have insurance just incase something really horrible happens but otherwise we just wing it

eta: however in a few months neil is eligible for free healthcare through his employer and it's very cheap to add me as well

so how do you, as someone who's fairly young, feel about being co-opted into some nhc plan so you can help pay for those that are older?

. It's crucial to get younger, healthier people into the pool to share the risk.

I'm not sure since I've never really thought about it. Let me think about it and let you know tomorrow. Right now I'm thinking hey that might be ok because I'd like people to pay into insurance when I'm old to help pay for me. but if I'm old and wealthy that won't happen or at least from my family's experience.

my great grandmother worked her whole life until she was 80. she went into a nursing home at 90 and because she had so much money she wasn't eligible for medicare benefits until she spent a certain percentage of her own money. so even though she paid into it her whole life they wouldn't give her any money because she was so wealthy. that is not something I agree with! I could agree with only being eligible for what you paid in if you really had enough money to get by without money from the government.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The insurance industry needs to be overhauled but I will never be in favor of single payer or universal health care. Make insurance more affordable, make it portable from job to job, cut out "pre-exsiting condition" clauses even let the government assist low income people to get health insurance. Spout all the polls and stats you want. I will never be in favor of the government taking over the nations health care.

So even if it could be proven to you that a UHC system, however it was established, would cost you less (possible), deal with you more fairly (guaranteed), and provide you with an equal or bette rlevel of care (again possible), you would still reject it out of hand on the basis of personal dogma?

P

First of all, it will never be "proven" that UHC will cost less. It will never be more "fair" and it will not give a better level of care. Your premise cannot ever be proven. The US government royally screws up everything it touches. If it got it's hands on our health care it will be more expensive and the quality of care will go down. Your right about one thing though. It will be equally fair. Equally unfair to everyone that is.

Refusal to consider a hypothesis because you don't agree with its premise does not a good argument make.

P

You said, "So even if it could be proven to you that a UHC system, however it was established, would cost you less (possible), deal with you more fairly (guaranteed), and provide you with an equal or bette rlevel of care (again possible), you would still reject it out of hand on the basis of personal dogma?"

I submitt that it cannot be proven. I can prove that every government program ever made has always cost more that advertised and provided less than it was designed to give. US history is on my side.

I don't think its unprovable - a comparison of infant mortality rates, life expectancies and the prevalence and survival rates of various diseases all say something about the standard of healthcare provision across the population.

But the systems of governments are different. What works in the UK or Canada may not work here because of that. It MAY work (though I really doubt it) but once we go there it's a one way road. I am not willing to take that one way road. I feel that our current system can be fixed without giving it all to the government.

Well I don't think there's going to a wholesale reboot of the healthcare system, certainly not anytime soon. That would require rather more maverick politicians than we currently have running for the White House. I do think that there needs to be some sort of government regulation of the insurance industry (as there needs to be in the financial service industry) to actually see why healthcare actually does cost as much as it does - rather than blaming it all on frivolous law suits and illegal immigration.

I do think you can make a relative assessment of different healthcare systems by looking at the general health of the population. Offhand the US is behind western Europe in both infant mortality and life expectancy.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Yet, you admit that despite the problems, the armed forces can't be privatised? So, some things have to be run by the goverment come what may? But, not something that effects everyone like the health service? Curious logic.

No Charles, it's not just because I say so.

We have a little thing called the constitution. It spells out in no uncertain terms that the military is run by the government. Health care on the other hand has no such constitutinal mandate. In fact, I would be willing to bet that a real challenge in the Supreme Court could find a NHC system unconstitutional.

I'm no legal scholar, but I think that Massachusetts' legislation may be unconstitutional.

I don't think providing a basic system that would care for everyone, alongside a private system (as exists in many countries, including the UK) would be unconstitutional. However, as I've mentioned in this thread, levying penalties on people who do not buy an expensive product from a list seems like it would be.

[Peikko 1,575]

If other goverments can do it, why not the US and why dont more people demand the US goverment does this? Don't US citizens want to take pride in what the goverment could achieve? If not, why not?

[GaryC 7]

The insurance industry needs to be overhauled but I will never be in favor of single payer or universal health care. Make insurance more affordable, make it portable from job to job, cut out "pre-exsiting condition" clauses even let the government assist low income people to get health insurance. Spout all the polls and stats you want. I will never be in favor of the government taking over the nations health care.

So even if it could be proven to you that a UHC system, however it was established, would cost you less (possible), deal with you more fairly (guaranteed), and provide you with an equal or bette rlevel of care (again possible), you would still reject it out of hand on the basis of personal dogma?

P

First of all, it will never be "proven" that UHC will cost less. It will never be more "fair" and it will not give a better level of care. Your premise cannot ever be proven. The US government royally screws up everything it touches. If it got it's hands on our health care it will be more expensive and the quality of care will go down. Your right about one thing though. It will be equally fair. Equally unfair to everyone that is.

Refusal to consider a hypothesis because you don't agree with its premise does not a good argument make.

P

You said, "So even if it could be proven to you that a UHC system, however it was established, would cost you less (possible), deal with you more fairly (guaranteed), and provide you with an equal or bette rlevel of care (again possible), you would still reject it out of hand on the basis of personal dogma?"

I submitt that it cannot be proven. I can prove that every government program ever made has always cost more that advertised and provided less than it was designed to give. US history is on my side.

I don't think its unprovable - a comparison of infant mortality rates, life expectancies and the prevalence and survival rates of various diseases all say something about the standard of healthcare provision across the population.

But the systems of governments are different. What works in the UK or Canada may not work here because of that. It MAY work (though I really doubt it) but once we go there it's a one way road. I am not willing to take that one way road. I feel that our current system can be fixed without giving it all to the government.

Well I don't think there's going to a wholesale reboot of the healthcare system, certainly not anytime soon. That would require rather more maverick politicians than we currently have running for the White House. I do think that there needs to be some sort of government regulation of the insurance industry (as there needs to be in the financial service industry) to actually see why healthcare actually does cost as much as it does - rather than blaming it all on frivolous law suits and illegal immigration.

On this we agree.

I do think you can make a relative assessment of different healthcare systems by looking at the general health of the population. Offhand the US is behind western Europe in both infant mortality and life expectancy.

The difference is very slight. There are other factors in play besides the presence or lack of UHC.

[GaryC 7]

If other goverments can do it, why not the US and why dont more people demand the US goverment does this? Don't US citizens want to take pride in what the goverment could achieve? If not, why not?

We don't want it, simple as that. I don't see any pride in another government take over of our lives. I would see it as a shame and a degrading of our country. Your from another country, we have a different mind-set here. We don't take pride in government, we take pride in individual achievement.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Heres some research for ya! Yep that thar fcukin free healthcare is the shite.

Hospitals were last night accused of keeping thousands of seriously ill patients in ambulance 'holding patterns' outside accident and emergency units to meet a government pledge that all patients are treated within four hours of admission.

Those affected by 'patient stacking' include people with broken limbs or those suffering fits or breathing problems. An Observer investigation has also found that some wait for up to five hours in ambulances because A&E units have refused to admit them until they can guarantee to treat them within the time limit. Apart from the danger posed to patients, the detaining of ambulances means vehicles and trained crew are not available to answer new 999 calls because they are being kept on hospital sites.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/17/health.nhs1

There is, of course, the other extreme, when some pasty-faced government numpty decides to make a pledge without consulting the healthcare professionals that will be trying to uphold that pledge and so causes untold grief. Never hold up the UK as a shining example of the way it should be. Half a century ago, yes. Not now.

P

Your just another person lookin for a golden ticket. Quit waitin and get in the game, sheesh. I want this, I want that. This boohoo shite drives me fcukin nuts.

Edited April 16, 2008 by CarolsMarc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The UK system isn't perfect. I don't think anyone has ever said that it is.

Of course a little known fact is that we, like the US have private insurance for anyone who wants it.

Suggesting that Universal Healthcare is about "Free" healthcare, is simply misrepresenting the arguments.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The UK system isn't perfect. I don't think anyone has ever said that it is.

Of course a little known fact is that we, like the US have private insurance for anyone who wants it.

Suggesting that Universal Healthcare is about "Free" healthcare, is simply misrepresenting the arguments.

Ill rephrase it for you! its unacceptable.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The UK system isn't perfect. I don't think anyone has ever said that it is.

Of course a little known fact is that we, like the US have private insurance for anyone who wants it.

Suggesting that Universal Healthcare is about "Free" healthcare, is simply misrepresenting the arguments.

Ill rephrase it for you! its unacceptable.

Rephrase it how you want. Anyone can cherry pick articles out of the newspaper - it doesn't really prove anything about relative standards of care. Or costs of living.

Perhaps I should dig up a few articles about people being denied treatment, reduced to destitution or subsequently dying because of pre-existing condition clauses or because their treatment isn't covered by the insurance.

[Amby 490]

My experience with the NHS is it takes forever! I just remember Neil having to wait 4 weeks to get an appt with the nurse to get his vaccination records. He got so frustrated calling and trying to make an appt that he asked if the nurse even existed

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The UK system isn't perfect. I don't think anyone has ever said that it is.

Of course a little known fact is that we, like the US have private insurance for anyone who wants it.

Suggesting that Universal Healthcare is about "Free" healthcare, is simply misrepresenting the arguments.

Ill rephrase it for you! its unacceptable.

Rephrase it how you want. Anyone can cherry pick articles out of the newspaper - it doesn't really prove anything about relative standards of care. Or costs of living.

Perhaps I should dig up a few articles about people being denied treatment, reduced to destitution or subsequently dying because of pre-existing condition clauses or because their treatment isn't covered by the insurance.

Just like you? You need to realize that standing around with your hand out is a waste of time. You stand-up for a system you moved away from ( if its so great nothins stoppin ya from returning, take advantage of that freedom that so many gave their lives for) and then have the odacity to condemn ours.

You went on a german fcukin vacation awhile back, What did that run ya? Get the ** outta my pocket son.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Im sittin here waitin for a being drunk comment!

[GabiandVi 34]

Very interesting coincidence. My British and Australian colleagues started talking about their national UHC systems today in the staff lounge. They were comparing how difficult it is to get to see a doctor. One was saying that in London, it was nearly impossible unless she were very ill. Just for a regular visit, she had to be registered with the doctor and no doctors were taking new patients. She finally found one who would, but she said he never made eye contact with her. She left the interview disgusted that he was interviewing her to see if he would accept her as a patient when she would not accept him as her doctor.

A friend from Australia said it was the same there, but that she was already registered with her doctor, so she didn't have trouble getting to see him.

I didn't know about that.

Another Brit added that no doctors want to work after hours or on Saturdays. When I was home for the few weeks after my daughter was born, all the pediatricians had evening hours and Saturday hours. While I'm all for an overhaul and some sort of assurance that everyone will have access to healthcare, there is something to be said about the motivation of money. If a doctor can make more money by answering to his patients' needs (i.e. Evening and Saturday hours) he will do it.

Just sharing this because it was so strange that my friends would start talking about this today after I had been reading this thread.