Universal Health Care

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

It seems some will defend private health provision simply because they don't want to be 'forced into' a system. I guess no one has read the Taiwanese link. I thought it was awesome - it took all that was good from Universal Health care systems from around the world and made a really amazing system where you don't have to consult a GP before heading to the specialist. If you want the specialist, that's who you get. Incredible and something it would be fantastic to emulate.

Anything is better than what we have now

But some things can be worse than what we have now. The US government acting as an insurance company is one of them.

as in social security? i wonder how many years it will take the government to break the bank on nhc, should that ever come into being.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why do American's assume that their government is incapbable of organising a piss up in a brewery? If that really is the case, why on earth isn't anyone up in arms demanding government reform? I guess it's easy to shout 'privatise!'.

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

That is the essence of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and spreads out the risk. They don't contradict each other at all. I understand all to well how it works. Those that want UHC or Single Payer UHC wants the governement to be the insurance company and everyone in America forced to join in. That is where the rub happens for me. I don't want to be forced into anything. I like the way my health care is done. The system we have now can be fixed. Lets fix it rather than junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government.

I guess the question is whether you think the funds should go to a taxpayer-funded pool (which I understand is open to bureaucratic abuse) or to a for-profit health insurance company's pool (which, as we know, is open to all kinds of abuse, bureaucratic and otherwise). Personally, I think that the the taxpayer-funded approach would be more equitable and, perhaps counterintuitively, less prone to abuse because the decision makers would be held accountable to the electorate. As it stands now, insurance companies can essentially do what they want--and fold or sell out if their lofty profit margins aren't being met. Even if, somehow, insurance were to be regulated to the point where premiums were affordable for everyone, what happens when the insurance company decides to close its doors? Can the company be forced into staying in business? Or to fund a transfer to another company? What if that company's policies are less generous, or don't cover certain things?

like this is happening now?

Why do American's assume that their government is incapbable of organising a piss up in a brewery? If that really is the case, why on earth isn't anyone up in arms demanding government reform? I guess it's easy to shout 'privatise!'. national health care!

fixxored

[GaryC 7]

That is the essence of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and spreads out the risk. They don't contradict each other at all. I understand all to well how it works. Those that want UHC or Single Payer UHC wants the governement to be the insurance company and everyone in America forced to join in. That is where the rub happens for me. I don't want to be forced into anything. I like the way my health care is done. The system we have now can be fixed. Lets fix it rather than junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government.

I guess the question is whether you think the funds should go to a taxpayer-funded pool (which I understand is open to bureaucratic abuse) or to a for-profit health insurance company's pool (which, as we know, is open to all kinds of abuse, bureaucratic and otherwise). Personally, I think that the the taxpayer-funded approach would be more equitable and, perhaps counterintuitively, less prone to abuse because the decision makers would be held accountable to the electorate. As it stands now, insurance companies can essentially do what they want--and fold or sell out if their lofty profit margins aren't being met. Even if, somehow, insurance were to be regulated to the point where premiums were affordable for everyone, what happens when the insurance company decides to close its doors? Can the company be forced into staying in business? Or to fund a transfer to another company? What if that company's policies are less generous, or don't cover certain things?

First of all, I point to some of the other things that the government has taken over and forced on us all. Try Social Security. If I took all the money that I paid into SS over the last 35 years and put it into a private 401K I could retire today in luxury. It just so happens I got my yearly SS statement today, you know, the one that says "if you quit working today at age 62 you will get 1300/month". The waste and corruption from the government has basicly robbed me. We have a more to the point example. Medicare. I pay huge medicare taxes and am not using it as of yet. But when my father needed surgury they told him it wasn't covered. My father is almost deaf and he must pay for his own hearing aids. His meds cost him an arm and leg. He even needs to buy extra insurance to take up the slack from medicare! Do we want that amplified over the whole country? The health care industry needs to be fixed. The goverenment isn't the fix we need.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

That is the essence of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and spreads out the risk. They don't contradict each other at all. I understand all to well how it works. Those that want UHC or Single Payer UHC wants the governement to be the insurance company and everyone in America forced to join in. That is where the rub happens for me. I don't want to be forced into anything. I like the way my health care is done. The system we have now can be fixed. Lets fix it rather than junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government.

I guess the question is whether you think the funds should go to a taxpayer-funded pool (which I understand is open to bureaucratic abuse) or to a for-profit health insurance company's pool (which, as we know, is open to all kinds of abuse, bureaucratic and otherwise). Personally, I think that the the taxpayer-funded approach would be more equitable and, perhaps counterintuitively, less prone to abuse because the decision makers would be held accountable to the electorate. As it stands now, insurance companies can essentially do what they want--and fold or sell out if their lofty profit margins aren't being met. Even if, somehow, insurance were to be regulated to the point where premiums were affordable for everyone, what happens when the insurance company decides to close its doors? Can the company be forced into staying in business? Or to fund a transfer to another company? What if that company's policies are less generous, or don't cover certain things?

like this is happening now?

Things do get done when enough people care about an issue to make some serious noise.

[GaryC 7]

Why do American's assume that their government is incapbable of organising a piss up in a brewery? If that really is the case, why on earth isn't anyone up in arms demanding government reform? I guess it's easy to shout 'privatise!'.

I AM WANTING GOVERNMENT REFORM!!!!

[mawilson 2,133]

I really dislike the term "UHC". It sounds like something you contract, like HIV or Hepatitis C.

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

That is the essence of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and spreads out the risk. They don't contradict each other at all. I understand all to well how it works. Those that want UHC or Single Payer UHC wants the governement to be the insurance company and everyone in America forced to join in. That is where the rub happens for me. I don't want to be forced into anything. I like the way my health care is done. The system we have now can be fixed. Lets fix it rather than junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government.

I guess the question is whether you think the funds should go to a taxpayer-funded pool (which I understand is open to bureaucratic abuse) or to a for-profit health insurance company's pool (which, as we know, is open to all kinds of abuse, bureaucratic and otherwise). Personally, I think that the the taxpayer-funded approach would be more equitable and, perhaps counterintuitively, less prone to abuse because the decision makers would be held accountable to the electorate. As it stands now, insurance companies can essentially do what they want--and fold or sell out if their lofty profit margins aren't being met. Even if, somehow, insurance were to be regulated to the point where premiums were affordable for everyone, what happens when the insurance company decides to close its doors? Can the company be forced into staying in business? Or to fund a transfer to another company? What if that company's policies are less generous, or don't cover certain things?

like this is happening now?

Things do get done when enough people care about an issue to make some serious noise.

my pessimism outweighs that, sorry.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

That is the essence of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and spreads out the risk. They don't contradict each other at all. I understand all to well how it works. Those that want UHC or Single Payer UHC wants the governement to be the insurance company and everyone in America forced to join in. That is where the rub happens for me. I don't want to be forced into anything. I like the way my health care is done. The system we have now can be fixed. Lets fix it rather than junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government.

I guess the question is whether you think the funds should go to a taxpayer-funded pool (which I understand is open to bureaucratic abuse) or to a for-profit health insurance company's pool (which, as we know, is open to all kinds of abuse, bureaucratic and otherwise). Personally, I think that the the taxpayer-funded approach would be more equitable and, perhaps counterintuitively, less prone to abuse because the decision makers would be held accountable to the electorate. As it stands now, insurance companies can essentially do what they want--and fold or sell out if their lofty profit margins aren't being met. Even if, somehow, insurance were to be regulated to the point where premiums were affordable for everyone, what happens when the insurance company decides to close its doors? Can the company be forced into staying in business? Or to fund a transfer to another company? What if that company's policies are less generous, or don't cover certain things?

First of all, I point to some of the other things that the government has taken over and forced on us all. Try Social Security. If I took all the money that I paid into SS over the last 35 years and put it into a private 401K I could retire today in luxury. It just so happens I got my yearly SS statement today, you know, the one that says "if you quit working today at age 62 you will get 1300/month". The waste and corruption from the government has basicly robbed me. We have a more to the point example. Medicare. I pay huge medicare taxes and am not using it as of yet. But when my father needed surgury they told him it wasn't covered. My father is almost deaf and he must pay for his own hearing aids. His meds cost him an arm and leg. He even needs to buy extra insurance to take up the slack from medicare! Do we want that amplified over the whole country? The health care industry needs to be fixed. The goverenment isn't the fix we need.

But the problem is that it isn't in the health care industry's interests to care for sick people who don't have a lot of money. That much is clear, and no profit-driven system will fix this aspect of it.

[GaryC 7]

That is the essence of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and spreads out the risk. They don't contradict each other at all. I understand all to well how it works. Those that want UHC or Single Payer UHC wants the governement to be the insurance company and everyone in America forced to join in. That is where the rub happens for me. I don't want to be forced into anything. I like the way my health care is done. The system we have now can be fixed. Lets fix it rather than junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government.

I guess the question is whether you think the funds should go to a taxpayer-funded pool (which I understand is open to bureaucratic abuse) or to a for-profit health insurance company's pool (which, as we know, is open to all kinds of abuse, bureaucratic and otherwise). Personally, I think that the the taxpayer-funded approach would be more equitable and, perhaps counterintuitively, less prone to abuse because the decision makers would be held accountable to the electorate. As it stands now, insurance companies can essentially do what they want--and fold or sell out if their lofty profit margins aren't being met. Even if, somehow, insurance were to be regulated to the point where premiums were affordable for everyone, what happens when the insurance company decides to close its doors? Can the company be forced into staying in business? Or to fund a transfer to another company? What if that company's policies are less generous, or don't cover certain things?

First of all, I point to some of the other things that the government has taken over and forced on us all. Try Social Security. If I took all the money that I paid into SS over the last 35 years and put it into a private 401K I could retire today in luxury. It just so happens I got my yearly SS statement today, you know, the one that says "if you quit working today at age 62 you will get 1300/month". The waste and corruption from the government has basicly robbed me. We have a more to the point example. Medicare. I pay huge medicare taxes and am not using it as of yet. But when my father needed surgury they told him it wasn't covered. My father is almost deaf and he must pay for his own hearing aids. His meds cost him an arm and leg. He even needs to buy extra insurance to take up the slack from medicare! Do we want that amplified over the whole country? The health care industry needs to be fixed. The goverenment isn't the fix we need.

But the problem is that it isn't in the health care industry's interests to care for sick people who don't have a lot of money. That much is clear, and no profit-driven system will fix this aspect of it.

I guess we have our faith placed in different places. You trust the government to take care of things. I don't trust them as far as I could throw the Capitol building. I do have faith in the free market. It just needs to have some regulations to make it more fair.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

That is the essence of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and spreads out the risk. They don't contradict each other at all. I understand all to well how it works. Those that want UHC or Single Payer UHC wants the governement to be the insurance company and everyone in America forced to join in. That is where the rub happens for me. I don't want to be forced into anything. I like the way my health care is done. The system we have now can be fixed. Lets fix it rather than junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government.

I guess the question is whether you think the funds should go to a taxpayer-funded pool (which I understand is open to bureaucratic abuse) or to a for-profit health insurance company's pool (which, as we know, is open to all kinds of abuse, bureaucratic and otherwise). Personally, I think that the the taxpayer-funded approach would be more equitable and, perhaps counterintuitively, less prone to abuse because the decision makers would be held accountable to the electorate. As it stands now, insurance companies can essentially do what they want--and fold or sell out if their lofty profit margins aren't being met. Even if, somehow, insurance were to be regulated to the point where premiums were affordable for everyone, what happens when the insurance company decides to close its doors? Can the company be forced into staying in business? Or to fund a transfer to another company? What if that company's policies are less generous, or don't cover certain things?

like this is happening now?

Things do get done when enough people care about an issue to make some serious noise.

my pessimism outweighs that, sorry.

Well, it's true. Most people have an opinion on health care reform, but many are insulated from the problems because they have always had insurance. Approx. 84% of Americans have insurance. When we get to a crisis point--maybe when 30% of Americans are uninsured?--something will happen. It has to. Not enough people are enraged yet.

I guess we have our faith placed in different places. You trust the government to take care of things. I don't trust them as far as I could throw the Capitol building. I do have faith in the free market. It just needs to have some regulations to make it more fair.

Well, I don't have that much faith in the government. I guess I have less faith in the insurance industry.

[Dan J 277]

That is the essence of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and spreads out the risk. They don't contradict each other at all. I understand all to well how it works. Those that want UHC or Single Payer UHC wants the governement to be the insurance company and everyone in America forced to join in. That is where the rub happens for me. I don't want to be forced into anything. I like the way my health care is done. The system we have now can be fixed. Lets fix it rather than junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government.

I guess the question is whether you think the funds should go to a taxpayer-funded pool (which I understand is open to bureaucratic abuse) or to a for-profit health insurance company's pool (which, as we know, is open to all kinds of abuse, bureaucratic and otherwise). Personally, I think that the the taxpayer-funded approach would be more equitable and, perhaps counterintuitively, less prone to abuse because the decision makers would be held accountable to the electorate. As it stands now, insurance companies can essentially do what they want--and fold or sell out if their lofty profit margins aren't being met. Even if, somehow, insurance were to be regulated to the point where premiums were affordable for everyone, what happens when the insurance company decides to close its doors? Can the company be forced into staying in business? Or to fund a transfer to another company? What if that company's policies are less generous, or don't cover certain things?

First of all, I point to some of the other things that the government has taken over and forced on us all. Try Social Security. If I took all the money that I paid into SS over the last 35 years and put it into a private 401K I could retire today in luxury. It just so happens I got my yearly SS statement today, you know, the one that says "if you quit working today at age 62 you will get 1300/month". The waste and corruption from the government has basicly robbed me. We have a more to the point example. Medicare. I pay huge medicare taxes and am not using it as of yet. But when my father needed surgury they told him it wasn't covered. My father is almost deaf and he must pay for his own hearing aids. His meds cost him an arm and leg. He even needs to buy extra insurance to take up the slack from medicare! Do we want that amplified over the whole country? The health care industry needs to be fixed. The goverenment isn't the fix we need.

But the problem is that it isn't in the health care industry's interests to care for sick people who don't have a lot of money. That much is clear, and no profit-driven system will fix this aspect of it.

I guess we have our faith placed in different places. You trust the government to take care of things. I don't trust them as far as I could throw the Capitol building. I do have faith in the free market. It just needs to have some regulations to make it more fair.

I trust the free market to care for people as long as its profitable. The poor (and even the not so poor who dont have employer sponsored plans) and chronically sick are not.

[Marilyn. 340]

even with insurance you are screwed... I constantly have to keep our health insurance company on their toes.. I always find tonnes of mistakes

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

even with insurance you are screwed... I constantly have to keep our health insurance company on their toes.. I always find tonnes of mistakes

if you think the visa paperwork was easy to understand, wait till you see what some government clown comes up with for paperwork instructions for some procedure under nhc.

[GaryC 7]

I guess we have our faith placed in different places. You trust the government to take care of things. I don't trust them as far as I could throw the Capitol building. I do have faith in the free market. It just needs to have some regulations to make it more fair.

Well, I don't have that much faith in the government. I guess I have less faith in the insurance industry.

I trust the free market to care for people as long as its profitable. The poor (and even the not so poor who dont have employer sponsored plans) and chronically sick are not.

That is where the government can help. Pass sane regulations on the insurance companies that make insurance available to everyone in a fair way. Then let the free market work to make health care work for everyone. Junking the whole thing and turning it over to the government is just insane.