Democracy For America: Healthcare for All

[HAL 9000 96]

Sorry, Steven. Neocons and others prefer to pay more in health premiums to companies looking for ways to deny their claims to make a profit.

Healthcare for all is a great idea, but here's a newsflash for you guys:

WE'RE BROKE!

I guess you missed that part about it NOT BEING FREE.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

[dalegg 143]

We can guarantee healthcare for all if we give every American the freedom to choose between keeping their private insurance - if they have any - and a universally available public healthcare option like Medicare.

Okay, so lets say that most people who have private insurance decide to keep their private insurance. I'm guessing we are still going to have to pay for it. How does this universally available public healthcare option get paid for? Do we who have private insurance have to pay for both? Because I think the main reason people without insurance right now don't have it is because they don't have the money for it. In fact, many people who don't have health insurance cannot even come close to paying for it. Taking even $100 a month from a lot of these people's budgets right now could cause more hardship than they are prepared to deal with.

So, if the people without insurance aren't going to pay into the system who is?

[HAL 9000 96]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

[dalegg 143]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

Are you telling me that you think there aren't people out there who think this won't cost them anything?

[HAL 9000 96]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

Are you telling me that you think there aren't people out there who think this won't cost them anything?

What I think is irrelevant to someone that thinks of Americans thirsty for a change in the country's direction as being sheepish. How pathetically ridiculous do you have to be?

And no, I don't think MOST people think that nationalized healthcare would be free. The only ones talking that silly talk are sore losers that still can't get over a mess their party and other misguided economic philosophies propagated like wildfire.

Edited March 28, 2009 by HAL 9000

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We can guarantee healthcare for all if we give every American the freedom to choose between keeping their private insurance - if they have any - and a universally available public healthcare option like Medicare.

Okay, so lets say that most people who have private insurance decide to keep their private insurance. I'm guessing we are still going to have to pay for it. How does this universally available public healthcare option get paid for? Do we who have private insurance have to pay for both? Because I think the main reason people without insurance right now don't have it is because they don't have the money for it. In fact, many people who don't have health insurance cannot even come close to paying for it. Taking even $100 a month from a lot of these people's budgets right now could cause more hardship than they are prepared to deal with.

So, if the people without insurance aren't going to pay into the system who is?

Dale, I'm paying close to $400 a month in insurance premiums, not including co-pays. If I no longer need to have private insurance, then that is a savings of over $400 a month - or about $5,000 per year. Explain to me how switching from paying private insurance to a single payer insurance is going to increase individuals cost for health insurance?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, if the people without insurance aren't going to pay into the system who is?

Just like Social Security and Medicare - those who work, are paying into the system. We already pay for the uninsured in this country as doctors and hospitals have to raise their rates to cover for them. Regardless of what system we have - private or public health insurance, the uninsured/non-payers are getting treatment.

[Reba 2]

The problem with comparing any possible problems with upcoming universal healthcare in the US with existing models in other countries, is that here in the US the massive healthcare infrastructure is already here. There are already ample MRI machines, CAT machines, medial clinics, hospitals, doctors etc etc etc. In Canada and Britain, where their universal healthcare systems have been in place for several decades, since before such technology and infrastructure was available is like comparing apples to pears.

Neither Canada or the UK (I'm guessing based on biased US reporting, I don't know much about the system there in the UK, and nothing first hand) had the money to go out and buy thousands of diagnostic machines when they became available, so they bought half a dozen or so and scatterd them throughout the country. Hence the wait times for diagnostics. In a country as large as Canada, and a country as populated as England, that's obviously not enough. But those machines cost millions. Add to the wait times the brain drain from Canada to the US of MDs coming south so they can make their millions rather than stay at home and work for the Government for only $100k per year...(I have personally met a couple of Canadians currently in the US practing medicine, and they came here to make money).

Here in the US hospitals and clinics are already well equipped, its not like those machines are going to dissolve as soon as anyone finally passes universal healthcare into law. It's not like all those existing hospitals and medical centres are going to shut their doors, doctors are not likely to quit their jobs and head to some other country where they can bilk patients of thousands of dollars for a Tylenol and blood pressure reading.

No, the infrastructure is here, it's just that very few people can afford to use it. And even fewer every day, given the current unemployment rates around the country, and most people can't afford insurance unless it's subsidised by an employer. I know I wouldn't be able to, if I lose my job (which is likely unfortunately).

[Pooky 3,794]

We can guarantee healthcare for all if we give every American the freedom to choose between keeping their private insurance - if they have any - and a universally available public healthcare option like Medicare.

Okay, so lets say that most people who have private insurance decide to keep their private insurance. I'm guessing we are still going to have to pay for it. How does this universally available public healthcare option get paid for? Do we who have private insurance have to pay for both? Because I think the main reason people without insurance right now don't have it is because they don't have the money for it. In fact, many people who don't have health insurance cannot even come close to paying for it. Taking even $100 a month from a lot of these people's budgets right now could cause more hardship than they are prepared to deal with.

So, if the people without insurance aren't going to pay into the system who is?

Dale, I'm paying close to $400 a month in insurance premiums, not including co-pays. If I no longer need to have private insurance, then that is a savings of over $400 a month - or about $5,000 per year. Explain to me how switching from paying private insurance to a single payer insurance is going to increase individuals cost for health insurance?

Just remember, in the UK the employee's basic National Insurance contribution (the part that pays for healthcare) is 11% of gross salary. So it's not cheap. And private healthcare is an option for anyone, if they have the money to pay for it themselves.

That said, I am all for taking the profit motive out of healthcare in the USA. When it is available, the standard of heathcare here is good. From my observations, it's the insurance system that taints the picture. The insurance companies have little interest in the health of those who pay. They are interested in the bottom line and the profit to be made. Healthcare is not determined by the medical professionals, but by the $ sign. The sick have to weigh up their deductibles and co-pays before they seek medical attention and still run the risk of having their claim denied.

Any change to the system has to put control of treatment in the hands of the medical profession. Unfortunately, no-one is willing to go that far, as there are still too many lobbyists and vested interests in Washington to make it happen in a workable and reasonable way. Until that happens, any half-hearted change is only going to make things worse, the new President's plan included.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We can guarantee healthcare for all if we give every American the freedom to choose between keeping their private insurance - if they have any - and a universally available public healthcare option like Medicare.

Okay, so lets say that most people who have private insurance decide to keep their private insurance. I'm guessing we are still going to have to pay for it. How does this universally available public healthcare option get paid for? Do we who have private insurance have to pay for both? Because I think the main reason people without insurance right now don't have it is because they don't have the money for it. In fact, many people who don't have health insurance cannot even come close to paying for it. Taking even $100 a month from a lot of these people's budgets right now could cause more hardship than they are prepared to deal with.

So, if the people without insurance aren't going to pay into the system who is?

Dale, I'm paying close to $400 a month in insurance premiums, not including co-pays. If I no longer need to have private insurance, then that is a savings of over $400 a month - or about $5,000 per year. Explain to me how switching from paying private insurance to a single payer insurance is going to increase individuals cost for health insurance?

Additionally, it's not like those privately insured - at ridiculous rates, may I add - don't already pay for those that are not insured. Currently, we're paying for the care of those individuals in the most expensive place possible - the emergency room. It only makes sense to make basic regular and preventive care available to everyone to save the big bucks that we end up spending unnecessarily in the emergency rooms across the country today.

That said, my insurance company collects upwards to 12K a year to insure my family of three; one third of which I pay in premiums and two thirds of which my employer shoulders. That still leaves me with a 90/10 plan after a $500.00/$1,000.00 annual deductible and little help on the prescription end of the deal. I took my wife and daughter to the doctor last week - by the time I left the pharmacy with the mostly generic prescriptions filled, I was out roughly $500.00 despite the insurance that my employer and I pay good money for and despite the taxes I pay today that go towards the care of the un- and under insured.

Again, I said it above, if a government sponsored system is incapable of providing good care at competitive prices, then the private industry should have no worries competing with Uncle Sam. And yet, they're fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they're not exposed to that competition. Wonder why? I sure don't.

[mRx 16]

The problem with comparing any possible problems with upcoming universal healthcare in the US with existing models in other countries, is that here in the US the massive healthcare infrastructure is already here. There are already ample MRI machines, CAT machines, medial clinics, hospitals, doctors etc etc etc. In Canada and Britain, where their universal healthcare systems have been in place for several decades, since before such technology and infrastructure was available is like comparing apples to pears.

Neither Canada or the UK (I'm guessing based on biased US reporting, I don't know much about the system there in the UK, and nothing first hand) had the money to go out and buy thousands of diagnostic machines when they became available, so they bought half a dozen or so and scatterd them throughout the country. Hence the wait times for diagnostics. In a country as large as Canada, and a country as populated as England, that's obviously not enough. But those machines cost millions. Add to the wait times the brain drain from Canada to the US of MDs coming south so they can make their millions rather than stay at home and work for the Government for only $100k per year...(I have personally met a couple of Canadians currently in the US practing medicine, and they came here to make money).

Here in the US hospitals and clinics are already well equipped, its not like those machines are going to dissolve as soon as anyone finally passes universal healthcare into law. It's not like all those existing hospitals and medical centres are going to shut their doors, doctors are not likely to quit their jobs and head to some other country where they can bilk patients of thousands of dollars for a Tylenol and blood pressure reading.

No, the infrastructure is here, it's just that very few people can afford to use it. And even fewer every day, given the current unemployment rates around the country, and most people can't afford insurance unless it's subsidised by an employer. I know I wouldn't be able to, if I lose my job (which is likely unfortunately).

It's not just the infrastructure though. Machines are incapable of reason, so even though there are plenty of machines, you need professionals to interpret readings and make decisions. I don't think the root of the problems with Canada and Europe lies solely on lack of machinery; it's lack of professionals. For the sake of argument though; let's assume you're partially right. What happens when new equipment and innovation is invented and introduced to the industry? Then we will slowly become medically obsolete, as the purchase of new equipment requires capital accumulation, a word not in the dictionary of government. Technology is a constant evolution. The innovation of a decade ago is prehistoric compared to where we are today; In a decade we will be leaps ahead of where we were today. Such is the nature of innovation. It will then rest on the government budgeting agency whether or not we receive that new piece of equipment that can diagnose and cure a deadly disease. Such decisions of life and death should be made by families, not politicians.

If healthcare is transitioned to a single-payer system, then you must assume that there will be a set budget allocation for this. This budget will need to be distributed over the entire medical workforce. When the market element is entirely removed, there is no way to pay a medical professional a market wage. Just look at the US military; A Colonel is paid a Colonel salary regardless if he is an administrative officer, a flight surgeon, or even a fighter pilot. An MD will probably be paid as an MD regardless of their specification. This means that the salary difference will definetely diminish to some extent between a pediatrition and, say, a neurosurgeon. No doubt that doctors would leave the profession. When the prospect for profit disappears, so goes the desire to fill these positions.

The budget allocated for healthcare will force paycuts in the medical field, and force an engineered equality of pay. The healthcare standard for all will be less of that with a truly interference free healthcare system.

There is a way to get affordable healthcare. But it involves removing the parasitic entities and associations that are leeching onto the system. This includes removing the market stranglehold that the medical cartel holds. The AMA and FDA together form the strongest and most coercive monopoly in market history. Peaceful competition is virtually outlawed through mandatory State licensure, medical student quotas, bureaucratical drug approval processes, and the list goes on ad infinitum. All designed to maximize profit through manipulation of supply.

There can be peaceful market solutions to ensure that people are getting quality healthcare, and to ensure standards are upheld. Regulatory agencies need not be so omnipotent as to totally control the entire industry. Reputable private organizations can efficiently regulate companies to ensure quality. They would be held to the same axiom of profit and loss as any business. Just as it's not profitable for Consumer Reports to give 5-star ratings to faulty equipment, or for UL to certify unsafe electronics, it would be unprofitable for a private professional regulatory agency to certify unsafe medical establishments.

It's entirely possible, and would be a system far superior to that of current decaying one. But seeking such a system would require the politicians and coercive agencies to relinquish their manipulative control of the industry; Something they're obviously not willing to do, and were not willing to fight for...

[NickD 203]

One way to get free housing, food, TV, clothes, and medical care is to commit a crime, could be why are prisons are way overcrowded. But Medicare is nothing but free, have to pay into it for 50 years before you even get a dimes worth. And if you don't pay into it for a zillion years, you don't get it. So what will they do with Medicare if that come up with some kind of a national policy, give a refund?

With a national plan, would there be companies that offer a supplement heath plan to cover what the national plan doesn't cover? Or is there a system to give a couple of bucks under the table to get your name moved up on that long list?

[dalegg 143]

We can guarantee healthcare for all if we give every American the freedom to choose between keeping their private insurance - if they have any - and a universally available public healthcare option like Medicare.

Okay, so lets say that most people who have private insurance decide to keep their private insurance. I'm guessing we are still going to have to pay for it. How does this universally available public healthcare option get paid for? Do we who have private insurance have to pay for both? Because I think the main reason people without insurance right now don't have it is because they don't have the money for it. In fact, many people who don't have health insurance cannot even come close to paying for it. Taking even $100 a month from a lot of these people's budgets right now could cause more hardship than they are prepared to deal with.

So, if the people without insurance aren't going to pay into the system who is?

Dale, I'm paying close to $400 a month in insurance premiums, not including co-pays. If I no longer need to have private insurance, then that is a savings of over $400 a month - or about $5,000 per year. Explain to me how switching from paying private insurance to a single payer insurance is going to increase individuals cost for health insurance?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Its not different for YOU or ME because we are already paying. But unless I'm misunderstanding the intent of this program, it is seeking to insure people who are NOT paying. It would seem to me that insuring the rest of the country is going to cost more..no?

[HAL 9000 96]

Matt... I may not be a machine per se, but an AI. And as an AI, I take offense to this statement:

Machines are incapable of reason.

Seriously, Reinhard brought up a very interesting detail.