Private Vs. Universal Health Care system

[Buttzilla]

i have a debate in my public health class about the advantages and disadvantages of having a universal health system or a private health care system.

i'm suppose to argue for the private health care system.

what do you guys think? any ideas are appreciated.

thanks

 

[ponyo]

All I know is private insurance cost in this country is redicious. I'm paying almost $1000 a month on healthcare coverage for a family of four.

 

[Ornery]

1. Competition VS Bureaucracy
2. Overtaxed payers VS Freeloaders
3. Take what you want VS Take what you get...

I'm paying almost $1000 a month on healthcare coverage for a family of four.

What deductible? Raise that instead. Buy only catastrophic coverage instead.

 

[EatSpam]

Well, if the people arguing for public health are smart, they'll find many examples of public health systems that provide the promised care and are cost efficient. I'd advise you to do the same and then nitpick tiny details to "prove" they suck.

They'll also dig up stats on how much money the uninsured costs ERs around the country in unpaid bills. Your job is to show that these people deserve to be uninsured and don't deserve care.

When you're arguing that private care is good, try arguing from the perspective of a CEO of Big Pharma or Big Insurance. Private care is awesome for them. Avoid discussion of the unemployed or the disabled or the average middle class person who is paying ever higher rates so that the above-mentioned CEOs can buy ever bigger yachts.

Seriously, good luck. America's private-only care system is unique in the industrialized world. IIRC, most other industrialized countries have universal public care, plus private care for those who want it.

 

[chambersc]

you can introduce the egalitarian ethic which states that if there was a system with no regulation or no institutions, that humans would naturally be kind, generous, and mutually respectful of each other. this argument can counter those who would naturally assume the worst of humanity by saying "if you give universal healthcare then everyone will leech the system."

 

[Buttzilla]

my thoughts are scattered on this subject and i don't know where to begin my research. I was going to start with income tax, since our tax dollars are paying for welfare, i assume that those in the higher tax bracket where bear the bulk of this burden.

i was talking to a pharmacist friend and he also told me that canada has a universal health care system, but the drawbacks are it undermines the wages of the doctors there. he told me that pharmacist in canada make around 50-60k whereas pharmacist in the US make around 100k.

 

[Ornery]

i assume that those in the higher tax bracket where bear the bulk of this burden.

Hillary's plan was to force businesses to pay for it. Great plan, eh? :roll:

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Ornery
i assume that those in the higher tax bracket where bear the bulk of this burden.

Hillary's plan was to force businesses to pay for it. Great plan, eh? :roll:

...yeah, it is. you can't burden the worker with insurmountable bills while big business is reporting record profits.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Ornery
i assume that those in the higher tax bracket where bear the bulk of this burden.

Hillary's plan was to force businesses to pay for it. Great plan, eh? :roll:

...yeah, it is. you can't burden the worker with insurmountable bills while big business is reporting record profits.

What about businesses that are recording record losses?
Or small businesses? You can't punish the successful for being a success, and you can't let the failures off for failing.

 

[nobody2you]

Originally posted by: Buttzilla
i have a debate in my public health class about the advantages and disadvantages of having a universal health system or a private health care system.

i'm suppose to argue for the private health care system.

what do you guys think? any ideas are appreciated.

thanks

You can say that having private health care system will decrease the population and you end up with the more generally able citizenery since they can afford the health care. Other people doesnt matter because this is survival of the fittest. This is morally wrong but it's what society is saying in this country.

 

[Buttzilla]

don't business who contribute more to the health care system get bigger tax breaks as incentives????

 

[mchammer]

Public Health care = wait six months for treatment.
Private health care = $$$

Best solution, don't get an illness.

 

[TraumaRN]

Consider these facts that we learned in my nursing care management class.

In 2001

US spent 726.4 billion on healthcare expenses
32 % hospital
21.6% office based expense
3 % Emergency room
18.5 % on prescription drugs

These expenses were paid by:
41.7 % private insurance
19.7 % individuals paid (out of pocket)
30.3 % Medicare and Medicaid

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Ornery
i assume that those in the higher tax bracket where bear the bulk of this burden.

Hillary's plan was to force businesses to pay for it. Great plan, eh? :roll:

...yeah, it is. you can't burden the worker with insurmountable bills while big business is reporting record profits.

What about businesses that are recording record losses?
Or small businesses? You can't punish the successful for being a success, and you can't let the failures off for failing.

This is why I would propose that we take American business out of the business of providing health care for their workers and families. Let everyone pay a percentage of their income (ALL income, not just wages) for health insurance. This way, everyone who has an income contributes.

 

[Buttzilla]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Ornery
i assume that those in the higher tax bracket where bear the bulk of this burden.

Hillary's plan was to force businesses to pay for it. Great plan, eh? :roll:

...yeah, it is. you can't burden the worker with insurmountable bills while big business is reporting record profits.

What about businesses that are recording record losses?
Or small businesses? You can't punish the successful for being a success, and you can't let the failures off for failing.

This is why I would propose that we take American business out of the business of providing health care for their workers and families. Let everyone pay a percentage of their income (ALL income, not just wages) for health insurance. This way, everyone who has an income contributes.

but the argument would be that those who end up contributing more to their health coverage is going to get better care. in sense, less paper work, less waiting, whereas those who contribute little is always going to get shuffled around in the system.

 

[Ornery]

...everyone who has an income contributes.

Hah! Therein lies the rub. :frown:

 

[ModerateRepZero]

off the top of my head:

one benefit of a private health care is that by placing some restrictions on eligibility and coverage, you can do more for the people who are covered. Whereas in a universal health care plan, you can only give superficial treatment since resources are limited and there is a natural inclination to keep costs down. To put it another way, you can argue quality > quantity. One of the problems in Canada's health care (though this was awhile ago so I'm not sure how true it still is), was that while there was more open access to health care, people faced delays in getting treatment/surgery.

hmmm, if you wanted to research this, look up the issue of privatized vs. universal health care, rationing, concept of distributive justice.


adding to what nobody2 said, one of the things medical science has done is prolong the lifespan of the sick and dying.

 

[ElFenix]

why can't universal health care be privately run?

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
off the top of my head:

one benefit of a private health care is that by placing some restrictions on eligibility and coverage, you can do more for the people who are covered. Whereas in a universal health care plan, you can only give superficial treatment since resources are limited and there is a natural inclination to keep costs down. To put it another way, you can argue quality > quantity. One of the problems in Canada's health care (though this was awhile ago so I'm not sure how true it still is), was that while there was more open access to health care, people faced delays in getting treatment/surgery.

hmmm, if you wanted to research this, look up the issue of privatized vs. universal health care, rationing, concept of distributive justice.


adding to what nobody2 said, one of the things medical science has done is prolong the lifespan of the sick and dying.

Yea and consider this thought as well, our access and insurance issues lend themselves to people delaying treatment for health problems until they are very ill. This creates a vicious cycle of crisis/emergency intervention with high costs, and high risk care instead of earlier intervention and even prevention. This applied to those with insurance and those without! Those without think they'll be denied care if they seek treatment early on, those with think it'll be too expensive and think that by delaying care they'll save money in the end.

 

[dartworth]

$7.40/hr - currently what my insurances cost.

$20 deductible for MD visits we pay a few bucks for scripts...

almost $15K/year :shocked:

 

[Jadow]

Just some talking points against universal health care.

1. There is no constitutional right to healthcare.
2. Why should healthy, responsible people, have to pay for the health care of obese, french fry eating slobs.
3. In every state, children under 18 are eligible for free government healthcare already.
4. No-one is turned away from the ER if they can't pay

I would also recommend you read the Cato Institute's healthcare section.

http://www.cato.org/healthcare/index.html

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Just some talking points against universal health care.

1. There is no constitutional right to healthcare.
2. Why should healthy, responsible people, have to pay for the health care of obese, french fry eating slobs.
3. In every state, children under 18 are eligible for free government healthcare already.
4. No-one is turned away from the ER if they can't pay

healthy responsible people already pay for the health care of obese, french fry eating slobs. that's how group care works. the people that don't use it pay for those that do.

and the ER thing depends on if the ER takes medicare/aid or not. and they're only required to stabilize under EMTALA.

 

[Jadow]

true about group health care, I've been subsidizing others for years, but at least it's not the government forcing me to do it.

I'm on a high deductible plan with HSA now, and LOVE IT!

 

[Buttzilla]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Just some talking points against universal health care.

1. There is no constitutional right to healthcare.
2. Why should healthy, responsible people, have to pay for the health care of obese, french fry eating slobs.
3. In every state, children under 18 are eligible for free government healthcare already.
4. No-one is turned away from the ER if they can't pay

I would also recommend you read the Cato Institute's healthcare section.

http://www.cato.org/healthcare/index.html

thanks Jadow

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Just some talking points against universal health care.

1. There is no constitutional right to healthcare.
2. Why should healthy, responsible people, have to pay for the health care of obese, french fry eating slobs.
3. In every state, children under 18 are eligible for free government healthcare already.
4. No-one is turned away from the ER if they can't pay

I would also recommend you read the Cato Institute's healthcare section.

http://www.cato.org/healthcare/index.html

Why? Because no one is perfect. They made a choice with their life just as you did, no point in criticizing their life just because they arent as healthy as you.