Universal Health Coverage

[Stunt]

I agree that universal healthcare is not the answer. I think two tier would work well. A social safety net that all people pay into, but healthcare can also be bought for a premium at a pritave care facility. Similar to private and public school systems.

 

[MrPabulum]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ok, I'll answer your question, but it should be an obvious reason.

Poor people cannot afford today's healthcare costs, even if they have an employee-sponsored HMO. Usually, the lower the pay to the worker, the crappier that HMO plan is and the more expensive it is too. How can a parent making $6.00/hr at Wal-Mart (or someplace equivalently paying) afford to pay all her bills, pay rent, buy food for his/her kid/kids, pay the premium for an HMO, shell out co-pays and then pay any other over-and-above health costs?

Here is a good answer. Dont go to the doctor unless you have to. People always bring up the costs of co-pays. That is something you only have to worry about if you are using the service. When I go to the doctor for my once a year checkup. I always see the place filled with the same people. They are probably there 4 times a month paying out the 25 dollar co-pay because their kid has a cold.

As for the 6 bucks an hour. i dont know where the hell you can even find a job like that. Even in ND the fast food places pay 8-9 bucks an hour and they have a huge pay glut compared to the rest of the nation. But we arent here to discuss the actual merits of your conclusion of 6 bucks an hour.

Answer: They can't! There just isn't enough money.

They could if they didnt us the system like it was the lunch buffet special at KFC.

So what does that parent do, since Medicaid and Medicare have been eliminated?

Answer: Go to the ER, that's where. They have to take her. And trust me, you swallow your pride, when you hear your baby screaming because of an ear infection.

If it is an absolute emergency then yes. But if it is a cold or other ailment that doesnt require a doctors visit but instead time to heal on its own. They have a decision to make if they want to pay the co-pay or not.

The problem lies in how much they want to abuse the system and have the system abuse them back. Nobody said this was easy but health care as an entitlement will make SS look like a walk in the park.

Have a kid, get laid off, become poor and then speak to me of entitlements. Until then, you have no idea what you're talking about.

In other words someone's opinion can only be valid if they happen to be active participants? Does one need to have had (God forbid) an abortion to opine about the morality or legality of it? Do one need to serve in the military to direct a war? Not according to our system of government, where civilians, not generals, determine policy.

A lack of real experience does not preclude someone from having an informed opinion.

 

[MrPabulum]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Based on emotions? Jesus Christ man.... when you have a baby screaming, crying, wailing, in need of medical attention, do you think a parent is going to go, "hmmmm... y'know, the needs of my baby shouldn't supercede my country paying for an ER visit. I'll just have to explain to my baby, that the fiscal survivability of this nation require you to suffer and suffer some more. You see dear, there are those in this society that would like to see you die, rather than pay for a normal doctor visit. Oh honey, honey, I know, I know, but the will of the selfish is just too great. I just can't jeopardize this country. "

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I never said EVERYONE should be in on a Universale Healthcare Plan. But children should be covered. ALWAYS. One way or another.

That whole post is filled with emotion and your reason for providing said medical expenses is based off that.

Now if you want to provide healthcare to children that is fine. Take the adults who currently leach the system off to pay for it.

Of course it's emotional, because it seems I have to make up for your lack of it. When you have kids and they're screaming, you tell me what you're going to do. YOU TELL ME! :|

One does not create health policy based on the notion that there is an unemployed parent who makes little money and has a child with a fever. Policy, theoretically at least, is determined by what will positively affect the greatest number of people. Not everyone, because that is impossible. That image of a crying child you'd like us to hardwire into our heads sounds like an exception, not the rule. If it is the rule, there is a greater problem at hand. What is someone doing with children when they are financially unable (or barely able to) support them? If, for instance, there are a million adults in this situation, we should be asking ourselves how they got there, not rewarding potentially irresponsible behavior with costly initiatives, for the root problem subsequently remains unsolved.

 

[MonkeyK]

Its an exception to the rule that you emotionally "hardwired" into your own head. Rules are nothing more than the boundaries that we put on problems. That boundary can have emotional significance and still be relevant.

 

[Detayned1447]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
The only ones that deserve a universal health coverage are children, imho.

Agreed.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: irwincur

With over 40 million people in our country without health coverage, why aren't we working towards getting universal health coverage?

Classic liberal myth.

100% of the people in the US have health COVERAGE. If brought into a hospital, you must be treated regardless of your economic status, the law says this and the Hippocratic Oath holds doctors to this - even though I really doubt you know what that actually is.

There is no reason why the government should meddle with private insurance, after all, that is what it is. If you want insurance, get it, if not, you are on your own. Yes, it is expensive, but most full time jobs offer decent plans and yes, there are even government assistance programs. Why don't we fix the current system before throwing more stuff to the government to handle.

After all, nothing they touch works, no matter how much money you give them. SS is a good example, as well as the liberal overfunded school systems, etc...

Actually, they just have to stabilize the individual, then they can boot them out the door. What good is that going to do someone who needs a liver or kidney? Hippocratic Oath or not, a hospital is not going to pay tens of thousands of dollars for something like this for an uninsured person. And THAT therein is where the problem lies.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Actually, they just have to stabilize the individual, then they can boot them out the door. What good is that going to do someone who needs a liver or kidney? Hippocratic Oath or not, a hospital is not going to pay tens of thousands of dollars for something like this for an uninsured person. And THAT therein is where the problem lies.

I find it ironic that those so intent on forcing evolution down the throats of kids everywhere still turn to bleeding hearts when they see natural selection in action.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I agree that universal healthcare is not the answer. I think two tier would work well. A social safety net that all people pay into, but healthcare can also be bought for a premium at a pritave care facility. Similar to private and public school systems.

THe problem is defining what the two tiers cover and keeping the "free" tier from chipping away from the "pay" tier. Everyone will obviously want the free tier to cover as much as possible, with ever expanding benefits.

I dont think such a hybrid system can last long.

 

[Stunt]

I don't think the 'free' tier would eat away at the 'pay' tier. The government could determine this on economic well being.
This is commonly done at universities where poorer students are given a bursary where the recipiant is not expected to pay this amount back.
Effectively the service is free, but handled by the gov't. The quality and economic status would be set by the gov't similar to minimum wage.
This value could be modified to tend to different regions in the US where the cost of living is lower/higher.

Here shows that the median income for a 4 person family in the US is 46K to 86K by state. This indicates a very wealthy population, not just the upper 1% like all the liberals like to think. In addition to that the US is still an R&D, manufacturing, and financial powerhouse where these sectors would most likely offer benifits packages to employees. So the number of people eligible for the 'free' service would be much much lower than one might think.

Also being fiscally conservative, i would like to see other practices initiated like demerit points for those who abuse the system. ie. earaches or minor complications and going to the ER. These sorts of things will limit you bursary or ability to recieve 'free' care in the future. This would be a simple operation for any doctor to indicate after each client/patient.

So i guess what i am getting at is this system would allow for all private hospitols, you still have the free market forces, the majority of the healthcare infrastructure would be privately invested. But the gov't would give bursaries to those who cannot afford these services, with a demerit points system, allowing for the most effective use of the social safety net.

I think this is already what happens in the US. I mean look at this year's budget:
Budget

Mandatory outlays: $573.5 billion
Total spending: $640.6 billion

Highlights:
* Existing law sets spending for Medicare at $340 billion, a 17 percent increase over last year, mostly for the prescription drug benefit that takes effect this year.
* Medicaid and SCHIP, which provides health care to poor adults and children, is set by law to increase 2.2 percent to about $198 billion. The administration wants to cut the expected growth of Medicaid spending by $45 billion over the next decade.
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Aging will be forced to shave 1 percent off their budgets, for a total savings of $788 million.
* National Institute of Health, the federal agency responsible for developing cures for diseases, is funded at $28.8 billion, 1 percent more than last year.

That's 25% of all gov't spending. Now, it says that there is money allocated to poor ppl, so i have no idea how similar my plan is to the already exsisting system.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: MrPabulum

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Based on emotions? Jesus Christ man.... when you have a baby screaming, crying, wailing, in need of medical attention, do you think a parent is going to go, "hmmmm... y'know, the needs of my baby shouldn't supercede my country paying for an ER visit. I'll just have to explain to my baby, that the fiscal survivability of this nation require you to suffer and suffer some more. You see dear, there are those in this society that would like to see you die, rather than pay for a normal doctor visit. Oh honey, honey, I know, I know, but the will of the selfish is just too great. I just can't jeopardize this country. "

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I never said EVERYONE should be in on a Universale Healthcare Plan. But children should be covered. ALWAYS. One way or another.

That whole post is filled with emotion and your reason for providing said medical expenses is based off that.

Now if you want to provide healthcare to children that is fine. Take the adults who currently leach the system off to pay for it.

Of course it's emotional, because it seems I have to make up for your lack of it. When you have kids and they're screaming, you tell me what you're going to do. YOU TELL ME! :|

One does not create health policy based on the notion that there is an unemployed parent who makes little money and has a child with a fever. Policy, theoretically at least, is determined by what will positively affect the greatest number of people. Not everyone, because that is impossible. That image of a crying child you'd like us to hardwire into our heads sounds like an exception, not the rule. If it is the rule, there is a greater problem at hand. What is someone doing with children when they are financially unable (or barely able to) support them? If, for instance, there are a million adults in this situation, we should be asking ourselves how they got there, not rewarding potentially irresponsible behavior with costly initiatives, for the root problem subsequently remains unsolved.

So you think parents losing their job and their health insurance is an EXCEPTION?? W...T...F is wrong with you people?

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Tango
Interesting debate. I am european but live half of the year in the US. I never understand the americans that think it couldn't be affordable for their government to biuld a universal healthcare system. It is possible for every other country in Europe.. so why not in the US?

That ones easy, in America there is near religious belief in capitalism and the so called "free market". No sane economic analysis of its failures and internal politics ever really gets into your average american's consciousness. Americans love to point to the failures of other systems (socialism, communism, etc) with nice big smear campaigns without understanding the nuances, histories, politics and people of these different systems. Anyone who criticizes any such economic system of social orginization with near religious belief they have "Failed" and that further work or intellectual development across different systems shouldn't be pursued is ignorant. Pointing to alternative ways of life saying they can't be made to work are just ignorant of successes that are never published about alternative systems.

I think someone should really take the hammer to free market failures of the american system. All systems have flaws but business history in North america does not favour peoples rights or ethical behaviour in an industry, note how long it took the working class to get the rights they enjoy now in America and Canada over business enterprises, americans are constantly the subject of internal propaganda of corporations and government who love to exploit their own people. No one should be fooled into thinking that corporations and the freemarket is your friend when businesses are there to make even more profit exploiting their workers and acquiring even more of the worlds wealth on behalf of screwing their countries.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Actually, they just have to stabilize the individual, then they can boot them out the door. What good is that going to do someone who needs a liver or kidney? Hippocratic Oath or not, a hospital is not going to pay tens of thousands of dollars for something like this for an uninsured person. And THAT therein is where the problem lies.

I find it ironic that those so intent on forcing evolution down the throats of kids everywhere still turn to bleeding hearts when they see natural selection in action.

You're really stretching that comparison. Natural selection only applies when its in the best interest of each individual to have hospitals deny treatment to those that are uninsured. That point is debatable. So you r claim that the denial of treatment is the result of natural selection is weak.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
You're really stretching that comparison. Natural selection only applies when its in the best interest of each individual to have hospitals deny treatment to those that are uninsured. That point is debatable. So you r claim that the denial of treatment is the result of natural selection is weak.

I was more referring to the ability of the wealthier to pay for better/more services. Those who are most 'fit' should naturally become more wealthy and, therefore, be able to receive better treatment, right?

And no, I'm not a creationist and yes, I do think that everyone should have equal access to health care. I just think I'm funnier than I really am.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
You're really stretching that comparison. Natural selection only applies when its in the best interest of each individual to have hospitals deny treatment to those that are uninsured. That point is debatable. So you r claim that the denial of treatment is the result of natural selection is weak.

I was more referring to the ability of the wealthier to pay for better/more services. Those who are most 'fit' should naturally become more wealthy and, therefore, be able to receive better treatment, right?

And no, I'm not a creationist and yes, I do think that everyone should have equal access to health care. I just think I'm funnier than I really am.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
With over 40 million people in our country without health coverage, why aren't we working towards getting universal health coverage? I think it's ridiculous that a country so "advanced" as the United States cannot cover its citizens in life-threatening and other miscellaneous health situations. Personally, I think we as citizens are to blame. We don't want higher taxes, and use excuses such as "Well if everyone gets coverage, our quality of healthcare will go down." Any healthcare system where nearly a quarter of the population cannot receive coverage is a JOKE and needs to be revamped.

A) where are you getting your 40 million number from?

B) Where do you expect to get the money to PAY for the extra health care coverage?

C) How will you prevent the US health care quality from degrading to the embarassment that it is in other countries (eg Canada, UK)?

D) How will you justify the fact that in order to provide health care to 40 million people you have to steal money from (read: raise taxes on) the other 252 million people who DO have health insurance?

E) Does it ever occur to you that patients with life threatening illnesses but no cash often are treated FREE by hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc.?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
The biggest joke is the tax excuse when we have some of the worlds highest taxes of the civilised world and about the only one with NO universal health coverage it is obvious where that is going.
-straight to the military industrial complexs small pen0r obsession while the citizens grow sicker.

Yeah, we're just dying in droves, aren't we? Meanwhile the average lifespan is at an all time high...

Jason

 

[Steeplerot]

For who? the rich? We have a infant mortality rate of a third world country just about.
Hell, cuba is a less sick place.
National Center for Health Statistics report

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
The biggest joke is the tax excuse when we have some of the worlds highest taxes of the civilised world and about the only one with NO universal health coverage it is obvious where that is going.
-straight to the military industrial complexs small pen0r obsession while the citizens grow sicker.

Yeah, we're just dying in droves, aren't we? Meanwhile the average lifespan is at an all time high...

Jason

Disturbingly, infant morality increased for the first time in four decades. While the US has always had a high infant mortality rate for a first world nation, it's quite a surprise to see an increase after seeing it decrease for so long.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-02-11-infant-mortality_x.htm

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Actually, they just have to stabilize the individual, then they can boot them out the door. What good is that going to do someone who needs a liver or kidney? Hippocratic Oath or not, a hospital is not going to pay tens of thousands of dollars for something like this for an uninsured person. And THAT therein is where the problem lies.

I find it ironic that those so intent on forcing evolution down the throats of kids everywhere still turn to bleeding hearts when they see natural selection in action.

I don't see the irony.

Natural selection is a biological fact. However, that doesn't indicate that you should base your ethical system on it. While moral naturalism is a common fallacy, that's no reason to embrace it.

 

[Zebo]

Why does it have to be a national deal? My vote is to eliminate most if not all federal taxes and programs and lets states decide. If california want a high wage, manditory 35 days vacations and universal heath care let them choose it... watch those broke red states become blue again when they can't be sucking the blue teet anymore and blue neighbors living the good life. What we got going on now is a massive weath transfer from blue to red and blue's like, WTF??, don't we get anything back for all these taxes we pay? And blues are calling for yet another plan which broke Red states will get most benefit from in universal heath care. Screw that. Dems, if smart, would ALWAYS run on tax cuts at the federal level. Eliminate SS and medicare too. If california wants them go ahead.. I wonder how many people will vest thier "working years" in mississippi after that... no minimum wage, no pension reserves, no heath care, no nuthin maybe they would even allow child labor again.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Why does it have to be a national deal? My vote is to eliminate most if not all federal taxes and programs and lets states decide. If california want a high wage, manditory 35 days vacations and universal heath care let them choose it... watch those broke red states become blue again when they can't be sucking the blue teet anymore and blue neighbors living the good life. What we got going on now is a massive weath transfer from blue to red and blue's like, WTF??, don't we get anything back for all these taxes we pay? And blues are calling for yet another plan which broke Red states will get most benefit from in universal heath care. Screw that. Dems, if smart, would ALWAYS run on tax cuts at the federal level. Eliminate SS and medicare too. If california wants them go ahead.. I wonder how many people will vest thier "working years" in mississippi after that... no minimum wage, no pension reserves, no heath care, no nuthin maybe they would even allow child labor again.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that your numbers haven't been checked very carefully, if at all. If what you said was even remotely true (that the red states leech off the blue and never the other way around), then why would the blue states continually be the ones supporting these socialistic measures? Let me guess - they're just that generous? Your story falls flat on its face.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
For who? the rich? We have a infant mortality rate of a third world country just about.
Hell, cuba is a less sick place.
National Center for Health Statistics report

The reason our infant mortality rate increased, according to this report, is because of low birth weight. The fact that we can even consider sustaining these children at birth weights as low or lower than 500g (just over one pound) is insane when you consider that average health babies are between 7-8 pounds. Other countries probably chalk deaths of such infants up as birthing fatalities rather than infant fatalities, since they can't sustain them at all. That said, I don't think the 'infant mortality rate' necessarily gives any insight into the relative healthcare in a nation.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I'm going to go ahead and assume that your numbers haven't been checked very carefully, if at all. If what you said was even remotely true (that the red states leech off the blue and never the other way around), then why would the blue states continually be the ones supporting these socialistic measures? Let me guess - they're just that generous? Your story falls flat on its face.

It could be that the electorate is stupid.

Or, that those who vote for redistribution do so out of altruism (which is another word for ideology).

 

[Jadow]

it's just too expensive, and there's too many hypochondiacs out that who go to the doctor if they have the slightest cough.

I would be open to considering some sort of universal health care if it was low premium, high deductable plan, which would mean if people wanted to go in for something minor, they'd have the barrier of having to pay $1000 for their first visit, that would GREATLY keep costs down.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
It could be that the electorate is stupid.

Or, that those who vote for redistribution do so out of altruism (which is another word for ideology).

They'd have to be extremely stupid (which is possible - this is America, after all ) or extremely altruistic. I don't think such large blocks of altruistic people actually exist. In any case, what he said is conjecture at best, though it was submitted as fact. I guess this describes every other post in this forum, so nothing to see here.