Universal Health Coverage

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Crimson

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.

Whats your plan as far as paying for it? I want everyone to make 100 million dollars a year too.. But saying it and DOING it are two entirely different things.

1) A phase-in approach would be suitable. For instance, people aged 65 and older are the first people who get to participate in the program. Then the next phase would be 0-13, and so forth. Basically, a way to defray the costs upfront.

2) While being phased in, PHASE MEDICARE OUT. Take the money from medicare and put it into the new universal healthcare plan. Will it cover all the costs? Absolutely not. Some increased taxation will be involved, but as has been pointed out before, we are one of the lesser taxed developed countries in the world.

3) Continue to have private healthcare companies to help regulate the costs. Full-time workers would still have to go under a private healthcare plan provided by their workplace.

4) Tax corporations to help fund Universal Health Care. Offer a tax credit if a certain percentage of their overall workers are under a private healthcare plan paid for by the corporation (ballpark figure of 75% of workers insured).


I'm just throwing out ideas. If we can afford to dish out billions of dollars in Iraq, we should be able to figure out a way to finalize a universal health system.

While the whole 'If we are spending billions in Iraq' line sounds just wonderful.. You still haven't answered the question. I think the cost we are talking about here is probably in the trillion dollar range, not billions. You think we could provide health coverage for FREE for 250 million people for billions a year?

Also, please name one government run program that is done more efficiently than privately run ones? If it costs 500 billion to do something, the government will cost 3 times that.

 

[Reckoner]

I believe a combination of what I said COULD cover the costs. We are the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee health care to its citizens. And like I said before, this would be for people not eligible for a private healthcare plan funded by their employers. If it means raising taxes in the end, I for one am for it.

 

[bjc112]

1) Guns should be illegal....the right to bear arms in the 21st century??

3) People should undergo a mandatory class on the issues before they are

5) Taxes should be higher to support programs/care for sick, unemployed,

Glad you're not in charge.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm for spending public money on preventive care if it would save public money in the long run. On the flip side I don't really feel the need to fund some red-stater's obesity problem.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Aimster
Not enough money.

Yea, since the U.S. is so poor in relation to other industrialized nations who have it.

We spend more on guns than butter.

Actually, according to the CBO's numbers for the FY04 budget, defense spending totaled $454.1 billion, but combined Medicare and Medicaid spending totaled $473.6 billion at the federal level, and that's not even counting state or local spending, which would likely also run into the billions. Plus, Bush's prescription drug program as yet to be fully implemented, and will account for several billion $$'s more in federal spending when it is. So I think 'butter' wins.

 

[Stunt]

Both universal healthcare and private health have their pluses and minuses.
It all comes down to whether or not you believe that healthcare is an expectation or a luxury.

It is not comparing apples to apples. There are flaws in the universal system (i will use canadian system as an example as i am familiar with it) and flaws in the American system.

Canadian system tends to have longer waiting lines. But everyone is covered.
Americans have faster service. But 15% or so do not have health insurance.

Canadian system has been government run for over 30 years.
Switching over to a public system in the US could put even more strain on a ~$500b deficit.
The healthcare industry is the largest industry in the US (i think) and converting and restructuring would be very costly and a nightmare logistically.

There are also social issues to contend with. Per capita major crimes, car accidents, and pollution exposure is much higher in the US and will in the end cost more.

I am a supporter of two-tier healthcare for Canada. Not popular with the people in Canada but to me makes sense.
If you are rich and pay your taxes, and continue to effectively pay into the public healthcare system , i have no problems with you going to a private hospital to pay for your treatment. This not only allows the rich to avoid long lines, but the poor have one less person in front of them in line. And since the rich person is effectively paying double, the care for the poorer majority would be the same or improved.

Now it is very well known that Canada spends far less than the US on healthcare (not even taking into account the efficiencies) but in the end we are basically stuck with what we've got.

For reference: Canada Medicare

Country / life expectancy / infant mortality / per capita cost (USD) / % GDP / % gov't revenue / % paid by gov't / % paid by private sector
Canada 79.3 / 5.6 / 2,163 / 9.5 / 16.2 / 70.8 / 29.2
USA 77.0 / 6.4 / 4,887 / 13.9 / 17.6 / 44.4 / 55.6

Canadian and American systems compared

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'm for spending public money on preventive care if it would save public money in the long run. On the flip side I don't really feel the need to fund some red-stater's obesity problem.

I disagree.
Although it is true that taking precautions in life like not eating at mcDanks every meal will prolong your life, this will not reduce the burden on the health system. Everyone is going to die. If you reduce CVD and lung cancer, diabeties : breast, prostate, etc will go up.

Fix one problem, another will arise.

 

[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...

 

[Darkhawk28]

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...

Social Security has been just fine for seven decades and not just "liberals" use the program. Hence, Bush is getting his ass handed to him with his little "proposal". And the same goes for public schools, not just "liberals" use/used them. Public schools need some help, but most of that help is a societal problem more than a funding problem.

Let me ask you this... if Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated AND going to an ER is the only form of healthcare available, do you understand what the ramifications of that is?

 

[Genx87]

-straight to the military industrial complexs small pen0r obsession while the citizens grow sicker.

In 2002 the medical costs in this country amounted to 1.34 trillion. The govt picked up the tab on 44% of that. We are already spending more than our military budget on medical costs. So your spewing about spending all the money on the military is nothing but FUD.

Yea, since the U.S. is so poor in relation to other industrialized nations who have it.

I think the secret here is if we want to remain unpoor then we dont do what other countries have done to become poor. Ask Germany how their socialized medicine is helping their bottom line?

Welcome to P&N. Apparently you didn't get the memo.

Republican mandate is only the rich can afford Healthcare otherwise you either die or must leave the U.S. and go to other Countries for Health care.

Maybe he read the other memo? You know the one where democrats over dramatize and make things up???

That's not too bad, except for the employer paid insurance. IMO that whole mindset needs to be rethinked, employers absorbing the nation's healthcare cost puts US companies and workers at a global disadvantage. This is supposed to be one of the biggest reasons why US automakers are at such a serious disadvantage, Japan has nationalized healthcare

Our automakers are at a disadvantage because they put out a crappy product and expect people to buy it because it was made in America. Even if the tranny was made in Taiwan, the seats in Mexico, the wheels in argentina. You get the picture. Healthcare costs are not the reason for the automakers problems. They just have a bad business model and have had to deal with cheaper imports.

Let me ask you this... if Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated AND going to an ER is the only form of healthcare available, do you understand what the ramifications of that is?

people stop going to the ER for ear aches?????

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

-straight to the military industrial complexs small pen0r obsession while the citizens grow sicker.

In 2002 the medical costs in this country amounted to 1.34 trillion. The govt picked up the tab on 44% of that. We are already spending more than our military budget on medical costs. So your spewing about spending all the money on the military is nothing but FUD.

Yea, since the U.S. is so poor in relation to other industrialized nations who have it.

I think the secret here is if we want to remain unpoor then we dont do what other countries have done to become poor. Ask Germany how their socialized medicine is helping their bottom line?

Welcome to P&N. Apparently you didn't get the memo.

Republican mandate is only the rich can afford Healthcare otherwise you either die or must leave the U.S. and go to other Countries for Health care.

Maybe he read the other memo? You know the one where democrats over dramatize and make things up???

That's not too bad, except for the employer paid insurance. IMO that whole mindset needs to be rethinked, employers absorbing the nation's healthcare cost puts US companies and workers at a global disadvantage. This is supposed to be one of the biggest reasons why US automakers are at such a serious disadvantage, Japan has nationalized healthcare

Our automakers are at a disadvantage because they put out a crappy product and expect people to buy it because it was made in America. Even if the tranny was made in Taiwan, the seats in Mexico, the wheels in argentina. You get the picture. Healthcare costs are not the reason for the automakers problems. They just have a bad business model and have had to deal with cheaper imports.

Let me ask you this... if Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated AND going to an ER is the only form of healthcare available, do you understand what the ramifications of that is?

people stop going to the ER for ear aches?????

But if you make the ER the only option......

 

[Genx87]

But if you make the ER the only option......

What is preventing them from going to a doctor? This is part of the problem. You libs like to dramatize everything. Because the govt doesnt pick up the tab they suddenly are stuck only going to the ER?

What is preventing them from getting health insurance for themselves????

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

But if you make the ER the only option......

What is preventing them from going to a doctor? This is part of the problem. You libs like to dramatize everything. Because the govt doesnt pick up the tab they suddenly are stuck only going to the ER?

What is preventing them from getting health insurance for themselves????

And that is just like "repukes", they have no concept of anything beyond their front door.

 

[Genx87]

And that is just like "repukes", they have no concept of anything beyond their front door.

Just like a lib, cant answer a simple question and instead resorts to a personal attack.

If you cant answer my simple question then your position is rather weak minded.

 

[halik]

universal healthcare tends to be inefficent just because it circumvents the mechanisms of free markets. There is a good reason why top end surgeons flock to the US - they can get compensation based on the demaned for their skills. Having a socialist free-for-all healthcare tends to limit these mechnism and is a second-best option.

Better idea would be income-based packages for low income families and possibly expanded medicaid for people in poverty. This way you keep the economics of the medical care in place and address the issues on hand. Also unlike the public education field, theres no moral obligation to give everyone the equal playing field so the possibility that high income individual could afford better care is negligable (at least IMO).

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

And that is just like "repukes", they have no concept of anything beyond their front door.

Just like a lib, cant answer a simple question and instead resorts to a personal attack.

If you cant answer my simple question then your position is rather weak minded.

You're the one that brought the "lib" thing in first. Now troll elsewhere.

 

[Genx87]

You're the one that brought the "lib" thing in first. Now troll elsewhere.

Cant answer the question can you? I would suggest putting the ideology crack-pipe down and really thinking if your position is a strong one. If you cant answer that question then it apparently is beyond weak.

 

[Darkhawk28]

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?

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Genx87]

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.

So we should base our financial decisions on emotions?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

So we should base our financial decisions on emotions?

No, just realities to which you're probably too young to understand or comprehend.

 

[Genx87]

No, just realities to which you're probably too young to understand or comprehend.

I was unemployed for the better part of a year. But did I go into a tail-spin that caused me to crash and burn?

Using emotions to make finacial decisions is a recipe for disaster. Case in point is the current medicare and SS systems. Both based on the emotions you bring up above. Both will cost this country nearly 20 trillion a year by 2080.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: halik
universal healthcare tends to be inefficent just because it circumvents the mechanisms of free markets. There is a good reason why top end surgeons flock to the US - they can get compensation based on the demaned for their skills. Having a socialist free-for-all healthcare tends to limit these mechnism and is a second-best option.

Better idea would be income-based packages for low income families and possibly expanded medicaid for people in poverty. This way you keep the economics of the medical care in place and address the issues on hand. Also unlike the public education field, theres no moral obligation to give everyone the equal playing field so the possibility that high income individual could afford better care is negligable (at least IMO).

US surgeons flock to the US for better pay and hours.
This is LESS efficient. The only reason they can afford the higher cost is because with 60% paid for by companies, the health insurance companies can just up the premiums.

Fact is universal heathcare is cheaper overall, as shown by Canada and EU. But it all comes down to if your country feels it is right to offer free healthcare. And if you are willing to deal with longer waits. As a conservative, i know where you are coming from, and i have no problem with either system.

 

[StageLeft]

No. The bare bones of health care exist for all in this country. Even an illegal immigrant can go in with a broken leg and get it attended to. If you want better you can pay for it, which is not difficult, considering that most americans do have private insurance. I've spent enough time in Canada to know that if you're sick, you're better off in the US (if you have decent private insurance). You'll receive faster medical attention, with FAR less waits. The universal system in Canada has an averaging effect.