Universal Health Coverage

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: 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.

Did you have a good insurance plan? Do you have kids?

 

[Genx87]

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.

Actually I believe private insurance from individuals and companies only accounted for maybe 35-38%. Govt was the largest spender and about 10-12% didnt not have any kind of insurance and paid out of pocket.

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

I fail to see how it will be cheaper overall. Cheaper for who? If our govt engulfed all of the medical costs in this country. It would add another 700-900 billion onto our budget or about 2700 bucks in taxes per year per person in this country. Currently my medical costs are about 600 bucks a year. So how does this system benefit me or anybody else who is working?

 

[Genx87]

Did you have a good insurance plan? Do you have kids?

I had zero insurance because I wasnt working and decided that I would only need it in the case of an emergency. Amazing how I went through the entire year without ever once needing to go to the doctor or ER.

Eventhough I am employed now my co-pays equal 25 bucks a year because I only see them for my yearly.

It is a mindset. I know people who dont have a high paying job and recieve medical insurance through the state. They are in the ER or urgent care about once a week because it doesnt cost them anything. Once you decouple yourself from the handout then you will realize that going to the doctor because your throat hurts is a waste of time and money.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Did you have a good insurance plan? Do you have kids?

I had zero insurance because I wasnt working and decided that I would only need it in the case of an emergency. Amazing how I went through the entire year without ever once needing to go to the doctor or ER.

Eventhough I am employed now my co-pays equal 25 bucks a year because I only see them for my yearly.

That's fine. When I got laid off, I didn't use any medical attention, but imagine you had kids, no insurance, no money to speak of, what would you do if your baby came up with an ear infection? You'd be forced to go to the ER. That ER visit would cost at least four times as much than a routine pediatrician visit.

 

[Genx87]

That's fine. When I got laid off, I didn't use any medical attention, but imagine you had kids, no insurance, no money to speak of, what would you do if your baby came up with an ear infection? You'd be forced to go to the ER. That ER visit would cost at least four times as much than a routine pediatrician visit.

Again you cant make financial decisions based on emotions. This is what got us in trouble in the first place. Will people fall through the cracks? Of course, but every system will have its problems.

I dont think putting this country on a medical plan is a very good idea.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

That's fine. When I got laid off, I didn't use any medical attention, but imagine you had kids, no insurance, no money to speak of, what would you do if your baby came up with an ear infection? You'd be forced to go to the ER. That ER visit would cost at least four times as much than a routine pediatrician visit.

Again you cant make financial decisions based on emotions. This is what got us in trouble in the first place. Will people fall through the cracks? Of course, but every system will have its problems.

I dont think putting this country on a medical plan is a very good idea.

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.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I sincerely doubt anyone is really AGAINST having healthcare for everyone, or 'universal healthcare'. I voted no, however, because I know what you meant to ask: do you support socialized medicine?

Why did I vote no? Because there are much better ways to make sure everyone has the healthcare they need without having the government run the show. I think almost any option is preferable, as it's obvious that the government isn't really capable of doing this adequately. I base this on my own knowledge of government-sponsored healthcare activities that currently exist (Medicare and Medicaid) that fail miserably on all levels. The level they fail on the most? The patients have everything for free, so they don't bother to show up for appointments, demand unnecessary services, and so on. Not all of them, but a significant fraction such that many doctors simply have to refuse service to the entire group at this point.

I'm not sure what the ideal solution is, but the way I'm leaning is similar to how I think welfare and similar items should be dealt with. First, every company should have to offer its employees healthcare after xxx time of employment (3 months?). The time limit prevents people from showing up, having some procedure done, and quitting the next day. For the unemployed, the healthcare could be provided by private insurance companies through the state via a bidding process, rather than by the state directly. The insurance companies would have to apply the same rules to these clients as any other to ensure that they got the same level of care. Some compliance rules should be drawn up for those who abuse the system - if you don't play by the rules, you lose coverage. There would also be a time limit on the duration of this coverage (unless you're disabled/legitimately unable to work) just like I would place on unemployment benefits. Point being, it's a temporary safety net to cover you between jobs, not so you can live off the system without having to worry. Enough to make sure you're good to go but short enough to keep you motivated and looking for a job.

That's an excellent suggestion Cyclo, very much like what France and many other European countries have in place today. France, BTW, has been rated as having the higest quality of care in the world. They are currently facing a fical crunch for medicare funding, but it is no where near the level more socialized systems (such as Canada's) are facing.

I've often thought that a system such as that would better suited to the US anyway. The sheer BS and shakeup that would happen from a large-scale socialization of your medical system would be insane. However, I do believe that closing the coverage gap in your country would have many benefits.

A few major caveats regarding your proposal:

Regulating a mandatory insurance program would in effect act as a payroll tax, which would in turn create more unemployment. However, with a competitive market vying for the all the contracts, this would likely distort the market less than any other option that would could exist.

Regardless of who pays the premiums, the worker or the employer, the effect on the labour market would be identical. In other words, even if you make the workers pay 100% of it, the wage rate would increase commensurately, thus cutting into company profits. Similarly, if the company payed 100%, the wage rate would be depressed, and so the take-home pay of the worker would be less. In the end, it works out the same either way. Note that this is 101-level theory, and the labour market is one of the most complicated out there, so there are innumerable exceptions and modifications to this rule in the real world.

Now, the extra benefits, apart from liberal warm fuzzies.

1. Labour productivity: Since people will be more inclined to use Doctor facilities, more preventative care can take place. Example: 25-year old breaks his hand. Without insurance, he lets it heal, which works out ok, for now. WHen he's 45 he gets crippling arthritis and has to go on disibility. That may be prevented with Health Care. Some empirical studies show that government investment in health care may have productivity benefits comparable with cutting income taxes, though they take longer to pan out.

2. One more soggy bread crumb thrown to the Proletariat, so that they may more properly thank you for keeping your boot on their face.🙂

Edit:

So we should base our financial decisions on emotions?

Every decision we make, financial, political, personal or eithical is based on our value-set. If that's "emotional" to you, fine. But maybe you should examine your own values to see why that frightens you so much.

 

[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.

 

[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! :|

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
...

I didn't realize that's what the Euros have. They're smarter than I thought. 😉

The employees paying for coverage might increase salary in proportion, though I doubt it would increase to the extent that it would cover all of the premiums. This is why I doubt such a system would be terribly popular, though it might make companies happier about providing it. Something where companies match employee funds in some proportion (50/50 maybe?) could be effective in coercing employers to actually negotiate for good employee contracts. Like I said, it's not terribly well thought out, but I think it's a lot better than what is going on now.

 

[imported_Sasha]

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.

Because, I do not need to support your bad health. You need to support your bad health. I do not need another welfare program. Go die like a man (not directed at the OP, but rather those once again seeking benefits at the cost of their neighbors).

 

[Deptacon]

I work hard for a lvinging to get my self a good education, a good job, which comes with good health care...i don't need or want govt handouts....

I work hard for my own stuff...

and i certainly don't wnna pay for it for the pond feeders...ill give to chrites to help people out, not a constat withdrawl from my paycheck....

i dont wnna hear this people cant get it crap... iwokred at wal mart for 2 yrs, had full healthcare.....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Deptacon
I work hard for a lvinging to get my self a good education, a good job, which comes with good health care...i don't need or want govt handouts....

I work hard for my own stuff...

and i certainly don't wnna pay for it for the pond feeders...ill give to chrites to help people out, not a constat withdrawl from my paycheck....

i dont wnna hear this people cant get it crap... iwokred at wal mart for 2 yrs, had full healthcare.....

Uhhhhh....

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Deptacon
I work hard for a lvinging to get my self a good education, a good job, which comes with good health care...i don't need or want govt handouts....

I work hard for my own stuff...

and i certainly don't wnna pay for it for the pond feeders...ill give to chrites to help people out, not a constat withdrawl from my paycheck....

i dont wnnap hear this people cant get it crap... iwokred at wal mart for 2 yrs, had full healthcare.....

Uhhhhh....

LMAO..... he must've gone thru the public ed system as well...

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: 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.

actually no,
everything in this country is supply and demand driven. That's why you have baseball players making xxx millions of dollars for doing nothing productive. Cream of the crop surgeons come to the US because we have a higher standard of living and income, which allows them to command higher wage since both the companies and individuals have more disposable income.

What you said makes very little sense - there's competition between the health care providers which keeps the prices at a more or less competitive level. Companies in competitive markets don't just upp prices (preminums) and make more money 😉

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Deptacon
I work hard for a lvinging to get my self a good education, a good job, which comes with good health care...i don't need or want govt handouts....

I work hard for my own stuff...

and i certainly don't wnna pay for it for the pond feeders...ill give to chrites to help people out, not a constat withdrawl from my paycheck....

i dont wnnap hear this people cant get it crap... iwokred at wal mart for 2 yrs, had full healthcare.....

Uhhhhh....

LMAO..... he must've gone thru the public ed system as well...

sorry, i get caught up in the moment and type before I think....hehehe...plus english comp wasnt my best class

 

[StageLeft]

Go die like a man

LOL!

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Deptacon
I work hard for a lvinging to get my self a good education, a good job, which comes with good health care...i don't need or want govt handouts....

I work hard for my own stuff...

and i certainly don't wnna pay for it for the pond feeders...ill give to chrites to help people out, not a constat withdrawl from my paycheck....

i dont wnna hear this people cant get it crap... iwokred at wal mart for 2 yrs, had full healthcare.....

<stands.....starts clapping slowly....faster....faster...>
congrats....you're a real freaking hero. here's a big screen tv and a buick. thanks for playing.

 

[Rhin0]

How about quit giving handouts to Mexicans and other illegal aliens? If we are going to give handouts at least give them to US citizens.

As far as taxation and tax levels go, where I live (Appalachia) if people had no (or lower) tax they would have a lot more money. The taxes now are a huge burden on many people. I get so sick of hearing how people "in the ghetto" or in the inner city have it so bad or how bad the children in Africa need help. Screw them, there is enough suffering around my area for everyone.

I only made about $13,000 dollars this past year and my Dad made around $10,000. I paid so much money into taxes, would have been nice it would have been about half of what it was.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: 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.

actually no,
everything in this country is supply and demand driven. That's why you have baseball players making xxx millions of dollars for doing nothing productive. Cream of the crop surgeons come to the US because we have a higher standard of living and income, which allows them to command higher wage since both the companies and individuals have more disposable income.

What you said makes very little sense - there's competition between the health care providers which keeps the prices at a more or less competitive level. Companies in competitive markets don't just upp prices (preminums) and make more money 😉

First off you said "no", then repeated what i had just said.

US surgeons flock to the US for better pay and hours.

vs.

a higher standard of living and income, which allows them to command higher wage

Now that we agree that surgeons go to the US for higher pay, we can look at the costs which i have already posted, which you obviously have not looked at.
link

Canada vs. US
Cost per capita is $2,163 vs. $4,887
Cost as %gdp is 9.5% vs. 13.9%
Percent gov't revenue on health costs 16.2% vs. 17.6%

So yes your system is MORE expensive...i have analyzed the flaws in both systems above...i suggest you start reading what i post before spouting retoric.

 

[imported_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?

And about the surgeons coming in the US: they come working in the USA for one very simple reason... because the US need them. It happens the same in the Uk, where the medics/population ratio is very low. The very best surgeons who just want to command very high salaries work in private clinics in Swiss, that by the way also has a universal healthcare system.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: 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.

actually no,
everything in this country is supply and demand driven. That's why you have baseball players making xxx millions of dollars for doing nothing productive. Cream of the crop surgeons come to the US because we have a higher standard of living and income, which allows them to command higher wage since both the companies and individuals have more disposable income.

What you said makes very little sense - there's competition between the health care providers which keeps the prices at a more or less competitive level. Companies in competitive markets don't just upp prices (preminums) and make more money 😉

First off you said "no", then repeated what i had just said.

US surgeons flock to the US for better pay and hours.

vs.

a higher standard of living and income, which allows them to command higher wage

Now that we agree that surgeons go to the US for higher pay, we can look at the costs which i have already posted, which you obviously have not looked at.
link

Canada vs. US
Cost per capita is $2,163 vs. $4,887
Cost as %gdp is 9.5% vs. 13.9%
Percent gov't revenue on health costs 16.2% vs. 17.6%

So yes your system is MORE expensive...i have analyzed the flaws in both systems above...i suggest you start reading what i post before spouting retoric.

funny i've never been called a conservative before 🙂

But on the subject, you seemed to argue that since bulk of the health care costs is paid by tthe private sector, the insurance companies can simply increase the prices which will result in higher overall cost. Somehow you tied that into being more efficent.

Efficency of distribution has nothign to do with how much the system costs. The cost is just is merely a function of demand for the services. In the US healthcare does take up some 14% of the GDP, but due to the fact that this amount is determined by the (mostly) free market. This is what makes it close to being efficent.

You mentioned waits/lines - this a simple demonstation that your centrally planned system (that term used rather losely) is actually underproducing the healthcare services that are in demand. This is what makes it less efficent - theres excess demand for healthcare.

I'm 6 credits away from getting my economics diploma 😉

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

What is preventing them from going to a doctor?

The fact that people without insurance are charged 250% what someone with insurance is?
http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/111027786147520.xml?nnmed

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

They can't afford it. Try affording $300/month (for a healthy person) on minimum wage. If you're older and have pre-existing conditions, try affording $6000/month on any wage (and yes, I do have an older friend who found that as the lowest cost insurer.)

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: halik
funny i've never been called a conservative before 🙂

But on the subject, you seemed to argue that since bulk of the health care costs is paid by tthe private sector, the insurance companies can simply increase the prices which will result in higher overall cost. Somehow you tied that into being more efficent.

Efficency of distribution has nothign to do with how much the system costs. The cost is just is merely a function of demand for the services. In the US healthcare does take up some 14% of the GDP, but due to the fact that this amount is determined by the (mostly) free market. This is what makes it close to being efficent.

You mentioned waits/lines - this a simple demonstation that your centrally planned system (that term used rather losely) is actually underproducing the healthcare services that are in demand. This is what makes it less efficent - theres excess demand for healthcare.

I'm 6 credits away from getting my economics diploma 😉

When did i ever call you a conservative?

Also your perception of cheaper from free market forces is not completely correct. I mean i am a firm believer of economic principles but there MAY be some things not efficient for various reasons. Like insurance firms...there is a lot of fat there that may not be needed.

 

[charrison]

Universal health care is not the answer. When the goverment controls the healthcare money they control the rationing of services. I am not sure what the solution is, but this is not it.

linkage

More than 70 per cent of cancer patients are now having to wait beyond the recommended maximum of four weeks for radiotherapy, up from 32 per cent five years ago, the Sunday Times reports.

The paper also reports staff shortages mean many new machines are sitting in boxes waiting to be used.

The investigation also found waiting times from diagnosis to treatment have not improved for all the main cancers and patients continue to face a "postcode lottery" over the allocation of cancer fighting drugs.

Experts also say patients are facing long delays for scans and pathology tests necessary to determine how their cancer is best treated.

Commenting, one of the report's authors, Dr Maurice Slevin, told the Sunday Times: "Cancer care is in crisis but this is a solvable crisis if urgent and fundamental reform is introduced."

Over the last two years, the Department of Health has maintained that cancer survival rates are on the increase, following improvements to patient care.

But the Sunday Times says the latest estimates suggest that Britain still has one of the lowest survival rates in western Europe, with just 36 per cent of male cancer sufferers in the UK likely to survive beyond five year