why is universal health care a bad idea?

[OS]

I mean we all pay for the uninsured one way or another eventually. Plus many people my age (recent college grad) don't have health insurance (I don't). Wouldn't at least a basic level of universal insurance be a good idea?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: OS
I mean we all pay for the uninsured one way or another eventually. Plus many people my age (recent college grad) don't have health insurance (I don't). Wouldn't at least a basic level of universal insurance be a good idea?

Infinite demand combined with finite resources or limited willingness to pay for it always = a disaster waiting to happen.

Canada and England can, so far, afford to be smug about their socialized medical systems, but they won't for too much longer. The cost projections 10 years down the road are already beginning to worry some people in those countries who aren't so cavalier or trusting about where they are going to find the money to pay for it all, especially if you consider that any populace has a threshhold for taxation and both Canada and the UK are certainly approaching it.

Both countries have already began to ration or limit coverage, increase co-payments and deductibles, etc. There comes a point where you're no longer receiving more, but less, for the same dollar. This is a troubling road to go down when you're already paying 40% and 50% of your income in taxes before you even start down it.

So be smug, for now, all you want, my Canadian and British friends, we'll check-in on you in 10 or 15 years and see how you like your system then.

 

[Fencer128]

Infinite demand combined with finite resources or limited willingness to pay for it always = a disaster waiting to happen.

Surely that's finite demand. There are only so many people (as there is money). With regard to the fact that such a situation is always a disaster waiting to happen - I do not believe that. For instance, primary and secondary education is free and universally accessed by all growing children - but we still manage to pay for it.

Your right in that it's linked to taxation though. It depends wholly on how much you're willing to pay. That's not to say that there's some sort of "demon" level of taxation - just that you relaise what the cost has to be to get the universal services that you want/believe in.

In order to maintain a grip on it we have to be careful to avoid too much wage inflation. i.e. doctors should be paid a very good wage as they are doing a very skilled and important job - that doesn't mean that they should be paid n x 100,000 pounds a year though. I would like to make sure that the medical profession in the UK doesn't go the way of the legal profession - with over inflated prices being the norm among lawyers now. It only seeks to unfairly undermine the service that is provided (in my opinion) by right to all.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: OS
I mean we all pay for the uninsured one way or another eventually. Plus many people my age (recent college grad) don't have health insurance (I don't). Wouldn't at least a basic level of universal insurance be a good idea?

There is a lot of money in heath care to keep things as they are that's why.

Your average Doctor makes upwards of 150K and is a member of the powerful AMA lobby which also gives licensure to schools, and you bet they limit the supply. I don't think a new medical school has opened in 20 years.

Nurses and Pharmacists both exceed 70K a year and a PA more Nurse anasthesiolgist even more and and have thier lobbies.

Insurance Co. and HMO make a fortune off the system and they have every congressmans home phone.

Lawyers make a ton of money off the system as and thier lobby is very powerful.

Many reasons none relate to effectivness and saving.


Edit: And how exactly are you "one way or another" covered? Unless it's an emergency you won't get anything done and even then it will be substanderd minimal care though the emergency room with no follow up treatment. Root canal, no.

 

[tcsenter]

Surely that's finite demand. There are only so many people (as there is money). With regard to the fact that such a situation is always a disaster waiting to happen - I do not believe that. For instance, primary and secondary education is free and universally accessed by all growing children - but we still manage to pay for it.

Ok, well, nearly infinite demand.

There is only so much you can spend on education per child before people start going "wait a minute here, this is starting to get silly." Many of us have long since reached that point.

The often life-or-death nature of health care precludes the same 'built-in' limitations. People aren't going to say "you don't need that heart bypass or cancer treatment". There is not also likely to be any sort of 'advancements' in how you educate kids. Its still done the same way its always been done and will continue to be done that way until we find a way to 'beam' knowledge into heads.

Technology continually allows us to diagnose and treat more diseases and illnesses, but at the same time we aren't really 'curing' any of the old ones with cheap 'magic bullets'. This trend is not likely to end any time soon. With more people living longer, their bodies becoming no more durable, more and more people will continue to access the system for increasingly more procedures and treatments at public expense. The cost barrier concerns effectively removed, people will access the system even more so.

It is all of the downsides of third-party payer dynamics on people's attitude towards the cost of health care, but even worse. I cannot count on my fingers the number of times I've heard someone say things like "Who cares, I'm not paying for it, my insurance is." Or the 'entitlement' effects on those who feel they are entitled to access the system because they have 'paid' for it, even though they will never pay into the system remotely as much as they utilize it.

Not infinite demand, but infinitely increasing demand.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: OS
I mean we all pay for the uninsured one way or another eventually. Plus many people my age (recent college grad) don't have health insurance (I don't). Wouldn't at least a basic level of universal insurance be a good idea?

Infinite demand combined with finite resources or limited willingness to pay for it always = a disaster waiting to happen.

Canada and England can, so far, afford to be smug about their socialized medical systems, but they won't for too much longer. The cost projections 10 years down the road are already beginning to worry some people in those countries who aren't so cavalier or trusting about where they are going to find the money to pay for it all, especially if you consider that any populace has a threshhold for taxation and both Canada and the UK are certainly approaching it.

Both countries have already began to ration or limit coverage, increase co-payments and deductibles, etc. There comes a point where you're no longer receiving more, but less, for the same dollar. This is a troubling road to go down when you're already paying 40% and 50% of your income in taxes before you even start down it.

So be smug, for now, all you want, my Canadian and British friends, we'll check-in on you in 10 or 15 years and see how you like your system then.

Utter BS. The US spends some 15% of GDP on healthcare, Canada 10%, Britain even less. There are concerns over the rising cost(GDP related) to US healthcare at this time, before the Baby Boom generation bust. Canada and Britain are bracing for that same population phenomena, but they currently don't have the same cost problems as the US.

In 10-15 years the US system is more likely to crack.

 

[jeremy806]

Central planning never works for long.

As a recent college graduate, if you want insurance, go buy it. Private policies are available for young people and are not that expensive. ($50-$250/month depending on the coverage).

Jeremy806

 

[Fencer128]

The problem I have with private healthcare - even when I'm paying for it - is how much do I have to pay to get access to the best techinques/drugs currently available? I don't want to be paying $250/month and find that for a bit more I get better care. Especially when we're talking serious illnesses.

The poor may get mandatory healthcare - but that's no consalation if it's second rate and you're the one suffering.

Any idea how much - minimum - you have to pay to egt access to the best available?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Nitemare]

The way it works now is if you have a PPO or a great coverage you have no problems...will be expensive as hell but doable.

or

You have no health care coverage whatsoever and get free treatment..

else you get $hitted on

less than 8 years ago I was paying 5 dollars for any presicription that I needed filling..Now I am on the sell your organs to pay for it BCBS plan 15-25-35...needless to say there are no longer any more 15 dollar meds so that leaves only the 25 and 35 bucks ones of which 80% of the medicines are the higher priced name brand ones.

The last time I went to see a doctor was 10 for a copay, then approximately 120 bucks in medicine..all of which fit in a little bag.

I have a PPO right now and it is the most that I have ever paid. We do not need free health care, what we need is medical malpractice insurance reform as well as all this sueing when something happens as well as caps on lawsuits. The lawyers and legal system are causing rising health care prices.

If all healthcare was free I think the number of people on the dole(welfare recipients) would probably triple and our quality of health care would be abysmal. Have you ever been treated at a dispensary on a military base. The military gets free health care at onbase hospitals. One of my ex-gf's mom worked there and we visited her one day...You talk about a line..It was like a nightmare and oddly enough I did not see anyone who looked very sick or injured. I only go to a hospital when there is no other alternative. I do not want to wait behind 10 people suffering from the common cold, 5 people having headaches, 5 people that have superficial scratches and 2 legitimate patience simply because it is free.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jeremy806
Central planning never works for long.

As a recent college graduate, if you want insurance, go buy it. Private policies are available for young people and are not that expensive. ($50-$250/month depending on the coverage).

Jeremy806

Central Planning? Don't confuse Universal Healthcare with the Soviet Union.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
The problem I have with private healthcare - even when I'm paying for it - is how much do I have to pay to get access to the best techinques/drugs currently available? I don't want to be paying $250/month and find that for a bit more I get better care. Especially when we're talking serious illnesses.

The poor may get mandatory healthcare - but that's no consalation if it's second rate and you're the one suffering.

Any idea how much - minimum - you have to pay to egt access to the best available?

Cheers,

Andy

you have the wrong attitude. you're ALWAYS paying for it.

as for cost vs care, that is part of the reason HMOs sprang up. they are only contractually obliged to cover a subset of all available procedures, generally more well-known and lower cost ones, and in theory can pass the savings over to the people who purchase plans.

anyone know what a full-coverage health-insurance plan costs?

 

[OS]

ok, so completely free would be a bad idea because you have a lot of frivous visits. But what about government funded/provided insurance in which visitors pay per visit?

I'd imagine malpractice has a huge effect on health costs. In taiwan, health care is cheap relative to the US. But taiwan is not the litigous society that the US is. Apparently, it's hard to sue anyone for anything in taiwan.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: OS
ok, so completely free would be a bad idea because you have a lot of frivous visits. But what about government funded/provided insurance in which visitors pay per visit?

I'd imagine malpractice has a huge effect on health costs. In taiwan, health care is cheap relative to the US. But taiwan is not the litigous society that the US is. Apparently, it's hard to sue anyone for anything in taiwan.

that was why the co-pay was invented, to cut down on frivolous visits. doesn't eliminate them though.

frivolous malpractice is probably the biggest reasons for increasing health care costs.

 

[Vic]

I say that everyone has the right to free top-notch transportation! Everyone should get a brand-new car every year!

See how stupid that sounds? "Free" health care is the same thing. It is a product, not a right. A very, very expensive product at that. Not "free" at all.
And statements like "we all pay for the uninsured one way or another eventually" mean that we already have too much socialism in our health care system already. Less socialism will fix the system, not more.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Vic
I say that everyone has the right to free top-notch transportation! Everyone should get a brand-new car every year!

See how stupid that sounds? "Free" health care is the same thing. It is a product, not a right. A very, very expensive product at that. Not "free" at all.
And statements like "we all pay for the uninsured one way or another eventually" mean that we already have too much socialism in our health care system already. Less socialism will fix the system, not more.

It doesn't have to be "free top-notch", just merely adequate. Kind of like how public roads and buses are adequate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OS
It doesn't have to be "free top-notch", just merely adequate. Kind of like how public roads and buses are adequate.

Ah, but now you fall upon the biggest catch. How would a universal health care program be funded? In the US (and most everywhere I imagine), public roads and buses are funded almost entirely by gas taxes, tolls, fares, and vehicle license fees. In short, only those who actually use the system have to pay for it, so most everyone thinks that it's fair. With a universal health care system, the burden of paying for it falls upon those who are least likely to use the system, i.e. those who can already afford private health care. So, in effect, the whole thing is just another welfare program, giving a service to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves, paid for by those who can and do.
My motto in life is that if you want something, earn it. Otherwise, STFU.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Medicaid is jointly funded by the state and feds. It is typically the 1st or 2nd largest expenditure for most states ranging from 15-20% of the state budget. Block granting was a federal attempt to wean the states off the federal nipple. It has not worked and many states are being further crippled by Medicare overflow.

Medicare (over 65) is fully federally funded but provides more spartan services compared to Medicaid. People who are poor AND elderly qualify for both. The elderly consume 20% of all Medicaid funding and 100% of Medicare. Arguably this population is quite finite but consume a tremendous amount of resources. I'm not implying cutting the old birds off . . . but it is essentially a system of poorly administered universal care. Medicaid has relatively low overhead (typically less than half private insurance) but covering the poor and the elderly poor warps the system.

Universal healthcare is an excellent idea if the emphasis is preventative care/health maintenance. Annual health maintenance examinations, eye care, dental care, and practical medication subsidies lead to a healthier society . . . which is much cheaper than providing emergency care. Of course, you encourage healthy lifestyles by developing tiers. A basic tier is available to everyone but appropriate lifestyles are subsidized. Every corporation currently offering health insurance could drop their policies b/c all Americans have reasonable coverage.

Granted, private health insurance companies will be destroyed but they were nothing more than an expense in the system anyway. Drug companies will take it on the chin b/c government will mandate lower prices for medications. This outcome will not significantly affect useful drug development b/c the majority of all drugs released to market in the past decade are either modifications of an existing agent (slow acting/sustained release) or a "me too" preparation (every drug company MUST have an antipsychotic, antidepressant, ACE inhibitor, anti-diabetic agent, and a statin b/c that's where the money is).

As part of universal care, the government also institutes tort reform and systematic reviews of care utilization (currently performed by the Agency for Health Care Research & Quality but apparently politicians cannot read). Tort is another element which increases the expense of healthcare without a proportional benefit in improving quality of care. Systematic reviews are necessary to stop abuses such as building two positron emission tomography scanners (PET) within 15 miles of one another to serve a population of less than 600,000. Our current system is rife with waste . . . more socialization NOT less is the answer to providing better care for the vast majority than providing elite care for a few and incidental care for most.

 

[Michael]

I would like everyone to record this day in history as I pretty much agree with BabyBaliDoc on this topic.

The savings in the waste that exists in using private insurance companies alone would add significant resources.

However, this would be a major change to the way it is run in the US now. If it was run by the government, then I bet it would get screwed up and cause huge problems.

Michael

 

[Vic]

The other problem with a universal health care system controlled by the government, especially one focused on preventative medicine, is that the overwhelming cost of it all would lead to the worst form of authoritarian tyranny possible. Anything that could possibly be harmful to the body would be outlawed in the name of cutting health care costs. Whole lives would be monitored and recorded. Dangerous sports and recreations would be outlawed. It's the only logical conclusion.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The other problem with a universal health care system controlled by the government, especially one focused on preventative medicine, is that the overwhelming cost of it all would lead to the worst form of authoritarian tyranny possible. Anything that could possibly be harmful to the body would be outlawed in the name of cutting health care costs. Whole lives would be monitored and recorded. Dangerous sports and recreations would be outlawed. It's the only logical conclusion.

The only logical conclusion . . . been reading Swift, eh?

The government should not outlaw unhealthy behaviors but society should NOT be required to subsidize it. Smoke to your heart's content, eat at Mickey Ds, drink like a fish, ride your motorcycle without a helmet, and have unprotected sex with everyone you meet. The government will not know b/c such micromanagement would make the system untenable . . . but your doctor will know. She will code your chart appropriately and the government will place you in the appropriate rock bottom tier. In essence, you will pay for your behavior. If I had the power I would institute such a system right now in Medicaid and Medicare . . . people without any concern for changing their expensive behaviors should shoulder the costs for said behavior.

If you have platinum level private insurance but behave anything like the hypothetical above . . . you are always being subsidized. Within your plan, the insurer charges everybody more to make up the cost of your care. The facilities contracted by your insurer will charge uninsured people more (granted many don't pay) b/c your insurer typically negotiates rates. The facilities will then write off more expenses to pay less taxes and/or they will ask the government for increased funding for "unrecoverable" costs.

 

[Vic]

Good luck with that idea. Universal Health Care is a system that will be so expensive that everyone will have to pay into it. Otherwise it will not work. No one will be allowed to be exempted.
The funny thing is that you are already wrong, BaliBabyDoc. As health care has become more socialized and thus more expensive, it is already being used as an argument against people who "smoke to (their) heart's content, eat at Mickey Ds, drink like a fish, ride (their) motorcycle without a helmet, and have unprotected sex with everyone (they) meet." Suddenly switching to full-blown socialist universal health care is not going to reverse that tide and bring back freedoms and choice. Quite the opposite.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

We can easily expend less than 15% of GDP on healthcare and cover everyone. By your assessment that may be expensive but it would still be cheaper than the current system. Everyone already pays into the current system by one method or another. 2.25% of FICA goes to pay direct and indirect medical education costs to teaching hospitals.

The majority of Americans with private insurance get it from their employer . . . many of which have shifted costs to employees as the expense has increased. Now Big Blue and the Blue Oval will NOT get to keep the money they currently pay to insurers (gubment gets it) BUT they will dramatically reduce their costs in the human resources division. I imagine that's over a thousand employees for each company.

I'm sure there will be a market for 'platinum and diamonds' insurance but few people could afford that anyway. Most people with those kinds of resources are self-insured ala Warren Buffet.

People participate in various unhealthy behaviors b/c they can and they often face no financial consequence for doing so. Well, as a married male, in good health with great health behaviors I will pay less than half the premium of a person with comparable income but abominable behaviors. If quitting smoking or losing 10 lbs saves you a wad of cash each month I imagine you will see significant behavioral change. And unlike your supposition on socialization of medicine and the expense of medicine . . . my example is actually causal NOT just correlative.

If it wasn't for FDR (SS) and Nixon (Medicare) . . . our elders would be living a starkly different lifestyle. The explosion in costs for both has less to do with socialization and more to do with poor design, duplicitous elected officials, and various public and private industries which feed at this bottomless trough.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Universal healthcare is an excellent idea if the emphasis is preventative care/health maintenance. Annual health maintenance examinations, eye care, dental care, and practical medication subsidies lead to a healthier society . . . which is much cheaper than providing emergency care. Of course, you encourage healthy lifestyles by developing tiers. A basic tier is available to everyone but appropriate lifestyles are subsidized. Every corporation currently offering health insurance could drop their policies b/c all Americans have reasonable coverage.

HDJ1 - did you forward my PM from the other evening to BBD?

I like Micheal am shocked that BBD and I agree on this subject, infact I added some things that BBD didn't list. BASIC heath care is already provided those less fortunate but I think a plan such as this would be cheaper overall and work to create a healthier society on the whole.

Here is what I "suggest" - even though I don't like the idea of Universal health care

"I wouldn't be opposed to a base level of coverage for people. The basics (for people over ~5yrs old)being yearly or bi-yearly: doctor visits, a dental check-up, and an eye exam. That would give preventative care a boost which would hopefully ward off more expensive trips later. Now, lets talk about the kids under 5. Dental and eye visits would probably be the same, but doctor visits for kids are much more frequent due to shots and etc. So we would cover those scheduled visits and the cost of the vacinations. This would give ALL kids an opportunity to get a good healthy start to life. Now for the old people We already have medicare and medicade. If we go the national health care route - we'd need to dispose of those and then incorporate special "senior care" items, such as more frequent check-ups, and probably cover some of the cost of "old people problems" like arthritis, glaucoma, osteperosis." -me

Now the only "problem" is how we as a nation are going to pay for this sort of thing and unfortunately that is where the corruption comes in. Also, this would be basic "coverage" and anything over that would still be privatized as it is currently.

I haven't totally thought the rest through - like perscriptions, or special needs type coverages that would need to be worked out, but I think it would be a fair plan and could/would be utilized by every citizen in the US.

CkG

<- goes off to hug a tree in shame

 

[Zebo]

Vic

My motto in life is that if you want something, earn it. Otherwise, STFU.

I hope you truley live by that motto, otherwise you're a hippocritter, as most Repunks are. Never taken a pell grant? Never taken a loan- of anykind-guranteed by governmnet? I hope you don't carry heath insurance either because that's just a collective distribution of risk and payments for the few who actually use it. Sounds too much like communism to me. And the pricks at my work won't re-imburse me for the full amount if I opt out Fusken thieves.
Are you entiled to police protection as a minor when you did'nt pay property tax, you should'nt have, cause you sure did'nt "earn" it. Well you get the idea. No one is that benign.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OS
It doesn't have to be "free top-notch", just merely adequate. Kind of like how public roads and buses are adequate.

Ah, but now you fall upon the biggest catch. How would a universal health care program be funded? In the US (and most everywhere I imagine), public roads and buses are funded almost entirely by gas taxes, tolls, fares, and vehicle license fees. In short, only those who actually use the system have to pay for it, so most everyone thinks that it's fair. With a universal health care system, the burden of paying for it falls upon those who are least likely to use the system, i.e. those who can already afford private health care. So, in effect, the whole thing is just another welfare program, giving a service to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves, paid for by those who can and do.
My motto in life is that if you want something, earn it. Otherwise, STFU.

Part of the outrageous hospital bills we pay today are also because the hospital has to pay for emergency services for the uninsured.

Let's say someone came in on ambulance who just had a heart attack (heart disease is the #1 killer of americans). He has no insurance. Basically everyone who has ever had insurance ends up paying for him anyway and all the services are expensive ones, intense care, surgery, etc. The total cost would be thousands of dollars, indirectly paid for by the insured anyways.

Now, if he had basic medical coverage, wouldn't society have been better off if he had instead gotten cholesterol tests for the last 10 years and feedback that he should change his lifestyle? Most people don't want to die an early death. Wouldn't that have been cheaper to society in the end?