why is universal health care a bad idea?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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.

Not really, a base level preventative system that I layed out (which is similar to BBD's) would not really be "controlled" by the gov't, but rather "guided" The gov't would really only be "rationing"(bad wording but I couldn't think of a better one ) out the "free" scheduled trips to the doctor for yearly check-ups, etc. Any other use of the health system would stay the same - you need surgery? you need insurance or you have to pay it all yourself - the gov't wouldn't pay for it - need a tooth pulled? - get your checkbook. Only check-ups and pediatric growth visits would be covered. Now ofcourse figuring out what kind of "preventative care" seniors need and what should and shouldn't be covered might get a tad tricky.

Oh well, I tried

My only real reservation is that once the gov't gets it's grubby paws on it...how long will it take for them to try to take the rest of it over. So you see - I'm conflicted. The "logical" side of me says "the gov't takes and take and take" since that is all they've done for years, but the "idealist" side of me says "why not give our kids a decent start to life".

I'm sorry my fellow fascist, bible thumping, liberal hating, gun toting, right-wing conservative Republican freinds - I'm sorry if you feel that I have betrayed you on this subject.

CkG

 

[Mursilis]

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?

Unfortunately, I don't think preventive medicine would do much to counter Americans' current unhealthy trends. My mother is a registered dietician, and every day she deals with people who are extremely reluctant to modify their behavior, despite the fact it is clearly killing them. You'd think being told you could lose a limb or go blind (consequences of severe unchecked diabetes) would cause people to change, but many don't. Heck, I worked in a hospital cafeteria for three years, and I was shocked at the poor eating/health habits of doctors and nurses - people you'd think would know better.

I certainly favor BaliBabyDoc's idea of charging people with unhealthy lifestyles more $$ for coverage, but I don't think we'd ever see such a system. After all, this is America, and we'll just victims of the tobacco companies, McDonald's, advertisers, blah, blah, blah. :disgust:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
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.

Sigh... how to address this? Nope. Nope. Kaiser, in fact, what my work provides. I dislike their system (terrible doctors who never seem to listen to you) but like all private insurance, it's collective, not communist - big difference which you should know better. Private health insurance really is no different than car, home, or life insurance. Good things to have, IMO, as long as they are privately-owned and voluntarily purchased. Government owned and mandated is a big, big difference. If you can't see it...
As a minor, my parents paid property tax, so in a way I did "earn" it. However, I personally believe that minors don't have to "earn" it, they can have a free ride if they need one. It's possibly the only bit of liberalism left in me. Their parents, on the other hand....

 

[Michael]

Vic - I use Kaiser (SF Bay area) and my wife is an MD. I find them much better than the PPO's I've used in the past. Mind you, they're a little bit like the Canadian model I'm used to. I find their care for kids and flexibility to work in an appointment when someone gets sick to be very good.

I also find they focus more on preventative medicine than the other MDs I've seen in the US.

They also appear to be much more financially secure and have raised their rates much less than other providers.

Michael

 

[dnoyeb]

I am not rich, but working class. Today I am prepared to pay money from my pockets to help my American brothers and sisters get quality health care.

I believe every American would feel as I do if they were not already paying so much money in taxes. And I think If Americans could have faith that their tax dollars were all doing something wonderful like providing for the health of others, they too would be happy.

But Americans are frustrated at their tax dollars being wasted on garbage like space toilets, and congressional limosines. So Americans are reluctant to give any more money till they are satisfied what they currently give is being used efficiently.

To get Americans money you need to scare it out of them...


I think BlueCrossBlueShield is a government funded private health insurance company. (That our governor tried to kill just a few years ago...) This is the way to go. Not goverment programs, but government funded private programs, that are essentially non-profit, but pay their employees like any other company. This should be the best of all worlds. No government waste pork, and the agressiveness of an ordinary company.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I must agree that Kaiser is arguably the best of the bag of witches. Unfortunately, it was Kaiser's frugal nature that prompted UCSF and Stanford to attempt a merger of operations in the late 90s.

Although the Blues started as government subsidized insurance agencies many have gone private if not private, for profit. Curiously, very few offered to return the billions they've received in tax subsidies. Regardless of status, these companies do not provide a service other than a third party payer system funded by taxpayers. If we are going to retain such a model then Blues or Kaiser Light is the way to go. The government should NOT run healthcare per se b/c it may very well be run into the ground. By the same token, only a deprave nation would let children go without dental care while health insurance CEOs collect 7-figure salaries.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: dnoyeb


I think BlueCrossBlueShield is a government funded private health insurance company. (That our governor tried to kill just a few years ago...) This is the way to go. Not goverment programs, but government funded private programs, that are essentially non-profit, but pay their employees like any other company. This should be the best of all worlds. No government waste pork, and the agressiveness of an ordinary company.

No, nationally, Blue Cross Blue Shield is a trade association. Essentially, they "franchise" health insurance organizations on a state by state (or other area) basis. There is no government funding or specific control. State BC organizations are independent. I have no idea what went on in your state. BC/BS is, in many states a "Mutual Legal Reserve" company like many other insurance companies. They make a profit, pay federal taxes, etc.

To understand the real cost of medical insurance, look at the various BC/BS programs. There is usually a "catastrophic" plan. You may have a deductable of $1000 to $2000 per person and a 30% copay up to an out of pocket limit of $10,000 to $20,000. In return you get very low premiums. If you take some responsibility for staying safe and healthy and paying your "run of the mill" expenses, you can avoid the high costs you read about.

 

[heartsurgeon]

many people my age (recent college grad) don't have health insurance

why not? not important enough?, not a priority?, don't have the money? why don't you take out a loan to buy some?

are you willing to have your taxes go up up up to pay for it?

geez, when are you kids gonna learn?? SOMEBODY has to pay for all this stuff. the constitution doesn't guarantee you health insurance, it doesn't guarantee you a porsche,
it doesn't even guarantee you a job..

and that is the rub..what is important to me (i pay for insurance) isn't the same importance to you (or else you would do what ever it takes to get/have health insurance).

you want someone else to pay for your health insurance..o.k., who?, how much?

what if the seniors (you know, those retired folks who already have medicare)
outvote you and say screw you and your health insurance, we want free drug benefits first.
well, your not gonna get squat.

everything is politics my friend - there is no right or wrong..
you get enough recent college grads to vote, make political contributions, and
form a lobbyist group (like AARP), and maybe you'll get some "free" health insurance, but i doubt
that your age group has the political clout to make it happen.

 

[Syringer]

Can someone explain why a system like the UK's or Canada's wouldn't work over here?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Can someone explain why a system like the UK's or Canada's wouldn't work over here?

Ultimately you have to reduce the number of mouths at the troughs. You have the providers (a multitude of healthcare professionals, hospitals, specialty care centers) and then you have the leeches (HMO, PPO, other insurance models, state/federal Medicare/Medicaid infrastructure). Whole industries would disappear. It is unlikely such powerful constituencies would go down without a vicious fight. Any plan which retained the insurance model would INCREASE costs and make universal coverage prohibitively expensive. In essence, our society would choose between jobs (for said industries) and universal coverage.

Some doctors are overpaid while waiting time for dermatology, urology, neurosurgery, endocrincology, and child psychiatry can be several months. We have a horrible mismatch of supply and demand which will require central planning to correct.

Many necessary modifications in the current system of care will attract charges of socialism and communism. Unless people of unimpeachable character stand up for reform it will not happen. The notion of shared sacrifice is vital to reform. In particular, providers MUST accept wage controls if not wage reductions depending on the type of care they provide.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

In summary, everyone would have to be willing to look out for their fellow man instead of self interest, there's hundreds of billions of dollars at stake every year, and politicians would have to lead the way. Three reasons why UK/Canadian style healthcare will not come to America (outside of Tricare/Medicare/Medicaid) anytime soon.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Can someone explain why a system like the UK's or Canada's wouldn't work over here?

Ultimately you have to reduce the number of mouths at the troughs. You have the providers (a multitude of healthcare professionals, hospitals, specialty care centers) and then you have the leeches (HMO, PPO, other insurance models, state/federal Medicare/Medicaid infrastructure). Whole industries would disappear. It is unlikely such powerful constituencies would go down without a vicious fight. Any plan which retained the insurance model would INCREASE costs and make universal coverage prohibitively expensive. In essence, our society would choose between jobs (for said industries) and universal coverage.

Some doctors are overpaid while waiting time for dermatology, urology, neurosurgery, endocrincology, and child psychiatry can be several months. We have a horrible mismatch of supply and demand which will require central planning to correct.

Many necessary modifications in the current system of care will attract charges of socialism and communism. Unless people of unimpeachable character stand up for reform it will not happen. The notion of shared sacrifice is vital to reform. In particular, providers MUST accept wage controls if not wage reductions depending on the type of care they provide.

That's bascially what I was tring to say...But don't have such a way with words.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Ultimately you have to reduce the number of mouths at the troughs. You have the providers (a multitude of healthcare professionals, hospitals, specialty care centers) and then you have the leeches (HMO, PPO, other insurance models, state/federal Medicare/Medicaid infrastructure). Whole industries would disappear. It is unlikely such powerful constituencies would go down without a vicious fight. Any plan which retained the insurance model would INCREASE costs and make universal coverage prohibitively expensive. In essence, our society would choose between jobs (for said industries) and universal coverage.

Some doctors are overpaid while waiting time for dermatology, urology, neurosurgery, endocrincology, and child psychiatry can be several months. We have a horrible mismatch of supply and demand which will require central planning to correct.

Many necessary modifications in the current system of care will attract charges of socialism and communism. Unless people of unimpeachable character stand up for reform it will not happen. The notion of shared sacrifice is vital to reform. In particular, providers MUST accept wage controls if not wage reductions depending on the type of care they provide.

heh, sounds like the US health care system is horribly broken.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: 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.

Nah, it is just one reason, the biggest reasons for the fast increasing healthcare costs (here with mandatory healthcare, in order of magnitude): Lobbies of pharma multis, demographics, lobbies of the doctors

The pharma-multis keep the prices for medicine artificially high to their and the pharmacists benefit. Actually because of that, pharmacies made it into general language: When something is extremely expensive (overpriced) it is called to have "pharmacies prices"...

Of course the aging of the poulation does contribute alot to the rising health care costs too - maybe even more than the pharma lobbies.

btw general health care is certainly not a bad idea - I dont think I could bear to live in a society as ours but health care would depend on how much u can make. That would be the most cruel and evil society. "Oh sorry you dont have much money - well I cant help you - you have to die." Especially considering the general wealth of our countries... - oh no worries here this would never happen anyway...

Ouestions: Do doctors in the US swear the hippocratic oath? If so, what do they do when someone without Healthinsurance is heavily injured - lets say in a trafffic accident - do US doctors let the ppl die, because they couldn't afford the treatment - would they be allowed to practice as doctor outside the US (Here, a doctor has to do anything in his might to safe a persons life - regardless of income or not)?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ouestions: Do doctors in the US swear the hippocratic oath? If so, what do they do when someone without Healthinsurance is heavily injured - lets say in a trafffic accident - do US doctors let the ppl die, because they couldn't afford the treatment - would they be allowed to practice as doctor outside the US (Here, a doctor has to do anything in his might to safe a persons life - regardless of income or not)?

I believe the majority of US med schools use the Hippocratic Oath . . . ceremonially. I skipped my graduation but I do not believe in oaths, anyway. The typical MVC (motor vehicle crash) shows up in the ED and will be treated regardless of health insurance status. People with life threatening injuries/disease are not treated differently. The differential in care develops based on the amount of followup you need.

Now if you stroll into the ED complaining about aches, pains, or any other non-emergent issue . . . the typical private hospital can legally deny service if you cannot render payment. Most public hospitals have ambulatory care (minor ED) care which typically means fevers, bumps/bruises, minor broken bones, etc. Appropriate care is provided and you are billed for services rendered.

It's not like people with insurance get warm blankets and Tylenol with codeine while the non-insured get a cot and aspirin.

For the typical private practice physician, the government has made pro bono, Medicaid, and Medicare bothersome. Very few people die presenting with acute illness b/c there is a legal requirement for all physicians to provide appropriate care for patients under their care (even if the sorry bastard is driving a new car but hasn't paid a bill in months). Granted, if you show up at a doctor's office with an MI she will ask why you didn't call an ambulance . . . b/c that's typically they would do . . . other than give you some morphine, oxygen, nitro, and aspirin.

The problem is the person with chronic high blood pressure or diabetes that doesn't have a primary care physician, insurance, and/or money to buy meds. They wait until they are really sick . . . and then they show up in the ED . . . which is the absolute WORST place for anyone with a chronic medical condition and the MOST expensive method of providing care.

 

[Vic]

Anyone ever read Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences by Edward Tenner? Interesting book. It has a few chapters on modern medical technology, and provides a couple of eye-opening facts. For example, did you know that fatalities from infectious diseases (syphillus, plague, flu, polio, smallpox, etc) had already decreased as much as 92% before their cures (vaccines, antibiotics, etc.) had been discovered? Many scholars have attempted to tackle the issue of why that happened and, believe it or not, education is the best guess. For some unknown reason, people who have received an education tend to be healthier, even in the absence of modern medical science. So if we cut education programs to fund universal health care, what have we done?
Of interesting study is why we are "doing better but feel worse." As doctors have tackled most acute medical problems, long-term chronic problems have become a serious issue with skyrocketing costs.
But are they real? (this is not from the book above) Studies from the '60s discovered that depression and anxiety generally originated from a lack of physical fitness. Anxiety in particular. It seems that exercise releases chemicals into the brain that makes people feel happy and healthy. In addition, being in better physical health tends to make people feel more in control of their lives and more positive about their abilities. But in today's Prozac and Xanex big business, do you ever hear about that? No. You hear, these people have a chronic illness, but all they have to do is take an expensive pill and they'll feel better.
And as we move towards socializing the entire massive medical industry, it is that which concerns me. Are we helping people to actually be healthier, or are we subsidizing pharmaceutials? Do today's doctors really treat people anymore, or are they drug and medical technology salesmen? Something to consider.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

this is not from the book above) Studies from the '60s discovered that depression and anxiety generally originated from a lack of physical fitness. Anxiety in particular. It seems that exercise releases chemicals into the brain that makes people feel happy and healthy. In addition, being in better physical health tends to make people feel more in control of their lives and more positive about their abilities. But in today's Prozac and Xanex big business, do you ever hear about that? No. You hear, these people have a chronic illness, but all they have to do is take an expensive pill and they'll feel better.

Studies from the 60s (albeit not unopposed) were also implying cigarettes were not particularly harmful, asbestos had no substanial health risk, DES was a good drug for morning sickness (causes birth defects), estrogen supplementation might improve women's quality of life . . . should I go on.

No authority refutes that people feel better when they get regular exercise. The studies (that you don't quite cite) imply causation based on how you have used them but were more likely ecological studies that merely demonstrated correlation. Exercise does not cure depression or anxiety but it does wonders for low grade dysthymia (being in a funk). Anxiety is not a single entity . . . there are several disorders which fit in the anxiety family (social phobia, specific phobias, panic, agoraphobia, OCD, PTSD, acute stress disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder). But you know what . . . I bet vets from 'Nam would be A-OK if they hit the gym more often.

You prove the point that a little information is dangerous.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And from your author's Amazon synopsis . . .

The indiscriminate use of antibiotics, by way of example, has yielded hardier strains of bacteria and viruses that do not respond to pharmaceutical treatment; the wide-scale use of air conditioning in cities has raised the outdoor temperature in some places by as much as 10 degrees, adding stress to already-taxed cooling systems;

Yeah . . . I never knew viruses were becoming hardier due to antibiotics . . . now some are becoming resistant to antivirals (AZT, acyclovir) but those drugs are necessary therapies when used. Apparently your author doesn't know physicians in America (and more so in Europe) have dramatically reduced inappropriate antibiotic use . . . although we still need to do better.

Does this guy have a degree in anything . . . it certainly isn't science if he doesn't realize the heat being moved around via A/C is inconsequential compared to the heat capacity of the environment. Now greenhouse effects are a different story . . .

 

[Vic]

Google is your friend

edit: for those who don't feel like clicking - it looks like Edward Tenner has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, is (or has been) a professor at Princeton, and has on at least one occassion spoken before Congress.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I have heard no critic of high-tech medicine demand a return to the conditions of 1977 or 1957, yet the devices and practices (like disposable rather than reused equipment) that have made intervention more effective and safer have also made it costlier. Physicians and surgeons need more training to use more sophisticated equipment because more vigilance and care are needed. As one legal expert observed, malpractice suits exploded only after doctors began to cure diseases in the late nineteenth century and higher standards of care were established.

This excerpt is a lot more reasoned than the BS you posted . . .

Amazon makes him sound like a quack

Times Higher Education Supplement paints a different picture

Maybe you should actually read links before you post . . . you made the tragic error of referencing something you do not understand . . . public health impact of vaccinations/drug intervention . . . to a political point . . . universal health care expenditures.

Smallpox, bubonic plague, polio, and influenza have very distinctive natural histories. The introduction of vaccines and treatments have varied effects on organisms based on application. 100% compliance with appropriate antibiotic regimens produces negligible mutation pressures on an organism while curing virtually all cases. 90% compliance produces an increase in resistance and decrease in cure rate. Significant resistance develops (for most bacteria) when compliance falls into the 60s. If you do not know how particular drugs are being used, any conclusions you draw are just speculative . . . and if you lack training in bacteriology or medicine . . . it is likely to be poor speculation.

The only reasonable part of your post was 'indiscriminant use of antibiotics has produced significant problems with regards to drug resistant BACTERIA and it has increased the cost of care (from Tenner's Congressional testimony)'. The former is absolutely correct the latter is a big maybe. Unless Dr. Tenner has done an analysis of all hospitalizations avoided by outpatient antibiotic therapy/vaccination plus days of lost employment . . . his conclusion as to total cost of care is specious at best.

Education is correlated with quality of health independent of modern medicine? If I had to guess, I imagine the people plowing fields, slaughtering cattle, chopping trees, and spreading manure over crops probably had PhDs.

 

[n0cmonkey]

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?

Get a job. Get your own health care. Problem solved.

 

[Vic]

Actually, BaliBabyDoc, I did read my links (the Amazon was just a link to the book for those who might wish to buy it, nothing more) and I've actually read the book. It was you who missed my point, which was that modern medicine is a technology like another, and unpredictable like any other... which, btw, is the actual point of the author throughout the book and in many fields. We do not know everything, nor will we know every outcome. You do not know what will work and what will not work, you can only make an educated guess. So get off your high-horse, get to work, and quit trying to have your job socialized into permanency.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You said this drivel . . . which you attributed to Tenner . . .

For example, did you know that fatalities from infectious diseases (syphillus, plague, flu, polio, smallpox, etc) had already decreased as much as 92% before their cures (vaccines, antibiotics, etc.) had been discovered?

I corrected you by noting ANYONE who would lump such illnesses together and then make a conclusion based on multiple modes of intervention (vaccination/antibiotics) outside the context of the natural history of these diseases or other factors (sanitation) was operating way outside their base of useful knowledge.

The general concept that indiscriminant use of technology WILL have unintended outcomes is as plain as can be. No reputable scientist would ever contend that technology is inherently good. It was Einstein that said, "if we knew what we were doing we wouldn't call it research." Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are choices NOT inevitable consequences.

Face facts you used a bad example. The cholera developing in southern Iraq is not a function of technology. It is a function of a deteriorating infrastructure. If you provide potable water cholera cases dramatically fall. If you provide improved water treatment cholera falls. If you improve sanitation cholera falls. Those interventions (which feature a host of high and low tech solutions) are the MOST efficacious and cheapest interventions . . . as is often the case with prevention. Once people have cholera there will be essentially a 100% survival rate if you can maintain hydration . . . if you cannot the young, old, and otherwise ill are the primary fatalities. Although we have antibiotics which can kill vibrio cholerae it is almost NEVER used b/c it does not significantly affect the course of illness. There are several groups working on cholera vaccines b/c some areas have endemic cholera and others develop epidemics. There was one vaccine licensed for use in America but it was discontinued b/c most Americans traveling to endemic areas have access to potable water . . . and the vaccine sucked.

Polio is a progressive, self limiting disease that has no cure. Once we realized people were dying of respiratory failure they were treated with iron lungs to sustain them until they could breathe on their own. Once we discovered polio was water borne primary infection controlled focused on reducing exposure. These interventions dramatically decreased fatalities from polio. Vaccination prevented people from contracting polio. It is almost always cheaper and more effective to prevent disease than treat it. Effective interventions for most infectious diseases (ID) are biased towards public health NOT pharmacology.

Bubonic plague was controlled by the natural history and public health interventions. The natural history included a rapidly progressive disease with visible symptoms and epidemiology indicative of vermin hosts. The interventions were to quarantine the affected, clean up the streets, and terminate the vermin. Hence, fatalities had greatly subsided BEFORE any medical intervention was available. The plague killed millions over the centuries. WHO currently reports annual worldwide incidence of 1000-3000 cases. What do you get when you make that your numerator?

You do not know what will work and what will not work, you can only make an educated guess. So get off your high-horse, get to work, and quit trying to have your job socialized into permanency.

It depends on the question. There are always unknown factors and occasionally unknowable ones but best-evidence will lead to success more often than failure. Good (intelligent, moral, skeptical) science typically leads to better answers. I do not have a job. I chose medicine b/c I want to be a lifetime learner. There's always more to know than I will ever master. As long as people keep having babies and developing illnesses of the mind I will have plenty of work. My goal is to have less work by preventing illness . . . the best way to prevent illness is to promote health. Our current system does an abominable job of promoting health. If I thought private companies were doing a good job (Kaiser, notwithstanding) I would support a system which emphasized their use. Instead private companies divert money from healthcare to support their infrastructure, shareholders, etc.

 

[datalink7]

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

And many cannot even afford $50 a month (I sure can't on a regular basis).

*note that I am not advocating for or against national health care, just responding to this one post.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: datalink7

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

And many cannot even afford $50 a month (I sure can't on a regular basis).

*note that I am not advocating for or against national health care, just responding to this one post.

and why not? i'm sure that if you wanted to you could find $50 a month but its not worth whatever you'd have to give up to get that insurance coverage. so let someone else pay for it? thats ridiculous.