Can the US afford socialized medicine?

[Troublemane]

Why would you want to?

The critical element of universal health care is putting the health insurance in government hands. Beyond that, deciding whether healthcare delivery should be public as well is, IMO, a separate matter. Some countries have said "yes" and some have said "no". In the case of the US, I think it'd be silly to dismantle your infrastructure of private hospitals and clinics. I'm not saying they're perfect, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Absolutely. I still think the best idea I have heard is to remove the profit motive by simply making all insurance companies non-profit. They'd be tax exempt, but they would not be allowed to use the money from premiums for anything else besides paying medical costs.

No money to lobbyists, no money going into hedge funds, no investment in stocks or real estate, nothing but what it is supposed to go to. And in return for the companies going no profit, the government will also have to (1) ease restrictions and regulation so that doctors will have more freedom to proscribe treatment (but wont be getting kickbacks from drug companies anymore, if drug companies are also non profit), and (2) make insurance policies available across state borders, so people can shop for the best insurance policies regardless of where they live.

Why is letting the government the best option? Has anyone else noticed...they seem to be totally incapable of accomplishing anything, even when they have a super-majority?

 

[Autodidact]

Sure, lets model ourselves after a country with little regard for human rights, where health and safety and property rights are meaningless, where the government dictates to its people their rights to reproduce. Sounds fantastic.

And on the other hand, Sweden. It pretty much works across the board.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absolutely. I still think the best idea I have heard is to remove the profit motive by simply making all insurance companies non-profit. They'd be tax exempt, but they would not be allowed to use the money from premiums for anything else besides paying medical costs.

How would that work, exactly? Insurance companies do have shareholders.

IMO, the only way I can see to make that happen is to bring the insurance companies under state control, which is the thing you said you wanted to avoid.

But just expanding on your thought, what's preventing someone from setting up a health insurance company as a co-operative? Just make an insurance company that's customer-owned (with strict limits on how many shares any one person can own), and the whole profit/non-profit issue would sort itself out. If it's successful, it would grow or be copied. Hmm.

No money to lobbyists, no money going into hedge funds, no investment in stocks or real estate, nothing but what it is supposed to go to. And in return for the companies going no profit, the government will also have to (1) ease restrictions and regulation so that doctors will have more freedom to proscribe treatment (but wont be getting kickbacks from drug companies anymore, if drug companies are also non profit), and (2) make insurance policies available across state borders, so people can shop for the best insurance policies regardless of where they live.

How does any of this relate to the issue of universal health insurance?

 

[Troublemane]

Im just throwing out an alternative to a directly controlled federal system, which would no doubt be a massive burden through increased bureacracy and taxation. perhaps if we defunded haliburton, we could afford to do something like that, but until washington grows some ca-honies...

What I am proposing is not a universal healthcare system. by keeping healthcare private we'd keep the burden of cost off the public, and at the same time making it nonprofit remove the incentive for stockholders to hire experts who do nothing but try to get out of paying for people's medical bills. PLUS, prevent banks who also invest in risky mortgage swaps from covering their losses by moving money from their insurance division.:trampo:

 

[Troublemane]

And on the other hand, Sweden. It pretty much works across the board.

hmm, ill have to take your word on that. not familiar with sweden's system.

they do make great meatballs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Im just throwing out an alternative to a directly controlled federal system, which would no doubt be a massive burden through increased bureacracy and taxation.

How about a directly controlled state-level system? Seems to work for Hawai'i.

What I am proposing is not a universal healthcare system. by keeping healthcare private we'd keep the burden of cost off the public, and at the same time making it nonprofit remove the incentive for stockholders to hire experts who do nothing but try to get out of paying for people's medical bills. PLUS, prevent banks who also invest in risky mortgage swaps from covering their losses by moving money from their insurance division.:trampo:

The public will bear the burden no matter what. The taxpayers and the health insurance customers are the same group of people.

Here's the problem I have with what you suggest: if you make this private company non-profit, where does the stockholders' incentive to own shares in the first place come from?

 

[Magic Man]

Im just throwing out an alternative to a directly controlled federal system, which would no doubt be a massive burden through increased bureacracy and taxation. perhaps if we defunded haliburton, we could afford to do something like that, but until washington grows some ca-honies...

Why would it be a massive burden? It could be much, much cheaper, and instead of having a bunch of crappy insurance companies, we'd have a new government agency. We wouldn't need to fund it with anything, since it would cost us less. Instead of paying insurance premiums, we'd pay more in taxes, and all in all, we could all be paying less.

What I am proposing is not a universal healthcare system. by keeping healthcare private we'd keep the burden of cost off the public,

Huh? The burden of cost is already on the public. That's the problem. Health insurance is so damn expensive, which is why it needs to change in the first place. If we paid for it through taxes rather than insurance company premiums, we'd all be paying less money (if done correctly, of course).

 

[Neo-Logic]

We print our own money. We can afford ANYTHING! If things get really bad, we can start selling the gold in Fort Knox to Cash-4-Gold! If the lady on TV got $100 for her broken old jewelry, think of how much we can get? Awesome.

 

[Troublemane]

Why would it be a massive burden? It could be much, much cheaper, and instead of having a bunch of crappy insurance companies, we'd have a new government agency. We wouldn't need to fund it with anything, since it would cost us less. Instead of paying insurance premiums, we'd pay more in taxes, and all in all, we could all be paying less.

people often think that when the government pays for something, they are getting it for "free". thats hilarious. :biglaugh: you never get anything for free, just look at the wonderful bailouts from 2 years ago. the government bailed out the economy, and it cost us "nothing" YAY! wow, we are in such great shape now! I am so glad the government intervened! Aren't you???

Huh? The burden of cost is already on the public. That's the problem. Health insurance is so damn expensive, which is why it needs to change in the first place. If we paid for it through taxes rather than insurance company premiums, we'd all be paying less money (if done correctly, of course).

the burden is not on the public directly, not yet. because we can right now choose not to have insurance. that wont be the case under "universal" healthcare. have you wondered about the fines that congress wanted to hit people with for not carrying insurance? do you think thats constitutional?

Of course it isnt, but they dont care. they want people to pay the fine and not buy insurance. that way they can drive up the cost of heathcare even more, and make people even more dependent upon the government for a solution.

It doesnt really matter anyways. In 30 years the gov will be only able to pay the interest on the debt, NOTHING ELSE. no money for military, no money for education, for healthcare, nothing. so by the time we retire, it wont matter anyways. :beach:

 

[JMorris]

the chinese gov BETTER give its citizens free health care since the gov seemingly goes out of its way to poison them

 

[Falvlun]

people often think that when the government pays for something, they are getting it for "free". thats hilarious. :biglaugh: you never get anything for free, just look at the wonderful bailouts from 2 years ago. the government bailed out the economy, and it cost us "nothing" YAY! wow, we are in such great shape now! I am so glad the government intervened! Aren't you???

1) Actually, there is a disconnect in the mind of the average American. For some reason, they do not associate the tax money the pay every year with the programs they avail themselves of, such as schools, roads, libraries, medicaid/medicare, police, etc. Thus arises the impression that the government is "robbing" them of their hard-earned money, and how dare it raise taxes ever.

If we switched to a single payer system, I think people would notice the change: hey, I'm not paying out the nose for healthcare anymore! I simply pay my taxes (which are slightly higher than before, but the difference is no where near the amount I was paying on insurance premiums). There would be the connection since it is something new; it is a change they experienced in their lifetime. People don't appreciate their tax money going to roads because they never have had to pay for a road out of pocket.

2.) From what I heard, most economicists agreed that the bank bailout was necessary in order to avert an even greater financial meltdown. Additionally, it seems to have been successful, as evidenced by a lot of the money already being payed back.

As for the stimulus, the jury is still out. We are in a economic recession, and you can't just wave a fairy wand and fix it. The economy is more like glacier than an avalanche; it takes a lot of time to get where it's going and not much is going to change its course. However, it does appear that the stimulus has mitigated some of the worst effects. So, yes, I am glad that the government intervened.

the burden is not on the public directly, not yet.

I just did a quick google, and it appears that only about 15% of Americans are completely uninsured. I would say that means 85% of the public is shouldering that burden. Do you really think that Americans do not bear the brunt of their health care costs right now? You do realize that medical costs are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy, right?

because we can right now choose not to have insurance. that wont be the case under "universal" healthcare. have you wondered about the fines that congress wanted to hit people with for not carrying insurance? do you think thats constitutional?

Because it's such a great thing to not have insurance in this country? Dude, I had insurance when I had my appendectomy. It turned out to be ****** insurance. I am a healthy 23 year old with a medical loan.

And exactly which part of the constitution says "and the government shall not force people to buy insurance"? Really. I'm curious as to which part you are interpreting as a ban on the government's ability to do this. Currently, in Michigan, we have to carry at least No Fault car insurance. Is Michigan in contempt of the constitution?

 

[Magic Man]

people often think that when the government pays for something, they are getting it for "free". thats hilarious. :biglaugh: you never get anything for free, just look at the wonderful bailouts from 2 years ago. the government bailed out the economy, and it cost us "nothing" YAY! wow, we are in such great shape now! I am so glad the government intervened! Aren't you???

What I find hilarious is your misunderstanding of what I'm saying. How you got that I think it's free is beyond me. It's obviously not free, but I'll try to explain it again to you. Right now we pay $6,700 per person for healthcare. With a government-run system, we could be paying less than $4,000 per person. So, paying an extra $100 a month in taxes but not having that $175 insurance bill saves you $75 (unless my math is severely messed up). It's not free, but it's cheaper, which is what I said originally.

the burden is not on the public directly, not yet. because we can right now choose not to have insurance. that wont be the case under "universal" healthcare. have you wondered about the fines that congress wanted to hit people with for not carrying insurance? do you think thats constitutional?

Sure, and you can choose not to have a job, too, but that's not going to help you very much. I'd like to see a survey of how many people would voluntarily go without health insurance. Besides, if you go without it now, and you have an emergency and you can't pay the bill, everyone else pays.

So, yes, the burden is on the public directly. And why are you mixing things here? I thought we were talking about universal healthcare, not the crappy bill that's on the table now. First, the fines are an extreme measure. They would provide a lot of assistance for people to get affordable insurance. Second, the only reason they have to do it that way is precisely because they aren't allowed to do it the right way (universal healthcare).

Of course it isnt, but they dont care. they want people to pay the fine and not buy insurance. that way they can drive up the cost of heathcare even more, and make people even more dependent upon the government for a solution.

Those are a couple of idiotic sentences. Seriously, were you always this conservative or did something happen recently that turned you into Rush Limbaugh?

It doesnt really matter anyways. In 30 years the gov will be only able to pay the interest on the debt, NOTHING ELSE. no money for military, no money for education, for healthcare, nothing. so by the time we retire, it wont matter anyways. :beach:

Huh?

 

[Valjean]

Absolutely. I still think the best idea I have heard is to remove the profit motive by simply making all insurance companies non-profit. They'd be tax exempt, but they would not be allowed to use the money from premiums for anything else besides paying medical costs.

What you propose here is the Bismark System. This would work. In fact France, which currently enjoys the world's highest rated system, uses a Bismark model.

Why is letting the government the best option? Has anyone else noticed...they seem to be totally incapable of accomplishing anything, even when they have a super-majority?

I'm afraid you've swallowed the Republican propaganda hook, line and sinker here, Troublemane. First, many government programs are working just fine, thank you, and the problems we've had of late with many others aren't due to any intrinsic fault in government itself. They work fine elsewhere in the world.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but in this case there really is a conspiracy -- to portray government as intrinsically wasteful and inefficient. As your post above indicates, it's been very successful.
Now I'm sure you could counter with a dozen examples of government bumbling and mismanagement, but these are largely due to a deliberate program of defunding and staffing with incompetents or even with administrators hostile to the organization they're 'administering'.
The Republicans hate government, at least as a public service co-operative. They've declared they want to starve it till it's small enough to drown in the bathtub, and they've got half the population thinking this would be a good idea.

Reforming healthcare in the US needn't involve adopting a whole new system. We've already got three systems up and running, and we used to have the fourth. We could simply expand one of them.
As far as cost, how many times need it be mentioned that the US already spends more both per capita and as a percentage of GDP than any other country? Why can't people grasp this? Your tax dollars are already paying for 'other people's health care'. Reform would reduce the amount you spend for these other people.

 

[berrychrisc]

Every participant in a society has a right to certain basic benefits, including health care. Other countries have come up with solutions to this problem. It is time for the United States to do so as well. People should not have to choose between health and crippling debt.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Every participant in a society has a right to certain basic benefits, including health care. Other countries have come up with solutions to this problem. It is time for the United States to do so as well. People should not have to choose between health and crippling debt.

Amen...

 

[Reverend Rick]

And exactly which part of the constitution says "and the government shall not force people to buy insurance"? Really. I'm curious as to which part you are interpreting as a ban on the government's ability to do this. Currently, in Michigan, we have to carry at least No Fault car insurance. Is Michigan in contempt of the constitution?

There is a big difference between car insurance and forcing people to buy health care insurance.

Car insurance is not mandatory because a person can choose to not drive a car. They could take the bus, taxi, ride a bike, or simply walk.

Mandatory car insurance just requires a driver to be responsible for their automobile. Many states allow you to opt out if you post a bond showing you are capable of paying a large claim. No forced insurance here.

Another big issue, just because an insurance company is required to insure people with pre-existing conditions does not mean their premiums will be the same.

Lastly, I remember candidate Obama debating with Hillary Clinton on health care and the main difference between the two was Hillary wanted forced health care and Obama did not. What's up with that?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'd like to see a survey of how many people would voluntarily go without health insurance. Besides, if you go without it now, and you have an emergency and you can't pay the bill, everyone else pays.

Many people choose to go without health care and do pay their medical expenses out of pocket. A health care savings account would help out in this situation. Another solution would be to have the government apply their tax return to pay the medical bill. That would reduce the burden on society.

The thing is, if a person has been responsible and paid their medical expenses in the past, why would we want to force them to buy something they don't want?

 

[Mr Cheese]

There is a big difference between car insurance and forcing people to buy health care insurance.

Car insurance is not mandatory because a person can choose to not drive a car. They could take the bus, taxi, ride a bike, or simply walk.

Mandatory car insurance just requires a driver to be responsible for their automobile. Many states allow you to opt out if you post a bond showing you are capable of paying a large claim. No forced insurance here.

Another big issue, just because an insurance company is required to insure people with pre-existing conditions does not mean their premiums will be the same.

Lastly, I remember candidate Obama debating with Hillary Clinton on health care and the main difference between the two was Hillary wanted forced health care and Obama did not. What's up with that?

this is really dishonest....
In order to work, you have to drive in many places in USA

the point being you are indeed forced to have car insurance.

What you fail to mention of course is that existing insured people will actually be paying less, it is the insurance companies that will gbe losing out.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Many people choose to go without health care and do pay their medical expenses out of pocket. A health care savings account would help out in this situation. Another solution would be to have the government apply their tax return to pay the medical bill. That would reduce the burden on society.

The thing is, if a person has been responsible and paid their medical expenses in the past, why would we want to force them to buy something they don't want?

Obviously you are unaware of how much medical costs are in this country
My grl friend works in medicine, I am astounded how much medicine costs...

Only the other day I heard about a 16 yr old girl who was beaten with a stair bannister by an 8yr old child..... the resulting facial reconstruction is going to cost at least $5000(if not more)...... this is not somethign most people (especially a 16yr old)simply have access to, which is a problem in your proposed "plan"

 

[Reverend Rick]

Obviously you are unaware of how much medical costs are in this country

No offense, but I have been battling cancer my whole life and I am well aware of the expense.

You are obviously unaware of many folks ability to negotiate and pre-pay medical expenses before service are rendered.

Not everyone is hand to mouth. Many people have demonstrated their ability to be personally responsible for their medical care.

So in you opinion, no one should be exempt from forced medical care?

Just as you are correct that some folks cannot function with out a car, some folks are just fine walking and using public transportation.

I am taking issue with a "one size fits all" mentality here.

Why should I have to pay for what I consider to be an inferior medical policy that would restrict my medical options?

I am already side stepping the VA coverage I have because of it's unsatisfactory level of care.

People in America should be able to say, "no thanks" to Obama care. Especially when he promised us we could during the debates.