Universal health care would be a good thing

[SoyLeche]

Believe me as owner of a business with employees, I'd love to not have to pay out every month for their insurance.

IMO one of the main problems we have is too much insurance. Nobody cares, or even knows, how much a procedure is going to cost - they just let the insurance company take care of it. Markets can't function right when the costs are all hidden from the decision makers.

Most medical insurance today isn't really insurance - it is a mostly a health care payment plan.

 

[Storm]

That would depend on how providing coverage to those who don't have it affects the overall cost and/or quality of healthcare in general.

So, shouldn't energies be focused on how to make universal healthcare work, rather than opposing it?

This is one of those issues where I just can't understand the other side's pov. I just don't get how anyone could oppose universal coverage.

 

[Starfish]

One idea I heard that made sense to me was: The government help pay the costs of medical school for those who needed it. In return, they donate time in government walkin free clinics. These clinics would be for those who needed affordable care. This would eliminate the emergency room option that too many use as a first option.
No, they would not be delux clinics and the lines would be long. But the care would be free or minimal cost. Others who had insurance, or could afford otherwise, visit their doctors as always.

Anyway, for what it's worth.

 

[Storm]

That's a start.

 

[SoyLeche]

So, shouldn't energies be focused on how to make universal healthcare work, rather than opposing it?

If the former is possible, then probably.

Keep in mind, though - scrapping a system like this if it ends up not working is next to impossible. Once people get the entitlement mentality they don't let it go.

 

[Starfish]

One curiousity (and this is somewhat off-topic, SORRY), is that the one former candidate for president, who had actually put together a working government health care system rather than just talk about it, didn't get votes.

 

[Storm]

One curiousity (and this is somewhat off-topic, SORRY), is that the one former candidate for president, who had actually put together a working government health care system rather than just talk about it, didn't get votes.

Who would that be?

 

[SoyLeche]

Let me make one thing clear: I do believe that we, as individuals, have a responsibility to help those who are in need of our help. I do not believe that the way to do this is for the government to use the powers that it has to take someones life, liberty or property in order to accomplish this though.

I would much rather see private enterprises that create awareness of the need, possibly recieve donations to help fulfil the need, and provide the assitance to those who are in need. If they can find a way to profit from this as well - more power to them. If they'd rather work it as a non-profit, that's fine too.

 

[Starfish]

Who would that be?

Romney.
Mass. Bill Requires Health Coverage - washingtonpost.com

 

[SoyLeche]

Romney.
Mass. Bill Requires Health Coverage - washingtonpost.com

This isn't all that surprising. He was running in the party that doesn't like the idea of universal health care. This was a negative for him (although it would have played out better in the general election - we'll see what happens if McCain makes him his running mate).

 

[Storm]

Romney.
Mass. Bill Requires Health Coverage - washingtonpost.com

How is punishing those who don't buy into the capitalist system an answer to the problem of not being able to afford it in the first place?

That is NOT a good plan, and it's certainly not socialized medicine.

 

[Storm]

Keep in mind, though - scrapping a system like this if it ends up not working is next to impossible. Once people get the entitlement mentality they don't let it go.

Exactly the problem we're having now. We can't scrap the abject failure that is our capitalist system because of the entitlement mentality of the profiteers.

 

[SoyLeche]

Exactly the problem we're having now. We can't scrap the abject failure that is our capitalist system because of the entitlement mentality of the profiteers.

Yup - you caught us.

 

[Storm]

Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

That's a whole different thing, though. Romney's plan, from what I saw, didn't address the creation of those plans.

 

[Willamena]

Universal Health Care need not be "socialized" by the government, if that's the complaint. It could just as easily be "socialized" by a privately funded regulatory body.

Being done by government only provides protection (such as constutional). But you don't really NEED that.

 

[Starfish]

I don't think there is a plan that would satisfy everyone.

But at least Romney DID something.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No, I think it'll remain about the same, but everyone will have access.

Why do you think the quality and service would decline?

Wave the magic wand and give health care insurance to every American. Will there be one more doctor or one more appointment open on the books? We will have the same system we have now only more people standing in a already long line as it is.

Will doctors work longer hours? Will they work for less money? There is a nursing shortage and bed shortage in our hospitals. There will not be any more people receiving health care on any given day. With all these people ready to use their new health insurance coverage, they will swamp an already over taxed system.

Have you tried to get an appointment at a doctor or a dentists office lately?

Lets examine another problem. People on medicare that have no supplemental additional coverage have a hard time finding doctors who accept new patients.

Why is this? I will tell you why. Say you need a CAT scan. Medicare will only pay a set amount for the scan. Lets say I have Blue Cross insurance. I will bet you any amount of money I can be new to the area and get a doctor to see me as a first time patient where a person living in the area for 30 years who's doctor has just retired and only has medicare will not be seen as a new patient. Why? Because Blue Cross will pay the bill no questions asked where medicare will require forms and negotiate a lower rate.

This is a no brainer. If you own a diagnostic machine and can only run a set amount of scans every day, you make way more money running scans for people who have a higher caliber insurance. You get reimbursed quicker with less hassles.

National health care insurance will attempt to lower the payment amount by negotiating a lower fee. This is not as profitable to private medical facilities. Therefore the lower caliber insurance holder will either be turned away or scheduled months from now or referred to a facility that is not running to capacity.

I know some folks who have no insurance believe that some kind of insurance is better than no insurance and they will be right. What kind of service they receive will be substandard to what they believe they will have. They will have to wait for medical services unless their condition is life threatening.

It is simple math. The same amount of providers and a whole lot more patients equals a longer wait with less services.

 

[Storm]

OK, you've got a point. It's entirely selfish, but at least it's logical. You're willing to let the poor die for the convenience of the rich.

 

[Wandered Off]

National health care insurance will attempt to lower the payment amount by negotiating a lower fee. This is not as profitable to private medical facilities. Therefore the lower caliber insurance holder will either be turned away or scheduled months from now or referred to a facility that is not running to capacity.

Many of the best doctors are beginning to refuse to take Medicare patients because of the low reimbursement rates and bureaucracy involved, and I think that's a microcosm of what would likely result system-wide.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Plus, if you want, you can opt for private health care and pay for medical treatment out of your own pocket just like you do in the US - this generally means you will be seen faster and at times more convenient to you, but otherwise there aren't that many benefits over the NHS.

I rest my case. People who have a NHS do receive a lower caliber of care.

I would like to make another point. Could I sneak across your border into your country and work and live and be treated by you medical facility if my condition was not life threatening?