Why be against universal healthcare?

[Alceste]

Your system is established. Apples and oranges.

I find it asinine to pretend that this type of system will be nothing but cake and fun times in the US. People can believe what they want, but, I know that I'd pay more than others for lesser quality health care.

We had to establish it ourselves, despite facing the exact same arguments as you're coming up with from those who favored sticking with a private system. In fact, all the private doctors went on strike to protest it when Tommy Douglas introduced healthcare in that province.

I find it hard to believe you guys aren't as tough as we are when it comes to getting what you want.

 

[Falvlun]

Extending people's lives so they can draw a check longer and be a burden on the system seems counter productive to me. Should we spend six figures on an operation that will allow a person to live another couple of years? What if their already costing the government 100K a year to live in a nursing home?

We all are going to die. Should we spend money we don't have on things that our children are going to have to pay for?

What is wrong with just living out our natural life?

We should have a health care system that we can maintain for generations not a system that drains our ability to provide for folks in the future.

Ask yourself something, which would be money better spent, 200K for grandma to extend her life for another year or a new house for a grandchild to live in and raise a family?

This house could provide for two or three generations.

You tell me which would be money better spent?

Huh. Another conservative who only wants people to have the freedom to make the choice that he wants to make.

 

[Falvlun]

People can believe what they want, but, I know that I'd pay more than others for lesser quality health care.

Based on how universal health care has been implemented in other countries, you'd be paying much less than currently.

And what do you mean by quality of care? Do you think that doctors would be making more mistakes? What do you base this belief off of?

But if you just think that there would be wait times, that's really not quality of care issue. In other countries, things that need to be dealt with quickly are taken care of quickly. Things that can wait are allowed to wait. So, it might not be as convenient to you, but the quality of care would be the same.

 

[dawny0826]

But it wasn't always established. Weren't all the world's universal systems developed after WWII? Are Americans peculiarly incapable of change?

Actually we already have two already established universal systems, a socialized Beveridge-style system in the VA and a Private NHI-style system in Medicare.
The infrastructure is already in place. It would be easier to extend Medicare universally than it was for Canada to start from scratch in each province.

I'm not arguing the possibility of this working. I'm discussing QUALITY of health care and the overall quality in such a system. That was mentioned in the OP.

I'm looking at our nation's deficit and understand that someone has to pay for this health care. There's nothing selfish about being concerned when you're a working parent and have two children to care for. As I've stated, I'm already paying for high cost medical care should be of superb quality as I'm paying for it as a customer and it's not.

You can't convince me that the quality of my current health care is going to improve with universal health care. You can't convince me that I'm going to be paying "fairly" into this system. You're most welcome to try to sell me on it.

I can't wrap my brain around how universal healthcare will be of great benefit to my family.

 

[Falvlun]

I can't wrap my brain around how universal healthcare will be of great benefit to my family.

Do you have children? Are they young adults, just entering the work force? Believe me, that gap between being covered by my parents and getting established in my career was rough. I had very poor insurance provided by my employer, since I was considered a "temp", and required an appendectomy. That put me, fresh out of college, with an $8,000 bill.

And in addition, you are ignoring the cost of having your employer cover health insurance.

With the way things are going, I suspect that employer covered insurance will go the way of dinosaurs and pensions. Anything to help the bottom line, eh?

And if you are a conservative, and want to help small business, well, the best thing you could do for them is to release them of the burden of having to pay for health insurance for their employees. That would be a huge cost savings to business. And who knows? Maybe that would mean more green in your pocket (since "benefit" packages are part of your pay, if you weren't getting health insurance, hopefully, that would be offset by raising your wages.)

You gotta think broader about these things.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not arguing the possibility of this working. I'm discussing QUALITY of health care and the overall quality in such a system. That was mentioned in the OP.

I'm looking at our nation's deficit and understand that someone has to pay for this health care. There's nothing selfish about being concerned when you're a working parent and have two children to care for. As I've stated, I'm already paying for high cost medical care should be of superb quality as I'm paying for it as a customer and it's not.

You can't convince me that the quality of my current health care is going to improve with universal health care. You can't convince me that I'm going to be paying "fairly" into this system. You're most welcome to try to sell me on it.

I can't wrap my brain around how universal healthcare will be of great benefit to my family.

As I said, we get better outcomes in Canada, and we pay half as much. In fact, most countries get better outcomes than the US. We live a couple years longer, and live healthier. We have lower infant mortality and lower maternal mortality too. I don't know what "quality" means if not living longer and healthier lives, thanks to being able to see a doctor right away whenever we have concerns about our health, and having no limit on the subsequent tests and procedures that we need to get healthy.

And we pay half as much.

In fact, we pay a bit less per capita to cover everybody as you pay per capita to cover public health insurance programs like medicare and medicaid.

No annual limits, no copays, no services that aren't covered, no medical insurance bill to pay, no user fees, and you are never turned away from any doctor or hospital for some kind of technicality about your insurance policy.

If every other country in the developed world can pull this off, why don't you think Americans can pull it off? Do you think they're more incompetent?

 

[dawny0826]

Based on how universal health care has been implemented in other countries, you'd be paying much less than currently.

And what do you mean by quality of care? Do you think that doctors would be making more mistakes? What do you base this belief off of?

But if you just think that there would be wait times, that's really not quality of care issue. In other countries, things that need to be dealt with quickly are taken care of quickly. Things that can wait are allowed to wait. So, it might not be as convenient to you, but the quality of care would be the same.

I think that every patient has an expectation of quality from their health care provider. There's a customer service element to health care and then there's precision in providng care. Our nation's health professional's are already taxed by our current Medicare and Medicaid systems.

We don't have the number of nurses and doctor's needed currently to cover needs. Our economy has yielded staffing cut backs in our nation's hospitals and private practices.

Convenience and quality go hand in hand.

 

[Falvlun]

Convenience and quality go hand in hand.

I disagree. Sometimes you have to drive further or wait longer when you go to a genuine butcher shop, but the cut and quality of meat you get there is going to be way better than if you just stopped in at your local chain grocery store.

 

[dawny0826]

As I said, we get better outcomes in Canada, and we pay half as much. In fact, most countries get better outcomes than the US. We live a couple years longer, and live healthier. We have lower infant mortality and lower maternal mortality too. I don't know what "quality" means if not living longer and healthier lives, thanks to being able to see a doctor right away whenever we have concerns about our health, and having no limit on the subsequent tests and procedures that we need to get healthy.

And we pay half as much.

In fact, we pay a bit less per capita to cover everybody as you pay per capita to cover public health insurance programs like medicare and medicaid.

No annual limits, no copays, no services that aren't covered, no medical insurance bill to pay, no user fees, and you are never turned away from any doctor or hospital for some kind of technicality about your insurance policy.

If every other country in the developed world can pull this off, why don't you think Americans can pull it off? Do you think they're more incompetent?

Okay, let's break this down a little, you proud Canadian, you.

No doubt, you pay less in health care. Universal health care works in Canada. If 70% of Canadians are happy with it...groovy.

I don't think that America is incompentent and incapable of making universal health care work. But, I don't think that it's going to work in the way that people are envisioning.

We have a shortage of health care providers now and I know that you're going to say...well, Canada has fewer health care providers than America and we're doing just fine. Yes, I know. But, you've also lost some of your own doctors and nurses to America, because they got fed up with how little they were being paid.

Our doctors pay out of their *** for school and are in school for a long time. There has to be a compassionate desire to help people but also a practicality involved, as they have a license on the line. This is one line of work, where I think that people should be paid well for their work. They're preserving and saving lives.

Liability insurance is increasing and becoming challenging to come by at times. Medical professionals have to have incentive for doing the work that they do.

Canadians ***** about waiting times all of the time. Remember, there's still a good 30% of your nation that isn't happy with your health care system, so, it's not ALL ROSES. And you do have professionals in Canada who prefer America's busted health care system.

Not everyone WANTS universal health care, even those that are currently on Medicare and Medicaid. What happens will happen.

 

[dawny0826]

I disagree. Sometimes you have to drive further or wait longer when you go to a genuine butcher shop, but the cut and quality of meat you get there is going to be way better than if you just stopped in at your local chain grocery store.

Okay...

Could you please address the logic in how we'll see BETTER quality health care when our nurses and doctors are stretched even more thin? Jusify that for me. Our Medicare and Medicaid patients are already complaining that they aren't getting quality health care. What will happen when your doctor who doesn't have the time and capacity to accommodate the additional patient does so, and is then splitting time between that many more patients?

Explain how QUALITY improves.

No one has explained to me how the quality of my health care is going to improve.

You've told me that I may have to wait LONGER to see my doctor, but don't worry about it...because it's just an inconvenience. I can now call my doctor and be seen the same day, if I'm sick. I may not be able to do that anymore, but, it's okay. The quality of my health care will improve.

 

[dawny0826]

Do you have children? Are they young adults, just entering the work force? Believe me, that gap between being covered by my parents and getting established in my career was rough. I had very poor insurance provided by my employer, since I was considered a "temp", and required an appendectomy. That put me, fresh out of college, with an $8,000 bill.

And in addition, you are ignoring the cost of having your employer cover health insurance.

With the way things are going, I suspect that employer covered insurance will go the way of dinosaurs and pensions. Anything to help the bottom line, eh?

And if you are a conservative, and want to help small business, well, the best thing you could do for them is to release them of the burden of having to pay for health insurance for their employees. That would be a huge cost savings to business. And who knows? Maybe that would mean more green in your pocket (since "benefit" packages are part of your pay, if you weren't getting health insurance, hopefully, that would be offset by raising your wages.)

You gotta think broader about these things.

First of all, I think that it's okay for "medicinal practice" to be approached as a business. I'm for capitalism and a free market. I'm for competition in markets. I prefer the concept of health care that's competitive. This is American business too. I want many options to explore and want to select the best that's for my family and within my budget.

I'd prefer to see a change within insurance systems, making it easier for Americans to purchase and qualify for health insurance. I'd like to our nation's insurance company, independently step up to the plate to offer affordable health care options for the low-income families. (In a perfect world at least...)

It should be at the discretion of an employer as to the benefits that they provide their employees...ANYWAY. I presently have the choice to either purchase insurance through my employer or from elsewhere.

I'm fiscally conservative, I suppose. But I think it's common sense. I want freedom and choice. I don't want the government controlling my health care.

I'm already paying for programs that aren't directly benefiting my family. I understand the importance of supporting those who are less fortunate, but, I see GREATER good in the non-profit networks that provide aid to those who arein lower income demographics than that of government operated networks and I will be always be of the mindset that a more libertarian approach to government is the best way to go.

That's all there is to it.

LESS government spending and grass roots networking to help those who are in lower-income demographics in my opinion, is far more fruitful than restructuring a health care system. Insurance companies need to get a grip. Something needs to give, but, I don't think we do anything to really SOLVE our nation's greatest problems. I think we gloss over them. Universal health care doesn't really change the bigger picture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay...

Could you please address the logic in how we'll see BETTER quality health care when our nurses and doctors are stretched even more thin? Jusify that for me. Our Medicare and Medicaid patients are already complaining that they aren't getting quality health care. What will happen when your doctor who doesn't have the time and capacity to accommodate the additional patient does so, and is then splitting time between that many more patients?

Explain how QUALITY improves.

No one has explained to me how the quality of my health care is going to improve.

You've told me that I may have to wait LONGER to see my doctor, but don't worry about it...because it's just an inconvenience. I can now call my doctor and be seen the same day, if I'm sick. I may not be able to do that anymore, but, it's okay. The quality of my health care will improve.

Have you been to the ER lately? If you have been, you probably saw a fair number of people whose problems could've been dealt with through a family doctor if they had one. You probably saw people with problems that are very serious now but could have been nipped in the bud easily with preventative care early on. Now... imagine all those people had free access to routine check-ups and a family doctor whenever they needed it. Do you think that this would increase or reduce the wait time for you or your family's urgent issue?

And I'm not sure about the US, but here in Canada, if you arrive by ambulance, the paramedics have to wait with you until the ER takes you. While they're waiting, they can't take other calls. This means that ER wait times reduce the availabity of ambulances to help you or your loved ones if they need them. If we get that patient with emphysema, for instance, under a program of management and monitoring, then it means that we prevent the EMS call when it gets so bad he needs the ER. This means there's one more EMS team ready to respond when you need it. Repeat that scenario many times over and it means that with universal health care, you get better response times and better outcomes in critical situations, and you keep people healthier at lower cost.

There are a ton of ways that universal health care helps across the board.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Honestly, this argument about doctor and nurse workload doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying "we don't have time to change everyone's oil! We're too busy rebuilding all these blown engines!" Well, maybe if you were changing more people's oil, you wouldn't have as many blown engines to fix.

 

[Alceste]

Okay, let's break this down a little, you proud Canadian, you.

No doubt, you pay less in health care. Universal health care works in Canada. If 70% of Canadians are happy with it...groovy.

I don't think that America is incompentent and incapable of making universal health care work. But, I don't think that it's going to work in the way that people are envisioning.

We have a shortage of health care providers now and I know that you're going to say...well, Canada has fewer health care providers than America and we're doing just fine. Yes, I know. But, you've also lost some of your own doctors and nurses to America, because they got fed up with how little they were being paid.

Our doctors pay out of their *** for school and are in school for a long time. There has to be a compassionate desire to help people but also a practicality involved, as they have a license on the line. This is one line of work, where I think that people should be paid well for their work. They're preserving and saving lives.

Liability insurance is increasing and becoming challenging to come by at times. Medical professionals have to have incentive for doing the work that they do.

Canadians ***** about waiting times all of the time. Remember, there's still a good 30% of your nation that isn't happy with your health care system, so, it's not ALL ROSES. And you do have professionals in Canada who prefer America's busted health care system.

Not everyone WANTS universal health care, even those that are currently on Medicare and Medicaid. What happens will happen.

A couple points of fact: preference for a completely public system is much higher than 70%. I've never seen a statistic that low. Usually it ranges between 80 and 95% depending on what question is asked. Where did you come up with that number?

In the states, by comparison, only about 30% of you are happy with your system and 60% would prefer something similar to ours.

ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

Also, doctors don't move to the states because they're "fed up" with the pay in Canada, they move because they can make more money in your system. That's because you guys pay double for the same services. So we lose a few of the more materialistic / less altruistic doctors to a more materialistic / less altruistic system. That's ok though, because I would not trust a profit-motivated doctor. They recommend the costliest remedy over the most effective. That's part of the reason your outcomes are worse than ours despite the enormous cost of your system.

 

[dawny0826]

Have you been to the ER lately? If you have been, you probably saw a fair number of people whose problems could've been dealt with through a family doctor if they had one. You probably saw people with problems that are very serious now but could have been nipped in the bud easily with preventative care early on. Now... imagine all those people had free access to routine check-ups and a family doctor whenever they needed it. Do you think that this would increase or reduce the wait time for you or your family's urgent issue?

And I'm not sure about the US, but here in Canada, if you arrive by ambulance, the paramedics have to wait with you until the ER takes you. While they're waiting, they can't take other calls. This means that ER wait times reduce the availabity of ambulances to help you or your loved ones if they need them. If we get that patient with emphysema, for instance, under a program of management and monitoring, then it means that we prevent the EMS call when it gets so bad he needs the ER. This means there's one more EMS team ready to respond when you need it. Repeat that scenario many times over and it means that with universal health care, you get better response times and better outcomes in critical situations, and you keep people healthier at lower cost.

There are a ton of ways that universal health care helps across the board.

People have ACCESS to care as is, in my community, at least. And the person that won't go to the free health clinic that offers preventive care, will go to the neighborhood Food Lion for a twelve pack and a pack of cigarattes.

I'm not blanket labeling. Because I know that this isn't the story of every American without health insurance, but, in my community, there are free health clinics and information on these health clinics are provided through our local department of social and human services.

People can go and receive free health care and medications. But, there are people that won't do it. They won't take advantage of the free health care that's available to them, but will go put themselves in a worse off financial situation by walking down to the local supermarket to buy a twelve pack, a pack of cigarettes and a bucket of fried chicken.

The health care is available to them. They don't take advantage of it. They choose to make decisions which can have a negate impact on their health and then they burden the nation's heatlh care system later on when diabetes, heart disease, stroke and other ailments become severe.

Universal Health Care isn't going to fix America's health care problems. It's one more area where the government will have control and the people that really NEED big brother "supervision" for the the purposes of ensuring that they are receiving the preventive health that they need to avoid long term issues, are going to slip through the cracks because they're doing whatever the hell they want to do anyway and if they don't want to go to the doctor, they're not going to.

You're preaching to the choir. I get everything that you're saying. But, we already have Medicare, Medicaid and a plethora of networds of free clinics in this nation and it's not working. Universal Health Care isn't going to be the fix.

 

[dawny0826]

Honestly, this argument about doctor and nurse workload doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying "we don't have time to change everyone's oil! We're too busy rebuilding all these blown engines!" Well, maybe if you were changing more people's oil, you wouldn't have as many blown engines to fix.

When people claim that Universal Healthcare yields HIGHER quality health care, I think that it does make sense.

 

[Copernicus]

First of all, I think that it's okay for "medicinal practice" to be approached as a business. I'm for capitalism and a free market. I'm for competition in markets. I prefer the concept of health care that's competitive. This is American business too. I want many options to explore and want to select the best that's for my family and within my budget.

That may sound like it ought to work, but the health care business really doesn't have a normal market in the sense that other commodities do. Typically, you do not know ahead of time what the price is that you will pay for service, and you cannot shop around. You take care of a problem that is ailing you--sometimes a life-threatening crisis--and you get told when it is too late to choose an alternative doctor or alternative health care facility. You can still "shop around" to some extent before choosing a doctor or insurance policy, but your opportunity is very limited and the useful information very scarce.

I'd prefer to see a change within insurance systems, making it easier for Americans to purchase and qualify for health insurance. I'd like to our nation's insurance company, independently step up to the plate to offer affordable health care options for the low-income families. (In a perfect world at least...)

This is exactly what Obamacare tries to do. It is a government-mandated and government-regulated system, but it does very little to reform insurance companies or health care providers. You still have to run the gauntlets set up by their finance departments and money-extraction wizards.

It should be at the discretion of an employer as to the benefits that they provide their employees...ANYWAY. I presently have the choice to either purchase insurance through my employer or from elsewhere.

I would go further than that. Employers should have nothing whatsoever to do with medical benefits. A system that distributes health care on that basis is stupid and inefficient. It ignores people who are unemployed. Everybody needs basic health care, not just workers.

I'm fiscally conservative, I suppose. But I think it's common sense. I want freedom and choice. I don't want the government controlling my health care.

I don't think that wanting control over options is what fiscal conservatism is about. That is generally a political philosophy that tends to equate government budgets with family and business budgets. Whatever your political philosophy, your choices in health care are not being limited by government. They are limited by your insurer (if you are lucky enough to have one) and how deep your pockets are. There are fiscal conservatives in Canada who would not think of giving up their government health care benefits. The few that I've met think that American conservatives are just plain crazy when it comes to health care.

I once watched some American and Canadian conservatives duke it out over health care. They agreed about how terrible a president they felt Obama was and how stupid "Obamacare" was. But the Canadians told the Americans that they were flat-out crazy when they started talking about how bad the Canadians had it with their government health care system.

I'm already paying for programs that aren't directly benefiting my family. I understand the importance of supporting those who are less fortunate, but, I see GREATER good in the non-profit networks that provide aid to those who arein lower income demographics than that of government operated networks and I will be always be of the mindset that a more libertarian approach to government is the best way to go.

I think that libertarianism is a very misguided philosophy, but that isn't really the issue here. What is is the nature of insurance, which I suspect you don't understand. It is all about minimizing risk. Some people in the risk pool will end up getting more out of it than they put in. Others will get much less out of it than they put in. You buy insurance in order to spread risk across a broad base of people. Annuities work the same way. You may never recoup what you put into them. Or you may end up getting far more benefit than you paid for.

LESS government spending and grass roots networking to help those who are in lower-income demographics in my opinion, is far more fruitful than restructuring a health care system. Insurance companies need to get a grip. Something needs to give, but, I don't think we do anything to really SOLVE our nation's greatest problems. I think we gloss over them. Universal health care doesn't really change the bigger picture.

If you are interested in less government spending, then you need to weigh the overall effect of a national health insurance program. Over 60% of personal bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills. That represents a huge burden on society, especially since the government gets less in tax revenue from people with less income, but it pays out more in welfare benefits. People without coverage tend to clog emergency rooms, and their care is usually more expensive than preventive and outpatient care. The rising cost of such welfare is out of control and represents the greatest fiscal crisis we will face in the future. It is the elephant sitting on top of our deficit. Studies show that government spending on health care will actually help to reduce the budget deficit in the long run. Don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

 

[dawny0826]

A couple points of fact: preference for a completely public system is much higher than 70%. I've never seen a statistic that low. Usually it ranges between 80 and 95% depending on what question is asked. Where did you come up with that number?

In the states, by comparison, only about 30% of you are happy with your system and 60% would prefer something similar to ours.

ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

Also, doctors don't move to the states because they're "fed up" with the pay in Canada, they move because they can make more money in your system. That's because you guys pay double for the same services. So we lose a few of the more materialistic / less altruistic doctors to a more materialistic / less altruistic system. That's ok though, because I would not trust a profit-motivated doctor. They recommend the costliest remedy over the most effective. That's part of the reason your outcomes are worse than ours despite the enormous cost of your system.

I'm a little confused. (Not in general.)

I owe you an apology because I have clearly messed up. I was honestly regurgitating "your" stats back at you. I thought I'd read in one of your posts that 30% of Canadians were unhappy with their health care. There was a reference to conservatives. But, I misread.

I'm sorry.

Canadians love their health care.

 

[Alceste]

First of all, I think that it's okay for "medicinal practice" to be approached as a business. I'm for capitalism and a free market. I'm for competition in markets. I prefer the concept of health care that's competitive. This is American business too. I want many options to explore and want to select the best that's for my family and within my budget.

I'd prefer to see a change within insurance systems, making it easier for Americans to purchase and qualify for health insurance. I'd like to our nation's insurance company, independently step up to the plate to offer affordable health care options for the low-income families. (In a perfect world at least...)

It should be at the discretion of an employer as to the benefits that they provide their employees...ANYWAY. I presently have the choice to either purchase insurance through my employer or from elsewhere.

I'm fiscally conservative, I suppose. But I think it's common sense. I want freedom and choice. I don't want the government controlling my health care.

I'm already paying for programs that aren't directly benefiting my family. I understand the importance of supporting those who are less fortunate, but, I see GREATER good in the non-profit networks that provide aid to those who arein lower income demographics than that of government operated networks and I will be always be of the mindset that a more libertarian approach to government is the best way to go.

That's all there is to it.

LESS government spending and grass roots networking to help those who are in lower-income demographics in my opinion, is far more fruitful than restructuring a health care system. Insurance companies need to get a grip. Something needs to give, but, I don't think we do anything to really SOLVE our nation's greatest problems. I think we gloss over them. Universal health care doesn't really change the bigger picture.

One more point of fact: the government doesn't "control" our health care. They only pay for it with our tax dollars. Doctors still own their practices privately. You still choose your own doctor and have personal control over your other health care choices. You just don't have to deal with any insurance companies. You can CHOOSE to deal with them, purchasing private plans that cover additional services not covered under the public plan, like dentists, glasses, drugs, ambulance rides, a private hospital room and / or compensation for injury, death or incapacity. You are simply not REQUIRED to deal with an insurance company for basic health coverage.

Since we have a "single payer" system, we have greater bargaining power with private entities like pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. to keep costs under control.

I do understand what you're saying about free markets being generally good, but was there ever any point when you have tried to incorporate actual facts about the total, unambiguous, comprehensive superiority of public health care into this world view?

Again, ALL public systems on earth have better outcomes, lower costs, more choice, no fees, and near-unanimous public support.

That means they are higher quality (better outcomes), more efficient (lower costs), more free (more choice) and more democratic (higher public support) than the US system.

FYI, I can usually see a doctor the same day too. I just don't have to pay him.

 

[Koldo]

Considering my ignorance on the subject and how this is a hot topic, i would like to know what this 'universal healthcare' is all about. To put it simple, i would like to know how the citizens' health is handled currently on USA and how it would work if put on practice. Could anyone be so gentle as to explain this to me or to provide a link that does?