Why be against universal healthcare?

[The Sum of Awe]

Ultimately, universal health care would come out of everyone's pocket. And because the very healthy, and even the just plain healthy, wouldn't need it much, they wouldn't be taking advantage of the money they put into the pot. There's would be money down the drain, so to speak.

ʞuıʍ ƃıq
​

Well said :clap

EDIT: Maybe I should read on before fruballing. Anyways... looks like I've given you a free fruball.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Selfishness.

Is it selfish to keep your money for yourself or is it selfish to beg for the bigger guy's money?

 

[Alceste]

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.

Oh, I get it! Honest mistake. It's true, about thirty percent of us will always vote for conservatives no matter what they stand for, but in Canada even the conservative voters love their health care. Our PM had a previous career as a full time propagandist advocating for privatization on behalf of the insurance industry, and even he knows he can't touch health care or he'll lose his job.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Is it "money down the drain" for a person to pay taxes for firefighters if they wind up never needing their services?

That is a lot different than healthcare because healthcare could still exist without universal taxation. Firefighters, as their service is usually uncommon, the taxes are what keep them in place, so they can afford their property, etc.

As I see it, the money does go down the drain, but it's safer that way. Universal healthcare it doesn't change at all when the money goes down the drain.

 

[Falvlun]

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?

How do you know that there's going to be so many new patients that they are going to be spread thin? Do you think that people are going to magically become sicker all of a sudden? Do you think that everyone with insurance now is going to start going to the doctor more, and unnecessarily so?

And it's not like this has to occur in a vacuum. Maybe along with universal healthcare, we need to rethink our incentives for producing and retaining doctors. Or maybe because hospitals will be saving so much money (since they won't have to eat the cost of those that they currently must treat despite inability to pay) that they will be able to higher more doctors.

And, at root, the huge glaring problem with your argument is that it comes down to pure selfishness.

What about all those people who don't have access to healthcare? You are worrying only about yourself and the quality of your care. It sounds so hard-hearted, like someone complaining that they won't be able to have filet mignon every day because now they have to feed some of that juicy steak to people who haven't ever had the opportunity to eat it before.

Explain how QUALITY improves.

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

Just like no one has explained how it is inevitable that it will decline.

This is a premise that flies in the face of the factual evidence from countries which have universal health care. Their national health is better than ours, and they pay half as much.

And I don't think that the argument is that it will improve. The argument is that people who have access to health care now won't see much difference in quality of care, except longer wait times. But that people who don't have access to health care, will now have much needed treatment, and particularly preventative treatment, that will save lives and countless dollars and greatly improve their quality of life.

It's actually more a business difference, than a healthcare difference. Healthcare will be easily obtainable. It won't be so wrought with stress (even having insurance, it's so stressful dealing with claims and bills and whether it will be covered or whether you went to a "preferred provider" hospital, etc). It will streamline everything. Think of the huge savings cost in the billings department of hospitals alone! No more wrangling with insurance, no more hours on hold, no more denied claims and appeals.

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.

I think a slight inconvenience is worth saving the country and hospitals tons of money, and getting health care to people who need it.

And besides, not everyone is able to get in same day anyway, as it is. There's always urgent care clinics you can go to, which people use now anyway because they don't have the ability to see their doctor same day.

And lastly, you don't even know if this would actually be an issue or not. You are hypothesizing.

 

[Falvlun]

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?

Right now, we pay for individual health insurance. It is usually provided as a benefit from your employer-- they pay part of it-- and you have to pay the rest (it is automatically taken out of your paycheck. I pay ~$110 a month for health insurance, and another $20 for dental and vision). This is because employers are usually big companies and therefore have bigger bargaining power with the insurance companies to lower the rates.

If your employer doesn't offer insurance, then you can try to get insurance on your own, which is quite expensive (~$400/mo for a single person). It can also be difficult to get coverage if you have pre-existing conditions (this is something that Obamacare sought to abolish). (Obamacare also set up the insurance exchanges so that individuals can pool together to have the larger bargaining power of companies.)

This insurance has pages upon pages of fine print of things that they will cover and things that they won't cover. Depending on the type of insurance, you may be limited on which hospitals/doctors you can go to and you often have to get permission from the insurance before you get anything done otherwise they won't pay up. You also usually have to pay a copay everytime you see a health care specialist. (For me, it's $20 for doctors/specialists, $75 for urgent care or emergency room). They often have caps over how much they will pay out, or they have a certain amount of money (like ~$1000 or more) that you must pay before they will start covering you.

It is a huge beaurocratic mess. Hospitals and individuals must wrangle with the insurance companies to get them to pay, which slows down the whole billing process. Meanwhile, the insurance companies are doing everything in their power to make sure they have to pay as little as possible.


Universal health care, often used synonomously with single-payer (though I think they may not be the exact same thing), is when the government basically acts as the sole, or primary, provider of health insurance, that is then guaranteed to all citizens. It is payed through taxation. Everyone then has the same base level of access to health care.

Countries with this, like Canada, also offer the ability to buy private insurance to cover things that the government insurance doesn't cover (I'm not sure of all the benefits that this would provide).

 

[Koldo]

Right now, we pay for individual health insurance. It is usually provided as a benefit from your employer-- they pay part of it-- and you have to pay the rest (it is automatically taken out of your paycheck. I pay ~$110 a month for health insurance, and another $20 for dental and vision). This is because employers are usually big companies and therefore have bigger bargaining power with the insurance companies to lower the rates.

If your employer doesn't offer insurance, then you can try to get insurance on your own, which is quite expensive (~$400/mo for a single person). It can also be difficult to get coverage if you have pre-existing conditions (this is something that Obamacare sought to abolish). (Obamacare also set up the insurance exchanges so that individuals can pool together to have the larger bargaining power of companies.)

This insurance has pages upon pages of fine print of things that they will cover and things that they won't cover. Depending on the type of insurance, you may be limited on which hospitals/doctors you can go to and you often have to get permission from the insurance before you get anything done otherwise they won't pay up. You also usually have to pay a copay everytime you see a health care specialist. (For me, it's $20 for doctors/specialists, $75 for urgent care or emergency room). They often have caps over how much they will pay out, or they have a certain amount of money (like ~$1000 or more) that you must pay before they will start covering you.

It is a huge beaurocratic mess. Hospitals and individuals must wrangle with the insurance companies to get them to pay, which slows down the whole billing process. Meanwhile, the insurance companies are doing everything in their power to make sure they have to pay as little as possible.

First of all, let me thank you. Frubal on your way.

What happens if i don't have this health insurance? If i work on my own, for example, and decide not to pay for it. Or in case i am housewife, for example. Or a child. What happens in these cases if i need medical services ?

One of the things i am trying to understand is: What public services are there in the health area? ER? Some surgeries or none at all? Some exams ( like blood tests ) or none at all?

Universal health care, often used synonomously with single-payer (though I think they may not be the exact same thing), is when the government basically acts as the sole, or primary, provider of health insurance, that is then guaranteed to all citizens. It is payed through taxation. Everyone then has the same base level of access to health care.

Countries with this, like Canada, also offer the ability to buy private insurance to cover things that the government insurance doesn't cover (I'm not sure of all the benefits that this would provide).

What is the advantage of this system over investing on state owned medical facilities ?
Is it cheaper? Easier to do? More efficient?

 

[Riverwolf]

People are different. Should every every country be the same? If every country was exactly the same, why the need for different countries in the first place?

Americans left their mother countries to live a different life.

Now, many Americans want our country to be exactly the same as the countries we left.

Well... I, for one, kinda miss home.

Unfortunately, both of my primary motherlands (Ireland and Greece) are kinda... going through bad times right now.

But the next best thing(Scandinavia) is doing great, as I understand it.

Besides, this land, this Vinland, isn't our home. Our ancestors came here because their homelands were going through really bad times. But the Old Kings are gone from Europe, but as far as I can see, are reborn here. As I understand it, many of them have better lives over there; Norway has the highest standard of living in the world (I think America is number 4).

 

[The Sum of Awe]

People are different. Should every every country be the same? If every country was exactly the same, why the need for different countries in the first place?

Americans left their mother countries to live a different life.

Now, many Americans want our country to be exactly the same as the countries we left.

Agreed.

Also, if every country were the same, then someone who didn't like something about it would have no other option than to deal with it.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is a lot different than healthcare because healthcare could still exist without universal taxation. Firefighters, as their service is usually uncommon, the taxes are what keep them in place, so they can afford their property, etc.

As I see it, the money does go down the drain, but it's safer that way. Universal healthcare it doesn't change at all when the money goes down the drain.

But money down the drain means it goes absolutely nowhere. With universal healthcare, strangers you don't know now have the ability to get help if needed.

Since the money is getting used for a worthy cause, it's not down the drain.

 

[Riverwolf]

Is it selfish to keep your money for yourself

Yes, and unethically so if it involves withholding that money from people who need it more.

or is it selfish to beg for the bigger guy's money?

Yes, but not unethically so.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But money down the drain means it goes absolutely nowhere. With universal healthcare, strangers you don't know now have the ability to get help if needed.

Since the money is getting used for a worthy cause, it's not down the drain.

In that case, why not make universal healthcare optional for people who feel that way?

 

[Riverwolf]

In that case, why not make universal healthcare optional for people who feel that way?

Sure.

While we're at it, why not make all forms of taxes optional for those who don't agree with what's being paid for? I, certainly, would be okay not having to pay for the military, and it's certainly less important than health.

 

[dawny0826]

How do you know that there's going to be so many new patients that they are going to be spread thin? Do you think that people are going to magically become sicker all of a sudden? Do you think that everyone with insurance now is going to start going to the doctor more, and unnecessarily so?

All I'm saying is that there won't "magically" be more physicians to go around. And the point is to provide access to health care for all...you either see the potential for a bit of conflict or not. Whatever.

And it's not like this has to occur in a vacuum. Maybe along with universal healthcare, we need to rethink our incentives for producing and retaining doctors. Or maybe because hospitals will be saving so much money (since they won't have to eat the cost of those that they currently must treat despite inability to pay) that they will be able to higher more doctors.

Where are these doctors going to come from?

And, at root, the huge glaring problem with your argument is that it comes down to pure selfishness.

It becomes cumbersome to be run under the bus repeatedly for wanting to be as independent from the government as possible and to care for my own family without government assistance.

Entitlement is selfish. I'm just doing the best that I can for my family.

What about all those people who don't have access to healthcare? You are worrying only about yourself and the quality of your care. It sounds so hard-hearted, like someone complaining that they won't be able to have filet mignon every day because now they have to feed some of that juicy steak to people who haven't ever had the opportunity to eat it before.

What about them? Don't blanket label everyone without health care currently into one lump sum of pitiful circumstances. I know better. There are people in my community with access to health care now, that aren't utilizing it.

You'd have to hang out with me for a day. I'd love to introduce you to what I do for a living and SHOW you where I'm coming from. I'm not coming from a place of hatred or selfishness. It's more of a place of exasperation.

This is a premise that flies in the face of the factual evidence from countries which have universal health care. Their national health is better than ours, and they pay half as much.

I know. But, I'm not sure that these countries have bred years of oppressed socio-economic groups either, as America has.

And I don't think that the argument is that it will improve. The argument is that people who have access to health care now won't see much difference in quality of care, except longer wait times. But that people who don't have access to health care, will now have much needed treatment, and particularly preventative treatment, that will save lives and countless dollars and greatly improve their quality of life.

Seeing would have to be believing, I suppose. Think what you want of me, but, I'm never close minded to change. I suspect that universal healthcare would be quite a learning experience for everyone.

It's actually more a business difference, than a healthcare difference. Healthcare will be easily obtainable. It won't be so wrought with stress (even having insurance, it's so stressful dealing with claims and bills and whether it will be covered or whether you went to a "preferred provider" hospital, etc). It will streamline everything. Think of the huge savings cost in the billings department of hospitals alone! No more wrangling with insurance, no more hours on hold, no more denied claims and appeals.

These are certainly benefits that I haven't considered.

I think a slight inconvenience is worth saving the country and hospitals tons of money, and getting health care to people who need it.

And besides, not everyone is able to get in same day anyway, as it is. There's always urgent care clinics you can go to, which people use now anyway because they don't have the ability to see their doctor same day.

And lastly, you don't even know if this would actually be an issue or not. You are hypothesizing.

Time will tell. Every issue is multi-faceted, with nooks and crannies to explore.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sure.

While we're at it, why not make all forms of taxes optional for those who don't agree with what's being paid for? I, certainly, would be okay not having to pay for the military, and it's certainly less important than health.

Because like I said in the post you responded to before this one, some things can't go on without tax and it's absolutely necessary to tax them. Unlike universal healthcare.

As for the military, I'm not too caught up in that, but AFAIK they can't stabilize without tax, but also a lot of people support the military's existence (for obvious reasons), so I'd say making it optional wouldn't be much of a difference in the understanding that a lot of people would support them. On the otherhand, it's best to be safe.

With healthcare, they get money constantly, people get hurt constantly. Health insurance covers them, that's the good side to insurance when you don't think you can afford it. Healthcare can totally stabilize without tax.

 

[Falvlun]

All I'm saying is that there won't "magically" be more physicians to go around. And the point is to provide access to health care for all...you either see the potential for a bit of conflict or not. Whatever.

Where are these doctors going to come from? This is all I'm saying. Medical professionals aren't produced overnight. But, then, Canada is poster child for health care.

I appreciated the rest of your post. This was the only other thing I wanted to comment on.

I agree that doctors (and even more importantly, imo, nurses!) won't "magically" appear. But I think that's why we could look into ways to incentivize becoming a nurse or doctor, or make it easier (financially and opportunity-wise). Here's some thoughts on that.

1. Healthcare is booming right now. There is actually a glut of radiologists and other specialized techs in some areas. But nursing tends to be a bottleneck. There's simply not enough spots open in universities for the number of applicants. It is highly competitive, as it should be, but the problem is that it is highly competetive, not only academically, but because there are 100 qualified candidates and only 30 spots open. Is there a way we can incentivize universities to expand their nursing programs, or to create them?

2. The cost to become a doctor is daunting, and then requires you to make a lot of money to pay it off. Under single payer, doctors will likely be paid less. Which means we need to make it more financially possible to become a doctor without $200,000 worth of school loans.

3. With healthcare booming-- and getting bigger if we added more people to the system-- the market itself will encourage more young people to pursue careers in healthcare, just like is what is happening now. People tend to go where the jobs are.

4. I believe that single payer will make health care cheaper by streamlining the process. Hospitals may then have more money to spend on hiring more doctors and nurses.

5. If we did decide to implement single payer, it's not like this would happen over night. Heck, even some of Obamacare won't even be implemented until 2014 and that is a far smaller amount of change. It will be years before this system would be operational. It would give people and markets time to prepare, to poll, to see what the change in patient volume will be, and hire accordingly.

 

[dawny0826]

I appreciated the rest of your post. This was the only other thing I wanted to comment on.

I agree that doctors (and even more importantly, imo, nurses!) won't "magically" appear. But I think that's why we could look into ways to incentivize becoming a nurse or doctor, or make it easier (financially and opportunity-wise). Here's some thoughts on that.

1. Healthcare is booming right now. There is actually a glut of radiologists and other specialized techs in some areas. But nursing tends to be a bottleneck. There's simply not enough spots open in universities for the number of applicants. It is highly competitive, as it should be, but the problem is that it is highly competetive, not only academically, but because there are 100 qualified candidates and only 30 spots open. Is there a way we can incentivize universities to expand their nursing programs, or to create them?

2. The cost to become a doctor is daunting, and then requires you to make a lot of money to pay it off. Under single payer, doctors will likely be paid less. Which means we need to make it more financially possible to become a doctor without $200,000 worth of school loans.

3. With healthcare booming-- and getting bigger if we added more people to the system-- the market itself will encourage more young people to pursue careers in healthcare, just like is what is happening now. People tend to go where the jobs are.

4. I believe that single payer will make health care cheaper by streamlining the process. Hospitals may then have more money to spend on hiring more doctors and nurses.

5. If we did decide to implement single payer, it's not like this would happen over night. Heck, even some of Obamacare won't even be implemented until 2014 and that is a far smaller amount of change. It will be years before this system would be operational. It would give people and markets time to prepare, to poll, to see what the change in patient volume will be, and hire accordingly.

Most of my "scoop" comes from the regsitered nurses in my life, my sister and mother, both of which have differing opinions on Obamacare.

Everything you've presented is logical, I'm just not sure when looking at the bigger picture, how much of this translates to government intervention and injection in business, private university and other areas of commerce and it does concern me because I'm a libertarian. Too much goverment poking to make a government program work.

Everything that you've posted sounds excellent if you're okay with the government getting involved in these areas. Makes my skin crawl a little.

But, I follow you.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because like I said in the post you responded to before this one, some things can't go on without tax and it's absolutely necessary to tax them. Unlike universal healthcare.

As for the military, I'm not too caught up in that, but AFAIK they can't stabilize without tax, but also a lot of people support the military's existence (for obvious reasons), so I'd say making it optional wouldn't be much of a difference in the understanding that a lot of people would support them. On the otherhand, it's best to be safe.

With healthcare, they get money constantly, people get hurt constantly. Health insurance covers them, that's the good side to insurance when you don't think you can afford it. Healthcare can totally stabilize without tax.

It's not about the healthcare itself. It's for the people. With the current system, not everyone can get help. Later this year, I, myself, am set to be without any form of healthcare for a year before Obamacare kicks in for me. If I break my arm, or get really sick during that time, I'm screwed(and by the way, I'm quite fragile and somewhat sickly). I can't afford healthcare, and neither can my family.

With universal healthcare, that wouldn't be a problem. Anyone could just go to the hospital to get healed when necessary. I fail to see how that's in any way problematic.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

This is a stance I have never understood. Why would anyone be against the concept of making sure everyone in the country has equal access to quality healthcare? I mean unless you run or work for a health insurance company and thus worry about losing your job, what reason could anyone have to be against it? You'd think healthcare would be considered a universal right that everyone should have access to rather than having a good chunk of the country live in constant fear of bankruptcy should they ever get sick or injured because they either can't afford insurance or the only insurance they can afford is so **** poor that it doesn't do them much good anyway. So why is it? Why is anyone against universal healthcare?

One word: greed.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

One word: greed.

Is it greedy to depend on other people's things or is it greedy to keep your earned things to yourself?