Why be against universal healthcare?

[Penumbra]

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.

In terms of cost, Americans pay more money per capita for health care than any other country in the world including every country that has universal healthcare.

In terms of quality, Americans statistically have lower life expectancies than people in most highly developed countries, higher infant mortality rates, etc.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I certainly do not like the bill that ended up getting signed. I agree strongly with Rev Rick that we should just extend Medicare. That would be the cheapest, easiest solution to our problem. Obama's reasoning on that score was probably that he couldn't possibly get such a proposal past the health care lobby, which is the strongest in Washington. He basically had to give them much of what they wanted in order to get minimal reform. Sorry to put it this way, but it was opposition from libertarians such as yourself--fiscal conservatives--who drove him and his allies to that conclusion. The effort to stop health care reform just ended up making the inevitable reform worse than it had to be.

(And so many of our problems are self-inflicted in that way. The sequestration disaster could have been stopped dead by a simple repeal. Everybody claimed to oppose it, but Congress refused to take the easy way out.)

American politics...capitalism, at it's best right here.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

In terms of cost, Americans pay more money per capita for health care than any other country in the world including every country that has universal healthcare.

In terms of quality, Americans statistically have lower life expectancies than people in most highly developed countries, higher infant mortality rates, etc.

You'd think that people would catch on to these facts, but I guess not.

 

[Alceste]

I certainly do not like the bill that ended up getting signed. I agree strongly with Rev Rick that we should just extend Medicare. That would be the cheapest, easiest solution to our problem. Obama's reasoning on that score was probably that he couldn't possibly get such a proposal past the health care lobby, which is the strongest in Washington. He basically had to give them much of what they wanted in order to get minimal reform. Sorry to put it this way, but it was opposition from libertarians such as yourself--fiscal conservatives--who drove him and his allies to that conclusion. The effort to stop health care reform just ended up making the inevitable reform worse than it had to be.

(And so many of our problems are self-inflicted in that way. The sequestration disaster could have been stopped dead by a simple repeal. Everybody claimed to oppose it, but Congress refused to take the easy way out.)

The public option, if it had survived, would have started a landslide of public support for health as a public service and put the insurance companies in their proper place.

The bill you ended up with controls some of the most outrageous abuses the insurance vultures impose on Americans (like kicking paying customers off their insurance when they get too sick, or stuffing most of the premiums in their pockets instead of paying most of it back for health care services), but does not allow Americans freedom to choose a low cost public insurance system, so you're still stuck going through those bloodsucking vampires - worse, you're penalized for not doing so. It's the worst scenario I can imagine.

Not that I think it's a totally bad bill - you are still better off knowing they MUST pay most of your premiums back into services and can't dump you if you get sick. It just doesn't do anything about the main problem: most of your money is buying yachts for insurance salesmen instead of buying health care for sick people.

 

[Alceste]

You'd think that people would catch on to these facts, but I guess not.

I think the more conservative one's ideology is, the less they are interested in facts.

Not just there, but everywhere. I run into it all the time, even here and in the UK. The rose-coloured glasses of dogma-based, simplistic thinking. Government is always bad, corporations are always good. That settles it!

 

[Valjean]

Obama's reasoning on that score was probably that he couldn't possibly get such a proposal past the health care lobby, which is the strongest in Washington. He basically had to give them much of what they wanted in order to get minimal reform.

On a radio talk show some years ago Obama said that he wasn't promoting a single payer system because it would put so many insurance and hospital billing people out of work. Struck me as like prohibiting printshops or bulldozers because they would put scribes and ditchdiggers out of work, but that was his reasoning.
Why he didn't consider a Bismark system, which would have cut costs while retaining the insurance jobs, I don't know. Perhaps, as an American, he was unaware of how the rest of the world did things, or didn't want to appear "European."

 

[Valjean]

In terms of cost, Americans pay more money per capita for health care than any other country in the world including every country that has universal healthcare.

In terms of quality, Americans statistically have lower life expectancies than people in most highly developed countries, higher infant mortality rates, etc.

And often longer wait times.

 

[Copernicus]

On a radio talk show some years ago Obama said that he wasn't promoting a single payer system because it would put so many insurance and hospital billing people out of work. Struck me as like prohibiting printshops or bulldozers because they would put scribes and ditchdiggers out of work, but that was his reasoning.
Why he didn't consider a Bismark system, which would have cut costs while retaining the insurance jobs, I don't know. Perhaps, as an American, he was unaware of how the rest of the world did things, or didn't want to appear "European."

This is my take on him, as well. That is essentially what he said in The Audacity of Hope. He is basically a blue dog Democrat, although he is constantly (and inaccurately) bashed as a liberal.

 

[dawny0826]

In terms of cost, Americans pay more money per capita for health care than any other country in the world including every country that has universal healthcare.

In terms of quality, Americans statistically have lower life expectancies than people in most highly developed countries, higher infant mortality rates, etc.

I understand that our health care is overtly costly.

However, I'm thinking that our lower life expectancies are attributed more to our lifestyle choices than directly to our healthcare. Even the poor can usually access a basic health care service, be it preventive or otherwise. The challenge is in the cost.

We happen to be a nation of gluttony, drug use, alcoholism, and a variety of other unhealthy behavior. Infant mortality rates are higher in lower-income demographics, where overall lifestyles aren't typically the healthiest, health care specifics aside.

 

[Valjean]

He is basically a blue dog Democrat, although he is constantly (and inaccurately) bashed as a liberal.

Interesting you should mention that. In another talk show he stated that by the standards of the '70s or '80s he'd be considered a moderate Republican.
Frankly I'm baffled by claims from the right that he's a "liberal."

 

[Copernicus]

I understand that our health care is overtly costly.

However, I'm thinking that our lower life expectancies are attributed more to our lifestyle choices than directly to our healthcare. Even the poor can usually access a basic health care service, be it preventive or otherwise. The challenge is in the cost.

We happen to be a nation of gluttony, drug use, alcoholism, and a variety of other unhealthy behavior. Infant mortality rates are higher in lower-income demographics, where overall lifestyles aren't typically the healthiest, health care specifics aside.

Dawny, I have the exact opposite impression. Our air, water, and food supply is fairly clean. Most Americans are overweight, but part of the problem is that unhealthy food tends to be cheaper than healthy food. (I just split a free large pizza with my wife yesterday, but we are both fairly healthy for our demographic catecgory. We don't make a habit of that sort of food. ) Rates of smoking have dropped dramatically, so our tobacco companies are trying to hawk their wares in countries that are less aware of the dangers (e.g. China). I really do think that our main problem has to do with the fact that so many Americans have no access to basic health care, because they cannot afford it. Your remark that "the poor can usually access a basic health care service" strikes me as wildly out of touch with the facts. Every time an ad hoc free clinic is set up, it is swamped by people desperate to get examinations. Much as I hate Obamacare, I have to hand it to the man. He did deliver some relief to millions who needed it, however poorly designed the law was. Now we have an opportunity to improve it. It is still a year out from full implementation. At that point, I think you'll see much more appreciation of what he has accomplished for us. I believe that our own friend Riverwolf here has already been a direct beneficiary of that law. It is too bad that he will be without insurance until the new law kicks in.

 

[Falvlun]

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 ?

1. You can buy insurance separately from your employer. It's just very expensive, and usually not as good.
2. You usually have the option of adding your dependents (like children) and spouses to your insurance, but it will cost you more.
3. You can choose to go without insurance, but then you will be stuck with a rather large bill any time you see a doctor. (This is something Obamacare changed: starting next year, I believe, everybody has to get insurance or else they will be fined.)

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?

There is medicare and medicaid for seniors and for the very poor. It's basically a government run single payer system.

There are some free clinics, like Planned Parenthood, where you can get discount or free services.

And lastly, hospital ERs are required, by law, to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay. While this is a necessary humanitarian service (I can't fathom turning away someone having a heart attack so that they can die on the street just because they couldn't pay), it is also a huge strain on hospitals. They have to eat the cost-- which means that they charge everyone who can pay more for everything. That's why getting aspirin at an ER will cost you $10 on your hospital bill. It also is why ERs can be swamped with non-emergency health complaints that should be taken care of at a regular doctor's office. And it is also why illnesses and conditions are not treated at a more treatable stage, since people will wait till it actually is an emergency.

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

I actually do not know this. I know Canada's system keeps everything private, and just has the government pay for the services. I would think an advantage of that would be to allow individuals greater control and keep alive the spirit of competition to ensure quality. It does seem like it would be easier switch than having the government take over everything.

 

[Koldo]

1. You can buy insurance separately from your employer. It's just very expensive, and usually not as good.
2. You usually have the option of adding your dependents (like children) and spouses to your insurance, but it will cost you more.
3. You can choose to go without insurance, but then you will be stuck with a rather large bill any time you see a doctor. (This is something Obamacare changed: starting next year, I believe, everybody has to get insurance or else they will be fined.)

Ok. I am getting a better grasp of how it works.

There is medicare and medicaid for seniors and for the very poor. It's basically a government run single payer system.

There are some free clinics, like Planned Parenthood, where you can get discount or free services.

And lastly, hospital ERs are required, by law, to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay. While this is a necessary humanitarian service (I can't fathom turning away someone having a heart attack so that they can die on the street just because they couldn't pay), it is also a huge strain on hospitals. They have to eat the cost-- which means that they charge everyone who can pay more for everything. That's why getting aspirin at an ER will cost you $10 on your hospital bill. It also is why ERs can be swamped with non-emergency health complaints that should be taken care of at a regular doctor's office. And it is also why illnesses and conditions are not treated at a more treatable stage, since people will wait till it actually is an emergency.

The last bit still confuses me. If you go the ER, and you survive the emergency, do you have to pay something? Will you be billed? Or is it absolutely free?

I actually do not know this. I know Canada's system keeps everything private, and just has the government pay for the services. I would think an advantage of that would be to allow individuals greater control and keep alive the spirit of competition to ensure quality. It does seem like it would be easier switch than having the government take over everything.

My country owns many medical facilities, and as such that's how the poor have access to medical services. Which is why i made that question.

The biggest problem though is that the demand is too high....
So it ends up not working properly.

 

[BSM1]

UOTE]And I disagree with the idea that universal health care "would come out of everyone's pocket." When people get free checkups and preventative care, society avoids spending orders of magnitude more money on them when minor, easily preventable things turn into major acute or chronic conditions. Hospital care is damned expensive, and keeping as many people as possible from needing hospitals in the first place is one of the best ways to keep that expense in check.

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]


Nothing is ever free. Someone has to pay the person giving the exam. Someone has to pay the utility bills to keep the place open. You could say the government should cover the cost, but aren't you back to sacrificing security for freedom. And what is universal health care but just another way of saying please take care of me?

 

[dust1n]

But that only works on paper, you still have an opinion on it.

So? I'm trying to understand your position here. Not my own. I wanted to know what kinds of dependency are okay with you and what criteria are used to determine whether some dependency is alright or not.

Yes, even though you've put it in a pessimistic manner, though I suppose that's usually how debates go

Thanks. I just wanted to confirm that you think it is more selfish for the state to take taxes so that it may pay for a minor's illness or loss of parents, than it is for an individual in America to think they don't have any obligation to help minors in need.

So you do have a discretion on what kinds of dependency qualify as selfishness or greedy? Assuming that, even your question was a whole different can of worms as well, that you find it unjust that minors pay tax? Just assuming that of course.

I have no idea what this means. Whether or not it's fair or not fair for minors to pay taxes has nothing to do with universal healthcare. If you are paying taxing in those country then there is like a %100 chance you are paying for something you don't agree with. It's a different topic to ask whether minors should be taxed, or allowed to work, or whatever, because they have no vote.

 

[TommyDar]

The way I've understood it from talking to Americans that I've met in the past, is that they feel it would be too efficient and too expensive. They believe that America is a very big country and it would be costly. I can understand that. Here in Indonesia, we are trying to implement basic universal healthcare and there is much debate on what constitutes "basic" health care, and where the money will come from and so on and so forth.

Personally I favor universal healthcare in principle as I think that nobody should have to die just because they cannot afford it, but I think that anything that is not an essential medical procedure - for instance having cosmetic surgery to alter your appearance (as some actors and famous people do) should not be covered by taxpayers.

 

[MoonWater]

so one of the primary arguments that I'm hearing against universal healthcare is that it would take away choice and freedom for individuals. Well that's simply not true. Here's an example. I've been dealing with anxiety for a while and recently my doctor reccomended a therapist for me to help me out. I met with her and really liked her, felt comfortable talking with her and would have loved to continue seeing her. But it turns out she is not covered under my insurance plan, which means in order to keep seeing her I would have to pay out of pocket, which I can't afford. If we had universal healthcare i could have chosen to stay with her, but that choice was taken away.

or here's another one. When talking to my doctor about birth control options I decided I wanted to get an IUD. While my insurance ordinarily would have covered 80% of the cost it refused to in my case because we have a $1,000 deductible that hadn't been payed yet. Which means I would have had to pay the full $850 price tag myself, which I can't afford. As a result my choices were again limited, leaving me with no choice but to start taking the pill, which will cost me more in the long run. Under universal healthcare I would not have to worry about deductibles and thus would have been able to choose what method I wanted.

The thing is, universal healthcare actually provides more choice and freedom because you don't have to worry about whether or not insurance will cover a particular doctor or therapist or whatever. You would never have to spend hours dealing with the insurance beauracracy. If I were injured I could simply be taken to the nearest hospital without worry but here if I'm not concious to tell the medics which hospital I should go to I could wind up being taken to one that my insurance refuses to cover, i.e. if I were on kaiser and got taken to john muir.

 

[MoonWater]

Nothing is ever free. Someone has to pay the person giving the exam. Someone has to pay the utility bills to keep the place open. You could say the government should cover the cost, but aren't you back to sacrificing security for freedom. And what is universal health care but just another way of saying please take care of me?

uh, no, because you still have to take the initiative to go to the doctor yourself when you're not feeling well, getting regular check-ups... it's still up to you to "take care of yourself". All universal healthcare would mean is that everyone would now have access to necessary doctors and procedures in order to better take care of themselves rather than being unable to because you can't afford it and waiting for something to become an emergency and winding up bankrupt. Universal healthcare isn't "please take care of me" it's "please let me have the opportunity to better take care of myself"

 

[Falvlun]

uh, no, because you still have to take the initiative to go to the doctor yourself when you're not feeling well, getting regular check-ups... it's still up to you to "take care of yourself". All universal healthcare would mean is that everyone would now have access to necessary doctors and procedures in order to better take care of themselves rather than being unable to because you can't afford it and waiting for something to become an emergency and winding up bankrupt. Universal healthcare isn't "please take care of me" it's "please let me have the opportunity to better take care of myself"

In addition, we would be paying for this service with our taxes. It's just like conservatives trying to redefine social security as an entitlement. Uh, no. I payed that money into social security. It is taken out of my paycheck. That is my money that I earned. Just like if we our taxes payed for health care, that would be health care that I payed for, by working and paying taxes.

 

[dawny0826]

Dawny, I have the exact opposite impression. Our air, water, and food supply is fairly clean. Most Americans are overweight, but part of the problem is that unhealthy food tends to be cheaper than healthy food. (I just split a free large pizza with my wife yesterday, but we are both fairly healthy for our demographic catecgory. We don't make a habit of that sort of food. ) .

I can't disagree with you. Healthy eating does cost more, but, we have to make decisions as individuals as to how we're going to invest what we have for food.

If someone is going to invest money in an unhealthy meal, they can choose instead to invest that money in a healthier option. It's individual choice. It doesn't matter whether funding is coming through SNAP or a pay check.

Rates of smoking have dropped dramatically, so our tobacco companies are trying to hawk their wares in countries that are less aware of the dangers (e.g. China). I really do think that our main problem has to do with the fact that so many Americans have no access to basic health care, because they cannot afford it. Your remark that "the poor can usually access a basic health care service" strikes me as wildly out of touch with the facts.

Preventive health care is incredibly important. I'm not discounting the significance of the challenges posed when people do not have access to preventive health care, but, health ailments that are directly related to poor eating, smoking, alcoholism and drug use could ony partially, at best, be pegged on a person's lack of health care access.

I can't comment on the wait times at our health clinics in my community. But, I would imagine that regardless of a wait time, if a resource is available, it's worthy of exploration and consideration.

According to the Virginia Health Care Foundation, 14.6% of Virginians were without Health Insurance in 2010. This number has increased of course, since 2010. It is a sobering statistic.

Every time an ad hoc free clinic is set up, it is swamped by people desperate to get examinations.

This doesn't negate the value of a free health clinic. Are you sure that practices across the nation won't be swamped by people desparate to get examinations once a more universal system of heatlh care is implemented?