Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[Segnosaur]

Also: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.

If you read further in the article, it also states:

That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

Of course, any such survey is useless until we actually know the details of what is proposed... As I said before, support for a national health care plan might drop if/when taxes are increased to pay for it.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Of course, any such survey is useless until we actually know the details of what is proposed... As I said before, support for a national health care plan might drop if/when taxes are increased to pay for it.

And the converse - support for a national health care plan might rise if/when taxes are decreased to pay for it.

 

[Segnosaur]

And the converse - support for a national health care plan might rise if/when taxes are decreased to pay for it.

Umm... that makes no sense.

It may be possible that overall costs will go down, depending on what's covered in the health plan (and some may see a decrease in payroll deductions if insurance payments are replaced by cheaper health taxes). But I can't really see taxes going down.

 

[Lonewulf]

If you read further in the article, it also states:

That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

Of course, any such survey is useless until we actually know the details of what is proposed... As I said before, support for a national health care plan might drop if/when taxes are increased to pay for it.

Now, taking it into context of who I was responding to...

Your government owns more of the fruits of your labor, than you do. This means that your government owns more of YOU than you do. This makes you a slave, not a free person. Perhaps you are a well cared-for slave, but you are still a slave.

An advantage of slavery is that you don't have to take responsibility for your own needs. That's your master's responsibility.

Here in the United States, most of us prefer to take responsibility for our own needs, rather than sell ourselves into slavery as you and your countrymen have done.

So 60% is "most of us"? It's normal to negate, say, around 130,000,000 Americans? I guess around 130,000,000 Americans want to be SLAVES!

Maybe the Government officials can call them "boy" and lynch them if they get rowdy. (Of course, I can't imagine my mom, who's a government official, wanting to do that, but hey, if we're going to going to go with the "YOU'RE ALL COMMUNISTS AND SLAVES YOU FILTHY NON-AMERICANS!" route, we might as well follow it to its natural logic!)

 

[Toke]

What is the difference between the goverment doing the job with tax money, and insurance companies doing it with insurance payments?
Well, apart from the cost.

And where does slavery come into it?
It makes me wonder about the illusion of american democracy. Last I read that "change" guy obama had his cabinet endorsed by Ann Coulter.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's fairly obvious to me the US is not going to have anything like an equitable healthcare delivery system in the foreseeable future.

This is basically because the people that have the loudest voices in the US (i.e. physicians, insurance, medical and pharmaceutical companies, wealthy well-connected patients, etc.) are quite satisfied with the way the current delivery system works for them.

When the current system is finally brought down to its knees what will take its place will be designed primarily to work for the same group of people as the current system does.

 

[Segnosaur]

What is the difference between the goverment doing the job with tax money, and insurance companies doing it with insurance payments?

Well, I suspect the big issue is choice...

Some people would like the option of either paying a lot for the best possible health care coverage (instant access to doctors, every possible problem covered, etc), or of paying for only the basic minimum (perhaps involving only the basic services, or having users end up on waiting lists for certain care) in order to spend the money in other ways.

If you force everyone into the same tax-payer supported health plan, those that want superior coverage and those that want lesser coverage will both be disappointed.

 

[volatile]

Does anyone have any economic arguments why a free market healthcare system should be less expensive and/or provide superior care to the average consumer (and voter) than a single payer/government run system?

"The United States is unique among industrialized countries because it is the only country that fails to protect its citizens from discriminatory pricing of prescription drugs. Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom all negotiate on behalf of their citizens toobtain lower prices for brand name drugs. As a result, purchasers in these countries pay significantly less for prescription drugs than uninsured senior citizens in the United States" Source

So, in this free-market paradise that is US healthcare, even the drugs are more expensive. Why are people still defending it on the mistaken grounds that a universal system is more expensive to the individuals?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It seems what many Americans prize above all else is choice.

The fact that their choices for healthcare are a) get treatment and be ripped off, or b) do not be treated and suffer and/or die does not seem to be important to many of them.

 

[Segnosaur]

"The United States is unique among industrialized countries because it is the only country that fails to protect its citizens from discriminatory pricing of prescription drugs...."
So, in this free-market paradise that is US healthcare, even the drugs are more expensive. Why are people still defending it on the mistaken grounds that a universal system is more expensive to the individuals?

I don't think the cost of drugs is really a valid measurement of how cheap or effective the U.S. system is. After all, we aren't dealing necessarily dealing with supply issues directly related to the government, but only with price controls. For example, don't have a national 'drug' program in Canada (drugs are produced/sold privately), yet we still get the 'cheaper' price.

Basically, drug companies make a lot of their profit in the U.S. When dealing with other countries, drug companies can either A: offer drugs at lower costs, or B: have the other countries allow cheaper knock-offs to be produced. Given the choices of getting some profits or none at all, the drug companies would prefer to get some profit.

Of course, if the U.S. government decided to force drug companies to lower their prices in the U.S. itself, then they might either A: increase the price in other countries to compensate, or B: do less research/release fewer drugs

 

[Toke]

Well, I suspect the big issue is choice...

Some people would like the option of either paying a lot for the best possible health care coverage (instant access to doctors, every possible problem covered, etc), or of paying for only the basic minimum (perhaps involving only the basic services, or having users end up on waiting lists for certain care) in order to spend the money in other ways.

If you force everyone into the same tax-payer supported health plan, those that want superior coverage and those that want lesser coverage will both be disappointed.

Denmark does have private hospitals, if you can afford it, you can ´get faster treatment than others.

 

[Segnosaur]

It seems what many Americans prize above all else is choice.

The fact that their choices for healthcare are a) get treatment and be ripped off, or b) do not be treated and suffer and/or die does not seem to be important to many of them.

Well, if they lived in Canada, they would have the chance to have option a), and everyone gets stuck with option b). So basically one option is forced on us.

(And before people start complaining... yes I realize that people get emergency treatment here in Canada. Its a simplification, just as Ivor's description was a simplification.)

 

[Toke]

Why do you keep saying that? Why? After all the confirmation that several/many/most countries with univeral systems spend less on them on a pro-rata basis than the USA currently spends on Medicare/Medicaid.

No "probably" about it.

I'm still waiting for someone in the USA to tell us what proportion of their gross income they get to keep, after tax has been deducted. And then we can look at the likely cost of medical insurance, and see who's more likely to be having difficulty paying their other bills.

Rolfe.

I suspect the answer is uncomfortable for some and will never be fortcomming.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I accidentally voted nea but I'm for it. I'm actually curious as to exactly how much our taxes would increase if we had a program similiar to several European nations. I'd personally think if we were paying into a single system that our taxes would just even out with what we used to pay to the insurance company.

I do have to make a point though, the United States does not have a free market healthcare system. I don't think there has been a free market system anywhere in the Western world for sometime now. The United States is simply a socialism of the bourgeoisie, most everything we seem to do now is in defense of the very wealthy. The problem is the differance between the rich and the poor. Give money to the working class and they'll spend it, that's why I actually consider a large safety net an economic plus. Give money to the rich and they'll invest and/or hoard it. We're seeing that now with the bail-out money given to banks, and I can't figure out why no one saw that coming.

But back to my original point, the main problem with the US health-care system is that it is designed to aid the wealthy. Not a free market system, no. The US government spends 7.5 billion dollars each year in grants to hospitals for the training of Specialists. It is in the best interest of the hospitals to aquire that money so they create more available specialist positions in order to receive more government grant money. The government is therefore responsible for creating new specialist positions. The high number of specialists and low number of general care physicians is driving the price of healthcare way up for the rest of us.

So I find it just a little ironic when people criticize the US for having a non-existant free market health care system. But I find it even more ironic when conservatives and right-wing libertarians start crowing of the superiority of US non-existant healthcare everytime some big wig from up north or across the pond decides to show up and use our system. They don't realize that it isn't a free market system but that the US designs our system specifically to deal with the very wealthy in preferance to the working class or very poor, it isn't that the US has lower waiting lines or a superior healthcare system it is simply that the wealthy can come over here for near instant access with a specialist. Sure, the wealthy get theirs but the rest of us get the shaft.

 

[Lonewulf]

It seems what many Americans prize above all else is choice.

The fact that their choices for healthcare are a) get treatment and be ripped off, or b) do not be treated and suffer and/or die does not seem to be important to many of them.

When you consider that a lot of opposition to health care come from conservatives than liberals, you also have to consider the irony of how, statistically, you'd be dealing with people that are also pro-life, not pro-choice...

But of course, forcing a woman to give birth to a child she can't support isn't "slavery", whereas paying taxes is.

 

[Toke]

My country have even higher taxes than the sweedes, and I am proud.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

But of course, forcing a woman to give birth to a child she can't support isn't "slavery", whereas paying taxes is.

Haven't you heard? Limiting personal freedom is alright so long as you do it in the name of traditional values.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm *pretty* sure that paying taxes/tribute is about as traditional as you can get...

Of course, back in the day, the royalty and nobility got far better health care than the peasantry. Some things don't change.

 

[volatile]

I don't think the cost of drugs is really a valid measurement of how cheap or effective the U.S. system is.

Of course it is. If we're talking about cost to the consumer - and that's what all this talk of taxation is about - then this type of thing is directly relevant. The fact that it is yet another point that proves the "stealing my money" argument is beyond absurd seems to be the only reason you wish to discount it.

In the USA, consumers pay significantly higher for the same drugs (and the drugs companies charge the suppliers significantly more too).

Yay! Free market!

 

[lomiller]

You see, of all the factors that they use to determine the rankings, the responsiveness is about the only factor that deals ONLY with how good the health care system is.

Responsiveness doesn’t say anything about how good the care is, it only discusses how quickly care is provided for those that get it. The care, however, remains the same.

Ummm... you DO realize that, even if there are some people who are not insured (the percentage is actually very small), the ability to get treatment immediately applies to more than just the 'rich'... it applies to the, ahem, rather significant number of people who also have health insurance.

In the US the option for immediate care for those not covered by insurance are expensive overloaded (and consequently unresponsive) emergency rooms.

I find it quite ironic that you accuse me of not knowing the subject matter, when you seem to have ignored some of the basic facts as well.


First of all, I do recognize that health care is delivered (in part) "privately". (e.g. doctors acting as their own business, not to mention aspects such as drugs, eye care, etc.)

Funny how you only seem to know this after I told you.

In addition, some infrastructure (e.g. many of our hospitals) ARE directly controlled by the government.

Once again we are back into an area where I haven’t told you the answer and once again you get the facts wrong. Most Canadian Hospitals are non profit charitable organizations, but there are a fair number of privately run Hospitals as well.

Secondly, there was a court ruling, but it applied only to Quebec.

It was a Supreme Court ruling. That means it sets precedent for the entire legal system

Of course, I find it ironic... you keep cheering on the Canadian system, when the supreme court themselves recognizes that there are significant problems.

And with those problems it still marginally outperforms the US system at 1/2 the cost. It also falls somewhere behind universals systems in Europe that spend about as much. The inflationary influence of the out of control US system may play a role in that, but the primary problem remains graduating sufficient doctors out of the Canadian university system.