Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[Darat]

I don't take issue with those facts.

...snip...

So what is your issue with me saying it is more reasonable to consider that, if the USA followed the universal systems in the rest of the world, the USA could expect to see the costs reduce since they are lower in the universal systems the rest of the world uses?

The "extraordinary" claim is the one that I was refuting i.e. that taxes would have to rise to provide a universal health care system in the USA. What evidence do you have that universal health care system in the USA would cost more than the current non-universal health care system?

 

[Darat]

That seems like a herculean task. It obviously works in other countries but they have mostly had it in place for half a century. It's likely a good idea but how long would this restructuring and rehauling take and how much would this transition cost? Also how many people in the health insurance industry would lose their jobs?

I don't disagree that it would be a herculean task but is that a reason not to make the change?

 

[Policenaut]

Well I think it is going to happen sooner or later but not in the immediate future with all this turmoil. Maybe if Obama wins a second term and the economy is looking good it may be a good time to start.

 

[oggiesnr]

Also how many people in the health insurance industry would lose their jobs?

And how many people making waggon wheels were put out of work by the advent of the motor car? Jobs come and go.

Steve

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

I'd say Nea. Something does need to be done to fix the current system we have (costs are too high), but I don't think Universal Health Care is the way to go. I don't believe I have the right to force other people to pay for my illness. If I don't have adequate insurance, that falls on me. People, in general, just need to man/woman-up and start taking care of themselves better.

 

[Darat]

So you don't want to pay less for your healthcare....

 

[volatile]

I'd say Nea. Something does need to be done to fix the current system we have (costs are too high), but I don't think Universal Health Care is the way to go. I don't believe I have the right to force other people to pay for my illness. If I don't have adequate insurance, that falls on me. People, in general, just need to man/woman-up and start taking care of themselves better.

Yeah! Why don't those people with insurance and chronic or terminal illnesses just harden the hell up, hey?

"Over half of U.S bankruptcies result from out-of-pocket medical expenses, according to a study published on June 24, 2005 in the journal Health Affairs. The study, conducted by researchers at Harvard’s medical and law schools, is based on interviews with 1,771 individuals who filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Of these filers, 931 cited medical causes for their financial woes.

The results of the study indicate that an estimated 1.9-2.2 million Americans (the filers and their families) are affected annually by medical bankruptcy. In other words, every 30 seconds someone new is forced to contend with the double whammy of medical and financial catastrophe."


"Warren reports that three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had health insurance. As a result of high premiums, deductibles, and co-pays - as well as uncovered services and policy loopholes - out-of-pocket expenses become insurmountable. Even families with superior coverage find themselves filing for bankruptcy.


Families are more at risk when the primary wage earner is injured or becomes ill. The family suffers not only because of the increased medical costs, but also because the wage earner might no longer be able to work. As a result, the family loses both income and health coverage, either immediately or soon after. In certain circumstances, individuals might qualify for COBRA coverage, but the premiums can be quite expensive, much too expensive for someone with no job and mounting medical bills."


(http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/medical_bankruptcy_epidemic)


You're right! Why the hell should society stop these people dying, suffering or facing financial ruin? Layabouts!

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Yeah! Why don't those people with insurance and chronic or terminal illnesses just harden the hell up, hey?

"Over half of U.S bankruptcies result from out-of-pocket medical expenses, according to a study published on June 24, 2005 in the journal Health Affairs. The study, conducted by researchers at Harvard’s medical and law schools, is based on interviews with 1,771 individuals who filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Of these filers, 931 cited medical causes for their financial woes.

The results of the study indicate that an estimated 1.9-2.2 million Americans (the filers and their families) are affected annually by medical bankruptcy. In other words, every 30 seconds someone new is forced to contend with the double whammy of medical and financial catastrophe."


"Warren reports that three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had health insurance. As a result of high premiums, deductibles, and co-pays - as well as uncovered services and policy loopholes - out-of-pocket expenses become insurmountable. Even families with superior coverage find themselves filing for bankruptcy.


Families are more at risk when the primary wage earner is injured or becomes ill. The family suffers not only because of the increased medical costs, but also because the wage earner might no longer be able to work. As a result, the family loses both income and health coverage, either immediately or soon after. In certain circumstances, individuals might qualify for COBRA coverage, but the premiums can be quite expensive, much too expensive for someone with no job and mounting medical bills."


(http://public-healthcare-issues.suit...uptcy_epidemic)


You're right! Why the hell should society stop these people dying, suffering or facing financial ruin? Layabouts!

These are great examples of why something needs to be done about our system. Like I said.

OT: Do you have high blood pressure?

So you don't want to pay less for your healthcare....

Of course I would like to pay less.

 

[volatile]

These are great examples of why something needs to be done about our system. Like I said.

So you retract the statement "I don't believe I have the right to force other people to pay for my illness. If I don't have adequate insurance, that falls on me. People, in general, just need to man/woman-up and start taking care of themselves better", then?

As the current systems show, there is virtually no level of affordable private insurance that covers serious, chronic or terminal illness. Your proposals mean people suffer, die and / or face financial ruin, which is entirely avoidable -- and it would even cost you less.

Why on earth are you resisting on base ideological grounds a system that saves lives and saves you money? Isn't it evidence enough that perhaps your ideology is very, very seriously flawed?

 

[Toke]

We are supposed to be the happiest people in the world, one of the reason could be that we don´t have to worry too much about the financial consequenses of illnes.

Everyone is covered, and at less cost to us than US private insurance take for only part of the population.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yeah! Why don't those people with insurance and chronic or terminal illnesses just harden the hell up, hey?

"Over half of U.S bankruptcies result from out-of-pocket medical expenses, according to a study published on June 24, 2005 in the journal Health Affairs. The study, conducted by researchers at Harvard’s medical and law schools, is based on interviews with 1,771 individuals who filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Of these filers, 931 cited medical causes for their financial woes.

(http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/medical_bankruptcy_epidemic)

I just wanted to point out that I debunked this particular issue in a previous posting in this very thread. (See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4402448&postcount=199)

You see, when people look a little more closely at those people claiming bankruptcy, most of them did not actually have significant health care bills. Instead, the individuals in question were living beyond their means, and even a small doctor bill (under $1000) that should be affordable becomes the tiny straw that broke the camel's back.

But then, I guess its easier to get sympathy if you say "My illness made me bankrupt" than if you say "I coudln't afford the sports car, 9 bedroom house, and monthly trips to Vegas".

From: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec..._personal.html


Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego, took issue with the relatively low level of out-of-pocket costs that could qualify as a cause of a "major medical bankruptcy." In February 2005, she wrote for the National Review:

Heriot: Buried in the study is the fact that only 27 percent of the surveyed debtors had unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $1,000 over the course of the two years prior to their bankruptcy. ... ... for most Americans (particularly those with enough at stake to seek the protection of bankruptcy) it is not catastrophic.
...
...a 2008 study by a business professor at the University of California, Davis, said that while medical issues certainly caused bankruptcy, the bigger problem was that families spent beyond their means, leaving them vulnerable to even minor disruptions. "Although our study supports the notion that adverse events contribute to personal bankruptcy filings, the findings emphasize that excessive consumption probably contributes more to the recent increase in personal bankruptcy filing."

Of course, some people may become bankrupt because their illness makes them unable to work. But given the state of waiting lists in places like Canada, an all-socialized program isn't going to help them at all, even if the bills are paid for by the government.

 

[Toke]

And as I said with the current trouble looming for americans that would be a great argument for taxpaid healthcare and (WTF do you call it when income is covered during illness by the state). (sygedagpenge?)

 

[Segnosaur]

" Many (17 million) have incomes over $50,000, so they can afford insurance; they just choose not to get it."

These still have no insurance - whatever their reasons for not having it.

You're right, they don't.

I guess whether you think this is important or not depends on what you think the role of the government is. If you believe that the role of the government is to protect those that are actually truly disadvantaged, then the government should not bother interfering in the lives of peole who don't actually want/need its "help".

On the other hand, if someone is in favour of the all powerful "nanny state" where the government is allowed to make personal decisions on your behalf, then yeah, it is important. Of course, holding up some well-off person who could afford insurance but is too much of an idiot to bother isn't going to score a lot of points for those wanting universal health care.

" Only about half of the remaining people have been (or will be) uninsured for more than a few months."

These still have no insurance.

Again, you're right... and they do have a small risk during the brief period of time when they're uninsurred. But this is a very differnt problem than the "working poor" who need but can't afford proper insurance, and go without for years and years.

 

[CORed]

Would you be for a Universal Health Care system in the U.S.?

One Opinion:

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090126/EDITORIAL/901260336

"The solution is a complete paradigm shift away from a profit- driven model in the health care sector to a single-payer system. The trail leading us to this solution has already been blazed, and America is ready to take the first step. Public opinion polls show upward of 68 percent of citizens support such a shift, while 51 percent of American physicians are in favor of implementation of a single-payer system."

Another opinion:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8852

"A bad idea to improve quality is a government-run "pay for performance" system. In theory, it is an excellent idea. The government would figure out what sorts of processes and treatments are most effective, and it would pay bonuses to providers who use such best practices. In practice, as the United Kingdom has found, "P4P" is a system that is ripe for gaming, because it is political. Doctors in the UK were able to build in an "exception" system, where they could designate certain patients as requiring exceptions from best practices."

IMO, the US healthcare system is so screwed up that the only way you could possibly make it worse would be to have the government run it. So no. I think it's going to happen though, with a Democrat in the Whitehouse and solid Democratic majorities in the house and senate.

 

[volatile]

I just wanted to point out that I debunked this particular issue in a previous posting in this very thread. (See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4402448&postcount=199)

You see, when people look a little more closely at those people claiming bankruptcy, most of them did not actually have significant health care bills. Instead, the individuals in question were living beyond their means, and even a small doctor bill (under $1000) that should be affordable becomes the tiny straw that broke the camel's back.

But then, I guess its easier to get sympathy if you say "My illness made me bankrupt" than if you say "I coudln't afford the sports car, 9 bedroom house, and monthly trips to Vegas".

From: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec..._personal.html


Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego, took issue with the relatively low level of out-of-pocket costs that could qualify as a cause of a "major medical bankruptcy." In February 2005, she wrote for the National Review:

Heriot: Buried in the study is the fact that only 27 percent of the surveyed debtors had unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $1,000 over the course of the two years prior to their bankruptcy. ... ... for most Americans (particularly those with enough at stake to seek the protection of bankruptcy) it is not catastrophic.
...
...a 2008 study by a business professor at the University of California, Davis, said that while medical issues certainly caused bankruptcy, the bigger problem was that families spent beyond their means, leaving them vulnerable to even minor disruptions. "Although our study supports the notion that adverse events contribute to personal bankruptcy filings, the findings emphasize that excessive consumption probably contributes more to the recent increase in personal bankruptcy filing."

Of course, some people may become bankrupt because their illness makes them unable to work. But given the state of waiting lists in places like Canada, an all-socialized program isn't going to help them at all, even if the bills are paid for by the government.

OK, even if that 27% is right, that's still over half a million Americans bankrupted due to medical bills per annum.

Still, the argument that "if they hadn't spent money on other things, they'd be able to afford to become suddenly, catastrophically ill" doesn't sit very well. If that's your argument, then we might as well do away with bankruptcy laws, because everyone spends money on things in the present that they may need come a catastrophic / unforeseen event in the future.

Now, I don't deny that people should be more prudent. Sure. But is the lack of financial foresight legitimate enough a reason for them to suffer, die and / or be totally ruined if they happen to become ill? I don't think so, but then my ideology is not predicated on the fact that private profit is preferable to social gain.

ETA: On waiting lists - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burger/ugly-health-care-waiting-_b_55749.html

"What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" and people "initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable?"

If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States."

"But, here's the dirty little secret that they won't tell you. Waiting times in the U.S. are as bad as or worse than Canada. And, unlike the U.S., in Canada no one is denied needed medical care, referrals, or diagnostic tests due to cost, pre-existing conditions, or because it wasn't pre-approved."

 

[Toke]

You still don´t address why it works for europeans, but could not possible work for americans?

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

So you retract the statement "I don't believe I have the right to force other people to pay for my illness. If I don't have adequate insurance, that falls on me. People, in general, just need to man/woman-up and start taking care of themselves better", then?

No, I don't.

As the current systems show, there is virtually no level of affordable private insurance that covers serious, chronic or terminal illness.

So you think socializing health care is the only solution?

Have you thought of the reasons it is so hard to afford? People here are constantly filing lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, we have outdated medical records systems, people are constantly taking advantage of free services, etc. There are a bunch of things we could do to lower costs without just saying "Hey, you! You pay for that guys kids to go see the doctor. I don't care if you need that money for your kids education or to pay for gas to get to work. They "need" it, so you pay!" I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way here, or it shouldn't at least.

The other day I saw a morbidly obese woman and all five of her morbidly obese kids standing in line at the grocery store with a cart full of potato chips, soda, pizza rolls, and everything else she could find it the store that would make her fatter AND SHE PAID WITH FOODSTAMPS!!!. So when her fat butt gets diabetes from all that junk food, guess what? I'm going to have to shell over the cash to pay for her food, her kids food, and her medical bills!! You don't see anything wrong with that situation??

When I say everyone needs to take better care of themselves, I'm talking about taking personal responsibility for your own life. I don't just mean to pay for your own medical insurance, but also go jogging, eat better, don't smoke, encourage your employers to offer better health care plans. That is the direction I'd like to go. I don't want to just give a free ride to every loaf out there who would rather make less money so they can mooch, than work harder so they can really prosper.

I'm not cold. I don't want people to die. I do think Americans believing other Americans owe them the responsibility of holding their hands from cradle to grave is sad.

Why on earth are you resisting on base ideological grounds a system that saves lives and saves you money? Isn't it evidence enough that perhaps your ideology is very, very seriously flawed?

Do you mean "why am I standing up for what I believe?"

I didn't make the system we have and I admit it suck. So lets fix it.

 

[volatile]

So you think socializing health care is the only solution?

It's the best solution, proven in terms of efficacy and cost and it just happens to be the most morally sound too. And yet you oppose it on ideological grounds. It's not the only solution, but only an idiot would insist upon something other than the best solution on ideological grounds.

You're a blind ideologue. All the rest of your post is blather. You are attempting to justify a system that is worse in almost every measurable respect because it happens to rankle with your pre-conceived ideology.

Perhaps its time to examine why your ideological pre-suppositions would insist on a system that is proven to be more costly and less effective? Perhaps (whisper it) your ideology is wrong?

 

[volatile]

IMO, the US healthcare system is so screwed up that the only way you could possibly make it worse would be to have the government run it. So no.

Why do you think America, the greatest nation on earth, is so uniquely incapable of running what almost every single other developed nation on Earth manages more or less successfully?

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

I could be wrong (and probably am) but don't they tax the crap out of you in other countries for that coverage. I would like to see the percentages of tax on Americans vs. Euros/Kanucks.

Volatile,
If it came down to your son or daughter, would you rather spend extra money on better health care for them, or spend that money on health care for other peoples kids?