Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[Lonewulf]

So you don't want to pay less for your US-Government supplied and rationed healthcare....

Fixed it for you.

Healthcare is rationed as it is. I really don't see how the added rhetoric changed anything, except for the same "I hate the gov't and all that it stands for" stuff I see from libertarians.

 

[Cobalt]

I experienced quite a bit of that in Germany, myself, which runs in a mixed public-and-private type of healthcare; I remember visits being particularly cheap there.

Either way, the doctors were very personable, and seemed to see you as a person. I got the medication that I needed, and they took good note of previous conditions.

I would call the service I received for my bronchitis pretty high-end, overall.

Which would be great!

There's an expected shortage of doctors within the US, and if there's a massive increase in patients, I would fear that would only get worse.

 

[Mitchell314]

Which would be great!

There's an expected shortage of doctors within the US, and if there's a massive increase in patients, I would fear that would only get worse.

If there's going to be a shortage, it's going to royally suck no matter what for the consumers.

 

[Lonewulf]

Which would be great!

There's an expected shortage of doctors within the US, and if there's a massive increase in patients, I would fear that would only get worse.

That might be true. Maybe it would make things worse.

On the other hand, if more people that are driven into debt thanks to Health care costs find themselves able to afford Health care, and are able to pull themselves out of poverty and get themselves an education, you might just see a rise in doctors, although it certainly would take a while to get going.

On the other hand, we could just import doctors from China or India.

 

[Cobalt]

That might be true. Maybe it would make things worse.

On the other hand, if more people that are driven into debt thanks to Health care costs find themselves able to afford Health care, and are able to pull themselves out of poverty and get themselves an education, you might just see a rise in doctors, although it certainly would take a while to get going.

On the other hand, we could just import doctors from China or India.

I read an interesting story about an incredibly resourceful Indian surgeon once. Fascinating stuff.

Hopefully some people will feel that medicine is their calling, and we won't have a shortage.

 

[boooeee]

It will be interesting to see your evidence that he made such an assumption.

It's clearly implied from his argument. He is arguing that if the US went to a government-sponsored universal healthcare system, their costs would drop to the level that other countries experience (countries with universal healthcare). In other words, the lack of universal healthcare is the only possible reason for why US costs are so high.

 

[boooeee]

...and the evidence that "is it possible that the US is subsidizing medical advances for the rest of the world".

I seem to remember a certain Gnome of this parish making similar claims, and being unwilling to be able to back them up with even a scintilla of evidence.

I don't have any evidence of that. Then again, I don't pretend to know the exact reason why costs are so high in the US.

My whole point is that ascribing it solely to the lack of universal healthcare strains plausibility. The US already has universal single payer healthcare for people above age 65. It cost $454 billion last year. Darat's argument (as I understand it) says that if we extended that universal healthcare to everybody below 65, we would somehow spend less than $454 billion.

Healthcare in the US seems to be expensive regardless of private or public delivery.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Not sure why you think my argument should ultimately lead to the end of bankruptcy laws. There is a need for individuals and organizations to take extreme action to handle their financial problems. We're dealing only with the causes of the bankruptcies. If you're so concerned with people being unable to pay their bills, then you might be more successful in controlling their ability to spend money in other ways rather than engaging in changes to the health care system.

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?"

I've already posted several references which show that the waiting time for people with cancer in Canada are waiting, on average, longer than a month.

"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.

You know, that article makes no sense... because right in the very same article it states:
A Commonwealth Fund study ...found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada.[/quote]

So, who has the worst problems with waiting lists, Canada or the U.S.?

Furthermore, I'd really like to know exactly where the data she was using was coming from. If its from the Commonwealth Fund, I found the following study, which has the following section: United States - Areas of good performance: Waiting times for elective surgery were lowest.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=227628

So, not only did the author of the article in the Huffington Post contradict herself, it seems she was also contradicted by information from the same organization she quoted.

The article also has the following statement: The results show that no country consistently scored the best or worst on all of the indicators; each country had either the best or worst score on at least one indicator.
Which is pretty much what I've always stated... the U.S. system is not perfect. But neither is an all-taxpayer funded system like Canada's.

 

[viverravid]

Is this thread repeating itself?

We started off with ideologically based objections to Socialized medicine, with these posters complaining they prefer to have responsiveness and choice.

These were answered by pointing out that Socialized medicine provides better outcomes for everyone at a lower cost to everyone, and that most countries provide this as a basic "safety net", in addition to a private system where you have the option of paying more for increased responsiveness, choice of doctor etc.

A few pages later some new people turn up with the same ideological objections repeating the same arguments. Answered with the same facts.

Guys - you can have it all. A public system that provides a minimum standard of care for everyone for less money than you currently spend, AND the option to take responsibility for yourself by spending your own money and getting those things you value (responsiveness, choice etc).

 

[Darat]

So you don't want to pay less for your US-Government supplied and rationed healthcare....

Fixed it for you.

Please go and check the figures in this thread and the many health systems they cover. You'll find that in the UK I have a much wider choice of medical treatments than you do at a a lower cost since I can access the NHS (our universal health care system) plus also take out private medical insurance.

That you wish to limit your choices and also pay more for that limited choice is to me quite fascinating.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

So, you pro-unihealth guys/gals are arguing that since uni-health has resulted in the U.K. having a lower % of the GDP spent on health care, that the effects on the GDP would be the same if you applied uni-health to the U.S.?

The bottom line is that you can't prove that until uni-health has been tried here. You are getting all worked up over something you THINK will work in the U.S. just because it works in a country that is 1/5 our population and smaller than oregon state. You have to consider the variables that could result in higher cost, for example: We have an inadequate system for our medical records, we have illegal immigrants using our resources and legal citizens who abuse them (as I'm sure you do), we are probably more likely to need expensive transportation services like medevac helicopters, higher fuel costs to cover more distance, and so on. I could keep going with more, if you insist.

Who knows, one day we might vote "yes" for uni-health. The question in the poll was a yea or nea for uni-health. I still say nea. Like it or not, nobody can PROVE uni-health is better than what we have now until it is put into place, so why get worked up?

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

RQ comment about the fat woman before I call it a night.

Lonewulf,
I'm surprised at your views on HC and food stamps. I've lived in San Antonio my whole life, and I have seen sooooo much abuse of the system here it's amazing. If the people in other states are abusing HC and food stamp programs like people do hear, then I expect uni-health to devistate this country. You say that a "the other day I saw ___ so and such" argument isn't always reliable, but if you have EVER been inside an HEB here in town you've seen people just like the fat woman. You don't see it rarely, you see it regularly. I myself, see someone paying for junk-food with food stamps almost every time I go shopping. Not to mention the crazy amount of people who buy people groceries with their Lone Star Cards at half price for cash. No kidding, I could probably get 100 bucks worth of groceries, right now, for 50 bucks in cash. Why would uni-health be any different? Why perpetuate a cycle of irresponsibility in scabs? Why are you socialists arguing for the moral high ground, by supporting peoples vices? I'm not saying let people die. I wouldn't mind pitching in for a poor kids heart transplant, but I would mind paying for some gluttons gastral bypass. If that makes me unethical.........

 

[viverravid]

Re the above issues...

Exploitation of public health systems requires the complicity of doctors. They have a strong incentive not to do this, as they get disbarred if found out - 10 years of Med school for nothing

Anyways, again we've returned to the same arguments: this time that America is unique in some way that will prevent such a scheme from working there, even though it does work in almost all other first-world countries.

Still there maybe something to this - America is certainly unique when it comes to religion, and to general political Zeitgeist. Would another expression of this uniqueness be susceptibility to health-fraud and bureaucratic inefficiency?

I'm generally very sympathetic to libertarian-style arguments, but this issue of public health is the one that made me start questioning. The evidence clearly shows socialized medicine is better economically and ethically.

Sure, if you redefine ethics in such a way that any kind of collectivism is evil you can tell yourself it's less ethical, but if you consider ethics to be primarily about human happiness and suffering (as I do), that argument won't fly.

Maybe in a country where the state was nearly non-existent then the bureaucracy involved in a system like this would be more pain than gain, but not in present-day US.

ETA: Is it worth paying more for your own health care so you aren't contributing to a gluttons gastric bypass?

 

[Darat]

So, you pro-unihealth guys/gals are arguing that since uni-health has resulted in the U.K. having a lower % of the GDP spent on health care, that the effects on the GDP would be the same if you applied uni-health to the U.S.?

...snip...

Not quite - we are commenting that most (if not all) universal health care systems throughout he world are cheaper to run and result in better health outcomes for the populations than the system the USA currently has.

Since we are not talking about just one example (e.g. the NHS) it is not a unreasonable conjecture to assume that the USA could also provide a universal health care system that is cheaper and results in better health care outcomes for the population that the system it currently has.

The "extraordinary" claim is the one that the USA is somehow very different to all these other countries and therefore a USA universal health care system would cost more than what the USA population currently spends.

 

[Lonewulf]

RQ comment about the fat woman before I call it a night.

Lonewulf,
I'm surprised at your views on HC and food stamps. I've lived in San Antonio my whole life, and I have seen sooooo much abuse of the system here it's amazing. If the people in other states are abusing HC and food stamp programs like people do hear, then I expect uni-health to devistate this country. You say that a "the other day I saw ___ so and such" argument isn't always reliable, but if you have EVER been inside an HEB here in town you've seen people just like the fat woman.

And I've seen someone NOT abusing food stamps, that's NOT fat (overweight, maybe, from the fact that she can't move around thanks to her PHYSICAL DEBILITATION), and is NOT able to work most jobs, thanks to mental illness and physical debilitation.

You want to punish HER because there's someone else you consider, shall we say, "Undesirable".

You don't see it rarely, you see it regularly.

Funny thing about psychology; we tend to see what we want to see, or what seems the most obvious, and justifies our biases. For every person on food stamps you say is "abusing the system", I see someone that's not.

I myself, see someone paying for junk-food with food stamps almost every time I go shopping. Not to mention the crazy amount of people who buy people groceries with their Lone Star Cards at half price for cash. No kidding, I could probably get 100 bucks worth of groceries, right now, for 50 bucks in cash. Why would uni-health be any different? Why perpetuate a cycle of irresponsibility in scabs? Why are you socialists arguing for the moral high ground, by supporting peoples vices? I'm not saying let people die. I wouldn't mind pitching in for a poor kids heart transplant, but I would mind paying for some gluttons gastral bypass. If that makes me unethical.........

This is an argument for promoting better diets, not ruining it for everyone because there's people you consider "undesirable".

And like I said, the health care system would take them anyways, and the people allowed in would simply go into debt; either that, or they're rejected, and DO die, in which case, you're saying that the "undesirables" should be allowed to die, because of their decisions, or that their children should die, because of what parents they happened to be born to.

If that's not what you're saying, then I suggest you rethink your argument.

Either way, they're affecting you, or they're dying and you're saying they deserve to. There's little other recourse. Remember: As long as they create demand, even in a free market-based system, the more the price goes up for you. You can't avoid it. You really can't.

 

[Rolfe]

"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!"

That is the most ridiculous cariacature of universal healthcare I ever saw in my life.

What is it about "we pay less for universal healthcare we can actually access than you do for the restricted socialised system you can't access" that you find so hard to understand?

As has already been pointed out, it's not an either-or situation. We contribute to the common fund according to our resources. The common fund is there to be called upon by people who require it. It's not a question of ordering one person who may themselves be in need to pay for someone else - deserving or not.

You see, the chances are that in the US system you're already paying for that guy's kids to see a doctor. If he's the sort of ne'er-do-well you like to straw-man about. Your problem is, that you yourself are getting no benefit from your taxes in this respect, while those of us living with universal systems do receive benefit from them.

What we're actually saying is, look at the money you're all paying for only a minority of people to see a doctor. How about organising the system so that for the same expenditure, his kids and your kids too can all see a doctor?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

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?

I keep on asking about this, lots of times in this thread, but nobody answers me. I keep posting the percentage tax I pay (in the UK) and asking US posters what their comparable figure is. Tumbleweed.

I looked at my January pay slip. I noted that I was allowed to keep 73% of my gross income for the month, after taxes (including NI as a tax because that's what it is). And I am what is referred to as a "higher rate taxpayer".

Now I know that's not the whole story, but it's a pretty fair representation of it. I don't believe our other taxes (such as VAT) are the deciding factor in this argument. So, if getting to hold on to 73% of my income is "having the crap taxed out of me", then would someone in the US please provide some sort of comparison by letting us all know what percentage of your January gross earnings you actually got your hands on?

And for this money, as well as paying for nuclear weapons and illegal invasions of other countries, and the education of other people's children (the former two of these being things I really resent having money "ripped from my wallet" to pay for), I get comprehensive access to the healthcare I need. In spite of being a "higher rate taxpayer", which means I've got a pretty reasonable income thankyouverymuch.

So, like Volatile, I know it doesn't come down to the state telling me to pay for someone else's healthcare rather than my own (which is what your post implies). It comes down to the state allowing me to access the healthcare I pay for.

This seems far less iniquitous than the US system, which really is the one where the taxpayer is forced to pay for other people's healthcare instead of his own.

Rolfe.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

RQ comment about the fat woman before I call it a night.

Lonewulf,
I'm surprised at your views on HC and food stamps. I've lived in San Antonio my whole life, and I have seen sooooo much abuse of the system here it's amazing. If the people in other states are abusing HC and food stamp programs like people do hear, then I expect uni-health to devistate this country. You say that a "the other day I saw ___ so and such" argument isn't always reliable, but if you have EVER been inside an HEB here in town you've seen people just like the fat woman. You don't see it rarely, you see it regularly. I myself, see someone paying for junk-food with food stamps almost every time I go shopping. Not to mention the crazy amount of people who buy people groceries with their Lone Star Cards at half price for cash. No kidding, I could probably get 100 bucks worth of groceries, right now, for 50 bucks in cash. Why would uni-health be any different? Why perpetuate a cycle of irresponsibility in scabs? Why are you socialists arguing for the moral high ground, by supporting peoples vices? I'm not saying let people die. I wouldn't mind pitching in for a poor kids heart transplant, but I would mind paying for some gluttons gastral bypass. If that makes me unethical.........

Replace the word “healthcare” with “education” in this thread and see how you feel about it.

I’ve gone to my kids’ school and found that some kids were sleeping in class.

Why should I pay for their laziness? The parents of these kids probably sit around all day watching American Idol and eating bon bons! I work my butt off all day then come home and make sure my kids do their homework. Teachers end up spending more time reviewing lessons for these lazy kids than they do educating mine with new material. I’m sick of it! I don’t want to pay for lazy little buggers to sleep during the day.

Now let’s try replacing “healthcare” with “police”.

I live in a good part of town. We don’t have a lot of crime here yet my municipal taxes keep going up to hire more police because of gang violence on the other side of town. I’m sick of it and shouldn’t have to pay to protect people who choose to live in the wrong part of town. Their plight does not affect me so why do I have to pay for them to pick up the phone and call the cops every time they here a gunshot? They should be hiring their own cops if they want safer neighbourhoods!

How about “fire department”?

My house was built in 2004 and everything in it complies with current codes. Drive 3 blocks to the south of here and the houses were all built 40, 50 even 60 years ago to different codes...if any. There has never been a fire on my block yet it seems like the fire department responds to 3-4 calls a year to that older neighbourhood. It’s costing us a fortune!

Look, neither my wife nor I smoke and when we renovated our basement we had a master electrician pull a permit and wire everything to meet current codes. The chances of us having a fire in this house are slim to none so I think I should be able to withhold the portion of my tax dollars that goes to the fire department. If you choose to smoke or live in an old house then you pay the consequences!



I realise these are simple examples Dan but I wonder how libertarian you are when it comes to other essential services. Why is healthcare so different from education or police protection? Is healthcare somehow not essential to the well being of your country in the same sense as education? Would you feel like a socialist if a fire broke out in your house and you had to call the fire department? How is taxpayer funding of healthcare socialism yet taxpayer funding of education and police/fire departments not socialism?

 

[Mitchell314]

... and I have seen sooooo much abuse of the system here it's amazing. If the people in other states are abusing HC and food stamp programs like people do hear, then I expect uni-health to devistate this country...

Man, this country must be an Epic Fail if we can't even manage to try something Europe can do fairly well. Yet I doubt it...

...You say that a "the other day I saw ___ so and such" argument isn't always reliable...

If you've met so many Americans to make a determination, how come I haven't seen you?

... but if you have EVER been inside an HEB here in town you've seen people just like the fat woman. You don't see it rarely, you see it regularly. I myself, see someone paying for junk-food with food stamps almost every time I go shopping...

Ever heard of Confirmation Bias?

... Why are you socialists arguing for the moral high ground, by supporting peoples vices?

Class, can we spot the logical fallacy here?

BTW, I'm not a socialist. I'm normally for the market, but if something isn't doing well, what's the logic behind not looking for something that works elsewhere? Besides feel-good "it's like socialism, and socialism is the evil!"?

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Yes, the obese lady with the food stamps. And yes, there are more of her where she came from, we get that.

I don't think anyone who advocates universal healthcare believes that every single person who benefits from it has led a blameless, healthy, industrious life. Any sort of system of social security is inevitably going to let some freeloaders take advantage.

What astonishes me about the detractors is their apparent inability to empathise with any of the non-freeloading situations. Many, many people who find themselves in need of expensive healthcare are in that position through no fault of their own. To imply that everyone would remaiin healthy and free from disease if only they exercised, ate a good diet and gave up smoking is simply ridiculous. At the most extreme of the other end, try telling that to a teenager with cystic fibrosis.

And yet so often the arguments against a universal system come down to, there are people there whom I feel don't deserve assistance, so I don't want to contribute to any assistance.

Well, let's look at what you're actually doing. If the lady was entitled to food stamps, correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine there's probably a fair chance she's also entitled to Medicaid. So you are shelling over the cash to pay for her food, her kids' food, and their medical bills. That's the reality. What you're not getting, is any right to access that pot of cash on your own behalf.

Don't you think you might have got your rant a bit back to front?

Rolfe.