Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[Earthborn]

I say no. It isn't my responsibility to pay for health care for people who don't eat healthy foods.

Do you think it is the responsibility of the people who don't eat healthy foods to pay for their healthcare? If so, why would you object to mandatory health insurance?

 

[Rolfe]

Well for one firefighters are state owned or even city owned, but often times are volunteers who are the volunteers, nothing to do with socialism. Same with schools and police. Sometimes a corporation owns the firestation or police station. And I have been one to complain how the Federal government does have too much control in these areas.
As far as the highway mainanance, that is mostly state or county business area. So yes when a big government controls all aspects it is a little scary. Plus it is our government role to care for some infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Publicly funded is publicly funded. Universal entitlement is universal entitlement.

I understand that in America funds for firefighting are provided from the public purse (whether local or national), and surely even your retained (volunteer) firefighters get paid - I know ours do. And I also understand that these firefighters will show up and put out a fire in anyone's house without either asking if they can pay (or have insurance), or billing the householder later.

I understand that every child in America is entitled to go to a school funded by public money, without paying fees, even if his or her parents are very wealthy.

I understand that the police force in America is funded by public money and they will investigate a crime committed against anyone, not just those who have insurance or who can pay them.

I understand that most roads in America are built and maintained by public money, and access is not restricted to those who are prepared to pay.

It really doesn't matter whether the funding is US central government, or state-level, or city level or even a parish council. It's still public funding. And it doesn't matter whether the relevant authority uses private corporations to provide the service or not. It's still publicly funded.

It goes on all the time. Schools, police, roads, firefighting, rubbish collection, prisons - they're all provided by what can only be described as a "socialist" system.

Yes it is. Plus it is also draining on us tax payers. I believe a Australian poster stated some facts about his universal system. He stated that he pays about 1.5% of his taxes toward Medicad. If I my wife or I paid that much we would lose thousands of dollars more then what we even pay now. Even now we pay much more then any private insurance company with our Medicad system. Its sad that they will not allow us to chose. I think we should have a government assistance there for those that want it, but they are the ones that pay into it, not other taxpayers who do not want to.

The knee jerk responses I get from the pro-universalists is "oh no they do not have coverage and t is not fair!!" kind of BS. Often times they do not realize that people OPT out of getting coverage because of their own decision, not because of costs.

Yet the cost of living in those other countrys are much higher then in the most expensive state in this nation. I have checked it out because of interest of living abroad.

Knee-jerk? Pot, let me introduce you to this kettle.... I can see why you might think that Medicare and Medicaid are draining to the taxpayer. Because, for the most part, the people who pay these taxes get nothing back in return. If you're going over past posts, maybe you should check out the evidence for the absolute consensus here, among people who've actually examined the facts. Tax-payers in other developed countries pay about the same as you do or a little less to fund their publicly-funded healthcare systems. The big difference is that the people who pay these taxes in other countries actually get to access the healthcare system they are paying for. Why do you constantly return to the claim that having universal access would inevitably cost more? It simply ain't so.

And yes, it is sad that your government will not allow you to choose. Ours allows us a pretty free choice. We can access the publicly-funded system as of right, which we've contributed to in our taxes. Or we can take out private health insurance with a view to going into the private system if we want. Or we can simply decide at the time of need that we want to be treated privately, and pony up the money ourselves. Of course most people choose to use the publicly-funded system, but the choice is there. I'm sad for you that you don't have that choice. That's been the main thrust of most of my posts, I think.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

Well for one firefighters are state owned or even city owned, but often times are volunteers who are the volunteers, nothing to do with socialism.

What does "volunteers" and "nothing to do with socialism" mean? Does anyone know? No publicly paid employee is forced into their job.

 

[Rolfe]

I say no. It isn't my responsibility to pay for health care for people who don't eat healthy foods. Look at the obesity epidemic in america that is caused by eating mcdonalds for breakfast lunch and dinner. I know many people who drink too much beer. I mean, this one girl needs to have 8 before she even feels drunk. Now if she gets liver problems, let her pay. It may sound cruel, but paying for irresponsible behavior only causes more of it.

I heard in a doctors office that a man who was a coke head was able to get benifits. This is a waste of tax payer $. I know another woman who collects disability payments, but she isn't disabled to the point where she can take care of 8 cats, drive and get her hair done every week. I think the welfare state model is a failed one and I hope it doesn't take hold in america

My God, it's like whack-a-mole. You deal with one guy spouting prejudiced antisocial BS, and another one comes up with exactly the same illinformed rant.

Do you really think that the only cause of ill-health is junk food and alcohol? If we all just ate right, took exercise and quit beer and cigarettes, all the doctors would be out of a job? I wish.

I don't think any of the proponents of universal healthcare would maintain that everyone who benefits is a paragon of healthy living. Well, the word "universal" rather knocks that idea on the head. But why is it that the opponents can do nothing but castigate all potential recipients of universal care as junk-food-binging profligates?

You've actually got it completely the wrong way round.

Where a service (such as health) is means-tested, there will always be people who manage to swing an entitlement whom others believe are undeserving. And this of course generates resentment among those who are paying the taxes but not seeing any benefit for themselves. But the fact is that US taxpayers are paying for these people at the moment! You just said, a man who is a drug addict is in receipt of benefits. So, you're describing your system as it is.

You seem to be rejecting a universal healthcare system just because it might benefit a few more who are suffering from self-induced problems. But as I said, what about the other end of the scale? What about the teenager with cystic fibrosis? What about the vast majority of people whose health problems are in no way any fault of their own? Do you think that everyone in that category is adequately cared for in your current system?

But it's your whole rhetoric I take issue with. "It's not my responsibility to pay for...." With all due respect, that's a really twisted way of looking at it. None of us knows what might be ahead of us, health-wise. Here I am, perfectly healthy and in a good job. So were a lot of people, the day before something catastrophic hit them. Thinking about it completely from the point of "us", the healthy people who don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's treatment, and "them", the people in need of treatment who suddenly turn into grasping, demanding parasites insisting on picking your pocket, is unhelpful.

Feeling secure that you live in a society to which you contribute when you can, and to which you can turn when you need help, is actually pretty positive. Constantly seeing yourself as the put-upon provider, and others as the undeserving, demanding recipients, ain't healthy.

And you may be interested to know that there has been much discussion in Britain regarding whether people whose health problems are self-induced should have the right to completely no-strings treatment. Already, some treatments or surgeries are conditional on the patient losing weight or giving up smoking first. For very scarce resources (like a liver transplant), how the patient came to be needing the treatment is one of the things factored in when deciding who gets the available organ.

It is perfectly possible to structure a universal system so that people are penalised for self-inflicted harm - actually, it's a lot easier to do this in a universal system than in a privately-funded one. It's just not very constructive to damn everyone with a health problem as being in this category - or to assume that you will never be in the category of potential recipient yourself.

Rolfe.

 

[Lonewulf]

What does "volunteers" and "nothing to do with socialism" mean? Does anyone know? No publicly paid employee is forced into their job.

It's the gubmint money! It's laced with socialism!

 

[ponderingturtle]

And you'd proabably have to earn a lot more than $50k to afford decent insurance for you and your family. The plan at my employer is about 11k for a family. A similar plan purchased independently would almost certainly cost more. And of course the older you get the more it will cost. If you happen to develop any kind of recurring illness or have one when you apply you can forget it. No amount of money will buy any kind of coverage.

And if you are sick individual plans can be as much as $36,000 a year.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

And why should the public be obligated to give people make work jobs? I thought that was a bad thing. I guess not if the jobs are white collar then make work jobs that cost everyone more money are good things.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

So we need to remove the legal obligation to treat people and instead let them die in the streets from treatable conditions, because you would be forcing people to pay for your illness.

 

[volatile]

Sorry, you've lost me again. Totally.

That latter comment was, I think, from Darat. He says, pretty clearly, that universal healthcare is the best solution in terms of efficacy and cost (I think he means efficiency rather than efficacy). He then adds, as a supplemental, that it is more morally sound. On the basis, I imagine, that access to medical treatment is not dependent on income or wealth.

It was me... and I defintiely meant efficacy (though I could of added "efficient" too).

You're right that the morality clause was a supplemental. The arguments people often off against universal healthcare is that they produce worse care, or are more expensive - and the evidence counters those claims. The fact that a universal system is also the most morally sound is just a bonus.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Yes people should not get treatment that they can't afford. That would prevent those bankrupcies, if they simply let themselves die they wouldn't be in that situation.

 

[Darat]

I don't know. What are you getting at?

Just trying to understand where your opposition to a universal health care system comes from.

 

[Drewbot]

Hypothetically- How would this scenario play out in a Gubment Health Care System?

There is only one doctor doing a certain increasing-in-demand back surgery, the government has placed price controls on the surgery, the doctor can not make as much money as he would have in a free market of health care. In a free market of health care, wouldn't the demand for the surgery, drive up the price, thus attracting new doctors to the new method/procedure, increasing the supply and thus lowering the price?

 

[volatile]

Do you really think that the only cause of ill-health is junk food and alcohol? If we all just ate right, took exercise and quit beer and cigarettes, all the doctors would be out of a job? I wish.

The corrallory to this line of thinking, remember, is that those who do happen to not eat right, or become drug addicts, or whatever, should suffer and die for their mistakes. Without any welfare provision at all (which is seemingly what is being argued for here), the poor and the needy (however that need may have arisen), will die in the streets.

Charming world, this libertarian, individualist utopia some of the posters here crave so vehemently.

 

[Rolfe]

And you'd proabably have to earn a lot more than $50k to afford decent insurance for you and your family. The plan at my employer is about 11k for a family. A similar plan purchased independently would almost certainly cost more. And of course the older you get the more it will cost. If you happen to develop any kind of recurring illness or have one when you apply you can forget it. No amount of money will buy any kind of coverage.

And if you are sick individual plans can be as much as $36,000 a year.

That's all very scary. How can anyone who's sick pay $36,000 a year?

If ever there was a situation which just cries out for a system where people pay in according to what they can afford, and then receive benefit according to what they need, this is it.

Not only can we not predict whether or not we might be in need of the benefit tomorrow, or next week, or next month, the very nature of the beast is that those who are in need of benefit are frequently those who are least able to pay.

It's truly sad that ideological opposition to anything which looks remotely like "communism" is forcing a whole nation into such a terrible "I'm all right Jack" mindset, and causing such dreadful financial hardship to people who already have too much to worry about.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

It's also terrible that so many USA folk seem to be unaware of the facts and have a view of their health system which is objectively wrong, never mind the ignorance they have of other health systems. (This is based on what I have seen in discussions on this Forum in which the same myths are brought up time and time again.)

 

[Rolfe]

Hypothetically- How would this scenario play out in a Gubment Health Care System?

There is only one doctor doing a certain increasing-in-demand back surgery, the government has placed price controls on the surgery, the doctor can not make as much money as he would have in a free market of health care. In a free market of health care, wouldn't the demand for the surgery, drive up the price, thus attracting new doctors to the new method/procedure, increasing the supply and thus lowering the price?

Really, I don't recognise your "Gubment".

Why has this hypothetical government placed price controls on this surgery? What sort of remuneration system are you hypothecating, that the surgeon is paid on some sort of restrictive piece-work billing, and thus can't make as much money?

I'm usually prepared to tackle straw men, even if only for the practice, but really, these hypothetical sutuations have to bear some resemblance to reality, otherwise it becomes not only pointess but impossible.

Why don't you look at the different ways there are of paying doctors and surgeons in the wide range of universal health-care systems to be found around the world, and see if you can find even one that suffers from a drawback like that? Then maybe see if it's possible to identify a system of remuneration that will satisfy your criteria for a suitably responsive system.

Flinging up poorly-thought-through implausible straw-man objections just wastes time.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

It is perfectly possible to structure a universal system so that people are penalised for self-inflicted harm - actually, it's a lot easier to do this in a universal system than in a privately-finded one.

Quite. This adverse selection bias creeps into any private insurance scheme just as easily and is harder to manage out again.

Pooling a health service--insurance--is founded on the principle of the lucky (healthy people) compensating the unlucky (sick people). Selection bias (moral hazard) hinders the price of such insurance being fair because people can opt for the insurance knowing better than the provider they are likely to be "unlucky" (perhaps because of unhealthy choices, perhaps not), and more likely to gain than lose relative to what they pay. If health insurance is privately funded and voluntary then the result is that mostly likely-to-be-unlucky types opt for it, but then that pushes up the cost so that it is known to be bad value for likely-to-be-lucky people and they opt out (unless it is paid through employment which mostly just hides the cost so that these people don't feel it so directly, or unless there is no alternative anyway).

No private insurance is immune from the incentive for people to game it--take it up if they think they are more likely to need it. No private insurance scheme is "good value" for someone who is going to be lucky (healthy). That's one of the reasons why it is expensive (not the only one)

If the state pays for the cover on behalf of everybody (it is universal and compulsory, but means-tested like income tax is) then this takes care of adverse selection to the fullest extent possible (along with exemptions, disallowed procedures and so on).

Added to that--the notion that there are untold hordes of individuals who decide "I will risk my health so that I get to consume a larger amount of health services without paying more" is up there with other conspiracy theories that are short on, if not devoid of motive.

 

[volatile]

Quite. This adverse selection bias creeps into any private insurance scheme just as easily and is harder to manage out again.

Pooling a health service--insurance--is founded on the principle of the lucky (healthy people) compensating the unlucky (sick people). Selection bias (moral hazard) hinders the price of such insurance being fair because people can opt for the insurance knowing better than the provider they are likely to be "unlucky" (perhaps because of unhealthy choices, perhaps not), and more likely to gain than lose relative to what they pay. If health insurance is privately funded and voluntary then the result is that mostly likely-to-be-unlucky types opt for it, but then that pushes up the cost so that it is known to be bad value for likely-to-be-lucky people and they opt out (unless it is paid through employment which mostly just hides the cost so that these people don't feel it so directly, or unless there is no alternative anyway).

An excellent point, and one which I hadn't heard put in precisely those terms before. Thanks.

 

[Toke]

If ever there was a situation which just cries out for a system where people pay in according to what they can afford, and then receive benefit according to what they need, this is it.

Rolfe, you are courting communism

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx

 

[Porkpie Hat]

That's all very scary. How can anyone who's sick pay $36,000 a year?

If ever there was a situation which just cries out for a system where people pay in according to what they can afford, and then receive benefit according to what they need, this is it.

Not only can we not predict whether or not we might be in need of the benefit tomorrow, or next week, or next month, the very nature of the beast is that those who are in need of benefit are frequently those who are least able to pay.

It's truly sad that ideological opposition to anything which looks remotely like "communism" is forcing a whole nation into such a terrible "I'm all right Jack" mindset, and causing such dreadful financial hardship to people who already have too much to worry about.

Rolfe.

My wife desperately wants to move to Texas to be closer to her family (we're in Canada right now) and this is exactly why we can't at the moment.

As a citizen she can get a job that will provide us coverage but with the economy the way it is I worry about her being laid off and us ending up with no insurance.