Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[applecorped]

Could everyone repeat everything they said, for the record?

 

[Rolfe]

Sure! You're welcome.

Rolfe.

 

[Bjorn]

No, I don't think that you necessarily want the poor and the old to be left without healthcare because you don't want universal healthcare. But sometimes what you say seems to imply that, if you take it to its logical conclusion. So, I enquire what you actually mean.

It comes back to the question I've asked several times. Why don't you want universal healthcare? You say it's not unthinking blind ideology. So you must have some reasons you can articulate.

I've tried to find these from your posts, and come up with two possibilities. One is that you object in principle to being compelled to contribute towards other people's healthcare. If that is the case, I think you have to explain your position with regard to your tax contributions towards Medicare and Medicaid. These are undoubtedly compulsory contributions towards the healthcare of other people. So, if you don't want to contribute in this way, and yet you don't want these people left without healthcare, how do you see their healthcare being funded?

You also have to consider your position as a paying patient, whether insurance-funded or self-funded. The way your system works at present, hospitals are legally obliged to treat emergency presentations even if these people have no means of paying. They cover their costs for this by overcharging the paying patients. So really, if you have insurance, you also can't avoid paying for the healthcare of the uninsured, because the insurance companies inflate their premiums to compensate for this overcharging.

The only way you can avoid being forced to pay for other people's healthcare is not to carry any insurance of your own, and then never get sick. Because the minute you enter the system as a paying patient, again you're going to face inflated charges to cover the uninsured emergency presentations.

So, it's not just in a universal system that you are forced to contribute towards the healthcare of others. You have to do it at the moment. So, if that's your reason for not wanting universal healthcare, forgive me, but I don't think you're thinking it through.

The main difference between us is not that I have to contribute towards the healthcare of others and you don't. We're both in about the same boat there. In fact the real difference is that I get to access the healthcare system I'm "forced" to pay for - so it no longer seems like an imposition to me, more like a very good deal indeed.

Can you see why I'm completely confused by this objection?

Your other objection seems to be that you don't want "undeserving" people to "get something for nothing".

So, how to you refine your system so that only the truly deserving can access free healthcare? Who decides who is deserving and who isn't? Just how blameless does someone have to be? And what about the children of the improvident and the feckless? Are they excluded along with their parents?

And how proportionate do you want the punishment to be for bad choices, a bit of risk-taking, the fatal gamble that serious illness is something that only happens to other people? Do you really want to sentence these people to death from untreated diabetes, or heart disease, or liver failure?

I would hesitate a long time before I presumed to judge my fellow human beings like that. And make no mistake about it, declarations that you oppose someone "getting something for nothing" do in the end boil down to exactly that.

So while I accept that you don't explicitly wish ill on the poor, the old and the feckless, a lot of what you say actually does imply that these people should be left without access to healthcare. If indeed I've correctly divined your reasons for not wanting universal healthcare.

Of course, if your reasons are something else, you still have to explain them.

Rolfe.

Hm. I don't think I've seen it explained better.

I was once present at a speech given by the head of the WHO, and at the end of the speech she answered a lot of questions from people in the audience in a great way. Until someone asked her why there's no universal healthcare in the US.

She was silent for what seemed to be minutes, then replied: I honestly have no idea. You pay more and get less.

 

[macdoc]

Rolfe's posts are terrific

•••

why there's no universal healthcare in the US.

She was silent for what seemed to be minutes, then replied: I honestly have no idea. You pay more and get less.

Doesn't that just sum up he opinion of those that do enjoy UHC looking in on the US discussion....

It's like viewing an alien planet at times.....

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Deleted.

 

[ServiceSoon]

How is this different from the insured paying for the uninsured in the ERs presently?

So if enough people steal something your soultion is to give it to them for free?

 

[Architect]

That would be a much stronger argument if your healthcare system were cheaper than ours. However you pay more, ang get less. So value-laden comments about "steling" aren't really here or there. This is a sceptic site; get with the programme.

 

[Rolfe]

What's actually being suggested is that instead of people like ServiceSoon paying into a tax-funded system that he cannot access, the thing be reorganised so that he actually gets to access the system he pays for.

I'm not entirely clear why this suggestion makes him so angry.

Rolfe.

 

[ServiceSoon]

What's actually being suggested is that instead of people like ServiceSoon paying into a tax-funded system that he cannot access, the thing be reorganised so that he actually gets to access the system he pays for.

I'm not entirely clear why this suggestion makes him so angry.

Rolfe.

Nobody is angry. The issue is that ServiceSoon sees how the gov messed up his Social Security and would prefer not to depend on the gov to mess up his health care too. Ever heard that a gov powerful enough to give you everything is a gov large enough to take everything away?

Based on your argument above, it looks like the old slippery slope worked very well to implement “reasonable” baby steps to realize the master plan. It is apparent to me that the idea of a slippery slope isn't a fallacy after all.

You act like there are no cons to the system you advocate.

That would be a much stronger argument if your healthcare system were cheaper than ours. However you pay more, ang get less. So value-laden comments about "steling" aren't really here or there. This is a sceptic site; get with the programme.

I am thinking critically, very critically of gov run programs..which is in a different manner than you.

 

[Darat]

Yet many other countries operate universal health care systems which have better outcomes for the population than the USA's "non-universal but quite-universal system" does and they do it for less money per capita.

 

[Belz...]

Well, universal health-care isn't all good, either. Here in Canada, and especially in Québec, there's tons of doctors that leave for other countries (USA, particularily) because the pay's better in private sectors than what the provincial government can (or wants to) afford.

The results are that there are less doctors available, that it's extremely difficult to find a physician, and that you can't be picky about the one you get, and since the really good ones have already left for better salaries...

 

[Darat]

No one has been arguing for universal health care because they think their current system is perfect. Being a Brit I can assure you I am capable of speaking about the NHS's faults without repetition, hesitation, or deviation for a considerable period of time!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

No one has been arguing for universal health care because they think their current system is perfect. Being a Brit I can assure you I am capable of speaking about the NHS's faults without repetition, hesitation, or deviation for a considerable period of time!

Not just a minute?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Well, universal health-care isn't all good, either. Here in Canada, and especially in Québec, there's tons of doctors that leave for other countries (USA, particularily) because the pay's better in private sectors than what the provincial government can (or wants to) afford.

The results are that there are less doctors available, that it's extremely difficult to find a physician, and that you can't be picky about the one you get, and since the really good ones have already left for better salaries...

Something to take into consideration, if all nations had a similar health care program then where would the docters go?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Competitive Disadvantage: Health Care Costs Spell Trouble for U.S. Companies

 

[Rolfe]

Something to take into consideration, if all nations had a similar health care program then where would the docters go?

Fortunately all nations don't have a similar healthcare system to Canada's. Those of us who have been following these threads realised long since that Canada has specific and apparently unique problems in this respect.

Now if you could show that doctors in other countries with universal healthcare systems were beating a path out of the country then you might have the beginnings of a point. Not happening, though.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Competitive Disadvantage: Health Care Costs Spell Trouble for U.S. Companies

That's actually quite sad. Explain the totally terrifying problem,

a family of four in 5-6 years will be facing health insurance costs of $15,000 to $18,000 annually

then completely fail to address it in any meaningful way.

• Create greater consumer value in the health care marketplace by using health information technology and empowering consumers with more information about quality health care.
• Provide more affordable health insurance options for all Americans by creating an open, all-inclusive private market for health insurance and replacing the state-by-state market with multistate markets.
• Engage all Americans to take an active part in their health care by obligating them to obtain health insurance through either their employer or the private market, and by encouraging them to participate in employer- or community-based prevention, wellness and chronic care programs.
• Offer health coverage and assistance to low-income, uninsured Americans to create a stable and secure public safety net.

Yeah, like that's going to work.

Rolfe.

 

[Toke]

I belive the original idea of employer health insurance was to have a hold on the employees. It is now getting too expensive.

I wonder if industri organisations would lobby for higher company taxes to pay for UHC.
It would save them a fortune to get goverment to take over from those wastefull private
bureaucracies.

 

[Rolfe]

It's an interesting idea. But the fact remains that America already spends way over the odds on inadequate healthcare. They don't need to spend more. They just need to spend it on healthcare, not overheads.

Rolfe.

 

[Toke]

I am not talking of spending more, instead of companies paying for private insurance they would pay taxes. And a significantly smaller amount than thay currently pay in insurance.