Health care - administrative incompetence

Do what exactly? How do you propose we implement UHC in the US?

That's not my question. I'm not talking about what steps can be taken, I want to know why we 'shouldn't' take the first one. Never mind 'getting' a UHC, why can't we even try for one?
 
That's not my question. I'm not talking about what steps can be taken, I want to know why we 'shouldn't' take the first one. Never mind 'getting' a UHC, why can't we even try for one?

If you are simply asking "Should every American citizen have access to healthcare?" then my answer is, "Yes. We should be working towards that goal."

Now what?
 
If you are simply asking "Should every American citizen have access to healthcare?" then my answer is, "Yes. We should be working towards that goal."

Now what?

Now maybe I can see if TF will answer. He's the one saying it shouldn't be done.
 
Perhaps TF can answer a question that's been nagging at me for a while. As we have the money to provide healthcare to every American, it can be done (and is being done in other countries), why SHOULDN'T we do it? Everything we need is already here, why shouldn't we take the path already demonstrated to be a success?

Because *we* don't have the money. I suspect Vermont will collapse after they try to implement their UHC system. Should be a warning to the rest of the country.
 
Perhaps what you should do then is have open rationing based on scientific evidence and public discussion.

E.g., the publically funded healthcare system would only fund treatments up to $50k/life-year*.

Funny, because someone on here earlier was complaining about that yearly limit on the California Risk Pool, and he was from Britain...
 
So then you accept that those people are at the later stages of illness and are therefore more expensive to treat?

Oh sure, it's foolish we treat them at all really.

As I said, if you can treat the disease before it gets to the point where it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat it you will end up saving money.

True, but we don't have the money for everyone to be treated with the less expensive treatments either.

Then again I notice that it seems that programmes like Medicaid and Medicare and the VA system seem to provide healthcare to those covered by them just fine.

Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all bankrupt.

So it's all countries with UHC except for Ghana which has a UHC system?

Nowhere does that link state Ghana has a UHC system, it just states where insurers have to register to be legitimate.
 
Because *we* don't have the money. I suspect Vermont will collapse after they try to implement their UHC system. Should be a warning to the rest of the country.

We HAVE the money, we pay the same amount in taxes as UK citizens do for their healthcare. Our tax money goes to fund a much smaller medical program along with a lot of leeches (and I don't mean sick people, I mean wealthy getting wealthier). As established earlier in the thread, the US spends 16% GNP while the UK spends a little over half that, and they provide universal health care to the satisfaction of all but a scattered few of their citizens. Being as we're already paying the money, and getting nothing for it, why 'shouldn't' we demand something for the money we're paying?
 
Oh sure, it's foolish we treat them at all really.

Why is it foolish to treat them? What do you think should happen to these people?

True, but we don't have the money for everyone to be treated with the less expensive treatments either.

Then isn't that more a flaw of the current system though?

Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all bankrupt.

Source?

Nowhere does that link state Ghana has a UHC system, it just states where insurers have to register to be legitimate.

Try this FAQ then.

By the way, what do you consider a UHC system to be?
 
Because *we* don't have the money. I suspect Vermont will collapse after they try to implement their UHC system. Should be a warning to the rest of the country.

We don't? Who is we?

Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

Financing single-payer national health insurance:
Myths and facts
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/Myths-and-Facts-on-single-payer.pdf
 
Why is it foolish to treat them?

Because government shouldn't be a humanitarian institution.

What do you think should happen to these people?

If they can't pay up, they should kindly die.

Then isn't that more a flaw of the current system though?

There shouldn't be a system in the first place. As Margaret Thacher said "there's no such thing as society".


Sure

http://www.businessinsider.com/medi...and-obama-isnt-even-trying-to-fix-them-2010-3

Also Medicaid is being cut out of existence in many states, since they simply can't afford it.

http://www.californiahealthline.org...in-funding-cuts-under-browns-budget-plan.aspx

Hopefully governors quickly leave the trainwreck that is Medicaid, with the added bonus of their population levels decreasing.


Try this FAQ then.

Forget Ghana then.

By the way, what do you consider a UHC system to be?

A system that provides health services universally?
 
I would love single payer or even a public option, but given the way the American political system works, I don't honestly think that either of those have a chance of becoming a reality.
 
Tell me TFian. What about not having UHC is better than having UHC? Do you enjoy seeing less well off people suffer? And no that's not a rhetorical question.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom