What would you give up for universal healthcare?

[Eskarina]

Wowsers, I did not realize this:

Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883

Yep, it's true, and the ironic part is that Bismarck installed it to ward off the influence of the evil socialists back at the time.

I would be willing to give up my current Socialized Medicine Scheme (300 million citizens pay for the health care for about 2 million beneficiaries) provided I would not simultaniously pay more for heath care AND wait longer for treatment AND suddenly not have some treatments available to me that are currently available.

What can I say...... I'm a team player.

Try UHC some time. That means: everybody who can pay for UHC pays for everybody. Including themselves.

And I very much doubt that all of your 300 million citizens pay into your "Socialized Medicine Scheme".

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, of course not. Offhand, millions of illegal aliens pay nothing & simply leech.

 

[Halfcentaur]

No, of course not. Offhand, millions of illegal aliens pay nothing & simply leech.

Oh, so it's the thought that counts.

 

[SezMe]

Why would I have to give up anything? Every country which has some form of universal care is paying far less for it. Switching and getting rid of secondary non-care industries would increase the amount of that was spent on the patient and the doctor instead of being handed over to the paper pushers.

I'm in bookitty's corner. I reject the question as formulated. UHC does not have to cost us anything. It can demonstrably save dollars - lots of them.

 

[OCaptain]

On MSNBC this morning two Senators said that their constituents indicate they believe they will have to endure slightly longer lines in hospitals and other medical facilities if the currently uninsured 40 million Americans are given coverage through subsidized policies. And because of that they oppose it and have vowed to vote against all attempts at health care reform.

Is this something you worry about? Are you willing to tell forty million of your fellow citizens to just "**** off and die" if they get turned down because of pre-existing conditions because you might have to wait a bit longer if everyone is covered?

Assuming it's true is that something you could live with?

What else would you, personally, be willing to give up for a country where everyone has health insurance?

Nuclear and biological weapons.

 

[Dessi]

No, of course not. Offhand, millions of illegal aliens pay nothing & simply leech.

Depends on whether your definition of nothing includes the $90B in federal taxes illegal immigrants paid between 2000 and 2008, or the $11.2B in income, sales, and property taxes they paid in 2011 alone.

 

[Travis]

I'm in bookitty's corner. I reject the question as formulated. UHC does not have to cost us anything. It can demonstrably save dollars - lots of them.

Oh I get that. In no way does UHC mean you have to give anything up.

I was just asking for a worst case assumption based upon those Senator's fears.



By the way I find it amusing that Uruguay has somehow managed to institute universal healthcare and yet the USA is still all: "oh it can't be done."

So live it up Uruguay. You are clearly much more competent and capable than the USA.

 

[Trakar]

2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees:

...If no substantial action is taken for several years, then changes necessary to maintain Social Security solvency will be concentrated on fewer years and fewer generations. This possible outcome can be seen by examining the large and sudden changes that would be required if action were deferred until the combined trust funds become exhausted in 2036. [Author suggests two possible actions to handle deficits, raise payroll taxes and decrease benefits].

Based on the assumption of continued increase in the average age of the population after the 75-year period (due to expected improvement in life expectancy), Social Security’s annual cost will very likely continue to grow faster than non-interest income after 2085. As a result, ensuring solvency of the system beyond 2085 would likely require further changes beyond those expected to be needed through 2085

Apologies for the wall of text, but there's a real, non-partisan problem that current tax levels can't keep up with social security benefits.

I guess I just don't understand how the above leads you to conclude the following?

...With SS going bust and no chance in hell that someone my age will ever get a return on their investment, it would be much better to funnel this money into UHC instead...

Certainly, there are several relatively minor adjustments that need to be made to ensure the continued solvency and benefit rates of the system. But this has been a regular practice since the system was initially implemented and the mechanisms and process for such is even designed into the system, so I'm not sure why you feel the system is doomed to failure and that you have absolutely no chance of ever drawing benefit from the system.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/popups/socsec_straight/content.1.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/04/08/why-social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-sec...ial_security_program_is_not_yet_bankrupt.html

 

[fishbob]

2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees:


Apologies for the wall of text, but there's a real, non-partisan problem that current tax levels can't keep up with social security benefits.

If no substantial action is taken for several years . . . .

I found the problem.
End the annual cap, bump the rate by .1 or .2 % - problem solved.

 

[sarge]

Try UHC some time.

I am already the beneficiary of the single greatest health care scheme on the planet, bar none. Any other system will guarantee a decreasing benefit for me.

That means: everybody who can pay for UHC pays for everybody. Including themselves.

I am reasonably aware of what constitutes a UHC system. UHC will provide me with longer waits and less effective care at a greater cost than I now enjoy.......guaranteed.

Of course, that alone has no bearing on whether or not a UHC system (any UHC system) would or would not provide a greater ROI for all Americans.

And I very much doubt that all of your 300 million citizens pay into your "Socialized Medicine Scheme".

All 300 million Americans fund the US Goverment, even though the half of us that actually pay taxes carry the half that do not. And if you roll your eyes at me again, I'll roll them across the floor.*



* not really. It's just something I used to say to my adolescent children when they acted like you did in your post.

 

[keale]

I am already the beneficiary of the single greatest health care scheme on the planet, bar none. Any other system will guarantee a decreasing benefit for me.

What data are you using to support that? Cite?

I am reasonably aware of what constitutes a UHC system. UHC will provide me with longer waits and less effective care at a greater cost than I now enjoy.......guaranteed.

Evidence?

 

[DDWW]

I would not give up my doctor.

She is great! Also she is from Canada and moved to the US.

DDWW

 

[rustypouch]

I am already the beneficiary of the single greatest health care scheme on the planet, bar none. Any other system will guarantee a decreasing benefit for me.



I am reasonably aware of what constitutes a UHC system. UHC will provide me with longer waits and less effective care at a greater cost than I now enjoy.......guaranteed.

Of course, that alone has no bearing on whether or not a UHC system (any UHC system) would or would not provide a greater ROI for all Americans.





All 300 million Americans fund the US Goverment, even though the half of us that actually pay taxes carry the half that do not. And if you roll your eyes at me again, I'll roll them across the floor.*



* not really. It's just something I used to say to my adolescent children when they acted like you did in your post.

Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your opinions.

 

[Peephole]

I am already the beneficiary of the single greatest health care scheme on the planet, bar none. Any other system will guarantee a decreasing benefit for me.

Over 50 million Americans disagree with you.

I am reasonably aware of what constitutes a UHC system. UHC will provide me with longer waits and less effective care at a greater cost than I now enjoy.......guaranteed.

Longer waiting lines are an overrated problem and aren't even a problem in every UHC system. Belgium for example doesn't have much in terms of long waiting lines. Also, UHC systems are on average two or three time as cheap as the American system.

All 300 million Americans fund the US Goverment, even though the half of us that actually pay taxes carry the half that do not. And if you roll your eyes at me again, I'll roll them across the floor.*

Except that, you know, that's a lie and pretty much every American pays some kind of tax.

 

[Mudcat]

Longer lines? Until there is build-out to handle everybody?

Sure.

I am quite willing to have that.

As am I, but that's mostly because I don't typically spend much time at hospitals. That said, I think that if we're really going to embrace UHC as a nation there needs to be a system in place to ensure there's no medical shortages caused by it even temporarily.

I would give up Lent.

Thanks, that made me laugh out loud.

 

[Travis]

I find it amusing that opponents of UHC act like everyone that pays taxes is on their side.

Hell I pay taxes too and yet I can't get health insurance from either the government or the private market. What an awesome system we have.

 

[Trakar]

I find it amusing that opponents of UHC act like everyone that pays taxes is on their side.

Hell I pay taxes too and yet I can't get health insurance from either the government or the private market. What an awesome system we have.

Who cares about insurance? I'd much prefer universal health care than universal health care insurance. I see no reason to sponsor corporate welfare for insurance companies.

 

[Trakar]

I am already the beneficiary of the single greatest health care scheme on the planet, bar none. Any other system will guarantee a decreasing benefit for me.



I am reasonably aware of what constitutes a UHC system. UHC will provide me with longer waits and less effective care at a greater cost than I now enjoy.......guaranteed.

Of course, that alone has no bearing on whether or not a UHC system (any UHC system) would or would not provide a greater ROI for all Americans.


All 300 million Americans fund the US Goverment, even though the half of us that actually pay taxes carry the half that do not. And if you roll your eyes at me again, I'll roll them across the floor.*


* not really. It's just something I used to say to my adolescent children when they acted like you did in your post.

If this is the quality of reasoning/rhetoric you used on them it is no wonder they rolled their eyes at your statements a lot. The fact that you followed such idiocy up with abusive threats isn't too surprising either.

 

[Trakar]

I found the problem.
End the annual cap, bump the rate by .1 or .2 % - problem solved.

or raise the retirement benefits age to 65-68. I think the cap should have been removed long ago, but then you also need remove the cap on benefit amounts (which wouldn't be a bad idea - and should still provide a net increase of SS revenue)

 

[applecorped]

I'd give up squid ice cream. No, really, I would.