Conservatives, under what conditions would you allow universal coverage?

[bikerdruid]

one would get the impression from listening to the nay-sayers, that in canada and the u.k, people are dying in droves, have crappy doctors and contribute nothing to research and development of medical advances.

this is just not true.

 

[Dr. Keith]

one would get the impression from listening to the nay-sayers, that in canada and the u.k, people are dying in droves, have crappy doctors and contribute nothing to research and development of medical advances.

this is just not true.

But if we just think its true, isn't that good enough?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Neither you nor Beerina have shown any link at all between UHC and pharmaceutical funding, nor even bothered to explain yourselves.

Medical research and health care are completely different animals, and funded differently. They are seperate budget items. There is no reason whatsoever to claim that spending on one affects the other.

And it's not up to me to disprove your claim, it is up to you to show evidence for it.

You just quoted me explaining myself. I didn't make a claim, I asked a question. My question isn't about UHC in general, it's a about a specific claim about a particular aspect of some UCH proposals. And it seems ludicrous to claim there is no relation between spending on health care and medical research. The question should be how big and direct the relationship is. There appears to be too much baggage from some other threads I'm not familiar with for this to be an interesting conversation for me.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

One page back you linked to a site that claimed spending by US and European drug companies supported the notion that changing the US system would reduce R&D. Don’t you think it’s a little disingenuous to now claim it doesn’t matter where the drug companies are headquarters or do their R&D?.

No. Did you read what I said about the link I posted? I'll repeat: I don't think it settles the issue nor do I think it's definitive. I was trying to bring some evidence in to the discussion and it cited it's sources.

 

[bikerdruid]

But if we just think its true, isn't that good enough?

apparently it is, for many in this thread.
they would sooner pay more, and have many neighbours with no medical, than have that commie stuff!

 

[mhaze]

TRANEWRECK:

The only argument against such a system is the grinch argument: "I'm a dick and I want other people to suffer."

MHAZE:

Nope. I'm only repeating Travis's argument. Don't I have the same rights as he?

Uh, yes. That's sort of what the "universal" in "universal health care" means.

NOPE. I applied Travis's argument with my situation, just like he applied it to his.

And I rejected "universal health care".. Pure and simple.

Name calling and insults by you noted, but irrelevant.

And please note: I didn't insult him, like you insulted me.

 

[WildCat]

If that's the case, what is your solution for people with medical problems who don't have the means to pay? I have never encountered an anti-UHC poster heree who could answer this question.

The example I'll use is a 22 year old with a part-time job and no medical insurance who slides his car into a ditch and is now paralyzed from the neck down.

We know you don't want a single dime of government money to help him so what happens? Do we just leave him in the ditch to die?

Nope, after several years of asking the question I still can't find an anti-UHC poster to answer it.

I think it's obvious why, they really do think the uninsured should just be left to die. Not one cent of their precious tax dollars to help those in a life-or-death medical condition.

 

[leftysergeant]

But, if you like, go ahead and explain why that is obviously nonsense. On what basis can you automatically assert that pharmaceutical research won't be affected if we make a major change in the way money flows?

It should reallly shunt more money to pharmacuetical comoanies, thus to research funding, if the companies could sell all of their product. When you have thousands of people who cannot even go to the doctor to get a scrip for penicillin, you can bet your butt that the pharmecuetical companies are not going to e selling a lot their high-end items, either. With less money going into the pockets of the investor class, more of it can go to actually buying drugs to treat sick people.

Beerina is just gettinng carried away in the superstitious belief that any assaullt on one capitalist instution is an attack on America.

 

[Rolfe]

Nope, after several years of asking the question I still can't find an anti-UHC poster to answer it.

I think it's obvious why, they really do think the uninsured should just be left to die. Not one cent of their precious tax dollars to help those in a life-or-death medical condition.

They say that charities should handle that sort of thing, and that although they oppose any of their tax dollars funding care for a dead-beat like that, they'd be quite happy to put a buck or two in the collecting tin.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

You just quoted me explaining myself. I didn't make a claim, I asked a question. My question isn't about UHC in general, it's a about a specific claim about a particular aspect of some UCH proposals. And it seems ludicrous to claim there is no relation between spending on health care and medical research. The question should be how big and direct the relationship is. There appears to be too much baggage from some other threads I'm not familiar with for this to be an interesting conversation for me.

Well, you could look at what happens in countries with universal healthcare systems. It's not as if you're short of examples to choose from.

One feature is that because everyone is in the system, research is facilitated. Another feature is that because everyone is entitled to be treated, they get to supply their product to 100% of the potential market instead of just a proportion.

Rolfe.

 

[stokes234]

Big centralised systems are also easier to pool large amounts of data from, which can be quite useful in medical research. For example, a recent study from canada looking at the data from 22 million A&E visits.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by WildCat
If that's the case, what is your solution for people with medical problems who don't have the means to pay? I have never encountered an anti-UHC poster heree who could answer this question.

The example I'll use is a 22 year old with a part-time job and no medical insurance who slides his car into a ditch and is now paralyzed from the neck down.

We know you don't want a single dime of government money to help him so what happens? Do we just leave him in the ditch to die?

Nope, after several years of asking the question I still can't find an anti-UHC poster to answer it.

I think it's obvious why, they really do think the uninsured should just be left to die. Not one cent of their precious tax dollars to help those in a life-or-death medical condition.

What is the definition of Universal Health Care? Does it mean anyone who wants insurance should be able to get it regardless of income or preexisting conditions? Then I am in favor of it. Does it mean every one will have to pay 4,000, 5,000 thousand or more a year for it even if they don't want it then I am against it.

I believe that individual would qualify for medicare or some other similar program and would not be left to die in present day America without UHC.

I believe the uninsured should not be left to die but I do believe people should not be forced to buy insurance and if they don't buy insurance they should have to deplete their assets before the government will pay for it.

 

[WildCat]

What is the definition of Universal Health Care? Does it mean anyone who wants insurance should be able to get it regardless of income or preexisting conditions? Then I am in favor of it. Does it mean every one will have to pay 4,000, 5,000 thousand or more a year for it even if they don't want it then I am against it.

No, it means everyone is covered by a health plan regardless of ability to pay.

I believe that individual would qualify for medicare or some other similar program and would not be left to die in present day America without UHC.

So you want government-paid UHC, you just want to do it in the most expensive way known to man.

I believe the uninsured should not be left to die but I do believe people should not be forced to buy insurance and if they don't buy insurance they should have to deplete their assets before the government will pay for it.

Again, you want to do it in the most expensive way possible. This is why we pay twice as much as other countries for health care. For every doctor you also want to pay a government bureaucrat whose job it is to make certain that no one gets health care until they're destitute and homeless. This person will get access to your bank records and other financial information. Then you get to pay not only for their health care, but also for their housing and food. And of course they would no longer be able to get a job, or they lose their housing and food and medical care. Unless that first job is a high-paying one! And sas we all know everyone's first job pays gobs of money.

Why not just cover everyone without all the overhead that goes into determining eligibility?

 

[Travis]

I was unemployed and briefly homeless (lived in a guy's garage for awhile) when I was 23 and they told me I wouldn't qualify for medicare unless I had children and had been homeless for.......I forget how many days it was. Even then only the children would be covered. Nonetheless I applied three times during that period hoping to qualify under different specialty programs which involved reams of applications and navigating a Kafkaesque type bureaucracy.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It should reallly shunt more money to pharmacuetical comoanies, thus to research funding, if the companies could sell all of their product. When you have thousands of people who cannot even go to the doctor to get a scrip for penicillin, you can bet your butt that the pharmecuetical companies are not going to e selling a lot their high-end items, either. With less money going into the pockets of the investor class, more of it can go to actually buying drugs to treat sick people.

Beerina is just gettinng carried away in the superstitious belief that any assaullt on one capitalist instution is an attack on America.

If you're proposing that we simply pump some money to people who currently can't afford health care, then I have no specific problem with that.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, you could look at what happens in countries with universal healthcare systems. It's not as if you're short of examples to choose from.

Either I'm not making myself clear or you still can't separate me from some other discussion you've had. My concern can't be addressed by looking at countries that have adopted universal health care.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Dude, just do what I did and get a job that offers health coverage.

Because it's economically inefficient to do so - Lack of health coverage portability (i.e. you can't take it with you), restricts job prospects including working for a small, start-up company, starting your own business, or otherwise working in a field you'd prefer but which doesn't offer health coverage which meets your desires at a price you can stomach.

Whether by design or not, your post succinctly explains why tying health coverage to employment is a terrible idea. Thanks for that

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A private company, which requires a profit, will have to have narrower limits on what acceptable expenditure is. Government can pay more because it only needs to cover the costs, not make a profit.

Government can pay more because it has the power to take money from those to whom it rightfully belongs without giving them a choice.

A private company has to obtain money by selling goods and/or services that consumers will buy of their own free choice.

 

[stokes234]

Either I'm not making myself clear or you still can't separate me from some other discussion you've had. My concern can't be addressed by looking at countries that have adopted universal health care.

Your claim isn't getting addressed because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's this:

The claim I'm trying to evaluate is very simple. If we implement a plan to save money on healthcare then which part of the healthcare industry is that money going to come from? If we want a plan that contols costs but doesn't stifle medical progress then how do we guarantee that medical research is not one of the costs that will be affected?

But nobody can answer it, because nobody understands the link you're drawing. It's as if you think the funding for big pharma research and the funding for private or public healthcare is drawn from the same pool, but they aren't - any healthcare provider needs new drugs, regardless of whether they're funded by individuals or the government. Until you explain at exactly which point during the transition from private to public healthcare you believe the flow of money to big pharma research will be reduced, nobody can really analyse your claim.

Similarly, if you told us that we had to have private armies because otherwise there would be less defence research, we would all sit around in an equally confused manner waiting for you to elaborate.

 

[Darat]

They say that charities should handle that sort of thing, and that although they oppose any of their tax dollars funding care for a dead-beat like that, they'd be quite happy to put a buck or two in the collecting tin.

Rolfe.

Well we do know that some people will be remarkably philanthropic, there are still many hospitals in the UK that were originally built with money from a rich individual or company and look at the Gates foundation today. Unfortunately for those against UHC that evidence also shows that the level of charitable giving will not provide anything like good health care for all of those that can't afford to pay for their medical needs.