Conservatives, under what conditions would you allow universal coverage?

[theprestige]

And you want children to die of easily treated diseases because you would prefer to spend thousands a year on your own potential need for healthcare than risk a dime of your share of taxes go to help someone else.

Exactly right. People live and die the world over, all day every day. The vast majority of them are flatly not my responsibility. Their relative ages, and your appeals to emotion, don't change those facts one bit.

Actually, I take that back: I recognize that I have certain social and moral duties to my fellow man. Other people are, in fact, my responsibility. So I am in favor of private charity and government welfare programs. That doesn't mean I think any welfare program, or an unlimited welfare program, is a good idea.

See how easy it is to hyperbolize? See how little it accomplishes?

It accomplished a serious reply from me. Seems like a pretty good deal.

Let's see if my hyperbole accomplishes a serious reply from Travis. He's the one wanting universal health care: let him tell us the conditions he proposes.

If Travis will lose money for a for-profit insurer, it's almost certainly the case that he'll lose money for a non-profit insurer as well, and for every medical service provider who treats him based on his budget rather than their costs.

Alright then: some people need welfare. That's fine. I am responsible for my fellow man. I don't begrudge Travis the welfare programs that sustain him.

I would, however, like to learn what, exactly, is the lifespan and life quality he believes he's entitled to, and what resources should be allocated to deliver that entitlement. Does he have a limit? Is it sustainable? Does it amount to something more than "I cost more than I produce; you should make up the difference"? Does it have any more detail or nuance than "we should just do what they do in Europe"?

And this is to everybody: I don't care how well insured you are, unless you're a millionaire, you're one cancer diagnosis away from poverty. You have no idea what the costs can be. People think "oh, my insurance covers 80%, that's good!" and then are very, very surprised to find that 20% of four million is $800,000 and they don't happen to have that lying around in the sofa cushions.

So? Life impoverishes everybody sooner or later. There comes a time in everybody's life when not even being a millionaire can solve the problem.

The human need for medical care is limitless--the longer you keep them alive, the more it costs. People die because their resources run out, plain and simple. Because resources are not limitless. So if we're going to talk about allocating limited resources to limitless needs, I want to see talk about death panels.

 

[rustypouch]

What's to talk about with death panels?

It's a term coined by conservatives for fear mongering purposes, with no rational basis.

 

[bikerdruid]

.......... I want to see talk about death panels.

i want to see talk about our reptillian overlords.
as real as, and related to, 'death panels'.

 

[theprestige]

What's to talk about with death panels?

It's a term coined by conservatives for fear mongering purposes, with no rational basis.

I think death panels are eminently, self-evidently rational. The real mistake made by the fear-mongers was implying that they didn't already exist everywhere, all the time.

Any time somebody decides keeping grandma on life support isn't worth the cost, that's a death panel.

Any time someone decides to engage the services of Dr. Kevorkian, they're convening their own private death panel.

Can't afford insurance premiums? Protip: It's because health insurance companies are effectively, objectively, death panels.

Can't make a doctor's appointment because nobody takes Medicare anymore, on account of it doesn't cover their costs? Congratulations: You just got a ruling from a death panel.

When the government of France, or Sweden, or wherever, decides how much of their revenue they're going to spend on universal health care, that's just a government-run death panel.

You ever notice that universal health care in the UK doesn't get you an all-inclusive pre-paid trip to the Mayo Clinic? That's because universal health care in the UK is overseen by a death panel.

You ever notice that Medicare only pays out so much? Death panel.

You choose a plan with higher premiums and lower deductibles? Death panel.

You choose to invest in the stock market instead of in a health insurance policy? Death panel. (Probably if you choose the other way around, too.)

My point is this: Where conservative fear mongers invoked death panels as an appeal to emotion, I invoke death panels as an appeal to reason. Because they are reasonable. And Travis, by starting this thread, has convened a death panel. He started it, so I'm nominating him chairman. He's made his medical condition the topic of discussion, so I'm interested to know what his own personal death panel has ruled.

 

[eeyore1954]

In the meantime the uninsured, like myself, are kind of left waving in the wind. You talk about wanting choices for procedures when I would be happy to just be able to have any procedure.

You cannot qualify for any California insurance program? I am assuming you are unable to get a job that offers insurance. It seems to me I remember employers not wanting to hire you because of the insurance cost. I suspect that is illegal.

The uninsured like you who desire insurance should have a government sponsored program.

But in order to have a program does not mean universal health care is necessary and force those who do not want it to buy it.

 

[JudeBrando]

I'm going to lose money for any for profit insurance company. So really only some sort of universal plan would allow me to be covered. And there are lots of other people just like me out there.

It's all about you, isn't it princess?

 

[Travis]

I'll pay for your hysterectomy.

To answer your question, I'd get behind a UHC scheme only if an amendment were added to the Constitution that adds provision of health care as one of the powers of the federal government. Until then...

Why is an amendment so important to you.

So you like free stuff?

What do I get?

Do you consider cancer treatment free stuff?

And Travis wants the government to guarantee him a certain minimum quality of life and a certain minimum lifespan regardless of his medical conditions and regardless of the cost of treatement, and to compel whatever resources are necessary from his fellow citizens to meet those guarantees. And he wants the same guarantees for everybody. While we're on the subject of pipe dreams.

Travis, please feel free to fill me in the details of the minimum quality of life and lifespan you want guaranteed. Please also feel free to correct me if you think there should be limits on the amount of resources the government should compel from your fellow citizens on your behalf.

I'm sure the conditions under which you want universal coverage will be self-evidently reasonable and sustainable.

What I would like is that if my doctor thinks I have a brain tumor I can go get an MRI to confirm. If there is tumor and it's cancerous I would like it to be treated.

If I suddenly need a new kidney I'd like for the system to look for a matching donor and if if one is found to implant it in me.

If I get appendicitis I want to be able to go to a hospital and have it treated. I don't want to be laying in bed in my home in agonizing pain wondering if I should go to the ER room because if it isn't appendicitis I'll have just gotten a huge ER bill I can't afford.

If I'm vomiting blood I'd like to be able to go an ER and get it taken care of instead of like last time where I agonized for several days heaving blood hoping it would get better and eventually it did.

And if I suddenly develop MS or Parkinson I'd like there to be a system that will take care of me.

You cannot qualify for any California insurance program? I am assuming you are unable to get a job that offers insurance. It seems to me I remember employers not wanting to hire you because of the insurance cost. I suspect that is illegal.

The uninsured like you who desire insurance should have a government sponsored program.

But in order to have a program does not mean universal health care is necessary and force those who do not want it to buy it.

If the program covers everyone and everyone has access to health care then I'm fine with it.

 

[Travis]

It's all about you, isn't it princess?

Uh no. It's also about the millions of people in this country who have no health insurance.

 

[keale]

right on the nose!

Word up yo!

Any of those opposed to UHC care to address this point?

 

[keale]

It's all about you, isn't it princess?

When did you become a psychic?

 

[keale]

You cannot qualify for any California insurance program? I am assuming you are unable to get a job that offers insurance. It seems to me I remember employers not wanting to hire you because of the insurance cost. I suspect that is illegal.

The uninsured like you who desire insurance should have a government sponsored program.

But in order to have a program does not mean universal health care is necessary and force those who do not want it to buy it.

California is one of the tougher places to get healthcare. When I was a 1099 worker private insurance costs were over 700 per month for family coverage. Basically if your not covered by an employer your SOL because you dont qualify for the low income stuff. What happens? You go without and when something bad happens you go to the ER which in the end everyone pays for anyway....such a brilliant system. You dont want to pay for it? Great you pay for it anyway in higher healthcare costs.

 

[Neally]

Do you consider cancer treatment free stuff?

If you don't pay for something, doesn't that make it free by definition?

 

[theprestige]

And if I suddenly develop MS or Parkinson I'd like there to be a system that will take care of me.

And so would I. Mightily so. But I don't think I'm entitled to such a system. Nor do I ask you to pay for such a system.

If the program covers everyone and everyone has access to health care then I'm fine with it.

This is laughably vague. Covers everyone to what extent? Everyone has access to how much health care?

Let's take the Mayo Clinic as an example: Are you asking for a program that covers Mayo Clinic visits for everyone?

Also, please clarify something for me: Are you talking about entitlement, or affordability?

I mean, are you saying everybody is entitled to the Mayo Clinic (for example), or are you saying everybody should be able to afford the Mayo Clinic?

 

[TraneWreck]

And so would I. Mightily so. But I don't think I'm entitled to such a system. Nor do I ask you to pay for such a system.

I disagree. By being a citizen of the richest country in the history of the world, you should be entitled to medical coverage, regardless of how you've lived your life. I would happily spend my lawyer income on taxes to make this possible.

Among the many benefits, healthy clients who haven't been forced into financial ruin because of disease or other factors beyond their control are able to buy my services. On a very individual level, universal healthcare would benefit me financially, even if I pay more in taxes.

This is laughably vague. Covers everyone to what extent? Everyone has access to how much health care?

Let's take the Mayo Clinic as an example: Are you asking for a program that covers Mayo Clinic visits for everyone?

Also, please clarify something for me: Are you talking about entitlement, or affordability?

I mean, are you saying everybody is entitled to the Mayo Clinic (for example), or are you saying everybody should be able to afford the Mayo Clinic?

This is a lot of angst over a not-really important question. There's no Mayo clinic in Canada, England, Germany, Sweden...and they're doing better than we are. We can make a decision on exotic procedures and allowing wealthy people to purchase care above that provided by the government, but we shouldn't let these concerns restrict our ability to deal with 99% of our health care problems.

 

[bikerdruid]

Uh no. It's also about the millions of people in this country who have no health insurance.

i think that you'd best move to canada, travis.
the situation in the states is not going to get sensible any time soon.

 

[lomiller]

But in order to have a program does not mean universal health care is necessary and force those who do not want it to buy it.

the problem isn't those who don't want to buy insurance it's those who don't want to buy it until it looks like they are going to need it. These people are leaching off everyone who pays into the system.

A system that allows people opt out until they actually need medical care simply won't work. If people opt out it has to be irrevocable, they can't be allowed to get insurance at a future time or at the very least they can't participate in the same risk pools as those who are acting in good faith.

 

[funk de fino]

Post 24 sums up the opposition to UHC in the USA quite well. Certainly going by the arguments in every thread about it.

 

[seayakin]

I think death panels are eminently, self-evidently rational. The real mistake made by the fear-mongers was implying that they didn't already exist everywhere, all the time.

Any time somebody decides keeping grandma on life support isn't worth the cost, that's a death panel.

Any time someone decides to engage the services of Dr. Kevorkian, they're convening their own private death panel.

Can't afford insurance premiums? Protip: It's because health insurance companies are effectively, objectively, death panels.

Can't make a doctor's appointment because nobody takes Medicare anymore, on account of it doesn't cover their costs? Congratulations: You just got a ruling from a death panel.

When the government of France, or Sweden, or wherever, decides how much of their revenue they're going to spend on universal health care, that's just a government-run death panel.

You ever notice that universal health care in the UK doesn't get you an all-inclusive pre-paid trip to the Mayo Clinic? That's because universal health care in the UK is overseen by a death panel.

You ever notice that Medicare only pays out so much? Death panel.

You choose a plan with higher premiums and lower deductibles? Death panel.

You choose to invest in the stock market instead of in a health insurance policy? Death panel. (Probably if you choose the other way around, too.)

My point is this: Where conservative fear mongers invoked death panels as an appeal to emotion, I invoke death panels as an appeal to reason. Because they are reasonable. And Travis, by starting this thread, has convened a death panel. He started it, so I'm nominating him chairman. He's made his medical condition the topic of discussion, so I'm interested to know what his own personal death panel has ruled.

Your response is intellectually honest but I wouldn't call it death panels but rationed care. However, calling such rationing death panels is emotionally charged. However, as you state all care is rationed (private care in US or UHC in France). I always think of countries like France which has some of the best outcomes with its healthcare systems and at one of the lower costs.

 

[sarge]

Or the fans of universal healthcare point out that countries with a UHC system have similar outcomes to countries without such a system, while paying significantly less and without the risks and resulting unpleasantness of being unable to afford care.

Opponents of UHC point out that socialism is bad.

Your post is assinine, and perfectly captures the problem with these threads.

I not only didn't post that I oppose universal heath care, I actually posted condititions under which I would favor a universal heath care system - and the conditions I posted that I would find objectional are actual, unavoidable, and negative under most of the current proposed schemes.

You (and several others on your "side") then read my posts and decided that because I am not willing to just blindly jump on the universal health care coverage at any cost bandwagon, everything else I posted is irrelevent and I am a 1950s era McCarthyist.

Good job.

 

[lionking]

You (and several others on your "side") then read my posts and decided that because I am not willing to just blindly jump on the universal health care coverage at any cost bandwagon, everything else I posted is irrelevent and I am a 1950s era McCarthyist.

Good job.

Care to address UHCs in the UK, other european nations and even Australia that are not coverage "at any cost" but are actually cheaper and more effective than the one in the US?