Conservatives, under what conditions would you allow universal coverage?

WildCat said:
There you go again, confusing "medical research" with "health care".

They are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim they were the same thing, I claimed they were related and it's obvious they are. Are you claiming that none of the money spent on health care ever finds it's way to medical research? Are you claiming that none of the R&D budgets of medical research is funded by the purchase, by health care providers, of what that research produces?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I didn't claim they were the same thing, I claimed they were related and it's obvious they are. Are you claiming that none of the money spent on health care ever finds it's way to medical research? Are you claiming that none of the R&D budgets of medical research is funded by the purchase, by health care providers, of what that research produces?
Click to expand...

the vast majority of medical research is done in universities.
that will not change.
the vast majority of pharmacological research is done by private business.
that will not change.
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
the vast majority of medical research is done in universities.
that will not change.
the vast majority of pharmacological research is done by private business.
that will not change.
Click to expand...

And as I mentioned earlier, having a centralised UHC system can actually be beneficial to medical research.
 
mhaze said:
You mean he would have been "permitted" to get in one of many lines for "service"?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

he would not have had the hassle, period.
if he needed emergency care, there would be no 'line'.

in the G20 countries, the u.s. is the lone duck.
do you believe that all of the other developed countries have sub-standard medical care?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
So you've experienced firsthand the harsh impersonal reality of "government assistance".

As I have. So I reject expanding those sectors, as per "universal health care".

To me it seems obvious that would expand the harsh impersonal realities, including the number and variety of insanities.

I don't want that and don't think it's a good thing.

You found the reality of "Government Assistance" was quite different than the concept of it you had initially. I suggest the same would be the case with "universal health care".

That's the problem.
Click to expand...

My problems were all related to not getting any government health care because the system is currently set up to try and cover as few people as possible. How would any of that apply to a UHC setting?
 
mhaze said:
You mean he would have been "permitted" to get in one of many lines for "service"?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes - and which is better? Getting no healthcare or having to wait a short time for the health care you need? (If that objection really applies.)
 
mhaze said:
You mean he would have been "permitted" to get in one of many lines for "service"?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but you have to get in line for "service" even if you have an expensive privately bought health care plan. The only people that get rushed right in are those on the doorsteps of death and Steve Jobs.
 
mhaze said:
You mean he would have been "permitted" to get in one of many lines for "service"?
Click to expand...


Did you not actually read what TraneWreck posted above?

David Cameron said:
"In this country we have the most wonderful, precious institution and also precious idea that whenever you're ill … you can walk into a hospital or a surgery and get treated for free, no questions asked, no cash asked. It is the idea at the heart of the NHS, and it will stay. I will never put that at risk."
Click to expand...


I hate Cameron's guts, quite honestly. But he knows where the votes are, and he knows what will happen to him if he messes with our healthcare. It really does work like that, you shouldn't believe the crap you read in the Daily Mail.

I went to a birthday party last week, and the "birthday girl's" son had come back from California for the occasion. He's a free-lance musician with an American wife. The talk turned to healthcare, and someone asked him what he planned on doing. He said, "hope that whatever I get, I can hold together long enough to get on a plane and come home."

He then launched into a rant about American misconceptions about the NHS, and specifically about the "bureaucrat between you and your doctor" bit. He said, "I came home for a week, I needed to see a doctor, I went to the surgery, and all the receptionists were people I was at school with and the doctor is a guy who plays trumpet in the brass band with my Dad." And he didn't have to wait either.

My cousin broke her hand three days ago. Someone took her straight to hospital and she was seen within ten minutes and back out, x-rays taken and with the hand strapped up, in three quarters of a hour.

You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee. And see how you're being lied to by people with a right-wing agenda.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
the vast majority of medical research is done in universities.
that will not change.
the vast majority of pharmacological research is done by private business.
that will not change.
Click to expand...
Not sure I see your point. And how do you know that won't change?
 
3point14 said:
Just to ask again, in case it was missed:

In response to this:



I wrote this:





I was wondering, if you're about, Grizzly, what your response is. Or indeed the response of anyone who holds this view.
Click to expand...

I am, FYI, about. It is, however, my weekend. I'm pretty much just lurking for a couple days because I don't have the time to put down long missives/screeds/tirades on my days off. That may seem strange but I've never spent an appreciable amount of time in the American Southwest and I have more time to do stuff I want to do on the days I don't have to work. Therefore, for the next two months while I'm down here, I can spend more time on the internets on the days I work than the days I don't. Today I plan to visit the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB. Early this morning I did some astro-photography at the entry road to Kitt Peak Observatory (because the road up is closed 4pm-9am, I discovered... twerps).

I will respond, but later...
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
I am, FYI, about. It is, however, my weekend. I'm pretty much just lurking for a couple days because I don't have the time to put down long missives/screeds/tirades on my days off. That may seem strange but I've never spent an appreciable amount of time in the American Southwest and I have more time to do stuff I want to do on the days I don't have to work. Therefore, for the next two months while I'm down here, I can spend more time on the internets on the days I work than the days I don't. Today I plan to visit the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB. Early this morning I did some astro-photography at the entry road to Kitt Peak Observatory (because the road up is closed 4pm-9am, I discovered... twerps).

I will respond, but later...
Click to expand...

Fair point, thanks for the response.

I have to admit, that sounds way better than hanging around on a website :)
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Yes. Are universities and private businesses no longer dependent on money?
Click to expand...

The problem, that many people have tried to explain, is that because research is an independent issue from providing health insurance, the argument doesn't make sense.

Country A: Does not have universal coverage, does not invest in research.
Country B: Does have universal coverage, does not invest in research.
Country C: Does not have universal coverage, does invest in research
Country D: Does have universal coverage, does invest in research.

All are possible. The two operate independently of one another.

The US is Country C right now. Why would, say, expanding Medicare to cover the 46 million Americans without insurance necessitate a drop in research? In fact, we could double our investments or we could cut all of them and still adopt Medicare as a public option.

The two are independent. Related subject matter, but independent.
 
TraneWreck said:
The problem, that many people have tried to explain, is that because research is an independent issue from providing health insurance, the argument doesn't make sense.

Country A: Does not have universal coverage, does not invest in research.
Country B: Does have universal coverage, does not invest in research.
Country C: Does not have universal coverage, does invest in research
Country D: Does have universal coverage, does invest in research.

All are possible. The two operate independently of one another.

The US is Country C right now. Why would, say, expanding Medicare to cover the 46 million Americans without insurance necessitate a drop in research? In fact, we could double our investments or we could cut all of them and still adopt Medicare as a public option.

The two are independent. Related subject matter, but independent.
Click to expand...
Did you read my post 215? All your options above are comparing universal care versus not universal care. That isn't the part I care about. I am in favor of universal care. Somebody a ways back in this thread said something along the lines "The US could cover everyone and even save money doing it". I didn't question the "cover everyone" part, I questioned the "save money" part. Some of the possible savings suggested are in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars a year. Claims that that can all be achieved by elimating waste need to be substantiated. That much money leaving a segment of the economy raises serious queston about whether quality or progress might sacrificed.

As I believe I said in this thread last night, I am in favor of UHC and I'm willing to pay more taxes for it. I am not the least bit dubious about UHC, I'm dubious of UHC that will save money. And as I also said just a few posts back, I'd be dubious of private insurers coming up with a plan to eliminate a trillion dollars somehow.

I want UHC. I want everyone covered. I think the richest country on the planet should do it. We should do it even if it costs us more. If we can do it and save money that would be better but only if we do it without sacrificing quality and progress.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
...snip...

As I believe I said in this thread last night, I am in favor of UHC and I'm willing to pay more taxes for it. I am not the least bit dubious about UHC, I'm dubious of UHC that will save money. And as I also said just a few posts back, I'd be dubious of private insurers coming up with a plan to eliminate a trillion dollars somehow.

I want UHC. I want everyone covered. I think the richest country on the planet should do it. We should do it even if it costs us more. If we can do it and save money that would be better but only if we do it without sacrificing quality and progress.
Click to expand...

Isn't the answer to that to look at other countries with UHC and see what the costs are in those systems? That then gives a baseline that can be used to try and tease out why the USA costs are higher. For example, it may turn out that the USA carries out more diagnostic testing and that accounts for some of the difference in costs (it's a hypothetical example!).
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Isn't the answer to that to look at other countries with UHC and see what the costs are in those systems?
Click to expand...
Yes, sort of*. I tried to do that by posting a link in my first post in this thread and was hoping people would respond in kind with more and/or better evidence.

* By "sort of" I mean you don't necessarily have to just look at just countries that have implemented UHC. Private attempts to reduce or analyze costs would be just as useful.
 
Right now people wait until they are on the verge of death before seeking medical care because preventative medicine is often too costly at the time. Getting an infected foot amputated in the emergency room costs everyone way more than getting a little infected toe nail taking care of by a podiatrist. But when you are barely making it paycheck to paycheck that $200 visit to a foot doctor can seem like it will just need to wait until you somehow more afford it (maybe win the lottery or something). Of course that doesn't happen and you end up losing a foot with a $10,000 bill you can't repay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom