Explain to me why we should not have universal healthcare

[Travis]

Lay it out here. Why should we continue to allow millions to be uninsured (people such as myself). Why should we continue to allow those that are insured to die because their private insurer found some loophole.

Here is where you can give out your reasons and your alternatives.

 

[sarge]

For the same reason that we should not have the goverment direct our career and educational paths, compele us to accept a goverment chosen mate, etc. So long as universal coverage is an extra-constitutional mandate, compulsory universal coverage is an unwarranted intrusion.

My alternative: amend the constitution so that the goverment becomes responsible for ensuring that all Americans have no-cost health care available, financed by a seperate tax, AND so that Americans that choose not to suffer the inevitable additional wait times may choose to seek care from alternative sources at their own expense AND so that citizens may opt out of universal coverage at their own peril.

Or

The significant majority of un(under) insured Americans that are so by choice may simply choose to start paying their own way, and the small remainder of those that are not un(under) insured by choice could be covered by the goverment.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Participate in this thread.

 

[Upchurch]

For the same reason that we should not have the goverment direct our career and educational paths, compele us to accept a goverment chosen mate, etc. So long as universal coverage is an extra-constitutional mandate, compulsory universal coverage is an unwarranted intrusion.

...your analogy is flawed. We have universal public education and, yet, the government does not "direct our ...educational paths". We still have the option to purchase better education and/or more education over what is provided by the government. Why would you expect it to be any different for universal health care? One could always purchase more or better healthcare.

My alternative: amend the constitution so that the goverment becomes responsible for ensuring that all Americans have no-cost health care available, financed by a seperate tax, AND so that Americans that choose not to suffer the inevitable additional wait times may choose to seek care from alternative sources at their own expense AND so that citizens may opt out of universal coverage at their own peril.

That's not your "alternative". That's what is being suggested by having universal healthcare (save for the constitutional amendment).

The significant majority of un(under) insured Americans that are so by choice may simply choose to start paying their own way

Who are you talking about?

 

[sarge]

...your analogy is flawed. We have universal public education and, yet, the government does not "direct our ...educational paths". We still have the option to purchase better education and/or more education over what is provided by the government. Why would you expect it to be any different for universal health care? One could always purchase more or better healthcare.

I didn't make an analogy.

It is not a given that under all universal health plans Americans would be allowed to purchase additional care/coverage - that is why "my" proposal contains specific authorization for them to do so.

That's not your "alternative". That's what is being suggested by having universal healthcare (save for the constitutional amendment).

You are mistaken. There is no universally accepted notion of what "universal coverage" means. The current "universal" coverage legislation does not actually create uiniversal coverage, and there are (seemingly serious) ideas that propose universal coverage schemes that eliminate private practices.

That you might suggest a blended system of universal coverage provided by private practices does not mean that is what everyone is proposing.

Who are you talking about?

The under insured Americans that choose to remain that way.

The OP asks for specific proposals. I participated. That you are a desciple of the religion of Universal Coverage doesn't interest me any more than the idea of re-hashing the same old arguments that have been batied about for 3 years now.

 

[rustypouch]

Because a substantial portion of the American population is willing to pay significantly more than necessary, deal with all sorts of red tape and bureaucracy, and risk not having their claims covered, just to spite people like you.

 

[Spindrift]

Participate in this thread.

Why? On this thread you don't have to waste a week watching videos to participate.

 

[Spindrift]

For the same reason that we should not have the goverment direct our career and educational paths, compele us to accept a goverment chosen mate, etc. So long as universal coverage is an extra-constitutional mandate, compulsory universal coverage is an unwarranted intrusion.

Why is it an unwarranted intrusion? I would think providing for health care for the population would be a warranted and welcome intrusion. Especially since the current system fails a very large portion of the population.

 

[D'rok]

For the same reason that we should not have the goverment direct our career and educational paths, compele us to accept a goverment chosen mate, etc. So long as universal coverage is an extra-constitutional mandate, compulsory universal coverage is an unwarranted intrusion.

My alternative: amend the constitution so that the goverment becomes responsible for ensuring that all Americans have no-cost health care available, financed by a seperate tax, AND so that Americans that choose not to suffer the inevitable additional wait times may choose to seek care from alternative sources at their own expense AND so that citizens may opt out of universal coverage at their own peril.

Or

The significant majority of un(under) insured Americans that are so by choice may simply choose to start paying their own way, and the small remainder of those that are not un(under) insured by choice could be covered by the goverment.

It seems to me you are conflating universal health care with government provided health care. The former does not necessitate the latter. There can be universal systems in which the government is the insurer but not the provider. See e.g. Canada.

 

[BenBurch]

What we need is a national single-payer system that provides health care at zero direct expense to the patient. I wouldn't have anybody pay a cent for it directly, but it would be a 5% tax on everybody over a certain income level, to be determined by the amount that needs to be raised.

Yes, that is right, the well-off need to pay for everybody's health care and the reason for that is that you cannot remain well-off in a nation of sick and dying people bankrupt from medical expense.

 

[D'rok]

What we need is a national single-payer system that provides health care at zero direct expense to the patient. I wouldn't have anybody pay a cent for it directly, but it would be a 5% tax on everybody over a certain income level, to be determined by the amount that needs to be raised.

Yes, that is right, the well-off need to pay for everybody's health care and the reason for that is that you cannot remain well-off in a nation of sick and dying people bankrupt from medical expense.

Why do you need to raise any money? You already commit more public money to your current system per capita than any country with universal care does.

 

[Upchurch]

I didn't make an analogy.

You stated it as your argument without attribution. I don't care if you first thought of it. You put it forth as valid. It isn't even factually accurate in the real world, as I explained.

It is not a given that under all universal health plans Americans would be allowed to purchase additional care/coverage - that is why "my" proposal contains specific authorization for them to do so.

Nor is it a given that the sun will rise in the east. Have you seen any legislation, anywhere, that would have forbidden the purchase of additional healthcare/coverage?

The under insured Americans that choose to remain that way.

That doesn't answer the question. You just restated the claim. Who is under insured and chooses to remain that way, free of any other compelling factor like a pre-existing condition or lack of money? Is this a significant part of the population?

That you are a desciple of the religion of Universal Coverage

Slow down, champ. You're the one advocating a position that appears to be predicated on false assumptions. Justify your own position before you start judging others.

 

[Travis]

I'm waiting for one those in this forum who have opposed the very concept of universal healthcare to get involved. I'd really like to hear why people such as myself should die from treatable conditions.

 

[BenBurch]

Why do you need to raise any money? You already commit more public money to your current system per capita than any country with universal care does.

Well, I am assuming all that funding would go away and would be replaced by the new funding.

 

[Cobalt]

I'm waiting for one those in this forum who have opposed the very concept of universal healthcare to get involved. I'd really like to hear why people such as myself should die from treatable conditions.

Honestly, don't you start a thread similar to this every few months or so? And every one involves an appeal to emotion involving you personally?

I know it's an emotional topic, but end of the day we go around in circles and nobody seems convinced of anything.

 

[D'rok]

Well, I am assuming all that funding would go away and would be replaced by the new funding.

Yeah, but doesn't that mean you wouldn't need any new taxes?

 

[sarge]

You stated it as your argument without attribution. I don't care if you first thought of it. You put it forth as valid. It isn't even factually accurate in the real world, as I explained.

No, I did not.

And every word I provided as fact (and not obviously opinion) is perfectly accurate.

Nor is it a given that the sun will rise in the east. Have you seen any legislation, anywhere, that would have forbidden the purchase of additional healthcare/coverage?

Yes, of course I have. Such schemes exist in the world now, and they have been advocated as a model for the US to adopt.

Do not pretend that such schemes do not have proponents here.

That doesn't answer the question. You just restated the claim. Who is under insured and chooses to remain that way, free of any other compelling factor like a pre-existing condition or lack of money? Is this a significant part of the population?

It is established fact that a significant portion of under insured Americans simply choose not to purchase health insurance. This has been covered extensively in the past, as i am sure you are aware.

Of course, it is possible (but unlikely) that you actually believe that 100% of the un and under insured in America actually can not afford insurance. If you'll state that this is your belief, I'll provide reputable information demonstrating that a significant portion of the under insured in America choose not to purchase health insurance.

Slow down, champ. You're the one advocating a position that appears to be predicated on false assumptions. Justify your own position before you start judging others.

My position does not appear to be predicated on false assumptions. Indeed, my position depends on no assumptions at all.
It is fact that there are millions of Americans that can afford but choose not to purchase health insurance. It is fact that there are millions of Americans that can not afford to provide for their own health care. My proposal serves both populations, while preserving private heath care for those that can afford it, affords some level of universal coverage to everyone, and allows citizens to opt out at their own peril.

 

[sarge]

I'm waiting for one those in this forum who have opposed the very concept of universal healthcare to get involved. I'd really like to hear why people such as myself should die from treatable conditions.

I don't oppose the concept of universal health care, but I am curious. How did you arrive in a situation where you are not sufficiently insured?

 

[RandFan]

I don't oppose the concept of universal health care, but I am curious. How did you arrive in a situation where you are not sufficiently insured?

I can't speak for Travis but I know a lot of very hard working good people who have lost their jobs in the economy and had no way of making Cobra payments. Some have gone back to work part time. My son lost his full time job with benefits and works part time. What about them? Screw 'em because we chose to bail out banks and auto manufacturers instead?

 

[RandFan]

It is established fact that a significant portion of under insured Americans simply choose not to purchase health insurance. This has been covered extensively in the past, as i am sure you are aware.

It's an established fact that many people cannot afford to purchase health insurance. My son has about $300 dollars a month in disposable income. That's less than a policy. It's a fact that Americans pay far more for health care and get far less.