(Please forgive me if the following posts lacks coherency; I've been drinking a bit.)
I've long considered myself a libertarian (emphasis little "l") and thus have been opposed to UHC on ideological grounds. I've recently seen the error of my ways, much through the help of this forum. I now take a more pragmatic approach to this issue. The free market obviously cannot solve the healthcare problem in the US, evidenced by the fact that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control and that every other civilized country in the world ensures that all of their citizens have access to good healthcare for cheaper than is spent in the US (and in some countries cheaper than is spent just by the US government).
Although not rich, I am young, healthy, and single with no kids, and thus can afford good coverage at a very good price ($100/month with $2000 max out of pocket annually, covers virtually everything with no lifetime max), I realize that not everybody is as lucky as I am. I am willing to pay significantly more (by that I mean maybe 2-4x), if necessary, to ensure that everybody in the country could get the same coverage no matter what (I am reasonable sure that Kaiser Permanente wouldn't drop me for some arbitrary reason, but the plan I am on only applies to Hawaii and I don't think I can get as good a deal anywhere else.)
One of the best arguments for UCH in the US is that everybody that has a job in the US is forced to pay into "socialized" medicine (Medicare/Medicaid) but most cannot access it. I find this to be totally outrageous. The idea that somebody could be forced to pay for the medical care of others but cannot get the same care himself sickens me. For example, Forum member Travis (among many others) cannot get affordable healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. (Note to Travis: If an acceptable healthcare plan does not pass in Congress, you might do well to come to Hawaii. Here employers must, IIRC, offer insurance to those working more than 20 hrs/wk, and they cannot discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions).
I would not prefer a single payers system like in the UK or Canada, because (1) I have serious doubts that Congress would create an effective one. (2) The wait lists in those countries seem unreasonably long (average 4-5 moths IIRC). I would much prefer a system like in the Netherlands or Switzerland where the health insurance industry is heavily regulated, everybody must purchase it, and those that cannot are assisted.
But the above is probably a pipe dream. It seems that though Congress has no spine whatsoever. They, even the Democrats, seem to care more about the bottom line of their backers rather than the well-being of their constituency. It's a shame. I suppose that I should be glad that I am one of the lucky ones that will (probably) not be screwed over by the current situation.
I've long considered myself a libertarian (emphasis little "l") and thus have been opposed to UHC on ideological grounds. I've recently seen the error of my ways, much through the help of this forum. I now take a more pragmatic approach to this issue. The free market obviously cannot solve the healthcare problem in the US, evidenced by the fact that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control and that every other civilized country in the world ensures that all of their citizens have access to good healthcare for cheaper than is spent in the US (and in some countries cheaper than is spent just by the US government).
Although not rich, I am young, healthy, and single with no kids, and thus can afford good coverage at a very good price ($100/month with $2000 max out of pocket annually, covers virtually everything with no lifetime max), I realize that not everybody is as lucky as I am. I am willing to pay significantly more (by that I mean maybe 2-4x), if necessary, to ensure that everybody in the country could get the same coverage no matter what (I am reasonable sure that Kaiser Permanente wouldn't drop me for some arbitrary reason, but the plan I am on only applies to Hawaii and I don't think I can get as good a deal anywhere else.)
One of the best arguments for UCH in the US is that everybody that has a job in the US is forced to pay into "socialized" medicine (Medicare/Medicaid) but most cannot access it. I find this to be totally outrageous. The idea that somebody could be forced to pay for the medical care of others but cannot get the same care himself sickens me. For example, Forum member Travis (among many others) cannot get affordable healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. (Note to Travis: If an acceptable healthcare plan does not pass in Congress, you might do well to come to Hawaii. Here employers must, IIRC, offer insurance to those working more than 20 hrs/wk, and they cannot discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions).
I would not prefer a single payers system like in the UK or Canada, because (1) I have serious doubts that Congress would create an effective one. (2) The wait lists in those countries seem unreasonably long (average 4-5 moths IIRC). I would much prefer a system like in the Netherlands or Switzerland where the health insurance industry is heavily regulated, everybody must purchase it, and those that cannot are assisted.
But the above is probably a pipe dream. It seems that though Congress has no spine whatsoever. They, even the Democrats, seem to care more about the bottom line of their backers rather than the well-being of their constituency. It's a shame. I suppose that I should be glad that I am one of the lucky ones that will (probably) not be screwed over by the current situation.
Last edited:
