Universal Health Care

[Lil Red]

I'm interested in hearing your opinions about this.

[Paddington]

I didn't want to have to tell you why.....but......too many people with $100,000 medical bills who can't afford it. Some are less than that. Some are much more.

This is important enough for me to tell people how to spend their tax dollars, just like I have no problem telling women what to do with their bodies on the abortion issue.

There are probably a bunch of practical problems. Just like desegregation was a mess, but worth it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

actual insurance is just a hand out to the insurance companies, a bad idea. if the government gets into care, as opposed to insurance so much, it should be from gov funds. as with any system, you have to build into it personal responsibility and choice. if you were to have care, it'd be only for those who can't affored to go once a year to help them. most can afford that. what they should do is, at a certain amount of expenses, stratefied for your income level, the government will subsidize. thatwould be effectively the same as insurnace but less costly. really, the richer don't need anuy subsidies cause they can affored to buy catestrphic insurance, or insurance that sets in at a certain amount that you otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. really most insurance beyond that is not very wise. we don't want to give people incentives to abuse the system.

now whether nationalized health care is constitional, i'm not so sure. probably not. not that that'd stop it.

localized care might be better. as then, people would not be as likely to abuse the system.
whatever the case, HMO's or doctors are good to prevent abuse cases.

i could justify the poor getting help, instead of putting it all on charity, cause they are being deprived of God's bounty surronding them by our laws. (cite my theories on social justice threads)

i was thinking lately of reaons that insurance might not be so bad, from the govenrment. it would incentifive people to go to the doctor to get preventative care. otherwise they might not go, and we'd get stuck with the bills after their big hit. but, i wonder also what would happen if they got the preventative care, but only to get hit big by something else. we all go down hill and i'm not sure we can ensure a smooth natural death for most of the people who would otherwise not have one and have costly big hits.

as always, it's complicated, and contingent on empiracal studies and many other things. those who are like "clearly... one way or the other" are as always out of touch with reality.

Edited October 19, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Archaeology cat]

I suppose a lot of it depends on [i]how [/i]it's done, as that makes a big difference. But I've seen/known too many people who weren't able to get insurance because of a preexisting condition, or because they couldn't afford it, or whatever. Everyone should be able to get medical care when they need it.

[Ash Wednesday]

Meh, double post.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Ash Wednesday

[Ash Wednesday]

I voted neutral. In my experience of living both in the US and the EU, I would say it has its advantages and disadvantages. I think it's pretty good for covering the cost of regular prescription medications, certain pre-existing conditions, and routine doctor's visits. But when you start getting into serious and specialized medical problems, there can be serious problems, perhaps depending on where you live. There is the issue of being put on a waiting list to get the care you need. People sometimes die while waiting to get treated for cancer, or you can wait in pain and misery for months just to get surgery for an injury or other medical condition. I heard a story about someone in England who was on a waiting list to see a specialist for so long, by the time it was time for their appointment, the specialist had died and they had to go back on the waiting list. In my experience so far -- being in England, I liked not having to pay for ANY of my prescriptions because I have a thyroid condition. BUT in another incident, I injured my back and had absolutely horrific care when I was at the Royal Hospital in London. I don't know if it was because it's in a rough area and they are overwhelmed with patients, but at the end of the evening -- even though I had taken the maximum amount of prescription pain allowed (including double the normal dosage of morphine) I was still in a great deal of pain. They couldn't care less that I had to WALK HOME. I came by ambulance and that evening was told that getting home was my responsibility. You don't always think "oh I need my purse" when you're being transported by ambulance to the hospital. My cell phone was also stolen during my stay there -- so consequently, I walked home. Most of the staffers were extremely rude and totally indifferent about my situation. Misereremi was in contact with me around the time of this whole ordeal, and can attest to this. She's had her own experiences with the medical field, and both she and I had a lot to talk about on this issue. Maybe medical care under a universal system isn't as bad in areas that aren't heavily populated.

When I came back to the U.S. as a freelancer I've been paying for my own insurance -- it doesn't cover prescription meds and visits under my deductible, but for a few dollars a month and paying deductible -- it is a lot better than being handed a $12,000 bill for a broken leg.

I think the ideal would be to have some kind of federal health care standard, but with supplementary private health care options. Because sometimes life throws you a curve and you can fall through the cracks, and some of the medical expenses incurred are too much for people to be asked to handle, but people also need to understand that with socialized medicine -- you get what you pay for. It's hard to say whether or not the outcome of socialized medicine would be the same in America compared to a smaller, less populated country like Britain or Sweden.

So, I don't have the answers, and I know that sounds flakey. My feelings about this are mixed. I really don't like having to pay out of my own pocket the way I am now -- and if you are poor or self-employed in America, you risk being screwed. But I certainly don't view socialized medicine as this gleaming utopia of greatness that would be successfully applied in America. There is a reason why you often will see private pension and health care options being taken in countries with universal care. Sigh...

Edited October 19, 2007 by Ash Wednesday

[CatherineM]

I have lived in the US without insurance, depending on free clinics and medical school students for care. That's scary as a single person, and I can't imagine doing it if you have kids. When I moved to Canada, (which can have a bizarro world feel in that it looks like the US, but is just slightly out of phase), the first odd thing I noticed when buying a pop at the 7-11 is that there was no pickle jar for change at the check out stand with a picture of a sick kid on it. I actually had the change in my hand looking around, and the clerk looked at me like I was nuts.

I haven't had to wait for a regular doctor's appointment. I waited a week to get into see a high risk OB/GYN, and about 3 months for a routine stress test. I've been to the ER twice, once for food poisoning, and once for a nose bleed that wouldn't stop (try moving from humid Florida to the high, dry arctic plain in January and see if you don't get nose bleeds). Both times I was treated every bit as fast as I was used to being treated in US ER's.

The only thing that I have had to wait longer than I am comfortable with is for a mental health professional. I have pretty severe PTSD from the incident that caused all my injuries/disabilities. It took two months to get in to a intake psychiatrist, and I've been on a waiting list ever since for a new treatment program. I wasn't deemed to be an emergency. It's not like I had a psychotic break, this is a chronic situation that I've been dealing with for 15 years, and there really isn't any treatment for it that has been shown to help, and I can receive any medication I need for it in the meantime from my general physician. In the US, general practitioners would never prescribe psychiatric medications. Here, they have to, or just don't see a problem with it if you already have a diagnosis, and are stable on a medication.

When I practiced law over 15 years ago, the three main causes of bankruptcy were divorce, loss of employment, or becoming disabled. Now it is medical bills. Bottom line is that when a child becomes seriously ill, their family should be able to focus all their energy on their child, and trying to get them well, instead of worrying about losing their home, or their financial futures. I don't mind having to wait my turn if it means that my neighbors get to see a doctor without worrying about money.

[Autumn Dusk]

The definitions for "low income" practically mean jobless. In NY a one person household will disqualify for healthy NY if they make more than 800 in five weeks. At NY minimum wage thats only 22 hours a week. At $8 an hour thats 20 hours a week. Considering that an apartment is typically $500 a month that leaves $300 for gas, food, and other payments a month if you're lucky

[kujo]

In theory, universal healthcare is good. It ensures that there is a baseline of care that all American citizens will have, regardless of their occupational and economic status. In a country as wealthy as ours, it should be a no-brainer that everyone should be entitled to quality care for the health of themselves and their families. I think that all people should have the option to upgrade their plans, either through their jobs or through personal plans. But there should be a baseline.

The problems comes with logistics. Who will pay for this system? How will it be executed? Will the quality of the care be maintained?

Overall, though. If a country can make it work, it should be done. And in our country, with the intelligence, innovative ability and stubbornness that we value so highly, it should get done.

[Mercy me]

I am against it because I can't think of a single thing that the government does well. When governments runs something it smells of elderberries innovation and creativity from its people.

Government is not responsive to its "customers" and why should they be? Where else will people go for service?

And ultimately who decides what healthcare a patient gets? Should the young have priority over old? Smokers don't get care and non smokers do? Is someone too fat to ddeserve healthcare?

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus the poor are covered by medicaid.
if it ain't broke don't fix it.

but, if you got kids who are unfunded, which is allegedly the case, you can do them. or others are are not covered and poor, allegedly. surely, if you were to reform current medicaid etc, then you'd have enough money to serve anyone left out thatneeds it.

[Dismas]

T.here
I.s
N.o
S.uch
T.hing
A.s
A.
F.ree
L.unch

*.***
A.lways
R.olls
D.ownhill

In the end, when market forces for goods and services are tampered by do-gooder liberals or compassionate conservatives, there will always be a backlash, sometimes quick and sometimes slow, but always exceeding the good intended. Furthermore, in practice, whenever the poor are aided by unwilling contribution by the rich, the rich simply charge the poor more for nearly everything else, and the poor are poorer in the end. Now, sometimes the effects are immediate and obvious, but more often the effects of this are hidden and latent. Of the two, the hidden and latent is the most damaging and the hardest to recover from, especially since the lawmakers who give their constituents obvious benefits with hidden cost are re-elected. This is what I foresee in universal health care. We might not get bitten today or tomorrow, but in twenty years, oh yeah.

So do you want universal health care for yourself and your children, or do you want good health care for the next generation and their children?

P.S.: In eventuality, any given government program will approach the service of the DMV and the clarity of the income tax.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Dismas

[Mercy me]

I have found that having insurance comes down to priorities. Insurance is not important until you need it. The problem is that you never know when you will need it.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1406003' date='Oct 20 2007, 11:04 AM']plus the poor are covered by medicaid.
if it ain't broke don't fix it.[/quote]

Do you realize what the defination of "poor" is. For a single person with healthy NY, a health care subsidized by the NYS government I can only earn ~600 a month to stay on. Do you realize how LITTLE that is? That's a MAXIMUM of 7,200 a year. Its WAY below poverty....and thats too much to qualify for "real" medicade.

If you earn ~601 a month to ~900 you can pay $89-$130 a month for health care. Still, way below the poverty line at a maximum of just over 10thousand a year. For an idea someone earning minimum wage in NYS would earn about 900 a month on a 31 hour work week, if they earn more or work more than 31 hours they again become uninsured.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Autumn Dusk

[Spamity Calamity]

Its pretty simple really. The government should not have any business providing Healthcare PERIOD. You want low cost healthcare deregulate healthcare and let the free market take over. Anything the government does is always at a higher cost and at lower quality than what can be obtained in the free market.