Universal Health Care

[dairygirl4u2c]

except when you cannot afford it at all. in which case, that's teh worst quality and cost... the high costs do not come in monetary terms, but health terms.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]Its bad.

1) Its not free, you pay for it in taxes.
2) Bad quality of care
3) If you need anything life-threatening taken care of, you may be dead before your wait in line ends.
[/size]

[Norseman82]

While a laudible goal, it's not workable now.

First, I don't want a huge government bureaucracy rationing health care.

Second, even if government's role is merely to replace insurance companies, I question government's ability to contain the costs. Even if it were run like medicare, please keep in mind that medicare, when it started out 40 years ago, had an annual tab of only a few billion dollars. Now, it's over 100 billion dollars, and will skyrocket due to demographics alone when the baby boomers start to reach retirement in 2010.

Additionally, in Illinois, because of the government's inability to pay medicaid bills on time, hospitals that serve low-income areas had to close.

A lot of changes need to be done before any universal health care can become workable here.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1406568' date='Oct 21 2007, 12:14 PM']While a laudible goal, it's not workable now.

First, I don't want a huge government bureaucracy rationing health care.

Second, even if government's role is merely to replace insurance companies, I question government's ability to contain the costs. Even if it were run like medicare, please keep in mind that medicare, when it started out 40 years ago, had an annual tab of only a few billion dollars. Now, it's over 100 billion dollars, and will skyrocket due to demographics alone when the baby boomers start to reach retirement in 2010.

Additionally, in Illinois, because of the government's inability to pay medicaid bills on time, hospitals that serve low-income areas had to close.

A lot of changes need to be done before any universal health care can become workable here.[/quote]

I think all children should be insured, and the very poor and disabled receive Medicaid. However, overall I think we are blessed to live in a country where, if you are resourceful, honest, and work hard, you will prosper. It is not the government's responsibility to provide healthcare. I know many people who are working solely to keep their insurance and that is a good thing. Universal Healthcare will only add to the the welfare state and the problem of eugenics will only escalate. Too many ppl look to the governement to be their "savior" as they did in Huricane Katrina.

Edited October 25, 2007 by friendofJPII

[Lena]

[quote]However, overall I think we are blessed to live in a country where, if you are resourceful, honest, and work hard, you will prosper.[/quote]

In an ideal world, that would be the case...but we don't live in an ideal world in the US.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Lena

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote]very poor and disabled receive Medicaid.[/quote]

Since nobody's responded to this before, do you realized how VERY poor you have to be to get medcaid? You pretty much have to be on welfare. Its very possible that a highschool student that was kicked out by mentally ill/abusive/lazy/negletful...you name it...parents, this student who works at part time job between 20-35 hours, rents a studio apt, and continues their highschool education will NOT qualify. They will struggle between bills (food, electricity, heating) just to keep a roof over their head and try to do more. There is no tv, no internet, etc. Its a grim existance.
Thing is if you have a baby out of wedlock, then the government may start to care for the sake of the kid, but until then you're on your own.
Its no better for college students in this prediciment. They are pretty much helpless when it comes to health care...it dosn't exist. Some colleges offer basic health care (if you have a case of the sniffles) but thats the extent of it.
Someone over, say, 25 who's struggling trying to live on their own without a hs education, through no fault of their own working 2 jobs to try and get some money to finish their education...even if they put every extra cent of that money into a college only fund will not be eligable for health care.

"Very poor" dosn't even describe how poor you have to be to qualify for medicaid

Edited October 26, 2007 by Autumn Dusk

[cmotherofpirl]

Actually many students qualify for food stamps. If you are on a life-sustaining medication and don't have a job, the government or the drug company will pay for your meds. If your child has a catestrophic illness and set up a payment plan, many companies eventually write off the account. My friend has been paying $5 a month for many years on her childs medical bills, and they have to accept it.

[LoneYankee]

While I am more than certainly sympathetic to the general population, does anyone realize how ridiculously expensive universal health care is? There's a point where the government ought to provide, and a point where people need to take care of themselves. It was called "rugged individualism." Universal health care simply isn't feasible today, especially when everything possible is classified as a disease and prescribed medication. Trips to the psyhciatrist, braces, allergy medication, random things are all being covered by idiotic people going to court over it. This is bankrupting companies that provide medical insurance and corporations that provide their employees with it. Health care, I'm afraid, is a personal responsibility.

[kenrockthefirst]

Here's the dilly yo: we all pay, one way or another.

In the US, the model we adopted was provision of health insurance through private employers. That used to work really well, if you were employed. Everyone from the guy sweeping up the shop floor to the CEO received health insurance as part of his / her compensation as an employee. If you were out of work, too bad, unless you qualified for Medicare or Medicaid.

Nowadays, however, in the global economy, the health-insurance-through-employer model doesn't work so well. Why? Let's take the US auto industry as an example: the US auto companies assert that part of the problem they face in competing with foreign manufacturers is that $1000's are added to the cost of each car they manufacture due to the provision of health insurance to US workers, while in Japan and Europe, auto manufacturers are not similarly burdened. So, Joe Autoworker gets canned because his job was outsourced to someplace where his company doesn't have to pay for health insurance. Joe gets a job at WalMart but the pay is so low that he qualifies for Medicaid. Of course, Medicaid is government-provided insurance.

The bottom line is, we have to decide what kind of society we in the US want to be. Are we willing to see our fellow citizens go without health care because they aren't "rugged" enough? Are we willing to let our manufacturing base ultimately be completely outsourced because we push the responsibility of health insurance provision on to the private sector, which can't both afford to so and yet remain competitive? The reality is, this is a huge problem, and it's only going to get worse.

BTW, the whole [i]point[/i] of government is to solve collective problems, such as this represents. Otherwise, let's just revert to the Law of the Jungle and be done with it. At least in that scenario, in which life will be "nasty, brutish and short," there won't be much need for health insurance.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='LoneYankee' post='1409685' date='Oct 26 2007, 01:36 PM']Universal health care simply isn't feasible today, especially when everything possible is classified as a disease and prescribed medication. Trips to the psyhciatrist, braces, allergy medication, random things are all being covered by idiotic people going to court over it. This is bankrupting companies that provide medical insurance and corporations that provide their employees with it. Health care, I'm afraid, is a personal responsibility.[/quote]

Exactly. I read that years ago, health insurance was mainly the hspital/major medical type, which basically meant that if you got a serious illness and had to be hospitalized, you were covered. Now, much more is covered. Of course, some of that is preventative care (like annual physicals and certain tests), which from an accounting/actuarial standpoint may make business sense and result in lower overall claims being filed for more serious problems. But some are due to government mandates. I know that in Illinois, private insurance is required by law to cover in vitro fertilization.

And some states passed laws in the 1990s that stated that you could not ask applicants about their HIV status. And guess what? Private insurers simply said that they would no longer do business in those states. (My employer stopped writing new business for underage major medical during those years).

These days, health care has changed, and there are myriad of reasons. And we need to realize that [i][u]there is no one single magical bullet that will fix the problem[/u][/i].

Just yesterday, we had our benefits meetings at work explaining the changes to our health insurance options. I still need to crunch the numbers to see how it affects me personally. However, insurance premiums are rising because the cost of health care is rising. Why? Many reasons.

Part of the reason is liability costs,whether it is the liability insurance, the cost of lawsuits, or simply ordering more tests so that if a health care provider is sued, they can defend themselves against claims of negligence or incompetence.

Part of it could be doctors wanting to recoup the cost of their education.

And because a good portion of healthcare is run by corporations, we have to figure in the problems facing corporate America at large, including the "greed factor".

I'm sure there is other waste, fraud, and abuse.

Part of it is due to compliance with government regulations (I can give numerous examples of this).

Part of it is due to "cost shifting" in which health care providers "build in" the cost of lower reimbursements from the government into the costs that end up being passed on to the private insurance companies when claims are filed.

And let's face it, part of it is due to the fact that we are living longer and the technology exists to keep us living longer, and this technology - whether it be in the form of surgical procedures or new pharmaceuticals or other medical equipment - costs money. We can live longer, but we will have to pay for it.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Norseman82

[Mercy me]

Fresh from todays paper we have another story of the failures of universal health care. A 6 year old girl is making posters and raising money for her fathers Chemo since Britain's National Health Service has determined the the needed drug "is not an effective use of NHS funds." [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490001&in_page_id=1770"]This is the link.[/url]

[Anomaly]

With family in UK, USA, and CANADA, my vote for universal health care is a resounding NO!

The money comes from somewhere, and it is always the citizens pockets. The government does not generate wealth, it takes it. Bible readers well know that God doesn't condemn wealthy people, he condemns selfish people.

Is the person who doesn't have $$ selfishisly lazy, not using the talents God gave them?
Is the wealthy person fairly sharing his bounty he's earned as a result of God's blessings?
To a major extent, we are liable and responsible for the consequences of our choices and actions. Look at the wrong thing and you turn into a pillar of salt, even if it makes your husband, sister, father, or children sad.

What is fair coverage? Basic care such as check ups or basic emergency care for fractures? Is society responsible to provide organ transplants to anyone who asks? What about a liver transplant for a 70 year old alchoholic? What is fair coverage for all considering you are going to take away from those who have to give to those who have little? Is charity really charity if done by force?

In the UK, basic care is free and easy. Get beyond that, and it's extremely regulated. Most young people are statistically healthier than older persons. Is it fair they get 90% of the health care they need while older people will struggle getting to see a cardiologist?

[Jesus_lol]

Im definitely gonna say yes. im not sure why people say it isnt feasible at all, nearly every developed country aside from the United states has it, and in all the ones i know about it works really well.

I live in Canada , and we have never had a medical emergency, or even small medical things that werent covered and well handled, and fairly quickly. my mum had a heart attack and we live out on an island? helicopter to the nearest hospital, then another helicopter ride to a larger hospital with the extra equipment/stuff needed.

as a poor student I broke both my arms mtn biking, walked into a clinic, got patched up, checked out, recommended X rays, i got a ride to the imaging center cause i couldnt drive, waited half an hour, got Xrayed.
day later they came back and i got slings, prescription, regular check ups, etc. and i didnt have to prove anything or fork over cash to get that.

news flash, we know it isnt free. what it is, is convenient. everyone can get the care they need, no one is bankrupted by medical issues(this is a big one) and there is premium assistance for low income people. and the bar for that isnt ridiculously low, full premium assistance comes at less than 20,000$ per year then sliding scale up to 25,000.

logistics is an issue, but one well worth working out. and frankly our society wouldnt function without people receiving low wages for base level jobs(gas station attendant, janitor, etc) so i dont mind making sure those people stay healthy.

[Nihil Obstat]

Some notes about Canada's system:

(Sorry about formatting... it's a powerpoint presentation.)

Population aged 65+ will rise from 15% today to 25% by 2030.
Health spending will rise 1% per year.


If

we maintain current health spending levels

tax system and tax levels remain as they are,

Then

As we move to 2050, revenues are not sufficient to
meet the spending obligations

=1.4 Trillion (2007 Dollars) in unfunded
healthcare liabilities

Potential solutions:

Future spending can fall

Implies for same taxes paid, future generations get
less

Future taxes can rise

Implies future generations pay more for same level of
health care

We can raise taxes now to “prefund” future
health spending

Current generations pay more which should be
comparable to what future generations will pay

This is what we did with the Canada Pension Plan





At the present value of the system, paying in $35 000 at birth with 5% interest funds healthcare over one's entire life. This number will rise exponentially over the next couple decades, with the aging population and decreasing birthrate.



After thinking over that presentation, I no longer believe universal healthcare to be sustainable or responsible.
(I'm happy to send the powerpoint presentation to anyone who wants to look at it in more depth. I also have a paper that was used as a source for this presentation.)

[God Conquers]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='23 April 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1272072944' post='2098924']
Im definitely gonna say yes. im not sure why people say it isnt feasible at all, nearly every developed country aside from the United states has it, and in all the ones i know about it works really well.

I live in Canada , and we have never had a medical emergency, or even small medical things that werent covered and well handled, and fairly quickly. my mum had a heart attack and we live out on an island? helicopter to the nearest hospital, then another helicopter ride to a larger hospital with the extra equipment/stuff needed.

as a poor student I broke both my arms mtn biking, walked into a clinic, got patched up, checked out, recommended X rays, i got a ride to the imaging center cause i couldnt drive, waited half an hour, got Xrayed.
day later they came back and i got slings, prescription, regular check ups, etc. and i didnt have to prove anything or fork over cash to get that.

news flash, we know it isnt free. what it is, is convenient. everyone can get the care they need, no one is bankrupted by medical issues(this is a big one) and there is premium assistance for low income people. and the bar for that isnt ridiculously low, full premium assistance comes at less than 20,000$ per year then sliding scale up to 25,000.

logistics is an issue, but one well worth working out. and frankly our society wouldnt function without people receiving low wages for base level jobs(gas station attendant, janitor, etc) so i dont mind making sure those people stay healthy.
[/quote]


My mom had to wait 6 months just to get an MRI of her knee. That is not convenient, fair, or good health care.