Universal Healthcare Coming to US

[Heliostat]

National Healthcare will be a total disaster as it is every where it has been tried. I thank God I am not far from the Mexican bounder so I can go to the doctors there and get good care at reasonable prices.

Your information is incorrect.

The United States is the only developed country without "healthcare for everyone" in some form or another, and we spend more on healthcare than ANY other country in the world. We have 47 million uninsured, and countless more under-insured. Our average lifespan is far lower than other developed nations. We have more preventable deaths than other developed nations. Our infant mortality rate is double that of other developed countries.

The reason for all these negatives is that so many people are completely left out of our system. Being against universal healthcare is a greedy, un-human way of thinking. The only way for humanity to progress into the future is for us to band together. Every man for himself is a primitive, animalistic thought. Universal healthcare systems all have their flaws -- but they pale in comparison to the flaws of the US system. Every single developed country (and some developing countries!) are in an overall greater state of health than the USA because of universal healthcare.

Also, if I were you, I'd be careful slipping across the border to Mexico for medical care.

 

[Triple G]

Government involvement in heathcare has driven up the cost to intolerable levels and is the problem. (too much money chasing a limited resource. Econ 101) Get the the fucking government beaucrates out and let the free market take over and we will have affordable heath care. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. FUCK THE POLITICIANS! AND THE SCUM THAT INFEST OUR CONGRESS.

 

[JSB_01]

Government involvement in heathcare has driven up the cost to intolerable levels and is the problem. (too much money chasing a limited resource. Econ 101) Get the the fucking government beaucrates out and let the free market take over and we will have affordable heath care. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. FUCK THE POLITICIANS! AND THE SCUM THAT INFEST OUR CONGRESS.

I'm not sure I understand....
What about Medicare? Should this be left up to the free market as well? Or is this program okay?

 

[Heliostat]

Government involvement in heathcare has driven up the cost to intolerable levels and is the problem. (too much money chasing a limited resource. Econ 101) Get the the fucking government beaucrates out and let the free market take over and we will have affordable heath care. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. FUCK THE POLITICIANS! AND THE SCUM THAT INFEST OUR CONGRESS.

With healthcare, it doesn't work that way. In Japan, they have intensely-regulated market-based healthcare. The government negotiates with the doctors to set fixed prices for things every 2 (?) years.

Just how do you suppose government involvement has driven up the cost? I propose lack of government involvement has driven up the cost. Since it's free market, and the demand is high, they are free to charge whatever insanely high price they want to. ECN 101 (201 at my University) talks about supply and demand -- not "get the fucking government out". A free market healthcare system that is affordable is an oxymoron. We're the only free-market healthcare system in the developed world, and our costs are highest of all. You are using some very strange reasoning there.

I bet the real reason you're against universal healthcare is because you're one of these crooks who has investments in the private healthcare system, and with universal healthcare you will lose your investment. Or worse -- perhaps you're one of the big executives at the insurance companies getting paid $20 million every year and you're afraid you'll lose that job.

 

[NickCole]

The left has equated "coverage" with "care." They are two different things. NO one in this country is denied care. Anyone can go to the ER with anything from a cold to a severed limb and get treatment. What everyone does not have is insurance coverage. By making this about coverage and equating that to treatment they can use coverage numbers as care numbers.

I'm not denying that there are people in need of health benefits just that universal care is the answer. They will see less qualified people going into the medical field eventually and like all socialist ideas they don't bring everyone up, they bring everyone down. So care will suffer as it has nearly everywhere this is tried.

You say this as if everybody has equal access to healthcare, to treatment, and that is not the case.

Sure, if you have an emergency like a severed limb a hospital ER will take care of you, but most medical issues are not emergencies, they're chronic and ERs do not take care of those. There was a time I had no health coverage and had to utilize ERs and free clinics. I appreciated that access but most of the time it wasn't anywhere close to the level of treatment I receive today. There is a huge difference and you --and Republicans in general-- are ignoring that.

As for the quality of people going into the medical field, there are very competent people in that field now and incompetent people in that field now. That won't change. Obama's healthcare legislation will not be socialized medicine, it'll be a hybrid of access to lower level healthcare for the poor and to higher level healthcare for the wealthy, and will not take away the high earning potential for doctors -- if you think that'd be the case you really haven't been paying attention to Obama. The problems with his legislation are much more likely to be about overspending, waste, incompetence and unfairness, not lack of opportunities for people to get rich off the system. Obama's legislation won't even really be universal healthcare.

You should be glad Hillary didn't win because her plan was for true universal healthcare that covers everyone and provides the same access to treatment for a McDonald's worker as Nancy Pelosi has. But don't worry -- that's not what Obama has in mind.

 

[NickCole]

Well, we already have socialized healthcare to a certain extent with medicare. Pres. Obama's plan mixes public and private so those who have private plans do not have to switch, but they will see their premiums decrease as more people join the risk pool.

The insurance industry is onboard.

Premiums are not going to decrease, they've been increasing (along with co-pays) and they're going to continue in that direction.

Obama's been lying about those "savings" all along. It isn't possible with his plan, there's nowhere for the savings to come from.

You say "premiums decrease as more people join the risk pool," but Obama's plan did not, and I predict will not, require everyone join. That was a major difference between his and Hillary's plan. She insisted we need the young and healthy to pay into the system to bring down the costs for everyone, and he doesn't want it to be mandatory for the young and healthy. Well, if only those who currently draw on the system are brought into the system now, that will raise costs, not lower them.

And furthermore, Obama wants to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits, which will make those "private" plans even most costly to employees.

 

[NickCole]

It won't matter. The government will simply take it over completely which is the ultimate goal. We will hail this as a necessary move as the government is the only one that "can" help us. The teat we collectively suckle will get bigger but the quality of the milk will sour. But hey, it's "free."

You really are wrong.

Obama has already proved, with the way he's handled his bank bailouts, that his thinking does not go the way you're afraid it does. Neither Obama nor Pelosi has any intention of government taking over healthcare -- they're going to protect the profits of the pharma and insurance industries and they are not going to provide the citizenry with true universal healthcare. It'll be couched in something like, "it's there for you if you want it" even though many will still feel they can't --or don't want to-- afford it and the availability to certain treatment will remain uneven according to socio-economic level. Many Americans won't have access to the same healthcare coverage Pelosi has, and that should gall you because you're paying for hers.

 

[PabloZed]

I'm not sure I understand....
What about Medicare? Should this be left up to the free market as well? Or is this program okay?

Perfect question. Admiinstrative costs to administer medicare are approximately 4%, while the private industry spends 3 to 5 times that much on administrative costs.

There is also a very good argument that healthcare should not be left to market principles since it is a public good.

I think its interesting that the profile of those on this board arguing against universal healthcare mirrors the profile of the GOP. And like the GOP, I am thankful they are not the majority.

 

[NickCole]

I'm afraid that's not true, jav.

Yes, if it's a dramatic emergency like a severed limb an ER will see you, but for other just as important issues the uninsured are out of luck.

I recently went through a breast cancer scare with my Mom. I chose not to share it here at JUB, but I got quite an eyeful waiting in Dr's offices the past couple of months.

I got to chatting with this one guy without insurance in the waiting room that had some sort of cancer that needed weekly treatment. When his name was called, a nurse came out and said, "We need your $400 or we are not going to be able to treat you today. DO you have the cash on you ? No checks."

The poor guy said, "Yes", and pulled a wad of 20's out of his jeans.

In other words, 'Pay up, or your cancer progresses then you die.'

This is nothing short of unacceptable in this country.

It broke my heart.

That may or may not change with Obama's legislation. It's an element I'm very curious to see.

If people like that will no longer have to come up with those payments, it'll cost all of us, who do pay, more money. Especially if Obama doesn't require the young and healthy to pay into the system.

I still think Hillary was right that the only answer is true universal healthcare that provides the same coverage to all Americans that members of Congress have, and everybody whose circumstances don't require they be subsidized has to pay into it. My concern is Obama/Pelosi are going to come up with a complicated half-assed hybrid that'll bring more people into the system but not everyone, and end up costing a lot more in the end for a healthcare system that isn't improved for most people.

 

[BabiGayPimp]

I have just two problems with the argument for immediate, unquestioning acceptance of universal health care:

1) I this this really the only solution to our current dilemma?

2) Why are we starting at the concusion and then then examining the facts? Should we not examine the facts first and then arrive at a conclusion?

 

[NickCole]

I have just two problems with the argument for immediate, unquestioning acceptance of universal health care:

1) I this this really the only solution to our current dilemma?

2) Why are we starting at the concusion and then then examining the facts? Should we not examine the facts first and then arrive at a conclusion?

People have spent years examining the facts and universal health care is what many have concluded is the best solution.

What do you think is a better solution?

And, to reiterate, unless he changes his position from what he's described so far, Obama is not going to install true universal healthcare.

 

[BabiGayPimp]

People have spent years examining the facts and universal health care is what many have concluded is the best solution.

What do you think is a better solution?

And, to reiterate, unless he changes his position from what he's described so far, Obama is not going to install true universal healthcare.

Mind you, I don't oppose Universal Healthcare on principle, I just have not seen any of these supposed infallible studies that prove universal health health care of the Canadian variety is the only feasible solution to the U.S. health care problem.

Lots of people are saying universal health care is the only answer, but they can't make an airtight case based on facts, and seem to have no interest in doing so.

They just want to have their way.

That's what concerns me. I'd prefer that if we have one last best shot to get this right, let's do it right this time, and not take a blind leap into the unknown.

What works in Canada (if it indeed does), will not necessarily work in the States.

 

[NickCole]

Mind you, I don't oppose Universal Healthcare on principle, I just have not seen any of these supposed infallible studies that prove universal health health care of the Canadian variety is the only feasible solution to the U.S. health care problem.

Lots of people are saying universal health care is the only answer, but they can't make an airtight case based on facts, and seem to have no interest in doing so.

They just want to have their way.

That's what concerns me. I'd prefer that if we have one last best shot to get this right, let's do it right this time, and not take a blind leap into the unknown.

What works in Canada (if it indeed does), will not necessarily work in the States.

I agree with you. What you say is rational and sensible.

But it's not the way Obama and the Democratic Congress will put together healthcare legislation.

OTOH, McCain with a Republican controlled Congress wouldn't have been better with healthcare and probably would have been worse. Hell of a situation Americans have got themselves into.