According to the 2006 census, there are over 47 million people in the United States who do not carry medical insurance, which means approximately 15.8% of American residents do not have easy access to medical care [1]. Why do I tell you this? Because in the United States health care is a privilege, and not a right.
It is my belief that the institution of universal health care is a pipe dream that can never be effectively achieved, and should not even be sought. There are many, many flaws in our current system of private insurance companies, and these certainly need to be resolved. However, the purpose of my blog today is not to address the current health care system’s problems. Rather, I want to discuss why universal health care in the United States is ludicrous, and should be dropped like a hot potato.
Reason #1: The “health care crisis” isn’t real.
94% of United States residents have health care coverage or at least access to it. How do I know this? The BlueCross BlueShield Association claims that as many as 14 million of the uninsured adults and children who were qualified for government programs in 2004 had not enrolled, meaning they didn’t take advantage of the opportunities given to them [1]. This could be out of choice, but it could also mean that we need to do a better job of educating people about the available programs. Clearly, there are options here that can be addressed. If only 6% of people lack health care, this hardly calls for a complete overhaul of the system, but it does say we need to make some changes.
Reason #2: Universal Health Care means I am responsible for everyone else’s health care.
Universal health care programs mean that the tax dollars of healthy people are paying for those who choose to be unhealthy. For example, smokers would not be paying extra premiums like they do for some health care programs. Tax dollars would also be paying for the care of drug addicts and the very poor that use hospitals as shelters. We need to find another outlet for these people to get help regardless, but it certainly can’t be on the proposed universal health plan, which would make it easier for people to exploit the system. In addition, there would be no incentive for a person to be healthy or responsible in a universal health care plan, unless taxes became generally based on the payer’s individual level of health.
Reason #3: Name one government agency that runs efficiently. Do you really want a new one responsible for handling our health care?
I think this one speaks for itself.
Reason #4: Universal health care doesn’t work in other countries
The United States has the best medical care in the world. We have the shortest waits, the best drugs, the most advanced technologies, and the biggest bills. Check out the following articles if you are convinced that socialized health care is somehow “better”… I’d rather pay more out of pocket and know that my doctor is there when I need them, then have higher taxes (so I’m really paying almost as much, if not just as much) and have to wait 5 days to get antibiotics for pneumonia.
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/canadas_universal_health_car...
http://www.quazen.com/News/Current-Events/Universal-Health-Care-Cheap-Bu...
Reason #5: Reduced Flexibility
With the private health care system, we can choose our providers and insurance companies. Although many employers do not provide a choice within the company, most married couples have a choice between the two spouses’ providers. How quickly do you see changes when you write to your local or state government representative? In a private health care system, there is the ability to control the insurance provider. An employer can drop a company if it is not pleasing the employees. This provides a certain amount of consumer voice that would not be there in a universal health plan.
Solution:
I’d like to see our health care system in the United States improve by utilizing some of the aspects of universal health care – such as centralized databases – but I also think we can only truly improve by streamlining the current system. This country was founded on a capitalist system – not socialist – and we should work together to force the responsibility on insurance companies. In order to help more people in less time, the insurance and medical industry would have to streamline and become more like a business and less like a useless bureaucracy.
A universal health care system will only be one more burden on our already laden government - perhaps the one that will break the camel's back. Politicians who suggest it can work - and that it's needed - are only trying to appeal to the masses in a pathetic attempt to win votes based on looking like they are "compassionate". It's time to start sending them the message: we don't need this system, it's not going to make things better, and you're not going to win our votes by making empty promises!
i dont agree with you. the plans that have been suggested by the incoming politicians seem quite possible. the basis of most is an option to keep your own healthcare plan as it is now.
let me put this as simply as possible- people need healthcare. this IS a crisis, even if it doesnt affect you, who can pay for your prescriptions and doctor's bills. so, if it doesn't affect you negativly, then get away, cause people need to be healthy. need. not want. Need.
Ok... clearly people need health care. I don't disagree with you on that. But why does everyone have to go to a system that clearly isn't effective so that we can provide for the measly 6% who currently don't qualify health care?
Expanding Medicare to include everyone in the U.S., even those 300% above the poverty line, simply doesn't cut it... otherwise it'll become like in Canada where people have to come here for care when they really need it. I don't want to wait days to get a CAT scan. No other country can afford to develop the drugs and the technology like we can, because of the system we have here.
Surely we can come up with a better way to provide those who don't qualify for Medicare right now with the care they need. That's all I'm saying.
I guess Tyra Banks (however you spell it) has some show where she interviewed Obama, who was praising universal healthcare. She mentioned that while she was in europe, she only had to pay 20 bucks to go to the doctor and she didn' teven have insurance there because of it, and it was great!
Except, she didn't have to pay into the system... well, it is REALLY great when you don't have to pay for it.... not as great when you do have to pay for it, and horrible when you have to pay for it when you don't even use it.
another step towards socialism and communism.
Canadians do not have to come here to get care when they need it. They can get it at home. The vast majority of Canadians that come here for care are 1) rich, and thus don't want to wait for their procedures, or 2) are having elective procedures that have long wait times. Why do Americans go to Canada for drugs? Because they're cheaper there.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Really? Like these people?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/canadas_universal_health_car...
(They clearly aren't rich.)
Or this woman, who battles breast cancer?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Str...
Or this person, who came to the US so she could get a drug for her colon cancer?
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Who are you to judge these people for seeking the best health care available?
Without our system there would be no one to provide top-of-the-line health care and drugs.
Discriminating between rich and poor is still discrimination. It's not a crime to have money and to spend it on your health, nor it is immoral.
Good listing. I hope people see that and actually become openminded and consider it.
as for this:
"Discriminating between rich and poor is still discrimination. It's not a crime to have money and to spend it on your health, nor it is immoral."
It is to the left. Except for the left. You won't see Hillary or Edwards of Obama or the rest of the left paying for this system, even though they have between them enough money to start a monster corporation designed to get donations to pay for the uninsured.
The left has a history of being charitable with other people's money, generally by force.
You kind of make my point.
people who have the financial ability to choose... choose to come here so they get better care and don't have to wait for months.
That's kind of the proof that our system, despite its expensive, is better than universal healthcare.
oh, and as for drugs being cheaper there, that is because the canadian government subsidizes the drugs. So, the americans that get canadian drugs are kind of stealing from the canadian people.
Canada also has a price cap for drugs that has caused lower quality drugs to make their way into canada.
Funny how that works.
Dead on with your reasons. Universal Healthcare is a horrible, HORRIBLE idea. It is just another way for the federal government to take more power and money from us. With universal healthcare, we will not have the CHOICE to not participate, as our money gets taken, whether we partake or not.
If those on the left feel that health insurance is SO important, why don't they put THEIR money where their mouth is and start up a company that provides healthcare insurance for that 4 to 6%, rather than having the government FORCE you and I to pay for it?
There is nothing wrong with charity, and I might even donate to such groups. I have MAJOR issues with forcing the 96% with healthcare to pay for the 4% without. Especially Hillary's idea to base it on income, as it does nothing but tax those who are successful to pay for those who are not (which makes it a burden to succeed, which is always a nail in the coffin of a society).
Liberals and Conservatives both believe in charity and helping the poor. Conservatives believe that it should be done by choice, in ways that help make a person independent. Liberals believe that it should be done by force, by OTHER people's money, in such a way that makes someone dependent.
As a conservative, I believe that WE should be the ones to decide how to best use our money, and that the government (as you thankfully pointed out) has never shown to be a wise steward of OUR money.
I agree, universal health care is going to create more problems than it can fix. I believe in compassion, charity, and taking care of those who are less fortunate. I donate to charities that help out the poor, the undernourished, and those that can't afford health care. But I also believe in the concept of capitalism, specifically competition. When there is competition, there is progress. I see universal health care as stamping out that competition among doctors. The reason why health care in the US is so great is that if one hospital or doctor doesn't treat us the way we want them to they know that we'll go to a different one. If health care is universal, you're making all doctors into government employees that no longer have to compete with each other to provide quality health care.
You don't have choice under the system we have now. You go where your insurance tells you to go, or you pay huge amounts for your care. And you are paying for the people that don't have insurance, and are making them pay MORE than you. That's not very fair now, is it?
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Maybe you live in an alternate universe.
My insurance company has no referrals. I am limited to providers, but it's really only geographically limited, and the providers offered is very broad. The "huge amounts" I pay for the insurance here are manageable, and nothing compared to the increases in taxes I would see under a Universal Health Care system, where I would also have to pay for the people who abuse the system. That includes people who have nothing better to do but see the doctor constantly because they have no job, clogging up the system for people who actually need to see the doctor, which happens all the time in Canada.
How can people who doesn't have insurance pay more than me, when the average annual medical insurance plan costs $3,000 per capita in the United States? That just doesn't make sense; the whole thing doesn't. Medicare and medicaid allow for prescriptions; so what are you arguing about? I don't argue that we need to allow for something that helps those that aren't eligible... but why should we switch to a UHP that forces everyone to suffer for the good of a few?
Well, I obviously have a different insurance company than you. I can go to the hospital on post and not have to pay a dime for care, but if I go off-post, there are very, very few providers that will accept my insurance. Something about how the reimbursements are going down...
There are people that abuse the system. I won't deny that. There are plenty of hospitals that are being fined huge amounts of money for trying to defraud Medicare. But, there are also people that cannot afford care, even in a community health clinic. They then end up going to the emergency room and are charged huge amounts more than what they would have been if they had been able to afford seeing a doctor in the first place. You end up paying for that anyway, so why not extend coverage to those people so you don't have to pay as much?
Did you not understand the reasoning? Insurance companies negotiate to get services for less. So while a procedure for someone under insurance costs $40, the same procedure for someone without insurance costs $150 or more. That's just for basic things like a trip to your primary care doctor. Imagine the difference for people that get MRIs and CAT scans.
Drug companies are a whole nother battle... but people in Minnesota, at least, go to Canada to get their prescriptions filled because they are cheaper. This may have changed since the Medicare Plus or whatever that was developed a couple years ago, but that's how it was. And again, people without coverage...
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
You are military. That is a whole different ballgame. It is like apples to oranges.
Like I have stated many times before, for those people who do not have health care they either:
a) Are eligible, and choose not to have it. Or, they aren't aware they are eligible and need to be educated on the availability. Either way, this is not the discussion here.
b) They are in the 6% that are not eligible and cannot afford health care. Clearly something needs to be done to help these people. In my opinion, backed by a landslide of evidence from other countries, universal health care will not be the way to help them or anyone else.
Insurance companies are companies like any other. Of course they get "wholesale" or "discount" rates, if you will. That's just good business. I don't really see anything wrong with it... because the people who are paying more, those people need to be covered by insurance in the first place. That's the problem I am drawing attention to right here: Let's solve this problem, but NOT with universal health care.
If you have free healthcare on your post, why are you complaining about the cost?
As for costs... Hospitals and clinics know that insurance companies wiggle around for cost.
so they inflate their costs and the health insurance company denies their claim. then the doctor submits the actual cost and the health insurance company pays it. It is the red tape game. I've had family members that worked for healthcare companies and I found out about all of how it works.
If you go to a doctor and tell them ahead of time that you don't have insurance but would like to work with them, many doctors are willing to work with you, not only on lower prices (as they don't have to play the red tape game with the insurance company) but also payment plans. (Telling the doctors afterwards tends to make them cranky. . . and there is nothing wrong with shopping around for the best price on a clinic.)
You've made some great points but I'm not sure if I agree with you completely...
I suppose I'm still concerned because I believe that everyone should have the right to healthcare because everyone should have the right to be healthy, but then again, having everyone on the same system and pay through taxes for people that may or may not be abusing the system is not the answer either. It should be the government's job to inform people of their options concerning healthcare and help them obtain it. I don't think that universal healthcare is the right path but i do think that we, as a country and our government should look at the examples that other countries have set that have a better healthcare system then we presently do.
What countries?
Apart from Israel's Trauma hospitals (unfortunately made good by the constant bombings by those who hate Israel), no one has better hosptials than we do.
Many countries have CHEAPER healthcare than we do, only cheaper in what you pay at the door. MUCH more costly when you add in taxes (especially if you don't need to go to the doctor)
If American healthcare wasn't the best in the world, then world leaders wouldn't be coming here to get healthcare (such as the Mayo Clinic in MN or hosptials on the east coast)
It's great that you are concerned, because I am too! I agree that everyone should have access to some sort of health care. Fortunately, it is illegal to refuse emergency health care to anyone, even under the current system. So if I have no health insurance, and I'm really sick, I can still go to the emergency room and get health care for free.
Also, the government does do a lot to try and inform people. There is information distributed in the schools, and commercials on TV. People who don't have health insurance should care enough about their health to seek the information out regardless. The people I'm more worried about are the 6% who don't qualify for any sort of help, and can't afford insurance on their own.
Except "emergency care" is so narrowly defined that it basically means "will the patient die in the next 12 hours if nothing is done." And there is little recourse if a hospital refuses to provide proper emergency care, because if you can't afford health care, you probably can't afford a lawyer either.
In LA the hospitals pay taxis to dump sick and injured people who don't have insurance in the shitty parts of downtown.
first of all the average emergency room visit costs $300 more on average than a doctors' visit with insurance. it is not free, and can bankrupt you, if you're living on the edge of the poverty line. this also backs up the hospitals , so they cannot take care of real emergencies.
If you don't have money or insurance; the emergency room is free. That's the law.
And yes, if you are one of those people who is eligible for medical insurance (which you are if you are so poor that $300 brings you to bankruptcy) and chooses not to educate yourself or doesn't want to pay for it like the rest of us do (because yes, even those of us with medical insurance do pay for it), then you still have to pay for going to the ER. I see no problem with that. Physicians work hard, and studied hard to get where they are; they've got massive tuition debt and families to support as well.
People who complain that everyone else should have to pay for them need to learn some responsibility... socialized health care is not the answer.
Check out your paychecks people; we are already paying a "Medicare" tax that doesn't even cover all the people in need. How much more of your paycheck are you willing to pay for health insurance run by the government?
If you're with a company that pays for your heath care, you wouldn't have to pay that anymore under a universal system. Thus, you probably wouldn't be paying much more, if any. The COST of health care would go down if we had universal coverage.
By having insurance, you are forcing those without insurance to pay more, PLUS you're paying for those who get so sick that they have to go to the ER for treatment, and cannot afford to pay that. It's much, MUCH less expensive to give everyone the primary care that they need than to wait until they're so sick that they have to go to the ER for treatment, and could very well die because they can't afford the medications prescribed to them. Yeah, great responsibility on your part.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Whoa... there is nothing wrong with my having insurance. I will not feel guilty because I can afford health insurance. And I'm not going to allow my level of care and control to go down just so that the government can raise my taxes and do a shoddy job taking over my health care. I already pay a Medicare tax, and that isn't covering all these people who need insurance, so who is to say the government won't do a better job the next time around?
Those without insurance aren't paying more because I have insurance, they either choose not to have insurance, or they aren't eligible. I do not argue that we need to come up with a better system to cover those that aren't already eligible.
Apparently I have to say this 5,000 times. It is illegal to refuse emergency medical care to anyone in this country, whether they can pay or not.
Your control will go up. What on earth makes you think your level of care will go down? People in nations with universal healthcare are appalled at the fact that we allow people to go bankrupt for having an accident, or for having a disease that cannot be prevented.
If we have a single-payer system, the cost of healthcare will go down. Medicare only spends like 2-3% of its revenue on administration fees. Other insurance companies spend more like 20%. Plus, due to all these insurance companies and the requirement for doctors to do all that paperwork to get procedures approved, they don't have TIME to spend with patients anymore, and those that do either cater to the rich (which makes our system even more unfair), or they don't make as much as they should. Nurses have the same problem... Thus, less paperwork would mean more time with patients and better patient care.
Did I ever say that you could refuse emergency care? No. I said that YOU are paying for it because they can't. It's CHEAPER to give primary care than it is to give care in the ER.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
What makes me think my level of care will go down? HISTORY!!! We have the highest level of care IN THE WORLD. EVERY NATION that has switched to UHC has seen a dramatic rise in wait time, a decrease in the number of physicians, and a lack of R&D. That's why the US is the leader in medical technology and drugs...because no one else can afford to do it.
I don't care if my cost of health care goes down. I don't mind paying "high" premiums to maintain the high level of care that I have now. It means I can call my doctor and get an appointment that day, without having to wait 4 days to get my pneumonia checked out. I don't have to wait for the government to approve my chemotherapy treatment.
Did you even read the articles I linked? Do you know anything about the crises that are occurring in countries like Canada where people can't get their drugs for cancer because the government refuses to pay for the treatment?
Yes, our insurance companies have problems. Yes, they need to be streamlined. Less bureaucracy, less paperwork, less wasted money. I agree! But switching to a UHC system... that won't solve anything. The government just leads to more bureaucracy and more paperwork.
No, the ER is not free. You have your terminology confused. There are plenty of cases of ERs refusing treatment to people who don't have insurance or money. The definition of "emergency care" is legally very narrow.
I've seen quotes for health insurance started at 50 bucks a month, and have heard ads for health insurance for 32 or 36 bucks a month.
I pay that much for my cell phone package and that much for my martial arts training. If I were without health insurance, I would drop one or both of those to pay for health insurance.
I would suggest that many pay more for fast food in a month that could be spent on health insurance if they were to properly budget.
It's true, the ERs in hospitals all over are filled with people who don't have genuine emergencies, making it harder to treat people who really need help. With universal health care I see this problem escalating, not diminishing. Instead of just the ERs being overfull, doctors period would be too busy to see people who need to be treated. I would cite your minds back to the comment made earlier about people coming to America from Canada to receive treatment because there was a horrendous wait for treatment in their native country.
"Whatever doesn't kill you should be dead when you're done with it."
Absolutely. You have to wait days to see a doctor in Canada when you have the flu... and the flu can be deadly!
#1: 6% of Americans don't have healthcare. That means 18 million people. More than the population of New York City doesn't have healthcare. While 6% seems like a small amount, 18 million is not. It is really a shame if the greatest, most advanced nation in the world has millions of people who cannot afford basic care.
#2: Not necessarily. In fact with last weeks expansion of the S-CHIP program, healthcare is paid for by a greater tax on tobacco products, in fact "killing two birds with one stone" - lowering total costs by reducing the number of smokers and paying for healthcare for kids. If our new UHC program was paid for out of the general fund, additional funding could come from taxes on tobacco, hard liquor or other "risky" activities.
#3: It's hardly efficient to spend millions, if not billions, on overhead paying for BCBS of NC's giant, pyramid-like, glass-covered structure in Durham, NC, where I live.
#4: Sure it does. Hear of many Canadians or French calling to eliminate UHC? Nope. It's hard to find accurate data about this kind of thing, most sites are either Michael Moore/Sicko-type sites which emphasize the positive, or conservative sites (like the ones you linked to) which emphasize the negative.
#5: Not necessarily. There are different types of UHS. One possible system (somewhat similar to what John Edwards is suggesting - my plan, however, is v. diff. in a few aspects) is to have the government pay for all care, up to a point (obv., not cosmetic surgery, for instance) but have the person needing care pick the hospital where the care is given. Substandard hospitals and unscrupulous doctors would go out of business even more quickly, as no one would choose to patronize them.
We can find an alternate way to provide for the 18 million who still need health care here in the United States. Why should 282 million have to suffer to help a few? Greater good for the greatest number...
Once all the smokers are gone, who is going to pay for that plan? Regardless, you can't abolish smoking, and once the tax gets high enough, people will rebel and all hell will break loose. It would be great if we could pay for the 18 million with higher taxes on these products - instead of putting the additional tax on top of the new taxes to pay for our new UHC.
Like I stated in my article, I am not defending the current system. It does have problems that do need to be addressed. A new building for BlueCross BlueShield, which is a business has little to do with a discussion on the pros and cons of universal health care. This also has nothing to do with my statement that the government is incapable of running a UHC system anywhere close to what's needed... clearly the insurance companies are capable of running a health care system, because they are doing it right now. There's no need to overburden our already ridiculously laden government with another unneeded agency.
If you Google "Universal Health Care" you will come up with hundreds of articles on the terrible wait times, low quality of service and below-par medical care received by people in Canada. Great Britain is not much better. There are plenty of citizens in these countries who are calling for the elimination of UHC... just check the links that I put into my article. Or you can consult with some of the members of this site who may be from Canada on how long they waited to go to the doctor the last time they were sick. Canadians come to the US all the time for medical services - when was the last time you heard of an American going to Canada?
Great... so now we pay the government taxes for health care... but then if we really need it, we have to pay more? Give me a break. The government doesn't have time to mess around and let us pick practitioners... do they let us choose social workers? Who gives us our drivers test? Probation officers? Which police officer comes to our door to assist us in our hour of need? The demand for the best doctors would be impossibly high. This system would never work. Be realistic.
to your rebuttals:
1.) out of a nation of 240 million people (documented), 18 million really is a small number, far too small to required the other 222 million people to pay for their healthcare. Once again, start up your own insurance company to cater to these 18 million people. Set up a charity to do so to make benefit of tax-free status. I'm sure you will find many more people willing to DONATE to such a charity than to pay for it by force via taxes. We live in a free country with a capitalist system, in which you can create a company to take care of such a niche market.
2.) Taxing smokers, the last of the 'second class' citizens in this country, is not a way to pay for healthcare for the very reason you give: high taxes drive people to quit... if they quit, that is less income you get to pay for a growing program. Basic accounting principles suggest that is a bad way to fund something. (not to mention the 20,000% tax increase on cigars, going up to 10 dollars PER cigar to pay for it.... wholly wrong.)
3.) Again, start up your own medical insurance company that will be more grass-roots and not for profit. Remember that insurance companies are 'for profit' businesses that exist to make a profit. In this free society, make your own company to do what you would want to see done: Free healthcare for the poor.
4.) Many Canadians and French people want the universal healthcare to end, and many call for it, citing statistics of the number of people who die on waiting lists, and the horrible conditions they have.
5.) John edwards is a lawyer that got rich by suing doctors, and his style of socialized healthcare would make for required doctor visits, driving up the cases of malpractice. Both his version and Hillary's forces us taxpayers to pay for the program whether we use it or not (but they don't need to as congress will be exempt, as with many other things)
Double-team!
Damn... we're good.
If only there were more of us in our generations.
I don't know how old you are, but I feel very alone amongst my generation of post-college student aged people, as I see far too few conservatives.
1.) Two words: Spillover benefits. If everyone in the US had decent healthcare, everyone would be healthier, and therefore more productive. If the economy is more active, we all benefit.
2.) Taxing smokers is a temporary solution. As unhealthy behaviors fade out, we'll need to find another sink for these costs. However, costs of healthcare would also decrease, as we'd have (slightly) fewer unhealthy people.
3.) What if I don't want to? You'll benefit from it (see #1), so why shouldn't you help? In the end, you'll pay very little extra.
4.) Many Americans want the current system of healthcare to end. Myself included. How many Americans die because they don't have any healthcare at all? Probably more, percentage-wise, than die waiting in Canada or France.
5.) Is that why he is doing it? Maybe he just wants to help poor people who can't visit the doctor.
1.) you don't stimluate the economy by making people's bodies healthier, you stimulate the economy by making their wallets healthier. That's why tax reductions have always led to a positive turn in the economy. More money in pockets means more money to spend. If you then take that money and put it into a pool for healthcare, they don't have it to spend on that new widget.
2.) we will always have unhealthy people. You can't set up a long term program with a short-term funding solution. The only long-term funding solution that works is to raise taxes. Which then becomes a case of taking from the successful to provide for the unsuccessful, which punishes someone for succeeding, which runs counter-culture to what has always made our country great.
3.) In the end, we'll pay ALOT, as has been shown by Canada's tax system in which, between federal, provincial and local taxes is well over 50%. I benefit best from being able to decide where my money goes, even if it means running up a medical bill for services that I get quickly and when I need them (rather than waiting in line). . . If you follow your logic, if we only performed 100 heart surgeries a year, we could claim that america was getting healthier based on the number of surgeries done... but you leave out the numbers of people who die waiting.
4.) you don't want the current healthcare system to end, you just want free healthcare... But that is a fallicy. You pay for it. You will pay for it in your taxes. You already pay for the illegal immigrants healthcare by the government bailouts of hospitals. your idea that more americans die without healthcare than under the canadian or french systems is based on no numbers at all and only your idea that their failed healthcare system is better than ours.
5.) If he wanted to help poor people who just can't visit the doctor, he should open up a charity with some of his untold MILLIONS of dollars, along with Hillary and the rest of the liberals to provide free healthcare for the poor. Instead, they want you and I to foot that bill. Classic liberal view of charity: Make the middle class pay for it so that the liberal elite don't need to.
...buttal. :)
1.) If I'm sick at home not working, is the economy growing compared to when I work? No. Healthier people, therefore, grow the economy.
2.) If smoking will never go away, then *poof* we have a long-term funding solution. If it does end, we'll tax the next unhealthy health choice. High-Fructose Corn Syrup, maybe.
3.) Yeah, we'll pay a lot. But in the long run, we'll do better as a country, financially and morally. (That's important - the moral aspect. I'm not comfortable leaving kids without preventative care in this country.)
4.) OK, let's do some research. How do you plan to account for the different healthcare systems in the two countries? Is life expectancy a good comparison? Because in that case, Canada and France totally pwn the US by 2.5 years, according to the data on Wikipedia.
5.) "Untold millions" isn't enough to provide a long-term solution. If the nation really wants to help out everyone, then we'll make the sacrifice. And yes, if we use taxes, than our *progressive* taxation system will tax the rich more than it taxes the middle class, whom it taxes more than the poor. I fully support raising taxes on the rich to lower taxes on the middle class.
1.) when you have more money in your pocket, the economy grows. When you have more money taken away to pay for a field that is now under government control, economy slows and drops.
You want people to have more money, you lower taxes... you don't require that they pay money for healthcare whether they use it or not, unless they CHOOSE to by paying for insurance.
2.) smoking will never go away, but people will turn to bootleg supplies. Here in my state, they passed a bunch of smoking taxes (the Democrats being 'they') to pay for education. Fewer people now smoke, or they drive to texas to get the cigs. Result: Less money for education than they originally planned on. That is a common problem. Why do you think it would suddenly 'stop' being a problem? Once again, smokers are not second-class citizens.
3.) So, you now admit that we'll be spending more money without increased benefit. We're going to punish those who can pay for healthcare (the 96%) to cover those who cannot, and you call that moral? I call that robbery.... taking money from one person to benefit another without the ability for the person to object. Rather than punish me for a poor kid not having insurance, why not hold the parents accountable? As I mentioned before, you can get health insurance for as little as 36 bucks a month. with proper budgeting, any family can afford that. Parents need to take responsibility for their children, rather than being dependent on the government. THAT is morality.
4.) pwn. Pwn? what are you? 12?. Wikipedia is a horrible scientific resource as any dolt can edit the pages to say what they want. Rather than looking at the subjective wikipedia, why not look at the objective statistics in the studies. Don't look at the articles written ABOUT a study, read the study and look at the data itself. That is research. Any monkey can cut and paste misinformation. Do research. There is a very specific reason why world leaders fly to United States hospitals to get healthcare. There is also a specific reason why average citizens in Cuba are unable to buy aspirin: Universal Healthcare.
5.) You evidently aren't rich. Let's say that you got an A in a class, but when you look over, the person next to you, who never studies or does homework is getting an F. Your method of taxation would turn your A into a C just so that person who isn't productive doesn't 'suffer'. how would you feel as that student who just lost that A they worked hard for? Why do you need the rich to make a sacrifice? Start up your own charity to provide healthcare for the poor. We're a free country, you see a problem, fix it. Don't demand that the government makes ME pay for YOUR idea.
As I mentioned before, you can get health insurance for as little as 36 bucks a month.
Show me the insurance plan. I almost guarantee you that that plan isn't coverage. Deductibles are probably hundreds of dollars, co-pays are probably pretty high as well. And I'm willing to bet that most of those plans only cover emergencies, not basic coverage. The MEDICAL SCHOOLS that I'm looking at charge students $3000 per year (roughly $250 a month) for basic coverage at the student health clinic.
6% of the population may not have insurance (and that number doesn't look right to be, but whatever), but there's another LARGE portion of the population that is vastly under-insured.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Deductibles are NOT hundreds of dollars... that is ridiculous. Everyone can have reasonable health care without UHC. (I have MVP, btw).
Medical help isn't cheap. Medication, is expensive to make, it's expensive to develop, it's expensive to maintain. The technology is the same. Physicians and technicians are expensive to train.
Just because health care is important, doesn't mean it should be free, or cheap. Just because our health is important, doesn't mean that these people and companies that provide us with health care shouldn't make money for doing so. If they didn't pull a profit, then what would be the incentive for developing the amazing new cancer drugs that are out on the market? It sounds terrible, but morality doesn't cut it, and without the profits, it wouldn't happen. Suck it up, pay your premiums, be happy with the amazing quality of health care we have here in the US, and DEAL WITH IT.
I would suggest that the old addage applies:
You get what you pay for.
Most pharmaceutical companies make 1000%+ profits per unit on medications. Expensive to make? You have to be kidding me.
Morality should cut it. This country wasn't founded on profits. It was founded on morality.
Amazing new cancer drugs don't help you very much when your insurance company won't pay for them.
I would suggest not taking that school plan.
Here's a website to get information about private health insurance:
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/
for my age and zip code, as a college student, I find insurance for as little as 46 bucks a month from a big health insurance company (I don't want to give them a free commercial so I won't say their name)
35 dollar copay. Standard discount on prescrips,.
For 58 bucks a month, a different wellknown health insurance company
higher yearly deductable,
35 dollar copay, half off medications,
What is the standard by which you judge 'underinsured' ? That's so subjective that you could say that 80% of the population is underinsured.... or maybe 8%. what's the concrete basis for 'underinsured' ? My healthcare isn 't free and paid for by other people than me, does that make me underinsured?
Those cheap plans are worthless - $5000 deductible, and the copays only apply *after* the deductible, which means you get shafted by your doctor up until then.
I see a lot of people commenting here who *clearly* have *never* had to provide themselves with consumer-level individual health insurance. Either you've had it provided by a family of above-average means, or by an employer who gets a group rate - those products are significantly different from what one might purchase for a reasonable yearly price.
It's great to provide armchair commentary when you're covered and you don't have anything to worry about, but quoting figures from Google and making a list of non-arguments does not make someone an expert.
I don't want spillover benefits from my own tax dollars. I'm still paying more than I am now. That is pointless. How is UHC going to make the economy more active again? That's one less industry, more government jobs... that means more budgeting, and fewer jobs in the end. And a whole lot of money wasted in the transition process.
Ok... if taxing smokers is a temporary solution, what's your permanent one? Because I'm pretty sure smokers aren't going away anytime soon. Neither are unhealthy people. Last time I checked health care doesn't eliminate obesity, smoking, drug addiction, or self-mutilation.
If you don't want to Google it... then you're being ignorant and refusing to educate yourself on the very issue you are arguing about. That makes all your arguments moot. And if you don't want to start your own insurance company... well that's your own damn problem... because it sure as hell isn't mine. I want to help people, but not through socializing my health care.
Americans want the health care system to IMPROVE. Who said anything about going to a system that is proven to fail? The Canadian system is collapsing into itself as we speak. There is no reason for Americans to die because of a lack of health care; it's illegal to refuse emergency medical care to anyone in this country whether they can afford it or not.
John Edwards is leeching off the system. How could you defend him when he is clearly harming the very people you and I are trying to help? Suing doctors for malpractice only makes health care more expensive for all of us.
1.) You'd be paying more than you are now, but you'd be getting benefits you aren't getting now. They should at least even out. We're just getting rid of the insurance industry, remember, not the whole healthcare industry.
2.) Taxing unhealthy behaviors will last as long as there are unhealthy choices to make. Its the same as the current system, smokers pay more than non-smokers, because they cost more to insure.
3.) I have googled it. I just don't accept everything I read as fact.
4.) Proven to fail? Collapsing as we speak? Do prove these assertions. The Canadian system seems to be going pretty well - their life expectancy is quite a bit higher than ours.
5.) Leeching off the system? Harming poor people? WHAT? He's known for suing makers of drainage covers that kill children. Malpractice suits keep doctors honest and alert that they are performing whatever they're doing correctly. "Medical Malpractice reform" is one of the dumber ideas I've ever heard. Why should I be limited to $250,000 in damages if whatever I've lost is far more valuable than that?
1.) You do not know that, you only assume. History has shown that universal healthcare has always led to a lower standard of healthcare, longer lines and less service. We would be paying more than we are now, without the choice of NOT paying for it (remember, many choose to NOT have health insurance), and would have less service and a lower quality (as history has shown.)
2.) Again, people have the choice to be insured under the current system. Forcine smokers to pay an extra tax is, at best, a short-sighted and short-term solution to a long-term problem. When you tax a vice heavily, you just create a market for bootleg product as prohibition taught us. Taxing smokers extra to pay for healthcare is not a solution. It is only evidence of a greater problem of viewing smokers as second-class citizens. fat people will be next, with pushes to tax certain foods more because they are more fattening. It is already being talked about in parts of England.
3.) You accept many things as fact, whether they are or not. you accept as fact that universal healthcare is a great thing, despite all of the people from those countries who show the horror stories, and all of the ecnomically minded people, even here, who are telling you that it is a bad move.
4.) Actually, studies have shown that for people aged 80 or more, the average life expectancy is MUCH higher in the United States than the universal healthcare countries, based on the age of people when they die. Remember that current 'life expectancy' quotes are based on made up numbers and estimated death rates from subjective criteria, rather than based on ACTUAL age of death. Distrust people who claim that average life expectancies are X or Y years if they aren't based on records of people actually dying.
5.) John Edwards made his money on a few cases. In his most famous, he claimed to channel the voice of a dead baby through him in which he described what the baby saw and felt as the doctors' negligent behavior caused the baby to be born with a birth defect that, later research showed, was wholly unconnected to anything done by doctors but was actually 100% genetic. HE, not the family, got the majority of money from that lawsuit, as his common practice with him. The loss of a family member is a time to mourn, not a time to try to make a quick buck by hiring a lawyer to sue a doctor that did the best he or she could. Yes, there are some doctors that make bad decisions or are drunk while operating, etc.... but they are a SMALL percentage... Most malpractice lawsuits are over things that a doctor could only have known with the 20/20 vision of hindsight and the help of an autopsy.
On a Constitutional Level, the federal government has no specific right to create a universal healthcare system.
The rights not specifically given to the federal government by the states are specifically reserved FOR the states.
I could see a case for state X or state Y creating their own state healthcare system for the residents of that state, and the state would have full rights to do that.
I disagree with the idea of state-funded or provided healthcare, as the historical examples are very poor. However, I would have less of a resistance to a state making its own socialized healthcare.
Let California run it for a few years so the rest of us can see what a money-sucking failure it is.
With almost no exception, if it is a failure in the private sector, it will not become magically better when the government takes over. They have NEVER proven to be a wise steward of our money.
History tells us California is pretty good at making a fool out of itself...
California: The Self-Made "Guinea Pig" State
Heh, too true. I know someone who runs a trucking company out there. Sends me information now and then about new laws out there.
insanity. and rampant socialism. I keep telling them that my state will take them, we're trucker friendly. heh
This is an excellent post, and I feel exactly the same way. I have such difficulty explaining my feelings about universal healthcare to my peers. It sounds like a good idea, and appeals to people's inherent good nature - So what kind of person am I for disliking it? Still, as you and probably everyone on this site knows, what sounds like a good idea and what is a good idea are two different things. I don't feel that this particular idea falls into the "good idea" category.
In a perfect world, universal healthcare would mean that everyone who had any sort of health problem received prompt, excellent care at no cost. This, however, is reality, and it's not going to work that way, no matter how much we want it to.
Thank you for your support... I am very passionate about this subject. If this country ever switched to a universal health care system, we would all suffer the consequences tremendously.
More people need to realize that you can be compassionate for those less fortunate than yourself and still care about your own wellbeing.
Don't you think there are things that, for its very nature, should be outside the regulatory power of the market?
If you answered "yes" to the first question, don't you think health care should be one of those things?
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Answer to the first question is "Yes to a degree"
Answer to the second question is "no"
military should not be free market, though military supply and para-military should be, as the free market always encourages progress and innovation.
healthcare shouldn't be up to anything but the free market, as innovation does not take place in a closed system. This is why foreigners come to this country for healthcare and why we don't flock to cuba to have that heart surgery.
Keep paying your $400/mo for shitty coverage, then, so you can "keep innovation alive".
If the yearly double-digit increases continue, soon you will be travelling to Cuba.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Maybe you need a new insurance company.
I wouldn't go to Cuba for any sort of health care because they have terrible medical technology, availability, drugs, ect. It has nothing to do with cost.
Yeah, you made me see the light.
How could I be so blind?
There is no health insurance problem in this country.
Did you read anything written here?
I believe we need to improve the current health insurance system, because the companies are struggling with efficiencies and don't have a lot of motivation to improve right now. Giving them a little impetus would go a long way.
Both authors are in agreement that there is a problem with the health insurance in this country... the problem being that 6% of the people living in the United States do not have health care and are not eligible.
The argument here is that universal health care is not the way to resolve this problem, NOT that the problem should not be resolved. A few suggestions have been expanding Medicare, starting a charity, and thinking a more unique solution. If you are so worried, why don't you help us instead of being so rude?
I am sorry, I didn't know this blog was about offering constructive ideas, I thought it was for venting one's frustrations against right-wingers.
My mistake.
Let's try to be more articulate, then.
What I don't like about your general line of argumentation is, fist of all, how you happily trim down the size of the problem to a mere 6% of the population, which is fallacious.
The second underlying tenet of yours, is that the health care crisis in this country is just a matter of affordability, thus solvable by charity or expansion of social programs.
Thirdly, try at least do some research about Cuba's health care. It is one of the few things at which that impoverished nation excels.
I would contend that:
- It is insincere and inhumane shrugging off the immigrants, and the people who "chose not no have" insurance. Immigrants, while they are here, legal or not, should have access to affordable health insurance. People who "chose not to", evidently are making an economic choice based on limited resources. You say 6%. I say 45%. One of us is lying.
- I would further contends that it is the whole approach to the concept of public health what is screwed up in the US. The drug companies have a disproportionately lobbying power. Sometimes half the commercials you see on TV are about talk-to-your doctor about blah, blah. For conditions like "restless leg syndrome", which I find obscene. Then, there is also the absurd medicalization of behaviors, like the "attention deficit disorder".
If you are uninsured and you land on a hospital because of , say, an indigestion, it is very likely that the hospital will want to perform a whole battery of tests on you. They will put you on a cot and administer you IV. They will have you "on observation" until you decide to, against their advice, sign a waiver and check yourself out.
A couple of days later, you will receive a bill by the hospital for $800, and a further separate $900 bill from the doctor. The cost of the IV saline solutions is $5.
Is what I just told normal?
Is it verisimilar?
It happened to me.
Please, enlighten me on how the invisible hand of the market solves everything.
" I thought it was for venting one's frustrations against right-wingers."
That may be what you are about, and I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.
"What I don't like about your general line of argumentation is, fist of all, how you happily trim down the size of the problem to a mere 6% of the population, which is fallacious."
Actually, that is rather correct. 6%. the 47 Million number they toss around includes illegal immigrants (20 million) and college aged students (as well as others) that choose to not have health insurance for their own reasons (estimated at 15 million). So that leave around 12 million people. That comes out to around 4 to 6%. Remember that CHOOSING to not have health insurance is not the same as an inability to have health insurance.
"The second underlying tenet of yours, is that the health care crisis in this country is just a matter of affordability, thus solvable by charity or expansion of social programs."
Actually, that was my idea... the charity bit. And if you have the government pay or charities pay, it is just a difference of who gives the money. I support charities because they are option for donations. The government FORCES me to pay for YOUR healthcare. That is immoral and not within the powers of the federal government.
"It is insincere and inhumane shrugging off the immigrants, and the people who "chose not no have" insurance. Immigrants, while they are here, legal or not, should have access to affordable health insurance. People who "chose not to", evidently are making an economic choice based on limited resources. You say 6%. I say 45%. One of us is lying."
To reward an illegal immigrant with health insurance rewards negative behavior. It is ILLEGAL for them to be here, so why are you wanting to reward their illegal behavior with free stuff? As for the "one of us is lying" bit... simple: You are.
"I would further contends that it is the whole approach to the concept of public health what is screwed up in the US. The drug companies have a disproportionately lobbying power. Sometimes half the commercials you see on TV are about talk-to-your doctor about blah, blah. For conditions like "restless leg syndrome", which I find obscene. Then, there is also the absurd medicalization of behaviors, like the "attention deficit disorder"."
Oh, I agree... but that problem would only grow with socialized medicine... especially if there is no requirement of the patient to have to pay for anything on their own. You take more ownership of something you have to pay for yourself.
As for your example.... why did you go to the hospital for indigestion? I have a bottle of tums in my desk here at work. I'm alot less expensive than a hospital. As for the market being better than the government when it comes to healthcare, answer this:
Why do world leaders, rich and poor alike coming to the united states to go to our hospitals like the Mayo Clinic in minnesota or the Johns Hopkins in MD? Why aren't they flying to Canada or cuba for their healthcare needs?
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070921/A_BIZ/70921...
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070921/A_BIZ/70921...
Yes, because Families USA can get so many more Americans to answer a survey about health insurance than the US Census, who practically knocks down peoples doors to force them to answer.
*rolls eyes*
Illegal immigrants have no place in this discussion, as they would not be a part of a universal health care plan. They refuse to become productive members of society and don't pay taxes, and therefore couldn't participate. That takes us down to 4% without health insurance, and an untold amount with sub-par health insurance, however you may define this.
45% is a ludicrous number. Prove to me with facts and figures that this is the number of people in the United States who need health care... and I will believe you. Otherwise, I am throwing this out the window and going back to our previously agreed upon 6%, which is based upon the U.S. census from 2006.
We know the drug companies have issues, but they are businesses. We're not talking about drug companies here... we're talking about health insurance. Different animal. Also, the drug companies here in the US have developed more than 3 times as many world class drugs than any other country. http://www.technology.gov/Reports/globalcontext/nas.pdf (see page 3). If you want to continue enjoying the high quality medications you have access to here and abroad, then stop complaining.
Why would anyone go to a hospital for indigestion? If they did, they deserve to pay lots of money for wasting the time of that hospital and the doctor there. You are clearly an abnormal case who made a poor decision to go to a hospital without health insurance... and if you can afford health insurance, and choose not to have it, that's your damn problem. The rest of us pay premiums, co-pays, and deductibles that are higher annually than your single bill. So suck it up. It was your poor decision, not ours... and I refuse to pay for the poor decisions of others.
Dude, you are too easy.
It takes only a couple of postings to make the Social Darwinist surface.
You are wrong on almost everything.
According to the census, in 2004 there were 45 million of uninsured. Thats w 15% of the population at that time. Since then, health coverage continued to outpace inflation by double digits.
Here's the link from that Marxist organization called the Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin04/hlth04asc.html
Illegal immigrants (another 4% of the population per the most conservative estimates) have a HUGE saying in this discussion. Of course, a nasty like you would immediately dismiss them and pretend they don't exist. Nobody is talking about handouts here. I clearly said: "they also should be able to have affordable health insurance". Affordable ... insurance .... like in "paying" for it. Please, stop your right-wing knee-jerk reactions, they are making the discussion arduous.
Even admitting your surrealistic argument that the political clout of drug companies has no influence on the cost of health insurance, that was not the point I brought up before. I was pointing out something deeper, i.e. how they contribute to distort the very perception by the American public about what health means. I was pointing out that R&D on "restless leg syndrome", even done a private level, is somewhat nonsensical and obscene. Some day Fox news will break it down for you.
As for my personal story: yes, I was stupid. I should have sucked it up (of course I didn't know it was an indigestion, but that's beside the point). I deserve being slapped with a $1700 bill for nothing, since I am weak and stupid, like all the poor.
In general, I want no handouts, much less from you. I want efficiency and lots of common sense.
The market mentality applied to health care got us into this problem, and you keep on with the moronic mantra that what wee need is more market mentality!
I hope one day you really need health care, then we will see how much longer that little "I-fend-for-myself-don't-owe-anything-to-anybody" logic of yours holds up. Your $50 will go a long way.
Yes, the US census in 2006 showed that almost 26 million people were uninsured. But it also showed that of that 26 million, only approximately 18 million were actually ineligible for insurance. That leaves the difference either choosing not to have insurance, or unaware that they do not have insurance. If they aren't aware, it's because the government should be finding a better way to educate them... the next census should perhaps explore why exactly these people are not insured to make sure there is not a lack of education.
I have already responded to the remainder of your arguments.
As I have stated many times before... I believe we need a better system, so that we are not leaving out the LEGAL citizens of this country that still need health care. But my better system does not include universal health care, and the reasons why are listed above. Thank you very much for considering my thoughts.
a) lets blame the illegal immigrants for every supply-side problem in this country.
b) we are not experiencing a health care crisis
c) if we were experiencing such crisis, it would be because
c.1) people choose to be uninsured
c.2) people is "unaware" that they can be insured (that's a good one).
c.3) a lot of freeriders are abusing whatever public health care system we have
c.4) health care in the US is not market-oriented enough
d) any thought about socialized medicine is anathema because it would stifle competition and innovation.
e) extreme cases can be patched up by charity or direct government aid.
Does it sum it up about right?
How I envy you, repeating these concepts to yourself and not worrying anymore ...
a.) Nope, just the problems of which they are the cause. Unless you think it is the native born and naturalized citizens that clog the emergency rooms and do not pay their emergency room bills for the flu. If that is your thought, I wonder how often you are in the emergency room.
b.) Who has said we aren't? we're saying that forcing 94% to pay for 6%'s health insurance through a government program (even though the other government health insurance programs are ALL failures) is a poor decision. I contend that charities could handle the 4%, and all of those who want universal healthcare should pay for it.
c.) are you ignoring those who don't want insurance? Why are you going to force them to pay for something they don't want? It is their money, not yours. You can't do what you want with other people's money, you socialist.
d.) Yup, dead on. When is the last time that Cuba came out with a medical breakthrough?
e.) not direct government aid... Charity. Why are you against charity? Why do you believe that people should be forced to give you money to give to others? Who are you to tell another person who they are required to spend their money?
Go back to the sink hole you came from, you mud slinging, insulting socialist hippie.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks, lancekate.
-Illegal immigrants=clogged emergency rooms
-single-pay, universal health insurance=a 94% of the population paying for the needs of the 6%=socialism=forcing people who opt out.
-charity=the only thing social classes own to each other
-state-run-anything=no scientific breakthroughs
Your only concrete question: latest Cuban medical breakthrough.
-total prosthetics of hip and femur
-minimal intrusion surgery in hip and femur fractures
-applied stem cell research on osteoarthritis and pseudoarthritis
-ocular microsurgery
-cochlear implants
this is what I could find in 5 minutes of browsing the internet.
Is that all you have?
Any more strawmen?
Come on, put up some fight at least!
Mongo
PS: I will answer you next strawman in advance, so that we save some time. No, I don't like the Cuban regime.
You haven't address a single argument.
Or made a single suggestion for an alternative.
CASE CLOSED.
"d.) Yup, dead on. When is the last time that Cuba came out with a medical breakthrough?"
Cuba actually has an advanced biotechnology industry. It usually isn't heard about in the US because of the trade embargo. Cuban vaccines can be found all over the world, of course not in the US. When my family was in Cuba my father went to the hospital and it was fantastic. Cuba is a fantastic place either way, but my parents intend on retiring to a country with socialized medicine, because they are pleased with the service they get. They could easily afford to get treated in the US, but find no need to.
I have never had a problem with health care in Canada, neither has any of my family members. The major problem with the Canadian system is a brain drain. Many medical students come from foreign countries for their education and then return home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3284995.stm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004C293-1B1F-1E40-89E0809EC5...
You have made some good points, not this one.
"The market mentality applied to health care got us into this problem"
There is no market accessible to actual consumers. The market is limited to the insurance companies, and State governments. They have created a situation by negotiating discounts that screws the consumer. The reason this happens is that each State has their own version of an 'Insurance Commission." The only lobbyist calling on them represent insurance companies.
A free market suggestion that makes sense to me is allowing Doctors to offer care with no malpractice recourse. The cost of REQUIRED insurance that primarily benefits lawyers would be removed. If you want to be able to sue your doctor you would have the choice of paying more for an insured one.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
Arguing over numbers and MANY other fringe issues keeps the status quo.
Why not positively present what we should do?
All of us want the same basic result.
If you don't have your own idea talk about the actual system, or proposals.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
"You say 6%. I say 45%. One of us is lying."
45 million is the high end figure. 45% is 135 Million.
6% ignores that millions of qualified poor people do not know how (or are so disgusted by the process they choose not) to jump through the hoops required for Government programs.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
You are correct.
The census figure was 45 million, not 45%.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
I pay about 50 bucks a month for insurance. (my share. Work covers the other 50 bucks a month)
Again, I've shown a few places where you can get private health insurance for MUCH less than 400 bucks a month.
And I'd hit free clinics and emergency rooms before I went to Cuba for healthcare.
people like you would rather spend billion of dollars on war making the fat cat richer but you don't want to spend a dime on health care?
"if you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help them."
if there is enough money to kill people in war like iraq than there is defiantly enough money to provide health care. why are people like you so determine to spend money on killing people in war while demonizing anyone who want to spend any health care for children.
I'm not rich... I'm a poor college student who can barely afford the gas for her car.
Let's talk about HEALTH CARE. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with this. GET OVER IT.
We kill people in a war who are trying to kill you and I for existing.
Though, I'm not sure how that relates to a socialistic program like Universal Healthcare, unless you think we are also supposed to pay for universal healthcare for other countries.
Please note that there is another blog, "Why We Need Universal Coverage" that you should check out in order to get both sides of this issue.
http://www.progressiveu.org/164149-why-we-need-universal-coverage
Thank you,
Kate
I noticed that much.
Then, what do you think is the reason that fixing something that is -according to you - not broken, is becoming a feature in American politics?
**Comment has been edited for TOS Violations. (Fanaile Essence, October 24, 2007)***
Please refrain from personal attacks, threatening language, name-calling, and other violations of Progressive U's Terms of Service
**Comment has been deleted for TOS Violations. (Fanaile Essence, October 24, 2007)***
Please refrain from personal attacks, threatening language, name-calling, and other violations of Progressive U's Terms of Service
A large portion of current health care system is run by private companies. The amount of profit that these private companies make is inversely proportional to the amount of care that the provide to their customers.
Profit = (Money Paid by Individuals/Employers) - (Care Given/Services Provided)
These companies are going to maximize profits no matter what - that is the overriding goal of any company. No matter what their commercials say, their #1 goal is to make money for the owners/investors. No amount of "streamlining" will change this.
What is required is a fundamental shift in the way we handle health care in the US, not a re-hash of a system that is designed from the top down to siphon off our hard earned money to line the pockets of those involved in the industry.
It is not my obligation to do so, since you, having proposed the subject, are expected to give valid reasons to detract universal health care, instead of expecting me to justify it.
But I want this to be constructive as much as you say you do, so here we go.
I think it is a shame that the most powerful nation on earth is unable or unwilling to provide universal health care to its inhabitants.
The Government should provide, within reason, for your health, and private insurance should be a matter of option (for speed, better hospitality side-services, not for any essential treatment related matter).
Currently, hospitals have the legal obligation to "stabilize" you regardless of your ability to pay. I envision they should make their best effort to cure you, to treat you.
Physicians can't do that today. They are pressed on one side by liability fears, on the other side by the insurance that tells them how much they can treat. And if you seek treatment without going through an insurance company, or you do have insurance but the provider is unscrupulous, the hospital machinery runs amok on you in order to fatten the bill. I think I don't have to prove any of this, these are observable facts.
If the government provided a basic, universal, single-pay plan, that, far from stifling competition, would promote it and drive down prices dramatically. That is not an expenditure, is an investment. Don't tell me that basic care can't be provided at low fees, in a way smart enough to prevent spoilage and abuse.
I also disagree with the trite argument that state-run anything hampers innovation. That can be true for very specific microeconomic variables, but other investments (yes, I see public heath as an investment) are simply too bing and the return too diffuse to fit into the market logic. No dam, for example, can ever be run as a for-profit outfit, simply because those who build it are unlikely to see it make profit in their lifetime, if ever. Should we stop building dams then, or leave it to the private sector to build multiple little, expensive dams on every creek and charge you what they want?
I don't know where the those uninsured figures from come from, either. I already presented a link with the census number. I don't know where that $50 come from. For a family of 3, I just checked, in my state the premiums range from $333 to $724. Paying $724 a month or living in terror of your daughter breaking a bone. Think about it.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
The only thing insured about anyones health is that sooner or later we will all die.
Every emergency room in the US is required to take indigent patients if they're life is in danger. So how does that mean anyone is not covered?
Every insurance policy, especially the government administered ones has severe limitations to the coverage they actually offer. So how is it possible that anyone has 'insurance.'
The often quoted 'Double digit' increases in health care costs are also a sham. Insurance companies and your local government pay 40% to 60% of the price a cash customer has appear on his bill (your 20% co-pay is more like 1/3 to 1/2 of the REAL cost). If that roughly 100% inflated price increases at double the rate of inflation the increase for the real customers is just being inflation adjusted.
Just another issue the two is really one political party Demopublicans are using to divide and conquor.
A fact is always better than an ideal
Sources?
Excellent post, but as I have said many times before, hearsay does not become fact automatically in my blog. This is why I stopped responding to many of the comments in this particular one.
"Hearsay doesn't become fact automatically on your blog ..."
Wow...
**Comment has been edited for TOS Violations. (Fanaile Essence, October 24, 2007)***
Please refrain from personal attacks, threatening language, name-calling, and other violations of Progressive U's Terms of Service
I am sorry, but almost everything on your recent post is wrong.
-emergency rooms are required to "stabilize" a patient regardless of payment ability. I believe "stabilizing" means doing stuff so tat he doesn't die on the spot.
-if you want to get philosophical about what "health insurance" means, you are entering a dangerous territory. By the same token, the very concept of "health" is unattainable
- if the price of something rises 20% and someone helps you pay 50% of it, the augment you see in the price of that thing is still 20%.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
"stabilize"
50 different states I'm sure that the rules regarding required treatment vary considerably. My point is simply that they are required to care for you. Most will not do a heart transplant if you need one. If your state has excess budget you should lobby for increases in indigent care guide lines.
'philosophical about what "health insurance"'
I wouldn't mind if they were forbiden to use the misleading term while selling you an HMO. My point here is the severe limitations of most policies. Any proposed government program would be just as limited or worse, and use this same misleading name.
" if the price of something rises 20% and someone helps you pay 50% of it, the augment you see in the price of that thing is still 20%."
You completely misinterpreted this. The price on the bill is increasing at double the rate of inflation because ONLY HALF is EVER PAID by anyone except the poor sucker that pays cash. Insurance only pays a negotiated percentage that rarely exceeds 60% of the bill if you have a co-pay of 20% the most they pay is the 40% that remains. Indigent care is paid for by your state. This is generaly between 40 and 50%. Only half of the increase is ever paid as the costs rise. I understand that if you are unaware of this weird fact of american medicine you might not beleive it. The author of the blog asked for references as well
--
"In FY 2003-04 the average reimbursement for hospitals serving the indigent
population through the CICP was 42.9 percent of actual costs."
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/govnr_dir/ospb/budget/factsheets/hcpf/HCP...
--
"Currently, hospitals that report more bad debt and charity care costs as a percentage of operating costs have a higher percentage of their reported BDCC costs covered out of the Indigent Care Pool. Should that practice continue or should all hospitals receive the same coverage ratio? Coverage ratios currently range from 46 percent of reported BDCC costs to over 100 percent. "
http://www.nyhealth.gov/events/meetings/indigent_care/
The 46% is the amount paid to qualified non-payers, the additional percentage that could exceed 100%(they do not pay over 50% of all non-payers EVER) includes reimbursement for all unpaid bills, and still calculates a percentage off of the qualified non-payers only. The laws are freaky.
--
"Pay your bill with cash
You can negotiate with your medical provider by stating that you would pay immediately if you are offered a certain percentage discount now. This is usually effective. Medical providers know that there is risk in receiving full payment on a patient balance because many people take too long to pay or don't pay at all.
In fact, "to survive, many geriatricians may decide not to accept Medicare, and then patients will be paying much higher bills," says Dr. Raj Mathur, a board certified geriatrician and internist in the Washington, D.C. area. "We understand this and are willing to work with patients who are willing to pay something."
Most doctors offices will accept a reduced total balance in cash (sometimes up to a 50 percent discount), compared with insurance reimbursement, which often yields an even lower amount for the physician."
http://www.eons.com/body/feature/healthcorner/negotiate-your-health-care...
The twisted world of health care billing is amazing. If you don't think any goverment funded universal health coverage would be a licence to steal you are a sucker. Yes Virginia if you have $100,000 in health insurance your insurance company will under no circumstances pay over about $50,000.
A fact is always better than an ideal