Can America afford Universal Health Care?

24

Comments

  • splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Ah, splinemodel's here. Expect this to be a long and drawn out flame war.



    Well, thanks for starting it. So far, there has been no flaming in this thread. . . I don't take pleasure in that you insist there should be.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    Well, thanks for starting it. So far, there has been no flaming in this thread. . . I don't take pleasure in that you insist there should be.



    Quote:

    More often that not, the Canadian health care system is the butt of jokes rather than a model.



    This.



    and also sslarson:



    Quote:

    I find this part of your story quite interesting. Basically you're touting the fact that you are able (and willing) to chose to be unproductive.



    I'll let you two self-appointed experts continue. I'll find my own information elsewhere.
  • sslarsonsslarson Posts: 923member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    This.



    and also sslarson:







    I'll let you two self-appointed experts continue. I'll find my own information elsewhere.



    I drew focus to what ROFF himself said...that he'd retired* (withdrawn from productive work) and was able to do so because his health care was "free" (someone else was paying for his health care).



    I happen to find that to be an interesting consequence.



    *He has since indicated that he is actually not retired (and, also, that the health care is not free...though perhaps it is to him). I'm not sure what to conclude from that.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sslarson View Post


    No doubt. If someone else was paying for my stuff (health care or otherwise) I suppose I might be quite satisfied too.



    I can't understand this argument.



    If you already pay insurance and don't use it, aren't your premiums being used to help pay for someone else's care?



    And if you choose not to have insurance, you are still covered according to your president.

    Go to the emergency room, and if you can't pay, it's free.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Something to consider is do we have a health care crisis or a health crisis?



    The former would mean that we cannot get quality health care even with stop gap measures like Medicare/caid, emergency rooms, free clinics, etc.



    The latter would mean that we as a people are making such bad choices with regard to lifestyle and diet that no number of pills or doctor visits will cure us.



    I see the latter, not the former. More importantly while I desire the former for everyone, knowing that we currently have the latter means something needs to change before I can endorse the former for everyone.



    This is most true when we consider that most changes in our national health level have occurred because we have the boomer generation getting ready to go into those needy retirement years in worse health than the previous generation.



    Nick
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    More often that not, the Canadian health care system is the butt of jokes rather than a model.



    Public health care is not a good idea. Everywhere it's applied, the average quality of care is reduced, and the average costs are increased. If would be a major tax burden for businesses and consumers. It's not like the tax cost to business is going to magically go away; it will be pushed onto consumers.



    The US health system, however bizarre it may be, is the best in the world. I don't see why there's cry for change.



    The US system is a cause for a lot of misery for those with serious health costs.

    Denial of coverage leading to bankruptcy being prevalent.



    Businesses are moving away from covering employees forcing, if they choose, to pay the costs which in turn, leaves them with less spending power.



    It may be the best, but only for those that can afford it.



    The idea that your okay, so why change it is totally selfish and underlines the perception that the right doesn't care and Libertarians are even worse when it comes to compassion.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sslarson View Post


    I drew focus to what ROFF himself said...that he'd retired* (withdrawn from productive work) and was able to do so because his health care was "free" (someone else was paying for his health care).



    I happen to find that to be an interesting consequence.



    *He has since indicated that he is actually not retired (and, also, that the health care is not free...though perhaps it is to him). I'm not sure what to conclude from that.



    He put in his time, now he does what he wants with one less burden he never had to worry about.

    If you get laid off, fired, whatever, you don't lose your health care.

    What happens in the US?



    Everyone chips in through taxes and it's considerably less than what he, we, would have to pay on our own.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Something to consider is do we have a health care crisis or a health crisis?



    The former would mean that we cannot get quality health care even with stop gap measures like Medicare/caid, emergency rooms, free clinics, etc.



    The latter would mean that we as a people are making such bad choices with regard to lifestyle and diet that no number of pills or doctor visits will cure us.



    I see the latter, not the former. More importantly while I desire the former for everyone, knowing that we currently have the latter means something needs to change before I can endorse the former for everyone.



    This is most true when we consider that most changes in our national health level have occurred because we have the boomer generation getting ready to go into those needy retirement years in worse health than the previous generation.



    Nick



    What exactly would you change?

    Deny health care to those that let themselves go?



    What do you mean by characterizing retirement years as "needy"

    You're anti old folks?
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,945member
    I take it that a fair question to ask would be: What is the true cost (per capita) of the Canadian health care system?



    Unless this question can be answered, discussion is pointless.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I take it that a fair question to ask would be: What is the true cost (per capita) of the Canadian health care system?



    Unless this question can be answered, discussion is pointless.



    From here,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_canada



    Per Capita Expenditure



    Canada 2,669

    US 5,711



    Life Expectancy



    Canada 80.5

    US 77.5



    Health Care Costs as a Percentage of GDP



    Canada 9.9

    US 15.2



    And more
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    From here,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States



    Quote:

    Uninsured Americans are less likely to have regular health care and use preventive services. They are more likely to delay seeking needed care, resulting in more medical crises and emergency hospitalizations, which are more expensive than ongoing treatment for such conditions as diabetes and high blood pressure. Uninsured patients are twice as likely to visit hospital emergency rooms as those with insurance; burdening a system meant for true emergencies with less-urgent care needs.[27]



    Which may explain lifestyle choices trumptman brought up.



    Quote:

    Shared costs of the uninsured

    The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as free care, passed on to the insured via cost shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.[28]



    So you end up paying for someone else anyway.



    Quote:

    Administrative costs

    The health care system in the U.S. has a vast number of players ? there are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies in the U.S.[29][30] This system has considerable administrative overhead, far greater than in nationalized, single-payer systems, such as Canada's. An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31 percent of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.[31]



    Quote:

    Coverage gaps

    Enrollment rules in private and governmental programs result in millions of Americans going without health care coverage, including children. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage during 2006.[3] Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals. As health insurance rates rise and the population ages, those seeking to purchase health insurance directly are finding it increasingly difficult to do so, because some insurers are managing their risk by denying directly purchased coverage to individuals who have pre-existing conditions, some of them minor.[32]



    Denying coverage because you are sick.

    That's sick.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    What exactly would you change?

    Deny health care to those that let themselves go?



    What do you mean by characterizing retirement years as "needy"

    You're anti old folks?



    Actually this is exactly what is happening in many countries with socialized medicine. They are starting to deny certain procedures based off lifestyle, which in my view is about as terrifying as you can get.



    Also as for being anti-old folks, do you deny the fact that certain extreme lifesaving measures would probably be chopped out of a socialized medicine program due to their extreme cost with regard to return?



    Are we really going to give all the 80 year olds hip replacements for example?



    Just so we are clear, I'm not making this up.



    Old folks are needy with regard to health care. I've actually pondered universal health care simply because it likely will deny service for certain procedures as opposed to just green lighting everything and raising premiums next year.



    A bit more...



    Telegraph



    Dailymail



    Nick
  • splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    The US system is a cause for a lot of misery for those with serious health costs.

    Denial of coverage leading to bankruptcy being prevalent.



    Businesses are moving away from covering employees forcing, if they choose, to pay the costs which in turn, leaves them with less spending power.



    It may be the best, but only for those that can afford it.



    The idea that your okay, so why change it is totally selfish and underlines the perception that the right doesn't care and Libertarians are even worse when it comes to compassion.



    Where do you get this information? Fiscally, the major problem du-jour with the US health care system is that illegal immigrants are breaking hospitals, which must guarantee service. Illegals can't get covered, yet work for US businesses. That problem isn't going to change without immigration reform policies, or pending the complete de-regulation of health care and disbanding of medicare. Those, however, are different topics. There's also the impeding crisis of the retiring boomer generation. Right now is a bad time to introduce public health care.



    Even when taking a bleeding-heart philosophy, it's just hard to see the value of public health care, which promises the public health care to the poor with the price of making good health care too expensive for the middle class. You argue that it's "totally selfish" for the middle class to avoid the poor. I argue that it's "totally selfish" for poor people to expect coverage at the expense of the middle class. It's not that the right doesn't care, it's that they care about the middle-class -- typically their largest voter-base. Libertarians have an entirely different ethos, although you can't say it's not compassionate. Compassion is, and has always been, "teach a man to fish." Compassion doesn't enter into this discussion, except possibly on the side of health-care reform.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Actually this is exactly what is happening in many countries with socialized medicine. They are starting to deny certain procedures based off lifestyle, which in my view is about as terrifying as you can get.



    Also as for being anti-old folks, do you deny the fact that certain extreme lifesaving measures would probably be chopped out of a socialized medicine program due to their extreme cost with regard to return?



    Are we really going to give all the 80 year olds hip replacements for example?



    Just so we are clear, I'm not making this up.



    Old folks are needy with regard to health care. I've actually pondered universal health care simply because it likely will deny service for certain procedures as opposed to just green lighting everything and raising premiums next year.



    A bit more...



    Telegraph



    Dailymail



    Nick



    The politician in the first link really thought out his proposal huh?



    Quote:

    Yet while the Health Miles Card would award points for giving up smoking and losing weight, it could penalise those who are already fit and well because they would receive no benefits under the scheme.

    Also, the NHS already demands that obese patients lose weight before receiving hip replacements.



    The other articles aren't about denying coverage per say, but telling them to, for eg. don't smoke for a month before heart surgery or, you gotta lose some weight before a hip or knee replacement.

    That's been done for years here and in the States.



    Certain live saving procedures are being denied all the time in your system because it's profit based.



    If you can find an instance of this in Canada, let us know.



    If the 80 year old wants it and is in good health, why not.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    Where do you get this information? Fiscally, the major problem du-jour with the US health care system is that illegal immigrants are breaking hospitals, which must guarantee service. Illegals can't get covered, yet work for US businesses. That problem isn't going to change without immigration reform policies, or pending the complete de-regulation of health care and disbanding of medicare. Those, however, are different topics. There's also the impeding crisis of the retiring boomer generation. Right now is a bad time to introduce public health care.



    Even when taking a bleeding-heart philosophy, it's just hard to see the value of public health care, which promises the public health care to the poor with the price of making good health care too expensive for the middle class. You argue that it's "totally selfish" for the middle class to avoid the poor. I argue that it's "totally selfish" for poor people to expect coverage at the expense of the middle class. It's not that the right doesn't care, it's that they care about the middle-class -- typically their largest voter-base. Libertarians have an entirely different ethos, although you can't say it's not compassionate. Compassion is, and has always been, "teach a man to fish." Compassion doesn't enter into this discussion, except possibly on the side of health-care reform.



    Didn't you say this?

    Quote:

    The US health system, however bizarre it may be, is the best in the world. I don't see why there's cry for change.



    Now it's the illegal immigrants fault.



    Bleeding heart huh?

    Have you read anything I posted with regards to what it's costing you to insure a percentage of your population.

    I would bet a large percentage of that percent have only basic coverage with a fee for use.



    Where do I get this information?

    C'mon, it's the internet.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss



    Quote:

    Most Americans in the poll said they were satisfied with the quality of their health care, but there was widespread concern about costs. Nearly half of those with insurance said their employer had cut back on benefits or required them to pay more for their benefits in recent years. A quarter of those with insurance said someone in their household had gone without a medical test or treatment because insurance would not cover it. Six in 10 of those without insurance said someone in their household had gone without care because of the cost.



    That level of concern helps explain the striking support for substantial change: Nearly two-thirds said the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. They were then asked, ?What if that meant that the cost of your own health insurance would go up?? Forty-eight percent said they would still support it.



  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    The politician in the first link really thought out his proposal huh?



    Well that is sort of the point, do you want the idiots determining your health.



    Quote:

    The other articles aren't about denying coverage per say, but telling them to, for eg. don't smoke for a month before heart surgery or, you gotta lose some weight before a hip or knee replacement.

    That's been done for years here and in the States.



    It goes deeper than that. If I feel motivated, I'll find more links.



    Quote:

    Certain live saving procedures are being denied all the time in your system because it's profit based.



    If you can find an instance of this in Canada, let us know.



    I believe the Canadian Supreme Court found several when they ruled that outlawing private insurance amounted to a human rights violation.



    Quote:

    If the 80 year old wants it and is in good health, why not.



    Why not is often because it is a $25,000+ procedure per side and in a system of limited resources, that $50,000 could buy a lot more true health care for younger patients. In the instance of hip replacement, we are not talking about life or death health care, but quality of life health care for example.



    Nick
  • splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    Where do I get this information?

    C'mon, it's the internet.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss



    The Times, simply put, is not a viable source of news anymore. If the poll they used came from a respectable third-party, I might honor it, but it doesn't. Regardless, only 30% (48% of 60%) of the biased poll participants supported the measure, so it's likely that within the electorate very few people actually want public health care.



    For the record, I have read you other content, I just don't have all the time in the world to respond to the bits I find tangential. For example, the amount my company and I pay for medicare and health benefit may be high, but it's admitted to be less than what universal public health would require. That's why Hillary suggests repealing tax cuts. If you expect me to be like trumptman and reference all of your points, both relevant and tangential, I'm afraid that's too much to ask of me.
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    The Times, simply put, is not a viable source of news anymore. If the poll they used came from a respectable third-party, I might honor it, but it doesn't. Regardless, only 30% (48% of 60%) of the biased poll participants supported the measure, so it's likely that within the electorate very few people actually want public health care.



    How is the poll "biased?" It was a "nationwide telephone poll... conducted Friday through Tuesday with 1,281 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points." Are you saying telephone polls are necessarily biased these days? I'm not sure whether the polls include cell phone users who more often than not these days forgo a landline. Perhaps there's potential for bias there. Regardless, on what grounds did you consider the poll "biased?"
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    The Times, simply put, is not a viable source of news anymore. If the poll they used came from a respectable third-party, I might honor it, but it doesn't. Regardless, only 30% (48% of 60%) of the biased poll participants supported the measure, so it's likely that within the electorate very few people actually want public health care.



    For the record, I have read you other content, I just don't have all the time in the world to respond to the bits I find tangential. For example, the amount my company and I pay for medicare and health benefit may be high, but it's admitted to be less than what universal public health would require. That's why Hillary suggests repealing tax cuts. If you expect me to be like trumptman and reference all of your points, both relevant and tangential, I'm afraid that's too much to ask of me.



    By dismissing it out of hand and claiming the participants are biased without any proof says what, it's just your opinion.



    How do know that universal health care would cost more than what your company pays now?

    Just an opinion again.

    And biased at that.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post


    I think it is a fair to face reality and ask a very important question facing Americans. Can America afford Universal Health Care?



    The following video is not a lot of fun to watch. I for one like the idea of Universal Health Care as my family feels the pain of out of control health care costs.



    However...



    What if America can't afford Universal Health Care..



    Then we better have a plan.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2...elated&search=



    Fellows



    Please weigh in with your thoughts.



    We can't afford it. We can't afford what we have NOW much less Universal Health Care. That doesn't even get into what it might do to the quality of care and the cost of care since unlimited free access will push demand up.



    I think we need to find free market solutions to the problem. We need to get healthcare out of employers and insurance companies hands, and put it in patients hands by making it affordable through tax deductions. Couple that with more tort reform.



    As for the video, it's scary stuff. Social Security MUST be overhauled. In fact, I would like to see it phased out over 30 years. Not going to happen, but still. the problem is we have a situation where everyone of age automatically depends on SS and MC. That is a recipe for disaster.
Sign In or Register to comment.