Should the US have Universal Healthcare

[PalmFrond]

I live in a country which has socialised medicine (Ireland), and anyone who can afford it has private health insurance. The public health system just takes too long...up to two years for some operations, I hear. So anyone who cares about their health has to pay high taxes and health insurance!
On the other hand there are some countries where the public healthcare system is very efficient. Is it to do with the quality of management? The degree of corruption or cronyism in a system? Or some kind of 'national temperament'?

[jessicasimpson]

i have people in my family, my mother is diabetic, she pays >$800 per month on health insurance. my mother in law has asthma, she pays>$800 per month in health insurance. The amount taken out of my paycheck for health insurance is more than i pay in income tax. insurance companies pay out 10 cents in medical costs for every dollar they take in for premiums. the other 90 cents per dollar goes to profit, overhead, and salleries.

[RebelFencer]

i have people in my family, my mother is diabetic, she pays >$800 per month on health insurance. my mother in law has asthma, she pays>$800 per month in health insurance. The amount taken out of my paycheck for health insurance is more than i pay in income tax. insurance companies pay out 10 cents in medical costs for every dollar they take in for premiums. the other 90 cents per dollar goes to profit, overhead, and salleries.

Does your reality show not pay for your healthcare needs? Maybe you should've gone with VH1.

[Fencergrl]

There was an interesting report done a few months ago where they studied healthcare in Canada vs the US.

The studied indicated that the waiting times were much longer in Canada than the US. When average Americans and Canadians were polled however, the Americans were much less happier with their healthcare system.

In Canada I go to the doctor or hospital, and I never see the bills or the cost to the system in keeping my body healthy. Wait times and hospital closures due to lack of funding are the biggest complaint.

If I had to submit these bills to insurance companies (like I do for my extended medical items such as prescriptions and physio) and sometimes argue with my insurance company over them... I too would be less satisfied with the system.

With socialized healthcare comes long waits, perhaps because we don't see the bills we go to emergency rather than our doctors... perhaps because we rather spend the tax dollars some place else...

My mother died waiting... first waiting to see a doctor, then waiting for test results, waiting for the ambulance (it took 45 minutes she went for chest pains to heart attack in that time). Revived... she waited in a hallways for 3 days for room in ICU... then she waited for a room.... then 2 weeks for a room in a hospital that could do heart surgery.... then another 2 weeks in another hospital because only 1 or the 3 operating rooms were available. They prepped her for surgery 4 times... she died as they just finished that 4th time.

This happened after massive cuts in our healthcare. She was 62 and got pneumonia. She was sick for 3 months. The fluid slowly built up in her chest. This caused the first heart attack, just before the ambulance arrived. She had 4 more waiting. Her strong heart deteriorated with each one over about a one month period.

Neither system is ideal. In both systems the key is to look after your body so you don't need healthcare.

[Epee_Pox]

A healthy society is certainly a net benefit to the nation. So it is worthwhle to expend some national treasure on maintaining a certain level of healthiness. But as with anything else, there is a point beyond which it isn't worth it to spend that next dollar.

And that's where the real problem arises. The push for universal healthcare seems to be a push for the taxpayers to foot the bill for every demanded treatment. At some point, though, that just doesn't make sense.

If it was up to me, I'd provide more government support to younger people, and less to older people. Old folks have had their whole lives to save up for their present needs, and don't contribute a whole heck of a lot to the common pot. So they should get SOME assistance, but we shouldn't bankrupt the rest of us to ensure that they get all those expensive pills that didn't even exist half a generation ago.

Younger folks, on the other hand, who are at the beginning of their earning curve and have little savings, and are raising children, are worth the investment. There's more at stake with respect to their health concerns, and more justification for investing public treasure in ensuring their continued health and productivity.

Boy, I sound cruel today, don't I? I think I need to get outside.

[Fencergrl]

Be careful... there might be a waiting mob of elderly people ready to run over you with their scooters!

[jessicasimpson]

Be careful... there might be a waiting mob of elderly people ready to run over you with their scooters!

the fact is that before medicare/medicade, over half of US citizens over the age of 65 had no health coverage. US was the worst in the world for industrialized countries. then the goverment steped in (LBJ) and now the US leads the entire world in elderly care.
now there are over 45 million people in the US that have no coverage. this is more than the entire population of Canada (Census 2001)

[Inquartata]

the fact is that before medicare/medicade, over half of US citizens over the age of 65 had no health coverage.

And today, probably more than half of them don't have hot tubs or plasma screen TVs. Or Viagra.

The point is, why ought the government to provide any of these things to people at the expense of others?

[jessicasimpson]

Does your reality show not pay for your healthcare needs? Maybe you should've gone with VH1.

all my healh care comes from the blessed virgin and her husband "Joseph"

[jessicasimpson]

The point is, why ought the government to provide any of these things to people at the expense of others?

The point is the worlds only super power should provide a safty net for it's most vunerable citizens. the only people it would hurt are people that are makeing insane profits from the medical insurance trade. that is why those insurance companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars fighting clintons health care plan

[Inquartata]

The point is the worlds only super power should provide a safty net for it's most vunerable citizens.

Why?

What convincing rationale is there for this, other than the subjective "there oughtta" of one citizen's preferences?

Who gets to decide that their own moral wishes override the wishes of others not to be robbed of the products of their own labor and ingenuity? And on what logic?

[Amadeus]

It's just a matter of who's gonna pay for it, the rich or everyone.

Way we have now = everyone pays for their own
Universal Healthcare = Rich people pay more taxes than poor people, therefore pay for their healthcare. It's a stretch, maybe, but it's what ends up happening.

Universal Healthcare goes against the individualism of the U.S. In this country, if you want something, you have to make it happen. People are born with more or less, but the concept is that if you work hard, and use your strengths, you can get somewhere in life. I think that should apply here, too.

[mrbiggs]

It's just a matter of who's gonna pay for it, the rich or everyone.

Way we have now = everyone pays for their own
Universal Healthcare = Rich people pay more taxes than poor people, therefore pay for their healthcare. It's a stretch, maybe, but it's what ends up happening.

Universal Healthcare goes against the individualism of the U.S. In this country, if you want something, you have to make it happen. People are born with more or less, but the concept is that if you work hard, and use your strengths, you can get somewhere in life. I think that should apply here, too.

I don't know, I think that's a little harsh. How about the elderly, who can't work? They are not able to "make it happen," they're elderly! Same with children, or the unemployed, or those who don't make much money.

Civilized societies should help the unfortunate to live.

[Inquartata]

Again---why?

Even the elderly were productive workers once. Did someone hold a gun to their heads and force them to spend their incomes on cars and boats and vacations and dinner parties and what have you instead of saving and investing for their retirement? Did someone twist their arms to make them choose short-term fun over long-term security?

Why should the sensible ant have to support the profligate grasshopper, in old age or otherwise?

[jessicasimpson]

Again---why?

Even the elderly were productive workers once. Did someone hold a gun to their heads and force them to spend their incomes on cars and boats and vacations and dinner parties and what have you instead of saving and investing for their retirement? Did someone twist their arms to make them choose short-term fun over long-term security?

Why should the sensible ant have to support the profligate grasshopper, in old age or otherwise?

When over half of people over the age of 65 can not afford the basic necessities to survive, let alone live comfortably, you have a very serious problem in your country. The average wage for the middle class has been stagnate in the US for over 20 years(once you factor in inflation). If you really think that over 50% of old people did not plan for their retirement, you should go join a militia in the mid west. what about people that invested there retirement in S&L's, how about all the people who were living off dividends from enron stock? what about all the people who lost their pentions who worked for the airlines?

[Amadeus]

The average wage for the middle class has been stagnate in the US for over 20 years(once you factor in inflation).

and why shouldn't it be stagnating? people are poor because they aren't getting richer? that doesn't make sense...



poor people are great, and i'm all for helping them, but if we help them too much, we won't have a country or economy anymore, just a bunch of poor people being helped. which is why communism didn't work.

[Fencergrl]

Way we have now = everyone pays for their own
Universal Healthcare = Rich people pay more taxes than poor people, therefore pay for their healthcare. It's a stretch, maybe, but it's what ends up happening.

Rich people hire smart accountants so they don't have to pay taxes. Poor people pay little taxes. The middle class will foot the bill, whether it is for healthcare or nice smooth roads with no bumps....

[jessicasimpson]

It's just a matter of who's gonna pay for it, the rich or everyone.

Way we have now = everyone pays for their own
Universal Healthcare = Rich people pay more taxes than poor people, therefore pay for their healthcare. It's a stretch, maybe, but it's what ends up happening.

Universal Healthcare goes against the individualism of the U.S. In this country, if you want something, you have to make it happen. People are born with more or less, but the concept is that if you work hard, and use your strengths, you can get somewhere in life. I think that should apply here, too.

so we should close all public libraries? if kids can't afford books, they should work harder. We get rid of WIC? if babies can't get formula, they should get jobs. lets do away with public transportation, people without cars should get night jobs. lets close all state universities, if you can't afford private college, well then your S.O.L.

[jessicasimpson]

and why shouldn't it be stagnating? people are poor because they aren't getting richer? that doesn't make sense...



poor people are great, and i'm all for helping them, but if we help them too much, we won't have a country or economy anymore, just a bunch of poor peopleundefined being helped. which is why communism didn't work.

i said middle class wages, that means the largest body of people in the country. the top 1% have seen their wages increase %240 in the same time. the gap between the middle and upper class in the US is the largest in the modern world. the US ecconomy has had it's greatest growth when the middle class was the strongest. (in the 50's) if you think of the bottom 99% of the richest country in the world as poor, maybe you should go and buy your own private island to live on

[JEC]

As I said before, politicians know that elderly people are more likely to vote, so they not only listen to them but do things that might not be preferable for the country.

What we could aspire to is:

- Universal catastrophic health care:
Nobody should be losing their house for a catastrophic illness or accident. This would not cover regular visits and perhaps should only be activated after $10,000 per year. However, the ripple effect of this measure is reducing regular health care premiums, making health insurance more affordable.
- U-18 (children) basic routine pediatric care:
This would allow to vaccinate and prevent many illnesses in children. Medicaid would cover those chronic illnesses beyond regular care.
- Liability Tort reform:
This would reduce the additional medical malpractice premiums charged to all patients.
- Reduce the Medicare prescription benefit:
This item will be increadibly costly, particularly as baby boomers become older and get into Medicare. A lot has been discussed about the effect of baby boomers on retirement. Little has been discussed about the health care burden from boomers. We will need to reduce the Medicare prescription benefit to a basic formulary and negotiate with pharmaceuticals pricing of other prescriptions. There was a study released today that show that the government saved when patients received VA pharmacy prescription benefits as compared to Medicare prescriptions (about 25% less expensive). That is because the VA actively negotiates pricing and has several tiers of medications.

However, our health care system provides better coverage to an insured individual that anywhere else in the world. The problem is the 45 million or so of uninsured Americans. Are we willing to pay for it? There is no other way than to fund it with taxes. My point is to make a plan viable, we need to reduce something including reducing some Medicare benefits.