I was just wondering, why do you guys think that Universal Health Care is not the answer to health care problems in the USA. Yes, it is expensive, but surely it allows those who can't really afford private insurance to still get treatment for injuries. In the UK, yes, it is flawed but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have it. Anyone care to enlighten me?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 05:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was just wondering, why do you guys think that Universal Health Care is not the answer to health care problems in the USA. Yes, it is expensive, but surely it allows those who can't really afford private insurance to still get treatment for injuries. In the UK, yes, it is flawed but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have it. Anyone care to enlighten me?</div> I think you're on the right track. I wouldn't mind hurting our free market a bit to get poor people better medical coverage. I don't support all types of welfare and such, but this is an exception.
It's always seemed like a class-based request. The rich don't like the idea, but the poor demand it. The poor need it, and the rich don't. Who is right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 29 2008, 05:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's always seemed like a class-based request. The rich don't like the idea, but the poor demand it. The poor need it, and the rich don't. Who is right?</div> exactly. Those that are most opposed to the idea all have the opportunity to participate in affordable health care programs. Everyone else can just screw off. As a general rule, the [simplistically stated] difference between conservatives and liberal democrats is that conservatives ask: what can the government do for me? while liberal democrats ask, what can the government do for those that are less fortunate (or different) than me? that is the fundamental dispute here.
The problems with universal health care are numerous. However, it's certainly possible for everyone to have access to health care. The first problem with UHC is that people who love government want government to own and run the whole shebang. Wherever that's been done, in just about any type of service, the service is shit. DMV is government service at its best, and that's not pretty. The second problem with UHC is that once government gets involved, it drives the best people out of the business. When the govt. tells a doctor he can only make $150K instead of $450K, he's going to look for work where he can make $150K+$1 or more. The third problem is related to #2. It is inherently unfair to take the output of someone's labor. There's another word for it: SLAVERY. The obvious last problem is that once you lose the entrepreneurial nature involved, the quality of care turns to shit, and advances come to a near halt. Consider the USA is responsible for 95% of all advances in medical care in the world. If you can get over the idea that govt. has to run it all, you can figure out that access can be provided for all. Turn the government into an insurance provider instead of into a health care provider. The govt. can provide cheap and subsidized insurance policies for those who can't afford it. Doctors don't care who pays the bill as long as it's paid. While we're at it, have the govt. provide malpractice insurance, too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 10:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The problems with universal health care are numerous. However, it's certainly possible for everyone to have access to health care. The first problem with UHC is that people who love government want government to own and run the whole shebang. Wherever that's been done, in just about any type of service, the service is shit. DMV is government service at its best, and that's not pretty. The second problem with UHC is that once government gets involved, it drives the best people out of the business. When the govt. tells a doctor he can only make $150K instead of $450K, he's going to look for work where he can make $150K+$1 or more. The third problem is related to #2. It is inherently unfair to take the output of someone's labor. There's another word for it: SLAVERY. The obvious last problem is that once you lose the entrepreneurial nature involved, the quality of care turns to shit, and advances come to a near halt. Consider the USA is responsible for 95% of all advances in medical care in the world. If you can get over the idea that govt. has to run it all, you can figure out that access can be provided for all. Turn the government into an insurance provider instead of into a health care provider. The govt. can provide cheap and subsidized insurance policies for those who can't afford it. Doctors don't care who pays the bill as long as it's paid. While we're at it, have the govt. provide malpractice insurance, too.</div> there are certainly good arguments against universal health care. You forgot the one about how there is no constitutional right to it. However, when you examine just WHO is making those arguments--it is those that have access to affordable health care, and who will admit that they do not want to bear the cost for others to have that privilege. Everyone in this fight has a personal agenda, and it isn't hard to identify. I'm fortunate enough to have access to the second best health care plan in the country (The best plan is the one enjoyed by members of congress). I have a choice of a dozen different plans, which I can choose between based on my preferred doctors (and those of my family) and what medical care I think I will need. They are all inexpensive. I believe that pre-existing conditions are not excluded from any of my choice of plans. I am very lucky. All of the concerns about universal health care can be addressed if there was a national will to do so (read: interest among those that don't need it). However, in a country where people demand the "freedom" to refuse to wear motorcycle helmets (thus subjecting society to a huge financial burden when they invariably suffer a brain injury), I don't expect much to happen. It is disgusting that our leaders are more interested in repairing the infrastructure of foreign nations than ensuring that children--CHILDREN--receive necessary medical care when needed.
All my experiences with UHC have been positive, and numerous members of my family have had their lives saved and prolonged by the care they've received in Ontario. Not just emergency medical treatment but long term treatment and rehabilitation, as well as old age care. The problems with UHC (quality, wait times, taxes, etc.) are overblown by small-government types and other opposition to UHC in the US, IMHO. Honestly I can only nitpick at the HC I've had during my life in Ontario and would be hard pressed to find ways of improving it. It is excellent.
^ Same here. And I've seen what would be a worst case scenario in the US handled very well up here too.
I also want to bring up the point that when I am sick, I want to go be able to see a doctor that day and get great treatment. Plain and simple. I don't want to have to wait in line behind a group of people nor be told what doctor I have to go to. With UHC not only would I probably have to wait BUT the level of care would be drastically lower because government run health care is simply not as quality as the kind I can get right now. If I need a surgery, right now I can get it the following week. With UHC I would have to wait a few months to get it (get on a list), etc. I have had a few friends from England that specifically came over to the US to get surgery because they could get it right away instead of having to wait months. Also the burden alone for UHC will be enormous financially. I think the government taxes me too much already and I don't honestly want to pay over 50% of my income to Uncle Sam to fund the health care of illegal immigrants and those that are too lazy to get a job.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hunter @ Jul 29 2008, 11:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I also want to bring up the point that when I am sick, I want to go be able to see a doctor that day and get great treatment. Plain and simple. I don't want to have to wait in line behind a group of people nor be told what doctor I have to go to. With UHC not only would I probably have to wait BUT the level of care would be drastically lower because government run health care is simply not as quality as the kind I can get right now. If I need a surgery, right now I can get it the following week. With UHC I would have to wait a few months to get it (get on a list), etc. I have had a few friends from England that specifically came over to the US to get surgery because they could get it right away instead of having to wait months. Also the burden alone for UHC will be enormous financially. I think the government taxes me too much already and I don't honestly want to pay over 50% of my income to Uncle Sam to fund the health care of illegal immigrants and those that are too lazy to get a job.</div> so . . . your primary objections stem from unsupported assumptions about what a universal health care system would look like. Got it. Again, as mentioned earlier, such worries (to the extent that they are not totally ridiculous) can be addressed if there is a will to do so. I don't want to be pulled into defending an imaginary health care system. However, let me point out again to the Canadians what I said earlier: that the objections are coming from those that are more concerned about the effect that such as system will have on THEM than on the benefits it would provide to those that do not receive inexpensive health care. We can probably guess whether Hunter has access to affordable health care.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 29 2008, 11:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We can probably guess whether Hunter has access to affordable health care.</div> Your absolutely right in that regard and I am blessed every day to have access to that. That being said, I know there are a lot of Americans who unfortunately don't have the same benefits that I do. I am no way saying that our Health Care system is perfect because there are some serious flaws. From the discussions I have had with people that have experienced universal health care is Britian and in Canada, they feel like the system would not work in the same manner in the United States. Does there need to be reforms to health care and to help make it more affordable? Absolutely. Do I think universal health care is the answer though? No way.
Dumpy, The corollary to your thesis about who opposes govt. owned and run health care is that those who are interested in bloating government even more are pushing and hyping the notion. You didn't address my actual proposal, which would cover 100% of the people who want access. $10/mo per person in taxes would cover basic insurance for people who are unable to afford commercially available insurance, and then some. The govt. as insurance company can run their business without profit motive (e.g. at cost). Those who want the best insurance money can buy have the option. If the govt. issued malpractice insurance, I am quite convinced they'd get involved in the right ways to reduce that cost. BTW, I didn't outright say there's no constitutional right, but I did say this: "The third problem is related to #2. It is inherently unfair to take the output of someone's labor. There's another word for it: SLAVERY." The inherently unfair part implies the doctors have Natural Rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of PROPERTY).
Denny's right, it's not lack of health care, it's just the costs are too high. Can somebody say tort reform?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dumpy, The corollary to your thesis about who opposes govt. owned and run health care is that those who are interested in bloating government even more are pushing and hyping the notion. You didn't address my actual proposal, which would cover 100% of the people who want access. $10/mo per person in taxes would cover basic insurance for people who are unable to afford commercially available insurance, and then some. The govt. as insurance company can run their business without profit motive (e.g. at cost). Those who want the best insurance money can buy have the option. If the govt. issued malpractice insurance, I am quite convinced they'd get involved in the right ways to reduce that cost. BTW, I didn't outright say there's no constitutional right, but I did say this: "The third problem is related to #2. It is inherently unfair to take the output of someone's labor. There's another word for it: SLAVERY." The inherently unfair part implies the doctors have Natural Rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of PROPERTY).</div> We can take this discussion in a number of ways. If you're in favor of a "tiered" health care system, whereby "basic" services (and possibly more advanced services for minors) are provided through a universal health care system, but everyone has the option to get more advanced or different care or different services, then I am all for it. Hunter argues that he doesn't want to fund health care for those "too lazy to get a job," but that would include artists, musicians, and artisans (such as those that craft and sell their own furniture). You seem to argue, though, that when given a chance, everyone will migrate to the higher-paying jobs, and in my experience that isn't true. There are a lot of factors that go into a choice of job, and salary is just one of them. regardless, you could get by this by establishing a network of low-cost clinics, and staffing them with more inexperienced doctors. Like in "Northern exposure," recent medical school grads could staff the clinics in return for government funding their medical school costs. Obviously, there are many different ways health care services could be provided, and I wouldn't argue in favor of one over another--but that would seem to satisfy many of the complaints and fears raised in this thread.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>"The third problem is related to #2. It is inherently unfair to take the output of someone's labor. There's another word for it: SLAVERY."</div> I would be one happy slave if I were making 150k/year. Problem 3 reminds me of something else which everyone is going through - Income Tax.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 29 2008, 12:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>"The third problem is related to #2. It is inherently unfair to take the output of someone's labor. There's another word for it: SLAVERY."</div> I would be one happy slave if I were making 150k/year. Problem 3 reminds me of something else which everyone is going through - Income Tax. </div> Here's another thought. Med school costs money. A lot of people are still paying off their debt. My cousin is about to finish his residency in New York City and joined the Naval Reserve in order to pay off his debt.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 29 2008, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dumpy, The corollary to your thesis about who opposes govt. owned and run health care is that those who are interested in bloating government even more are pushing and hyping the notion. You didn't address my actual proposal, which would cover 100% of the people who want access. $10/mo per person in taxes would cover basic insurance for people who are unable to afford commercially available insurance, and then some. The govt. as insurance company can run their business without profit motive (e.g. at cost). Those who want the best insurance money can buy have the option. If the govt. issued malpractice insurance, I am quite convinced they'd get involved in the right ways to reduce that cost. BTW, I didn't outright say there's no constitutional right, but I did say this: "The third problem is related to #2. It is inherently unfair to take the output of someone's labor. There's another word for it: SLAVERY." The inherently unfair part implies the doctors have Natural Rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of PROPERTY).</div> We can take this discussion in a number of ways. If you're in favor of a "tiered" health care system, whereby "basic" services (and possibly more advanced services for minors) are provided through a universal health care system, but everyone has the option to get more advanced or different care or different services, then I am all for it. Hunter argues that he doesn't want to fund health care for those "too lazy to get a job," but that would include artists, musicians, and artisans (such as those that craft and sell their own furniture). You seem to argue, though, that when given a chance, everyone will migrate to the higher-paying jobs, and in my experience that isn't true. There are a lot of factors that go into a choice of job, and salary is just one of them. regardless, you could get by this by establishing a network of low-cost clinics, and staffing them with more inexperienced doctors. Like in "Northern exposure," recent medical school grads could staff the clinics in return for government funding their medical school costs. Obviously, there are many different ways health care services could be provided, and I wouldn't argue in favor of one over another--but that would seem to satisfy many of the complaints and fears raised in this thread. </div> I'm in favor of a market based system where people who want to can choose their own doctors and negotiate directly with them if they want. Virtually all the problems I see with our current system are based upon gaming the free market so it can't work effectively. It used to be that health care was cheap, and doctors did either pro-bono work or took a chicken or pig in trade for services. Now they can ding the insurance companies for big fees or ding the government, and the patient-doctor relationship isn't in the picture. For those who think doctors would be satisfied with $150K incomes, they're paying a lot in malpractice insurance, and that 150K would include the cost of their offices and staff and so on. If you think the best qualified doctors are going to give away their services because they love socialism, LOL. Even if they did, it would wear off real quick when they have to see 2000 patients a day to earn their pay.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hunter @ Jul 29 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I also want to bring up the point that when I am sick, I want to go be able to see a doctor that day and get great treatment. Plain and simple. I don't want to have to wait in line behind a group of people nor be told what doctor I have to go to. With UHC not only would I probably have to wait BUT the level of care would be drastically lower because government run health care is simply not as quality as the kind I can get right now. If I need a surgery, right now I can get it the following week. With UHC I would have to wait a few months to get it (get on a list), etc. I have had a few friends from England that specifically came over to the US to get surgery because they could get it right away instead of having to wait months. Also the burden alone for UHC will be enormous financially. I think the government taxes me too much already and I don't honestly want to pay over 50% of my income to Uncle Sam to fund the health care of illegal immigrants and those that are too lazy to get a job.</div> The things that always get quoted are the waiting lists in England and yes, they are long. I have had one friend who had to wait 6 months for knee surgery, but this wasn't life threatening in any way. Another of my friends basically had leukaemia which, although not an operation, he got treatment immediately. The fundamental principle of UHC is that those who need the surgery/treatment the most will get it. We also have private health care systems where people can get treated earlier should they so wish. These friends who came over the the USA (I assume) were not about to die as a result of not having the surgery, else the NHS would have made them a higher priority. I'm not entirely sure about some of the things Americans say about taxes. By looking at average wages and average earnings etc, the average wage in the UK is about £25k (around $48k) and the average wage in the USA is about $40k. If we assume this is a family, the US family will be taxed 15% on this, leaving them with a disposable income of $34k. In the UK, if you earn under £36k, you get taxed 20%, so you would have $32k of disposable income if you lived here. Add to that the fact that everything is FAR more expensive over here, including "stealth taxes" and you have a really good deal over there. The problem with your mentality is that you immediately say "I don't want to fund the health care of illegal immigrants". What you should be saying is "I want to help those who work hard but can't afford to pay the bills, let alone get medical insurance".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 02:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm in favor of a market based system where people who want to can choose their own doctors and negotiate directly with them if they want. Virtually all the problems I see with our current system are based upon gaming the free market so it can't work effectively. It used to be that health care was cheap, and doctors did either pro-bono work or took a chicken or pig in trade for services. Now they can ding the insurance companies for big fees or ding the government, and the patient-doctor relationship isn't in the picture.</div> I don't know what the rest of you are experiencing, but when I go to see a doctor, the guy tries to shorten the visits, and use as many visits as possible to treat the same thing. It's like he only gives each patient 1 hour of his time, and tries to hurry you out the door if the next person is ready. I really hate it. If he would just spend a couple of hours on me in one visit, I would be completely fixed up, and wouldn't have to come back and get charged another session. I have to use up time off from work for every visit he schedules. He is clearly the winner in all of this. Then, there was the time I went to the dermatologist to get checked for melanoma. The guy basically stood at one side of the room and said, "okay, take your shirt off, turn around, okay youre done." I was so pissed. He didn't even look for any cancer. He couldn't have from 10 feet away. I got angry with the guy and was like," Can you at least take a look? and look at my legs too?" He gruffly obliged after I called him on it. That visit also costed me time off work, and I then went to a different doctor the next year. Anyone else have bad doctor experiences?
