Universal Health Care

[HotTrotter]

This seems to be a hot topic. But I'm not even sure I know what it is. The basic premise is that "Universal health care refers to the idea that every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care." Which on a high level sounds good. However, how do you define affordable and high quality? My current health care is part of my compensation package. I have a couple of questions about this whole notion.

1 - What is Universal Health Care?
2 - What will it cost?
3 - How do we pay for it?

I'm not even going to address the issues of reduced quality of care. (Yet)

[DaSharkie]

1) Every person is covered.

2) It will cost the same if not more than what it does now.

3) It will be paid for by raising taxes. Then raising them again. And again.


Not that I do not want people to have health care coverage, but it will decrease the level of care, what is covered, and affect those of use who are insured.

The federal government cannot even run Medicare and Medicaid properly without them going broke, and you expect them to cover 300,000,000 people? Canada is the only nation I know of with single payer health coverage.

Most European nations have plan options that require you to select coverage, and there are various levels of coverage. The truly poor are covered as it is.

I would actually like to see how the Massachusetts plan is implemented requiring coverage for everyone. Many health plans here have competed against each other for clients. I bet it will cost exponentially less for them to do it than it will for the Feds to.

[scfire86]

It will cost the same if not more than what it does now.

It will cost less than an ill conceived and poorly executed war.

[HotTrotter]

It will cost less than an ill conceived and poorly executed war.

I was expecting some good thought and logic from at least you. I guess maybe you don't know what it is either. However, if you look at the budget you will see that health and human services, SSI, and the military budgets are all about the same.

I guess my question is will Universal health care be something that is run by the government? I would assume yes because I don't know how else you would do it. Also, I would assume this would also get rid of medicaid and medicare. My real issue is I have never seen a government agency that runs more efficiently than a business. getting things done in a private business happen much faster and much more efficiently. Anytime we deal with a state or federal agency it takes forever to get info and then when you get the info is lacking in substance.

The real issue is that no one can tell us what it is, what it will cost, and how we will pay for it.

[FlyingKiwi]

New Zealand has it. Along with the Accident Compensation Commission it works reasonably well.

As with all systems it could be better, but it manages to work for most people.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Oh great. Another topic to display his ignorance.

[HotTrotter]

Oh great. Another topic to display his ignorance.

How about offering up something constructive just once.

Of course if you were a smart man you would already have seen that I said I don't even know what it is.

[HotTrotter]

New Zealand has it. Along with the Accident Compensation Commission it works reasonably well.

As with all systems it could be better, but it manages to work for most people.

I have a friend with relatives in th UK. She is 110% against the idea. She has seen both systems in action so I think she knows what she is talking about. I guess one of the biggest problems is the waiting list as well as the bureaucracy that causes delays in care.

Perhaps if they gave the control of what is covered to the doctors it could work. I also think the universal care should be minimal care, not top of the line.

[mcaldwell]

Everyone is critical of thier system, until they spend a significant amount of time in another.

Canadians groan about ours too, but we wouldn't give it up.

1. It is not "universal". It is for "medically necessary" services only, such as injury and illness treatment, and of course regular checkups are covered. We can be required to pay for "advice" visits and doctors notes, etc. Most family doctors view it as part of thier service however, and either bill the plan, or let it slide.

Prescription drugs are not covered (although much cheaper than the US), and neither are upgraded hospital stays (i.e. semi-private or private rooms, phone/tv/etc). Most folks get long term medical, prescription, dental, etc. coverage through work insurance.

The standard of care arguement is BS. Canadians live longer on average than Americans, we have lower infant mortality, and every standard of living chart has us ahead of the Yanks.

We have a few limitations on manpower, mostly because many of our Doctors and Nurses are quick to jump ship and move to the US to capitalize on the higher incomes in the private medical sector. Without that problem alone, we would see measurable releif in our wait times. The old problems of access to technology (i.e. MRI's) is going away in most areas.

2. Many sources claim that the US is currently paying more for it's health care than Canada. Your personal coverage is largely funded through employers insurance programs though, and not general taxation. You also don't have the same gov't protection on prices.

Canada regularly posts a budget surplus as well, so it is not exactly breaking us.

3. Yes, we pay through taxes. And lots of them. The average US taxpayer pays 10-15% less income tax than we do, and we have higher provincial and Goods and services taxes too. But we recieve a lot for that money, and you have to ask yourself if 10% more taxation is worth the personal security (and fewer bills/gaps in other social areas too).



In any system, the rich will be better served by private care. I don't think they need to be the ones complaining about the cost of healthcare though.

[DaSharkie]

scfire86: Your post has what to do with the question posed?


MCaldwell, I understand the position, but our incompetent and inept (as well as corrupt) government cannot handle and operate the nationalized health care services that it does run, and it wants to expand it (at minimum) to another 45 million people - and likely to the whole 300,000,000 people of our nation.

Will this coverage in the US cover illegal immigrants? Who the hell knows.

The U.S. health care system spends an inordinate amount of money on people in their last 90 days of life. I work in health care - in an Emergency Department - and we continually flog people with treatments that we know will do no good, and they will still die. Especially the elderly. I am not saying euthanize them - do not read into this. But this huge expenditure is on folks over the age of 65, when our Medicare system kicks in.

The VA cannot meet the needs of those it is ordained to serve - it couldn't and didn't do a good job before our current war. It is chronically underfunded, and it has been for decades. Yet we blow billions on pet projects annually and then are aghast when the VA cannot do what it needs to do because congress has continually underfunded it - for DECADES!

The fact that someone - anyone - has to wait for weeks to months for an MRI or CT scan is complete and utter bull*****. Never should this occur. Ever. Waiting for treatment only costs the system more. Even for our uninsured patients in the ED at my hospital, if we refer a patient to a specialist for treatment they must be seen and care initiated within a week of contact with them or their hospital privileges are revoked. Regardless of the issue.

The fact that Congress here in the United States has not allowed for bulk purchasing for medications from the pharmaceutical industry is utterly criminal. There is no logical need for it. Many other nations get free or reduced cost (DRASTICALLY reduced I might add) medications off of the back of the United States citizen is ridiculous. Africa gets free HIV & AIDS medications while the average cost of HIV medications in the US is over $1,100 a month. But Congress sees nothing wrong with this? Common, generic antibiotics I routinely prescribe for infections cost $5 less than the name brand. And this is acceptable?

Our system is broke, but can be rectified. However, the federal government running is not the answer. If we cannot even keep our bridges and highways from collapsing, then we cannot be expected to initiate nationalized health care and operate it appropriately. Our congress would not allow it, how else would they be able to pad their own pockets and those of their friends if it did?

[FlyingKiwi]

I have a friend with relatives in th UK. She is 110% against the idea. She has seen both systems in action so I think she knows what she is talking about

Oi Plonker. I said New Zealand, it is on the other side of the planet to the United Kingdom.

Nothing to do with that system at all strangely enough

[mcaldwell]

Oi Plonker. I said New Zealand, it is on the other side of the planet to the United Kingdom.

Nothing to do with that system at all strangely enough

LOL! ("Insert American Geography Joke Here")

[scfire86]

scfire86: Your post has what to do with the question posed?

Priorities. We have a trillion dollars to fight a war, but somehow we can't afford national health insurance.

[MattyJ]

Priorities. We have a trillion dollars to fight a war, but somehow we can't afford national health insurance.

Yeah! And after that I want Universal Home ownership, and Universal Electric,and Universal Auto Ownership, and Universal Groceries, and Universal Dental care, and Universal Air Fare!!!and Universal..................... .............................. ..........It's the principle the country was founded on!! Right?

[ThNozzleman]

Priorities. We have a trillion dollars to fight a war, but somehow we can't afford national health insurance.

Yeah...priorities. We can't let the unwashed cross the borders for a better life, working lowly jobs to feed their children, but we can spend trillions to "liberate" people on the other side of the world.

[ThNozzleman]

Yeah! And after that I want Universal Home ownership, and Universal Electric,and Universal Auto Ownership, and Universal Groceries, and Universal Dental care, and Universal Air Fare!!!and Universal..................... .............................. ..........It's the principle the country was founded on!! Right?

But I bet you don't have any problem at all with taxpayer funded fire protection...right?

[ThNozzleman]

Right????

[the1141man]

Yeah! And after that I want Universal Home ownership, and Universal Electric,and Universal Auto Ownership, and Universal Groceries, and Universal Dental care, and Universal Air Fare!!!and Universal..................... .............................. ..........It's the principle the country was founded on!! Right?

If by "the country" you mean the USSR, Communist China, East Germany before the reunification.... then yes.

Here's a crazy idea: cut taxes, yes, cut government services too! Keep more money in the taxpayer's pocket, and when the taxpayer doesn't have healthcare, insurance, etc....who does the taxpayer have to b!tc# at? Oh wait, he's the one who squandered all his $$ on 17" spinner rims and a new system for his Lexus....so I guess the only finger to point goes to himself, huh?
What a novel concept...

[MattyJ]

But I bet you don't have any problem at all with taxpayer funded fire protection...right?

No I dont. No problem with schools, police, military,EMS,Sanitation either..........whats your point?

[MattyJ]

If by "the country" you mean the USSR, Communist China, East Germany before the reunification.... then yes.

Here's a crazy idea: cut taxes, yes, cut government services too! Keep more money in the taxpayer's pocket, and when the taxpayer doesn't have healthcare, insurance, etc....who does the taxpayer have to b!tc# at? Oh wait, he's the one who squandered all his $$ on 17" spinner rims and a new system for his Lexus....so I guess the only finger to point goes to himself, huh?
What a novel concept...

Come on.....its not my fault!