Universal Healthcare

[Texsox]

I base most of what I know on Universal Healthcare on friends and relatives from other countries. They all say the same thing. Everyone wants a job where once you are high enough in the company you can get private insurance for healthcare and don't have to deal with the universal healcare system. They don't care what the job is as long as that is an option. They all hate the universal system.

 

Except those that have no insurance. The entrepenuer that wants to start a business but $1200 per month for private insurance for his wife and kids is too much. Etc.

[StrangeSox]

I will play devils advocate here for a second. If we do go to Universal Health care, and we are paying for insurance through taxes. Then should smoking and other choice vices be outlawed. Everyone knows the medical issues with certain choice vices, so why should the community as a whole have to pay for a choice that someone made on their own. In fact, lets take it further. Should you be forced to keep in some sort of shape. I mean why should the community pay for you because you decide that the hearattack menu at McDonalds and sitting on your couch is the best way to go then come in at Age 45 needing a quad bypass. How about when you are born, we do a genetic map of you to pre-determine what your diseases and tendancies will be so we can dictate a program. See where this is going.

 

We already have "vice taxes" for things like cigarettes and booze. You can just increase/expand those.

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course, the scenario you mention here, and that slippery slope, could just as easily happen in private insurance as public.

 

I'd argue it already has, and for good reason. In the last 6 months I had to drop my health benefits because I started working part time as a law clerk. I looked into getting my own insurance which, suprisingly, wasn't a whole lot more expensive per month than what I was paying at my full-time job (like 40-50 bucks more). Most companies required a physical and a declaration of certain activities, like smoking and heavy drinking, each of which would raise the cost of the policy. They also could raise the cost if you had any pre-conditions.

 

To the cost of our health care system question, does anyone know of a study that actually looks at the impact of R+D costs? I guess I just don't see how getting treatment is all that expensive when you consider everything involved (I have family thats in the industry, so my viewpoint is probably biased). Sure it seems ridiculous that surgeries can cost tens of thousands of dollars, but when you think about everything involved in the process, the doctors, nurses, and equipment necessary, it's got to be somewhat reasonable.

 

And I guess I don't know any numbers, but intuitively it seems to me that implementing such a system might actually end up costing individuals MORE than it does now. If we're going to flood the system with tens of millions of new patients, the majority of whom pay little to no taxes, how will the government pay for it? Sure, they can play Blago and invent numbers and promise the money before figuring out how to pay for it, but that would be such an enormous drain on an already over-used social services budget. In the end it'll mean an even higher tax burden on people that, at least according to dems, already can't pay.

 

In the end I guess maybe I want to ask this question: why do people feel that each and every individual is owed healthcare paid for by someone else? Why isn't the current system enough? You can't be denied service in emergencies, even if you are insolvent. 90% of children in the country get healthcare for free (thats a guess as to the percent, but I can think of at least 5 that have such laws and I'd imagine most others do as well). And there is ample amount of government aid in money, or government services and programs that are available. What would a universal health care system run by the government do to benefit the system? (and i'm not being smirky about it, i'd really like to know).

 

 

[Texsox]

Actually the really poor already have coverage via Medicade, we'd be covering more of the middle class who get squeezed. They are paying taxes.

 

And as to why, I guess it is the same rationale that produces roads, water, police and fire protection, etc. There is also some public health savings. We pretty much stopped polio by legislating vaccinations. Flu epidemics are almost unheard of here, etc. There is also a cost in lost productivity that is shared. So there may be a total cost savings. Or maybe because we can? Maybe it's a family value thing? In part it was one reason I closed my business and put a few people out of work. I could not get private insurance and needed a large group coverage. My employees were making between $10 and $12 per hour. Insurance would have cost $850 per employee. That was a benefit of over $5 per hour. I made it work for a couple guys while I could. But as soon as I had a hospital stay, the increases started and wham, it was all over.

[CanOfCorn]

How about all pediatric care up to the age of 18 is covered universally? Then, everyone's on their own. That seems to me to be the biggest problem, kids that don't have health care that could live long, healthy, productive lives cut short. I'm all for capitalism, but healthcare might not be the best medium for it.

[Texsox]

I've never seen that proposed. Seems like a great idea worth studying and a step in the right direction.

[EvilMonkey]

Actually the really poor already have coverage via Medicade, we'd be covering more of the middle class who get squeezed. They are paying taxes.

 

And as to why, I guess it is the same rationale that produces roads, water, police and fire protection, etc. There is also some public health savings. We pretty much stopped polio by legislating vaccinations. Flu epidemics are almost unheard of here, etc. There is also a cost in lost productivity that is shared. So there may be a total cost savings. Or maybe because we can? Maybe it's a family value thing? In part it was one reason I closed my business and put a few people out of work. I could not get private insurance and needed a large group coverage. My employees were making between $10 and $12 per hour. Insurance would have cost $850 per employee. That was a benefit of over $5 per hour. I made it work for a couple guys while I could. But as soon as I had a hospital stay, the increases started and wham, it was all over.

Tex, while I simply don't offer insurance to my employees, I can recall back in the day when my father had his own company. They had to switch carriers every 2 or 3 years because they 'introductory' rates tripled, or someone had an expensive claim, etc. I think I recall the last one they had for a while, maybe 5 or 6 years, before he was forced to sell the business for unrelated reasons (family squabble, betrayal, etc.). So in a way, I feel your pain.

[Texsox]

Tex, while I simply don't offer insurance to my employees, I can recall back in the day when my father had his own company. They had to switch carriers every 2 or 3 years because they 'introductory' rates tripled, or someone had an expensive claim, etc. I think I recall the last one they had for a while, maybe 5 or 6 years, before he was forced to sell the business for unrelated reasons (family squabble, betrayal, etc.). So in a way, I feel your pain.

 

I thought you had one employee you bought coverage for? You know how the competition thing is, non of my competition offered benefits and that's the competition I had to deal with. No way to pay 60 or 70% more, as it was I was paying 20% more than anyone else, but I had my pick of employees. I also treated them like humans.

 

But it really is my ex father in law that I think of. Worked all his life, dumped from a company in his mid/late 50s based primarily on "image" and with his and his wife's health he was screwed until Social Security disability and Medicare kicked in. At first I was thinking that those cases of preexisting conditions and almost automatic loses for the company would destroy the system, but it would also include some healthy people as well. Small business owners and their employees.

[EvilMonkey]

I thought you had one employee you bought coverage for? You know how the competition thing is, non of my competition offered benefits and that's the competition I had to deal with. No way to pay 60 or 70% more, as it was I was paying 20% more than anyone else, but I had my pick of employees. I also treated them like humans.

 

But it really is my ex father in law that I think of. Worked all his life, dumped from a company in his mid/late 50s based primarily on "image" and with his and his wife's health he was screwed until Social Security disability and Medicare kicked in. At first I was thinking that those cases of preexisting conditions and almost automatic loses for the company would destroy the system, but it would also include some healthy people as well. Small business owners and their employees.

He is no longer with me, so I didn't mention him. but yeah, I had a catastrophic policy for my salesguy. Big deductible, but 80-20 or something like that for hospital stays and 'approved' emergency room visits. He wasn't pulling his weight, so he is gone. I have a new guy now, still wet behind the ears. We shall see how he works out. Everyone else here has been here for 6 years or longer.

[Texsox]

For most of my employees I bought "vouchers" from one of the night clinics here for routine office visits. They could use them to at least be seen an d hopefully keep small stuff from becoming big. By buying 100 passes at the start of the year, we negotiated a decent office business rate. I just noticed that clinic has moved. He was a new Doctor, had just opened his doors, and was willing to negotiate.

 

I did have one employee complain he didn't have "choice" and it was geographically a bad deal for him, but most appreciated my attempt. Anyone in the family could use them.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I find these cries for socialized medicine pretty interesting. I am a type II diabetic. I have been an athlete all my life, I eat healthy, never have smoked, and have run every night 5 or more miles. I am in great shape, and I am not the person you would look at and say thats a diabetic( 6'2 175). My doctor was probably just as shocked as I was. The family history is very strong, but to be diagnosed at 32 years old in the shape I was in was pretty odd. My children most likely carry the genetic cocktail that will turn them into diabetics later in life. So healthcare is a very important issue for me. I receive amazing care, I have a great medical team that helps me keep my glucose in control. I am not using Insulin, I am controlling it with drugs. The drug cocktail they give you takes time, and experimentation to get the right mix. And it always changes. One year one drug works, a few years later you need to adapt. So I can tell you honestly that the money I spend on my healthcare is money well spent in my opinion. I only have to look at my young children for a reason to stay issue free. As I have relatives around the world, some in socialized medicine countries. Their experience with dealing with diabetes and the care is not the same. They get put on a drug, and it takes a minor miracle before it gets changed if its not working. They take longer to get minor issues taken care off. For a diabetic, a minor issue one day is a major one in a few years. Do you know why a diabetic gets their eyes checked. Its not just because of the blindness issue. The arteries in the eyes and your kidneys are similar in structure. They use the eye test to gage what is going on with your renal arteries, another area that can fail over time with glucose poisoning. When you have too much glucose in your system over time, it damages these arteries. This damage can be reversed if caught in time, but if it isn't caught in time it can cause renal failure. So a simple issue can become a major one if left untreated. The idea that the care will be the same because the government will take over and it will be free is naive as well. People with chronic diseases will suffer with the level of care they will receive if we move to socialized medicine.

 

thank you for insensitively causing a fit of "no-readsy long-paragraphy" in me.

[sox4lifeinPA]

The key point and the question I put to you then is...if the U.S. spends 1.5 to 3 times as much per person on Health care as any other country surveyed there, can you explain to me why the U.S. should still finish last?

 

Answer: The Chicago White Sox.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I will play devils advocate here for a second. If we do go to Universal Health care, and we are paying for insurance through taxes. Then should smoking and other choice vices be outlawed. Everyone knows the medical issues with certain choice vices, so why should the community as a whole have to pay for a choice that someone made on their own. In fact, lets take it further. Should you be forced to keep in some sort of shape. I mean why should the community pay for you because you decide that the hearattack menu at McDonalds and sitting on your couch is the best way to go then come in at Age 45 needing a quad bypass. How about when you are born, we do a genetic map of you to pre-determine what your diseases and tendancies will be so we can dictate a program. See where this is going.

 

Tax Breaks for not smoking, being within a certain weight limit.....heck why not genetics? My family is VERY healthy and has a history of living well into their 80s with minimal conditions along the way. The whole concept of health care is that those who use it less pay for those who use it more.

 

Why shouldn't I get huge tax benefits for simply caring more?

 

If "everyone" should have access to health care...there has to be some sort of incentive for people to be healthy. Look what people do with their "free" stuff.

[sox4lifeinPA]

We already have "vice taxes" for things like cigarettes and booze. You can just increase/expand those.

 

There's no way the tobacco and alcohol lobby will stand for increases on taxes up front. It has to be done back end. Tax breaks for healthy lifestyles.

[CanOfCorn]

Tax Breaks for not smoking, being within a certain weight limit.....heck why not genetics? My family is VERY healthy and has a history of living well into their 80s with minimal conditions along the way. The whole concept of health care is that those who use it less pay for those who use it more.

 

Why shouldn't I get huge tax benefits for simply caring more?

 

If "everyone" should have access to health care...there has to be some sort of incentive for people to be healthy. Look what people do with their "free" stuff.

 

Nope...there are too many variables even with healthy people. Even the healthiest people get cancer, get hit by cars, or just get themselves a real bad bug. Insurance should be about prevention. If you use it for prevention, your rates should go down. That's what makes me the angriest. If people could afford to go to the doctor and eye doctor once a year and the dentist twice a year, for free, it should be able to save millions of dollars down the road by catching things earlier.

 

This way, some ailments won't be to the advanced stage where treatments are ridiculously expensive.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Nope...there are too many variables even with healthy people. Even the healthiest people get cancer, get hit by cars, or just get themselves a real bad bug. Insurance should be about prevention. If you use it for prevention, your rates should go down. That's what makes me the angriest. If people could afford to go to the doctor and eye doctor once a year and the dentist twice a year, for free, it should be able to save millions of dollars down the road by catching things earlier.

 

This way, some ailments won't be to the advanced stage where treatments are ridiculously expensive.

 

 

Right, but they do genetic screenings all the time. If you're one of the lucky ones and your genes are "good", why not get a break for it? I'd definitely be inclined to marry someone else with relative health...and so on.

 

 

/green

 

I mean, I half-heartedly think this is a good idea. I just don't know if I buy into the "everyone should get health care at the same $$ amount".

 

Basic health care coverage for anyone under 18, seems reasonable to me.

[YASNY]

Right, but they do genetic screenings all the time. If you're one of the lucky ones and your genes are "good", why not get a break for it? I'd definitely be inclined to marry someone else with relative health...and so on.

/green

 

I mean, I half-heartedly think this is a good idea. I just don't know if I buy into the "everyone should get health care at the same $$ amount".

 

Basic health care coverage for anyone under 18, seems reasonable to me.

 

No no no! We are talking about universal health care here. Why should we not offer the same benefits to citizens of Kenya or the Sudan as we do to the any other foreign citizens. I mean universal just doesn't mean American does it? There are people suffering all over the world from lack of health care. Why not include them all? We can't differentiate based on race, creed or nation of origin whether they happen to foreigners in Arizona or Central Africa. Where is your heart?

Edited January 11, 2008 by YASNY

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...284257033287107

 

In Socialized Medicine, Everyone Is A Doctor

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT

 

Health Reform: The British have found a way to shorten those long, annoying waits for care and lower the rising costs of their universal access system. They'll let patients take care of themselves.

 

The London Telegraph reported Tuesday that the British government has a "plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget." But it won't come without enormous pain.

 

"Instead of going to a hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out 'self-care' as the Department of Health tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending," the Telegraph explained.

 

So when is a universal health care system not actually universal? When Britain's 60-year-old National Health Service can no longer support the weight of its clamoring clientele.

 

Granted, there should be more self-treatment in developed nations. Emergency rooms and doctors' offices are often overcrowded with patients who aren't in need of urgent need but who go anyway because their insurance or government is paying. That type of open access to health care has led to overuse of the system.

 

The NHS, though, is hoping to cut down on more than frivolous visits. It's looking for patients with "arthritis, asthma and even heart failure" to treat themselves, the Telegraph said.

 

Some of the self-care that will be expected of patients includes the monitoring of heart activity, blood pressure and lung capacity using equipment that has been placed in the home.

 

Patients will be counted on to relate health information to doctors either by phone or computer link. To manage pain, they will administer their own drugs and other treatments.

 

Patients will also be asked to evaluate the significance of changes in their conditions as well as employ relaxation techniques that the government hopes will help them relieve their stress and avoid emergency room visits caused by panic.

 

Prime Minister Gordon Brown characterizes the policy changes as improvements that will allow patients to "play a far more active role in managing their own condition." The British Department of Health calls it an "exciting opportunity."

 

But what they're really saying is "our universal health care system is broken, and you're on your own."

 

And we ask yet again: Is this the sort of system we want in the U.S.?

 

The ugly facts will never dissuade those who want to hijack private health care in this country and turn it over to the government. They will continue to use inflated — and irrelevant — data on the uninsured, demagogue, embellish and in general shriek about the woes of U.S. health care, which we unapologetically say is the finest in the world.

 

But they can't do it alone. They need America's middle-of-the-roaders, and the more the average person learns about the hazards of the British and Canadian models, the less likely he or she will blindly go along with plans to nationalize private care.

 

A government system in which everyone gets "free" medical treatment might sound humane. But as Britain's NHS has shown, such a program will eventually be besieged with lengthy and sometimes deadly waiting times and overwhelming costs.

 

From examples across the Atlantic and north of the border we are learning that both the quality and quantity of health care will suffer when the nanny state gets involved. It's a lesson we can ill afford to ignore.

[EvilMonkey]

It seems the mayor of Boston has a problem with affordable health care. This line from him just cracks me up. "Limited service medical clinics run by merchants in for-profit corporations will seriously compromise quality of care and hygiene. Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong." So what, only for-profit hospitals are allowed to make money off of sick people?

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...s_in_retailers/

[EvilMonkey]

The Brits are really active lately. Now the PM wants to take organs from dead patients without explicit consent.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../norgans113.xml

[mr_genius]

It seems the mayor of Boston has a problem with affordable health care. This line from him just cracks me up. "Limited service medical clinics run by merchants in for-profit corporations will seriously compromise quality of care and hygiene. Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong." So what, only for-profit hospitals are allowed to make money off of sick people?

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...s_in_retailers/

 

Yea, thats a fairly absurd statement. His suggestion that competition and for profit medical service is bad is a very one sided, regressive approach to solving a problem. Is he suggesting doctors do not make a profit off healing the sick?

Edited January 14, 2008 by mr_genius