UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE., just because everyone else does it... Rating Options

[NoSex]

so, why the f*ck don't we have universal healthcare?

[NoSex]

p.s. the issue is finding a healthcare system that is best for everyone, and best for the country. that's the primary concern. not whether or not we have to raise taxes. personally, i have enough dedication to this country to want to see my taxes raised for a good cause. we are a society, a unit, a civilization that is designed to function together towards progress. it's good that we have a public school system, so that everyone has the opportunity to be educated. it's good that we have roads so that transportation can be made possible. it's good that we have a military so that our country can be defended. IF YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THE SOCIETY YOU LOSE ALL OF THIS. so the question is this: is the moral precedent so great that you would not collect taxes in order to give everyone a free public education? would you not collect taxes to build roads? would you not collect taxes to defend your homeland? would you not collect taxes to make your country healthier & happier?

[Uronacid]

p.s. the issue is finding a healthcare system that is best for everyone, and best for the country. that's the primary concern. not whether or not we have to raise taxes. personally, i have enough dedication to this country to want to see my taxes raised for a good cause. we are a society, a unit, a civilization that is designed to function together towards progress. it's good that we have a public school system, so that everyone has the opportunity to be educated. it's good that we have roads so that transportation can be made possible. it's good that we have a military so that our country can be defended. IF YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THE SOCIETY YOU LOSE ALL OF THIS. so the question is this: is the moral precedent so great that you would not collect taxes in order to give everyone a free public education? would you not collect taxes to build roads? would you not collect taxes to defend your homeland? would you not collect taxes to make your country healthier & happier?

Our public school system is FUBAR. I think we spend a bit too much considering the children who attend public school in other countries have better grades than we do. We could lower taxes here and still have the same "quality education".
Roads are necessary. Don't mind paying for it.
Military is necessary. Don't mind paying for it.

Anyway, you can also argue that putting health care in the government's hands is bad for society. The addition of a public option will destroy competition in the health system via the public options unfair competitive advantages. Investors will not invest their money in things that don't lead to a profit. If competition is removed then the strive for better health practices and technology through research will be slowed down due to a lack of private investors. After all, it is through health insurance that these industries get paid.

Yes, we pay more for our health care than other countries, but our health practices is also far more advanced than in other countries. People travel from all over the world to receive medical treatment in America for that very reason. In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system.

[drinksmokefuck]

In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system.

You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another.

[Uronacid]

You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another.

Most people in America can afford it. Health insurers do try to out preform one another. That's the whole purpose of the competitive market. Businesses switch health insurers all the time to lower their rate.

Also, I want to make it very clear that I don't think our health care system is perfect. I definitely be leave that there are certain areas where the consumer is being taken advantage of. Mal-practice insurance for doctors is ridiculously high. People are robbed by price of prescriptions. These are major contributing factors to the price of insurance.

[mipadi]

Most people in America can afford it.

Insurance doesn't do any good if you can't afford the actual health procedures. Just because you're insured, doesn't mean that your health insurance company will actually pay anything. There're a lot of cases of people being suddenly dropped from insurance because they file for cancer treatment or another expensive procedure. There are also a lot of cases in which people are denied a claim and have to pay for a procedure on their own, even though they have insurance. And insurance companies don't usually cover potentially life-saving operations that they determine to be "experimental".

In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it.

Hm. Did I just suggest that "health rationing" already takes place in America?

[Uronacid]

In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it.

I don't understand why you might think government won't operate in a similar fashion? Currently the Gov't offers Medicare (which is going bankrupt). Also, many doctor's don't even accept medicare gov't doesn't pay as much and the paperwork is a bitch. In many cases, it just doesn't cover their operating costs.

Again, I don't think our system is perfect. I might believe it's among the best, but that doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement. To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic. There are people out there that clearly need help, but giving control over to the gov't is not the way to solve this. I've seen a few different ideas thrown around. A few things that would reduce the bill:

• Tort Reform to lower malpractice insurance
• Group Insurance Plans to lower insurance premiums
• Insurance Accounts that allow you to choose a carrier and stay with you from job to job
• Make all medical expenses tax deductible
• The list goes on...

There are plenty of ways to reduce the cost of Health Insurance without handing it over to the gov't.

[mipadi]

I don't understand what makes you think government won't operate in a similar fashion?

Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible.

To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic.

And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons.

[Uronacid]

Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible.

The gov't doesn't have an endless supply of income either. The gov't will have the right to deny claims as well.

And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons.

And you never know when the govt's going to do it either. I'm not saying change shouldn't happen. There definitely needs to be change, however handing control over to the gov't is NOT the solution. Handing health care over to the gov't is a temporary fix that will result in big financial problems.

[mipadi]

And you never know when the govt's going to do it either. I'm not saying change shouldn't happen. There definitely needs to be change, however handing control over to the gov't is NOT the solution. Handing health care over to the gov't is a temporary fix that will result in big financial problems.

So how do you suggest we make health care affordable for all Americans?

Anyway, aside from the feasibility and pros/cons of an entirely private, entirely public, or hybrid ("public option") plan, I think there was a really good point brought up by Nate that's hardly been discussed (I suspect mostly because it's not as easy to debate as the economics of various insurance plans), and that's the social morals of health care. Don't we, as a society, have a moral obligation to take care of our sick? Don't we have a moral obligation to help one another? That is the whole point of society. You can go back to the origins of the social contract theory for this idea. I believe it was Hobbes (among others) who suggested that humans derived great benefit from joining in society, rather than staying in the "jungle", but as a result, man has to give up certain privileges (such as the unchecked accumulation of wealth -- i.e., the freedom from taxation) in order to reap the benefits of society. There's no doubt that joining society gives man great benefits, but those benefits are not without cost, and part of that cost is putting the needs of others above your own. I feel that the capitalist ideal, which is essentially "every man for himself", runs completely counter to the notions of society.

[superstitious]

So how do you suggest we make health care affordable for all Americans?

Here's one idea - stop the gratuitous spending by means of "overuse".

Overuse. Overuse occurs when a service is provided even though its risk of harm
exceeds its likely benefit—that is, when it is not warranted on medical grounds. A
more expansive definition would include cases in which the added costs of a more
expensive service did not exceed the added benefits it was expected to provide. A
number of studies have found, on the basis of after-the-fact reviews by independent
panels of doctors, that a sizable share of certain surgeries were performed despite
their being clinically inappropriate or of equivocal value; those findings held true
under various types of insurance plans.2

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/95xx/doc9567/07...e_Testimony.pdf

This isn't new news. Most of the noise regarding universal health care is just that, noise. The major part of the problem has occurred within the medical industry itself and no universal system, no big brother stepping in is going to solve the problem. The only thing it might do is drive people further into debt because physicians and facilities will continue to perform unnecessary tests, prescribe unnecessary medications and perform unnecessary procedures and the government will not reimbursement the patient for said services. They will deny these benefits for the lack of prior authorization, not medically appropriate and other such reasons.

You want to fix the problem, give the industry an enema. Flush out the crap and get back to practicing medicine. The best way to solve a problem, to diagnose a patient is through good history in-taking and preventative medicine. This takes time and too often people are in a rush to find the miracle cure that they end up fixing problems with bandaids instead of solving the problem through long term treatment.

For example - patient presents with strong family history of diabetes and heart disease. Patient is overweight, smokes and drinks heavily. Patient leads sedentary life.

Patient goes home, goes on about his life.

10 years later.

Patient presents with uncontrolled diabetes and is morbidly obese. Recommend diet and insulin training. Will write script for insulin. Consider gastric bypass.


Almost all of that last part could have been avoided. That patient is now considered high risk (interpreted as "expensive") to any health care entity.

I'm not at all accusing physicians of being alone in fault. It's the public too. We want to complain about health care costs when many individuals don't take the necessary steps in their own lives to prevent costly health care expenses later in life.

(I was typing this before I saw your more recent response, Michael so I'll wait for the social aspect of this for the time being)