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.

[drinksmokefuck]

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.

Correct, this "jungle" was something he called a state of nature, and since no rational man wanted to live in it, he said f*ck it, lets make some laws. But, the whole moral obligation was more Locke. Which brings me to my question. Do you think its worth it? Are you willing to risk the jobs of doctors, further research into medical science, and technological advances so a few million more people can get health insurance?

Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

Correct, this "jungle" was something he called a state of nature, and since no rational man wanted to live in it, he said f*ck it, lets make some laws. But, the whole moral obligation was more Locke. Which brings me to my question. Do you think its worth it? Are you willing to risk the jobs of doctors, further research into medical science, and technological advances so a few million more people can get health insurance?

Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?

See this is the thing that worries me about today's doctors. If they really wanted to make advances in medical science, wouldn't they do it for the people and not for the money? A lot of times doctors misdiagnose people because they just don't care. I recently read an article where they use race to determine a diagnosis which in return leads to a misdiagnosis.

[Insurmountable]

See this is the thing that worries me about today's doctors. If they really wanted to make advances in medical science, wouldn't they do it for the people and not for the money?

If money wasn't involved than many of the intelligent individuals who are doctors today would spend their time in college investing in another career. Doctors spend years in college and in return make decent living. Just because a doctor does a job that keeps you alive doesn't take away the fact that he's doing a job. It shouldn't bother you that people do things for money. That intelligent doctor who saves your life one day may have become something else if it wasn't worth his time. I'm not suggesting that all doctors are perfect or that there aren't doctors with a passion for helping people. I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.

[NoSex]

I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.

under a universal systems, doctors are still likely to be significant high income earners. it's just the the difference between one awesome sports car, or two. i think it's fair to say that one awesome sports car constitutes a "decent check."

also, as another point, there is no good reason to believe that medical research will necessarily be hindered by universal medicine:
1. a private industry will still exist.
2. a social program can create incentives towards research.

canada has pioneered many procedures and experimental medicines under a universal system.

lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.

"'It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,' said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference'."

we rank 24th in life expectancy & we have the 2nd highest health expenditure (as a % of g.d.p). [1]

to be as perfectly clear as i can be: MANY SYSTEMS OUT-PERFORM AMERICA'S and WE PAY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE FOR HEALTH CARE.

[superstitious]

lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.

It isn't uniformly ignored. I've merely pointed out that the problem of health care isn't exclusive to private insurance companies. It's the industry as a whole.

Rankings and statistics are good and by no means am I saying that your points are not valid. I have a strong opinion that before any type of decision can be made regarding universal health care, a thorough analysis of the day to day practices and costs per patient, per diagnosis needs to be performed. I know for a fact that this already being implemented and that many private insurance entities are being scrutinized right now for that very reason.

I also do not believe that the future of health care should consist of any one particular insurance group - be it public or private. I think that options are good and that competition between insurance types is healthy. I'm down with both, not one or the other.

Also, the "cya" excuse isn't 100% valid. Part of the excessiveness is due to many physicians not wanting to take the time necessary to counsel patients in long term and preventative care. Also, many patients are not innocent either. The quick fix is attractive to both physicians and patients.

MANY SYSTEMS OUT-PERFORM AMERICA'S and WE PAY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE FOR HEALTH CARE.

HEALTH, in general, is better in other countries as well. You can't totally blame "America's" system for the lack of positivity in system ranking/performance. The idea that further bureaucratic decision making is going to completely solve the issue of health care is a little misguided. I mean this with no disrespect. Change needs to occur from the patient and physician level in conjunction with any change in overall health care policies.