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.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

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.

I'm aware of this and I agree.

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.

Of course it doesn't bother me that people do things for money. I understand that concept, but when it comes to my health and well being, I think I have every right to be concerned about who I'm putting my trust in. When you're putting someone's life on the line, if you're going into the medical field you shouldn't just be in it for the money. Do you honestly think the best doctors are the ones who got in it for the money or the ones who actually have the passion for it? Sometimes the doctors don't know anymore than the person they're supposed to help. Point and case ( This happened to a relative of mine):

*Doctor prescribes pills
*Paitent doesn't feel good taking the pills but the doctor insists that it's just a side effect, no harm will be done*
*Patient refuses, goes to another doctor
*A year later, major recall on the pills, because they cause heart attack, blood clots, stroke, and even death

So tell me who knew more in this situation? The patient or the intelligent doctor who has a degree? But you don't think I should be concerned when this happens all too often?

[Uronacid]

I'm aware of this and I agree.
Of course it doesn't bother me that people do things for money. I understand that concept, but when it comes to my health and well being, I think I have every right to be concerned about who I'm putting my trust in. When you're putting someone's life on the line, if you're going into the medical field you shouldn't just be in it for the money. Do you honestly think the best doctors are the ones who got in it for the money or the ones who actually have the passion for it? Sometimes the doctors don't know anymore than the person they're supposed to help. Point and case ( This happened to a relative of mine):

*Doctor prescribes pills
*Paitent doesn't feel good taking the pills but the doctor insists that it's just a side effect, no harm will be done*
*Patient refuses, goes to another doctor
*A year later, major recall on the pills, because they cause heart attack, blood clots, stroke, and even death

So tell me who knew more in this situation? The patient or the intelligent doctor who has a degree? But you don't think I should be concerned when this happens all too often?

I disagree with this. Again, this comes back to the point Holly was trying to make by saying that doctors are people too. In the same way that there are corrupt police, there are corrupt doctors too. You can't avoid human nature. You're concerned with something that cannot be changed by private or public health care. You need to shop around. Take it upon yourself to weed out the good doctors from the bad ones.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

I disagree with this. Again, this comes back to the point Holly was trying to make by saying that doctors are people too. In the same way that there are corrupt police, there are corrupt doctors too. You can't avoid human nature. You're concerned with something that cannot be changed by private or public health care. You need to shop around. Take it upon yourself to weed out the good doctors from the bad ones.

It's true that you can't avoid human nature, and there will always be good and bad doctors; however, why would I need to shop around for a good doctor if I wasn't concerned? If I need to shop around, that obviously means I am concerned about who I put my trust in.

Also, about the insurance, lets just say they do lower rates. You go for a daily checkup, and the doctor discovers that you have some disease that's curable. You go back to your insurance, and they tell you they don't cover this particular disease or the treatment required. Or what about a person who can't get accepted by insurance companies because they already have a preexisting condition. Do you honestly think that insurance in the answer?

[Uronacid]

there are more aggressive, wider campaigns that a government run system could institute.
when the f*ck did i ever say that there will never be a mean or evil person again? i just said that i don't think everyone is like that, and, further, that i think our capitalist society MAKES people like that. what do you think happens when you promote competition as like... THE BEST THING EVER LOLZ! capitalism doesn't necessarily promote compassion and humanity...

In a public health care system our gov't will become a single point of failure. Nate, I do not trust our gov't. They've failed us numerous times in the past. I just don't understand how you hold onto the idea that big brother is going to make everything better. I believer our government just wants to take away more of our freedom. Control will always be pushed upon us through a facade of compassion and humanity. Why do you place trust in our gov't?

It's true that you can't avoid human nature, and there will always be good and bad doctors; however, why would I need to shop around for a good doctor if I wasn't concerned? If I need to shop around, that obviously means I am concerned about who I put my trust in.

Also, about the insurance, lets just say they do lower rates. You go for a daily checkup, and the doctor discovers that you have some disease that's curable. You go back to your insurance, and they tell you they don't cover this particular disease or the treatment required. Or what about a person who can't get accepted by insurance companies because they already have a preexisting condition. Do you honestly think that insurance in the answer?

You should be concerned about who you put your trust in.

What if a man dropped a penny of the empire state building and it landed on a dogs foot. That dog got angry and contracted rabies for some reason. All the sudden you magically warped to that exact location and the dog bit you. Then your insurance carrier dropped you. Yes I do think that private insurance is a better answer than public insurance, however there is still major room for improvement.

[NoSex]

In a public health care system our gov't will become a single point of failure. Nate, I do not trust our gov't. They've failed us numerous times in the past.

MEDICARE & MEDICADE have higher customer ratings than private insurance; their costs have have increased @ slower rates, their coverage is greater, & their record on providing care is better. they are the best performing health services in america, & they are SOCIALIZED & RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.

[Uronacid]

MEDICARE & MEDICADE have higher customer ratings than private insurance; their costs have have increased @ slower rates, their coverage is greater, & their record on providing care is better. they are the best performing health services in america, & they are SOCIALIZED & RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.

The are RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT and they are going BANKRUPT.

[mipadi]

the bush administration lowered taxes like bat nuts crazy, & spent money like bat nuts crazy. for example, if we hadn't gone to war with iraq we wouldn't have to worry about a bankrupt medicare. this is what needs to be done: refinancing through taxation. tax the rich & pay for medicine. otherwise, we lose more money in the high costs of private insurance & the current healthcare system.

As Britain's Tony Benn once said, "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people."

The are RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT and they are going BANKRUPT.

Based on the actuarial projections of the Medicare Trust Fund, which is tasked with annually reporting to Congress on how the bottom line looks, the point where Medicare will pay out more than it takes in -- even by a penny -- won’t occur until somewhere between 2014 to 2028. But that presumes no changes in how Medicare income or spending. Either could be adjusted well before that point. Both have been adjusted at various times in the past well before the point of insolvency. Put another way, the Department of Defense budget is raised every year, usually in lieu of asking it to cut its budget substantially, but when’s the last time someone said the DOD was bankrupt?

[...]

But why is Medicare’s current financing structure insufficient in perpetuity? [...] The reasons why are pretty obvious. None of them have to do with the bugbear of government incompetency.

The major reason is that health care costs have gone up for all payers, public and private, and dramatically so. Since 1970, health care costs have gone up for Medicare by 8.5% annually – but for private insurance, it’s 9.7%. Unlike private insurance, Medicare doesn’t have the option of pricing its product out of reach of new beneficiaries, dropping coverage on existing beneficiaries, or finding reasons not to accept new beneficiaries who look like they might have future health problems. Medicare has a lot of trouble controlling health care costs, and that’s largely driven by geographic variance in payments to doctors and physicians and the perverse incentives of fee-for-service payment, which incentivizes more care instead of better care. Guess what? Private insurance has the exact same problems. (Hey pot, it’s the kettle – you’re black!)

Medicare is also growing pretty quickly thanks to the baby boomers -- about 587,000 per year. The number of people with employer-based insurance has been on a slow but steady decline.

Luckily, we’ve known about this future problem for a while, and we were, er, lucky enough to have champions of the free market and conservative principles in Congress and the White House when we set about tackling the problem over the past decade. One solution was the institution of Medicare Advantage plans, where beneficiaries could opt-out of traditional Medicare and enroll in an HMO. As mentioned on this blog many times, the problem is the Medicare Advantage plans cost 14% more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare for no demonstrably better outcomes – and now we have about 11 million Americans enrolled in them. That waste adds up. As stated in the Kaiser report, “strictly from the perspective of program financing it is undisputed that Medicare Advantage payments have added to the cost of Medicare borne by the government.”

Much, much worse has been the prescription drug programs. It was supposed to use private drug plans in competition to drive down costs, until all kinds of pharma-friendly provisions were added in by the likes of Rep. Billy Tauzin – the same Billy Tauzin who went on to become president of PhRMA. Again, from the Kaiser report, “Two-thirds of the $72 billion increase in Medicare expenditures from 2005 to 2006 resulted from the implementation of Part D.”

And yet, Medicare’s financing is solvable. If the annual rate of growth was a mere 1% above the growth in GDP instead of our current pace of +2.5%, we’d cut our spending in half by 2038. You can imagine how good our Medicare Trust report would look then. As it just so happens, we have a plan on the table to accomplish exactly that – and benefit those in the private insurance system as well. It’s called health care reform, and we need it to pass this year.

Source