Should The US Start Some Sort Of Universal Health Care System?

[BlueDragon1981]

It is a good theory....but it would result in a need for a lot more money...shortages of doctors and nurses (because some people would go to the doctor for any little thing) and many more problems. A major raise in taxes would be needed and generally Americans don't like that.

Japan seems to embrace insurance still even though they have a health care system....AFLAC has a great penatration in Japan for its policies....seems they want to be protected. (insurance in America gets a bad name...and isn't though of in such regard. Don't get me wrong some insurance is rediculious but it is those who seem to abuse the system that make it bad for all)

Good theory yes.....will it work in America ... I don't think so.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

That leap is not very far. You still haven't told me WHY you and I (who have health insurance) should pay for OTHERS who don't. That's all i'm waiting for.

We ALREADY do. Every time the healthcare provider I work for has to write off bills due to bankruptcy or other uncollectable status, we have to make up the difference somewhere else - YOU AND I then PAY more. Also, many illnesses are not treated until they are in the advanced stages when treatment is less successful and more COSTLY. By that point, the person will often receive some form of state assistance (Medicare, Medical, etc.), for a far more costly bill than the routine exam that could have uncovered the condition would have cost.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We ALREADY do. Every time the healthcare provider I work for has to write off bills due to bankruptcy or other uncollectable status, we have to make up the difference somewhere else - YOU AND I then PAY more. Also, many illnesses are not treated until they are in the advanced stages when treatment is less successful and more COSTLY. By that point, the person will often receive some form of state assistance (Medicare, Medical, etc.), for a far more costly bill than the routine exam that could have uncovered the condition would have cost.

How about the US government get in to the health care business like any other company. Those that don't have coverage can pay the US government as a provider, and the US government can roll all profits over to providing coverage. This doesn't cost me a dime, you a dime, and the people who use it pay for it. It doesn't get any fairer than that. As a provider of services, the US government doesn't have to worry about a profit margin, they can simply pay out what they get in.

The problem? That wouldn't satisfy many people, because they not only want healthcare, they want it for free (paid for by someone else). Many people feel free healthcare is an entitlement they deserve. They don't care who foots the bill (as long as it isn't them). Just get those darn rich people to pay for it. Many people can afford healthcare...They just don't want to spend their money on it if they can get the government to give it to them. Nobody can tell me this isn't the mentality, because I see it every day. It's an entitlement mentality that says "Healthcare is too important for me to actually have to budget money and pay for." It's offensive and it's destroying this country.

Again, let the government get in the healthcare provider business and allow uninsured and underinsured to be their customers at a lower cost. The government can provide care devoid of the profit motive mark-up.

 

[arnisador]

The govt. runs several such programs, as I recall from when I was a civilian employee of the Army with USPS health coverage. (Yes, that's the post office!) Expanding that isn't a bad idea.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The govt. runs several such programs, as I recall from when I was a civilian employee of the Army with USPS health coverage. (Yes, that's the post office!) Expanding that isn't a bad idea.

I would agree with such a program...It puts the burden on the end-user and still allows them affordable healthcare WITHOUT the whole class-warfare line of attempting to get others to foot the bill.

I think the government should assist uninsured and the underinsured with coverage...but they need to assist them by providing them a low cost service made possible by eliminating the need to turn a profit, not by confiscating money from others to pay for it.

 

[arnisador]

I could get behind this plan--certainly, for a trial. We see the problems with the Canadian and British approaches...we need a different approach.

It would be a big step forward.

 

[Kane]

sgtmac_46, I understand exactly what you are saying but it doesn't solve any the fact that millions of Americans cannot get coverage due to very high cost. Most working Americans on the other hand can pay for their child's schools as well as their retirement but health care is now a day is getting too high.

As I explained before the government still exists no matter what. Why don't we privatize law enforcement, military work, and firefighting? The quality would most likely improve due to competition between rival police forces. I think you see my point.


While I do think most things of life should be let to the people some things should be run by the government. Police, military, and Firefighting should be let to the government to do because the government's main job after all is to protect the people. This includes to a certain extent from disease.

Do keep in mind though not all firefighting is done (as you know) by the government, there are many volunteer organizations and such that do the same task. If we do something similar with medicare, that is; provide basic coverage for all people but with private health companies running along side this should be all we need. And I think if we were to privatize social security and possibly schools, the taxes wouldn't as high as they are right now (if social security and schooling are privatized).

I can't think of a better solution. There are many hardworking Americans I believe that cannot afford health care, why should they be denied it? There are advantages and disadvantages in having universal health care but if we at least provide the fundamentals such as ER coverage then that maybe the only thing we may have to do.

Of course it’s not that simple but we need to figure out something in the near future to solve this problem. Is there a good alternative? Not that I know of. Having some sort of universal health care with private health care side by side should work the best.

 

[Kane]

I could get behind this plan--certainly, for a trial. We see the problems with the Canadian and British approaches...we need a different approach.

It would be a big step forward.

Yes I agree. By looking at the problems that Canada and Britian ran into we may be able to create an even better system.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes I agree. By looking at the problems that Canada and Britian ran into we may be able to create an even better system.

The point is, however, the plan that we just proposed allows affordable health insurance for the underinsured and the uninsured...by allowing the government to act as a provider. The cost are borne by consumer (the insured) who pay a montly premium, just as they would any other insurance provider. The difference, however, would be that the government would have no need to make a profit, therefore keeping costs and premiums at the lowest level possible while still maintaining adequate coverage.

If what we really want is affordable health insurance, this would be the fairest system. It puts the burden on the end-user, not those who have no desire to participate or who are already paying for their own insurance. If our goal is coverage, not entitlements paid for by confiscatory programs, this is the best system and would avoid the problems inherent in the socialized medicine programs of other countries.

 

[terryl965]

every single person deserve the right to have Health care and our country should e able to provide this through a goverment agency. Think about it a family of 5 pays anywhere like 868.00 a month for HC, that is a mortgage to the average person.My family works, wife school teacher and me ex. and the outside companys kill you with high premiums, if the US stepped in to control it more people could afford it. GIVE AMERICANS THEY HEALTHCARE WE DESERVE, WITHOUT GETTING RIPPED OFF FROM PRIVATE MONEY HUNGRY COMPANYS.
Terry

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The point is, however, the plan that we just proposed allows affordable health insurance for the underinsured and the uninsured...by allowing the government to act as a provider. The cost are borne by consumer (the insured) who pay a montly premium, just as they would any other insurance provider. The difference, however, would be that the government would have no need to make a profit, therefore keeping costs and premiums at the lowest level possible while still maintaining adequate coverage.

If what we really want is affordable health insurance, this would be the fairest system. It puts the burden on the end-user, not those who have no desire to participate or who are already paying for their own insurance. If our goal is coverage, not entitlements paid for by confiscatory programs, this is the best system and would avoid the problems inherent in the socialized medicine programs of other countries.

This would be optimum, I agree, and certainly better than a completely socialized medical system. However, (there's always a however, isn't there), IMHO, this is unlikely. There are too many interests stacked against this. Also, the uninsured poorest among us must have some recourse to REGULAR healthcare. I really don't think it is an either/or situation here; socialized medicine or a Darwinian, survival of the fittest free market system. A balance can and must be reached. Sure, many will take advantage of this, but what exists that some people don't take advantage of?

I feel that, in the end, per scripture, we are our brother's keeper - even if it means that some will milk the system. Affordable healthcare for the majority, and some level of subsidized healthcare insurance for the minority who cannot (emphasis on cannot, not WILL not) afford it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Again we're back to the idea that "Government" should take care of it. Those who suggest this answer often don't understand WHAT the government is, and where it gets it's revenue. The idea that we are going to pay for healthcare for all 300 Million people in the US is absurd. If the argument is that millions can't afford healthcare, who's going to pay for it? The whole point is they can't afford healthcare, so they obviously can't afford an increase in taxes to pay for a bloated bureaucracy. So, we fall back on the idea that some nebulous "They" should pay for it.

More government entitlements designed to appease the masses and buy votes with the promise of wealth redistribution.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

so just let the ones that cant afford healthcare die....to make room for the ones that can?

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091055?OpenDocument

The principles are based on the evidence and conclusions reached in the committee's five previous reports, which documented the consequences of lack of health insurance. Among the findings, these reports noted that:

¨ Uninsured Americans get about half the medical care of those with health insurance. As a result, they tend to be sicker and to die sooner.
¨ About 18,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year because of lack of health insurance.
¨ Only half of uninsured children visited a physician during 2001, compared with three-quarters of insured children. Lack of regular care can result in more expensive care for preventable or treatable conditions, and disruptions in learning and development.
¨ When even one family member is uninsured, the entire family is at risk for the financial consequences of a catastrophic illness or injury.
¨ Tax dollars paid for an estimated 85 percent of the roughly $35 billion in unreimbursed medical care for the uninsured in 2001.
¨ The burden of uncompensated care has been a factor in the closure of some hospitals and the unavailability of services in others. Disruptions in service can affect all who are served by a facility, even those who have health insurance.
¨ The United States loses the equivalent of $65 billion to $130 billion annually as a result of the poor health and early deaths of uninsured adults.

"In light of the adverse consequences that uninsurance has for individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole, it should be painfully clear that our nation can no longer afford to ignore this problem," said committee co-chair Arthur Kellermann, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. "We must find a way to cover the uninsured."

If one looks at the numbers, one can see that a universal plan is obviously better for America. By instituting a health plan, we would put billions of dollars back into our economy by saving money. We would make American more competitive...perhaps encouraging new investment.

 

[JAMJTX]

"By instituting a health plan, we would put billions of dollars back into our economy by saving money."

How do you figure this?
The average person would see a tax increase of more than what they now pay for health care. The the 700 billion+ dollars that now gets spect each year on medical care and add that, plus all the extra expenses of managing the national system. That is money that either has to come from a tax increase or federal borrowing.
Socialism is never good for the economy. There still has never been a successful socialist system of any kind, in the U.S. or anywhere else.

Socialist countries have all failed miserably. In the U.S. the "Social Security" has been bankrupt for decades and is hopelessly broken, the socialized public school systems are now among the worst in the world. I don't understand how anyone can even think that socializing the greatets medical system in the world can fix what little probelms there are.

 

[Marginal]

Socialist countries have all failed miserably. In the U.S. the "Social Security" has been bankrupt for decades and is hopelessly broken, the socialized public school systems are now among the worst in the world. I don't understand how anyone can even think that socializing the greatets medical system in the world can fix what little probelms there are.

Sweeden failed miserably?

 

[Kane]

Sweden and many countries of Europe may not be doing as well right, but this is because these countries are over the edge socialist. Better example would be Canada as it is in between Europe (socialist) and USA (capitalist).

 

[Kane]

The problem still remains though: millions of Americans cannot afford even some of the basic coverage. Whether we work something out or go universal this problem needs to be solves quickly!

 

[BlackCatBonz]

The problem still remains though: millions of Americans cannot afford even some of the basic coverage. Whether we work something out or go universal this problem needs to be solves quickly!

good luck at this happening when fat politicians that can afford healthcare are making the decisions.

 

[arnisador]

Sweden isn't doing so badly, though taxes are very high by our standards. Still, one adjusts to the system.