Universal Health Care: Opinions please?

[Phoenix44]

I started this thread because it's come up several times elsewhere. For some reason, some people think universal healthcare would be prohibitively expensive. I don't.

The current healthcare system is wasteful, fragmented, and enormously expensive. Every doctor, hospital, and clinic must "participate" in dozens--maybe hundreds--of plans, each with it's own bureaucracy, payroll, and physical structure. You have people with no medical credentials dictating medical care for patients they've never met. Despite this, millions go uninsured. Get rid of the duplicative bureaucracy, and we'll have plenty of money to take care of Americans.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think it's the next "evolutionary step" for America, that private sector businesses and HMOs are fighting.

How is it that my friend from Greece can, in what was up until very recently considered to be a third-world country, walk into a hospital or doctor's office and be treated, no bill, and then come to America as a way to improve her life and economics, only to find out that because she's had to go to the doctor's office a few times, she's got growing debt?
Again - it' s not about the money - start getting businesses to actually pay the taxes they owe to the government (like I have to pay my taxes), and we'll have money to fund the switch.

 

[deadhand31]

Universal health care is like communism: it looks good on paper. However, if we are going to have universal health care in the states, there would need to be massive changes. First off, there would need to be government change. So far, every social program that the government has made, it screws up. Take a look at public education. Public schools tend to bring out less results than private schools, while spending more per student. But the problem is this: Not everyone can afford private schools, so most have no choice but to send their kids there. It's not until the vouchers have come along, and forced the public schools to compete that change hasn't happened.

The same could be said for universal health care. If we only make ONE healthcare bureacracy, then they have no competetion. There is no need for them to approve, because no matter what hospital a person would go to, they still have only one plan. Since your government has set the price, you have to pay for it, no matter if you disagree with it or not. Another thing, doctors have to pay a lot of malpractice insurance because of frivolous lawsuits. One the of the main reasons health care costs go up is because of skyrocketing malpractice rates. Now, the government would have two options: still pay doctors the same, and force doctors out of business when they can't pay their malpractice insurance; or two: raise the doctor's salaries, and then the costs from the taxpayers go up. Is the government also going to handle the doctors' malpractice insurance? I sure hope not.

Don't get me wrong, I think the concept sounds great. However, I think the best first step would be where you could waive payment of this system from your paycheck. That way, people could still have their private health care system, and not have to participate in the universal system. This would mean that the universal system would be forced to compete with the other systems, and would be forced to find cost-effective, high-quality solutions.

Competition always brings about good change. Back in the days of the model T, you could buy it in any color you wanted, as long as it was black. Nobody else really bought any other car, because their weren't any other cars. When other car companies started offering cars in different colors, Ford was forced to compete, and offer new colors for their model T. Competition brings about reform and change.

 

[pete]

why don't we socialize health care (oops, bad word must be a socialist around here) and privatize the armed forces... then, we can outsource the military to india or indonesia at a fraction of the cost. are't these the jobs that americans don't want anyway?

why couldn't our health care can be provided in the same manner as our socialized educational system.

pete

 

[Flatlander]

Don't get me wrong, I think the concept sounds great. However, I think the best first step would be where you could waive payment of this system from your paycheck. That way, people could still have their private health care system, and not have to participate in the universal system. This would mean that the universal system would be forced to compete with the other systems, and would be forced to find cost-effective, high-quality solutions.

The problem with a two tiered system is that the gov't operated one will generally be substandard to the private system. Public health care policy should reflect equal right to equal services.

 

[Rob Broad]

Up here in the great white north we have a great healt care system, the only draw back is the waiting periods. All of our Healtcare needs are paid for, except prescription drugs. Most of us have benefits at work that cover the meds. It is a great system, and Canada is far from a communist country.

The US has been recruiting Canadian doctors for yrs and these people gladly go because of the $. Canadian doctors make good money up here, it just seems to be a shortage of them because they want to make big $$ even quicker in the US.

 

[deadhand31]

The problem with a two tiered system is that the gov't operated one will generally be substandard to the private system. Public health care policy should reflect equal right to equal services.

My point exactly. Outright, the government care will be substandard. If the government care wants more people on it's side, then it will increase quality to compete. If the government can only offer substandard care, then they have no business being in that sector in the first place. If they don't have the competition, and everybody HAS to be in their tier, what motivation do they have to change? None. Can those in their system expect quality care? No, they can't.

 

[deadhand31]

The US has been recruiting Canadian doctors for yrs and these people gladly go because of the $. Canadian doctors make good money up here, it just seems to be a shortage of them because they want to make big $$ even quicker in the US.

Exactly, Rob. The private systems can offer doctors better pay and benefits, which means that privatized health care can offer better doctors. I would say introduce private health care in the Canada, then the competition will force the government run health care to get better.

 

[pete]

good idea deadhand31, then we can control who lives and who dies by how muc they can afford to pay~ genius in social engineering, survival of the richest! an end to poverty as we know it.

i'll apply that concept to a 2-tiered approach to our military, where we can maintain a government run armed forces for wars we really don't care about, and a privatized one for the really important ones, like the war on drugs and wars to protect us from weapons of mass destruction.

this stuff makes too much sense!

pete

 

[deadhand31]

why don't we socialize health care (oops, bad word must be a socialist around here) and privatize the armed forces... then, we can outsource the military to india or indonesia at a fraction of the cost. are't these the jobs that americans don't want anyway?

why couldn't our health care can be provided in the same manner as our socialized educational system.

pete

Do you really want to outsource your military intelligence to foreign countries? Do you also want to put everyone in our military out of their jobs? Do you really want a foreign country to be our only line of defense? If someone does not want to be in the army, then they simply don't join. We don't have a draft here.

As for socializing health care like education, that should be a reason NOT to socialize health care. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, public schools only perform as well as private schools when they are forced to compete. Private schools tend to spend less money per student and they get better results. Now that failing schools have to make themselves better so that the kids don't get vouchers, the quality of public education has gone up without raising the cost.

Now, perhaps that deserves a look. Maybe we should introduce a government health care system, without ridding ourselves of the private insurance companies. Now, allow the people who live in substandard government health care areas vouchers to allow themselves into the private sector. That way, the system would have to be equal to, if not better than, to the private sector from the start.

 

[Rob Broad]

good idea deadhand31, then we can control who lives and who dies by how muc they can afford to pay~ genius in social engineering, survival of the richest!

pete

I agree 100%. If the privatized health care was no longer in place everybody would be able to get great healt care. We have tried privatized health care up here in a few provinces, and it flopped big time. Greed becomes more important than medicine.

 

[deadhand31]

good idea deadhand31, then we can control who lives and who dies by how muc they can afford to pay~ genius in social engineering, survival of the richest! an end to poverty as we know it.

i'll apply that concept to a 2-tiered approach to our military, where we can maintain a government run armed forces for wars we really don't care about, and a privatized one for the really important ones, like the war on drugs and wars to protect us from weapons of mass destruction.

this stuff makes too much sense!

pete

So basically, what you're telling me pete, is that when you compare a government run health care system to a private one, that the private one would be better? I mean, if you really think that the government could do a decent job, you wouldn't be controlling who lives and who dies, would you? You would have nothing to fear, because apparently the government can take care of you. So if the government run care would be so great, why would you have to wory?

As for privatizing the military, why would you do something like that? Do you really want American military intelligence going to people who can't even speak our language efficiently? One problem with outsourcing to foreign countries, you don't get the same quality. Try calling IBM for technical support. Their guys are in india, and the people in their call centers are bleeding retards.

 

[deadhand31]

I agree 100%. If the privatized health care was no longer in place everybody would be able to get great healt care. We have tried privatized health care up here in a few provinces, and it flopped big time. Greed becomes more important than medicine.

Let's take a look at this at how it worked in education. At one point, only the rich could go to private schools. Those who couldn't afford it, had to go to to public schools. Since people had no choice but to be in public schools, there was no need for them to get better.

Then came the vouchers. Schools that had substandard education had their funding reduced, and the students in these schools were given vouchers to go to better, private schools. The private schools ended up giving money back, because they invested less money per student, and got better results. The public schools were now forced to improve without increase in funding. Now people in public schools can get a better education.

Why wouldn't a similar program be acceptable for a socialized health care system? If a government health care system isn't cutting the mustard, then people could be given vouchers to go with a private health care system.

Forcing a person into "one system, one plan" means that plan doesn't have to be great. Our government likes to funnel lots of money into failing social programs that don't work. Until they have a better track record, giving them our well-being sounds pretty bad.

I do have a quick question for Rob, though. I'm not familiar with how things are in Canada. In medical lawsuits, can patients be awarded outrageous sums for malpractice claims?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

So far, every social program that the government has made, it screws up. Take a look at public education. Public schools tend to bring out less results than private schools, while spending more per student.

No. It does not "screw up" every social program. Before the "reform" act, welfare was working pretty well. Not ideally, but it was doing what it was suppossed to do.

I have a hard time believing that public schools, per student, do not spend more per student. I could be wrong here, but I'd like to see some stats on it. Private schools do well for students, and cost an arm and a leg, because SO MUCH money and so many resources are allocated for the kids - teachers I think are paid less at private schools, but salary reductions are made up for in other ways - like free or very low-cost housing on the campus, reduced meal rates for dining in the dining halls, etc.

I don't know if the estimates you are looking at also take into account the huge endowments that private schools get from their alums which support the running of the schools too.

And I'm sorry, but the capitalistic/Social Darwinism perspective behind having HMOs compete hasn't helped the average consumer AT ALL.

 

[Rob Broad]

Education and Health Care are too different animals. Universal Health Care would be a federally run program, and most Education systems are State run. That alone is like comparing elephants and unicorns.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah yes, the fantasy that The Free Market Will Solve Everything. With a few Voucers, Vouchers, Vouchers.

Oh yes, tort reform. Cap awards, ensure companies remain able to write them off as losses. Dump them cases in Federal court, so access becomes harder. Cut the FDA--who cares when the next thalidomide comes along? The losers won't be able to sue! Ha-ha.

It'd be nice, too, to get a few things straight about the history of our educational system, though I don't expect it. What I expect is more self-contradictory fantasy about the Good Old Days, to which we Need To Return, except then we had Public Education, and that was a Bad Thing. Of course, back then we also had segregation, and a system running on the grossly underpaid labor of women; and now we have a system in which people can't afford good schools and good teachers are more and more discouraged, but wotthell.

We could afford to ensure that every kid in this country gets fed, gets decent basic health care, gets a good education, lives in a reasonably-safe neighborhood. We won't do it. We're too frickin' cheap--or rather, we'd rather blow our money on toys like the B-2, idiot adventures like Iraq, and worthless, "security measures." We could do it starting tomorrow. We won't.

Screw people, I say. The market's more important.

 

[Phoenix44]

First of all, the assertion that private is always better than public is false.

Since education was brought up, let's tackle that one first. Private and parochial schools can cherry-pick their students. If you act up or flunk out, you're gone. Public schools must take all comers. You cannot even begin to compare the outcomes or the expense.

Next, health care. Ask ANY doctor what is the easiest health plan to deal with? The most streamlined plan, the most uniform, and one of the best payers? The plan that requires no written referrals, and accepts electronic claims in all cases? The answer is MEDICARE.

Medicare works, and it is GROSSLY unfair that seniors get "the everything card," while younger people must scramble for health care. Medicare should apply to all Americans, but it should be "tweaked," so that everyone gets basic health care, but the taxpayer does not bear the burden for the "mega-workups" that seniors are "entitled" to now.

 

[MisterMike]

I remember when....ok, I don't, but I saw it on the Waltons once, the doctor would come to your home and charge you a basket of eggs for a fever checkup. (OK, I'm stretching it here, but you get the idea).

Private healthcare with service that you cannot compare to today.

I'm sorry, but anything the government has "socialized" has failed. Look at the state of our public schools. I shiver to think what our hospitals would look like after 20 years of MediCare. Uneducated "doctors" performing substandard "treament." What a mix.

I think some of the private doctors have just as much to blame today however. When they can raise their rates so high that is doesn't matter - the insurance companies will pay it anyways, where does that leave the guy without insurance? Doctors who work to maximize profits (not just get a profit) are just as bad as the extortionist insurance companies they have to cater to so they are not bankrupt by the lawyer tapping them on the other shoulder. (Kind of a good reason for lawsuit caps)

The same for the drug companies who can charge exhorbitant prices because they know they insurance companies will pay it.

Dump the whole insurance idea and see where the prices go from here. I bet it's in the downward direction. I also bet people might eat a little healthier knowing that if they go for that 20,000th Big Mac, it's gonna cost THEM a little bit to have their arteries cleaned out.

They might drive a little safer knowing a full body cast and 6 months in bed is gonna cost THEM and not somebody else.

Hopefully then the focus of every doctor will go back to service and not worrying about paying the bills.

Privatized "anything" is going to cost more than Universal (read: Socialist) anything. That's the carrot they're all dangling in front of us. But once you commit, there's no going back. When the service of the hospital is lost in the bureaucratic red tape, people will be screaming for the old ways again.

It will fail. It will be a mess. And then it will cost MORE than anything to fix.

That's my take. I'm just as hopefull as the rest something can be done.

 

[Flatlander]

Privatized "anything" is going to cost more than Universal (read: Socialist) anything. That's the carrot they're all dangling in front of us. But once you commit, there's no going back. When the service of the hospital is lost in the bureaucratic red tape, people will be screaming for the od ways again.

It will fail. It will be a mess. And then it will cost MORE than anything to fix.

That's my take. I'm just as hopefull as the rest something can be done.

If what you're saying here is that a private system will run more efficiently, I can agree with that. Government programs aren't known for their fiscal prudence, particularly when dealing with large scale programs, such as health care. However, in the private system, less care is given to the well being of the patient. It's a business. Get'em in, fix'em, get 'em out, flip a profit, refill the beds. Shareholder value.

I think the ideal system is delivered by government, where spending is controlled rigorously, while the "wellness mission" is not compromised. Spend where there is need. But do not waste. Only in a government program is the focus on the citizen. In the private system, the focus is always the bottom line.

 

[pete]

Do you really want to outsource your military intelligence to foreign countries?

would really like to eliminate it, but heck its a start...

Do you also want to put everyone in our military out of their jobs?.

sorry, i thought those were the jobs "americans" don't really want anyway... like customer service, telemarketing, computer science, engineering, etc.

If someone does not want to be in the army, then they simply don't join. We don't have a draft here.

yet...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, public schools only perform as well as private schools when they are forced to compete.

well, in my neck o' the woods, its the private schools that are shutting their doors 'cause they can't compete with the quality of public schools... now, our proerty taxes are probably the highest in the country, but its significantly less than private school tuition.

Maybe we should introduce a government health care system, without ridding ourselves of the private insurance companies.

sounds like the bil-lary plan... bad idea then, bad idea now. the only good side would be the profits for the insurance companies after the administrative and technical jobs are outsourced to calcutta could improve our newly ousourced "military intelligence".

Our government likes to funnel lots of money into failing social programs that don't work. Until they have a better track record, giving them our well-being sounds pretty bad.

gotta agree with you here... after all the subsidies and sweetheart deals, we still had failures with companies like Enron, etc. and how abut all the personal bankrupcies after giving the largest tax cuts to the richest 2%. from a success perspective, this government has a lot to prove.

We could afford to ensure that every kid in this country gets fed, gets decent basic health care, gets a good education, lives in a reasonably-safe neighborhood.

cool, where do i sign...