So will we finally get Socialized Medicine?

[Zoomie1980]

One solution would be to have tax credits to the families that need the insurance, and tax credits to the insurance companies who would represent them. Keep it in the private industry for maximim affect. The government really would screw it up like social security, and medicare. At this level, it would be suicide for many who would have to depend on our government. In the end, the government really doesn't care about the individual, they prove that everyday. What they do care about is us depending more, and more on them, this is not a good thing.

The secret to funding a full coverage health plan for all is to NOT ALLOW the young and healthy to opt out. If you work, you pay premiums, period, no exception. The problem today is those who do not usually need insurance opt out, all those healthy, single 20 somethings....that has to stop if the country wants universal coverage.

And that coverage has to be a high deductible with HSA, major medical, not full blown PPO we have today. Basically it pays for only CATASTROPHIC maladies, not head colds. That and full coverage for preventative care, like annual physicals and screenings.

Universal coverage is NOT possible without universal PARTICIPATION.

 

[auditor0007]

One solution would be to have tax credits to the families that need the insurance, and tax credits to the insurance companies who would represent them. Keep it in the private industry for maximim affect. The government really would screw it up like social security, and medicare. At this level, it would be suicide for many who would have to depend on our government. In the end, the government really doesn't care about the individual, they prove that everyday. What they do care about is us depending more, and more on them, this is not a good thing.

The secret to funding a full coverage health plan for all is to NOT ALLOW the young and healthy to opt out. If you work, you pay premiums, period, no exception. The problem today is those who do not usually need insurance opt out, all those healthy, single 20 somethings....that has to stop if the country wants universal coverage.

And that coverage has to be a high deductible with HSA, major medical, not full blown PPO we have today. Basically it pays for only CATASTROPHIC maladies, not head colds. That and full coverage for preventative care, like annual physicals and screenings.

Universal coverage is NOT possible without universal PARTICIPATION.

This is the biggest problem that no one wants to discuss. If you want universal coverage, then everyone must be forced to pay for it. No matter what system we have, it is not free.

 

[Meister]

Nothing is free, but the solution I had stated in an earlier post would be the one with the least amount of bruising. It would keep it out of the government hands, and in the private sector. It would run more efficiently, without the wasted money, and the raiding of the funds as the feds have no problem doing. It wouldn't be universal coverage. Just those in need of it. It would be funded through tax credits. Why do people think that a bunch of lawyers could even run healthcare? Yet, that is what they are trying to do. It makes no sense.

 

[Bern80]

First of all, the idea that universal healthcare is free is completely off base. The fact is that everyone pays for it, which is something that doesn't happen with our current system. Under our current system, only those who choose to pay for it, either as a company benefit or by purchasing a private policy, pay for it. Those who do not have insurance coverage get free health care and those of us who do have health insurance pay for those who don't. That is just one of the reasons that we pay double what people throughout the rest of the world pay.

I didn't say it was free. I said it is less expensive, which is kinda the idea I believe.

Last of all, this idea that our quality of care is so much better than countries with universal healthcare is absolute nonsense. All you need to do is look at life expectancy rates. Ours is below almost every other country with universal healthcare.

Really bad analogy. Our life expectancy is not a measure of the quality of our medical services. Life expectancy is a measure of people's behavior far more related to the fact that we are the most obese country in the world than it is quality of care.

And here is the kicker. With universal healthcare, the idea to make someone healthy again, as soon as possible, is the goal, because a healthy person reduces the cost of healthcare. With our system, doctors and hospitals compete for more and more business. It is the way they make money; the more the merrier. So keeping someone sick is beneficial to doctors and hospitals. I'm not saying every doctor and hospital tries to keep people sick, but they will look for any possible thing they can to charge for. In many cases, they run one unnecessary test after another to pad their bills. Healthcare is one business where saving the patient money is not the way to increase one's business. Therefore, the idea of competition does not reduce costs as it does in other markets of a free society.

Except it is unlikely it will accomplish that goal. UHC will not be preventative. 1) because of how inneffectual our government is at anything 2) because supply and demand says when something costs less it will be used more. People say supply and demand does not apply to health care, yet the whole idea of universal healthcare is that more people are able to use it. So you have to accept as a given that there will be greater demand on the system. Because we have a more expensive system some who can afford it are able to take preventative measures. the policies of many companies actually encourage it. IN UHC presumably the way things would have to be priortized is on the basis of need. I fail to see how that can be preventative in nature.