The Government and Universal Healthcare

[DiamondDave]

3) You are personally responsible for your own care. You want it, pay for it or agree to work a job that subsidizes it in your benefits... if not.. too bad, too sad
and the list goes on

So I guess in your world the level of healthcare you receive depends on what kind of job you can hold. If you're a janitor we'll treat you for mild diseases and accidents...want a triple bypass...get a better job. If you're a middle manager you can have a triple bypass but need a kidney transplant and tough shit. But if your a CEO, hey whatever you want sir, we're just here to serve you and the dollars you "make." Which system leads to slavery again...

Guess in your world.. you are owed something by the world or those around you

Taking care of your own responsibility, and advancing for the things you want or need does not lead to slavery... but nice attempt at a leap into the ridiculous

 

[DiamondDave]

I think they should have health care, and I think the retired military personnel should have as well. I also think we should all have it...the military healthcare system is one of those government programs that work and there is no reason to exclude the rest of America from it.

There are PLENTY of reasons

1) The rest of America is not fucking employed by the military as soldiers...
2) More security in the military requires a separate system of care and emergency treatment
3) You are personally responsible for your own care. You want it, pay for it or agree to work a job that subsidizes it in your benefits... if not.. too bad, too sad
and the list goes on

You want it.. .fucking enlist

I've no desire to take any benefits away from the military. You're reasons make no sense to me. All Americans by virtue of being Americans should have the same access to good health care. I looked around a bit and it seems military personnel get breaks on all kinds of insurance, life, health, car, homeowner...too funny. You know the REST of us pay for this, too, there's nothing in the constitution that elevates one group above the rest.

Nobody.. citizen of this country or any other is OWED a goddamn thing

You have the same access to even better health care coverage... open up your purse and fucking pay for it if you feel you want or need it

 

[Ravi]

There are PLENTY of reasons

1) The rest of America is not fucking employed by the military as soldiers...
2) More security in the military requires a separate system of care and emergency treatment
3) You are personally responsible for your own care. You want it, pay for it or agree to work a job that subsidizes it in your benefits... if not.. too bad, too sad
and the list goes on

You want it.. .fucking enlist

I've no desire to take any benefits away from the military. You're reasons make no sense to me. All Americans by virtue of being Americans should have the same access to good health care. I looked around a bit and it seems military personnel get breaks on all kinds of insurance, life, health, car, homeowner...too funny. You know the REST of us pay for this, too, there's nothing in the constitution that elevates one group above the rest.

Nobody.. citizen of this country or any other is OWED a goddamn thing

You have the same access to even better health care coverage... open up your purse and fucking pay for it if you feel you want or need it

So you think the military shouldn't get it? How about retired military personnel?

 

[smb15]

Guess in your world.. you are owed something by the world or those around you

Taking care of your own responsibility, and advancing for the things you want or need does not lead to slavery... but nice attempt at a leap into the ridiculous

The only thing that is ridiculous is the notion that healthcare should be rationed by a persons ability to pay. Taking care of your own responsibility as you define it does lead to a slavery of sorts. This is called wage slavery. It has its own stifling effects on economic conditions and can and has led to civil strife. I do not believe I nor anyone else is "owed" anything. We have a society. A society by its very definition is a group of people banded together by common principles and purpose. Two of the things that keeps a society from disintigrating is growth and stability. Having the society take the responsibility for the health and welfare of its constituents is a natural course for a society to take in that it promotes both growth and stability. Therefore it is a natural progression of a society, if it wants to survive and/or thrive, for that society to provide for the health and welfare of its constituents. This leads to neither slavery nor true socialism and in fact helps prevent either situation from developing in a society.

 

[Meister]

Should government employees have to use the same helathcare system as the people?

Will they?

Which government employees did you have in mind when you wrote this? Rank and file civil servants, like postal workers, or members of Congress? Because I can pretty much guarantee you that everyday Joe Schmoes who just happen to work for the USPS or the border patrol or your local federal prison will be in the same boat, heading up You-Know-Which Creek with the rest of us, and Congressman or Senator Blowhard will be exempt from it, as they are from so much else that they inflict on the public.

i think elected officials should have to use the same system they expect everyone else to

This would be the only way that would insure the healthcare service would work properly. If universal healthcare ever comes to pass, I would need to start praying for the elderly people. Government will pick and choose what treatment would be affordable, or not. I assure you it won't be in the best interest of the patient.

 

[smb15]

Which government employees did you have in mind when you wrote this? Rank and file civil servants, like postal workers, or members of Congress? Because I can pretty much guarantee you that everyday Joe Schmoes who just happen to work for the USPS or the border patrol or your local federal prison will be in the same boat, heading up You-Know-Which Creek with the rest of us, and Congressman or Senator Blowhard will be exempt from it, as they are from so much else that they inflict on the public.

i think elected officials should have to use the same system they expect everyone else to

This would be the only way that would insure the healthcare service would work properly. If universal healthcare ever comes to pass, I would need to start praying for the elderly people. Government will pick and choose what treatment would be affordable, or not. I assure you it won't be in the best interest of the patient.

This precisely the opposite of what would happen. Right now under our current "system" this is already occurring. Medical care is being denied or rationed based on a persons ability to pay, or at least ability to pay an insurance company. Under a universal healthcare single payer system or a socialized medicine system the care is, or can/should be, rationed based on medical need. While your it right that you should be concerned about what type of universal healthcare is passed (to ensure that it is rationed on medical need and not financial means), you should already be praying for the elderly. Because under our current "system" rationing occurs and it occurs based on ability to pay.

 

[DiveCon]

i think elected officials should have to use the same system they expect everyone else to

This would be the only way that would insure the healthcare service would work properly. If universal healthcare ever comes to pass, I would need to start praying for the elderly people. Government will pick and choose what treatment would be affordable, or not. I assure you it won't be in the best interest of the patient.

This precisely the opposite of what would happen. Right now under our current "system" this is already occurring. Medical care is being denied or rationed based on a persons ability to pay, or at least ability to pay an insurance company. Under a universal healthcare single payer system or a socialized medicine system the care is, or can/should be, rationed based on medical need. While your it right that you should be concerned about what type of universal healthcare is passed (to ensure that it is rationed on medical need and not financial means), you should already be praying for the elderly. Because under our current "system" rationing occurs and it occurs based on ability to pay.

no, it occures based on the insurance coverage you contracted for

 

[smb15]

This would be the only way that would insure the healthcare service would work properly. If universal healthcare ever comes to pass, I would need to start praying for the elderly people. Government will pick and choose what treatment would be affordable, or not. I assure you it won't be in the best interest of the patient.

This precisely the opposite of what would happen. Right now under our current "system" this is already occurring. Medical care is being denied or rationed based on a persons ability to pay, or at least ability to pay an insurance company. Under a universal healthcare single payer system or a socialized medicine system the care is, or can/should be, rationed based on medical need. While your it right that you should be concerned about what type of universal healthcare is passed (to ensure that it is rationed on medical need and not financial means), you should already be praying for the elderly. Because under our current "system" rationing occurs and it occurs based on ability to pay.

no, it occures based on the insurance coverage you contracted for

And what is the decisive factor on what kind of insurence coverage you've contracted for...dollars, i.e. care rationed by ability to pay.

 

[DiveCon]

This precisely the opposite of what would happen. Right now under our current "system" this is already occurring. Medical care is being denied or rationed based on a persons ability to pay, or at least ability to pay an insurance company. Under a universal healthcare single payer system or a socialized medicine system the care is, or can/should be, rationed based on medical need. While your it right that you should be concerned about what type of universal healthcare is passed (to ensure that it is rationed on medical need and not financial means), you should already be praying for the elderly. Because under our current "system" rationing occurs and it occurs based on ability to pay.

no, it occures based on the insurance coverage you contracted for

And what is the decisive factor on what kind of insurence coverage you've contracted for...dollars, i.e. care rationed by ability to pay.

thats better than what you seem to be advocating

 

[smb15]

thats better than what you seem to be advocating

So you would rather have a system in which healthcare is rationed based on the ability of someone to pay rather than medical need? That hardly seems to be logical position.

 

[DiveCon]

thats better than what you seem to be advocating

So you would rather have a system in which healthcare is rationed based on the ability of someone to pay rather than medical need? That hardly seems to be logical position.

and you'd rather have one where someone with no medical training at all is making the choice?

and i just told you, its not based on "ability to pay" but on the contract for coverage you have
there is a difference

 

[toomuchtime_]

This precisely the opposite of what would happen. Right now under our current "system" this is already occurring. Medical care is being denied or rationed based on a persons ability to pay, or at least ability to pay an insurance company. Under a universal healthcare single payer system or a socialized medicine system the care is, or can/should be, rationed based on medical need. While your it right that you should be concerned about what type of universal healthcare is passed (to ensure that it is rationed on medical need and not financial means), you should already be praying for the elderly. Because under our current "system" rationing occurs and it occurs based on ability to pay.

no, it occures based on the insurance coverage you contracted for

And what is the decisive factor on what kind of insurence coverage you've contracted for...dollars, i.e. care rationed by ability to pay.

Just as insurance companies limit services to control costs, if you have national health insurance or even an national health service, as the UK does, the government will try to control costs in part by limiting covered services, and those who can afford to pay for those services on their own will get them and those who can't afford to pay, won't get them.

 

[Meister]

no, it occures based on the insurance coverage you contracted for

And what is the decisive factor on what kind of insurence coverage you've contracted for...dollars, i.e. care rationed by ability to pay.

Just as insurance companies limit services to control costs, if you have national health insurance or even an national health service, as the UK does, the government will try to control costs in part by limiting covered services, and those who can afford to pay for those services on their own will get them and those who can't afford to pay, won't get them.

Good point, Toomuch. One thing I have been reading about is how people in socialized healthcare that have the $$$$, come over here for our healthcare. If socialized healthcare is better than ours, this wouldn't be happening. I have always said that if I have a cold or a broken leg, socialized healthcare would be just fine, but if I need a transplant, or have cancer....I want the free market healthcare, because I'm going to die without it.

 

[smb15]

thats better than what you seem to be advocating

So you would rather have a system in which healthcare is rationed based on the ability of someone to pay rather than medical need? That hardly seems to be logical position.

and you'd rather have one where someone with no medical training at all is making the choice?

and i just told you, its not based on "ability to pay" but on the contract for coverage you have
there is a difference

And as I have told you, a persons ability to contract for healthcare insurance is directly related to what they can afford. Your so called difference is hardly that.

Who stated that it would be someone with no medical training making those decisions. Like I stated earlier, it is important to pay attention what type of universal healthcare they (elected officials) are putting forward. The types of universal healthcare and the ways in which they ration care are numerous and diverse as the population. It is important that they pass a universal healthcare that is not means tested and is rationed on medical need, i.e. medical doctors determining rationing rather than insurance officials or government officials.

 

[smb15]

no, it occures based on the insurance coverage you contracted for

And what is the decisive factor on what kind of insurence coverage you've contracted for...dollars, i.e. care rationed by ability to pay.

Just as insurance companies limit services to control costs, if you have national health insurance or even an national health service, as the UK does, the government will try to control costs in part by limiting covered services, and those who can afford to pay for those services on their own will get them and those who can't afford to pay, won't get them.

Of course they will ration care. I have never stated otherwise. Healthcare has to be rationed. What is of importance is how that rationing takes place. Is it means tested rationing, bureaucratic rationing, insurance company rationing or medical need rationing. Under the current "system" that exists we have both means rationing and insurance company rationing. I would ask what difference does it make whether or not a government official or an insurance company official denies your care? Under a properly erected system of single payer, non-means tested universal healthcare, policies can be made that use medical needs to ration care rather than economic means.

 

[Chris]

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

 

[DiveCon]

So you would rather have a system in which healthcare is rationed based on the ability of someone to pay rather than medical need? That hardly seems to be logical position.

and you'd rather have one where someone with no medical training at all is making the choice?

and i just told you, its not based on "ability to pay" but on the contract for coverage you have
there is a difference

And as I have told you, a persons ability to contract for healthcare insurance is directly related to what they can afford. Your so called difference is hardly that.

Who stated that it would be someone with no medical training making those decisions. Like I stated earlier, it is important to pay attention what type of universal healthcare they (elected officials) are putting forward. The types of universal healthcare and the ways in which they ration care are numerous and diverse as the population. It is important that they pass a universal healthcare that is not means tested and is rationed on medical need, i.e. medical doctors determining rationing rather than insurance officials or government officials.

and you are wrong
the contrct is usually negotiated between the insurance company and a persons employer
and is not based on the individuals ability to pay

 

[Chris]

and you'd rather have one where someone with no medical training at all is making the choice?

and i just told you, its not based on "ability to pay" but on the contract for coverage you have
there is a difference

And as I have told you, a persons ability to contract for healthcare insurance is directly related to what they can afford. Your so called difference is hardly that.

Who stated that it would be someone with no medical training making those decisions. Like I stated earlier, it is important to pay attention what type of universal healthcare they (elected officials) are putting forward. The types of universal healthcare and the ways in which they ration care are numerous and diverse as the population. It is important that they pass a universal healthcare that is not means tested and is rationed on medical need, i.e. medical doctors determining rationing rather than insurance officials or government officials.

and you are wrong
the contrct is usually negotiated between the insurance company and a persons employer
and is not based on the individuals ability to pay

You must of never worked in the private sector.

Most employers pay part of insurance premiums, but they still take a lot of the payment out of your pay.

 

[Meister]

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

There are solutuons that have been put on the table that would insure those who have not. Get this Chris, it's done in the private sector, at a cost far less than what your lawyer run universal healthcare system. With tax credits, for insurance companies, and tax credits to the families that need to be insured. The government is part of the solution, not the solution.

 

[smb15]

and you'd rather have one where someone with no medical training at all is making the choice?

and i just told you, its not based on "ability to pay" but on the contract for coverage you have
there is a difference

And as I have told you, a persons ability to contract for healthcare insurance is directly related to what they can afford. Your so called difference is hardly that.

Who stated that it would be someone with no medical training making those decisions. Like I stated earlier, it is important to pay attention what type of universal healthcare they (elected officials) are putting forward. The types of universal healthcare and the ways in which they ration care are numerous and diverse as the population. It is important that they pass a universal healthcare that is not means tested and is rationed on medical need, i.e. medical doctors determining rationing rather than insurance officials or government officials.

and you are wrong
the contrct is usually negotiated between the insurance company and a persons employer
and is not based on the individuals ability to pay

That is only partially true. The company usually negotiates with the insurance company on a RANGE of coverage and then they leave what exact coverage an employee wants up to the individual employee. Every year we must run through the new insurance coverages from our companies and determine what fits our needs based on how much the differing policies cost us. We then decide what alternative coverage we are going to get, medical savings accounts or private supplemental coverage. This is all based on what an individual CAN AFFORD. This isn't a difficult concept and is one that every employee in America has to deal with every year. It is primarily based on what an INDIVIDUAL can afford. Your company can offer crap coverage and as long as you make enough money you buy supplemental coverage to cover the gaps, i.e. your level of coverage is BASED ON WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD TO PAY.