The Government and Universal Healthcare

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What would you LIKE it rationed by? Someone else's determination of whether or not you deserve it? Because I really doubt you want me, for example, deciding whether or not you are valuable enough to society to warrant medical care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It's completely logical when you realize that self-pay means that YOU are the person determining the level of your medical need, not some bureaucrat who doesn't give a rat's ass whether you live or die or what kind of life you have.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Use your head for something other than separating your ears, please. It's only logical that if you shift the burden of payment to the government, you're giving the deciding vote in your healthcare to the government. Who actually does the work of the government? Bureaucrats. Which means some bureaucrat, who certainly does not have medical training, is going to decide what healthcare you get on the government's dime. It happens with insurance companies now, because they have a bunch of bean-counters deciding what they will and won't pay for, and it'll happen in spades with the government, which can out-bureaucracy any private business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I do not understand why you are so sanguine about the idea of letting someone else, let alone a civil servant of any type, decide your "medical need". And if you really believe the benevolent Nanny Government is going to let YOU decide what you need medically on THEIR dollar, your first socialized medical expenditure needs to be for a psychiatrist.

 

[johnrocks]

Where is the great example for UHC?

France? A Closer Look at the French Health Care System - KCPW It's true we really have good access, but what if the system is not sustainable anymore?" says Teil. "It's going to break. It's going to blow. And then no more accessibility for anybody."

Tiel says the cost of France's socialized health care is growing faster than its economy. Workers pay about fifty percent of their paycheck each month into healthcare, retirement and unemployment and more companies are outsourcing jobs to avoid those costs. Quality of care also suffers in France, says Teil, because hospitals and doctors resist government requirements to report their success and failures.

"Providers think that if the government sets new measures, it's just to control them and take away resources," says Teil. "With a system with no transparency like in France - when you don't have these measures - you don't have any incentives to be the best. Because nobody will know anyway that you're the best."

By contrast, Tiel says privately-owned hospitals in the U.S. are motivated to measure and report their quality of care, which leads to better care.

Great Britain? Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report | Society | The Guardian

Canada? Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
globeandmail.com: National
Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
globeandmail.com: National

Australia? Public patients wait longer for surgery
Public patients wait longer for surgery - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

Where's this Utopia at?

 

[DiveCon]

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.

I do not understand why you are so sanguine about the idea of letting someone else, let alone a civil servant of any type, decide your "medical need". And if you really believe the benevolent Nanny Government is going to let YOU decide what you need medically on THEIR dollar, your first socialized medical expenditure needs to be for a psychiatrist.

i'd be willing to be he doesnt know anyone on medicare

 

[Meister]

Where is the great example for UHC?

France? A Closer Look at the French Health Care System - KCPW It's true we really have good access, but what if the system is not sustainable anymore?" says Teil. "It's going to break. It's going to blow. And then no more accessibility for anybody."

Tiel says the cost of France's socialized health care is growing faster than its economy. Workers pay about fifty percent of their paycheck each month into healthcare, retirement and unemployment and more companies are outsourcing jobs to avoid those costs. Quality of care also suffers in France, says Teil, because hospitals and doctors resist government requirements to report their success and failures.

"Providers think that if the government sets new measures, it's just to control them and take away resources," says Teil. "With a system with no transparency like in France - when you don't have these measures - you don't have any incentives to be the best. Because nobody will know anyway that you're the best."

By contrast, Tiel says privately-owned hospitals in the U.S. are motivated to measure and report their quality of care, which leads to better care.

Great Britain? Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report | Society | The Guardian

Canada? Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
globeandmail.com: National
Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
globeandmail.com: National

Australia? Public patients wait longer for surgery
Public patients wait longer for surgery - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

Where's this Utopia at?

That's what I thought. Thank you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nice attempt at trying to twist what I said

Did I say the military does not deserve the employee contracted benefit they receive?

Nope

The military does pay for their benefit... thru their service

And the retired, just as other retired persons from other professions and companies, take advantage of the benefits they were offered as compensation by their employer... paid for by their service

You and other citizens are not owed this benefit afforded to those who earned that benefit, when you do nothing but exist as a citizen

As stated SO many times.. you want a benefit, pay for it.. choose an employer that provides that as compensation for service... if you don't have the skillset to obtain it now, obtain that skillset yourself to be able to demand that benefit compensation... but nobody and no government OWES that to you

That's bullshit. Without me and millions of other private taxpayers, the military would have no benefits. It doesn't matter if they earned it or not, we as a society choose to give it to them. We could just as easily choose not to...so what you are doing is creating a class of people that are more priveleged than everyone else...and it's the military...how Stalinesque.

then it wouldnt be a part of their pay package, would it?
as it is NOW, they EARN it

The twits on this board whose heads you are attempting to beat sense into might also want to consider that for the military, providing medical care to its members is also like providing mechanics to repair and maintain their tanks and airplanes: service members are valuable pieces of equipment upon which the military spends a lot of money, and they are of no use if they are not repaired and maintained.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A National Health care system is a Socialist conspiracy. Giving Banks and other Corporations trillions of taxpayer dollars is capitalism.

Oh, yeah. Because it was definitely the same people who object to socialized medicine who were clamoring for bank and corporate bailouts.

Moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A road is not your PERSONAL responsibility... Neither is the guiding of an airliner thru airspace.... Those are parts of INFRASTRUCTURE and done not just for the collective benefit of society, but to expand the power of the country

Whether you go get a colonoscopy, or a VD test, is on YOUR personal responsibility... it is YOUR body, not society's body... it is YOUR health, not society's health

Nobody is refused access to a public road or sidewalk or other things on PUBLIC land.. your BODY and your PERSONAL status is NOT FUCKING PUBLIC DOMAIN....

Again... you want specific care and coverage FOR YOUR SELF... YOU FUCKING PAY FOR It

Ignorant socialist ignorance

So if someone disagrees with you they're ignorant? Thats a good debate point!?

Just like a road, an effective police force and air safety measures; a effective healthcare system IS an infrastructure item. The ability of a society to ensure the health and viability of their citizens is DIRECTLY related to whether a society thrives or fails. As far as being socialism...pfft. A national healthcare system aids in capital markets it doesn't detract from it.

He probably covered this in a later post, but I feel compelled to respond anyway.

I believe Dive's point was that anyone who can't see the difference between things which are public domain - ie. things used by the public in general, like roads - and things which are NOT public domain - ie. your own body, which is hopefully not being used by the public in general - is ignorant. And since you were the one erroneously drawing parallels between road-building and your personal health, well . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if someone disagrees with you they're ignorant? Thats a good debate point!?

Just like a road, an effective police force and air safety measures; a effective healthcare system IS an infrastructure item. The ability of a society to ensure the health and viability of their citizens is DIRECTLY related to whether a society thrives or fails. As far as being socialism...pfft. A national healthcare system aids in capital markets it doesn't detract from it.

I guess your definition of infrastructure is the difference between a Capitalist, and a Socialist.

When you have something that is vital for both the commercial success, stability of, security of and overall success of a society then it is natural for the society, as a whole, to ensure that that something is managed well. The government, being the only entity directly representative and accountable to the society, is the best agent for this management. This is not socialist. I support a single payer national healthcare system because I am a capatilist. In order for our capital markets to be competitive, stable with a vital, able workforce a national healthcare system is a necessity. I believe a single payer system with either a public trust NGO non-profit or the government itself managing the system is the best, most manageable and most responsive to the public and therefore the best entity to manage such a system. I support national healthcare precisely because I am a capitalist not because I am a socialist.

Would it shock you to know that your good health is not in any way whatsoever vital to me? That, in fact, it would require the invention of new technology to make me care even less than I already do whether you, personally, live or die?

I'm not actually trying to be mean here. I'm just trying to knock you out of your narcissism and realize that just because YOU think you are the center of the universe, and therefore your good health is of public concern, this does not make it so.

 

[johnrocks]

Where is the great example for UHC?

France? A Closer Look at the French Health Care System - KCPW It's true we really have good access, but what if the system is not sustainable anymore?" says Teil. "It's going to break. It's going to blow. And then no more accessibility for anybody."

Tiel says the cost of France's socialized health care is growing faster than its economy. Workers pay about fifty percent of their paycheck each month into healthcare, retirement and unemployment and more companies are outsourcing jobs to avoid those costs. Quality of care also suffers in France, says Teil, because hospitals and doctors resist government requirements to report their success and failures.

"Providers think that if the government sets new measures, it's just to control them and take away resources," says Teil. "With a system with no transparency like in France - when you don't have these measures - you don't have any incentives to be the best. Because nobody will know anyway that you're the best."

By contrast, Tiel says privately-owned hospitals in the U.S. are motivated to measure and report their quality of care, which leads to better care.

Great Britain? Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report | Society | The Guardian

Canada? Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
globeandmail.com: National
Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
globeandmail.com: National

Australia? Public patients wait longer for surgery
Public patients wait longer for surgery - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

Where's this Utopia at?

That's what I thought. Thank you.

yw, free market is by far the best. I pay like $50 office visits to an old fashioned free market doc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

EDITEC,

I have never demanded "that they too get screwed". I am simply stating what I believe to be fact and that is that a Government Pension be it Military or otherwise is no different than government welfare. A rose is a rose, and welfare is welfare.

Possibly you could get yourself a dictionary and then get someone educated and literate to look up the word "welfare" and read you the definition.

Just because something comes from the government does not make it welfare. This would include salaries and the various benefits employers routinely offer employees in order to entice them into taking the job. These things are earned, which makes them the exact opposite of welfare.

Members of the US military are employees of the government, not wards of the state as welfare recipients are. They (the military, that is) receive money in exchange for their work. This is called "getting paid".

They also receive health insurance through the military. This is because other prospective employers, for whom those service members might also consider working, offer these benefits. If the military did not offer health insurance, they would not be able to compete effectively for quality employees with all of the other prospective employers.

The US military also offers pensions to those service members who choose to make a career out of military service, as opposed to simply completing one term of enlistment. This is because training military personnel is expensive and time-consuming, and it is to the military's benefit if they can convince trained personnel to stick around and continue using their knowledge and experience to the military's benefit. Thus, a pension would also be considered "getting paid".

This completes today's seminar on "Economics 101: The Science of Employment".

 

[Agnapostate]

This completes today's seminar on "Economics 101: The Science of Employment".

Please, Cesspoolie. You don't know anything about economics or employment issues.

Why don't you explain the relation of efficiency wages to principal-agent problems for me?

 

[Cecilie1200]

EDITEC,

I have never demanded "that they too get screwed". I am simply stating what I believe to be fact and that is that a Government Pension be it Military or otherwise is no different than government welfare. A rose is a rose, and welfare is welfare.

So your suggestion is that the government set up retirement accounts for all federal/military employees as 401K's? The government would increase all their salaries a little and then match funds dollar for dollar? That could be workable. Then make the individuals vested after ten years, so everyone has a little something. Also, this would resolve the problem of early retirement as these people would be penalized for any early withdrawal of their funds.

The government could probably find a way to include members of the military in the TSP program they currently offer to other government employees such as postal workers. It's essentially an investment program similar to a 401(k).

 

[Yukon]

So does it pay to be a union member? Clearly it does. Union members enjoy better wages, better benefits and increased job security. But the biggest benefit is the strength that comes from solidarity. Unlike non-union workers, unionized workers are not alone when they have grievances; they're not alone when they file claims; and they're not alone when they raise health and safety concerns.

Union representation also means that you are more likely to have a dental and health care plan at your workplace, coverage for sickness or accidents, and a pension plan to which your employer contributes.

For example, 83% of unionized employees are covered by a pension plan compared to just 33% of non-union workers. Unionized workers generally have better paid vacation leave than non-union employees (84% compared to 65%).

The same gap exists for health care benefits such as dental plan coverage (77% to 45%) and supplemental health care plans (84% for unionized compared to 45% for non-union).

 

[johnrocks]

Coupling employment with health insurance and retirement was not a good move when it started , we can see the results now of why it's a bad idea.

 

[smb15]

Which means some bureaucrat, who certainly does not have medical training, is going to decide what healthcare you get on the government's dime. It happens with insurance companies now, because they have a bunch of bean-counters deciding what they will and won't pay for, and it'll happen in spades with the government, which can out-bureaucracy any private business.

This is just irrational, unsubtantiated fear. You state that in a government run national healthcare system that it would be the bureaucrats dictating what level of care you recieve. This is nonsense. A system can be and has been disigned in other places that prevents that exact kind of interference. You ask me to use my head for something more than to seperate my ears? I ask you to use your head for something other than a repository for every fear mongering, emotional appeal laden crap that is put out as talking points.

Would it shock you to know that your good health is not in any way whatsoever vital to me? That, in fact, it would require the invention of new technology to make me care even less than I already do whether you, personally, live or die?

I'm not actually trying to be mean here. I'm just trying to knock you out of your narcissism and realize that just because YOU think you are the center of the universe, and therefore your good health is of public concern, this does not make it so.

I would suggest you reread what I wrote or else find a good book on reading comprehension. This isn't about me, are you really that daft? This is about the labor force. A healthy stable labor force is absolutely vital to the success of capital markets. A national healthcare system provides a healthy labor pool which is more stable and it has the added benefit of saving the cost that the companies would otherwise be forced to foot in order to ensure that healthy stable labor. Good God this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!

He probably covered this in a later post, but I feel compelled to respond anyway.

I believe Dive's point was that anyone who can't see the difference between things which are public domain - ie. things used by the public in general, like roads - and things which are NOT public domain - ie. your own body, which is hopefully not being used by the public in general - is ignorant. And since you were the one erroneously drawing parallels between road-building and your personal health, well . . .

And again...yawn...I have explained why I think that the healthcare system is a matter of public use. Neither you nor DiverDave have offered any logical reason, other than unfounded, fear laiden talking points to refute this.

i'd be willing to be he doesnt know anyone on medicare

You'd lose...big suprise.

Where is the great example for UHC?

France? A Closer Look at the French Health Care System - KCPW It's true we really have good access, but what if the system is not sustainable anymore?" says Teil. "It's going to break. It's going to blow. And then no more accessibility for anybody."

Tiel says the cost of France's socialized health care is growing faster than its economy. Workers pay about fifty percent of their paycheck each month into healthcare, retirement and unemployment and more companies are outsourcing jobs to avoid those costs. Quality of care also suffers in France, says Teil, because hospitals and doctors resist government requirements to report their success and failures.

"Providers think that if the government sets new measures, it's just to control them and take away resources," says Teil. "With a system with no transparency like in France - when you don't have these measures - you don't have any incentives to be the best. Because nobody will know anyway that you're the best."

By contrast, Tiel says privately-owned hospitals in the U.S. are motivated to measure and report their quality of care, which leads to better care.

Great Britain? Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report | Society | The Guardian

Canada? Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
globeandmail.com: National
Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
globeandmail.com: National

Australia? Public patients wait longer for surgery
Public patients wait longer for surgery - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

Where's this Utopia at?

Who seeks utopia? How about just a logical functioning system that is both cost effective and well managed. Far from utopia. a few points on your little story board here. First, you can find patients delayed for surgery all over the U.S. sometimes for no other reason than nice junket to good to pass up came up. Second, you can go to any major city newspaper and find multiple stories about how a particular hospital in that city is killing their heart patients due to malpractice, this means absolutely nothing. Third, every time I get into a debate about universal healthcare the same old arguments appear, not the least of which is the just wait 10 years when the system is bankrupt, just wait you'll see. That argument has been made since many of the European countries turned to national healthcare. You can find arguments similar to this from about oh...1948 on. Just wait another 10 years when the system bankrupts...pfft.

 

[DiveCon]

thos is one of the problems with the multi-quote button


i highly doubt you really do, cause if you did, you wouldnt want ANYONE on it

 

[Meister]

Which means some bureaucrat, who certainly does not have medical training, is going to decide what healthcare you get on the government's dime. It happens with insurance companies now, because they have a bunch of bean-counters deciding what they will and won't pay for, and it'll happen in spades with the government, which can out-bureaucracy any private business.

This is just irrational, unsubtantiated fear. You state that in a government run national healthcare system that it would be the bureaucrats dictating what level of care you recieve. This is nonsense. A system can be and has been disigned in other places that prevents that exact kind of interference. You ask me to use my head for something more than to seperate my ears? I ask you to use your head for something other than a repository for every fear mongering, emotional appeal laden crap that is put out as talking points.

Would it shock you to know that your good health is not in any way whatsoever vital to me? That, in fact, it would require the invention of new technology to make me care even less than I already do whether you, personally, live or die?

I'm not actually trying to be mean here. I'm just trying to knock you out of your narcissism and realize that just because YOU think you are the center of the universe, and therefore your good health is of public concern, this does not make it so.

I would suggest you reread what I wrote or else find a good book on reading comprehension. This isn't about me, are you really that daft? This is about the labor force. A healthy stable labor force is absolutely vital to the success of capital markets. A national healthcare system provides a healthy labor pool which is more stable and it has the added benefit of saving the cost that the companies would otherwise be forced to foot in order to ensure that healthy stable labor. Good God this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!



And again...yawn...I have explained why I think that the healthcare system is a matter of public use. Neither you nor DiverDave have offered any logical reason, other than unfounded, fear laiden talking points to refute this.

i'd be willing to be he doesnt know anyone on medicare

You'd lose...big suprise.

Where is the great example for UHC?

France? A Closer Look at the French Health Care System - KCPW It's true we really have good access, but what if the system is not sustainable anymore?" says Teil. "It's going to break. It's going to blow. And then no more accessibility for anybody."

Tiel says the cost of France's socialized health care is growing faster than its economy. Workers pay about fifty percent of their paycheck each month into healthcare, retirement and unemployment and more companies are outsourcing jobs to avoid those costs. Quality of care also suffers in France, says Teil, because hospitals and doctors resist government requirements to report their success and failures.

"Providers think that if the government sets new measures, it's just to control them and take away resources," says Teil. "With a system with no transparency like in France - when you don't have these measures - you don't have any incentives to be the best. Because nobody will know anyway that you're the best."

By contrast, Tiel says privately-owned hospitals in the U.S. are motivated to measure and report their quality of care, which leads to better care.

Great Britain? Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report | Society | The Guardian

Canada? Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
globeandmail.com: National
Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
globeandmail.com: National

Australia? Public patients wait longer for surgery
Public patients wait longer for surgery - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

Where's this Utopia at?

Who seeks utopia? How about just a logical functioning system that is both cost effective and well managed. Far from utopia. a few points on your little story board here. First, you can find patients delayed for surgery all over the U.S. sometimes for no other reason than nice junket to good to pass up came up. Second, you can go to any major city newspaper and find multiple stories about how a particular hospital in that city is killing their heart patients due to malpractice, this means absolutely nothing. Third, every time I get into a debate about universal healthcare the same old arguments appear, not the least of which is the just wait 10 years when the system is bankrupt, just wait you'll see. That argument has been made since many of the European countries turned to national healthcare. You can find arguments similar to this from about oh...1948 on. Just wait another 10 years when the system bankrupts...pfft.

You never did address the questions I presented to you. They were fair questions. I'm assuming that your not ignorant..maybe just a little oversite.