The Government and Universal Healthcare

[smb15]

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.

Definitely an oversight. I am not certain which questions you speak of. Can you repeat them or at least point me to where they are in the thread?

 

[Meister]

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.

Definitely an oversight. I am not certain which questions you speak of. Can you repeat them or at least point me to where they are in the thread?

Post #118

 

[smb15]

Could you tell me just how much your universal healthcare is going to cost? Can you tell me if i'm going to be forced to pay through taxes for this socialist venture? If I am going to be forced to pay, could you tell me how much? Also, will you guarantee that these costs are fixed, and won't be going up as we fail in this venture? I just want to know because I will be paying for my own insurance, also. I need to know how much my finacial freedom is going to suffer, because of your so called worthy cause.

If you've have read my posts you would know that I am not advocating any one particular system but the concept in general. First, I would take umberage with characterization as a socialist system, but alas that is just symantics. Second, because there is no system designed or even studied, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, your specific questions as to cost are moot with the exception that would be a given, a national healthcare system would be more cost effective and cheaper than our current "system." As to whether or not costs will be fixed, of course they won't be. No costs in any system are fixed. This question is ridiculous in its very premise. Yes, you would be forced to pay, at least partially, for this system, without universal shared costs it really wouldn't be a universal health system would it?

 

[Ravi]

Someone already does decide if you get the care you need...some clerk at the insurance company.

My father, on medicare, had no issues with getting the treatment he needed so that kills that argument.

Do veterans have a problem with clerks at the VHA deciding what care they get or do the doctors decide?

In all matters of health, the care should be decided by the doctor and the patient...seems easy enough to make that part of any healthcare system. Sure, some doctors will scam the system but thems the breaks.

 

[Gunny]

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).

Yep it sure does. Those "better wages" disappear the second you pay your dues. I take home more than a union employee and their benefits are marginal at best. They only bid huge jobs because nothing else will cover their overhead.

And I like it fine that some holier-than-thou, mediocre nitwit's grievance about ahving to actually put on his tools and work doesn't force me to not work because "Big Brother" decides it is so.

That's not to mention most union employees around here are riding the pine. Why you might ask? Illegal immigrants broke their asses.

Why screw around? Join the mob. At least they are honest about who and what they are and the pay's a lot better.

 

[Gunny]

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 aren't actually wondering how people could be skeptical of ANY government social program becoming just another part of the ever-growing fat-tick bureaucracy with mediocre services while the only ones making out are the clock-punching bureaucrats?

Because THAT never happens here.

Methinks anyone that cannot differentiate between the reality of what universal healthcare would be and their idealism shouldn't be allowed to vote and force normal people to suffer for their stupidity.

 

[smb15]

You aren't actually wondering how people could be skeptical of ANY government social program becoming just another part of the ever-growing fat-tick bureaucracy with mediocre services while the only ones making out are the clock-punching bureaucrats?

Because THAT never happens here.

Methinks anyone that cannot differentiate between the reality of what universal healthcare would be and their idealism shouldn't be allowed to vote and force normal people to suffer for their stupidity.

Methinks anyone who so obviously doesn't believe in the democratic processes should not be allowed to vote. The rest of us should not be subject to their ridiculous, unfounded fears and their inability to think in anything but tired sound-bites.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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).

What, precisely, is your point here? I understand it also pays very well to be a Mafia member, but I don't know if that makes it a good idea. And I don't recall anyone attacking the idea of union membership in this thread, anyway, so why the sudden non sequitur to defend them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, since YOU said it, that CERTAINLY makes it so. God forbid you should go to any trouble PROVE that I'm wrong, since all that's really required is for you to tell me I'm paranoid and that it's already been brilliantly done . . . somewhere that you can't be bothered to mention, let alone describe.

When I said use your head for something other than separating your ears, I wasn't actually referring to using it as a wind tunnel.

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![/quote]

It isn't about you? Really? So you aren't on here, telling us that the taxpayers, via government, should provide health coverage to everyone, whether they contribute one red cent themselves or not, because individual health is a matter of public interest?

You want a healthy stable labor force? Make them less dependent on others to babysit them. I promise you, adults with a habit of personal responsibility and self-reliance who live in a nation whose economy hasn't been crippled by well-meaning do-gooders with tons of nanny-state programs do a much better job of looking out for their own health and well-being than people who've been conditioned to be leeches. Don't believe me? Go down to your local welfare office and look around. Those folks already have government medical care, and how healthy do THEY look?

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.

And again . . . yawn . . . You seem to think that simply because you say so, that constitutes 1) an explanation and 2) evidence that you're correct. Unfortunately, you haven't offered any proof, other than warm, fuzzy emotion to substantiate. And by the way, I realize that you would much rather we let you get away with saying, "I don't have to refute your points, because they aren't points. That's just silly and paranoid, so I can simply ignore it", but the fact remains that everything Dive and I have said IS grounded in reality and carries with it volumes of applicable past history, whereas you have offered nothing but pie in the sky fantasies about how it COULD work and has worked in the past . . . just in someplace that you can't be bothered to cite for us.

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.

In case no one ever told you, it's considered quite rude to lump multiple people's posts into one response. If you're too lazy to respond individually, just say so and I'll ignore you. If you can't be bothered to debate clearly, I can't be bothered to take you seriously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.



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.



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 aren't actually wondering how people could be skeptical of ANY government social program becoming just another part of the ever-growing fat-tick bureaucracy with mediocre services while the only ones making out are the clock-punching bureaucrats?

Because THAT never happens here.

Methinks anyone that cannot differentiate between the reality of what universal healthcare would be and their idealism shouldn't be allowed to vote and force normal people to suffer for their stupidity.

Personally, I'm wondering how he thinks the government is going to be so much warmer and fuzzier and more responsive to individual needs than a health insurance company is right now, because everything I've described about bureaucrats and bean counters deciding what will and will not be covered and what is and is not medically necessary already happens with insurance companies, not to mention with Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care . . . What possible reason could anyone have for believing the government is suddenly going to do it any differently, or even could?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You aren't actually wondering how people could be skeptical of ANY government social program becoming just another part of the ever-growing fat-tick bureaucracy with mediocre services while the only ones making out are the clock-punching bureaucrats?

Because THAT never happens here.

Methinks anyone that cannot differentiate between the reality of what universal healthcare would be and their idealism shouldn't be allowed to vote and force normal people to suffer for their stupidity.

Methinks anyone who so obviously doesn't believe in the democratic processes should not be allowed to vote. The rest of us should not be subject to their ridiculous, unfounded fears and their inability to think in anything but tired sound-bites.

Democratic process? Would that be where politicians rush legislation through at light-speed in order to avoid letting anyone read it, let alone debate it? Or would that be where we already exclude lunatics from being able to vote, which is really all he's suggesting in your case, anyway?

By the way, if our points are so "ridiculous and unfounded", why is it that you're squirming like a worm in hot ashes to get away from ever having to answer them?

 

[editec]

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.

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

What happens is that you do what you can... instead of thinking that it is someone else's responsibility

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

What happens is that you do what you can... instead of thinking that it is someone else's responsibility

What?! You mean it's not the government's job to insulate you from every bad thing that could ever possibly happen, and to make your life nothing but flowers and hearts and puppies all the time?

 

[johnrocks]

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.

Show me where all this is happening widespread in free market healthcare circles, don't just say it, provide substance friend....substance.

 

[johnrocks]

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.

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

High Deductible health insurance. A 50 year old male can get a Blue Cross policy that provides 5 million in lifetime protection with $5000 yearly out of pocket for $71 a month in my zip code. There's not a hospital in America that won't work with you if not waive that $5000 if they get the other $500000 from your stay intheir fine facility from cancer,heart attacks,accidents etc.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Countries that offer national healthcare are having problems because they are underfunded. What is not understood is that the people in those countries are paying half of what we do. We pay around $7200 per person while they pay $2500 to $4500 per person. If they increased spending on healthcare by 25%, they would be fully funded and still pay much less than we do. The problem they face is that they can't afford to tax people any more than they already are, but that is not due to healthcare costs; it's due to other social programs that are too expensive.

My argument against our private system is that it is driving costs up so fast that soon no one will be able to afford health insurance. Think about it; $7200 per person. That means for a family of four, it costs over $28,000 just for health insurance every year. Yea, I know, you don't think you pay that much because your employer covers most of the cost of your insurance. What you don't take into account is what that cost is, plus deductibles, plus the taxes we pay to cover Medicare/Medicaid and so on.

In the end, it's not going to matter much. If costs are not contained, we will move toward a national plan. Private insurance is great if the vast majority can afford it. Once the vast majority can no longer afford it, it becomes a bad thing, and people then begin to support a change in the system. That is where we are now.

The funny thing is that the government already covers the cost of around 45% of all healthcare costs anyway, mostly through Medicaid and Medicare. When we get to retirement age, we all know we have Medicare as our healthcare plan. How many Americans keep private health insurance after retirement? Hardly any because they have Medicare. There are now riders that need to be purchased along with Medicare as it doesn't cover everything, but you get the point. Basically, most of us get sick when we're older, and that is when the government provides our health care. So why is it we are so set against letting them provide it for us when we are less likely to need it? And it's not the government providing our healthcare, it's the government paying for it through our tax dollars. If we don't like the way they do things, we can always force change.

 

[johnrocks]

That 45% or more that government provides along with the managed care and third party payors is what's driven health care up, not free markets. I can go to a free market Doctor and pay $50 office visits, I can go to nurse practitioner clinics on nights and weekends for $40, the shots and tests are anywhere from $5 for a blood glucose test to $40 for more elaborate tests and shots, my hospital is covered for $70 a month, I can get my blood work done at a free market lab for $10-$50 so the free market clearly is very competitive. The free market is like any other, they strive to provide the best for the least cost where government payments give incentives to charge the most or any other type program where the consumer isn't responsible for the cost.

 

[editec]

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

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

What happens is that you do what you can... instead of thinking that it is someone else's responsibility

In other words 99% of the population dies the first time they have a serious illness.

Good plan!

 

[editec]

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

That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.

Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?

High Deductible health insurance. A 50 year old male can get a Blue Cross policy that provides 5 million in lifetime protection with $5000 yearly out of pocket for $71 a month in my zip code. There's not a hospital in America that won't work with you if not waive that $5000 if they get the other $500000 from your stay intheir fine facility from cancer,heart attacks,accidents etc.

If the hospital waves your deductable, your insurance company will NOT pay the bulk of the bill.

Of course they can and often do end up not collecting that money, but that is a different issue entirely.