Is Universal Healthcare Detrimental to Your Health?

[PixieStix]

Of course it's a right.

How do you figure it is a right? Because you feel something or you read something?

It is NOT a right

It is my right to choose my own destiny, if I want healthcare, I should have the right to choose where, when and how, I have the right to privacy. Universal healthcare take rights away from my own personal choice and my right to privacy. And that my dear, is just the beginning

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of that, pixie stix, matters. Health care reform is going to pass.

 

[vethubby12]

I don't think that I know anyone that has health insurance with complete freedom of whom they go see and where. These restrictions are currently dictated by insurance companies that force doctors to pay fees in order to be in certain networks to retain their patients. To me it is a false sense of freedom that has been placed by insurance companies. I don't think that insurance companies are doing anything more than any other business would in staying profitable and growing their business. Plus, it's perfectly legal. The right and privilege question comes in with how far we should let these companies go. I believe that any organization can make a lot of money if there are no rules and regulations. I also believe that, as Americans, we see things as how we are affected personally. If you are one of the millions that have been without insurance or had it dropped or can't get coverage due to a prexisting condition, then you are for a strong reform. If you haven't had to personally deal with these situations, then you don't see the need. It's basic human behavior. I am curious to know who all on this board has been on the former of the two situations?

I also agree about the pixie sticks and stuff, this will pass eventually.

 

[auditor0007]

Healthcare has become a most prominent issue in today’s world. Many people are demanding a universal healthcare system. However, I have several apprehensions about government-run healthcare.

Contrary to believe, insurance premiums and expense of healthcare is likely to increase. These cost increases, along with ineffective cost control, will lead to monetary instability in the healthcare system. Assuming that these costs could be effectively controlled, the insufficient supply of physicians would lead to the downfall of universal healthcare. Patients would have to wait longer to receive important consultations and procedures. Ultimately, I believe the average health of an American citizen would suffer due to universal healthcare. So, is universal healthcare really the answer considering it would be detrimental to the average health of an American citizen?

Moreover, I believe it is necessary to define healthcare as a right or a privilege. So, is it everyone’s right to have healthcare, or is it a privilege not available to everyone?

I think if you become sick and have insurance, the insurance companies should no longer have to cover you. That way, healthy people will have lower premiums and those who get sick can rot in the streets, unless of course they can afford to pay for everything out of pocket.

That is what happened to me. I was insured, but I had to move to another state. Because I have a medical condition, the same insurance company that had insured me in Colorado denied me coverage in Ohio. I think this is a great system and a great way to do business. If we only insure the healthy, then costs will really come down.

I find it interesting how all these polls show that most people are very happy with their insurance coverage. I'd like to see a poll of people who have actually had to use their insurance and see how happy they are with their insurance, if they still have it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Healthcare has become a most prominent issue in today’s world. Many people are demanding a universal healthcare system. However, I have several apprehensions about government-run healthcare.

Contrary to believe, insurance premiums and expense of healthcare is likely to increase. These cost increases, along with ineffective cost control, will lead to monetary instability in the healthcare system. Assuming that these costs could be effectively controlled, the insufficient supply of physicians would lead to the downfall of universal healthcare. Patients would have to wait longer to receive important consultations and procedures. Ultimately, I believe the average health of an American citizen would suffer due to universal healthcare. So, is universal healthcare really the answer considering it would be detrimental to the average health of an American citizen?

Moreover, I believe it is necessary to define healthcare as a right or a privilege. So, is it everyone’s right to have healthcare, or is it a privilege not available to everyone?

I think if you become sick and have insurance, the insurance companies should no longer have to cover you. That way, healthy people will have lower premiums and those who get sick can rot in the streets, unless of course they can afford to pay for everything out of pocket.

That is what happened to me. I was insured, but I had to move to another state. Because I have a medical condition, the same insurance company that had insured me in Colorado denied me coverage in Ohio. I think this is a great system and a great way to do business. If we only insure the healthy, then costs will really come down.

I find it interesting how all these polls show that most people are very happy with their insurance coverage. I'd like to see a poll of people who have actually had to use their insurance and see how happy they are with their insurance, if they still have it.

Very sorry to hear about your situation.

Wouldn't the answer to your problem have been to allow insurance companies to be national rather than state-bound?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Healthcare has become a most prominent issue in today’s world. Many people are demanding a universal healthcare system. However, I have several apprehensions about government-run healthcare.

Contrary to believe, insurance premiums and expense of healthcare is likely to increase. These cost increases, along with ineffective cost control, will lead to monetary instability in the healthcare system. Assuming that these costs could be effectively controlled, the insufficient supply of physicians would lead to the downfall of universal healthcare. Patients would have to wait longer to receive important consultations and procedures. Ultimately, I believe the average health of an American citizen would suffer due to universal healthcare. So, is universal healthcare really the answer considering it would be detrimental to the average health of an American citizen?

Moreover, I believe it is necessary to define healthcare as a right or a privilege. So, is it everyone’s right to have healthcare, or is it a privilege not available to everyone?

I think if you become sick and have insurance, the insurance companies should no longer have to cover you. That way, healthy people will have lower premiums and those who get sick can rot in the streets, unless of course they can afford to pay for everything out of pocket.

That is what happened to me. I was insured, but I had to move to another state. Because I have a medical condition, the same insurance company that had insured me in Colorado denied me coverage in Ohio. I think this is a great system and a great way to do business. If we only insure the healthy, then costs will really come down.

I find it interesting how all these polls show that most people are very happy with their insurance coverage. I'd like to see a poll of people who have actually had to use their insurance and see how happy they are with their insurance, if they still have it.

Very sorry to hear about your situation.

Wouldn't the answer to your problem have been to allow insurance companies to be national rather than state-bound?

What? Blame the government instead of the eeeeevil insurance companies? Bite your tongue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think if you become sick and have insurance, the insurance companies should no longer have to cover you. That way, healthy people will have lower premiums and those who get sick can rot in the streets, unless of course they can afford to pay for everything out of pocket.

That is what happened to me. I was insured, but I had to move to another state. Because I have a medical condition, the same insurance company that had insured me in Colorado denied me coverage in Ohio. I think this is a great system and a great way to do business. If we only insure the healthy, then costs will really come down.

I find it interesting how all these polls show that most people are very happy with their insurance coverage. I'd like to see a poll of people who have actually had to use their insurance and see how happy they are with their insurance, if they still have it.

Very sorry to hear about your situation.

Wouldn't the answer to your problem have been to allow insurance companies to be national rather than state-bound?

What? Blame the government instead of the eeeeevil insurance companies? Bite your tongue.

Either my bad, or the humor is somewhat less than trenchant.

Please clarify.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Very sorry to hear about your situation.

Wouldn't the answer to your problem have been to allow insurance companies to be national rather than state-bound?

What? Blame the government instead of the eeeeevil insurance companies? Bite your tongue.

Either my bad, or the humor is somewhat less than trenchant.

Please clarify.

I was being sarcastic about the expectation that anyone might consider the possibility that government regulation is the problem, rather than the solution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What? Blame the government instead of the eeeeevil insurance companies? Bite your tongue.

Either my bad, or the humor is somewhat less than trenchant.

Please clarify.

I was being sarcastic about the expectation that anyone might consider the possibility that government regulation is the problem, rather than the solution.

Well, of course government regulation is the problem.

Should you believe otherwise, it is due to lack of knowledge as far as what the various states force companies to cover, and the cost to individuals for these coverages.

Here are some things covered, and approximate % of policy costs.

Even if someone wants medical
insurance without the mandates, that option is not available,
leading to some people not having any insurance.
According to CAHI, the states with the most mandates
are Minnesota—62—and Maryland—59. The
fewest mandates are 13 in Idaho and 17 in the District
of Columbia.The average is 36.
Here are some of the mandates the 50 states and District
of Columbia have imposed, followed by the number
of states. Unless indicated otherwise, the added cost
to insurance is less than 1 percent:
Benefits mandates:
• Alcoholism, 45 states (1 percent to 3 percent added
cost)
• Alzheimer’s, 2 states
• Ambulance services, 8 states
• Breast reconstruction, 48 states
• Chlamydia, 3 states
• Cleft palate, 14 states
• Contraceptives, 30 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Dental anesthesia, 29 states
• Diabetic supplies, 47 states
• Drug-abuse treatment, 34 states
• In vitro fertilization, 14 states (3 percent to 5 percent
added cost)
• Mental health general, 40 states (1 percent to 3
percent added cost)
• Mental-health parity, 42 states (5 percent to 10
percent added cost)
• Newborn hearing screening, 16 states
• Newborn sickle-cell testing, 3 states
• Off-label drug use, 37 states
• Port-wine stain (a skin discoloration) elimination,
2 states
• Prescription drugs, 3 states (5 percent to 10 percent
added cost)
• Prostate screening, 32 states
• Second surgical opinion, 9 states
• Well-child care, 31 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
Provider mandates:
• Acupuncturists, 11 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Chiropractors, 46 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Dentists, 36 states (3 percent to 5 percent added
cost)
• Dieticians, 3 states
• Marriage therapists, 13 states
• Massage therapists, 5 states
• Naturopaths, 3 states
• Osteopaths, 21 states (1 percent to 3 percent added
cost)
• Physical therapists, 16 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Podiatrists, 35 states
• Psychiatric nurses, 16 states
• Psychologists, 44 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Social workers, 27 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Speech or hearing therapists, 18 states


You can find a more detailed chart here:
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf


Image the cost of a policy if you could simply check off which you would like to be covered for...

 

[Missourian]

None of that, pixie stix, matters. Health care reform is going to pass.

I disagree Jake...the Health Care legislation may pass as a face saving measure.

But real reform is not contained therein.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, government regulation is not the problem. That is why the health insurance industry has been racking up the big bucks, because it can make money by not having to insure certain categories of folks, which is the antithesis of what insurance is all about. Such health insurance is a public interest, then it is in the public's interest to regulate it, and regulate it hard. It is too bad that political chic is a narrow-minded ideologue instead of soneone concerneed with the welfare of America.

I disagree with you, Missourian, agreeably on what the bill will contain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope, government regulation is not the problem. That is why the health insurance industry has been racking up the big bucks, because it can make money by not having to insure certain categories of folks, which is the antithesis of what insurance is all about. Such health insurance is a public interest, then it is in the public's interest to regulate it, and regulate it hard. It is too bad that political chic is a narrow-minded ideologue instead of soneone concerneed with the welfare of America.

I disagree with you, Missourian, agreeably on what the bill will contain.

If you have the time, or interest please suggest any errors in my post re: state mandates.

And the bottom line, would not individual check-lists for coverage reduce costs.

You are not willing to concede that Democrat "healthcare reform" is no more than an attempt to control more lives.

Proof?

Where, in any Democrat bill, can one find attempts to increase the number of physicians.

I will assume a non-response is capitulation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You capitulated when you first wrote on this, political chic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You capitulated when you first wrote on this, political chic.

It seems you are unaware of the meaning of 'capitulate.'

Also clear, you could not find a fault in my posts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your posts have nothing accurate about them. They are slanted and faulty in analysis of the basic data. That doesn't mean that you are not a nice person, but on this you are wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your posts have nothing accurate about them. They are slanted and faulty in analysis of the basic data. That doesn't mean that you are not a nice person, but on this you are wrong.

This is my third request that you provide a list of my errors.

Show me 1) why it isn't counter-productive for states to mandate coverages, for example in vitro fertilization coverage for an elderly couple, or prostate cancer coverage for a single woman, or breast reconstruction for a young man.

Is this wrong, as well?

Or did you neglect to read post #49?

Consider this:
"Put another way, if
just these two
mandates were
repealed in
California, from
177,776 to 499,995
people could again
afford insurance.
http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/9 07 Seiler bah.pdf

Is this also wrong?

2) Why is it that the 'reform' overlooks incentivizing more physicians, say, by tax rebates.

Is this also wrong?

Or does your political persuasion preclude actually considering solutions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why not? Because you are miscounting and misanalyzing from the beginning. Politicalchic, this is not a debate society, but you have to start posting truly good evidence before anyone will play with you. You, and CG, and si modo and some of the others have to stop being the party of "no, no, no", and start offering something worthwhile. You have not done that. When you do, then I will be glad to analyze it for you.

 

[sealybobo]

Is Universal Health or medicare detrimental to old people's health?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why not? Because you are miscounting and misanalyzing from the beginning. Politicalchic, this is not a debate society, but you have to start posting truly good evidence before anyone will play with you. You, and CG, and si modo and some of the others have to stop being the party of "no, no, no", and start offering something worthwhile. You have not done that. When you do, then I will be glad to analyze it for you.

So disappointing.

"...this is not a debate society,..."

That is exactly what it is.

One counters with data, not what you learned in public school, get a pat on the head, no matter what you know or don't know.

Nothing but blather. " miscounting and misanalyzing ..."



You have nothing to bring to the table.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you are misconstruing the evidence? Of course not.