Is Universal Healthcare Really the Answer?

[lschs77]

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?

 

[QUENTIN]

Actually, in the dozens of places universal healthcare has been implemented, none of those things happen. People pay less for their healthcare costs, there is no shortage of doctors or supplies, wait times are often longer because everyone is covered, but also more consistent and urgent care is handled urgently, and they have much better overall levels of health and satisfaction with their care, living longer and being in better physical condition than their American counterparts.

Look at the whole of Europe to see the success of universal healthcare and how these fears are unfounded.

I wouldn't worry about it any time soon though. With the army of lobbyists, influence from insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, scare tactics, and most politicians from both major parties willing to sell their vote to the highest bidder, it will be a LONG while before we have Universal Healthcare, as we've seen.

 

[Tom Clancy]

The Post above..

I'm an European American. Born and Raised in Madrid, Spain lived there since i was 12 years old.

Universal Healthcare throughout Europe isn't as great as you make it sound.

Manny countries struggle to keep Quality up and the cost down..

Also, many of those European countries are very small in Population, Covering every single American with Universald Healthcare is Impossible, it aint rocket science to know that if we covered everyone with this Government Program you would see Rise in costs more than what you get for having a Private insurance.

Now, don't get me wrong. We do need Health Reform.. But the Government isn't the Answer. That's the problem these days, when we have a problem like this we always turn to the Government for aid and help, that's a huge mistake. You really want the Government and the state that it's in to Run our Healthcare? I surely wouldn't.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -Thomas Jefferson.

 

[lschs77]

In response to Quentin,
I would love to see some citations with all of those facts that you stated. I would like to give you some facts to think about.

Massachusetts provides more than 96 percent of their population with health insurance. However, due to the failure to control costs (how much insurance companies pay hospitals and physicians), insurance premiums for most residents are increasing.

Additionally, in Canada, many citizens purchase supplemental healthcare insurance to go along with their public health insurance. In addition to paying taxes to support the government run healthcare, they feel it necessary to pay out-of-pocket to receive supplemental health insurance.

Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which, unfortunately, is not sustainable.

The difficulty in finding a provider was felt more among lower-income adults (29%) than higher-income adults (15%), and for those with public and other coverage (32%) than those with private coverage (16%). One in five adults said they had been told in the last 12 months that a doctor or clinic was not accepting new patients or would not see patients with their type of insurance.

Additionally, in Canada, the average waiting line between a referral from a general practitioner to treatment was up to 17 weeks in 2003.

So it does seem that there aren't enough physicians to care for the influx of new patients, or they are unwilling to do so.
Second, costs are increasing, along with insurance premiums.
Third, monetary sustainability is no reasonable with such a plan as universal healthcare
Fourth, the waiting lines are a serious problem. Waiting in line for a life-saving surgery that you might not receive is not my idea of healthcare! You need to receive procedures to actually have your health cared for.
The most alarming fact is that most of these statistics come from Massachusetts, which is located in the United States. Our first attempt at universal healthcare didn't work, do you think the second will?

 

[Murf76]

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?

You're right to be apprehensive. Basic logic tells us that Democrat majority in Congress is disinterested in actual healthcare. What they're after is an unprecedented growth in central government's power over the individual citizen. It's a power-grab. Otherwise, they would do, without hestiation, the one simple thing they are Constitutionally authorized to do and allow health insurance to be sold across state lines. Overnight, we'd have something like 1300 companies in competition with one another. And it would cost us NOTHING from the taxpayer coffers.

The fact that they aren't even mildly interested in doing that, tells us all we need to know about their true motives.

Their version of a "Universal Healthcare Plan" isn't even "universal". It doesn't cover everyone, we don't have the money to pay for it... and yet they continue to push it forward. Worse, it is NOT Constitutional. They have no legal authority to mandate that individual citizens buy an insurance product, nor do they have the authority to seize our private medical records.

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?

We've heard alot of argument from liberals that healthcare should be a "right". But when we examine the Bill of Rights, we find a list of recognized Natural Rights. The government does not endow us with these rights, it merely recognizes that we were born with them. IOW, we are self-fruitful in our natural rights. These are things we can do for ourselves because we are human animals. They do not require the conscription of the property or labor of our fellow citizen. They are an unalienable part of us by virtue of simply being.

The "positive" rights that liberals seem intent upon, are all about what the government ought to do FOR us, not what it can't do TO us as our U.S. Constitution currently guarantees. These add-on rights REQUIRE the property (money) or the labor of our fellow citizens to accomplish. We are not self-fruitful in matters such as healthcare. We need a doctor to do our heart surgery. It's not something we can do for ourselves.

Here's the problem though... the "negative" rights we are currently guaranteed and the "positive" rights that liberals would like to bring us, cannot coexist in the same space. The one cancels out the other. We cannot have a system based upon individual liberty and respect for property and yet adopt a system that is willing to conscript one citizen for the purpose of servicing another.

Consider that if something is a "Right", guaranteed by our government, it MUST be provided. In the event that it cannot be provided any other way, conscription is the final outcome. Say, for example, Americans do not select medical careers in numbers high enough to meet the public demand, despite whatever incentives government offers. The next logical stop would be to import new doctors from other countries, and if that failed... the only thing left to do is to order citizens into medical careers and into under-served areas. The individual liberty of one citizen is supplanted by the collective will of government. Tyranny.

Our framers were smart people. They were well educated in history and philosophy. And they based our Constitution, not upon the issues of their age, but upon the nature of man. Circumstances change, but WE are basically the same human animal we were when the ink was still wet. People needed healthcare back then too. People were poor back then too. But we still don't find healthcare as a "right" in our Constitution, even though there was ample opportunity to include it.

The REASON that welfare money wasn't supposed to be drawn from the federal treasury is BECAUSE the doing of it invests extraordinary power in central government. That wasn't supposed to happen. It invites corruption, just as it would have invited corruption in Thomas Jefferson's day. Mankind is capable of great compassion... but equally capable of tremendous greed.
The framers knew that.



In regard to the other half of your question, I don't think there is any case to be made to view healthcare as a "privilege". To my mind, it is a commodity. It is bought and sold. And because we are a compassionate people, I think it's completely appropriate that we help the poverty-stricken receive it. But Constitutionally, that MUST be done at the state and local level. Otherwise, we invest unwarranted and illegal power in the central government. We invite the self-same state of affairs that our framers went to much trouble to avoid.

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually, in the dozens of places universal healthcare has been implemented, none of those things happen. People pay less for their healthcare costs, there is no shortage of doctors or supplies, wait times are often longer because everyone is covered, but also more consistent and urgent care is handled urgently, and they have much better overall levels of health and satisfaction with their care, living longer and being in better physical condition than their American counterparts.

Look at the whole of Europe to see the success of universal healthcare and how these fears are unfounded.

I wouldn't worry about it any time soon though. With the army of lobbyists, influence from insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, scare tactics, and most politicians from both major parties willing to sell their vote to the highest bidder, it will be a LONG while before we have Universal Healthcare, as we've seen.

This post is 50 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag

 

[Murf76]

Actually, in the dozens of places universal healthcare has been implemented, none of those things happen. People pay less for their healthcare costs, there is no shortage of doctors or supplies, wait times are often longer because everyone is covered, but also more consistent and urgent care is handled urgently, and they have much better overall levels of health and satisfaction with their care, living longer and being in better physical condition than their American counterparts.

Look at the whole of Europe to see the success of universal healthcare and how these fears are unfounded.

I wouldn't worry about it any time soon though. With the army of lobbyists, influence from insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, scare tactics, and most politicians from both major parties willing to sell their vote to the highest bidder, it will be a LONG while before we have Universal Healthcare, as we've seen.

Why wouldn't you simply emigrate to one of those countries where socialist medicine is lawful?

It is NOT lawful here. And you don't see Congress trying to amend the Constitution to MAKE it lawful. What you see instead... is Congress IGNORING our law.

I don't know how it's possible that even liberals aren't horror-stricken at the implications of Big Government just making it up as they go along. Today, you might agree with the agenda of this particular Congress, but will you agree just as fully with the next one down the pike, or the one after that?

You are NOT insulated from the consequences of tyrannical government, you know. You and your progeny will share the chains of your fellow citizen if you allow the only protection between you and authoritarianism to die. The U.S. Constitution is all that holds them at bay. And the depredations upon it so far have severely weakened it. I believe the current administration will utterly destroy it unless we stop them.

Bear in mind, that there is NO AUTHORITY vested in Washington that does not abide in the Constitution. Without it, their authority is only 'right of might', arbitrary law at the point of a gun, a dubious hold on power at best.

 

[Claudette]

I have Canadian friends and they think our Govt is crazy with a capital C for even considering Universal Healthcare in America. There is rationing and they pay big taxes to support the system.

One of my Canadian friends had cancer and came here for treatment because she would have died on the waiting list in Canada. Go figure. This is what our Govt wants for us??

This will be another giant Govt Entitlement that will be more costly and turn into a beurocratic mess. It will be badly run and turn into a monster. The Govt never in its entire history done anything cheaply or well. What makes anyone think Universal Healthcare will be any different. No me.

 

[Murf76]

This will be another giant Govt Entitlement that will be more costly and turn into a beurocratic mess. It will be badly run and turn into a monster. The Govt never in its entire history done anything cheaply or well. What makes anyone think Universal Healthcare will be any different. No me.

Exactly.
Entitlements end up running politicians, not the other way around.

 

[VaYank5150]

I have Canadian friends and they think our Govt is crazy with a capital C for even considering Universal Healthcare in America. There is rationing and they pay big taxes to support the system.

One of my Canadian friends had cancer and came here for treatment because she would have died on the waiting list in Canada. Go figure. This is what our Govt wants for us??

This will be another giant Govt Entitlement that will be more costly and turn into a beurocratic mess. It will be badly run and turn into a monster. The Govt never in its entire history done anything cheaply or well. What makes anyone think Universal Healthcare will be any different. No me.

Once again, thank you for pointing out how completely uninformed you are about this, or any other topic. I don't mind debating with people who I disagree with IF they understand what they are talking about. YOU, on the other hand do nothing but type out talking points lifted from the likes of Rush, Beck and Hannity. Try educating yourself and then try thinking for yourself for a change.

 

[Claudette]

Thats a tall statement there Yank. Since I don't listen to Rush or Hannity and catch Beck once in a while, kinda hard to get their talking points doncha know.

As for being uninformed. It seems to me your the one who's uninformed if you think the Govt entitlements in this country are well run and cost effective considering the amount of waste and fraud thats been reported. Hmmmm Mayby you should get a little better informed before you start slinging stones there boyo.

 

[VaYank5150]

Thats a tall statement there Yank. Since I don't listen to Rush or Hannity and catch Beck once in a while, kinda hard to get their talking points doncha know.

As for being uninformed. It seems to me your the one who's uninformed if you think the Govt entitlements in this country are well run and cost effective considering the amount of waste and fraud thats been reported. Hmmmm Mayby you should get a little better informed before you start slinging stones there boyo.

No dipshit....you are the Hannities and Becks and Limpballs of the world are the only onoes calling reform UNIVERSAL healthcare. What has been proposed is NOT universal. IF you knew even an ounce of what you need to on this subject, we would not be having this conversation. Instead...stick to your talking points.

 

[DiamondDave]

What a TON of opponents are calling it is something the government has no business with it's nose in... as well as something that is an entitlement, given at the expense of contributors, to the non-contributor... as well as something that in no way even comes close to being included in the enumerated powers listed in the constitution

Whether you want to call it universal healthcare, or government run healthcare, or entitlement care, or 'public' option, or whatever else.. there is only one thing it should be called.. the simple word WRONG

 

[Claudette]

No need to get testy there Yank.Apparantly according to you, you are the only informed person around. God, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there pal. I'm sure you can get a friend to do it for you.

As I said, I do no listen to Rush, Hannity and catch Beck once in a blue moon. Universal healthcare is what its called iin my home by my family. If that doesn't suit you I guess you can just about kiss my french ass my friend. As for Dipsticks, your a pretty big one there doncha know.

 

[VaYank5150]

What a TON of opponents are calling it is something the government has no business with it's nose in... as well as something that is an entitlement, given at the expense of contributors, to the non-contributor... as well as something that in no way even comes close to being included in the enumerated powers listed in the constitution

Whether you want to call it universal healthcare, or government run healthcare, or entitlement care, or 'public' option, or whatever else.. there is only one thing it should be called.. the simple word WRONG

Please don't get me started on your interpretation of enumerated powers listed in the Constitution versus mine. We have already proven that gets us nowhere.

 

[VaYank5150]

No need to get testy there Yank.Apparantly according to you, you are the only informed person around. God, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there pal. I'm sure you can get a friend to do it for you.

As I said, I do no listen to Rush, Hannity and catch Beck once in a blue moon. Universal healthcare is what its called iin my home by my family. If that doesn't suit you I guess you can just about kiss my french ass my friend. As for Dipsticks, your a pretty big one there doncha know.

What is with this "doncha know" shit? Are you in Wasilla?

As far as patting myself on the back, IF that is what you took from my posts, then that is obviously your perogative. Education is the key. Try it sometime.

 

[DiamondDave]

What a TON of opponents are calling it is something the government has no business with it's nose in... as well as something that is an entitlement, given at the expense of contributors, to the non-contributor... as well as something that in no way even comes close to being included in the enumerated powers listed in the constitution

Whether you want to call it universal healthcare, or government run healthcare, or entitlement care, or 'public' option, or whatever else.. there is only one thing it should be called.. the simple word WRONG

Please don't get me started on your interpretation of enumerated powers listed in the Constitution versus mine. We have already proven that gets us nowhere.

Otherwise please don't start to show that your thinking is flawed...

You want something like this.. amend the Constitution.. simple as that

Until that point.. it is, and will remain, simply WRONG

 

[VaYank5150]

What a TON of opponents are calling it is something the government has no business with it's nose in... as well as something that is an entitlement, given at the expense of contributors, to the non-contributor... as well as something that in no way even comes close to being included in the enumerated powers listed in the constitution

Whether you want to call it universal healthcare, or government run healthcare, or entitlement care, or 'public' option, or whatever else.. there is only one thing it should be called.. the simple word WRONG

Please don't get me started on your interpretation of enumerated powers listed in the Constitution versus mine. We have already proven that gets us nowhere.

Otherwise please don't start to show that your thinking is flawed...

You want something like this.. amend the Constitution.. simple as that

Until that point.. it is, and will remain, simply WRONG

Hey, I JUST noticed that I am part of your sig! Thanks!

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes... I point out idiocy frequently

 

[VaYank5150]

Yes... I point out idiocy frequently

It's unfortunate that you chose to only post the words from my post that fit your agenda. But, I get it...