The Government and Universal Healthcare
- Thread starter KMAN
- Start date
meister said:
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
Diamond Member
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.
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
Gold Member
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
Gold Member
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.
Gunny said:
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
Diamond Member
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
Diamond Member
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.
Cecilie1200 said:
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 . . . 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.
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
Diamond Member
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
Diamond Member
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?
That's a very reasonable cost of health care, of course.
Now what happens when you REALLY get sick?
DiamondDave
Army Vet
What happens is that you do what you can... instead of thinking that it is someone else's responsibility
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
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
Silver Member
Show me where all this is happening widespread in free market healthcare circles, don't just say it, provide substance friend....substance.
johnrocks
Silver Member
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
Gold Member
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
Silver Member
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.
Last edited:
In other words 99% of the population dies the first time they have a serious illness.
Good plan!
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.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
In order to compete at the Oscars for Best Picture, all films must meet the "diversity inclusion" quota.- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
-
-
Politico poll shows many western nations turning to China, more, as a result of Trump's presidency- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 11
-
-
Pakistan says it hit militant hideouts in Afghanistan’s Kandahar as fighting shows no letup- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
