Universal Health Care

[Cecilie1200]

Again, I'm asking about medicare & medicaid specifically, not all government programs. What specifically was intentionally done to the design of these specific programs to make fail - intentionally - as you've argued?

Again, why do you think trying to single Medicare and Medicaid out from other government programs is going to change the answer? They are operated on the same basis as any government program: keep people in need and dependent on them in order to perpetuate jobs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Health care insurance is a basic necessity of life?

When did I say that? I'd say basic, life-saving, health-maintaining health care is a necessity, but that's not the same thing as insurance, and perhaps you should stop conflating the two and then stuffing your confusion of the issue into other people's mouths.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So being born rich means you are a success!

Nope. But it means you're starting with a bigger head start toward success than many other people are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That could very well be the crux of the issue, in fact it probably is - but alas, Cecilie1200 said it was done intentionally - Do you believe this was intentional? The use of the word "forgot" suggests to me that it was not intentional.

Additionally, doesn't this suggest an issue of incompetence, not an issue of intrinsic failure by nature of it being a government program?

I don't think I actually did say it was intentional, although it comes out to the same thing. They DID intentionally set up government programs, including these, with different incentives than private industry has. And they DO intentionally operate them with different goals. I also don't think they "forgot" anything. It's just that government, by its very nature, operates differently from private enterprise, and that is why there are some things that just are better suited to private enterprise than government.

 

[editec]

That could very well be the crux of the issue, in fact it probably is - but alas, Cecilie1200 said it was done intentionally - Do you believe this was intentional? The use of the word "forgot" suggests to me that it was not intentional.

It is difficult for me to know what they were thinking at the time.

Additionally, doesn't this suggest an issue of incompetence, not an issue of intrinsic failure by nature of it being a government program?

Incompetence or planning to fail...feel free to take your pick.

But anyone with a lick of sense (and I presume that includes many Congressmen and perhaps even one or two economists) knows that if the you increase demand but not supply that costs will rise to absorb the new money.

And here we are AGAIN, and my liberal brothers are telling us that we can dramtically increase demand through universal single payer health care insurance, and not do a damned thing about increasing supply (by increasing the number of HC providers) but they honestly (?!) think that the cost of HC won't increase dramatically?

We would enjoy (for a brief period) the benefit of eliminating the profits and excessive costs that are associated with our current third party payer system, but mark my words...

IF WE initiate single payer universal HC insurance all that will happen is that the HC community will get much much much much richer, and inevitably there will not be enough HC to go around.

We can not afford a system where the average doctor is making ten times what the average family in the USA is making, folks. They're not worth that much, folks, really they're not.

I'm sorry but we are not getting our money's worth out of our HC systems right now.

We either fully socialize HC and accept the downside of that, or we just let the whole damned system we have now, continue to give us much worse downsides for all but a handful of the richest Americans.

Those really are our two best choices.

All hybrid capitalism/socialism systems (which I often think are excellent ideas in other cases like roads and military for examples) FAIL in a health care system because HC does not work in the same way most other goods and services works in a capitalist system.

HC is NOT widgets, folks.

The usual rule sof economcs do NOT apply because the providers end up creating the demand.

 

[editec]

yeah, can you also explain why the first private hosital that opened up in vancouver is soo busy that its turning away patients

Can you explain why so many canadians flock to the United States to receieve medical treatment

They do huh?

Show me those numbers.

 

[garyd]

Let me explain to you how the single payer system we have in this country already works. The only health care I had access to for nearly 2 years was the VA. I've used it off and on when I didn't have good health insurance for since I got out of the Army in Feb. of 72. It is in my opinion very slightly better than no care at all. Some examples:

If I wake up with a bad cold and need to go see a doctor, I can go to the clinic about 1/2 a mile from my house and wait very likely all day and may never get to see a doctor or I can take an hour long bus ride to this regions urgent care facility which will still kill pretty much the whole day by the time everything is said and done.

Last summer they found small traces of blood in my urine and asked me to go to Muskogee, Oklahoma for x-rays to check for kidney disease (private practice today generally does this with a cat scan). They gave me 3 gallon bag full of stuff and instruction. Well the night before I go to start the preparation and what do I find?

I find in the warning section of one of these items the following statement: DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT IF YOU HAVE OR THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE KIDNEY DISEASE. (Please note I am quoting here not shouting the warning was printed in all caps...

 

[editec]

Let me explain to you how the single payer system we have in this country already works.

The VA is not a single payer universal system. It is fully socialized medicine.

The only health care I had access to for nearly 2 years was the VA. I've used it off and on when I didn't have good health insurance for since I got out of the Army in Feb. of 72. It is in my opinion very slightly better than no care at all. Some examples:

If I wake up with a bad cold and need to go see a doctor, I can go to the clinic about 1/2 a mile from my house and wait very likely all day and may never get to see a doctor or I can take an hour long bus ride to this regions urgent care facility which will still kill pretty much the whole day by the time everything is said and done.

Last summer they found small traces of blood in my urine and asked me to go to Muskogee, Oklahoma for x-rays to check for kidney disease (private practice today generally does this with a cat scan). They gave me 3 gallon bag full of stuff and instruction. Well the night before I go to start the preparation and what do I find?

I find in the warning section of one of these items the following statement: DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT IF YOU HAVE OR THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE KIDNEY DISEASE. (Please note I am quoting here not shouting the warning was printed in all caps...

Yup.

Sounds like crappy care to me.

ARe you under the impression that nobody ever gets crappy care except if they are in the VA system?

 

[garyd]

No What I'm telling you is that Socialized medicine of the sort they have in Europe isn't going to work here. And delineating why.

Socialized Medicine is largely the idea that bureaucrats work cheaper than lawyers.

 

[pfife]

shocking you would enjoy an article by a left wing nut like sara robinson and not from non partisan institutes that actually list facts and numbers about Canada's healthcare wait times and problems.

You guys are ******* loons

ad hominem

 

[editec]

No What I'm telling you is that Socialized medicine of the sort they have in Europe isn't going to work here. And delineating why.

Well, you have completely failed to prove your point then.

Socialized Medicine is largely the idea that bureaucrats work cheaper than lawyers.

Interesting theory.

 

[pfife]

No What I'm telling you is that Socialized medicine of the sort they have in Europe isn't going to work here. And delineating why.

Socialized Medicine is largely the idea that bureaucrats work cheaper than lawyers.

sounds like yet another instance of this nation's govt treating its veterans like trash - not an inherent flaw in the system that makes it impossible to work here.

 

[michiganFats]

The problem with health care in this country is lack of choice. There is no real competition between providers. If I work for company X, then I have to accept the health coverage they are offering, which is health provider A. If I accept health provider A, I pay a certain amount($20/week in my case,steady for the last 15 years, go figure that one out).That amount is 20% of the total. I pay 20%, company X pays 80%. If I don't choose to do business with health provider A, then I have to pay 100% of the costs. Given the disparity between the contributions, you can't possibly expect consumer choice to factor into this equation at all.We are ready as a nation to condemn free market health care choices when in reality, we have never enjoyed free market health care choices.

 

[Bern80]

Minor detail that every other Western nation finds a single payer system better, cheaper, and more fair, but we in our infinite wisdom are smarter.

Right.....

Noted that this is a none response to the issue of the trade off in quality and ease of access.

The WHO report that has been vaunted by UHC folks does show one important detail. That the U.S. is THE leader in terms of quality of care.

You are truly naive to believe that there won't be a trade off between the quality we enjoy now and switching to a less expensive system. A high school friend of mine who has lived and worked in Sweden for that last 3 years recently vistited over the holidays. When asked what the healtcare was like there he echoed pretty much the same thing we have heard systems like Canada's. If you need to see a doctor for the every day cough or flu the single payer systems are fine. If you need something more specialized, you WILL be waiting a while. That isn't a lie of the right Chris. That is out of the horses mouth from people that live in those systems.

Another thing we here is that UHC will be more preventative than the current system. I honestly don't see how that can be the case when people have to wait. Look at the the two systems. We have a more expensive system than most and the left likes to argue that are system prioritizes healthcare based on who has the deepest pockets. Well that's true in only a very limited sense. If you need to be treated you will be. But let's assume for the sake of argument that are system is based soletly on who can pay. Then we have the other system that, because it is inexpensive is based primarily on actual need of care. Here's where economic laws throw monkey wrench into things. If you tool basic econ you know that as price decreases, demand increases. That is if healthcare is less expensive than more people will use it. So what happens when there more demand than supply? Presumabley under a UHC we have to prioritize people based on their level of need. Or put in another way, there level of pain. The worst get seen first. Bringing us back to the issue of preventative issue. How can system that only has time to treat the worst first going to be able practice preventative medicine?

 

[Chris]

No What I'm telling you is that Socialized medicine of the sort they have in Europe isn't going to work here. And delineating why.

Socialized Medicine is largely the idea that bureaucrats work cheaper than lawyers.

A single payer system is not socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine is what they have in England where the doctors work for the government.

A single payer system is just the government acting as the insurance company. The doctors still own their practices.

 

[Chris]

Noted that this is a none response to the issue of the trade off in quality and ease of access.

The WHO report that has been vaunted by UHC folks does show one important detail. That the U.S. is THE leader in terms of quality of care.

You are truly naive to believe that there won't be a trade off between the quality we enjoy now and switching to a less expensive system. A high school friend of mine who has lived and worked in Sweden for that last 3 years recently vistited over the holidays. When asked what the healtcare was like there he echoed pretty much the same thing we have heard systems like Canada's. If you need to see a doctor for the every day cough or flu the single payer systems are fine. If you need something more specialized, you WILL be waiting a while. That isn't a lie of the right Chris. That is out of the horses mouth from people that live in those systems.

Another thing we here is that UHC will be more preventative than the current system. I honestly don't see how that can be the case when people have to wait. Look at the the two systems. We have a more expensive system than most and the left likes to argue that are system prioritizes healthcare based on who has the deepest pockets. Well that's true in only a very limited sense. If you need to be treated you will be. But let's assume for the sake of argument that are system is based soletly on who can pay. Then we have the other system that, because it is inexpensive is based primarily on actual need of care. Here's where economic laws throw monkey wrench into things. If you tool basic econ you know that as price decreases, demand increases. That is if healthcare is less expensive than more people will use it. So what happens when there more demand than supply? Presumabley under a UHC we have to prioritize people based on their level of need. Or put in another way, there level of pain. The worst get seen first. Bringing us back to the issue of preventative issue. How can system that only has time to treat the worst first going to be able practice preventative medicine?

So according to you, UHC prioritizes people according to need.

Our system prioritizes people according to wealth.

Which is better?

 

[michiganFats]

A single payer system is when you only have one payer. It doesn't have to be the Government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

sounds like yet another instance of this nation's govt treating its veterans like trash - not an inherent flaw in the system that makes it impossible to work here.

Would you like to take a gander at the Medicaid system, and see if the government treats any of its OTHER healthcare clients better than it does its veterans? This isn't about any disrespect for this group or that group. It's about the inherent inability of the government to be efficient, cost-effective, or responsive in the area of customer service.

As the cliche goes, tell me which government department you would like YOUR medical care to be run like. The DMV? The Post Office? Congress?

 

[editec]

A single payer system is when you only have one payer. It doesn't have to be the Government.

That is an excellent point.

It still won't work not even if its run by a for profit business, of course, unless the system is able to keep prices under control.


As we can clearly see from the continuous rise in prices under the mostly capitalist system we have now, for-profit health care insurance isn't very good at keeping costs down, either.

Why?

They have no real incentive to limit costs, as they can always increase premiums to offset rising costs.

Sorry folks, I know you all think that the market system is a good way to keep the overall cost of health care costs down, but reality keeps showing us that HC doesn't operate in exactly same way most things do.

 

[Andrew2382]

That is an excellent point.

It still won't work not even if its run by a for profit business, of course, unless the system is able to keep prices under control.


As we can clearly see from the continuous rise in prices under the mostly capitalist system we have now, for-profit health care insurance isn't very good at keeping costs down, either.

Why?

They have no real incentive to limit costs, as they can always increase premiums to offset rising costs.

Sorry folks, I know you all think that the market system is a good way to keep the overall cost of health care costs down, but reality keeps showing us that HC doesn't operate in exactly same way most things do.

when will people realize its not the companies fault the premiums are high.....it's yours.

I can go out and buy private insurance for myself...the best plan with a 500 dollar deductible for under 130 dollars a month.

That isn't expensive.

Why. Cause I take care of myself. Ever think that the reason this country has such high premium sis because we are also prob of the most unfit countries around. I think we are the top when it comes in obesity.

Look at Japan...why is it so inexpensive...Because they take care of themselves...I don' thtink anyone would argue that they probably have one of the healthiest diets in the world.

So why should company A who gets a quote request from a 45 year old smoker who is 80 pounds over weight not charge more....it's a higher risk, a higher liability. I would charge more too.

If you are fit an dhealthy then you won't pay as much.