Universal Healthcare Detrimental?

[lschs77]

Fellow Citizens of the United States of America and Those Concerned Citizens of Other Countries,
With President Obama's campaign for change firmly in swing, the United State's degrading health system seems to not have escaped hasty progressive legislation. Almost without apprehension, some Americans are blindly demanding universal healthcare. I have always been one to listen intently to history's lessons, which has, in turn, raised a profuse number of concerns about universal healthcare. I was hoping that fellow American citizens and citizens of other countries, those on both sides of this pivotal issue, those that have experienced the advantages and disadvantages of our current system and universal healthcare, will converge upon this forum and either lay to rest my concerns or validate them. Listed below are my trepidations with questions for thought:
1. Increase in Insurance Premiums/ Expense of Healthcare
Will universal healthcare lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
Will insurance companies still be able to discriminate against older citizens and/or preexisting conditions?
Will the expense of healthcare really decrease?
Will the states be able to control costs?
2. Monetary Sustainability
Will our country be able to maintain monetary sustainability?
3. Supply of Physicians
Will it really be easier for lower-income people to receive healthcare versus higher-income people?
Will doctors accept the influx of new patients or even accept certain types of insurance?
Will the supply of physicians be maintained when medical malpractice is such a liability?
Will defensive medicine lead to higher costs of healthcare?
4. Average Health of Citizen
Ultimately, will universal healthcare increase the average health of an American citizen?
5. Is healthcare a right or a privilege?
Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Thanks

 

[QUENTIN]

While Americans will not get Universal Healthcare (the public option in the Congress' bill was extremely meager and watered down, now even that nominal option was removed from the Senate bill) it has proven to be remarkably beneficial, not detrimental.

It's not as though Universal Healthcare is some grand unknown entity we have to consider based on pure speculation or fears, many developed nations (most in fact) have adopted one form or another of universal care and across the board they cost considerably less money than a private system, have higher levels of satisfaction among both doctors and the public, are more sustainable, and lead to longer average lifespan, lower infant mortality, and better general health of the citizenry while also not leaving anyone out in the cold without care.

It is in no one's best interest to have anything but universal care except for insurance companies.

 

[lschs77]

Infant Mortality Rate seems to be the biggest argument for universal healthcare. European countries with universal healthcare have a lower IMF than the United States. The problem is with the statistical data and how it is represented. Other European countries only count live births when the baby breathes at birth. The United States does not do this. They follow the World Health Organizations guidelines, which say an infant exists when it exhibits independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. The United States counts these as infant mortalities at any month of gestation, whether breathing at birth or not. Stop using this as a reason for implementing universal healthcare.
As for your other comments, I replied with actual facts in my other thread. Thanks for your thoughts, I'm not attacking you, I'm just sick of the IMF excuse.

 

[Claudette]

I have European freinds who think we are crazy, with a capital C, for even considering univeral healthcare here in America. These folks outta know. Its what they have in their countries.

 

[Truthmatters]

then they are the vast minority.

All of the facts point obviously in ONE direction.

Universal healthcare with a single payer provides cheaper and better care everywhere it is implimented.


Why is the right always on the opposite side of the facts?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Fellow Citizens of the United States of America and Those Concerned Citizens of Other Countries,
With President Obama's campaign for change firmly in swing, the United State's degrading health system seems to not have escaped hasty progressive legislation. Almost without apprehension, some Americans are blindly demanding universal healthcare. I have always been one to listen intently to history's lessons, which has, in turn, raised a profuse number of concerns about universal healthcare. I was hoping that fellow American citizens and citizens of other countries, those on both sides of this pivotal issue, those that have experienced the advantages and disadvantages of our current system and universal healthcare, will converge upon this forum and either lay to rest my concerns or validate them. Listed below are my trepidations with questions for thought:
1. Increase in Insurance Premiums/ Expense of Healthcare Will universal healthcare lead to an increase in insurance premiums?
yes. The high coverage requirements will cost more than many plans we all have now, they will cover more too but you no longer have a choice to decide what level of coverage you get
Will insurance companies still be able to discriminate against older citizens and/or preexisting conditions?
Not with the language in the bill, good thing. However there will be a health benefits advisoray council which will be run by the government and will determine what level of care is acceptable(its already law and in the stimulus bill) this is what many people refer to as a "Death Panel"
Will the expense of healthcare really decrease?
No it will increase. I judge this based off the expense histories of every other program the government has gotten involved in along with looking at the results in countries such as England
Will the states be able to control costs?
No it will be federally mandated
2. Monetary Sustainability
Will our country be able to maintain monetary sustainability?
With our already large national defecit and low tax revenues we wont be able to "afford" the plan. If the government raises income taxes on all americans to levels around 50% we can afford it. But this is the government who cant run amtrack or the post office without losing money and can't keep social security or medicare funded
3. Supply of Physicians
Will it really be easier for lower-income people to receive healthcare versus higher-income people?
No, it will be the same for everyone basically. More demand with the same supply of doctors will mean longer wait times...possibly lower quality too. As long as there are good private doctors the rich will still be able to buy their way into better treatment and service
Will doctors accept the influx of new patients or even accept certain types of insurance?
They will and it will increase wait times for everything from doctors visits to cat scans and surgeries. I believe they will have to accept all government approved insurance (which will be all insurance since none will be able to function without federal consent)
Will the supply of physicians be maintained when medical malpractice is such a liability?
There is no tort reform in the bill, in fact the bill makes it easier to sue insurance companies and doctors, so this question of yours could be an issue
Will defensive medicine lead to higher costs of healthcare?
No. THe government will regulate what treatments a doctor is allowed to perform and what tests, and the number of those tests they can run
4. Average Health of Citizen
Ultimately, will universal healthcare increase the average health of an American citizen?
I really dont know, i think it will hurt us overall but help some who can't get care right now because of insurance costs
5. Is healthcare a right or a privilege?
Is healthcare a right or a privilege?
Privilege, just like getting a drivers liscense is a privelege. Now states could make laws turning it into a right but the federal government doing so is actually unconstitutional as it was not given this power in the constition. The states are given this power however, in fact they are given all powers not specifically given to the federal government in the constitution.

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Thanks

I will edit in my opinions/answers in the thread using red

hope i helped.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

then they are the vast minority.

All of the facts point obviously in ONE direction.

Universal healthcare with a single payer provides cheaper and better care everywhere it is implimented.


Why is the right always on the opposite side of the facts?

England and Cuba don't count then?

 

[EriktheRed]

I have European freinds who think we are crazy, with a capital C, for even considering univeral healthcare here in America. These folks outta know. Its what they have in their countries.

I have European friends, too. They think we're crazy for not having it, or at least something closer to it.

 

[EriktheRed]

then they are the vast minority.

All of the facts point obviously in ONE direction.

Universal healthcare with a single payer provides cheaper and better care everywhere it is implimented.


Why is the right always on the opposite side of the facts?

England and Cuba don't count then?

I don't know about Cuba, but it's my understanding that, despite whatever drawbacks critics point to, NHS is still popular in England and overall more preferable to the way our system is working here.


Also...


In Their Own Words: The NHS Rebuttal to the Associated Press (AP) : Hisham’s Blog

 

[lschs77]

For someone with the name truthmatters you seem to be on the wrong side of the facts. Actually universal healthcare has not lead to decrease in costs everywhere it is implemented. Instead of taking a journey across the atlantic to observe european healthcare, lets just look at Massachusetts.

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.

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.

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I have European freinds who think we are crazy, with a capital C, for even considering univeral healthcare here in America. These folks outta know. Its what they have in their countries.

I have European friends, too. They think we're crazy for not having it, or at least something closer to it.

Then why are the europeans freaking out about their version of our health benefits advisory council rationing care and rejecting certain screenings and surgeries?

http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2007_05_arfwedson_pitts_ebm.pdf
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2007_04_11_facey_HTA.pdf
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2006_12_00_petkantchin_refpric_en.pdf

heres a TON of them

Centre for the New Europe - Europe's Leading Brussels-based Free Market Think Tank

 

[IDSSTING39]

The Joint Committee on Taxation has published a list of the 17 tax increases in theSenate health care bill, which are estimated to raise $370.2 billion in revenues over ten years:

1. 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500/$23,000 ($149.1 billion)
2. Employer W-2 reporting of value of health (negligible revenue effect)
3. Conform definition of medical expenses ($5.0 billion)
4. Increase penalty for nonqualified health savings account distributions to 20% ($1.3 billion)
5. Limit health flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500 ($14.6 billion)
6. Require information reporting on payments to corporations ($17.1 billion)
7. Additional requirements for section 501(c)(3) hospitals (negligible revenue effects)
8. Impose annual fee on manufacturers & importers of branded drugs ($22.2 billion)
9. Impose annual fee on manufacturers & importers of medical devices ($19.3 billion)
10. Impose annual fee on health insurance providers ($60.4 billion)
11. Study and report of effect on veterans health care (no revenue effect)
12. Eliminate deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy ($5.4 billion)
13. Raise 7.5% AGI floor on medical expenses deduction to 10% ($15.2 billion)
14. $500,000 deduction limitation on taxable year remuneration to health insurance officials ($0.6 billion)
15. Additional 0.5% hospital insurance tax on wages > $200,000 ($250,000 joint) ($53.8 billion)
16. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations ($0.4 billion)
17. Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery ($5.8 billion)
Welcome to Universal Health Care

 

[EriktheRed]

I have European freinds who think we are crazy, with a capital C, for even considering univeral healthcare here in America. These folks outta know. Its what they have in their countries.

I have European friends, too. They think we're crazy for not having it, or at least something closer to it.

Then why are the europeans freaking out about their version of our health benefits advisory council rationing care and rejecting certain screenings and surgeries?

http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2007_05_arfwedson_pitts_ebm.pdf
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2007_04_11_facey_HTA.pdf
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2006_12_00_petkantchin_refpric_en.pdf

heres a TON of them

Centre for the New Europe - Europe's Leading Brussels-based Free Market Think Tank

Is this really representative of "the Europeans", though? I'm talking about the attiudes of average European citizens towards the kind of single-payer system most of those countries have. I'm not gonna call Claudette a liar, but my experience talking to Europeans has suggested the opposite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

then they are the vast minority.

All of the facts point obviously in ONE direction.

Universal healthcare with a single payer provides cheaper and better care everywhere it is implimented.


Why is the right always on the opposite side of the facts?

There are no facts, other than that this is about big government control.

It has been documented that the United States has the best healthcare in the world, as judged by life expectancy.

Here are the solutions to your complaints:

Short and Sweet: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have European freinds who think we are crazy, with a capital C, for even considering univeral healthcare here in America. These folks outta know. Its what they have in their countries.

I have European friends, too. They think we're crazy for not having it, or at least something closer to it.

Heirs to Fortuyn? by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2009
When the New Left emerged in the 1960s, something else was born that would mark American elites for decades thereafter: the notion that social-democratic Western Europe was far superior to the capitalist United States. For much of the American Left, Western Europe was nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia.

This rosy view was never accurate, of course. Europe’s socialized health care was blighted by outrageous (and sometimes deadly) waiting lists and rationing, to name just one example. To name another: Timbro, a Swedish think tank, found in 2004 that Sweden was poorer than all but five U.S. states and Denmark poorer than all but nine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

then they are the vast minority.

All of the facts point obviously in ONE direction.

Universal healthcare with a single payer provides cheaper and better care everywhere it is implimented.


Why is the right always on the opposite side of the facts?

England and Cuba don't count then?

I don't know about Cuba, but it's my understanding that, despite whatever drawbacks critics point to, NHS is still popular in England and overall more preferable to the way our system is working here.


Also...


In Their Own Words: The NHS Rebuttal to the Associated Press (AP) : Hisham’s Blog

. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): tells Brits if their life is worth living- in actual dollars and cents. As the NYTimes states, its job is to develop “a standard method of rationing. NICE has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about $22,750, to save six months of a citizen’s life.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html)
So, the average one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is worth way more than a Brits’ life!(March 2009 Manhattan Rental Market Report | Rental Market Reports | TREGNY)
So, it has concluded that if you have breast cancer, the drug Tykerb, shown to delay the progression of the disease, is worth more than you are “despite Glaxo’s offer to pay for the first 12 weeks of treatment.”
U.K. Says Tykerb Isn’t Worth Cost, Even With 12 Free Weeks - Health Blog - WSJ

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have European friends, too. They think we're crazy for not having it, or at least something closer to it.

Then why are the europeans freaking out about their version of our health benefits advisory council rationing care and rejecting certain screenings and surgeries?

http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2007_05_arfwedson_pitts_ebm.pdf
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2007_04_11_facey_HTA.pdf
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2006_12_00_petkantchin_refpric_en.pdf

heres a TON of them

Centre for the New Europe - Europe's Leading Brussels-based Free Market Think Tank

Is this really representative of "the Europeans", though? I'm talking about the attiudes of average European citizens towards the kind of single-payer system most of those countries have. I'm not gonna call Claudette a liar, but my experience talking to Europeans has suggested the opposite.

Universal Healthcare Around the World:
Italy: average wait for a mammogram is 70 days
“When you compare the outcomes for specific
diseases, the United States clearly outperforms
the rest of the world. Whether the disease
is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or
AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far
higher in the United States than in other countries.

The same is true for prescription drugs.
For example, 44 percent of Americans who
could benefit from statins, lipid-lowering
medication that reduces cholesterol and protects
against heart disease, take the drug.
That number seems low until compared with
the 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of
Britons, and 17 percent of Italians who could
both benefit from the drug and receive it.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

In Great Britain, about 20% of patients with treatable colon cancer at the time of discovery are considered incurable by the time treatment is finally available.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

Countries in which complementary or supplementary private health insurance policies are common include
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States (in
the case of Medicare programme beneficiaries).
In countries where private health insurance is available, governments often impose rules on what sort of
coverage is permissible. For example, Australia prohibits private insurance policies from covering the
ambulatory care co-payments required in the public programme. Canada prohibits private health insurers
from covering benefits included in the national plan.
The public-integrated model combines on-budget financing of health-care provision with hospital
providers that are part of the government sector.6 These systems, which merge the insurance and provision
functions, are organised and operated like any government department. Staff is generally paid on salary
(although, in some cases, doctors can have private patients as well) and they are most often public-sector
employees. Ambulatory doctors and other health-care professionals can be either public employees or
private contractors to the health-care authority, with a range of remuneration packages. Ensuring complete
population coverage is particularly easy under such systems, and as they are under the control of the
budget, the growth of overall costs has been contained more easily. However, they have weak incentives to
increase output, improve efficiency, or maintain quality and responsiveness to patient needs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For someone with the name truthmatters you seem to be on the wrong side of the facts. Actually universal healthcare has not lead to decrease in costs everywhere it is implemented. Instead of taking a journey across the atlantic to observe european healthcare, lets just look at Massachusetts.

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.

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.

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.

If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free:
The following ‘Universal Healthcare’ countries have higher out-of-pocket costs than the United States:
Out-of-pocket spending as a share of total expenditure on health, 1980-2000 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/53/22364122.pdf (table 4)
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland.