Universal Health Care

[Moksha]

a liberal, socialist government knows how to run our lives better than we do!!!!

Or at least cares for the wellbeing of others more. Hmmm, does that make them more Christ-like as well?

Before this depression, about 47 million people had no health care coverage. Of course that number is higher now and climbing, along with the unemployment rate. When there were on 47 million we could say. "let them eat cake", but now that message may not be received as well.

Still, long as we are covered we can be cavalier about it. It's not our problem. "Let them go to Canada."

Sorry to sound sarcastic, but I do care.

.

[LittleWyvern]

I think the US is simply too large to make universal health care work. I think we should do the federalist thing and just let each state decide if they want to start a universal health care program in their state.

[hordak]

Before this depression, about 47 million people had no health care coverage. Of course that number is higher now and climbing, along with the unemployment rate. When there were on 47 million we could say. "let them eat cake", but now that message may not be received as well.

.

Although 45 million are counted as uninsured, that includes up to 14 million who are eligible for Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) but aren't enrolled, according to Devon Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute:

* A fourth of the uninsured are under 24, and half are under 35 years of age.

* Three-quarters of the uninsured remain so for less than a year.

* Americans without health insurance spend roughly the same amount of their own money on health care ($242) as do the fully insured ($211).

* One in three uninsured live in households with incomes of more than $50,000, one in seven live in households with incomes above $75,000.

The proportion of the population without health insurance was 15.6 percent of the population in 2003, the same as in 1996. Many are uninsured because they are young, healthy and can get medical care without having to pay increasing insurance premiums. The uninsured who are hospitalized pay on average a mere 9 percent of the costs of their treatment.

Many don't have insurance because they don't want it.

[john doe]

Or at least cares for the wellbeing of others more. Hmmm, does that make them more Christ-like as well?

Cares? I think you're using the wrong word here. I believe you were looking for the word 'controls'. That fits the statement in this case better. For those who want to take control of care away from individuals, they don't 'care' more, they want to 'control' more of it. Because power is what this is all about.

And 'Christ-like'? Naaahhh, not even close. Christ is not about being controlling. He is about free choice, which is something liberals in this country don't want.

[Palerider]

Just what I want is more Gov't in my life.......you get what you pay for....when everyone has this health care in this country they will be complaining about it.....it always looks and sounds nice on paper..

[RavinMaven]

Maybe I am way off base, but I wish that health insurance was run like car insurance instead of being tied to employment. Wouldn't it be nice if you could get allstate health insurance, and pay for a package that fits your lifestyle...and if your rates get too high you could switch to state farm health insurance...the same that you do for your car. The competition would help the rates stay reasonable, and if you lost your job you wouldn't lose your health care, AND it wouldn't have to be run by the government. It works for cars, homes, boats, etc. why not health care. (I readily admit that I am not fully read up on the subject, so if this is a totally ignorant idea, then feel free to ignore it.)

[mustang90]

Cares? I think you're using the wrong word here. I believe you were looking for the word 'controls'. That fits the statement in this case better. For those who want to take control of care away from individuals, they don't 'care' more, they want to 'control' more of it. Because power is what this is all about.

And 'Christ-like'? Naaahhh, not even close. Christ is not about being controlling. He is about free choice, which is something liberals in this country don't want.

Really?

So you must be personally close to all major advocates and politicians supporting universal health care? Surely you are privy to their most personal thoughts on the subject to the degree where you can make the determination they don't really care about people, only controlling them?

I'm assuming you are of course all of these things, because if you weren't, that would be a pretty big judgement for a Christian...

[JohnBirchSociety]

I agree with many of your comments Traveler. Holding individuals responsible for the use of their insurance helps to keep costs down.

I worked in the medical insurance field for 6 years. There were many companies that were beginning to see the logic in this and offered some incentives to their employees.

There was one company that offered a reduced rate in their monthly premium if they went through some required testing. For example...women were required to have an annual pap test and show proof. Unless of course they had gone through a hysterectomy) Men over a certain age a prostate screening. Women over a certain age a mammography. Preventative care helped reduce the cost of major care required.

However, that being said..I was appalled at the plans that only allowed a $250 annual maximum for well child care. We all know newborns, toddlers etc require well child check ups as well as the associated immunizations to go along with it. Yet these same plans would pay for gastric bypass.

I'm not saying that there are those who would not greatly be helped by gastric bypass but...come on....we also know how important well child checkups are as well.

I think there is some education that needs to be made not only among employers but among the employees themselves when involved in group plans.

I can almost agree with you.

Immunizations are probably the greatest hoax in regards to health in all of human history. And what is so very sad about the hoax is that the victims nearly 100% Children.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Really?

So you must be personally close to all major advocates and politicians supporting universal health care? Surely you are privy to their most personal thoughts on the subject to the degree where you can make the determination they don't really care about people, only controlling them?

I'm assuming you are of course all of these things, because if you weren't, that would be a pretty big judgement for a Christian...

But why stop with government sponsored health care? Is the most basic of human needs food? Shouldn't we, in the spirit of liberalism, have free food for all? That way we could control obesity (just ask the people who lived under Stalin about food control by government, they were not overweight, 'course, most of 'em starved to death), which is a major contributor to ill health.

And what about the darn sun-light? It causes cancer. The government should do something about it!

On and on. Where does it end? How can it rationally end? How can we call for "free" health-care and not "free" food, or housing, for all? And if all are getting it for "free" who's going to pay for it?

Government has consistently shown itself the be the poorest of distribution mechanisms. The private sector is almost, without exception, better suited.

No, what we need is not more "free" or more "universal" anything. We need less government intervention. We need less government "assistence" (when have they really ever assisted anyone?)...

Or, as the phrase goes, "Less Government, More Individual Responsibility, and with GOD's help, A Better World".

[mustang90]

But why stop with government sponsored health care? Is the most basic of human needs food? Shouldn't we, in the spirit of liberalism, have free food for all? That way we could control obesity (just ask the people who lived under Stalin about food control by government, they were not overweight, 'course, most of 'em starved to death), which is a major contributor to ill health.

And what about the darn sun-light? It causes cancer. The government should do something about it!

On and on. Where does it end? How can it rationally end? How can we call for "free" health-care and not "free" food, or housing, for all? And if all are getting it for "free" who's going to pay for it?

Government has consistently shown itself the be the poorest of distribution mechanisms. The private sector is almost, without exception, better suited.

No, what we need is not more "free" or more "universal" anything. We need less government intervention. We need less government "assistence" (when have they really ever assisted anyone?)...

Or, as the phrase goes, "Less Government, More Individual Responsibility, and with GOD's help, A Better World".

Why I'll be darned, I was just about to bring up starting a universal sunlight blockage policy.

(after my idea of government sponsored work camps to counter obesity in the U.S of course)

Dripping sarcasm aside, you know what is truly sad, that despite being an advanced western nation, the WHO (World Health Organization) ranks the United States 37th in health care, right in front of Slovenia, and right behind other such advanced nations as Dominica and Costa Rica.

[pam]

The problem is, people have the argument that health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians.

But reality is in the U.S right now, health care decisions are being made by insurance companies, not patients, not doctors, and not even politicians.

Not necessarily true. I've explained this before. Many many companies have self funded plans. Meaning the employer is paying all the bills but hires a 3rd party to administer the plans. The employer is THEN making the decisions not the insurance company. Even those plans that are not self funded are set up and the employer determines the plan they will go with based on premiums and cost. Not the insurance company. Everyone wants to blame insurance companies when most of the time they are just following what the employers want.

[Elgama]

One of my main concerns about any kind of health care in the current atmosphere of health in the USA: The two biggest health care problems in the USA are caused from overweight and lack of exercise. The two primary means of offering health care comes in the form of drugs and surgery.

[.

The Traveler

this I agree with a more integrated holistic attitude to health would be better, its something the NHS is slowly moving too.

HOWEVER if an obese person or a smoker pays into the NHS I believe they are as entitled to the benefits as someone who damages their knees through a lot of running, the rugby player who is injured, or the guy who gets injured up a mountain.

Very few of us do not engage in risky endeavors to some extent.

And of course people will moan they do about the NHS but I don't know many Brits who have gone to holiday in the US, needed to avail of the US system and not come back with a huge appreciation of what we have. Nothing has stopped my complaints about the NHS more than seeing my Father in Laws treatment and experiencing my own in the US when I had a complicated miscarriage. I now know the NHS Dr who suggested I rest and let my first one happen was actually quite right, much better than trying to get as much as possible out of my good travel insurance company, by giving me unnecessary drugs and taking unnecessary blood tests. (wonder how much that adds up to in the US - the getting money out of insurance companies by doing unnecessary work).

-Charley

[MarginOfError]

I can almost agree with you.

Immunizations are probably the greatest hoax in regards to health in all of human history. And what is so very sad about the hoax is that the victims nearly 100% Children.

Immunizations are not a hoax, and I offer that as a professional opinion from myself and a colleague (biostatisticians) and every MD with whom I've conversed on the topic. I used to be a huge skeptic, but after looking at the data, there's no question left in my mind that the immunization program is worthwhile.

Now, whether it really needs to be done on the CDC's superpaced schedule is a question with a not-so-clear answer.

Edited March 20, 2009 by MarginOfError

[Moksha]

... the WHO (World Health Organization) ranks the United States 37th in health care, right in front of Slovenia, and right behind other such advanced nations as Dominica and Costa Rica.

While we may be 37th in health care, behind some third world countries, we are still #1 in health care costs.

USA USA USA!!!

[Vort]

Pros: I spend far less than $3500/year for health care. I can go whenever I'm sick, I can show up any time for a checkup and not worry about eating that month.

Did you factor in the amount you pay in taxes for the government-subsidized health care?

[Vort]

Really?

So you must be personally close to all major advocates and politicians supporting universal health care? Surely you are privy to their most personal thoughts on the subject to the degree where you can make the determination they don't really care about people, only controlling them?

I'm assuming you are of course all of these things, because if you weren't, that would be a pretty big judgement for a Christian...

Why? He was talking about socialist governments. Socialism is a watered-down form of communism (please, save the Marxist theory for another thread; we all know that modern socialism is communism in sheep's clothing), and communism is a form of slavery where the people are owned by the government. I'd say that's about as antiChrist as you can get.

[Vort]

Dripping sarcasm aside, you know what is truly sad, that despite being an advanced western nation, the WHO (World Health Organization) ranks the United States 37th in health care, right in front of Slovenia, and right behind other such advanced nations as Dominica and Costa Rica.

WHO cares?

You don't suppose the UN-sponsored agency has an agenda, do you? If the US is really behind the Domenican Republic and Costa Rica in health care, why don't people move to those places in droves?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Because the health care isn't actually better there.

But you wouldn't know that listening to WHO.

[gabelpa]

Did you factor in the amount you pay in taxes for the government-subsidized health care?

In the UK its split we pay National Insurance and Taxes they are separate. The NHS is not free - it is free at the point of entry

We pay for my families healthcare and insurance in case we become unemployed or sick less than £3000 a year and that should not be translated into $ because someone earning £35,000 here would usually earn $35, 000 in the states - that is roughly our National Insurance bill, for that we get everything, a useful phone contact, Drs that come out and visit, in Scotland it includes dental (if you can find a dentist lol) and eye check ups. For our children under 16 all prescriptions, dental treatment and glasses. For me being pregnant also I get all prescriptions and dental treatments until my baby is 1. I will get all my maternity care looked after. Those on low incomes also get free prescriptions. We do not have to pay for ambulances. You can go private if you wish. If my husband loses his job we do not have to pay anything until he finds a new one - and we will receive same treatment. You can even get expenses paid travelling to the hospital. We were paying over half what we are paying now for our own family on a much reduced income for just my husband at one point in the US and had we been in the US, plus he would need to pay out for an awful lot of extras we don't here, we'd have had taxes as well. Oh and it subsidises my personal care for my illness

If my husband earns more he pays more, if his wages get cut as is happening to many people they pay less.

-Charley

Edited March 20, 2009 by gabelpa

[MarginOfError]

Just to put my thoughts on record, I have no faith in the government to run a full health care system. For starters, they would never be able to afford it without a significant increase in taxes, which tax payers would never tolerate. Even if we could get past that issue, our government tends to work in fads--picking up a program while it is politically expedient, and then cutting costs from said program when the next fad comes along. The last thing I need is a group of politicians deciding what health care is available to me.

What I would be a fan of is government-guaranteed preventative health care. More specifically, annual exams for adults, maternity care, and wellness visits for children until age 5. I think that would be a worthwhile program, so long as the government's only role was paying for it.

Yes, I know...lots of details to be worked out even there. But I need to go wash the dishes.

[gabelpa]

Just to put my thoughts on record, I have no faith in the government to run a full health care system. For starters, they would never be able to afford it without a significant increase in taxes, which tax payers would never tolerate. Even if we could get past that issue, our government tends to work in fads--picking up a program while it is politically expedient, and then cutting costs from said program when the next fad comes along. The last thing I need is a group of politicians deciding what health care is available to me.

.

do you think your taxes would go up by more than current health insurance bills, bare in mind you wouldn't need to pay them? also because everyone pays the economy adjusts to it? its kind of like tithing it goes out of your pay packet and was never yours in the first place:)

-Charley

[Just_A_Guy]

The WHO, as far as I can tell on the web, no longer does rankings. The "37th" figure comes from the year 2000.

This New York Times editorial is interesting. It cites a later study comparing the US with five other countries, and provides an illuminating analysis of what factors the Times (and probably the WHO) considers important.

[Just_A_Guy]

do you think your taxes would go up by more than current health insurance bills

For me, yes. My current health bills are $0. If I get sick, I fully intend to pay the costs thereof--and if I can't pay the costs thereof, I will refuse treatment and suffer the consequences, even if they include death. I'm OK with that.

[mustang90]

Why? He was talking about socialist governments. Socialism is a watered-down form of communism (please, save the Marxist theory for another thread; we all know that modern socialism is communism in sheep's clothing), and communism is a form of slavery where the people are owned by the government. I'd say that's about as antiChrist as you can get.

I sincerely doubt that all nations that have Universal Healthcare (among them Canada, France, Spain, Israel, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Germany, and others) are all satanically motivated.

As a matter of fact, last time I checked, none of the above countries have fallen into a state of satanically influenced abject communism...but I can double check?

[Faded]

I would be curious to learn the pros and cons of government run health care. I have read Elgama' posts regarding it and she seems very positive about it.

My questions are: What percentage of your income do you pay for it? What services does it include? What services are excluded? Can you exempt yourself and family from it and buy private insurance? What is the best thing about it and what is the worst. Are there provisions that may potentially diminish the level of care or the timely delivery of care?

Any thoughts from our Canadian and UK friends would be great. Thanks- Bytor

Side note: I pay approximately $3400.00 annually for major medical insurance for my entire family. We have a high deductable...$1500.00 per person.

Here is the Healthcare Gospel According To Faded:

There are several things wrong with the current system:

1.) Frivilous malpractice lawsuits are absolutely killing the system. There is no room for doctors to be anything less than perfect, and the amounts some people sue for are outrageous. There are cases where doctors will refuse to do what they think is right because there is a chance there will be a malpractice lawsuit if they're wrong.

2.) Hospitals, doctors and others are also abusing the system. They will drastically price-gouge as long as tney know that an Insurance Company will be picking up the tab. If someone is paying out of pocket, then the "unofficial" price magically appears -- one that the average person can actually afford generally.

3.) The price keeps going up for employee insurance plans. Sooner or later, people can't afford even group health insurance anymore.

4.) The prices for medical proceedures and pharmaceudicals in the United States is often significantly higher than the exact same proceedure/medication in another country. Nobody seems to be able to explain this.

5.) There were 46,600,000 uninsured Americans as of 2006. There is no question about it. The number has gone up. That's about one sixth of the entire population of the United States that has no Heath Insurance.

6.) A lot of people who DO have Medical Insurance have coverage that isn't worth a damn. The VAST majority of HMO's are a complete joke. The goal of the HMO is to make it as difficult as possible for a patient to get treatment, especially if it's expensive.

What we currently have is probably the highest overall quality health care system in the world. It just costs too damn much. It's the money that makes it great, but it's also the cost that keeps people from actually using it.

Is a Government controlled system the answer? I don't know. I see two possible solutions:

a.) Do like Massachussetts and mandate that everyone has to get Health Insurance. In tandem with that, increase regulation and seek to eliminate abuses of all types.

b.) Create a system of Government provided Health Care.

Ultimately one thing is absolutely certain, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!

[mustang90]

WHO cares?

You don't suppose the UN-sponsored agency has an agenda, do you? If the US is really behind the Domenican Republic and Costa Rica in health care, why don't people move to those places in droves?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Because the health care isn't actually better there.

But you wouldn't know that listening to WHO.

First off, I enjoyed the WHO pun. Quite clever indeed.:)

Second off, health care may very well be better in these nations(short of a massive conspiracy including the forgery of a fantastic number of medical statistics in order to pressure the US into communism )

As a matter of fact, people do go to foreign nations for their health care benefits (to buy meds, have surgeries performed, etc.) They may not make those nations their residencies for any number of reasons (jobs, family, locational preference) but it is nowhere near unheard of for Americans to travel to other nations for medication and treatment.