Universal Healthcare

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Coming from a complete place of ignorance, here is what goes through my mind.

1) I don’t see how universal health insurance/care would work

It could.  But it requires every single person in the populace to be invested in the welfare of every member of the populace.  This means - you are a unicultural family that shares the same traditions, beliefs, lifestyle.  Such that, every member chooses not to go and drink 64 ounces of soda in one sitting, not smoke drink or do leisure drugs, not go have sex with prostitutes, eat healthy without extreme dieting and exercise regularly and be vaccinated, etc. because That's Who They Are.

 

1 hour ago, Fether said:

2) Why do many good people in places that have it love it?

Lots of horror stories in places with government-run healthcare.

But it's basically accepted in exchange for liberty.  That's not gonna happen in the US anytime soon.  For example, Canada, UK, Australia have government-run healthcare and people are prohibited from alternative medicine.  You will also note that these countries do not have the same liberties as outlined in the US Bill of Rights.  In the UK, for example, you can be jailed for "hate speech".   So, you basically have a culture that are tolerant of government.  This is not the USA either.

In places with government-run healthcare, you'll see declining birth rates - I don't know if it's a correlation, but it is interesting to note.  

 

1 hour ago, Fether said:

3) Why are the biggest opponents of it people who don’t have it and have a political agenda?

Now this is just Fake News.

The biggest opponents of this are ordinary citizens who believe in Small Government.

 

1 hour ago, Fether said:

4) I imagine that if we did do it, it would domino effect into foreseen and unforeseen  negative effects... but are there other economic positive effects that would result that arenjust too far down the way for us to see? 

Sure.  If you want the USA to be transformed into a Government Dependent people - which is basically the old England that y'all fought a revolution to be free from - then you would want Big Government with the government managing 1/3 of your economy.  Fine if you got somebody the likes of Trump who is economy-savvy.  Not too fine when you got  the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez making legislation for you.

 

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I’m generally against it, but I also acknowledge my view as coming from heavily right leaning ideologues and a right leaning libertarian economics teacher.

I'm super against it that I am currently lambasting my own President Duterte for being DUMB AND STUPID on healthcare.  I'm no right-wing whatever.  I'm Filipino.

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by anatess2

[askandanswer]

Hmm, let me see now. "Universal" health care for:

@Vort, yes we should care for the elderly, and he's of an age where he probably won't need it for too many more years

 @MormonGator, @Fether and @LiterateParakeet? No, that would be vet care.

@zil? IN NO WAY, IN ANY FORM, ANYWHERE, EVER.

@anatess2 and @Sunday21 Yes, with the best possible doctors on call 24 hours a day

@Carborendum no, that would be stone masonry for the rough stone rolling

@lostinwater perhaps not, it could be for a lost cause

@pam Why?

@Traveler No, should be covered by travel er insurance

@NeuroTypical not typically 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by askandanswer

[Guest]

1 minute ago, askandanswer said:

 

@Carborendum no, that would be stone masonry for the rough stone rolling

I'm reminded of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever.

[zil]

Just now, askandanswer said:

@zil? IN NO WAY, IN ANY FORM, ANYWHERE, EVER.

I wouldn't submit to it even if it existed.  Meanwhile, does your poor missionary son know what a hateful soul his father is?  Sigh.  I may have to just not mention you lest he die of embarrassment.

[askandanswer]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I'm reminded of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever.

Could you elaborate please?

[askandanswer]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

  I may have to just not mention you lest he die of embarrassment.

Not likely - we have an excellent tax-payer funded system of universal health care here. 

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Except for our resident socialist, @mirkwood

Free compelled health care for everyone.  Even if I have to do it at gunpoint!

[mikbone]

How about universal housing and hamburgers?

 

We should also just let anyone into medical school who wants to go.  If we lowered our standards we could have lots more physicians.

 

[mikbone]

35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm reminded of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever.

I freakin loved White Gold Wielder. 

[mikbone]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/06/05/swiss-expected-to-overwhelmingly-reject-free-money-plan.html

[SpiritDragon]

5 hours ago, person0 said:

As a health insurance professional, I can confirm this to be true from my knowledge and experience.  If there were no such thing as health insurance, most healthcare costs would be much lower.  What people don't understand about health insurance is that the discounted amount paid by the insurance company is, for all intents and purposes, a 'write-off' that the provider is willing to 'eat' in exchange for guaranteed payment and preferred provider status for a given insurance network.

One way to fix this would be for all health insurance to operate on a reimbursement basis and for all networks to be eliminated, this would enable everyone to attend the doctor of their choosing.  In order for this to work, health insurance would need to work on an indemnity basis with specific payments and specific maximums for each service.  Individuals could choose a plan that would reimburse what they wanted to have covered and they could negotiate with the doctors and hospitals for any overage on an individual basis.  This would lead to hospital pricing transparency, as most hospitals would not be interested or willing to negotiate with every customer.  Then, with transparency, hospitals would compete via pricing and/or amenities.  The health insurance would not have anything to do with the hospital at all, only with the customer, and the customer would be able to know up front exactly what the cost would be for each type of service, with the option (in most cases) to refuse any service they felt unnecessary.  Anyway, just my two cents.  This type of market focuses on all parties marketing to the customer.  Right now, hospitals and insurance companies make the deals and nobody knows how much their ER visit actually costs until they get the bill, even if they are self pay with no insurance - ridiculous.

This sounds similar to the problems we face when our government dabbles in making childcare more universal, or so I'm told. I'm fortunate enough to have a wife who can stay at home with the kids so we haven't had to worry about it. Anyway, according to other family members and friends who have children in daycare, the moment the government agrees to pay a certain amount of daycare expense, the cost of daycare magically increases because the daycare providers know that people were used to paying X amount out of pocket and can still do so, so since the fee for service isn't also capped by the government, they simply increase the costs. All of that taxpayer funding simply makes those daycares a bit more profitable.

[SpiritDragon]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Lots of horror stories in places with government-run healthcare.

But it's basically accepted in exchange for liberty.  That's not gonna happen in the US anytime soon.  For example, Canada, UK, Australia have government-run healthcare and people are prohibited from alternative medicine.  You will also note that these countries do not have the same liberties as outlined in the US Bill of Rights.  In the UK, for example, you can be jailed for "hate speech".   So, you basically have a culture that are tolerant of government.  This is not the USA either.

In places with government-run healthcare, you'll see declining birth rates - I don't know if it's a correlation, but it is interesting to note. 

 

This is not entirely true. There are some alternative therapies available, but regulations do favour shutting such down. It is definitely a frustration of the universal health care system that it only covers medical/pharmaceutical care. Many in my family have been let down by the medical model of care but have been able to find relief in alternative health care. My wife was able to resolve chronic fatigue issues and eczema using a combination of homeopathy and nutritional support and fasting. I personally believe the homeopathy had little if anything to do with it and that the nutrition and fasting made the difference, but the point is the medical system only offered anti-depressants for the fatigue because they didn't know what else to do and suggested cortisone cream for her skin and it didn't help. This is after being referred to specialists because no one had any answers.

When there is a traumatic emergency the hospital/medical care system is exactly what I'd want helping my family, but for chronic conditions that can often be resolved outside the traditional medical umbrella it would be nice not to be left with the bill, especially since we pay the same portion of taxes as others but use the system less. It's certainly not perfect, but it's what I'm used to and I wouldn't want to be hit with the costs at the time of the emergency as that just seems like insult to injury. 

[SpiritDragon]

7 hours ago, person0 said:

Statistically this will always be the case because the majority of people are healthy.  Take a pool from only those who suffer from a treatable but incurable medical condition; I hypothesize a different result.

This confuses me. If the condition is treatable but incurable (like were taught diabetes is, although it's curable with lifestyle management) universal health care appears to me to be even more beneficial than to the otherwise healthy person, because the sick person is getting more care. Living in a country where so-called universal healthcare exists I've never heard anyone in the situation proposed complain. The main complaint I hear is wait times to get procedures, especially for joint replacement surgeries and joint injury repair surgeries. Often times if a sport injury is treated quickly enough it can resolve very well, but if the needed treatment is put off too long then permanent damage can be done leaving long-term disability. For this reason, I know fellow Canadians who would hate to see public health care in the US because they like knowing that if needed they can drive south and pay up to avoid extended wait times and corresponding problems. The rest of the time they know they are covered. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Not likely - we have an excellent tax-payer funded system of universal health care here. 

Oh? He's serving in Australia, is he?

[askandanswer]

Yes, in fact his mission shares a border with our mission. It's one of the geographically largest missions in the world, stretching 3,000 kilometers south to north and includes all of South Australia and Northern Territory and parts of New South Wales. Its about 1,200 kilometers from our city to the main city of his mission. We plan on picking him up when he finishes.   

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

This is not entirely true. There are some alternative therapies available, but regulations do favour shutting such down. It is definitely a frustration of the universal health care system that it only covers medical/pharmaceutical care. Many in my family have been let down by the medical model of care but have been able to find relief in alternative health care. My wife was able to resolve chronic fatigue issues and eczema using a combination of homeopathy and nutritional support and fasting. I personally believe the homeopathy had little if anything to do with it and that the nutrition and fasting made the difference, but the point is the medical system only offered anti-depressants for the fatigue because they didn't know what else to do and suggested cortisone cream for her skin and it didn't help. This is after being referred to specialists because no one had any answers.

When there is a traumatic emergency the hospital/medical care system is exactly what I'd want helping my family, but for chronic conditions that can often be resolved outside the traditional medical umbrella it would be nice not to be left with the bill, especially since we pay the same portion of taxes as others but use the system less. It's certainly not perfect, but it's what I'm used to and I wouldn't want to be hit with the costs at the time of the emergency as that just seems like insult to injury. 

That's the thing.  If you would have invested the money you paid in taxes you would have money set aside at the time of the emergency.  So, this is a cultural difference.  Exchanging liberty (your freedom to decide what to do with your money, e.g. put it in alternative medicine or whatever you think is best for your family) for dependence on government to avoid the risks of personal responsibility.

Edited November 14, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 If you would have invested the money you paid in taxes you would have money set aside at the time of the emergency.  So, this is a cultural difference.  Exchanging liberty (your freedom to decide what to do with your money, e.g. put it in alternative medicine or whatever you think is best for your family) for dependence on government to avoid the risks of personal responsibility.

Quadruple like!

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Exchanging liberty ... for dependence ... to avoid the risks of personal responsibility.

This is why I despise the whole concept of insurance.  (Or at least the modern implementations thereof.  Catastrophic, maybe I could accept, but not the demonic variants we have now.)

[Guest]

10 hours ago, mikbone said:

I freakin loved White Gold Wielder. 

I thought that was the only good book in the second trilogy.  I honestly don't know why he wrote it.  The first trilogy was fine.  I didn't like the first two books of the second.  The only reason I kept reading was because everyone said that White Gold Wielder was worth it.   It was good.  But worth trudging through the other two?  Meh...

[Guest]

11 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Not likely - we have an excellent tax-payer funded system of universal health care here. 

I actually agree -- compared to what we have today.  Your system is somewhat similar to what we had 30 or 40 years ago.  It wasn't government free.  But it wasn't terribly intrusive.  And the private side of it served the needs of the population well. 

But the Democrats decided,"The System Is Broken!" and made this their mantra for the next 3 decades until Obamacare.  Funny, no one seemed to be complaining much until they decided to add more and more regulations and bureaucracy into the mix.  That's government: Fabricate a problem. Insist on a solution.  The solution causes the proplem that wasn't there before.

That's what we have today.

Yes, I wish we had your system compared to our current one.  But I also wish we had a completely free market system.

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, mikbone said:

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm reminded of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever.

I freakin loved White Gold Wielder. 

I'm astounded at how violently I've done a 180 on those books.  30 years ago I was a huge fan, learned much about the nature of evil and the dangers of black-and-white thinking.  Now I look back at a pedophile rapist protagonist in the first three books, and one who murdered her own mother in the second three, and I wonder what the crap was I thinking.  Both of them spending thousands of pages selfishly stuck in their own crap.  Lots of notions about lots of important things, but the healing power of an atoning sacrifice was utterly absent.  Dood gained purity by burning magically until the blackness in him was fully a fused part of him instead of being burned away.  Symbolism of the chemical makeup of white gold.  

As I look down at my keyboard, I see my white gold wedding band on my finger.  Now I'm ticked off at my younger self. 

Edited November 14, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Lost Boy]

Most here are completely clueless on universal health care. 

First it is not socialized medicine. It is socialized insurance.. 

Second what we have today is not a capitalistic system. Your choice today is highly limited. 

With a universal health care system, the hospitals, doctors, etc are not government owned or government employees. They remain in the private sector. 

Doctors wages are not capped, but the price that they get paid for a procedure is set. But today what they get paid is set as well by the insurance company. 

The amount you pay into the system would not go up for most citizens. The only thing that really changes is the flow of money. Instead of money going through an insurance company, it would go through a government agency. 

The benefits are as follows.  Risk of bankruptcy due to medical debt mostly goes away.  All citizens get good health care and good health care means lower crime and more people in the work force. No more worrying about whether you have money to cover a needed procedure. 

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm astounded at how violently I've done a 180 on those books.  30 years ago I was a huge fan, learned much about the nature of evil and the dangers of black-and-white thinking.  Now I look back at a pedophile rapist protagonist in the first three books, and one who murdered her own mother in the second three, and I wonder what the crap was I thinking.  Both of them spending thousands of pages selfishly stuck in their own crap.  Lots of notions about lots of important things, but the healing power of an atoning sacrifice was utterly absent.  Dood gained purity by burning magically until the blackness in him was fully a fused part of him instead of being burned away.  Symbolism of the chemical makeup of white gold.  

As I look down at my keyboard, I see my white gold wedding band on my finger.  Now I'm ticked off at my younger self. 

You know, that bothered me too. But as a youth I was just so caught up in the "world building" that I just glossed over it.  Kinda tells you how far I was from where I should have been.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, Tyme said:

Do we all atleast agree that something needs to be done to rein in outrageous healthcare costs?

Yep. Get the government out of it ENTIRELY and let the free market bring costs down. There's a reason everyone and their dog owns a smart phone but can't afford healthcare.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yep. Get the government out of it ENTIRELY and let the free market bring costs down. There's a reason everyone and their dog owns a smart phone but can't afford healthcare.

The reason has become cultural due to the grip of health insurance.  Americans now have this culture that "they shouldn't have to pay for" going to a doctor for a cough.  Insurance should cover it.  You even have celebrities yelling at women's marches for insurance to cover tampons and birth control.  So, if they have to pay for a doctor's visit for a cough, then that's "unaffordable".

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That's the thing.  If you would have invested the money you paid in taxes you would have money set aside at the time of the emergency.  So, this is a cultural difference.  Exchanging liberty (your freedom to decide what to do with your money, e.g. put it in alternative medicine or whatever you think is best for your family) for dependence on government to avoid the risks of personal responsibility.

I agree. However, I wouldn't mind if a health savings account could be set up with employers so that money for healthcare could be set aside before other taxes. An individual could choose to have a certain percentage put away every month that could be called upon as needed, and importantly spent as they wished and not limited to a list of approved treatments.