Universal Healthcare? Can it work? I'm doubtful...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did the opposition go to sleep, or are they just fed up with this discussion? I am very interested in this topic. Being a conservative I like hearing what "progressives" have to say to these arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am undecided on the issue, but so far the thread is a standard health care debate which consists mostly of lies and fearmongering from universal health care opponents. This is why these threads tend to muddle the issue more than shed any light.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read any of the posts from the universal health care SUPPORTERS?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been asking this question to my family and friends when talking about free markets vs government.

You have to have a new product/service that you is not available right now.
There are time constraints on when you must have it.
You have plenty of money to pay for it, but want to get this product for as cheap as possible.

Who do you trust to come up with the more efficient solution? The federal government or the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now we have neither when it comes to health care. I believe a move in either direction would be a huge improvement. All those right-leaning posters who scream socialism when it comes to health care are hypocrites in my opinion unless they scream as loudly about defense spending. It's ridiculous that they can live with spending $750 billion on defense this year in the name of security against mainly phantom enemies (or those we create through our own actions), and yet they think the govt should spend $0 on defense against disease, injury, and other medical issues which certainly affect our security (in terms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) far more. Absolute hypocrisy. If you want to rail against the costs of health care, I expect you to rail against the costs of our foreign policy, or you really have no complaints about socialism and its costs in principle, only which particular items you want to socialize with govt coercion, huge taxes, and a massive bureaucracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

They scream just as loudly about defense spending so you can sleep easy.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am undecided on the issue, but so far the thread is a standard health care debate which consists mostly of lies and fearmongering from universal health care opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're gonna say lies are present from universal health care opponents in this thread, the least you could do is point them out.

Or are you a student at the One Outer School of Argument by Assertion, Name-Calling and Righteous Indignation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's one: "Cheaper to who? Certainly not cheaper to the taxpayers who have to provide the "free" health care." This is is response to the point that the total amount spent by US taxpayers on health care is the highest in the world, even including what foreign govts pay. So, yes in fact, foreigners pay less on health care, taxes included. And of course, nobody here corrected this poster but rather let this obvious falsehood sit there as fact. Which helps prove my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not really what cheaper means. If I buy a candy bar for $1000 and a brand new Lexus for $1500, I guess technically the candy bar is cheaper but I doubt you'd characterize it that way. And of course, if you WOULD, then what we really should be doing is never ever using the word cheaper under any circumstances since it is meaningless.

[dvsfun1]

Just a few thoughts on this health care issue.



Used to be,when you got sick of injured,you had to pay for it to get better. That was a great incentive to learn how to take care of yourself and know when it was necessary to go to the doctor.
Then came medical insurance which I believe was probably a good thing. It was designed to help you through those times when you absolutely had to see that doctor.
Bring us to today. We have become a nation of helpless wimps, bordering on hypochondria, to the point that we run to the doctor, HMO, of emergency room if our nose runs or our ass itches because, by damn, that's what it's there for and I'm paying for it!
And believe me, they are more than happy to accommodate us. Until we begin to use it more responsibly we will never have a system large or affordable enough.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to split the system in half, so to speak. In other words, limit health insurance usage to treatments and operations prescribed by a doctor for a specific condition. The rest...if you just have the flu or allergy or something you could just as easily take care of yourself but you don't want to; then you go to the doctor and you pay for it yourself.
If it turns out to need attention, it could be reimbursed.
Now that would certainly bring down the cost considerably.


Suppose we do nothing and turn it over to the government.
Following our current trend, use of this system will skyrocket. After all, it's paid for so we would be stupid not to take advantage of it.
Realizing what a mess they got themselves into, the government will seek to control costs by limiting treatment at their discretion, not ours.

This will eventually cause people to seek medical care in the private sector, but now, only the wealthy will be able to do so. The rest of us will suffer in the government program.Which, by the way, is the exact same scenario as existed in the Ussr during communism.

I have no doubt that this is where we are headed if we continue on the present course of "universal healthcare".

And on last thought, if Hillary gets her health care system instituted you can bet your bottom dollar she will not be using it herself.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
This will eventually cause people to seek medical care in the private sector, but now, only the wealthy will be able to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused (and this isn't a flame). Are you saying that your worst case scenario for universal health care is that there will be some minimum level of care for all, but only the wealthy will be able to afford more advanced care? Isn't that better than the status quo today where there is not a minimum care for all but the wealthy still can get advanced care ifr they pay for it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This will eventually cause people to seek medical care in the private sector, but now, only the wealthy will be able to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused (and this isn't a flame). Are you saying that your worst case scenario for universal health care is that there will be some minimum level of care for all, but only the wealthy will be able to afford more advanced care? Isn't that better than the status quo today where there is not a minimum care for all but the wealthy still can get advanced care ifr they pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better for whom?

A lot of people who *aren't* wealthy can get "Advanced" care today, and probably couldn't under a (more) nationalized/socialized system.

If you don't think enough people are getting minimum care, you can always donate to a clinic.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This will eventually cause people to seek medical care in the private sector, but now, only the wealthy will be able to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused (and this isn't a flame). Are you saying that your worst case scenario for universal health care is that there will be some minimum level of care for all, but only the wealthy will be able to afford more advanced care? Isn't that better than the status quo today where there is not a minimum care for all but the wealthy still can get advanced care ifr they pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better for whom?

A lot of people who *aren't* wealthy can get "Advanced" care today, and probably couldn't under a (more) nationalized/socialized system.

If you don't think enough people are getting minimum care, you can always donate to a clinic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't a person who gets care today get care if a national system is in place? Will there be so little demand for private medical care? Seems as though there are lots of private schools and the ability to start your own school if you want. Not that I disagree with you, your assertion just isn't obvious to me without further explanation.

[dvsfun1]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
This will eventually cause people to seek medical care in the private sector, but now, only the wealthy will be able to do so.



I'm confused (and this isn't a flame). Are you saying that your worst case scenario for universal health care is that there will be some minimum level of care for all, but only the wealthy will be able to afford more advanced care? Isn't that better than the status quo today where there is not a minimum care for all but the wealthy still can get advanced care ifr they pay for it?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, My thinking is that as people desert what they believe is the poorly run "government" system for alternative insurance that basically recreates what we have now, two things will probably occur. One is that the alternatives will be expensive without the mass enrollment to finance them(also better doctors will leave, and command higher rates);and, two the government will most likely take the worst possible measures to counter this movement, making more of a mess.

But since you brought it up, my guess for the worst case scenario will be close to the norm: Healthcare will be "guaranteed". Those with legitimate need will have to fight to get care because the system will be inundated with patients expecting care for the slightest ailment, and doctors who know better will be forced to "treat" them anyway. As with all government programs, every idiot imaginable will do their best to impose some regulation on you(usually preventing you from getting you what you need), while at the same time nobody will have the authority to do what is right. Then factor in the usual waste and fraud factors.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
This will eventually cause people to seek medical care in the private sector, but now, only the wealthy will be able to do so.



I'm confused (and this isn't a flame). Are you saying that your worst case scenario for universal health care is that there will be some minimum level of care for all, but only the wealthy will be able to afford more advanced care? Isn't that better than the status quo today where there is not a minimum care for all but the wealthy still can get advanced care ifr they pay for it?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, My thinking is that as people desert what they believe is the poorly run "government" system for alternative insurance that basically recreates what we have now, two things will probably occur. One is that the alternatives will be expensive without the mass enrollment to finance them(also better doctors will leave, and command higher rates);and, two the government will most likely take the worst possible measures to counter this movement, making more of a mess.

But since you brought it up, my guess for the worst case scenario will be close to the norm: Healthcare will be "guaranteed". Those with legitimate need will have to fight to get care because the system will be inundated with patients expecting care for the slightest ailment, and doctors who know better will be forced to "treat" them anyway. As with all government programs, every idiot imaginable will do their best to impose some regulation on you(usually preventing you from getting you what you need), while at the same time nobody will have the authority to do what is right. Then factor in the usual waste and fraud factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that all this is very possible in the US. It does make me wonder how other countries do it, however. Much of the satisfaction polling in other western nations that I have seen shows people are generally happy with their system compared to the past before socialized care, and they seem to be more efficient and far less red tape that Americans envision ours would be. So does the US just have the most messed up, special interest-focused bureaucracy in the western world? Actually, I think the answer may be yes. But it makes you wonder why.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This will eventually cause people to seek medical care in the private sector, but now, only the wealthy will be able to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused (and this isn't a flame). Are you saying that your worst case scenario for universal health care is that there will be some minimum level of care for all, but only the wealthy will be able to afford more advanced care? Isn't that better than the status quo today where there is not a minimum care for all but the wealthy still can get advanced care ifr they pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better for whom?

A lot of people who *aren't* wealthy can get "Advanced" care today, and probably couldn't under a (more) nationalized/socialized system.

If you don't think enough people are getting minimum care, you can always donate to a clinic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't a person who gets care today get care if a national system is in place? Will there be so little demand for private medical care? Seems as though there are lots of private schools and the ability to start your own school if you want. Not that I disagree with you, your assertion just isn't obvious to me without further explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this would happen probably, it still would require me to pay for national healthcare (which I wouldnt use) and then for my own private care. Like you said, like public/private schools.