Are there any negatives to universal healthcare?

[Lyanna Stark]

Owning a gun allows you to protect your family and keep the government from overstepping its bounds. The idea of health care as a right is, frankly, mind-boggling to me. I outlined some basic reasons why it won't be successful above, which are being ignored.

They are being ignored because they have no basis in reality. You are fantasising.

[Aemon Stark]

Owning a gun allows you to protect your family and keep the government from overstepping its bounds. The idea of health care as a right is, frankly, mind-boggling to me. I outlined some basic reasons why it won't be successful above, which are being ignored.

The posts following mine are a perfect example of why conservatives don't post lengthy items on these forums on any regular basis. Their posts are dissected, their salient points ignored, and it all reduced to "wait time," or "you hate immigrants," ect. Doesn't it bother anyone that when we say "47 million are uninsured," AT LEAST HALF of that are people in their 20's who CHOOSE not to have health insurance or are illegal immigrants? If we were honest with ourselves, that number would be alot closer to 20 million. Doesn't sound so impressive though, and doesn't get society closer to UHC, so politicians/activists go with 47 million.

Cry me a river. We're just not taking you srsly!!

[Silverstar]

Owning a gun allows you to protect your family and keep the government from overstepping its bounds. The idea of health care as a right is, frankly, mind-boggling to me. I outlined some basic reasons why it won't be successful above, which are being ignored.

Well, I answered at least one of them, if you look. Under a UHC system, people wouldn't simply be able to walk in off the street and demand any kind of free healthcare they desired, unless the US system is designed completely differently from anything that is used in other countries. What will happen is that unnecessary procedures and medication will probably actually fall, instead. Doctors will start turning away people who don't actually have anything wrong with them, rather than just giving them whatever treatment they feel they might fancy because they can pay for it.

What's so mind-boggling about healthcare as a right? What is actually more likely to happen - that you'll get sick one day, or that the government will do something terrible that requires you to take to the streets with your weapon and form a militia?

[kungtotte]

Owning a gun allows you to protect your family and keep the government from overstepping its bounds. The idea of health care as a right is, frankly, mind-boggling to me. I outlined some basic reasons why it won't be successful above, which are being ignored.

Send me a memo when you start excercising those rights, OK? Seems to me like the past eight years would've been the perfect opportunity to do it, only nobody did.

If you want the right to own weapons, you had best fulfill the obligations that come with it, otherwise it's all just for show.

But, let's not derail this thread with a gun-debate.

edit

And under UHC, everybody who earns money is insured by way of their taxes. I'm pretty sure several of those 47 million uninsured are uninsured but working, and not unemployed, and so that whole argument is a bit :psyduck:

[The_BlauerDragon]

Owning a gun allows you to protect your family and keep the government from overstepping its bounds. The idea of health care as a right is, frankly, mind-boggling to me. I outlined some basic reasons why it won't be successful above, which are being ignored.

The posts following mine are a perfect example of why conservatives don't post lengthy items on these forums on any regular basis. Their posts are dissected, their salient points ignored, and it all reduced to "wait time," or "you hate immigrants," ect. Doesn't it bother anyone that when we say "47 million are uninsured," AT LEAST HALF of that are people in their 20's who CHOOSE not to have health insurance or are illegal immigrants? If we were honest with ourselves, that number would be alot closer to 20 million. Doesn't sound so impressive though, and doesn't get society closer to UHC, so politicians/activists go with 47 million.

Very well spoken. Yet somehow the attacking and the lunacy does not often stop me from wading into the middle of the shiite storms here.

There is another thing to consider though. For the majority of the illegal immigrants that you just mentioned health care in the U.S. is already free. I know it was for the few that I have known personally, at least. Going to a system of UHC would not change that. It would just make it more uniform and readily acceptable.

My problem with UHC is that I have never seen a government operation here in the United States that did not spend much more than it needed to and/or function horribly ineffectively. Yes, the military runs fairly smoothly, but they spend billions of dollars buying things from defense contractors (who's lobbyists have secured locked-in contracts) that they could most likely have bought for a mere fraction of the cost.

[RhaegarTar]

Also - as I mentioned briefly above, the United States is pretty much already bankrupt (current debt + accruing debt + future obligations), so how are we going to pay for this? Even if we closed most/all of our foreign military bases (please), and cut most other spending, we wouldn't have enough money.

I'm hoping the Supreme Court is going to smash the commerce clause soon, but unfortunately that looks unlikely.

[TrackerNeil]

The posts following mine are a perfect example of why conservatives don't post lengthy items on these forums on any regular basis. Their posts are dissected, their salient points ignored, and it all reduced to "wait time," or "you hate immigrants," ect. Doesn't it bother anyone that when we say "47 million are uninsured," AT LEAST HALF of that are people in their 20's who CHOOSE not to have health insurance or are illegal immigrants? If we were honest with ourselves, that number would be alot closer to 20 million. Doesn't sound so impressive though, and doesn't get society closer to UHC, so politicians/activists go with 47 million.

Perhaps you might consider that even those millions who choose not to insure themselves often drive up the costs of the entire system, because when they do get sick or injured (and young people can suffer various and sundry major illnesses) the cost of their care is shared among the rest of us. Therefore, including them in the count of uninsured Americans is relevant and important.

Or you can feel sorry for yourself as a poor, beleaguered conservative. As you like.

[ljkeane]

The posts following mine are a perfect example of why conservatives don't post lengthy items on these forums on any regular basis. Their posts are dissected, their salient points ignored, and it all reduced to "wait time," or "you hate immigrants," ect. Doesn't it bother anyone that when we say "47 million are uninsured," AT LEAST HALF of that are people in their 20's who CHOOSE not to have health insurance or are illegal immigrants? If we were honest with ourselves, that number would be alot closer to 20 million. Doesn't sound so impressive though, and doesn't get society closer to UHC, so politicians/activists go with 47 million.

Even if the number of people who are not able to receive adequate healthcare is 20 million I don't think that is an acceptable number.

The only argument you had against universal healthcare was that the numbers of those using the services will reach unacceptable levels and that isn't the case in universal healthcare systems that pretty much every other developed country has. Even if you consider it acceptable for those who need medical care not to receive it there are real benefits to society for people who are ill to be treated reagrdless of their financial circumstances.

[Jaime L]

1. It's anything but 'free' because your taxes will skyrocket to pay for health care products and services.

Listen, we're already paying for the uninsured. The costs of their emergency room visits, an immense inefficiency in the system resulting from people not being able to afford the $150 out of pocket expense for a routine doctor's visit, has to be born by someone as as hospitals and insurance companies are not philanthropic organizations, in the end, they're born by everyone. Every elective procedure some wealthy 60 something makes isn't covered by their excellent insurance, not really. It's covered by everyone else who pays into it. We're all paying for these things, just indirectly. You may only see a $25 copay, but when your insurance company picks up the tab on the other $273.84, it comes full circle, reflected in the premium hike your company faces next year or another reduction in covered services. The umbrella provided my firm's insurance company continues to get smaller year by year as healthcare costs spiral upwards.

This doesn't even get into the costs companies face simply to hire someone. While you may be seeing the $75,000 in salary they're paying, it really costs the company double that to cover all your "benefits" (ie: the ability to actually see a doctor every now and then). The simple act of employing you means the company now is forced to provide insurance that isn't solely a reflection of the cost to insure you, but really all the costs the insurance company bears resulting from the misguided belief we have that "someone else" will cover it when we have insurance. It's no wonder companies outsource at any and every opportunity; layoff whole segments of employees at the first hint of a downturn...all to get this massive personnel related expense off their books. We all cost double what we think we do. I find it ironic that conservatives continue to argue in favor of a system that hurts large companies. We punish them whenever they hire someone by forcing them to provide their insurance too. But if the employee bears the cost related to his own care through the taxes he pays...wouldn't that make corporations less gunshy about hiring decisions?

So, yeah, taxes will certainly go up on a UHC plan. But at least we'll begin to see the cost of our healthcare...rather than it being hidden by this fallacy we all have of "someone else" paying for it. We're all paying for it as is, and we're paying a ton more than we should. Let's stop going through middlemen to get our care. Let's stop this whole industry of people employed solely to justify their salary. I don't know how it can be argued that a single payor situation could be anymore inefficient than what we have now. Healthcare is the most complex, inefficient industry I can think of in this country. And I don't understand how people can be so fixated on wait-times being the worst things ever when UHC countries have longer life expectancies than the richest country on earth. UHC isn't a panacea for all the ridiculous, sprialing of health care costs in this country that's making all of us poorer in real terms, but it's a step in the right direction. And for those who will become bankrupt from unforeseen medical emergencies in the future due to not having insurance or not having "good enough" insurance it's a helluva lot more than that.

[Kalbear]

Okay, let's go with 20 million people. That's your number, RT. Just for the record.

20 million people without reasonable access to health care is considered acceptable to you. That is about 6% of the total US population that cannot get affordable healthcare of any kind.

Or basically one in every 15 people.

That's considered acceptable to you. That's not acceptable to me.

My problem with UHC is that I have never seen a government operation here in the United States that did not spend much more than it needed to and/or function horribly ineffectively.

The US Parks system is astoundingly good at what it does.

And the fact is this: even if health coverage is twice as inefficient as any other government-run program by other governments, it would still be cheaper than what the US is doing now AND would cover more people.

[Mme Erzulie]

Coloured people! Yuck!

Very well spoken.

I was wondering when this would happen :love:

[kungtotte]

Also - as I mentioned briefly above, the United States is pretty much already bankrupt (current debt + accruing debt + future obligations), so how are we going to pay for this? Even if we closed most/all of our foreign military bases (please), and cut most other spending, we wouldn't have enough money.

I'm hoping the Supreme Court is going to smash the commerce clause soon, but unfortunately that looks unlikely.

I'm sure there's plenty of DoD programs that could be cut. Withdraw from Iraq and you save a ton too, and do you really need military bases all over the world? You don't, so you can cut back there too.

I'm focusing here on military spending, because it is one of the largest sections of your budget, but there's much more you can do. Drop the War on Drugs for example and you can cut down on a lot of law enforcement spending, and redirect the resources towards preventing actual crime, which will in turn help decrease spending on other things. Like health-care for people injured in connection with a crime.

So funding UHC is a piece of cake, really.

[Elrostar]

This topic is about health care, not guns.

The idea that owning a gun allows you to prevent the government from overstepping its bounds is something that is currently being discussed in a number of other threads. If you want to take up that discussion, why not contribute in another thread?

The idea that our current system discourages people from becoming doctors is laughable. The problem with the current system is that specialists are paid far far more than generalists because of the system of billable procedures. A radiologist, dermatologist (to name a couple) will many times more than a general practitioner because they can submit many more billable procedures and see many more patients in a day. Because a GP actually has to spend time talking to a patient.

This means that coming out of medical school, there is a tremendous financial incentive for students to go into specialties. And we are currently facing a deficit of primary care physicians as a result of this. Why make $100k a year when you could make $400k? Seriously?

The US spends twice the amount of money per capita on health care than other industrialized nations. Not because of medical malpractice suits (although that is a common misconception), but because of a vast number of tests, imaging procedures, surgical procedures, etc. All of which are highly profitable for insurance companies and doctors because they are easily... billable procedures. It all comes back to this simple concept, relating to the fact that this is a for profit industry.

The argument that anyone in the US can get care (as long as they have the money) points out its own weakness! The cost, without insurance, for any kind of care is fantastically high. A visit to the ER can easily cost several thousand dollars, depending on what you need done, and giving birth will quickly run you into the range of tens of thousands (assuming no complications).

Is it any wonder that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in this country? And yes, these costs then end up being borne by everyone else, ultimately, along with all the extra administrative costs associated with collections agencies, etc.

How on earth is this a more efficient system?

That's all I have the stamina for now.

[Lyanna Stark]

A visit to the ER can easily cost several thousand dollars, depending on what you need done, and giving birth will quickly run you into the range of tens of thousands (assuming no complications).

Pardon my ignorance here, but what happens you get are about to give birth and are uninsured? Do you have to go bankrupt if you can't pay the bill? Or will they refuse to take you in at the hospital?

[Hereward]

I believe the baby is confiscated and sold on ebay if the bill is not settled in full within 28 days. Or was that a dream?

[Lord of Oop North]

Also - as I mentioned briefly above, the United States is pretty much already bankrupt (current debt + accruing debt + future obligations), so how are we going to pay for this? Even if we closed most/all of our foreign military bases (please), and cut most other spending, we wouldn't have enough money.

The United States already pays more per capita and more as a percentage of GDP, for health care, then every other nation with UHC. That is not even including the substantial amounts of money being spent by private insurance companies. Maybe your government should learn to be more efficient with its spending?

[sToNED_CAT]

The United States already pays more per capita and more as a percentage of GDP, for health care, then every other nation with UHC. That is not even including the substantial amounts of money being spent by private insurance companies. Maybe your government should learn to be more efficient with its spending?

No it includes private companies otherwise the number would be lower than in most UHC systems.

Anyway some negatives of UHC - lower salaries of medical profesionals and often more obsolete methods of treatment.

Someone said that lawsuits are not problem, doctors ordering more tests, sending people to specialists too much, etc. are the real problem, but one reason why are they doing it is the fact, that they could be sued for not ordering them, if something goes wrong.

I still think UHC is better than current American system, I just disagree how is it implemented. I think there will be a lot of problems with UHC on federal level, US is too big and diverse for one system. Much better solution would be simply to provide necessary money to states (based on population size), and tell them to use it exclusively on healthcare. But they should be able to choose what kind of system they wish to have. If UHC works in some states (that means, covering more people and reducing the costs), other states would copy it.

This way offers much more flexibility than single huge federal system, because you can faster identify and correct mistakes simply by comparing state helathcare systems and adjust yours accordingly. It also provides some protection from overspending and too high taxes - if one state starts to demand more money, but others are doing fine, instead of giving them more federal funds goverment could say that they should learn from those other systems.

Also for many people it would be more acceptable to have UHC on state level than on federal level.

[Annelise]

Pardon my ignorance here, but what happens you get are about to give birth and are uninsured? Do you have to go bankrupt if you can't pay the bill? Or will they refuse to take you in at the hospital?

You wouldn't be turned away, no.

I have little knowledge of this but AFAIK, obviously you'd owe and if you couldn't make the payments medical collections set* you could file chapter 7 bankruptcy (which includes medical debt). Or if you have limited means, I think you could fight it in court by trying to have income and property declared exempt from the creditor (to avoid filing for bankruptcy).

*I read somewhere that they were rather inflexible. Dunno. It was something about 50% of personal bankruptcies in the earlier part of the decade were people *with* insurance (lots of age 65+). That the amounts weren't big, relatively speaking ($1000-5000 IIRC), but that they were expected to pay their end quickly and couldn't.

[Maltaran]

Someone said that lawsuits are not problem, doctors ordering more tests, sending people to specialists too much, etc. are the real problem, but one reason why are they doing it is the fact, that they could be sued for not ordering them, if something goes wrong.

If you have UHC, the government can set the appropriate procedures, and then the doctors will be immune from liability if they follow the procedures. People can always sue the government if they have a problem and think the procedure is wrong, but it relives the stress on the individual doctors.

[Kalbear]

Pardon my ignorance here, but what happens you get are about to give birth and are uninsured? Do you have to go bankrupt if you can't pay the bill? Or will they refuse to take you in at the hospital?

If you go to the hospital and are about to give birth and have no insurance, you will either be admitted for emergency care or admitted to the normal birthing unit depending. Hospitals are not allowed to turn away people because of money, though they can choose to do less expensive procedures depending on whether they would otherwise endanger health or not.

Afterwards, you'd be held accountable for the thousands of dollars in hospital fees. Some times this will be taken care of by the government. Sometimes it'll be taken care of by the hospital, which does do some pro bono work. Some times you take it in the shorts.