a preview of universal health coverage

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Skyrazer' post='1687049' date='Feb 14 2009, 17.09']Indeed. America, if you're so incapable of implementing an effective UHC system, then you've got problems that go far beyond than just a half-assed private based health system.[/quote]


This just in........

[quote name='Triskele' post='1687104' date='Feb 14 2009, 18.46']For the record as I stated long ago in this thread, I have never been for that line that you and I agree was a disingenuous political line you posted above. And I don't think that any legislator would actually try and pass a law that amounted to as much.[/quote]


What makes you think so?

[VigoTheCarpathian]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1687156' date='Feb 14 2009, 20.07']What makes you think so?[/quote]

Can't speak for Triskele, but I put this "Congressional benefits for all unemployed" somewhere between "chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" and the guy who wants to reinstate the draft every year. It seems to be at face value, solely a political statement without any real legislation behind it.

But you know, I suppose that politicians are the very pinnacle of human honesty and understatement, and we should treat any grandiose thing that they say with all seriousness, without looking underneath the hood to see if something like this would ever get off of the ground.

[The Marquis de Leech]

[quote name='Lord of Oop North' post='1687032' date='Feb 15 2009, 13.11']Even New Zealand did it. And I'm pretty sure they haven't even invented nuclear power down there yet.[/quote]

New Zealand [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford"]invented[/url] it. We just decided we didn't want it. :)

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1687174' date='Feb 14 2009, 20.50']For starters, I don't see any legislature trying to pass a law that would reduce their own access to coverage.[/quote]

I'm not sure I follow this.

Would congress be exempt from UHC and get to keep their current benefits?

Because otherwise your statement would seem to indicate that they would, in fact, be trying to craft a law that would give us all access to what they have? Or am I misunderstanding your point here?

[Andriy Czarchenko]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1687490' date='Feb 15 2009, 19.46']I'm not sure I follow this.

Would congress be exempt from UHC and get to keep their current benefits?

Because otherwise your statement would seem to indicate that they would, in fact, be trying to craft a law that would give us all access to what they have? Or am I misunderstanding your point here?[/quote]
He´s saying that their coverage would be dropped to the normal everyman level. So yes everyone would have the same level of coverage as congress but it wouldn´t be the level they currently have.

[Kalbear]

Chat, are you saying that it's okay that people suffer because statistically it won't happen too often? Really? That's the reason that UHC shouldn't be done?

Because this seems really stupid to me, especially when we're given repeated examples of other countries that manage to wipe this out entirely. This is akin to stating that we really shouldn't bother with vaccinating people against certain diseases because they don't kill THAT many people, and those that do probably weren't in good health anyway.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='The Czar' post='1687507' date='Feb 15 2009, 10.05']He´s saying that their coverage would be dropped to the normal everyman level. So yes everyone would have the same level of coverage as congress but it wouldn´t be the level they currently have.[/quote]


I don't see how you get that from this:

[quote]I [b]don't [/b]see any legislature trying to pass a law that would reduce their own access to coverage.[/quote]

So with all due respect, I think I'll let him speak for himself.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1687723' date='Feb 15 2009, 14.45']Yes, that is my entire point..and not only Congress but anyone with money. That is the system I think most likely and it's similar to the systems in Canada, Australia, etc...I suspect America would allow even more access to top care for those with money. But the universal part would be access to lower level stuff (but better than just the ER) for all citizens. This is the kind of system I'm advocating.[/quote]


So congress (and everyone else) would have to pay out of pocket for anything above what the little people get, is that the idea?

Wouldn't this kind of fuck the middle class?

[Kalbear]

[quote]Given that this just isn't possible, yes, it has to be "acceptable for people to suffer because statistically it doesn't happen often". It's as true in countries with UHC as it is here; it's just that "suffering" there means that someone doesn't get the treatment that is considered too expensive, or it's just not offered. "Suffering" here means that chronic conditions in the uninsured don't get top attention.[/quote]It also means that preventative care doesn't really exist, that we spend much more money on emergent care, that people mistrust the medical community, that people take a lot of drugs that they don't need, and that the US is the least healthy first world country in the world.

The argument that people must suffer at some point so it's okay is utter bullshit, Chat, and I'm surprised you'd even utter it. This is much like justifying any number of inequities because there's got to be someone at the bottom. The trick is to minimize who's at the bottom. Right now, we have 45 million people without reasonable access to health care. Starbucks isn't hiring that many people, by the way, so that path is out. No 1st world country has that much percentage of their people as uninsured. You're saying that as long as the other 255 million people get good healthcare it's acceptable for 1/6th of the population to needlessly suffer.

That's bullshit.

In countries with UHC, people live longer, live healthier and have fewer issues at older ages. This is the non-utopia you're trying to prevent.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1687723' date='Feb 16 2009, 00.45']Yes, that is my entire point..and not only Congress but anyone with money. That is the system I think most likely and it's similar to the systems in Canada, Australia, etc...I suspect America would allow even more access to top care for those with money. But the universal part would be access to lower level stuff (but better than just the ER) for all citizens. This is the kind of system I'm advocating.

I am not convinced at all that anyone in the know has ever sincerely pushed for a system in which everyone truly has completely equal coverage. Because i have never been convinced of this, I am skeptical of the anti-UHC arguments because I suspect their genesis starts with some kind of scare tactic.




Thank you. I have no idea what he was saying.[/quote]
Actually I was saying exactly the same thing you´ve said above.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1687772' date='Feb 15 2009, 15.59']It also means that preventative care doesn't really exist, that we spend much more money on emergent care, that people mistrust the medical community, that people take a lot of drugs that they don't need, and that the US is the least healthy first world country in the world.

The argument that people must suffer at some point so it's okay is utter bullshit, Chat, and I'm surprised you'd even utter it. This is much like justifying any number of inequities because there's got to be someone at the bottom. The trick is to minimize who's at the bottom. Right now, we have 45 million people without reasonable access to health care. Starbucks isn't hiring that many people, by the way, so that path is out. No 1st world country has that much percentage of their people as uninsured. You're saying that as long as the other 255 million people get good healthcare it's acceptable for 1/6th of the population to needlessly suffer.[/quote]

What's bullshit is assuming that every one of those 45 million is actually suffering, when in actuality, the number is much, much smaller.

Some percentage of those people do not need treatment anyway. Given the demofgraphic, I'd say that the percentage is actually quite small.

And to assume that people would even take advantage of preventative care if it were available is quite a leap, so I'm not completely sold on that old dog either.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1687829' date='Feb 15 2009, 17.30']That is a fair point. There are plenty of uninsured that are actually young healthy people that just don't feel too concerned about having healthcare coverage. But on the other hand, while they may not currently be suffering, there are a lot of the "working poor" from upthread who can't afford coverage. They may be fine now but they are one event away from disaster. And when these disasters happen, these people can't help our economy anymore.[/quote]


Sure. I don't disagree with that. Some small percentage of them suffer, or will suffer because they do not have health coverage. But it certainly is no where near all of them, as was asserted.

[Aemon Stark]

[quote name='Chataya de Venoge' post='1687761' date='Feb 15 2009, 19.39']I'm sure that in these other countries, people somehow still manage to suffer. If you read the article that I linked from [i]The Atlantic[/i], most health insurance in the US covers a certain cancer drug that has a high success rate (decreasing mortality from 50% to 10%) if taken early...but it's just not an option in New Zealand. There are also people in the UK who have to travel to Italy to get certain treatments so that they aren't kicked out of the NHS system - because they can (from what I read) get kicked out if they opt out...like they can't opt back in at a certain point. I've also heard of Canadians coming across the border to get things done more quickly, or to have them done at all.

No country is completely 100% utopia; it just isn't possible.

Given that this just isn't possible, yes, it has to be "acceptable for people to suffer because statistically it doesn't happen often". It's as true in countries with UHC as it is here; it's just that "suffering" there means that someone doesn't get the treatment that is considered too expensive, or it's just not offered. "Suffering" here means that chronic conditions in the uninsured don't get top attention.[/quote]

Patients get treatments that are proven cost-effective so, yes, some more expensive new treatments may not be available initially. That's because they need to provide a significantly improved benefit relative to what's currently available at lower cost.

Of course, I've no doubt that HMOs do exactly the same thing, except that they tend to take the "too expensive" line much, much farther.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1687831' date='Feb 15 2009, 20.33']Sure. I don't disagree with that. Some small percentage of them suffer, or will suffer because they do not have health coverage. But it certainly is no where near all of them, as was asserted.[/quote]

Dude, it's insurance.

You don't get insurance because your in trouble, you get it because you MIGHT get in trouble.

Insurance only works if most of the people paying in never need it. This is like, the basic idea of insurance in the first place.


Saying "Most of them won't need any serious help" is like saying "The sky is blue".

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='Chataya de Venoge' post='1687089' date='Feb 14 2009, 20.34']Sadly, there will always be people who are working poor. It's how capitalism works. If we can recognize this, do the American thing and try and give them a "hand up and not a handout" (job training or re-training if they're in a dying industry, incentives to go to college or technical school), this lack of insurance won't be a real, long-term problem for them, but rather, something temporary.[/quote]

This line of thinking does not parse.

If we accept the premise that in a capitalist system, there'll always be people on the bottom economic rung, which I think is a pretty self-evidentiary assumption, then it follows that the lack of insurance for those people at the bottom rung is indeed, long-term, and not short-term. If the game is rigged so that there'll always be working poor, then it matters not that someone can climb out of the bottom quintile to the next higher quintile, because in our society, income and resources will always be stratified.

I think it's self-serving to write off the issue by claiming that the capitalist system will always produce a bottom class. Yes, it does. The question is then, what are we to do about it? Aids to increase economic mobility in the vertical sense would certainly be welcome, but that does not address the issue of the inability of the bottom group to afford reasonable levels of healthcare, since we will always have the bottom group and by definition, the bottom group is the group with the least amount of resources so that they cannot afford these healthcare items on their own. Do we, as a society, install a rigged game and watch with sympathy the people who end up in the bottom rung?

[Shryke]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1687870' date='Feb 15 2009, 21.37']This was one of the key points to Hillary's healthcare and how it differed from Obama's. She wanted to force everyone to buy in. This may actually be a boon for the system because you force the young and healthy to pay in but rarely take back out. They typically don't need care but they provide financial support to the whole system. Now there are other issues involved here like whether the government should be able to force people to pay in but I hope the point is clear about what that can do. It's called cost-pooling.[/quote]

Do you guys require people to have car insurance to drive?

[Shryke]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1687868' date='Feb 15 2009, 21.35']This line of thinking does not parse.

If we accept the premise that in a capitalist system, there'll always be people on the bottom economic rung, which I think is a pretty self-evidentiary assumption, then it follows that the lack of insurance for those people at the bottom rung is indeed, long-term, and not short-term. If the game is rigged so that there'll always be working poor, then it matters not that someone can climb out of the bottom quintile to the next higher quintile, because in our society, income and resources will always be stratified.

I think it's self-serving to write off the issue by claiming that the capitalist system will always produce a bottom class. Yes, it does. The question is then, what are we to do about it? Aids to increase economic mobility in the vertical sense would certainly be welcome, but that does not address the issue of the inability of the bottom group to afford reasonable levels of healthcare, since we will always have the bottom group and by definition, the bottom group is the group with the least amount of resources so that they cannot afford these healthcare items on their own. Do we, as a society, install a rigged game and watch with sympathy the people who end up in the bottom rung?[/quote]

Economic Upward mobility is also a huge boon for the economy. Heath Insurance is good at this.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1687863' date='Feb 15 2009, 18.26']Dude, it's insurance.

You don't get insurance because your in trouble, you get it because you MIGHT get in trouble.

Insurance only works if most of the people paying in never need it. This is like, the basic idea of insurance in the first place.


Saying "Most of them won't need any serious help" is like saying "The sky is blue".[/quote]


You would think so.

But apparently not everyone realizes this or people would not be suggesting that everyone who does not have coverage is 'suffering' as a result.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='Chataya de Venoge' post='1687894' date='Feb 15 2009, 21.11']Of course, it is their right to do so.[/quote]


Only to some extent.

Those who opt out of coverage will still end up in the emergency room when their health does fail, no? They are not really gambling with their own money and health, in that sense. They're actually betting that society will pick up the tab when push comes to shove. And we do, because most of us find it unacceptable to reject someone at the emergency room door on account of their choice to not buy health insurance that they could afford.

[Shryke]

I feel, considering someone has brought up the economy as their main concern, that we should bring up the whole "the US pays more per capita for Health Care then most/any other 1st world country".


Now, as a question, Why does the government force everyone to have car insurance?