Are there any negatives to universal healthcare?

[Swordfish]

Because they won't have a choice.

This is a problem that must be addressed.

I'm not here to talk about the past.

There are ample templates to work from. And it's not like we're going to somehow remove our healthcare module and hot swap it with a UHC card. Doesn't mean we shouldn't start moving in that direction.

I don't recall you asking this before, but I'm not here to talk about the past.

I'm not here to talk about the past. /Mark McGuire Look, I have no idea what all of this stuff about the what the Republicans didn't do has to do with anything. What are we, the Americans ,going to do now?

Convenient to ignore the past, but not very practical. Discussing the performance of the people who are going to be expected to implement this system, in situations that are similar is not something that should just be ignored. Even asserting that it isn't relevant is utterly absurd to me.

Maybe we have differing definitions of the term?

Apparently we do.

Do tell us more about these pitfalls that are plaguing Medicare and SS and how it's comparable to a dual-payers UHC model. You keep sniping about Medicare and SS for oh I don't remember how many threads now, but always disappear whenever pressed for further elaboration.

I have been doing so for several pages now. Perhaps it is your reading comprehension skills that are lacking?

In general, I find it increasingly amusing to read these threads with all the usual opponents to healthcare reform getting their arguments and "facts" demolished, only to reappear at a later thread and conveniently/selectively forgot how their arguments were crushed before and only to rail on and on about the same old misinformed bullshit.

Like tilting at windmills, they're still deluded to think that they could stop or derail healthcare reform without realizing that there are enough votes in both chamber of Congress to make it happen by this fall. This is why all the major players in the healthcare industry have pretty much toed the line and decided to join the table set out by Obama so that they could have some say in the inevitable process. So instead of wasting time arguing against "why UHC", it would be more productive to talk about "how" it will manifest in the US by the end of this year.

Well by all means, elaborate on the 'how'.

Or are you only qualified to make absurd ad hominems?

[/rhetorical]

[Lord O' Bones]

Convenient to ignore the past, but not very practical. Discussing the performance of the people who are going to be expected to implement this system, in situations that are similar is not something that should just be ignored. Even asserting that it isn't relevant is utterly absurd to me.

What 'people' are you talking about then? The Republicans that you mentioned earlier? As far as I can tell, the performance of the people who are going to be expected to implement this system is not related them, they are different people now.

[Shryke]

Yes, that is the argument.

But it's largely hypothetical.

If by "largely hypothetical" you mean "shown to work in every other 1st world country", then yes.

[Filippa Eilhart]

of course they say their wait times are acceptable - they've never known anything else.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(I could see a specialist in Poland within 2 days. In Lux I need to wait 2 months for non-urgent things. I still think this is acceptable).

[Skyrazer]

And so the ferris wheel makes another turn.

[Ran]

You know, Social Security itself isn't even in that big of a bind. Something like a 2% increase on the payroll tax will make that problem go away. Medicare certainly looks much worse off -- partially because we're in a recession and that makes the long term projections look bleaker than they may necessarily be -- but really that's an issue with health care costs and a sane health care system would make even that very managable in the long term.

[Lyanna Stark]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(I could see a specialist in Poland within 2 days. In Lux I need to wait 2 months for non-urgent things. I still think this is acceptable).

*sigh*

I guess we'll never understand what we're missing out on Flip, since despite having received care in more than one European country, it's apparently still so deeply flawed and has such a substandard level of care, we're simply indoctrinated into accepting whatever small morsels are thrown our way.

Regardless of whether it is Poland, Sweden, Luxembourg or the UK we're talking about, obviously. :P

[Tsoert]

Negatives to UHC? Rationing, that is all

Doesn't the USA spend the highest proportion of their GDP than any country other 1st world country at around 14% compared to the UK at 7.5%? How do you manage that and still have deficient healthcare for a significant proportion of your population?

"of course they say their wait times are acceptable - they've never known anything else."

We have mandatory rules for wait times that reflect the seriousness of the condition. Generally speaking the actual wait is far less than the maximum wait allowed. We have a good healthcare system thank you very much

[Ran]

Just to emphasize something, even the U.S. has rationing. It's just monetary based. "Rationing" is thrown around as a dirty word by conservatives, so we should bear in mind that "rationing" is taking place at this very moment in the U.S.

Here's a discussion of a Health Affairs survey study which has some interesting mirrored data:

27% of Canadians have had to wait 4 or more months for an elective surgery.

5% of Americans have had such a wait.

and

24% of Americans said they did not receive medical care because they couldn't afford it.

6% of Canadians said the same.

I think it's important to consider this fact. Fully a quarter of the citizens of the United States have had to just skip medical treatment because of cost-based rationing. And cost-based rationing is the worst of all possible worlds when it leads to spiraling health care costs at a swifter rate than anywhere else in the industrialized western world.

Again, UHC is a tried and tested means of taking control of health care costs and improving the general health of the populace. A mixture with a private health insurance on top is certainly the best of both worlds, as it allows those who are able to trade time-based rationing for cost-based rationing to make that choice.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ran,

You know, Social Security itself isn't even in that big of a bind. Something like a 2% increase on the payroll tax will make that problem go away. Medicare certainly looks much worse off -- partially because we're in a recession and that makes the long term projections look bleaker than they may necessarily be -- but really that's an issue with health care costs and a sane health care system would make even that very managable in the long term.

Given that the average age of death in the U.S. was below the age where people were elegiable for Social Security when it was created why not raise the retirement age 5 years? That still wouldn't put Social Security above the average age of death but it would save a fair amount of money.

Given that there is a form of UHC in Canada why would any Canadians claim they were denied medical care because they couldn't afford it?

Chataya,

2012 is a long way off. The mid-term 2010 election will give a good idea of how the nation is leaning politically. Of course I'm also interested to see what affect the Census has on all this.

[Shryke]

Given that there is a form of UHC in Canada why would any Canadians claim they were denied medical care because they couldn't afford it?

"Dental" would be my first bet.

[Elrostar]

Raising the age requirement for SS is an obvious step. It is difficult to implement because seniors vote and they're opposed to it.

Given that people are living for so much longer, it is a necessary step, however, and someone is going to have to do it at some point. The only questions are who, and when.

There will have to be some exemptions for people who perform physical labor, obviously, but that's a different matter. Alternately, providing for retraining and second careers that are less physically demanding is another option.

Keeping the retirement age as it stands now is simply no longer an option, and the sooner politicians are willing to do something about it, the better it will be.

[Daeric]

They also won't cover any of the boy's speech therapy, which is a drag - that's $472 a month. Our old insurance used to pick up 60% of it, but no such luck with this one.

Ouch, I was about 10 when I finally stopped needing speech theraphy and at that price its a bloody good thing that the NHS covered the bill

[DanteGabriel]

Given that the average age of death in the U.S. was below the age where people were elegiable for Social Security when it was created why not raise the retirement age 5 years?

Five years is... harsh. My mom's a year to retirement. She's counting the days. Her job is stressful and keeps her there 10-12 hours a day. She's just been hanging on this long because her health benefits will be guaranteed. I'd hate the idea of tacking on another five years to her obligation. Guess that makes me a NIMBY.

[Annelise]

Ouch, I was about 10 when I finally stopped needing speech theraphy and at that price its a bloody good thing that the NHS covered the bill

Glad yours was covered, anyway. :)

[Ran]

Five years is rather excessive. While increasing the retirement age a couple of years may be feasible, the fact that life expectancy has increased does not mean that the average length of time in which one is really capable of carrying out a 40 hour week has increased as much.

That said, really, an increase in the amount brought in by the payroll tax -- either by tacking on two percent or by increasing the cap on applicable income -- is a much easier solution.

In a time when a lot of the citizenry of first world nations are finding ways to improve their quality of life through increased leisure time, it's a backwards step to look to reducing leisure time among our eldest citizens as the first step in dealing with fiscal problems that can be dealt with as or more readily through other measures.

[Annelise]

Raising the age requirement for SS is an obvious step. It is difficult to implement because seniors vote and they're opposed to it.

Yeah, it'd be a bitch to get through. I dunno, maybe if there was something to make it a little less bitter.. healthcare is a huge senior issue too, for instance.

[Swordfish]

What 'people' are you talking about then? The Republicans that you mentioned earlier? As far as I can tell, the performance of the people who are going to be expected to implement this system is not related them, they are different people now.

The republicans you mention were simply an example. Have we had a 100% turnover in congress that I'm not aware of? And are their terms of office infinite?

You know, Social Security itself isn't even in that big of a bind. Something like a 2% increase on the payroll tax will make that problem go away. Medicare certainly looks much worse off -- partially because we're in a recession and that makes the long term projections look bleaker than they may necessarily be -- but really that's an issue with health care costs and a sane health care system would make even that very managable in the long term.

We don't agree about how serious the issues with SS are, but assuming you are correct and the fix is so simple, what does it say about our leadership that they lack the will to make even such a simple fix? Doesn't exactly give you confidence that they would be capable or willing to make the more difficult decsions required of UHC, does it?

Five years is rather excessive. While increasing the retirement age a couple of years may be feasible, the fact that life expectancy has increased does not mean that the average length of time in which one is really capable of carrying out a 40 hour week has increased as much.

That said, really, an increase in the amount brought in by the payroll tax -- either by tacking on two percent or by increasing the cap on applicable income -- is a much easier solution.

In a time when a lot of the citizenry of first world nations are finding ways to improve their quality of life through increased leisure time, it's a backwards step to look to reducing leisure time among our eldest citizens as the first step in dealing with fiscal problems that can be dealt with as or more readily through other measures.

Thank you for demonstrating explicitly why UHC would be a disaster in this country.

[Ran]

Robert Reich, a man more eminently qualified to discuss these issues than myself, discusses the Social Security situation here. Basically, because it has the word "social" in it, it's a favorite bugaboo of conservatives who make outlandish claims based on no facts to speak of.

Social Security isn't a problem. The reason no one feels a great urge to deal with the situation is in part because the problem is so small.

Medicare, OTOH, is a bigger issue. This is why you're seeing a lot more talk about health care reform and universal health care among serious commentators and politicians than you see talk about Social Security. Priorities, right?

[Kalbear]

I would far rather have cost-based rationing than time-based rationing. Any day of the week.

So let me get this straight, Chats. You would much rather have people not get health care at all instead of wait. In that situation, the 'cost based rationing' IS time-based; the issue is that the wait times in Canada are 4 months. The wait times in the US are a lifetime.

And the waiting system is a bit interesting; depending on the system, there's no reason that you can't pay a private health system personally to get in earlier. So in a lot of countries the wait issue is not an issue.