Universal Health Care? (US)

I haven't seen much discussion about this around here, and would like to hear people's thoughts on the issue. With the next election coming up soon I'm hoping this will become an even bigger issue in American politics than it is already, as it seems to many that our current system is broken. What do you think should be done to help fix it? I'd also like to hear from anyone who lives in a country where there is a universal system, and how well it works in your opinion.

I'm basically of the opinion that when it comes to my health, I would trust an expensive government that wants to get re-elected more than a for-profit corporation who only needs to protect their bottom line to keep their stockholders happy.

Of course taxes would go up, but to someone who already pays $500 a month for private insurance and other ungodly sums for prescription drugs, there may not be much of a difference. Personally, I've already got really good insurance through my employer. But in no way do I feel secure that it will always be there for me or that I'll never get any of the multitude of medical conditions that make it impossible for some people to get new policies since insurance companies can deny selling a policy to whoever they want. And I would be happy to pay extra taxes if I knew they were going to help people less fortunate than myself who might otherwise get no care at all.

And in the big economic picture, how many American jobs have been shipped off to other countries because employers didn't want to pay the increasing costs of their employees benefits? How many families have been bankrupted because an insurer could satisfy themselves that they didn't need to pay for a person's care, or refused to offer them coverage in the first place? And that's to say nothing for the people who just don't make enough money to afford it so they sadly have no choice but to accept the fact that they will never have it, and hope they don't get sick.

Obviously there are many sides to this and probably no easy answer that we can all agree on, but we still have to try.

Universal would be great if you take the American get rich quick mentality out of the picture. If there was a way to level the playing field and keep people from price manipulation, I wouldn't mind an increase in tax. I wouldn't mind going to any doctor and not having to worry if I am covered. I would, however go more often, because it would be "free" and in effect raise the cost in taxes.
My grandma had some small tests run a number of years ago. The doctor had already contacted medicare and her insurance. She knew a few days before going the tests would not be covered as they were "optional". When the nurse gave her paperwork to sign, she seen the bill was $743, and it was being billed to medicare. She told them she wasn't covered and she was paying out of pocket. The nurse left and remade the bill, it was $197. She asked why the difference and they said medicare don't like to pay and that they would have to refile several times to get their money if it wasn't "coded" right. The higher cost would offset the extra labor involved.
What does this tell me? Someone is getting screwed out of money. I think the universal system will open more doors for someones larger paychecks, unless they can police the costs. Which if its government controlled, when are they worried about cost?

What does this tell me? Someone is getting screwed out of money. I think the universal system will open more doors for someones larger paychecks, unless they can police the costs. Which if its government controlled, when are they worried about cost?

Nothing in this life is free. "Free" health care is still paid for by someone, and I can guarantee you it will be borne once again by the middle class, what there is left of it. If the funds aren't there, then expect to see rationed care.

On another note, all of us now employed in the health care system will likely become government employees if it's nationalized. I don't know how many here are health care workers, but I can tell you that the corporate profit mentality has pretty much cut staffing to the bone, resulting in mandatory overtime and crushing workloads for most nurses and many ancillary staff. Burnt out staff make mistakes every day. Hospitals are now marginally safe places to find oneself as a patient.

I don't see a government run system as any better than that. If we work for the government, they may even mandate where we will be employed, and mandatory overtime may become even worse than it is now.

As it is now, health care is available to the poor; we are all paying for it. Once your butt crosses the ER door threshold, you cannot be denied care on the basis of payment. If you want to see the future of "free" coverage, look at the hospital crisis in areas where illegals are overloading crowded emergency rooms seeking care.

Having said that, I will not deny that the present system is broken, but I damn sure don't trust any of the current flock of political turkeys to fix it.

because it would be "free" and in effect raise the cost in taxes.

Nothing in this life is free. "Free" health care is still paid for by someone,

I meant we (taxpayers) would all pay for it, and I was saying if there is no upfront costs I would be more inclined to go to the doctor. Which is where your example of the E.R., and my simply going to the doctor more often seem to agree.

I also worry about the hospital staff mistakes due to overworked etc. Which is another reason I don't go if I don't have to. I have "okay" health care coverage, but I worry about leaving more screwed up then I came in.

I have serious concerns about what would happen if the government were to take over management of the health care industry. At the same time, working in the financial end of the health care industry for the last 5 years makes me wonder how the government could possibly do a WORSE job than is being done right now. Insurance companies, hospitals, clinics, etc... are all run like cutthroat businesses nowadays, and patients with very good private insurance coverage are routinely screwed over by providers.

I do believe that all people should have reasonable access to healthcare, and I have no problem paying higher taxes to improve the quality of life for a large number of people. Diverting funds from something like the Iraq war at $350 billion a year would easily allow the government to provide healthcare for a significant number of uninsured Americans. Let's make it happen

The way I see it, it's one step closer to communism. The government takes our money and tells us what we have to spend it on. Does anyone want that? We need less government, not to have them control more of what we use. If someone wants to gamble and not have health insurance, they should be able to. Since we'll be paying for it with higher taxes anyway, why not keep taxes lower and let people choose for themselves what to spend their money on? It also takes away more incentive to get an education and get a good job. I paid my way through college and got a good job that offers, among other benefits, health insurance. If the government is going to pay for me, why not just go flip burgers, have next to no responsibility, and live off the system? Plus, almost all government employees are incompetent. I don't want someone who doesn't know their hand from their foot having anything to do with my healthcare. Can you imagine what would happen if the DOT ran our hospitals!? :eek:

Since we'll be paying for it with higher taxes anyway, why not keep taxes lower and let people choose for themselves what to spend their money on?

This is an issue of disparity between the social classes. Upper class families have expendable income that allow them to obtain medical coverage not available to those in the middle and lower classes (not including medicaid programs, obviously). Why should higher income allow one person access to better health care than someone with a lower income?


It also takes away more incentive to get an education and get a good job.

This is pure conjecture, and assumes that all people have equal access to education, and that all people have equal access to jobs in the workplace. In reality, studies have repeatedly shown that lower income and minority demographics have significantly lower access to education and are discriminated against in the workplace.

I paid my way through college and got a good job that offers, among other benefits, health insurance. If the government is going to pay for me, why not just go flip burgers, have next to no responsibility, and live off the system?

Good for you. See above comments regarding lower income and minority demographics.

One can only live off the system for a maximum of 2 years, I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong. And that is the way that it should be. Do some take advantage of the system? Of course they do. But that is more of an exception to the rule, as evidenced by the incredibly low unemployment rate in the United States. There simply aren't a lot of people "living off the system".

Plus, almost all government employees are incompetent. I don't want someone who doesn't know their hand from their foot having anything to do with my healthcare. Can you imagine what would happen if the DOT ran our hospitals!? :eek:

Which government employees are you talking about? The hundreds of thousands in public universities that are advancing science and technology at an unprecedented rate? The postal workers slaving 6 days a week their whole lives to deliver your mail? The policeman who keep our streets safe only to be despised by the general public for doing their jobs? The resource management workers cleaning out sewage drains and picking up trash?

I wish we lived in a country where there was parity between all people, where classism, sexism, racism, ageism, and all other forms of discrimination didn't exist. But discrimination does exist, and we need regulation by the government to ensure that social justice exists, that all people are entitled to the same rights, and that life can be as fair as possible for all people.:2cents:

There are a lot of problems with this idea. 1) The simpliest is that doctors won't care. While there have been reports that doctors will not see a noticeable drop in pay, but there will be, there are incentives for doctors that move to nowhere locations since they may be paid more unlike now where all doctors want to live in a city and get paid more leaving nowhere locations doctorless or someone not up to par. 2) To go along with them not caring is that not as many people maybe seen at a time. What do they care? there's nothing coming from each individdual person so why see so many a day. 3) The easy may become harder. Let's hear it form our Canadians? It's crazy getting prescription drugs and while many other countries do this...actually I think almost all, it's not an easy task.

I speak with the greatest experience and knowledge as my ex-fancee lived in Turkey, Universal, and being a military brat, I've actually had it and my dad was in charge of the 3rd largest hospital in the world. If it weren't for him doctors there would still be seeing less than 10 people a day. As for the pay cut, there is so much online about this and not just forum talk but real information as it's been battled in Congress for so long. It's a novel idea but for America it won't play out right. While medical insurance is the number one, I believe, reason for bankruptcy in America for citizens, aside fromit's costs, people that don't pay up the rates on insurance. As it is, I doubt every bum or anyone lower class goes because they know they can't afford it if something else, but to know it's free? There's too many unknown ariable to make that kinda change not to mention...the change. It's too big. Could you imagine, how would we move into this system? It's not something that could just start tomorrow. After doing a few reports on it, you just realize it's not for us.

That's the thing about America, you can't compare us to anyone else. It's a different system and not everything will fit right, like a female president. :D

Why should higher income allow one person access to better health care than someone with a lower income?

Because they have more money.

Perhaps I was misleading by saying I "got a good job". I am nowhere near upper class, infact I am much, much closer to lower class. Why should higher income allow one person access to a better car, a better house, a second house? Should the government just take every cent we make and tell us that we are all equal and get the same stuff? My mom did that with my sister and I when we were kids, but that's not how grownups do things.

Should the government just take every cent we make and tell us that we are all equal and get the same stuff? My mom did that with my sister and I when we were kids, but that's not how grownups do things.

:lol: You're right, grown-ups simply accept the fact that minorities and lower income demographics do not have the right to quality health care, education, employment, etc...simply because of the color of their skin or their social class.

:lol: You're right, grown-ups simply accept the fact that minorities and lower income demographics do not have the right to quality health care, education, employment, etc...simply because of the color of their skin or their social class.

It really has nothing to do with color. There are minorities with extreemely high paying jobs, and there are minorities living in government-subsidized housing. Guess what? There are white people in those same spots. People are too quick to assume that because they are a certain color, that is the reason they are being "discriminated against". I think everyone knows the stereotypes of various minorities. The truth is, MOST of the time those stereotypes are completely wrong. Honestly, I think there are more white people (mostly highschoolers)that try to act "black", than there are black people who act like the stereotypical "black" person. I work with a guy from Mexico. He's one of the nicest and smartest people I know, if it weren't for his physical appearance you wouldn't know he wasn't a 5th generation American. We get along great, on the other hand there are other hispanics who act like the stereotypical "mexican" who I won't even talk to because they only bothered to learn 10 words of english. Sure, there are minorities that act like the stereotype of their race, and they may be passed over for a job; but ask yourself this: If a white man went in for a job interview and acted the exact same way, would he get hired? I don't want to make you uncomfortable, but I am curious. What race are you and where do you live that you would feel that the color of someone's skin has any influence on whether they get a good job? I do agree that minorities do generally have less money. The reason for this isn't the white business owner taking advantage of or not hiring them, it's the fact that many of them moved here from a country where they have absolutely nothing compared to us. It takes time to earn money, and we shouldn't be giving people stuff for free just because they are here now. The guy I work with that I mentioned moved here from Mexico with almost nothing. He got a job in a meat processing plant and worked there for several years while saving money to go to college. Now he makes enough money to buy health insurance, not stay at a low paying job and complain about everything. Why should someone who contributes almost nothing to society be given a reward? I agree that the insurance and drug companies are screwing us, but the government could regulate that without giving "free" health insurance to everyone. It's not all-or-nothing.

Like I said in my last post, people with more money have more stuff. It's that simple. Just because enough people get together and say "we want this too!", doesn't mean they deserve it or have any right to it. I want a maid and a 5,000 sq. ft. garage at home. Anyone want to join me, make a big deal about it, and get them for all Americans?

The way I see it, it's one step closer to communism. The government takes our money and tells us what we have to spend it on. Does anyone want that? We need less government, not to have them control more of what we use. If someone wants to gamble and not have health insurance, they should be able to. Since we'll be paying for it with higher taxes anyway, why not keep taxes lower and let people choose for themselves what to spend their money on? It also takes away more incentive to get an education and get a good job. I paid my way through college and got a good job that offers, among other benefits, health insurance. If the government is going to pay for me, why not just go flip burgers, have next to no responsibility, and live off the system? Plus, almost all government employees are incompetent. I don't want someone who doesn't know their hand from their foot having anything to do with my healthcare. Can you imagine what would happen if the DOT ran our hospitals!? :eek:
+1 it is a terrible idea. if you want socialism, there is the beginning

If the funds aren't there, then expect to see rationed care.

Like we already have? Insurance companies make money by making sure that they pay out less money in benefits than they make in premiums. Already sounds like rationed care to me.

Once your butt crosses the ER door threshold, you cannot be denied care on the basis of payment.

That's why they check to see if you have insurance before they even let you near the ER. And they'll sure throw you out of any other part of the hospital.

I would, however go more often, because it would be "free" and in effect raise the cost in taxes.

Or, isn't it possible that with more fequent trips to the doctor you would be healthier and in fact cheaper to care for? Wouldn't a few routine visits to the doctor to tell you your cholesterol is too high be a hell of a lot cheaper than one quadruple bypass?

And for those who are saying that it would be the first step toward communism, perhaps you could share your capitalist-friendly solutions? It's very easy to say why you think someone else's idea won't work, especially if it offends your ideology, but it's not really going to help anyone. Unless you don't think there's a problem at all...

Power to the people is a nice idea, but we need to see that it's just as much about taking power from the hands of the corporate giants as it is taking it from the government. After all, they are pretty much the same thing nowadays. And I can't really think of too many things that would help this situation that don't involve some kind of revision/addition to the governmental regulation of this industry and its finances. How else do you stop an American business from screwing people over for a profit?

^You don't. That's what capitalism is or is that totally lost any value in America? It's the ability to make money anyway. Communism, socialism, etc is too obvious of a corrupt government and America woul not go for it. It's pretty to keep up a good front and continue with the back alley deals and behind the scenes actions.

Aside from that, you couldn't just go to the doctor whenver you want. Where's our Canadians? Have you ever went to a walk in clinic? How long have you waited? Use some common sense people, have you ever been to a place where something is free, cheap, etc. Oh right! Black Friday. Now imagine that in hospitals.

While of couse there could be regulation like gas was years ago, people with certain letters in their names or by social ecurity numbers can only go on this day etc, might help. Still, it's not for America. I've heard some good things, but still up an upper class citizen not knowing how th lower or middle class deals with the free health care in her coutnry.

That's why they check to see if you have insurance before they even let you near the ER. And they'll sure throw you out of any other part of the hospital.

That's actually not true...Federal EMTALA laws require that if a person needs emergent care, they cannot be refused due to their lack of ability to pay. Now inpatient stays are a whole different story.

Or, isn't it possible that with more fequent trips to the doctor you would be healthier and in fact cheaper to care for? Wouldn't a few routine visits to the doctor to tell you your cholesterol is too high be a hell of a lot cheaper than one quadruple bypass?

Numerous studies have shown that preventative medicine would significantly reduce health care costs. But that also involves things like healthy eating, exercise, etc...which is too much for most Americans, unfortunately.

^You don't. That's what capitalism is or is that totally lost any value in America? It's the ability to make money anyway. Communism, socialism, etc is too obvious of a corrupt government and America woul not go for it.

How is socialism a corrupt form of government? Many of the major European governments are socialist, and they seem to be doing pretty well. Not from a capitalist view, of course, but they do have significantly higher levels of happiness across the populace. Besides, your statement hinges on the fact that capitalist systems are inherently immune to corruption somehow, an interesting suggestion given that the basic ideology of capitalism values commodities over people. Such a system necessarily lends itself to corruption, as we see over and over in the United States government.

While of couse there could be regulation like gas was years ago, people with certain letters in their names or by social ecurity numbers can only go on this day etc, might help. Still, it's not for America. I've heard some good things, but still up an upper class citizen not knowing how th lower or middle class deals with the free health care in her coutnry.

Actually, a majority of Americans support the federalization of the health care industry, which means that sooner or later, assuming our government is working representatively in any way, it's going to happen.

How is socialism a corrupt form of government? Many of the major European governments are socialist, and they seem to be doing pretty well. Not from a capitalist view, of course, but they do have significantly higher levels of happiness across the populace. Besides, your statement hinges on the fact that capitalist systems are inherently immune to corruption somehow, an interesting suggestion given that the basic ideology of capitalism values commodities over people. Such a system necessarily lends itself to corruption, as we see over and over in the United States government.



Actually, a majority of Americans support the federalization of the health care industry, which means that sooner or later, assuming our government is working representatively in any way, it's going to happen.

If you read what I typed you'd understand that I said capitalism is a form of corruption that isn't so up front.

For the second state, it's wrong. The idea is nice, but once again speaking about polls and what not, they're far too off and assuming they're correct I just did several reports on this so I assure my research is more indepth than yours and most don't. While there is a whole doctors union for this, the idea is still not supported enough by the people this really affects which are the people that do the job.

Have you ever experienced Universal Health Care? I have, it's nice as idea, and can possibly work in a smaller system, but as mentioned, for one there's no way to just switch.

That's why they check to see if you have insurance before they even let you near the ER. And they'll sure throw you out of any other part of the hospital.
I'm not sure where you got that idea. We don't have guards at the entrance to the ER checking insurance papers. None of the hospitals I've worked for did. Once you're in the ER door, you're there. Like thrasher said, EMTALA says so.

Sure, there's a triage nurse and registration clerks, but they can't toss you out if you don't have insurance.

... Now inpatient stays are a whole different story.

That's more what I was getting at. I know they can't keep you out of the emergency room, but how good your insurance is has a lot to do with how long you get to stay when they're done, and unfortunately in some cases affects what actually happens inside the ER. I've heard it argued that good insurance will even get you into the ER much faster than someone without it, which I would really like to not believe.