You want universal health care? You WILL get universal health care.

[nbs2]

The idea of providing everybody with healthcare has always bothered me. If the government is the sole insurance provider, that would mean that it would dictate to the market what costs would be, and create a secondary cash market that would continue to benefit the rich. If the government was an option, in addition to private insurance, then I don't see why we don't just call it an overhaul of the medicare/aid system instead of touting it as something new?

Anyway, I frame this with the above because if John Edwards has his way (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2), either some or all of us are going to be forced to go to the doctor. Is going to the Dr. a good thing? Yes. Should people do it? Yes. Should the government be in the business of mandating that we all go to the doctor? No.

[Swarmlord]

A fix of some of the things that do push up the cost of healthcare can't compete with the mentality of getting something for nothing to a certain percentage of the electorate.

Fortunately, John Edwards has no chance of winning the primaries, so it's just a matter of how far into this issue the main candidates will go.

[IJ Reilly]

The idea of providing everybody with healthcare has always bothered me. If the government is the sole insurance provider, that would mean that it would dictate to the market what costs would be, and create a secondary cash market that would continue to benefit the rich. If the government was an option, in addition to private insurance, then I don't see why we don't just call it an overhaul of the medicare/aid system instead of touting it as something new?

Anyway, I frame this with the above because if John Edwards has his way (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2), either some or all of us are going to be forced to go to the doctor. Is going to the Dr. a good thing? Yes. Should people do it? Yes. Should the government be in the business of mandating that we all go to the doctor? No.

The Edwards plan really isn't explained here, but the premise of requiring preventative care in order to be eligible for government assisted health insurance is supported by at least some economic logic. It would keep health costs lower.

I believe at least two of the Democratic candidates are calling for expanding the Medicare system to allow under-65s to join. If this happens, some strings are bound to be attached. One might be that you can't wait until you're really ill to use it.

[leekohler]

One might be that you can't wait until you're really ill to use it.

How refreshing that would be.

[MACDRIVE]

The VA makes me show up to the doctor every 3 months for a chat; otherwise, they'll quit giving me my free anti-psychotic drugs. :)

[xsedrinam]

To those who are opposed to universal health care, tweaked or untweaked, are you saying you are satisfied with the present U.S. health care package? If so, how can you justify a present program which leaves some 45 million including children uncovered? How can you justify exorbitant medicinal costs in the U.S.? If part of that justification entails "research", do you also justify the pharmaceutical lobbyist machine in Washington?

If you ARE opposed to a universal health care package, what alternative solutions do you propose to cure the present situation? Or are you content with the status quo?

[skunk]

The VA makes me show up to the doctor every 3 months for a chat; otherwise, they'll quit giving me my free anti-psychotic drugs. :)Are you sure they're working anyway? ;)

[leekohler]

To those who are opposed to universal health care, tweaked or untweaked, are you saying you are satisfied with the present U.S. health care package? If so, how can you justify a present program which leaves some 45 million including children uncovered? How can you justify exorbitant medicinal costs in the U.S.? If part of that justification entails "research", do you also justify the pharmaceutical lobbyist machine in Washington?

If you ARE opposed to a universal health care package, what alternative solutions do you propose to cure the present situation? Or are you content with the status quo?

I've yet to hear a realistic proposal from the other side as well. All you ever hear is "tort reform" which isn't going to really help much. If the insurance industry was tightly regulated, it might work- but we all know how much that side hates regulation. Although, to be fair- I did hear Swarmlord mention the "R" word once. ;) It was so shocking I nearly keeled over.

[obeygiant]

To those who are opposed to universal health care, tweaked or untweaked, are you saying you are satisfied with the present U.S. health care package? If so, how can you justify a present program which leaves some 45 million including children uncovered? How can you justify exorbitant medicinal costs in the U.S.? If part of that justification entails "research", do you also justify the pharmaceutical lobbyist machine in Washington?

If you ARE opposed to a universal health care package, what alternative solutions do you propose to cure the present situation? Or are you content with the status quo?

I'm not opposed to universal health care, although I'm a little wary of the conseqences of it. 300 million people plus thoses who aren't citizens getting free health care is probably going to raise taxes..a bit. Most here don't trust the government as far as they could throw it but they're all to willing to trust them with your healthcare. I'm not saying the current system doesn't have its flaws, but its worked perfectly for me so far at $720 a month. I'm all in favor of universal health care for people under 18. I would pay a little more each year in taxes so that all children could get fixed for free in the true spirit of "it takes a village to raise a child." But from the experience I have from being in Japan and their version of healthcare I can tell you that a medical problem taking 3 days in the hospital here in the states would take 3 weeks over there. Given the over-polite nature of the Japanese that time frame makes some sense but it would be much different here in the US and expensive. The culture in the US is "grab what you can get" based on capitalism. Switching the mentality of these people here from what it is now to "lend a hand to your fellow in need" may be more difficult than re-vamping our current healthcare system.

[skunk]

However, with all the vaunted efficiency and speed, you get this:Americans pay more when they get sick than people in other Western nations and get more confused, error-prone treatment, according to the largest survey to compare U.S. health care with other nations.

The survey of nearly 7,000 sick adults in the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain and Germany found Americans were the most likely to pay at least $1,000 in out-of-pocket expenses. More than half went without needed care because of cost and more than one-third endured mistakes and disorganized care when they did get treated.

Although patients in every nation sometimes run into obstacles to getting care and deficiencies when they do get treated, the United States stood out for having the highest error rates, most disorganized care and highest costs, the survey found.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301143.html

[Swarmlord]

The VA makes me show up to the doctor every 3 months for a chat; otherwise, they'll quit giving me my free anti-psychotic drugs. :)

That clears up so many questions...

[Swarmlord]

I've yet to hear a realistic proposal from the other side as well. All you ever hear is "tort reform" which isn't going to really help much. If the insurance industry was tightly regulated, it might work- but we all know how much that side hates regulation. Although, to be fair- I did hear Swarmlord mention the "R" word once. ;) It was so shocking I nearly keeled over.

There's definitely problems that could be ironed out in our healthcare system.

The only socialialization of any industry that I would support whole heartedly would be for lawyers and the legal industry in general. There was yet another class action suit settled last week where the lawyers got half ($70 million in this case) and the other half was to be divided amongst 32,000 people. Reading about extortion like that just makes me scream.

[xsedrinam]

There's definitely problems that could be ironed out in our healthcare system.

The only socialialization of any industry that I would support whole heartedly would be for lawyers and the legal industry in general. There was yet another class action suit settled last week where the lawyers got half ($70 million in this case) and the other half was to be divided amongst 32,000 people. Reading about extortion like that just makes me scream.
Well, at least the legal system has seen to it that Leona Helmsly's dog will have good medical care 'til it expires. Yes, that's OT, and still in my craw.

You mention earlier that a U.S. mindset exists which will be difficult to change. I'm hoping it will. But we can't wait for all the Leonas to die first before something is done to address the needed attention being made accessible to all, regardless of ethnicity or financial status.

[mactastic]

There's definitely problems that could be ironed out in our healthcare system.

The only socialialization of any industry that I would support whole heartedly would be for lawyers and the legal industry in general. There was yet another class action suit settled last week where the lawyers got half ($70 million in this case) and the other half was to be divided amongst 32,000 people. Reading about extortion like that just makes me scream.
And how is it extortion when a lawyer makes that as opposed to Ken Lay?

I heard about a CEO last week that earned $70 million and the rest was divided amongst 32,000 people. Does that kind of extortion make you want to scream? I wonder why not....

You I'm sure will argue that a good CEO is worth whatever he get's paid, right? Whatever the market will bear? Why is a good lawyer only worth what you think he should be, as opposed to what the market will pay him?

[Lyle]

The survey of nearly 7,000 sick adults in the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain and Germany found Americans were the most likely to pay at least $1,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.I'm curious about how they define "out-of-pocket" expenses...

[Sun Baked]

Are you sure they're working anyway? ;)

Nope, they are only working on one person in here, if there were enough to go around I'm quite sure the political section would change for the better. :o

[Swarmlord]

And how is it extortion when a lawyer makes that as opposed to Ken Lay?

I heard about a CEO last week that earned $70 million and the rest was divided amongst 32,000 people. Does that kind of extortion make you want to scream? I wonder why not....

You I'm sure will argue that a good CEO is worth whatever he get's paid, right? Whatever the market will bear? Why is a good lawyer only worth what you think he should be, as opposed to what the market will pay him?

I got no love for the outrageous salary discrepancies that CEOs are paid over their employees. However, someone decided that person was worth a certain salary and benefits no matter how absurd.

I want to know who came up with the scheme where lawyers can take a percentage of a class action suit, award themselves half of it rather than calculating a reasonable fee and expenses.

[leekohler]

I got no love for the outrageous salary discrepancies that CEOs are paid over their employees. However, someone decided that person was worth a certain salary and benefits no matter how absurd.

I want to know who came up with the scheme where lawyers can take a percentage of a class action suit, award themselves half of it rather than calculating a reasonable fee and expenses.

It's the same person who came up with outrageous salaries for CEOs. You seem to think that's OK, so why can't lawyers do it too? It's just laissez faire capitalism which you seem to love so much.

[MACDRIVE]

Are you sure they're working anyway? ;)

That clears up so many questions...


LOL! . . . http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/MACDRIVE/GIFS/laugh.gif

[Sun Baked]

If you can pay, go to the hospital resort.

If you can't stand in the triage line.

I know my dentist refuses to deal with insurance, and some doctors and clinics have ditched them also. Pay cash, and let the patient try to get money back from their insurance company.

---

Basically forcing people to go to the doctor may help with preventative care and dealing with things before they get expensive.

If there is adequate funding available for prevention.

Otherwise it is as useful as pissing into the wind.

Since it'll be a govt. program, I doubt prevention would get the funding it needs. Since it isn't an immediate medical problem, and may not see any returns for decades.

[leekohler]

If you can pay, go to the hospital resort.

If you can't stand in the triage line.

I know my dentist refuses to deal with insurance, and some doctors and clinics have ditched them also. Pay cash, and let the patient try to get money back from their insurance company.

You are kidding, right? I'd stop going to that dentist or doctor. I couldn't afford it, and I'm sure the insurance company would screw you out of your money.

[solvs]

I don't think the Edwards plan would work. Obama's is practically nonexistant as well. Hillary blew it before, hoping she doesn't again if she gets in. But we do need something, especially for children. Start with moderate regulation. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, corporations, all of them. Offering a low cost or no cost option for those in certain situations, the way they already do with the very poor, elderly, and disabled. Especially if, even with regulation, they still can't get affordable coverage. Medicare and Medicaid need overhauls as well, but in pretty much the opposite direction the current administration has been taking it. Like negotiating for lower prescription prices. We've already done tort reform, some of which was needed, but it hasn't really changed much of anything as anyone who knows anything about the system could have told you.

We're already paying for it, about time we actually got something for our troubles.

[LethalWolfe]

I'm not opposed to universal health care, although I'm a little wary of the conseqences of it. 300 million people plus thoses who aren't citizens getting free health care is probably going to raise taxes..a bit.
Those w/o insurance today can just stand in line at the ER and get treated w/o having to pay. Guess who picks up those costs? An unintended, and expensive, version of universal health care is already available. As the ranks of uninsured grow so will the number of non-emergency visits to the ER to get "free" treatment.

That clears up so many questions...
Like where to get free drugs?


Lethal

[mactastic]

Those w/o insurance today can just stand in line at the ER and get treated w/o having to pay. Guess who picks up those costs? An unintended, and expensive, version of universal health care is already available. As the ranks of uninsured grow so will the number of non-emergency visits to the ER to get "free" treatment.
This is the crux of the matter. Ask practically any EMT, and you'll hear plenty of stories about their local "frequent flyers".

We've already got universal health coverage. Let's find a way to reduce the cost of it by not providing it via the emergency room.

[solvs]

I make that argument every time, that we're already paying for it, but it falls on deaf ears.

[Swarmlord]

I make that argument every time, that we're already paying for it, but it falls on deaf ears.

Any suggestions on how to end non triage medical care in the emergency rooms are always appreciated and should be forwarded to our congressmen.

[takao]

having an universal healthcare system doesn't mean that everybody has the same treatment .. you can still pay premium for private coverage through insurance companies (white fillings less beds pro room etc. ) which is better but also more expensive

it's essentially just the US system except that insurance is mandatory and that the state provides a cheap one ... nothing more

[solvs]

Any suggestions on how to end non triage medical care in the emergency rooms are always appreciated and should be forwarded to our congressmen.

Uh, we just did. Affordable or free care for those who have no money and no insurance for non emergencies. As we've said, we're already paying for it.

The only other option would be to turn people away if they can't prove it will be paid for, which even you couldn't be in favor of.

[skunk]

The only other option would be to turn people away if they can't prove it will be paid for, which even you couldn't be in favor of.You wanna bet?

[mactastic]

You wanna bet?
That's the thing. It's all well and good to demand that the uninsured get no care -- until you leave home without your wallet on the day you get hit by a bus...

[Daveman Deluxe]

It is my long standing belief that we would ALL be better off if every family with one person working full time (male, female, doesn't matter) could provide for themselves food, a roof over their heads, clothing, and health care. This is not a matter of making sure that they all have a television or a computer, but it is a matter of making sure that all have the basic necessities for life. I think that it is an absolute travesty that we have created an economy where the basic necessities are bought and sold based on ability to pay, and that those who are unable must go without. I think that if you work, providing these things should not be a problem. It's not about government handouts, it's about what's fair for an honest day's work. I could go on at great length on this subject, but I'd rather not hijack the thread.

[leekohler]

It is my long standing belief that we would ALL be better off if every family with one person working full time (male, female, doesn't matter) could provide for themselves food, a roof over their heads, clothing, and health care. This is not a matter of making sure that they all have a television or a computer, but it is a matter of making sure that all have the basic necessities for life. I think that it is an absolute travesty that we have created an economy where the basic necessities are bought and sold based on ability to pay, and that those who are unable must go without. I think that if you work, providing these things should not be a problem. It's not about government handouts, it's about what's fair for an honest day's work. I could go on at great length on this subject, but I'd rather not hijack the thread.

I think that's the best post I've read in a while.

[skunk]

Can you suggest a means of achieving this?

[LethalWolfe]

It is my long standing belief that we would ALL be better off if every family with one person working full time (male, female, doesn't matter) could provide for themselves food, a roof over their heads, clothing, and health care. This is not a matter of making sure that they all have a television or a computer, but it is a matter of making sure that all have the basic necessities for life. I think that it is an absolute travesty that we have created an economy where the basic necessities are bought and sold based on ability to pay, and that those who are unable must go without. I think that if you work, providing these things should not be a problem. It's not about government handouts, it's about what's fair for an honest day's work. I could go on at great length on this subject, but I'd rather not hijack the thread.
So a guy working full time at Blockbuster making $12k a year should be able to feed, clothe, house, and provide healthcare for his wife and 2 kids w/o government assistance? I've got to echo skunk's Q and ask if you've got any suggests for real world ways to get to this end. Possibly might want to start a new too so we don't completely hijack this one.


Lethal

[xsedrinam]

So a guy working full time at Blockbuster making $12k a year should be able to feed, clothe, house, and provide healthcare for his wife and 2 kids w/o government assistance? I've got to echo skunk's Q and ask if you've got any suggests for real world ways to get to this end. Possibly might want to start a new too so we don't completely hijack this one.


Lethal
It's a knee-jerk thought, but let's not let Hillary try it, again.

[beate]

So a guy working full time at Blockbuster making $12k a year should be able to feed, clothe, house, and provide healthcare for his wife and 2 kids w/o government assistance? I've got to echo skunk's Q and ask if you've got any suggests for real world ways to get to this end. Possibly might want to start a new too so we don't completely hijack this one.


Lethal

Don't mean to be callous but why's a guy who only makes 12K a year got a non-working wife & two kids?

People need to stop breeding - at least until they can care for themselves. It's not like there's an under-population problem or anything.

[LethalWolfe]

Don't mean to be callous but why's a guy who only makes 12K a year got a non-working wife & two kids?
Daveman Deluxe said "one working family member" so I figured a guy w/a wife and kid was a pretty average family. And because of patriarchal stereotypes I made the husband the bread winner. ;)


Lethal

[solvs]

Don't mean to be callous but why's a guy who only makes 12K a year got a non-working wife & two kids?
Uh, maybe he was working a good paying job, but lost it through no fault of his own. Say the place shut down. And there were no more good jobs in the area, nor could the person and his family afford to just up and move somewhere else. Especially with a sick wife, who no longer had medical coverage, so couldn't work herself. I know it could happen, because I saw first hand when it did. Eventually they were ok, but things were tough for awhile there, and after unemployment ran out, he took what job he could to make ends meet. Even selling most of their stuff. Not that anyone wanted to buy their home, even at a price below what they still owed on it.

Or one of the other variations that make this a likely situation (I can give you more if you'd like) you apparently didn't think of before making such a statement that, yes I'm sorry, was kinda callous.

[leekohler]

So a guy working full time at Blockbuster making $12k a year should be able to feed, clothe, house, and provide healthcare for his wife and 2 kids w/o government assistance? I've got to echo skunk's Q and ask if you've got any suggests for real world ways to get to this end. Possibly might want to start a new too so we don't completely hijack this one.


Lethal

Daveman Deluxe makes a seriously good point though. Why is it that for the most part, the only decent paying jobs in the US require a college degree? That seems wrong to me, when we have so many jobs that really need to be done here. Case in point, why should a person providing care to the mentally challenged make less than I do as a senior art director in advertising? Not that I don't feel my services aren't needed, but we're talking about people who are doing something truly important for someone else's life.

I worked in a facility for people with Down's Syndrome when I was in college. It was unbelievably fulfilling and I felt I was helping people who faced amazing odds become productive. I made $7 an hour. That seems wrong to me. I could have done that job for a long time if I could have made any money at it. Even the people who had master's degrees in that place made relatively little money. We have a crisis of values in this country when this kind of thing goes on. I think that's the point Daveman was making.

[LethalWolfe]

Daveman Deluxe makes a seriously good point though. Why is it that for the most part, the only decent paying jobs in the US require a college degree? That seems wrong to me, when we have so many jobs that really need to be done here. Case in point, why should a person providing care to the mentally challenged make less than I do as a senior art director in advertising? Not that I don't feel my services aren't needed, but we're talking about people who are doing something truly important for someone else's life.

Not to sound callous (is there an echo in here?), but economies are built around money, not subjective, moralistic warm and fuzzies. ;) Pro athletes can make an obscene amount of money because they have a unique skill set that can be highly monetized in this country which allows them to generate an even more obscene amount of money for their employers. Firefighters can't make that kind of money because it's just not economically feasible (unless yer up for a slight tax increase :D).

As someone looking to make a career in the documentary world I could feel like I should make more money than my feature film counterpart because documentaries are more socially relevant than, say, "Dude, Where's My Car?" but that's just not the reality of my situation. There is less demand for docs, so they generate less money so less money can be paid to the people making them.

I think we would all be better off if we did more socially, not just economically, to make sure everyone had the opportunity to get a good education so we could all have the opportunity to get a better job and therefore the opportunity to lead a better life. I say "opportunity" because nothing is guaranteed.

We have a crisis of values in this country when this kind of thing goes on. I think that's the point Daveman was making.
The whole world has a crisis of values then 'cause I don't think anywhere would you find a garbage man doing his job to be more of a public draw than a sporting event even though the former is a much needed public service while the latter is not.


Lethal

[leekohler]

Not to sound callous (is there an echo in here?), but economies are built around money, not subjective, moralistic warm and fuzzies. ;) Pro athletes can make an obscene amount of money because they have a unique skill set that can be highly monetized in this country which allows them to generate an even more obscene amount of money for their employers. Firefighters can't make that kind of money because it's just not economically feasible (unless yer up for a slight tax increase :D).

As someone looking to make a career in the documentary world I could feel like I should make more money than my feature film counterpart because documentaries are more socially relevant than, say, "Dude, Where's My Car?" but that's just not the reality of my situation. There is less demand for docs, so they generate less money so less money can be paid to the people making them.

I think we would all be better off if we did more socially, not just economically, to make sure everyone had the opportunity to get a good education so we could all have the opportunity to get a better job and therefore the opportunity to lead a better life. I say "opportunity" because nothing is guaranteed.


The whole world has a crisis of values then 'cause I don't think anywhere would you find a garbage man doing his job to be more of a public draw than a sporting event even though the former is a much needed public service while the latter is not.


Lethal

There is less demand for docs? Are you kidding? That depends on the doc you're making.

You're right, the entire planet has a crisis of values. It's sad to me that I make X amount of dollars selling garbage (and making you want to buy it, and you do) and then someone doing something of social value gets a lot less.

[LethalWolfe]

There is less demand for docs? Are you kidding? That depends on the doc you're making.
There is more of an audience for docs now (especially political docs) than there was 15 years ago, but besides "Fahrenheit 9/11" even popular docs do much lower numbers than unpopular features.

You're right, the entire planet has a crisis of values. It's sad to me that I make X amount of dollars selling garbage (and making you want to buy it, and you do) and then someone doing something of social value gets a lot less.
It is what it is. We can't all be Mother Teresa. But maybe that's just the pragmatism talking. Or the fact that it's 2:30am. WTH are still doing up anyway?

If you can still look yourself in the mirror and live w/yer decisions yer doing okay. Or you're a soulless husk of human being. Either way you can sleep good a night and that's what matters. ;)


Lethal

[Iscariot]

I don't understand the American opposition to universal healthcare. Is it a tax issue? Because the 'average' American is paying nearly $11,500 for an employer health plan covering a family of four, with premiums steadily increasing. Americans pay more than twice per capita what Canadians pay, GDP expenditure is nearly twice as high, a greater percentage of government revenue is spent on healthcare, and to show for it Americans have a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rate and according the WHO a poor assessment as a healthcare system.

Clearly there's room for improvement, so why are options being so readily dismissed outright?

While I don't agree with Senator Edwards' position, It's not as if universal healthcare will guarantee that kind of provision, nor a slippery slope to get to that point.

[imac/cheese]

Daveman Deluxe makes a seriously good point though. Why is it that for the most part, the only decent paying jobs in the US require a college degree? That seems wrong to me, when we have so many jobs that really need to be done here. Case in point, why should a person providing care to the mentally challenged make less than I do as a senior art director in advertising? Not that I don't feel my services aren't needed, but we're talking about people who are doing something truly important for someone else's life.

I worked in a facility for people with Down's Syndrome when I was in college. It was unbelievably fulfilling and I felt I was helping people who faced amazing odds become productive. I made $7 an hour. That seems wrong to me. I could have done that job for a long time if I could have made any money at it. Even the people who had master's degrees in that place made relatively little money. We have a crisis of values in this country when this kind of thing goes on. I think that's the point Daveman was making.


I agree completely that a lot of the most fulfilling and even most important jobs are the least paid. If I could comfortably support my family on a high-school teachers salary, I would start immediately. The fact is that we pay positions what someone will take to do that job. There are plenty of people willing to take low paying jobs that are extremely challenging and essential to our society. When someone is willing to do the same job for less money, where is the incentive to pay someone else more?

I don't really think we have a crisis of values. It boils down to the simple fact that those who create money for a company get paid more money. There are many people who choose to work lower paying jobs that are rewarding because it improves the overall quality of their lives.

[mactastic]

I don't really think we have a crisis of values. It boils down to the simple fact that those who create money for a company get paid more money. There are many people who choose to work lower paying jobs that are rewarding because it improves the overall quality of their lives.
And the only time conservatives (not refering to you here necessarily) find this principle offensive is when "trial lawyers" get paid large sums of money. They are, apparently, the only group who doesn't deserve to get paid whatever the market will bear.

[imac/cheese]

And the only time conservatives (not refering to you here necessarily) find this principle offensive is when "trial lawyers" get paid large sums of money. They are, apparently, the only group who doesn't deserve to get paid whatever the market will bear.

I find that paradox interesting as well. :rolleyes: Personally, I feel that if a trial lawyer can get someone $5M they should be willing to pay $3M to the lawyer and not complain. There are many other ethical problems I have with trial lawyers but the amount they get paid for winning money for their clients is not one of them.

[mactastic]

Hell, I've got ethical complaints about a lot of the business world...