Anyone else believe in universal coverage for kids?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sanctamaria17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
manualman said:
I certainly agree that a healthy, literate population is a necessity for modern society to function. I just happen to believe that to GET a healthy and literate poulation, you need to create an environment where people understand and VALUE the priviledge of education and health care.

Your DoD experience cannot be extrapolated to society as a whole. Military personnel and their families are not a representative sample of society as a whole. Most military folks know a priviledge when they see one! And their career choice suggests an willingness to accept hardship to achieve life goals. In other words, the military quickly weeds out the kind of folks that would destroy a national “free” health care program.
Click to expand...
I was not under the military system. I was covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. The exact same program that every single federal worker, from Congress on down, is covered by. Millions of people from all walks of life have participated in this program for years. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, janitors, construction workers…the federal government employs all of them and then some. We paid into it, just like most workers do, but it was portable throughout the federal government. If I went to work for DOJ instead of DOD, my benefits came right along with me. If I moved from one state to another, my benefits came with me. When I left, I was paying $10 a week for complete coverage. Even a person working a minimum wage job could afford that. More than one politician has suggested this system as a model for universal coverage and I can’t see why it wouldn’t work. The private insurers are still involved, because the program does not provide the insurance directly-the private companies administer the plans. There is still competition, companies are chosen first by the govt to participate, then by the individual consumer.

You’re right-people have to value education and health to make it work-but that doesn’t mean we give up providing it or give up trying to make it work better.
 
The working poor do not pay income taxes. Yes, they pay SS and they get payments from that when they retire.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
I might add that in truth, the health care crisis in the country is most greatly affecting the MIDDLE CLASS. Those of us who are above the poverty line, but somehow not able to obtain decent insurance.

But is this really news to anyone? And do we really believe a giant, government run, tax-funded HMO is the solution???
Click to expand...
Why do form a group of many people in the middle class of which you speak? They could then bargain for more affordable health insurance for themselves and their children. No one really wants to be on wellfare and I know there is a way to make this kind of program work. Wonder why no one is doing it?
 
mary_bobo said:
Why do form a group of many people in the middle class of which you speak? They could then bargain for more affordable health insurance for themselves and their children. No one really wants to be on wellfare and I know there is a way to make this kind of program work. Wonder why no one is doing it?
Click to expand...
Not if they outright deny coverage. No insurance companies cover me. I am uninsurable. It doesn’t matter if I’m in a collective or not, I’m blacklisted.
 
pathia said:
Not if they outright deny coverage. No insurance companies cover me. I am uninsurable. It doesn’t matter if I’m in a collective or not, I’m blacklisted.
Click to expand...
My step-father, who is diabetic, blind, and has a new kidney has medical insurance. In group plans, even those with active cancer cannot be denied. If they were applying for individual insurance they would be, but group plans CANNOT deny anyone, maybe put a probation period on someone but not outright deny all coverage.
 
gmarie21 said:
My step-father, who is diabetic, blind, and has a new kidney has medical insurance. In group plans, even those with active cancer cannot be denied. If they were applying for individual insurance they would be, but group plans CANNOT deny anyone, maybe put a probation period on someone but not outright deny all coverage.
Click to expand...
When I am in a group plan, they deny huge swaths of my care. I can get some care, but not all. They are still allowed to deny anything related to a few of my conditions, despite the fact they have developed into life threatening events on multiple occasions.
 
gmarie21 said:
My step-father, who is diabetic, blind, and has a new kidney has medical insurance. In group plans, even those with active cancer cannot be denied. If they were applying for individual insurance they would be, but group plans CANNOT deny anyone, maybe put a probation period on someone but not outright deny all coverage.
Click to expand...
yes, they can. When our company changed providers, we had employees who were denied for pre-existing conditions.
 
Lets not forget that ‘health care’ is provided and created by individual human beings. We can’t force people to spend hours in labs developing new drugs and we can’t force doctors to offer compassionate care. These people do this at their will, we don’t own what they produce. I understand the emotional wish to make sure all children are safe and well cared for but universal health care can sure open a can of worms as explained in the links below.

fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=6219
onthefencefilms.com/video/brainsurgery.html
aapsonline.org/sma.php
 
Fitswimmer, you have my interest. Do you happen to know what the per person COST of this existing Fed system is? I’d like to compare that to what my current family coverage costs me (including the 50% my employer pays).
 
manualman said:
I certainly agree that a healthy, literate population is a necessity for modern society to function. I just happen to believe that to GET a healthy and literate poulation, you need to create an environment where people understand and VALUE the priviledge of education and health care.

Your DoD experience cannot be extrapolated to society as a whole. Military personnel and their families are not a representative sample of society as a whole. Most military folks know a priviledge when they see one! And their career choice suggests an willingness to accept hardship to achieve life goals. In other words, the military quickly weeds out the kind of folks that would destroy a national “free” health care program.
Click to expand...
I understand the potential for abuse if you determine education and health care as a right, but the potential for governmental abuse and sleaziness is more if you don’t establish a level playing field. I would much rather have a few people abuse governmental systems then allow an easy entry way for social darwin like abuse to envelop our hospitals and schools.

Some people certainly thought that allowing universal primary schools and eventually secondary schools would prove to be disastrous, but have been one of the key ways we have been able to develop a complex society.
 
manualman said:
Education in this country is an utter disaster precisely because it has been treated as a right when it really should be a priviledge. It has been made “free” and as a result it is not valued, by those whom you might have expected to benefit the most from a “free” education. If I were made education emperor, tuition based on ability to pay (but consisting of SOMETHING for everyone) would be re-instituted for all public schools. Chronic behavioral problem kids would be directed away from traditional school and put into hard labor WORK training programs that would either teach them to value their educational opportunity or give them an employable (if not much desireable) skill upon completion.

“Free” health care will turn out the same way as “free” education. Betcha we’d eventually end up with crummy public doctors, crummy public hospitals and a system of excellent private doctors and hospitals that actually cost LESS than the public ones, but will be only available to the more wealthy folks who are able to pay BOTH the tax burden of the crummy public system AND the modest fees of the private one. (Works for schools!)

This thread betrays a notion in the heads of most that all humans are entitled to a comfortable life, free of suffering - and that the government somehow has the power to make that happen.
Click to expand...
  1. You can thank the Catholic church for free education in this country. Until the Church started providing free education for the immigrants and the anti-Catholics got scared, the average American child didn’t get much if any education.
  2. The quality of education varies from state to state and even town to town. To make blanket statements about how bad public education doesn’t help the discussion. Let’s stay on the subject of healthcare.
  3. No one on this thread has said people have a right to an easy life without suffering. If you paid attention to the OP, we’re discussing health care for children.
Health care for children is not a privilege. It’s a necessity. You don’t want them murdered in the womb, why aren’t you willing to help them stay healthy once they’re here?
 
julia1234 said:
Lets not forget that ‘health care’ is provided and created by individual human beings. We can’t force people to spend hours in labs developing new drugs and we can’t force doctors to offer compassionate care. These people do this at their will, we don’t own what they produce. I understand the emotional wish to make sure all children are safe and well cared for but universal health care can sure open a can of worms as explained in the links below.

fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=6219
onthefencefilms.com/video/brainsurgery.html
aapsonline.org/sma.php
Click to expand...
Thank you for these links. They are most excellent sources on the subject.
 
JenDid said:
Health care for children is not a privilege. It’s a necessity. You don’t want them murdered in the womb, why aren’t you willing to help them stay healthy once they’re here?
Click to expand...
Exactly!

I think the difference is that people think they might actually have to pay some more tax.

In the same way, it’s often the very same people who describe themselves as very “pro-life” who advocate the complete ceasation of all foreign aid programs.
 
Since this is a Catholic list, I think we should be very careful not to make assumptions about motives. Those opposed to coverage are not just selfish; those in favor are not lazy.

The idea of universal coverage is appealing, but there is legitimate reason to be skeptical. Many Canadians come down to our hospitals [here in Montana] and pay full price for their care rather than waiting for months for their turn for life saving procedures at home.

This isn’t just apocryphal-- here’s a link to a news story:
canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=78b28230-d3ff-47d3-ab04-fff760931f1a
About identical quads born in here because Calgary doesn’t have enough neo-natal care.

Our system IS better for those who can afford it, and their care will worsen with universal coverage. So children too ‘rich’ for Mecicaid and S-CHIP but too poor for insurance will get coverage, but kids who already have coverage will get worse care.

Which means that universal care is not a universal good. The question cannot be considered settled.

Remember that even with universal coverage, you don’t have endless resources. Don’t ignore the case of the man told by the state of Oregon [his insurer] that they won’t pay for his cancer treatment, but they’d be happy to assist his suicide: when we have universal care, a bureaucrat you’ve never met will be deciding whether your loved ones are ‘worth’ saving…
 
Sam_Maloney said:
Since this is a Catholic list, I think we should be very careful not to make assumptions about motives. Those opposed to coverage are not just selfish; those in favor are not lazy.

The idea of universal coverage is appealing, but there is legitimate reason to be skeptical. Many Canadians come down to our hospitals [here in Montana] and pay full price for their care rather than waiting for months for their turn for life saving procedures at home.

This isn’t just apocryphal-- here’s a link to a news story:
canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=78b28230-d3ff-47d3-ab04-fff760931f1a
About identical quads born in here because Calgary doesn’t have enough neo-natal care.

Our system IS better for those who can afford it, and their care will worsen with universal coverage. So children too ‘rich’ for Mecicaid and S-CHIP but too poor for insurance will get coverage, but kids who already have coverage will get worse care.

Which means that universal care is not a universal good. The question cannot be considered settled.

Remember that even with universal coverage, you don’t have endless resources. Don’t ignore the case of the man told by the state of Oregon [his insurer] that they won’t pay for his cancer treatment, but they’d be happy to assist his suicide: when we have universal care, a bureaucrat you’ve never met will be deciding whether your loved ones are ‘worth’ saving…
Click to expand...
Yes. but a mixure of private and public is what most people would say works. I.e. public system (for everybody, albeit with some waiting lists, at least everybody has a chance to get treated without going into massive debt), and those with lost of money or private health insurance can skip the cues. This is how it works in Australia at least.
 
manualman said:
Fitswimmer, you have my interest. Do you happen to know what the per person COST of this existing Fed system is? I’d like to compare that to what my current family coverage costs me (including the 50% my employer pays).
Click to expand...
here’s the website: opm.gov/insure/health/

It has links to the current premiums. It’s been 10 years since I was in it, so things may have changed. I know I’m paying about the same at my current job as I was there, but my company has above average bennies.
 
thomfra said:
YES!
Click to expand...
Did you even visit the links Julia1234 posted? Is no one interested to know why some of us think universal health care (even for children) would be a colossal mistake?

Anyone who’d like the government to define “quality of life” for your sick, injured, or disabled child, please raise your hand. Anyone who has been through the painful hoops with an oppressive, restrictive, uncaring HMO, please raise your hand.

In truth, through such a system, we could end up actually killing children in the name of the “greater good.” I’m horrified that pro-life Catholics are not aware of these dangers.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
Did you even visit the links Julia1234 posted? Is no one interested to know why some of us think universal health care (even for children) would be a colossal mistake?

Anyone who’d like the government to define “quality of life” for your sick, injured, or disabled child, please raise your hand. Anyone who has been through the painful hoops with an oppressive, restrictive, uncaring HMO, please raise your hand.

In truth, through such a system, we could end up actually killing children in the name of the “greater good.” I’m horrified that pro-life Catholics are not aware of these dangers.
Click to expand...
Have you even read any of the ACTUAL proposals for health care reform??? NONE of them would involve anything in the same zipcode of what you’re talking about.

Leaping to extremes really doesn’t strengthen your argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top