Universal health insurance

[Homerun40968]

My top value in this debate is the general well being of the American people. While universal health insurance for every American sounds like it would significantly reduce medical problems, I do not believe it would. First, the doctor-patient ratio would increase, and doctors would be seeing more patients and therefore not be able to treat each one as well. Second, people with terminal illnesses would not be able to get treated as quickly, due to a longer waiting list. Third, countries such as Canada have established this policy, and it has been a failure. Canadians are always coming to hospitals in the USA. Fourth, the status quo ensures treatment for every patient already. No doctor can reject a patient in a hospital for the lack of funding. Problem appears to be solved already. Fifth, the funds required for the government mandate this program would be through the roof, and thus money could not be spent elsewhere, on problems that truly do need funding (environment, protecting the troops, immigration problems, economic stimulus, etc.)

The Catholic Church currently advocates for universal health insurance. While their intent is great, I do not believe that the problem could be solved by the method in which they are in favor of.

The counter-plan would be this: provide incentives for private industries to contribute to the American health care system. This way, doctors would not have such strict regulations, the advantages of the current system would be maintained, and the government would not be spending so much money.

 

[manualman]

I think there might me a middle way on this. Why not establish national health insurance that covers routine and preventative care (general practitioner stuff) and ER / trauma type first aid, but require people to buy insurance for more specialized care or drugs that are still on patent.

We do this anyway now, but have a very bizarre, lopsided way of paying for it. Hospitals eat enormous costs because the poor put of treatment until things are very bad and then treat the ER as their primary care physician. It might just end up cheaper to have a basic care nationalized system!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My top value in this debate is the general well being of the American people. While universal health insurance for every American sounds like it would significantly reduce medical problems, I do not believe it would. First, the doctor-patient ratio would increase, and doctors would be seeing more patients and therefore not be able to treat each one as well. Second, people with terminal illnesses would not be able to get treated as quickly, due to a longer waiting list. Third, countries such as Canada have established this policy, and it has been a failure. Canadians are always coming to hospitals in the USA. Fourth, the status quo ensures treatment for every patient already. No doctor can reject a patient in a hospital for the lack of funding. Problem appears to be solved already. Fifth, the funds required for the government mandate this program would be through the roof, and thus money could not be spent elsewhere, on problems that truly do need funding (environment, protecting the troops, immigration problems, economic stimulus, etc.)

The Catholic Church currently advocates for universal health insurance. While their intent is great, I do not believe that the problem could be solved by the method in which they are in favor of.

The counter-plan would be this: provide incentives for private industries to contribute to the American health care system. This way, doctors would not have such strict regulations, the advantages of the current system would be maintained, and the government would not be spending so much money.

The counter-plan does not provide coverage for all Americans. What about the poverty stricken in this country? What are their alternatives to a prognosis of a life threatening disease or cancer? While it’s been pointed out that a lot of ER treatments are “eaten” by the hospital, medical facilities currently can turn away patients from much needed treatments such as chemo-therapy or preventive surgeries based on the patients ability to pay or not.

The counter-plan is also suspect to me based on what the incentives to oil companies has done for the American public through currect gas prices.

 

[ribozyme]

I think there might me a middle way on this. Why not establish national health insurance that covers routine and preventative care (general practitioner stuff) and ER / trauma type first aid, but require people to buy insurance for more specialized care or drugs that are still on patent.

We do this anyway now, but have a very bizarre, lopsided way of paying for it. Hospitals eat enormous costs because the poor put of treatment until things are very bad and then treat the ER as their primary care physician. It might just end up cheaper to have a basic care nationalized system!

So if you do not have money to buy insurance, will you have access to bevacizumab?

 

[onetimeposter]

So, the Canadian system is a failure eh? Care to back that claim up, other than saying ’ Canadians go to American Hospitals all the time’.

Yes, the Canadian Universal Health care system has it’s problems, it is far from perfect, but it does work and every single person in the country has equal access to tax funded health care.

To dismiss the Canadian Health Care system as a complete failure is quite simply wrong.

Lets try and refrain from making such wide sweeping claims about things that we know nothing about.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

So, the Canadian system is a failure eh? Care to back that claim up, other than saying ’ Canadians go to American Hospitals all the time’.

Yes, the Canadian Universal Health care system has it’s problems, it is far from perfect, but it does work and every single person in the country has equal access to tax funded health care.

To dismiss the Canadian Health Care system as a complete failure is quite simply wrong.

Lets try and refrain from making such wide sweeping claims about things that we know nothing about.

It’s a talking point. It’s hard to argue with people who base their whole arguments on talking points…you can’t get past them. Not because they’re right, but because they’re believed with such ferocity that no amount of evidence or facts to the contrary can break down the wall of belief.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The federal government is our savior and we should literally pay homage to the new god(s). Pay a monthly/yearly fee to the gods of home, car, property, and now (possibly) coming to us all our health mandated by Uncle Sam so everyone who has a cavity, wants a flu shot, wart removed, and/or heart transplant will pay the minimum maximum mandated by law…only if you made your monthly mandated payments and didn’t try to cheat the system. If not you will pay the maximum maximum mandated by law if you have any money. If not…it’s FREE!

If we pay enough Fee as an offering to the created gods we will all be happy and safe. Man, that is what I want; to be safe. I can work on happiness if I am safe but I’m no longer safe so I am happy to pay my fair share. Come one come all and no matter how you come, but you are welcome to housing, education and of course free healthcare if you are ill, or pregnant. It is ok now…or soon maybe. We will be insured!

Crash the car into you? No worries. I’m insured. You crash the car into me? It is OK. You too are insured. It is almost too good to be true. Thank goodness for State Farm and the US government. Tornado crunched a house, hurricanes, or earthquake kills thousands…darn… acts of God are not covered.

Oh…umm

Well. At least I can get a flu shot for the price of a boob job…if I were a woman. Hey! I could become a woman. You all would be forced to accept me too. Since I am not allowed to smoke a joint I think I’ll go get boozed up and go out to show off the new me. If I crash my car and hurt myself or you it’s still ok because I am insured. (Have pity on me, I am a drunk transvestite wanting an abortion…with a lisp… and 8 kids…not a dirty immoral drug addict.)

Oh…mmm

 

[Verisimilitude]

I don’t want a new me and I look funny enough without such enhancements and I think it is a good thing I’m not a woman. (Too tough) I also prefer water to beer and because I like a sip of Wine once a week the Body I have seems contrary to such a notion as seeking- nay demanding US federal government universal anything to include but not limited to universal on-demand abortion, universal military dominance, and a universal safety net paid for by universal forced taxation.

Oh…hmm

I forgot. War is necessary because we are afraid and taxes are still good because we have to have some sort of universal safety net. I mean to say we must remain safe and free so we must fight for our universal national interest around the world that isn’t about oil. You can tell it’s not about oil because if it was we wouldn’t be paying 4 times what it was before the most current war there. It is about justice and peace and being a humanitarian.

Wow.

I guess since we are being such humanitarians to the rest of the world giving our peace to leave them in peace as we are we should be humanitarians to our own in America so we should force the good of universal healthcare upon ourselves. It’s only fair.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There are many options of which the best would be to 1)deregulate the medical business. However other more likely versions are 2) catastrophic care in which the government would pick up all medical bills over $50,000 per year per patient. That plan may seem odd at first however it relieves the primary insurance problem so private insurance would become very affordable. 3) subsidizing insurance is more likely however it is exactly why we have the problems we do. It assumes all will pay which means raise price and the uninsured come out better in the system. 4) last is universal health care which mean doctors, nurses, and pharmacies are all paid the same whether they work or not and thus the problem

 

[marymol]

Glad to read that The Church is for universal health insurance .

A good candidate that is prolife and supports universal health insurance - hope such a person would be unbeatable !

There is already something like universal health , with enough of some of the good features of the private health care , in our system already - medicaid ; true ,the executives who work in the privatised medicaid makes far more than what seems just; and this at the cost of often inadequate payments for the providers !

The high administrative costs of health care is true for private insurance as well.

Seems not such complicated matters to fix either , that it is a mystery why it is not …has to wonder if there are unGodly practices on the side of medicine ( support or silence on matters a culture of death and morality) that the powers that get to have the say are from the wrong side !

 

[He_Man]

Glad to read that The Church is for universal health insurance .

A good candidate that is prolife and supports universal health insurance - hope such a person would be unbeatable !

There is already something like universal health , with enough of some of the good features of the private health care , in our system already - medicaid ; true ,the executives who work in the privatised medicaid makes far more than what seems just; and this at the cost of often inadequate payments for the providers !

The high administrative costs of health care is true for private insurance as well.

Seems not such complicated matters to fix either , that it is a mystery why it is not …has to wonder if there are unGodly practices on the side of medicine ( support or silence on matters a culture of death and morality) that the powers that get to have the say are from the wrong side !

Giving everyone the option to health insurance they can afford isn’t the same thing as MANDATING everyone use the same system. But that’s what the left in this country wants.

It isn’t simply to give everyone access, it is to limit what the rest of us who can afford whatever insurance we want have access to. It is socialistic in its very nature.

And what of the military, who use their own medical care completely? I use Tricare, and typically go to docs on base. Are they simply going to subject the military and its retiree population to jumping through the hoops of civilians? THAT is not practical at all. The immediacy of treatments and the unique way the military handles care require their own system.

How would a propsal for mandatory, universal care affect them?

 

[summasix]

No matter what healthcare system you implement, there will be downsides. For Americans, it’s a lack of insurance for the poor and an excess of money funneled into inefficient Medicare and Medicaid systems. For Canada, it’s a huge cost on taxpayers and lopsided care across the board. The U.S., a very capitalistic nation, is not likely to embrace a national healthcare system. The most important thing to successful healthcare is not choosing the right landscape, but fine tuning the system so that it has optimum efficiency.

 

[He_Man]

Most Americans don’t oppose giving everyone some access to health care.

Many of us oppose the Stalin-esque approach of mandating what kind we choose to have, and dumbing our benefits down because others can’t afford them.

Peoplehave rights to certain guaranteed minimums. Beyond that, there are no guarantees. I have the right to eat to survive, not dine at Ruth’s Chris every night.

 

[rtconstant]

I’ve always thought the French model was pretty good. There are a mix of private and government docs. The patient is free to chose which doc he/she will go to and the government picks up 85% of the cost. This can be supplimented by private insurance. France also doesn’t have “gateways”. Like here in the states you need to see a GI specialist but you can’t go to a GI specialist you have to go to a GP who then gives you permission to go to a GI of his choice. In France you need a GI you go to a GI.

Of course France also covers lots of treatments that wouldn’t be covered even by private insurance here. So we could scale their system back quite a bit and still have a lot. We could cut back to more practical ailments and perhaps even bump the coverage to 90 - 100% coverage.

It also wouldn’t hurt people to be able to go to who they need instead of wasting time and money going through a hierarchy. Something else that is done in France which people may like or dislike is that the government defends patient rites. So on the up side there isn’t the willy-nilly sue fest we have here driving up costs. On the other hand patient’s interests would then be defended by government beuracracy.

Obviously a socialization of US healthcare would need more regulation than in France as people in the US are typically foolish in their medical practices. Not only do we not take care of ourselves but we waste money going to the Emergency Room for colds and things we should just stay home and rest for. People call ambulances for minor cuts and such.

It would be an adjustment for people in the US as they’d have to be more responsible but making sure that health care is available to all is certainly a worthy goal.

 

[marymol]

I’ve always thought the French model was pretty good. There are a mix of private and government docs. The patient is free to chose which doc he/she will go to and the government picks up 85% of the cost. This can be supplimented by private insurance. France also doesn’t have “gateways”. Like here in the states you need to see a GI specialist but you can’t go to a GI specialist you have to go to a GP who then gives you permission to go to a GI of his choice. In France you need a GI you go to a GI.

Of course France also covers lots of treatments that wouldn’t be covered even by private insurance here. So we could scale their system back quite a bit and still have a lot. We could cut back to more practical ailments and perhaps even bump the coverage to 90 - 100% coverage.

It also wouldn’t hurt people to be able to go to who they need instead of wasting time and money going through a hierarchy. Something else that is done in France which people may like or dislike is that the government defends patient rites. So on the up side there isn’t the willy-nilly sue fest we have here driving up costs. On the other hand patient’s interests would then be defended by government beuracracy.

Obviously a socialization of US healthcare would need more regulation than in France as people in the US are typically foolish in their medical practices. Not only do we not take care of ourselves but we waste money going to the Emergency Room for colds and things we should just stay home and rest for. People call ambulances for minor cuts and such.

It would be an adjustment for people in the US as they’d have to be more responsible but making sure that health care is available to all is certainly a worthy goal.

There !

From the land that gave us the vaccines , the miraculous medal …the healing waters of Lourdes …

Hope they would call The Church back … to help set up may be hybrid monastic communes …under the patronage of St.Benedict …and help young families to see that it is good and not that expensive , to have enough youngun’s

 

[He_Man]

Why not simply do it like the education system?

Public, and private. My taxes pay for the public education system, and if I choose to pay for private school, that is my choice.

Mandating everyone get on the same system is a horrible idea.

 

[onetimeposter]

Why not simply do it like the education system?

Public, and private. My taxes pay for the public education system, and if I choose to pay for private school, that is my choice.

Mandating everyone get on the same system is a horrible idea.

The situation although not perfect, is far from horrible in Canada.

Your proposal does nothing accept create a first class system for the haves and a second class system for the have nots.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

Why not simply do it like the education system?

Public, and private. My taxes pay for the public education system, and if I choose to pay for private school, that is my choice.

Mandating everyone get on the same system is a horrible idea.

Mandating everyone to be on the same system is a great idea. Choice is not necessarily a good thing.

I am more interested in getting good basic healthcare to the most people without it wiping them out financially. Too much healthcare cost is attributed to bad debt and collection cost of bills that can’t be paid. A working couple with a couple of children can be wiped out with a serious illness. So they not only have a sick family member, they have to go bankrupt. This is just flat wrong. When they need their family finances the most so a parent might be able to take care of a sick child they don’t have it.

 

[joeybaggz]

catastrophic care in which the government would pick up all medical bills over $50,000 per year per patient.

On the money. Glad someone said it. Might raise the threshold slightly higher. Put catastrophic health care into the Social Security system underwritten by private insurers. Taking the million dollar bill for a 30 day stay in ICU off of the private sector would make private health insurance more affordable. It would lighten the burden on employers also. Making health care more affordable to provide as an employment benefit.

Make all people pay something out of pocket. Would keep the hypocondriacs from draining the system.

Something also has to be done about the lawyers. Their greed and the idiocy of juries has driven physicians malpractice insurance through the roof. That has to be addressed.

 

[He_Man]

The situation although not perfect, is far from horrible in Canada.

Your proposal does nothing accept create a first class system for the haves and a second class system for the have nots.

Our entire society is based on haves and have nots.

Your ideas smack of communistic tendencies, where we are all forced into the same standard. Where is that allowed for ANYWHERE in the constitution?

Again, the notion of the private education system completely sheds the idea that we should be forced into government healthcare. Why do we allow private education? That too creates a system of haves and have nots.

Why should I make more than my neighbor, salary wise? That creates a system of haves and have nots. We should also remove any notion of private business ownership. Let government provide for all our restaraunt, food, grocery, and clothing needs.

And again, what do we do with the military?

This has now gone from a battle to provide everyone affordable healthcare (a notion we can all get behind, and the Church does) to creating a system where everyone is forced to have everything provided for them the same way, by the government.

The two are VERY separate concepts, and only one is provided for in the constitution, and supported by the Church.