Universal health insurance

[Oscarthecat]

My condition is so unique as to not even have a name, just that is categorized under a more broad and larger scoped term. Since it does not have a name, and cannot be specified easily, the terminology falls back the more broad definition, which is not covered by any insurance agency in the entire country that I know of, except a scant few in CA provided by the county governments.

There is no guarantee I will get coverage even if I move to CA, WA or MA, it is just a guess. The only way to ensure that I get coverage is to move to CA and work for the city government of Sacramento. That’s a pretty narrow option and job market if you ask me.

Then your condition sounds like exactly the kind of thing that tends to slip through cracks in the bureaucracy-

another point against UHC!

 

[pathia]

Then your condition sounds like exactly the kind of thing that tends to slip through cracks in the bureaucracy-

another point against UHC!

I’d be covered in Canada, France, England and just about any European country.

Only in the US would I have issues.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Now there’s some irony. First people complain because they’re afraid that UHC doesn’t allow options then when options are presented they’re mad about that to.

Let me give back one of the overly simplified answers that those opposed to UHC like to dole out. “Then don’t get it. That’s your choice.”

The deal is that you don’t have to have the supplimentary if you don’t want it. The French governement offers better coverage on its own than most insurance policies that we enjoy here plus it usually covers more types of sickness.

Also the insurance rates in those countries are usually lower than ours simply because they don’t have cover as much. That’s why companies like GM save money in UHC countries. Its doubtful that anyone is going to decry the costs of their supplimental insurance when it is litterally a luxury not a necessesity.

Yeah, I totally get what you’re saying-

what I’m saying is that hybrid socialism actually works worse than pure socialism-

Eventually, gov’t healthcare will cover less, because cost will go up, and people will have to turn more and more to supplemental insurance. Supplemental insurance will grow to the same size and influence as our present insurance system.

At that point, people will protest because supplemental health insurance will be touted as a fundamenal human right.

Then, the government will once again be called to the rescue, to valiantly take the financial burden of supplemental insurance off of the backs of the people-

Of course, once that happens, people will have to pay for their own supplemental supplemental insurance if they want all the bells and whistles, because there will still be things that universal coverage won’t cover.

 

[whatevergirl]

Hey, that respects the free market and helps people in need without giving the government even more control over our lives!!!

That’s so crazy it just might work!!

Yep–it can be done! If it can work for auto and home insurance, it can work in healthcare. It works that way also for life insurance. The government would be needed only in the respect of putting the wheels in motion, and working with the private carriers/brokers. But, regardless of preexisting conditions, etc…the carrier would have to write everyone–(within reason)–with minimum coverage. You can have minimum coverage, say a cap of $200k for certain illnesses, and a higher cap for say prescription usage. I’m just thinking out loud.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I’d be covered in Canada, France, England and just about any European country.

Only in the US would I have issues.

Then again-it looks like you have choices.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’d be covered in Canada, France, England and just about any European country.

Only in the US would I have issues.

at what quality of healthcare though. pathia, people fly from other countries when in dire need, because our doctors are the best here. just be careful…when things come cheap, you sometimes get what you paid for.

 

[rtconstant]

I am referring to the creation of a UHC system, run by the government, and the dissolution of all private insurance companies. Subsequently, every citizen is forced to use the UHC, no options.

That is what has been proposed as a good solution by some in here, which reaks of jealously and covetness. “If I can’t have it, no one can!”

This is very different from providing affordable coverage for all who can’t afford it, and a separate argument.

We don’t mandate for everyone to use food stamps, welfare, or medicare, so why would we mandate everyone to use a UHC system designed for those in need?

OK, thanks for clarifying I at least understand what you’re talking about now. I don’t see why would ban private insurance there really isn’t a need for that I know for a fact that the UK, New Zealand, Aurstralia, France, Germany, Holland and the Netherlands all allow the purchase and sale of private insurance.

UHC isn’t necessarily designed for those in need. Everyone benefits from it as health care is usually better for everyone in those countries. We mandate support for other things in this country that are of equal or less value than health care so why balk at this?

 

[whatevergirl]

yeah, I think my unedited version might have slipped by for a second

I won’t tell.

 

[pathia]

at what quality of healthcare though. pathia, people fly from other countries when in dire need, because our doctors are the best here. just be careful…when things come cheap, you sometimes get what you paid for.

Cheap is better than nothing.

 

[whatevergirl]

OK, thanks for clarifying I at least understand what you’re talking about now. I don’t see why would ban private insurance there really isn’t a need for that I know for a fact that the UK, New Zealand, Aurstralia, France, Germany, Holland and the Netherlands all allow the purchase and sale of private insurance.

UHC isn’t necessarily designed for those in need. Everyone benefits from it as health care is usually better for everyone in those countries. We mandate support for other things in this country that are of equal or less value than health care so why balk at this?

while that might be true about the healthcare being better, i would like to ask what that means, could you clarify? the usa has the highest claims for medical care than other countries, because we are sicker than other countries. (disease ridden i should say)
We need to compare apples to apples.

 

[whatevergirl]

Cheap is better than nothing.

that’s true…

 

[rtconstant]

Yeah, I totally get what you’re saying-

what I’m saying is that hybrid socialism actually works worse than pure socialism-

Eventually, gov’t healthcare will cover less, because cost will go up, and people will have to turn more and more to supplemental insurance. Supplemental insurance will grow to the same size and influence as our present insurance system.

At that point, people will protest because supplemental health insurance will be touted as a fundamenal human right.

Then, the government will once again be called to the rescue, to valiantly take the financial burden of supplemental insurance off of the backs of the people-

Of course, once that happens, people will have to pay for their own supplemental supplemental insurance if they want all the bells and whistles, because there will still be things that universal coverage won’t cover.

Well, if those country’s economies started to collaspe what you predict would probably be the case (that or they cut other programs). However, keeping that in mind our own system is likely to collapse before that.

Our government spends much more per capita on medical coverage than these countries do yet patients don’t get nearly as much in return.

 

[whatevergirl]

Oscar–what do you mean by supp health insurance? To me, (as I work in that as part of my marketing efforts)…it means dental, short term/long term disability and life. I get the sense that you’re speaking of baseline medical coverage as supp?

 

[whatevergirl]

Well, if those country’s economies started to collaspe what you predict would probably be the case (that or they cut other programs). However, keeping that in mind our own system is likely to collapse before that.

Our government spends much more per capita on medical coverage than these countries do yet patients don’t get nearly as much in return.

because there’s more ppl with claims in the USA.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscar–what do you mean by supp health insurance? To me, (as I work in that as part of my marketing efforts)…it means dental, short term/long term disability and life. I get the sense that you’re speaking of baseline medical coverage as supp?

depends on the country- but yes, the things you listed, as well as the treatments or conditions that the UHC program decided not to cover.

 

[anthony022071]

Universal health insurance would mean the government would be able to mandate or coerce all hospitals to do abortions.

Read through these links.

catholic.net/rcc/Periodic…/spclrept.html
< In the early 1990s, two-thirds of all health plans provided coverage for abortion and 86 percent paid for sterilizations, according to a 1993 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization in New York City named for a former president of Planned Parenthood. >

christusmedicus.com/HCRC/assault/assault.htm
< Catholic hospitals treat 80 million patients each year and make up 11% of all community hospitals. As abortion advocates are quick to point out, Catholic hospitals are often the only hospitals in rural communities. This is so because they operate not out of a profit motive but out of charity. In 1998, for example, the nation’s 637 Catholic hospitals’ service to the poor resulted in a $2.8 billion financial loss. On average, Catholic hospitals provide a wider range of services than other hospitals: nutrition programs, natural family planning classes, geriatric services and HIV/AIDS treatment.

Today this legacy and this mission are being undermined by abortion advocates. For decades they have attempted to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions or go out of business. In recent years their tactics have become more subtle, and the campaign to deny Catholic health care providers their rights of conscience has met with some success. >

< Should pro-abortion forces succeed, they will be responsible for shutting down the Catholic health care ministry. As Cardinal George so movingly testified against the AMA proposal to requiring all hospitals to provide all “reproductive health services”: “Catholic hospitals cannot comply. Effectively, the American Medical Association is being asked to help abolish Catholic health care in this country.” >

christusmedicus.com/Article_List/Liberty/liberty.htm

aul.org/ROC_Primer

 

[He_Man]

OK, thanks for clarifying I at least understand what you’re talking about now. I don’t see why would ban private insurance there really isn’t a need for that I know for a fact that the UK, New Zealand, Aurstralia, France, Germany, Holland and the Netherlands all allow the purchase and sale of private insurance.

UHC isn’t necessarily designed for those in need. Everyone benefits from it as health care is usually better for everyone in those countries. We mandate support for other things in this country that are of equal or less value than health care so why balk at this?

If UHC isn’t designed for those in need, then why aren’t welfare, food stamps, and other provisions available to everyone?

I don’t want UHC for myself. Yet there are those in this topic, 20 some pages ago, who think we have to mandate that everyone use it, and we eliminate all private insurance.

Though, they have long since disappeared to defend that position. They don’t want to get rid of Catholic education, just private insuracne companies. It makes no sense.

And again, the constitution doesn’t provide for it anyway.

And to anyone who thinks UHC is the right solution, we need some specifics. I asked repeatedly, how would that affect the military?

You can’t just call for a plan and not have any idea how it would work. We need specifics.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Well, if those country’s economies started to collaspe what you predict would probably be the case (that or they cut other programs). However, keeping that in mind our own system is likely to collapse before that.

Our government spends much more per capita on medical coverage than these countries do yet patients don’t get nearly as much in return.

So are you saying that the fact that our government is inefficient in taking care of the people that it does provide healthcare to is an argument IN FAVOR OF turning over our entire healthcare program to the government??

if the governmnent is so inefficient in dealing with medical care, then I say they should get out of it entirely, not take over the whole works.

are you sure you’re not secretly on my side here?

 

[whatevergirl]

Universal health insurance would mean the government would be able to mandate or coerce all hospitals to do abortions.

Read through these links.

catholic.net/rcc/Periodic…/spclrept.html
< In the early 1990s, two-thirds of all health plans provided coverage for abortion and 86 percent paid for sterilizations, according to a 1993 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization in New York City named for a former president of Planned Parenthood. >

christusmedicus.com/HCRC/assault/assault.htm
< Catholic hospitals treat 80 million patients each year and make up 11% of all community hospitals. As abortion advocates are quick to point out, Catholic hospitals are often the only hospitals in rural communities. This is so because they operate not out of a profit motive but out of charity. In 1998, for example, the nation’s 637 Catholic hospitals’ service to the poor resulted in a $2.8 billion financial loss. On average, Catholic hospitals provide a wider range of services than other hospitals: nutrition programs, natural family planning classes, geriatric services and HIV/AIDS treatment.

Today this legacy and this mission are being undermined by abortion advocates. For decades they have attempted to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions or go out of business. In recent years their tactics have become more subtle, and the campaign to deny Catholic health care providers their rights of conscience has met with some success. >

< Should pro-abortion forces succeed, they will be responsible for shutting down the Catholic health care ministry. As Cardinal George so movingly testified against the AMA proposal to requiring all hospitals to provide all “reproductive health services”: “Catholic hospitals cannot comply. Effectively, the American Medical Association is being asked to help abolish Catholic health care in this country.” >

christusmedicus.com/Article_List/Liberty/liberty.htm

aul.org/ROC_Primer

how frightening!!!

 

[Oscarthecat]

Universal health insurance would mean the government would be able to mandate or coerce all hospitals to do abortions.

Will they cover euthanasia, too? I hear that’s an up and coming cure-all. Very efficient, and 100% effective for reducing costs and sick people.