Universal health insurance

[cynic]

Many of us believe that the government is ill equipped to provide healthcare to the masses, and are opposed to being forced to give money to the government for that purpose.

In fact, I believe that it is immoral to relinquish one’s responsibility to help the poor by handing one’s money over to a government that has demonstrated repeatedly that it is inefficient and ineffective in helping the sick and the poor.

And would you agree with UHC if a government could provide it efficiently and effectively?

I’d say you wouldn’t.

 

[goofyjim]

Unfortunately, you are asking for socialism or communism, and there was no equality there, either.

What we are discussing here will be enacted, if it ever occurs, as a “single-payer” health care system. Thus, you turn your health over to a massive bureaucracy in DC and wait for them to authorize treatment, if any.

We have a chance to educate ourselves about the effectiveness of such a system. Please click on the following link to see how such a system treated a blue-collar working man in Canada:

youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

Choose wisely.

I choose to keep the disabled who are unable to work a job that has health coverage covered by the government. Everyone else keeps the option of buying private insurance. Why does everyone keep missing that aspect of my plan? Now if the stupid greedy insurance companies were to offer a beneficial plan to the disabled at the same cost they pay now for medicare then maybe we could get the government out of it. But they are only in it for the almighty dollar and will never even venture to do something like that.

 

[Oscarthecat]

And would you agree with UHC if a government could provide it efficiently and effectively?

I’d say you wouldn’t.

You are asking the wrong question.

The governemment will always be less efficient and less effective than the free market because, with the exception of government soldiers in life threatening situations, the government cannot provide the competition and drive to succeed that is inherent in the free market.

Therefore, there is no incentive within the government healthcare complex to become more efficient, to treat patients better, or to develop better treatments because your patients have nowhere else to go- you are their only source for care, so you can treat them as poorly as you wish.

On the other hand, patients in the free market can freely choose to go to doctors that treat them well, that offer the latest treatements, or who have the best fee schedules.

Look at laser eye surgery in the US over the last 10 years. When it first came out, it was pretty risky, and cost over $5000 per eye with no guarantees. It wasn’t covered by insurance and it wasn’t managed by government interference.

10 years later, as a result of being exposed to the free market more than almost every other medical procedure, you can get it for 1/10th the cost, it is guaranteed by most providers, and the procedure has been refined and improved to the point of being very safe and reliable.

That is the effect of free market healthcare- care naturally becomes cheaper, more available, and more reliable because private care providers have a vested interest in keeping their patients happy and healthy.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I choose to keep the disabled who are unable to work a job that has health coverage covered by the government. Everyone else keeps the option of buying private insurance. Why does everyone keep missing that aspect of my plan? Now if the stupid greedy insurance companies were to offer a beneficial plan to the disabled at the same cost they pay now for medicare then maybe we could get the government out of it. But they are only in it for the almighty dollar and will never even venture to do something like that.

Jim, as I have said before, there is no market for that level of care precisely because the government is involved.

Insurance companies know that the government will provide your care for you at government subsidized rates and they will not compete with those rates because they cannot cover their losses.

Remove the government product from the equation, and, based simply on your own assertion that the insurance companies are greedy and motivated only by money, the insurance companies would develop a business model that meets your needs because you would become a potential customer.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim, as I have said before, there is no market for that level of care precisely because the government is involved.

Insurance companies know that the government will provide your care for you at government subsidized rates and they will not compete with those rates because they cannot cover their losses.

Remove the government product from the equation, and, based simply on your own assertion that the insurance companies are greedy and motivated only by money, the insurance companies would develop a business model that meets your needs because you would become a potential customer.

Wrong. It’s not the government preventing them from doing it. They can’t make a profit off of it so they refuse to cover it. They would lose right off the bat from paying out for a preexisting condition so they don’t even give it the least consideration. It doesn’t really matter whether you take the government out of the equation at all. All that would do is leave alot of disabled people on the streets. I pay a premium for my health insurance now so it is not funded through anyone’s tax dollars. It works the same as when I pay my car registration or renew my driver’s license. I pay a fee for the service and get service.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Wrong. It’s not the government preventing them from doing it. They can’t make a profit off of it so they refuse to cover it. They would lose right off the bat from paying out for a preexisting condition so they don’t even give it the least consideration. It doesn’t really matter whether you take the government out of the equation at all. All that would do is leave alot of disabled people on the streets. I pay a premium for my health insurance now so it is not funded through anyone’s tax dollars. It works the same as when I pay my car registration or renew my driver’s license. I pay a fee for the service and get service.

Jim, if I understand you correctly, you have said that your health insurance is one of your job benefits government employee, such that you pay your premium as an employee the same way that every other person who has a job that offers a healthcare plan.

When an employer offers a healthcare plan to an employee, that employer typically pays a portion of the healthcare premium. Government healthcare plans are no different, as they set a premium for you to pay that comes out of your income, and then they pay the remained of the actual cost of your health insurance.

As a government employee, that remainder is paid for by the government. The government collects its revenue in the form of taxes. Therefore, your healthcare plan is subsidized by tax dollars. Whether you want to believe it or not, and I do not mean this as an insult, but simply as a fact, you are on a government subsidized health insurance program. I am not accusing you of accepting welfare. As a government employee, from what I understand you have said, you are not participating in government welfare and are not on a government welfare healthcare plan.

That being said, the true cost of your healthcare plan is hidden by the government, because they are both your insurance provider AND your treatment provider. Insurance companies can’t compete with that because the government is essentiall insuring itself to provide its own healthcare-they set the prices and they dictate the services. This may sound good on the surface, but it really isn’t because the end result is that you have no choices in your standard of care- you can only choose what care you will refuse, but you cannot compel them to find new or alternate care choices for you.

That is, no one is finding ways to compete for your business right now because the government has complete control over your healthcare.

 

[jean8]

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.

What else can the government pay for.
Would you like your taxes go up to 75%, then we’ll have Socialism. goodie.

jean8

 

[cynic]

You are asking the wrong question.

The governemment will always be less efficient and less effective than the free market because, with the exception of government soldiers in life threatening situations, the government cannot provide the competition and drive to succeed that is inherent in the free market.

.

You should add ; the free market will be more efficient and effective *for those who can afford it’s services. *In most countries that have public healthcare, the intent is not to take away peoples choices, but to provide a free option.

Therefore, there is no incentive within the government healthcare complex to become more efficient, to treat patients better, or to develop better treatments because your patients have nowhere else to go- you are their only source for care, so you can treat them as poorly as you wish.
.

In my (limited admittedly) emperience doctors and nurses in a public sytem are just as committed as any. You don’t become one, with the stress and hours involved, just for a salary. They can leave the country or work in a private hospital if they’re not satisfied with the management and general standard of care. So a government has some incentive to maintain or improve services.

There are alternatives to government run healthcare anyway. A government can fund it, without managing it. In Japan for eg. the government simply subsidizes the insurance costs of those below an income threshold. But I doubt you’d like this, either because it supposedly acts as a disincentive for the poor to work harder, or because it’s still ‘tax and spend’ wealth redistribution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You should add ; the free market will be more efficient and effective *for those who can afford it’s services. *In most countries that have public healthcare, the intent is not to take away peoples choices, but to provide a free option.

It may not be the intent to take away people’s choices, but that’s what happens.

In my (limited admittedly) emperience doctors and nurses in a public sytem are just as committed as any. You don’t become one, with the stress and hours involved, just for a salary. They can leave the country or work in a private hospital if they’re not satisfied with the management and general standard of care. So a government has some incentive to maintain or improve services.

And that explains why so many doctors and other medical professionals have left Canada to practice in the US.

There are alternatives to government run healthcare anyway. A government can fund it, without managing it. In Japan for eg. the government simply subsidizes the insurance costs of those below an income threshold. But I doubt you’d like this, either because it supposedly acts as a disincentive for the poor to work harder, or because it’s still ‘tax and spend’ wealth redistribution.

I don’t object to that – but it should be done through Medical Savings Accounts. MSAs aren’t “free” since you must save something (unless you’re completely indigent) and you can keep unspent money, giving you an incentive to bargain and not over-consume.

 

[Oscarthecat]

You should add ; the free market will be more efficient and effective *for those who can afford it’s services. *In most countries that have public healthcare, the intent is not to take away peoples choices, but to provide a free option.

There is no such thing as free. Either the government pays and prices go up because the market keeps charging whatever it wants because it knows that the government has pretty much unlimited resources, or the government stays out of it and the market has to adjust to dealing with market forces just like every other business. The intent should be to reduce government interference and encourage the free market so that individuals who can afford it are able to help those in needout of a sense of compassion and Christian charity.

In my (limited admittedly) emperience doctors and nurses in a public sytem are just as committed as any. You don’t become one, with the stress and hours involved, just for a salary. They can leave the country or work in a private hospital if they’re not satisfied with the management and general standard of care. So a government has some incentive to maintain or improve services.

Healthcare isn’t just doctors and nurses. It also takes administrators, or, in the case of government, bureaucrats and politicians. Government bureaucrats are motivated by tenure, retirement, and keeping your job as simple as possible. Since you cant earn incentive pay on a “g” salary, these goals are best achieved in government jobs by doing what you absolutely have to do, and little more, so that you meet you job expectations without raising them. By contrast, in the free market, entrpreneurship is rewarded, as are practices that lower costs and retain or increase the client base.

Politicians are motivated by kickbacks from big businesses, which in turn are motivated by kickbacks from big government. The further apart we keep these two groups, the better.

There are alternatives to government run healthcare anyway. A government can fund it, without managing it. In Japan for eg. the government simply subsidizes the insurance costs of those below an income threshold. But I doubt you’d like this, either because it supposedly acts as a disincentive for the poor to work harder, or because it’s still ‘tax and spend’ wealth redistribution.

As I said above, costs go up when the government is involved because politicians will just keep taxing more and spending more- there is no incentive for service providers to maintain lower costs, as there would be in the free market. Therefore, when the government is involved in any way then costs become inflated to the point that individuals are priced out of the market and effectively forced to depend on government support.

 

[Verisimilitude]

There is no such thing as free. Either the government pays and prices go up because the market keeps charging whatever it wants because it knows that the government has pretty much unlimited resources…

The government has no resources. It takes from the people and redistributes it and as long as the people give (willingly or by force) it is still a finite source.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The government has no resources. It takes from the people and redistributes it and as long as the people give (willingly or by force) it is still a finite source.

While I agree with you, what I’m referring to is that the government, meaning elected bureaucrats as opposed to “we the people,” prints its own money and ultimately determines taxation. Consequently, big businesses often treat government contracts as an unlimited resource. When contracting with the private market, businesses actually have to compete against one another, become better and more efficient to earn more money. But when contracting with the government, which just needs to print more money or raise taxes, bureaucrats aren’t as concerned with the quality or efficiency of the services they or their contractors provide because government budgets effectively punish efficiency by reducing budgets for departments that stayed under budget, and increasing budgets for those that went over. I have seen this first hand in my own experience working with government funded social services agencies. These agencies deliberately over-spent because they knew that if they only spent what they really needed to, then their grants for upcoming years would be adjusted down to that level.

I also agree that higher taxation ultimately leads to lower government “revenues” because taxation stifles business and prosperity, and so revenues from taxation are not unlimited.

I guess some out there would try to cite government studies that claim higher efficiency and effectiveness, but that’s like asking students to teach their own classes, make their own exams, and assign themselves the grade they think they deserve.

 

[soma]

Reading the post. The government now is not meeting the medical needs of our people. The Christian systems are also not meeting the needs, therefore we discuss the issue. Our present system waste money and time it is not efficient. So we look to universal care, but some are afraid of the word socialism as if it is bad. The democratic socialist countries is Europe are doing a much better job than we are on the major problems. Taxes will not go up 75%, another scare tactic. The quality of life will go up.
We need new ideas and stop being scared to move away from the status quo.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Jim, if I understand you correctly, you have said that your health insurance is one of your job benefits government employee, such that you pay your premium as an employee the same way that every other person who has a job that offers a healthcare plan.

When an employer offers a healthcare plan to an employee, that employer typically pays a portion of the healthcare premium. Government healthcare plans are no different, as they set a premium for you to pay that comes out of your income, and then they pay the remained of the actual cost of your health insurance.

As a government employee, that remainder is paid for by the government. The government collects its revenue in the form of taxes. Therefore, your healthcare plan is subsidized by tax dollars. Whether you want to believe it or not, and I do not mean this as an insult, but simply as a fact, you are on a government subsidized health insurance program. I am not accusing you of accepting welfare. As a government employee, from what I understand you have said, you are not participating in government welfare and are not on a government welfare healthcare plan.

That being said, the true cost of your healthcare plan is hidden by the government, because they are both your insurance provider AND your treatment provider. Insurance companies can’t compete with that because the government is essentiall insuring itself to provide its own healthcare-they set the prices and they dictate the services. This may sound good on the surface, but it really isn’t because the end result is that you have no choices in your standard of care- you can only choose what care you will refuse, but you cannot compel them to find new or alternate care choices for you.

That is, no one is finding ways to compete for your business right now because the government has complete control over your healthcare.

Um…I don’t know about where goofyjim works, but I am also a public employee. Guess what. My employer deals with a few insurers and are subject to the same out-of-control health care costs as everyone else. Just because there’s a bigger pool doesn’t mean that CalPERS has any more clout and can keep increases down. The health insurers say what the premium will be and that’s that. I wish it weren’t so, but them’s the facts.

My employer, by the way, is not an insurer and doesn’t provide insurance. I am covered by Kaiser. Blue Shield is also available. CalPERS does have plans of their own but they’re PPO’s and are cost-prohibitive for the average state employee.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is no such thing as free.

It’s amazing how many people fail to grasp that simple concept.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Reading the post. The government now is not meeting the medical needs of our people. The Christian systems are also not meeting the needs, therefore we discuss the issue. Our present system waste money and time it is not efficient. So we look to universal care, but some are afraid of the word socialism as if it is bad. The democratic socialist countries is Europe are doing a much better job than we are on the major problems. Taxes will not go up 75%, another scare tactic. The quality of life will go up.
We need new ideas and stop being scared to move away from the status quo.

So how come so many Canadians, who have Universal Health Care, choose to come to the US and pay for health care out of their own pockets?

And when the US adopts their system, and we find ourselves on the wrong end of a waiting list, with deteriorating health – where will we go to pay for the medical care we were taxed to pay for?

 

[Oscarthecat]

So we look to universal care, but some are afraid of the word socialism as if it is bad.

Yes, socialism is bad, the Church teaches that it is bad. Repeat after me: “Socialism is bad”

The democratic socialist countries is Europe are doing a much better job than we are on the major problems.

This simply isn’t true. There have been several articles posted in this same thread about how NHC systems in other countries are failing and looking for private alternatives. A few posts back there was even a quote from the designer of the canadian system where he admitted it was a failure.

Taxes will not go up 75%, another scare tactic.

Taxes will go up, neither of us can accurately predict how much, but they will go up.

The quality of life will go up.

evidence for this?

We need new ideas and stop being scared to move away from the status quo.

I’m not afraid to move away from the status quo, so long as we are improving on the status quo.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Um…I don’t know about where goofyjim works, but I am also a public employee. Guess what. My employer deals with a few insurers and are subject to the same out-of-control health care costs as everyone else. Just because there’s a bigger pool doesn’t mean that CalPERS has any more clout and can keep increases down. The health insurers say what the premium will be and that’s that. I wish it weren’t so, but them’s the facts.

My employer, by the way, is not an insurer and doesn’t provide insurance. I am covered by Kaiser. Blue Shield is also available. CalPERS does have plans of their own but they’re PPO’s and are cost-prohibitive for the average state employee.

To be fair, you do work for the state of California, which is as close to a socialist state as we have in the US. Have you considered that California’s legislation over private insurers and healthcare practitioners has inflated your healthcare costs and made it impossible to negotiate lower rates?

Once again, government involvement in healthcare, at any level, drives up costs- and that is why costs in the US have gotten so out of control.

In any event, you should still consider yourself fortunate to live in a country where you can quit your job and find a job with better insurance-although you’d probably have to move to a different state. Still, if you lived in a country that had a single payer/uhc program, you would just be stuck with the government insurance and have no alternatives when you found it to be insufficient to your needs.

 

[BamaRider]

The archiect of the Canadian Health care system says the system lies in ruins and getting worse, and needs to have more turned over to the private sector to get things done.

This is a system many Americans hold up as the panecea.

No thanks I’m gonna stay with my BCBS.

investors.com/editorial/e…99282509335931

Some text from the above link.

**Quote:
What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Quote:
Since the spring of 2006, Ontario’s government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as “broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.” Other provinces have followed Ontario’s example.

Canada isn’t the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain’s system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can’t centrally plan their way to better health care.

and lastly

Quote:
However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada’s government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?**

Not saying we don’t need to fix the system, but universal health care??

But some here in the USA are bound and determined to stick such a monstrosisty on us. Go figure.

 

[cynic]

There is no such thing as free. Either the government pays and prices go up because the market keeps charging whatever it wants because it knows that the government has pretty much unlimited resources,
.

We’re talking about a relatively small number of consumers receiving government assistance.