I want liberal and conservative opinions... Health care?

Question

Universal health care is obviously a controversial topic in America, and I understand both sides of the arguement, but what about a national program that did not provide complete coverage but did cover emergency situations?

A serious accident could send almost any family without health insurance into bankruptcy, so why not a plan that would cover people in those situations?

Coverage would have nothing to do with yearly income.

To prevent people from buying minimal coverage from a private company and relying on government funds for emergencies, which hurt both the government and private industry, people with any form of health insurance would not qualify.

Funding would have to come out of taxes, but it would be relatively cheap compared to a universal health program. Some would be paying for others, but its to save lives.

Obviously regular health insurance (full coverage) would be better, which means private insurance companies should not lose business.

Random idea.

The reason I brought this up is because I was unable to get any health insurance for about 2 years. I am a full time student and still dependent on my parents, but when I took a semester off and worked full time I was removed from their health insurance plan. I went back to school full time, reapplied for insurance, and was rejected. It wasn't until last month that I finally found an insurance company that would accept me. My parents are both hard working and COULD afford to pay for any insurance, but it is difficult when private insurance company have the right to deny any person coverage. An extreme enough emergency would have ruined my entire family.

Answer 1

Here's an idea: government intrusion into this sector has wrecked the market mechanisms keeping prices in check.

No one has any incentive to cut back on spending because no one pays much of their medical bills. Put that back in the hand of consumers and healthcare will be forced to compete on price as does every other industry.

Answer 2

Yours is a good example of why even conservatives are looking harder at universal health care in America. There are too many people falling through the cracks. I see many comments declaring universal health care to be a hand out. I hope more people can see our world system in the context that it is in. A common problem is that the middle class, less healthy (and unable to receive affordable medical care) often cannot get through schooling, much less maintain good status in the high stress, competitive job market. Therefore, they can not make enough money to pay for most insurance plans today which is absolutely necessary to obtain good care. Many Americans are trapped in this cycle and many are trapped in other scenarios disallowing them insurance coverage, like yours where the insurance companies won't even insure many people. I heard a statistic not long ago that more than half of individuals that file bankruptcy contribute their financial loss to medical bills.

We all know how many people file for bankruptcy...too many. But, if this is why it is happening so often, we should know something is not right with our system.

I am conservative on most every issue but this one. I believe that our world system, economy, work environment, education requirements and even social expectations leave no room for the less healthy or accidentally injured to maintain a quality of life without good insurance. I believe it is discrimination toward the physically or mentally disadvantaged. No, we are not owed health care. We are not owed any of the advantages we gain from public services but we all use them and "need" them everyday.

Answer 3

Here's another idea. Rather than greatly expanding the Dept of Health and Human Services, the federal government subcontracts existing insurance companies to implement and administer a federal health care plan. Since health care costs are more than 80% administrative at this time, restructuring of those companies would have to happen. Jobs would be lost, certainly, and the companies would not still be able to pocket such enormous profits as they do now, but they'd still exist. Government contracts pay pretty well, just ask Halliburton.

Americans already spend HUGE sums of money compared to other developed nations, on health care that is unaffordable for many, to the point that American companies are now sending people out of the country for needed surgeries.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/living/16390540.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0816/p03s03-usec.html

It amazes me that concern over insurance companies going out of business is of more concern than people dying because they can't afford health care. Major industries come and go, times change. Look at the railroads, logging, mining, auto manufacturing, etc. Societies adapt to such changes. They tend not to hold up well, however, when a large percentage of the citizenry is ailing and/or bankrupt.

Answer 4

There currently are Catastrophic Coverages in the Health Care systems, some are funded from or by tax-based programs.

Check them out and you may find that most coverages already exist for the "bankrupt" type of conditions.

Answer 5

Emergency health care is already mandated at all hospitals weather you have health care coverage of not. What people want is more than "Emergency health care". What you don't understand with your proposal is that you are penalizing people that WORK FOR A LIVING and have health care through their jobs that partially comes out of their paychecks. You mean to tell me that even though I have health care coverage that may not foot the whole bill for emergency care, I would have to pay while some loser who isn't working gets it for free and not only that but I have to pay his way with my taxes? No way! There is no easy solution, but I will always believe that the mother of invention is necessity. Let people that don't have health care get it by getting a job that offers it or pay for it themselves. i have to do it for my family. Other people just choose not to and don't want to face the consequences of being without it is all.

Answer 6

The main reason I would be for free health care, is because as a litigious society, we sue doctors who are trying to help us without taking human error into consideration. I also don't like the fact that doctors use the health care system to make their wealth.

In a free health care system, we couldn't randomly sue any doctor for any reason. Doctors would not become doctors for the sake of becoming wealthy; but because they cared about people.

We would also get more doctors because most can't practice due to high malpractice insurance.

To me, when I answer a question like this, it is always about the money. Several states, like Colorado, already offer free basic insurance for those that can't afford it. (CPCI is what it's called, I believe). A system of aid that functions off of greed (doctors and litigious individuals) is a corrupt system that needs to be broken down, revamped, and controlled.

Answer 7

At present, the US ranks poorly relative to other industrialised nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialised nation, because it is only those who can afford it who get the good care. The US ranks 23rd in infant mortality, (down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990; 20th in life expectancy for women (down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960); 21st in life expectancy for men (down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960). and 67th in immunisation coverage, right behind Botswana. Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease and renal failure consistently show the US ranks Canada and most other indistrialised nations.

It would cost less to have a single payer universal health care system than it the current US system costs due to lower administrative costs. The US spends approx. 40% more per person on health care than any other industrialised country with a universal health care system. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save $100-200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits. Studies in Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that a universal health care would save theose states $1-2 Billion dollars per year. The cost of universal health care in Canada, as a percentage of GDP had increase at a much lower rate than the cost of health care in the US, despite the US having a stronger economy. Private for-profit corporations spend between 20 and 30% of insurance premiums on administration and profits compared to just 3% spent by Medicare on administration. Comparative studies show that an identical procedure being performed in the same hospital in the same year with the same staff costs between 20 to 35% more when it is covered by a private for-profit insurance company rather that a public not-for-profit commissioning agent.

A universal health care system would provide equality of access to care than is currently available. At present, approx 30% of Americans have problem accessing adequate health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of Americans are without any form of health insurance - approx. 75% of them have trouble accessing and paying for health care. Access to health care is directly related to income and race. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites. Black people are less likely to recieve clot busting drugs, or undergo life-saving cardiac procedures than white people, this despite the approx. 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons in the US.

80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed (i.e. privately bought) care has caused quality of care to be compromised. Between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005).