Do supporters of universal health care realize???

Question

I hear that many think we will be able to seek independent medical treatment outside the government healthcare system. This is highly flawed logic even more so than some of the other problems i see with socialized healthcare. The moment the government is willing to foot the insurance companies will cease to provide medical insurance. They will take all their premiums and run. The companies we work for will stop paying for our insurance since the government is going to do that for them.

This will result in a loss of many jobs in the insurance and medical billing field. Yes our healthcare system is expensive and has problems but unversal is not the way to go.
Lets reform our civil courts to cut down on petty lawsuits. Retire the ambulance chasers and insurance will get cheaper.

Here is a question. If they give universal healthcare to the people will they give universal malractice insurance for our doctors. Heck that would proabably work better and be cheaper than UHC.

Ok my point is based on basic capitolist economics. Anything a company is going to get for free it is not going to pay for. The expense the employer has for the private insurance is easily. The loss of major clients would caue the private premiums to rise, forceing them outside the reach of all but the elite. rendering us with 280,000,000 uninsured rather than 44,000,000. In theory anyways.

JD- see above; Captain- nto every country allows private insurance. for more info on the Brit system see Candy G's post; Massive- Your poblem is wiht pharmacuticals which are bigger crooks than HMO's; Ghost- UHC will raise all taxes not just the rich; Generalist- these sytems have been in place long enough that these effects were long ago. Our system has been capitolized for its entire existence; Avail- i never said these were the only cause of the high cost. this argument was based on economics not medicine.

Greye- Medicare is a program that uses private insurance companies. It is horribly mismanaged and loses 15 to 20 percent of the money funded into its system, the UHC has a great chance of being just as mismanaged: Trite- I agree but i do not think that the UHC will be a solution, reform and regulation of the insurance and pharmacuticals would work better IMO, there has to be another way beside socializing an arrea where we want inventive ambitious and talented people trying to achieve their best, socialized programs have very little innovation or breakthroughs(which save lives); azawalli- From all i have seen while trying to learn more on this issue the average person has to leave Canada to seek private care, that makes me wonder how well its working than; Crabby- Thats what I love to see, actually thinking and helping to develop ideas for something better; Torry- yes indeed th VA is so jacked it is almost irepairable.

Answer 1

Do YOU realize that we are already...all of us...footing the bill and burden for the uninsured?

Answer 2

You raise some good points. Particularly about the way the insurance companies (don't) work.

And legal reform of malpractice is a must. Another point--20% of the money we pay for prescriptions goes to advertising (no, I'm not joking)--and the "reserch pharmaceutical companies keeps harping on is more for new hayfever medicins than the kind of cutting edge drugs that could be saving lives. My point--should we go back to the old rules--no direct advertising to consumers? That's what drives the current system,not real health needs.
Another point--the big flaw with the "socialized" approach is the notion the government ought to be doing everything. But the other end--the opposition to any government health care--is equally flawed.

Here's one example--spendig money on ehalth edcuation, preferably by neighborhood clinics that also provide outpatient caare, has been shown to be highly effective in a number of ways (based onhard facts and figures, not hype about what we "ought" to do):
>clinics take much of thel load off emergency rooms,etc-and is a more cost effective way to deliver routine care
>health education for the poor is effective at reducing long term healt h care costs--the cost to benefit ratio is VERY good.
>this directly combats poverty were children are concerned--they learn better if healthy and are less likely to end up on welfare.

The point--this is an area where the government DOES have a role--and it is NOT "a giveaway to welfare bums"--its an investment of taxpayer money that has been provento pay off.

Therel's lots more--as I think you know. But, indirectly, you made the same basic point I am--namely: liberal or conservative, we need to drop the ideology and start focusing on developing sound policies that actually work.

Answer 3

well as some one from the uk now living in the USA I have some experience dealing with both sides of this coin.

the NHS [national health service] in the UK is not all it is cracked up to be.waiting lists can be long and depending on your post code [zip code] can be the difference in getting the meds you REALLY need or not.........but at NO point do you have to sit and wonder do we eat this week or does the kids go to the docs.....ALL medical is covered for them until they reach the age of 16, 18 if in further education............ALL apointments all jabs all meds etc etc......for instance my daughter had her ears pinned back by the BEST plastic surgoen in the south west for free all dental was covered including braces etc etc so we come over here and follow ups for the dental was $100.00 per visit and sat for 6 hours to sew up her hand and we HAVE insurance and then our elderly is also covered for meds for free after the age of 60 [females] and 65 for males and yet we can also purchase extra [private] medical where you may well be seeing te same doc just a bit quicker and when you go into hospital you are more than likely going to have a semi private room or a private room.......so there is a fair chance of having both systems along side each other and working well...........

The biggest difference I have seen over here is that if you do not have medical even MAJOR problems are left un checked be it a child or not and thats a crying shame that a sick child can be turned away due to money or lack of it.

No system is perfect but the one in the USA for those that do not have medical insurance is probably the most flawed IMO and seems such a shame that the USA is also one of the most forward thinking countries in the world and yet they do not take care of their lowest members of society....

Regards

Answer 4

The insurance companies would not go out of business under Universal Health Care. No health care system covers everything and insurance companies find ways to make a buck even in "socialized health care." I know, as I live in Canada, a country with U.H.C.

I can understand having some sympathy for the average worker who might lose his or her job at an insurance company were the U.S. to move to a saner system. On the other hand, you have to wonder if someone whose only job is to delay or deny payment is doing something that would be called "productive" in any economy. If you feel bureaucracy is a drag on economic productivity, you could really reduce bureaucracy by getting rid of the majority of H.M.O.s and insurance companies in America.

Answer 5

If the supporters of the so-called "universal health care" programs that have been proposed would only research what happens in the American Veteran's Administration health services they would see the errors of their ways.

Socialized medicine means mediocre medical care at best. There is no incentive for good service from any aspect of the system as there is no competition. There is no incentive to learn or discover new medical techniques as there is no way to bill the government for such things. The massive government agencies that would be created to replace and be added to existing pay systems would quickly increase the costs of medical care far greater than predicted.

Unfortunately the supporters of "universal health care" do not look into the future at all. Shoot, they aren't even looking to the past. ... Double shoot, they don't even check out the present.

Answer 6

Look at the British system for an example of how they have an HMO system outside of the gov't system.

PI cases are not very lucrative these days and any lawyer will tell you it does not pay to be 'an ambulance chaser these days'.

I find it amazing that every other industrialized nation seems to make universal health care work. However, we think ourselves the greatest nation on earth but can't seem to provide a basic human right? Sad.

Answer 7

If your argument was accurate, there wouldn't be a need to check your hospital bills over carefully to make sure the ethical good natured hospitals didn't bill you several times for the same items. If what you mentioned was the only factors causing high healthcare, they wouldn't resort to unethical billing practices.
You are as flawed in your logic as the people who think gas prices will come down if environmentalist let more refineries be built, when refineries are still being closed, because there is no economical incentive to increase supply.


wouldn't the government need to employ people to cover the extra labor for the government to handle health coverage? so where are these jobs lost again??
like usual, you need to research more.

Answer 8

Ask someone from Canada why they come to the US FOR CARDIAC SURGERY? Because in Canada they might die before they get a chance to have surgery n a month or 2. I that what you want here? Why should I foot the bill for a life long smoker or alcoholic when they chose to smoke or drink knowing it causes cancer? Why should I pay for the children of a drug addicted prostitute. People need some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You are responsible for you! I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU. I JUST LOVE WHEN I SEE SOME WELFARE MOM DEMANDING MORE WHEN SHE HAS 6 KIDS BY SIX DIFFERENT MEN AND NONE OF THEM STUCK AROUND TO HELP.IT'S ASHAMED YOU DO'T NEED A LICENSE TO HAVE KIDS.

Answer 9

Who can afford the legal bills for petty lawsuits? Not many, which is why they are not a significant concern at all in this debate. The insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are allowed to make their huge profits now. Where do you think that money comes from? Duh. It comes from you and me and anyone else who gets sick in this country. It's that simple. I am not a socialist but I believe such critical things as national security and our health should not be left to the profit driven private sector.

Answer 10

you would be suited that "socialism sucks", different than that the loose industry financial device has resulted in the costliest and inefficient well-being care device in the international. the fee that coverage companies upload usual would be adequate to pay for well-being shelter all individuals who prefer it. of direction, removing coverage companies from the equation is by some means considered unamerican, whilst that's o.k. to funnel money immediately out of your pocket into theirs, even whilst they attempt to disclaim you care you may would desire to stay alive. If it weren't for the government propping up the scientific coverage industry many times by using favorable legislations (isn't it cool how they get to write down off limitless lobbying to purchase our flesh pressers!), it would have previously collapsed and been replaced with the help of a few thing that certainly works. Foreigners look on the well-being care device of this united states of america and are surprised at how little we get for our money. no one who's paying $60 a month for coverage is roofed. the 1st ailment will wipe them out. The coverage will pay very almost none of it.

Answer 11

We already have universal health insurance for all citizens over 65 called Medicare. And that has not stopped every health insurance company from providing Medicare supplemental health insurance.