Those of you against Universal Health Care, don't you realize...?

Question

If you are paying a premium to Aetna, United Health, BCBS, Cigna, Kaiser ect... you are paying into a pooled healthcare system. Yes, you are buying into 'socialized' medicine. YOUR MONEY IS GOING TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTH CARE BILLS! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!? The only difference between what you are paying for now and Universal Health Care, is the money would be administered by the Government instead of a for-profit industry. Oh, and you also wouldn't be paying for stuff like marketing, commissions and CEO golden parachutes. Oh.. and government health care would let you chose ANY doctor, not just those that are 'in network'. Wow. Sounds like a horrible deal.

WCSteel - Apparently you need to go back and take some Civics classes you may have missed in Jr. High. UHC does not equal communism. In a communist society, government would control the program and the doctors.

American Patriot - While what you say is true as far as most commodities go, the rapid consolidation of the hc insurance industry has lead to quite the opposite effect. If you only have five big fish in the sea, competition is negligable and the opportunity for price fixing and gouging of the consumer is high. I don't know about you, but my rates have risen nearly 150% in the last 10 years...at a much higher rate than inflation.

Paul - The government would have no say in your care. You would go with whomever your primary care physician would recommend. The government is just there to arrange payment.

pfo - Almost all doctors take Medicare. All doctors would take UHC as well. It's your choice still.

Answer 1

Well number one is I, as well as the other members within the coverage groups actually pay for their own coverage (or their employers pays all or some of it, we are not paying for people who aren't kicking into the pot.

Number two, do you think a private for profit company or the Federal government does a more efficient job handling money?

Clue: Company profits are dependent on wise handling of funds while the government will just raise taxes to make up for their ineptitude in handling money.

Answer 2

Many people here are young, and still on their parents policy, or able to access healthcare from college or university sites. They have little to no experience with the system, and in the early years when people tend to be healthy, no reason to access it. Women use their OB-Gyn for a doctor, and that's a once a year deal. Until you need it you don't realized how bad it is. Then they react in anger when they find out they are dropped, or forced to pay more for something they may have had when a child. Young people have trouble seeing themselves in dependent positions, they are strong, healthy, can take care of themselves and really have a problem seeing others as worthy when those people can't. Its called the invincibility of youth. So they don't realize the failure of our system because they don't use it. Or they use it on a very ordinary minimal way. They never butt heads with their insurance company. Innovation of pharamcuticals isn't part of universal coverage, it won't be stifled as a company still must produce something to sell something. And care you can't afford in the first place means you aren't getting the medications and treatments you might need early enough to make a difference. Each year we see millions of Americans die because they come it too late. But why should they go, when they can't afford the bills for the tests, let alone the treatments? Insurance companies now refuse to pay for things they consider experimental. Many transplants are treated that way, leading to all those containers at the 7-11 asking for change so some kid can get a liver transplant. Is that really the best we can do?

Answer 3

"The only difference between what you are paying for now and Universal Health Care, is the money would be administered by the Government instead of a for-profit industry."

Exactly. And the government would either need to directly pay the existing insurance companies, or re-create most of those jobs in a bureaucratic system. Being as the government would then have a monopoly, competition would cease to exist and there would be no incentive to streamline operations. With a few years, there would probably be more public administrators in the bureaucracy than had previously existed in the private insurance companies combined.


"Oh, and you also wouldn't be paying for stuff like marketing, commissions and CEO golden parachutes. "

Last time I checked, politicians fly in private jets, live in mansions, and buy media time too. Just like a CEO. They vote themselves pay raises and pass millions, if not billions for the successful ones, to their friends.

My personal opinion is that our medical system is overused. People go to the doctor every time they have a runny nose and they think they need antibiotics. The drug companies are happy to oblige - do you think that's going to change when the customer doesn't have to pay out of pocket and the government promises to buy as many drugs from those companies as the doctors can possibly prescribe?

Patients don't want to hear that they have to change their diet or get some exercise or stop working 60 hours a week to be healthy. They don't want to hear: "Its the flu, and there's no cure. Take it easy for a week." Instead, doctors will knowingly prescribe antibiotics knowing full well it will have no effect on the viral infection.

If you have fatigue, anxiety, or various digestive complaints, they will very often offer anti-depressants instead of tests to discover the real cause. It covers the symptoms so you're a 'satisfied' customer, and it is addictive so you're a 'repeat' customer. Unfortunately, you're not a 'cured' customer.

Anyway, putting the politicians in charge isn't going to stop this from being a for-profit venture. The politicians who are proposing it are taking the money from the companies who stand to gain - the ones they speak out against while planning to help them increase sales by xx% over 5 years, or whatever the plan is.

Answer 4

First of all, I lived in a country with universal healthcare. It was both good and bad. You didn't have to worry if your insurance covered your problem and you could just walk into any hospital, BUT not with your hands empty. A hefty bribe was virtually a requirement to getting anything done. And the government didn't give a crap about making sure that everyone could in fact get healthcare. if you didn't have stuff to use as bribes (expensive, foreign stuff) then you didn't get taken care of. The equipment and the rooms were filthy and the food... well, that's not the hospital's problem, you had to have someone bring you food.because the hospital certainly didn't serve any.
I've had dental surgeries without anesthesia (as a 10 yr old boy). I'm not so tough now that's for sure.

At the same time I am completely against the idea of insurance. I believe INSURANCE IS THE DEVIL. Things should have been left alone the way they were 100 yrs ago. A client and the doctor worked out what the doctor would accept for his services. We don't need a 3rd party to be making money off the clients who can barely afford the medical services as it is.
Get rid of all insurance... it is EVIL! Insurance incourages irresponsibility because ... well, "the insurance will pay for it".

Answer 5

Universal Health Care administered by the Govt would be a complete disaster! The government screws up just about everything it touches! You will only be allowed to choose doctors from the "approved" list. Real doctors will not work for the peanuts that the government will allocate to them. Like England, there will be a shortage of great doctors as only the "also-rans" will stay to work in such a low paying system. Yes, we all understand shared-risk insurance pools. Like car insurance and home owners insurance. But letting politians and bureaucrats run it would be like giving whiskey and car keys to a fifteen year old! No, this is NOT a good idea. Like Medicare/Medicaid it will quickly balloon out of control as most of the people who will use the system will not pay a dime in premiums. Only the "rotten rich" (read that to mean the middle class) will pay the freight, as always, while the noble poor and illegals will sap the system dry.

Answer 6

Universal Health Care is going to cost more than the Iraq war times a thousand. So far, for all the money I've paid into health care, I've gotten more back in services, so I have no problem with it. People do the same for car insurance too, it's not a socialized system because membership is voluntary.

"The only difference between what you are paying for now and Universal Health Care, is the money would be administered by the Government instead of a for-profit industry. Oh, and you also wouldn't be paying for stuff like marketing, commissions and CEO golden parachutes. Oh.. and government health care would let you chose ANY doctor, not just those that are 'in network'. Wow. Sounds like a horrible deal."

Now we'd be buying golden parachutes for the politicians. Don't they get enough from us already? And no, you would not be able to choose any doctor, the government would have its list of doctors and there would be more expensive and better quality doctors that are out of the universal health care plan.

"Sounds like a horrible deal."

That's the only part I agree with.

Answer 7

Yeah that's really brilliant until you consider:

a) The federal government controlling anything for the individual is a bad thing not to mention unconstitutional. You guys whine all the time about how badly operated the VA hospitals are but want the same agency in charge of your health.

b) The "pool" of insurance as you call it is paid equally by all recipients and they each get the same standard of care administered by competitive companies striving to provide better service than their competitor. In your socialist utopia, not all people would pay equally-in, others care would be provided for more heavily by those able too pay, making your "fair" system completely unfair. And innovation and drive of the Healthcare pros would wither and die because there is no incentive to excel.

Why do you think that all medical innovation comes out of the US which according to you all has the worst healthcare in the world? Because, competitiveness breeds innovation. And in a Capitalist system striving hard and achieving are rewarded. That doesn't happen in your socialist system.

c) It is one more aspect of our private lives that you want to give control of to the Federal government. While the public approval ratings for that agency lies somewhere around 30%. But thats ok as long as mommy and daddy are there to take care of you huh?

Answer 8

Health Insurance is every bit as much a scam as Universal Health Care. It creates many of the same problems. There are a few differences. One uses the money it collects to earn a return on various investments to pad it's proffit margin, while the other is simply inefficient and riddled with corruption. And, of course, Insurance is at least in theory, voluntary.

The biggest joke, though, is that the most likely form of Universal Health Care to make it here in America would be suplemental to the Insurance industry. That is, we'd still all have privately run proffit-motive health insurance we'd just have no choice but to buy it. If you don't need health insurance, you'll be forced to buy it, if you do need it, you'll be palmed off on the government 'safety net' version. That way, you'll have /both/ burocratic waste, corruption, and inefficiency /and/ big corporate greed sucking up your money.

The very worst of both worlds.

Answer 9

I agree. I'm Canadian. We have universal health care. We are not communist. I choose who I want for a GP. The 'government' has no say and I'm sure isn't interested in who I choose. If my GP is going to refer me to a specialist for some reason, and I don't like his choice, I can request a different one, or for that matter, a second opinion. I have never had any problem getting in to see him. I have always had the best of care. I've had same day ct scans and lumbar punctures. I had surgery by one of the two best neurosurgeons in the world, a number of months stay in the hospital and several more months of rehab. My father had immediate surgery for an aneurism on his aorta. My mother had timely chemo and other treatment for her breast cancer which allowed her 15 more years of life, as well as free hair pieces for the hairloss, free makeup and lessons to help her feel attractive, free homecare to let her stay in her own home until a few days before her death. That is priceless. And free rooms, drugs, personized care in a homelike bedroom for the last few days with a fold out couch and an additional bedroom next door for us so we could stay with her. Again priceless.

And, all Canadians are entitled to this same care. That is how it should be. We ARE our brother's keeper. I am proud to know that noone in Canada has to go without proper healthcare.

If it is a nonemergent situation, then yes, sometimes you have to wait. But, if you want to pay for quicker service, sure you can pay and go wherever you want.

I'm sure that our taxes are higher but they can't be that bad. I own my own home, drive a sportscar, holiday in the caribbean every winter and just got back from a vacation in London a few months ago. I invest in the stock market and real estate and don't have to share my profits with anyone, although I do choose to contribute to charities that I endorse.

So, I really don't care all that much if Americans want or don't want universal healthcare. It is their choice. Just as having it is ours. But they should be aware of what it really is.

I FEEL GOOD!

Oops, I forgot, it's the US government we are talking about. Forget the above. I wouldn't trust them either.

Answer 10

SORRY BUT YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT THE PRICES OF EVERYDAY THING LIKE A CAR WOULD BE PUT OUT OF REACH DUE TO THE EXTRA TARIFFS AND TAXES ADDED TO ALL PURCHASE TO PAY FOR HIS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN MY MEDICAL LIFE. I DON'T WAN THEM TELLING ME WHEN WHERE AND WHO I CAN SEE. LOOK AT NORWAY THE PRICE OF GASOLINE IS $9 PER GALLON THE PRICE OF A CAR DOUBLES DUE TO HIGH TAXES THE NUMBER ONE PROPONENT OF FRANCES DEFICIT IS HEALTH CARE. THE OUT OF POCKET COST (CO-PAY) TO THE SOCIALIZED CITIZEN IS THE SAME IF NOT MORE THAN IN THE USA. SORRY THINGS ARE FINE RIGHT NOW THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED IS GREATLY EXAGGERATED BY THE SOCIALIZATION CANDIDATES IT'S A SCARE TACTIC.

We should also keep in mind that the “nearly 50 million” without health insurance is an intentionally misleading number: Most of the uninsured are either uninsured by choice (mostly young and healthy people, 40% of the uninsured), eligible for public health programs but haven’t signed up (30% of the “uninsured”), or simply between jobs and likely to have insurance again within months. And, believe it or not, 20% of people the Census Bureau counts as uninsured are not American citizens. The number of truly, involuntarily, and permanently uninsured is a small fraction of what socialized medicine proponents claim.

The primary reason that medical costs are rising so rapidly is the disconnect between the consumer (patient) and the supplier, namely that the consumer does not feel enough of the cost and therefore has little incentive to be careful how much he uses. (Imagine auto insurance that covered minor scratches and oil changes.) Creating a “single payer” system will only make that problem worse. ...

Answer 11

Exactly, instead of a "bookie" taking 50% of the money from the pool and then deciding if they want to fund your health care, the money would go to a non-profit government pool they would be responsible for paying all services.

Even the poorest of the poor would be able to go to any doctor and get preventative medical attention so that we don't have skyrocketing medical bills later on. It would easily pay for itself.

But the health care companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to spread propoganda that portrays Universal Health care as the downfall of American society to protect their billions of dollars in profits. They claim the government can't do anything right (however the post office, police and fire departments, parks and roads always seem to operate efficiently).

And for the guy who said look what the government did to the airline industry, you prove my point. They DEREGULATED IT!!! It was a gift by Reagan who was paid off by the airline industry because they thought it would make them billions in profits and it backfired. Half of them went bankrupt (remember National, Pan Am, TWA, and Eastern Airlines?) When the government regulated the airline industry, it ran smoothly and efficiently, with NON-STOP flights on time and MEALS served on comfortable, WIDE BODY airplanes. Thanks Ronnie!