Is this a good reason to be against Universal Healthcare?

Question

Calif. family blames HMO in girl's death

The family of a 17-year-old leukemia patient blamed Cigna Corp. on Friday for her death, saying the health insurance giant's initial refusal to pay for a liver transplant contributed to her death.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071222/ap_on_re_us/teen_liver_transplant

If Universal Healthcare ever becomes a reality, I wonder if a family will be able to sue the government if something like this happens?

Darth Vader - Employees receive free healthcare? LOL! I don't think so. Try again.

Not-for-profit, non-corporate Universal Health Care? LOL! Someone else made a 'funny'.

NO HMO's if we go Universal - True. We get big government to handle it. I feel better already.

Universal coverage would have saved her life! ROFL! These comments are great! I just laughed Sprite through my nose.

Answer 1

An even better reason not to have Universal Health Care is just another thing where the government is in control and one more of your freedoms are lost!

This great nation was built on capitalism, not socialism. Socialists oppose capitalist excess, disparaging the mass availability of goods and services, and they seek to restrict the freedom to produce and enjoy wealth.

Consider, for instance, the wrath that socialists feel towards fast food, large discount stores [Wal-Mart] and specialty financial services for the poor. They accuse the mass consumer market of institutionalizing false needs, commodifying the commons, glorifying the banal, homoginizing culture--all at the expense of the environment and of equality of condition, the highest socialist goal.

Improving the standard of living in society is far down the list of modern socialist priorities.

Universal Health care is socialistic. Most intellectuals know what socialism did to Russia. And yet many still cling to the socialist ideal. What would make it different this time? Socialism has failed miserably in the past.

You cannot sue the government with Universal Health Care, because you are under government control. Do people actually believe the government would not turn you down for a surgery?


"MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

.

Answer 2

I'm European. Public universal health care WORKS. Norway, Sweden, Japan, Denmark, The Netherlands, France, UK, Belgium, Canada and many... all those countries have it and it works. It is not perfect, but it works. NOBODY in these countries die in need of health care OR has to worry about caps and coverage in their insurances OR go bankrupt after having to pay for anything. In fact, the countries with public universal health care are the ones at the top of ANY list that measure general health and life expectancy. The US only comes AFTER these countries. Americans confuse TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES when they discuss health care. They seem to be against it because of some mistrust of their government (something that is quite silly) OR because they fear the government will not run it efficiently (a real concern). These things are TWO SEPARATE issues: ONE is the need for universal health care (something that is a true need, since thousands of Americans are abandoned everyday by their insurance companies - and millions more are left to die). ANOTHER thing is government efficiency. Just because the government is not (perceived as) efficient, it does not mean universal health care is wrong. What it means is that Americans should fight for BOTH things: universal health care AND government efficiency. In Europe, where we already have universal health care (a battle that is already behind us), our constant fight is for more and more efficiency. What Americans cannot afford is to be a super power with a third world health care system (where only the rich and well employed can get the health care they need).

Answer 3

The UK National Health Service is a contributory service that everyone pays into and everyone can use, people don't mind because they compare it to those who go private and see that it would be much more expensive. Also going private means that not all conditions are treated privately, however you do get a better room and can queue jump so some like that and buy into a priavte policy. Accident and emergency is always NHS and free, also when private health care runs out of resources patients often end up on NHS anyway.

Until recently not many people sued, as it was seen as a bad thing to do, to sue a shared health service. However a lot of shady legal firms have started up in the UK so that ambalance chasing has started. However these lawyers have a bad name because they eat up all the claims in fees, also one went bust and fired their staff by mobile phone, big scandal!! So yes in the UK social medicine works well in the UK at a much lower cost than in the USA. You can sue doctors for bad practice and hospital trusts (they are not run directly by government but are public/private trusts). However the UK government has passed laws to limit the payouts so we don't have a litigation problem.

If I lived in the USA I would be wiped out, two of my close relatives have serious on-going mental illnesses and we have also got medical conditions. My Son gets state of the art medication and treatment. 5 day a week care and sheltered housing, free travel and money to live on and I have only contributed about $100 a month to national insurance on a salary of about $80K.

Answer 4

I may be the wrong person to address this issue for two reasons:
1. I'm a Registered Nurse
2. My father was "killed" by his HMO

I agree with you 100%

HMOs are murderers. Universal Health Care would be nothing but a governmental beaurocracy of HMO-oriented "capabilities". None but the very rich would survive.

I hope the family wins their battle. I'd have fought my Dad's death, but my Mom would not have survived the trauma of it all.

Answer 5

I am very familiar with the health Care Insurance Industry.

Insurance Corporations spend Millions on Lawyers to write perfect Insurance Contracts. Contracts that indemnify them from almost everything.

No average American has the ability to even come close to decoding or understanding these complex Contracts.

BTW they pay their salesmen Million dollar Bonuses for selling an Insurance package to large block clients.

Answer 6

Would rather see so many people not "being killed" pre-maturely to provide organs so that transplant business as it is known today is driven out of business. The Micky Mantles and Bob Casey's should have died a few million dollars sooner.

Answer 7

No. I do not like a military sick call. However, no health care system is 100% perfect. This is something that I am willing to admit.

I do not like the idea of ration care either.

Answer 8

wow, is that the best argument you can come up with? Pretty pathetic.

Still, it always astounds me how backwards the US is on human rights issues. Universal healthcare is such a basic right around the world. Some day you;ll catch up to the rest of us.

Answer 9

NO, There is no good reason to be against Universal Health Care.

President Bush receives free health care from the government, so does his family.

All elected officials receive free health care from the government, so do their familes.

Our Troops receive free health care from the goverment, so do their families.

Most other government emplyees receive free health care from the government, so do their families.

If it is so bad, why didnt they refuse it?

It is not about whether or not it is a good idea, it is a great idea.

It is a case of some people can get government paid health care and some cannot. Any health care is better than no health care.

People die every day in America waiting for transplants or surgery that they can't get because they can't pay for it or their HMOs refuse to pay for it. Universal Healthcare will mean less Americans dying.

Answer 10

If the government refuses a medically necessary procedure to increase corporate profits?

How does that happen under not-for-profit, non-corporate Universal Health Care?

Addendum: I realize your idea of a deep thought seems to be "LOL," but when we talk about Universal Health, we're talking about the insurance/coverage/payment system. There's no profit as part of a single payer government insurance system. Providers, hospitals and drug companies still make their profits, but the INSURER and PAYER doesn't, so there's no incentive to allow people to wither and die so the CEO and shareholders can buy another yatch.

Services don't get denied or labeled experimental to save a couple of bucks if they are deemed medically necessary and part of the standard treatment protocol.

Get a clue before mocking others' answers.

Medicare, Medicaid - not for profit payers. Get it?