Universal Healthcare

[Zavoi]

he'll probably say "What if people won't want to pay into charities? What if they don't? If people don't have to pay, they'll just be selfish and keep all their money"

If people won't pay into charities, then they definitely won't support a government-run universal health care plan that will require them to pay the same amount of money or more. Therefore, this "communist" guy's agenda is impossible to accomplish without the use of force, by his own admission. If, however, he is trying to convince people that universal health care is a good thing, then he must admit that people can be convinced to pay money to private charities. As I said in another thread, the effort he spends to try to get the government to provide health care would be better spent getting individuals to provide health care through charity.

 

[Paul10]

..

 

[jclay2]

Paul10: Are you suggesting that we could have a good universal healthcare plan that would lower prices? If you are I might add that if the price of healthcare goes down from a government takeover, it would only be because more people would be dying from bad treatment.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Paul10: Are you suggesting that we could have a good universal healthcare plan that would lower prices? If you are I might add that if the price of healthcare goes down from a government takeover, it would only be because more people would be dying from bad treatment.

Wow, that was really profound, but at the same time, very very funny...can I quote you on that in my sig?

 

[Zippyjuan]

If people do not have any healthcare insurance, they tend to wait until their illness is further along and more difficult (and costly) to treat and they go into the emergency room because they know they cannot be turned away from there. A vist to the ER costs more than just a normal visit to the hospital Who pays for this? Taxpayers. Should the hospital be able to turn away people just because they have no insurance? Could you work in a hospital, have a mother come in with a sick or dying child and tell them to go away?

If they have basic insurance, then they could have gone to a regular doctor and saved everybody some money.

One problem with health care these days is that most patients have no idea what they ask the doctor or hospital to do for them costs. Many never even see the bill. If they knew that option A cost $3,000 and option B cost $7000 and that if they chose B they would have to pay the difference, which would they chose? Most would chose A. But they don't see the cost so they want the best treatment. The doctor has no incentive to seek lower cost alternatives- he is going to get paid anyways- either by the insurance company, the patient, or the government. There is no incentive to control costs.

Take a look at prescription drug coverage. Say you have a medical plan where you pay $5 co- pay for prescription drugs. You go to your doctor for a cold. He prescribes you a cough medicine and something for your sore throat. All you see is that you pay $5 each. If you went to the local drug store you could buy a cough medicine for say $8 and something for your throat for $7. From your perspective, the $10 is cheaper than the $15 you would have to shell out for the over the counter medications. You are behaving rationally from an indivudual standpoint. But the actual cost of the cough medicine to the insurance company is $65 and the throat spray is $50. Minus your copay, that cost them $105. (next time you get a prescription- check the label- it should show the actual price on it somewhere- these numbers are probably not far off- last time I did that what was prescribed to me would have cost over $100 if I had paid full price). Which was better for the whole society? Somebody has to pay the difference. If your insurance policy is through your employer, then he had to pick up the tab via higher insurance rates. If it is your own insurance, then you actually paid the extra money but did not know it.

As long as they have money coming in, there is no incentive to reduce the costs. The expenses will continue to grow. One way to do that is to make patients more aware of what things will actually cost including alternative treatments.

As for administrative costs, Canada's single payer system has one third of the administration costs that the US does.
http://www.rwjf.org/programareas/resources/grantsreport.jsp?filename=036617.htm&pid=1132

Some of the more interesting findings in their research:

As reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (August 21, 2003):

"U.S. administrative costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in 1999, $1,059 per capita, versus $9.4 billion, $307 per capita, in Canada."
"Health administration accounted for 31 percent of U.S. health expenditures versus 16.7 percent in Canada."
Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent. Canada's private insurers had higher overhead (13.2 percent) than U.S. insurers (11.7 percent) did. Overhead of U.S. insurers was higher than that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public (Medicare and Medicaid) and private insurance overhead in the United States totaled $72 billion, 5.9 percent of total U.S. health spending, $259 per capita. Insurance overhead in Canada was 1.9 percent of health spending, $47 per capita.
"Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada." Overall administrative costs totaled $89.9 billion, $324 per capita, in the United States, versus $3,258 million, $107 per capita, in Canada.
"Between 1969 and 1999, administrative workers' share of the U.S. health labor force grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996." (These figures exclude insurance industry personnel.)

As reported in Health Affairs (July/August 2002):

"U.S. tax-financed health spending is now the highest in the world." Tax-financed health expenditures totaled $723.8 billion in 1999, $2,604 per capita, or 59.8 percent of total health spending (including health care-related subsidies and public employees' health benefits).
"Between 1965 and 1999, direct government health spending, public employers' benefit spending, and tax subsidies all rose more rapidly than did overall health care costs." From 1965–1999, direct federal spending rose from 11.4 percent to 31.8 percent; public employee benefits rose from 1.2 percent to 5.4 percent; and tax subsidies grew from 4.6 percent to 9.1 percent.
"In 1965, U.S. tax-financed health expenditures per capita were well below total spending levels in most other developed nations and similar to government spending in other wealthy nations. By 1999, tax-financed health expenditures per capita in the U.S. exceeded total health spending per capita in every other nation but Switzerland and dwarfed government spending in any other nation."

As reported in the International Journal of Health Services (Winter 2002):

From 1997 to 2000, higher administrative costs at HMOs were consistently associated with lower quality. Of 65 quality measures studied, 53 showed a significant correlation and nine showed a non-significant correlation between higher administrative costs and lower quality. Quality measures included immunization, mammography and diabetic eye exams.

So taxes already spent on medical care are already higher per capita than any other country- including those with national health care systems.

27% of health care workers are in administration vs. 19% in Canada.

Our administration costs are three times theirs per capita.

Taxpayers are already paying for 60% of health care expenses. If we go with a national plan, we should be able to lower the costs for everybody.

Presently we pay more- and get less out of our health care system.

If you were to go to a national healthcare plan, I would have it offer only a minimal level of coverage- like doctor's visits, regular checkups, things like shots for diseases and the like. and allow people to have their own supplemental coverage if they desired or could afford it.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I am against universal healthcare at a national level, because it does not exist in our Constitution, and more importantly, it would be an expansion of government. If done at a state level, I would be open to trying it. It is much easier to adjust or do away with a failed experiment at a state level than at a federal one. My prediction is that California would probably be the first state to implement such a program, and other states would model after California or edit California's model to suit their own needs.

But I also think you'd see a lot more B.S. illnesses. Like, "I've got a tummy ache, I need the government to pay for my doctor's visit." Or, "Oh, my headache. I need a CT Scan to be absolutely sure I'm okay."

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[huchahucha]

If you want to try universal health care, there is an easy way to do it - go join the military. I was in the Air Force for eight years and was not that impressed with their health care system. First of all, when anyone can go see a doctor whenever they want, they DO go see the doctor whenever they want. This leads to long waiting times. The way some Air Force clinics dealt with that was to have a window of time first thing in the morning to get your name on the list to see a doctor. So for instance, you have from 7 to 9 am to sign up, then going by a first come first serve basis you sit and wait to see the doctor - it could be 4 pm before you get in.
In a government run program, the only concern for the hospital is to keep the costs down, so they start skimping on treatments and basically start coming up with "one diagnosis fits all" formulas to deal with patients. If you know any Air Force vets, ask them about the miraculous healing powers of MOTRIN. Air Force doctors prescribe MOTRIN for EVERYTHING! You could have a broken leg and an Air Force doctor will give you a prescription of MOTRIN and advise you to come back in a few days (and wait 8 hours) if the pain does not go away.
If the government run hospital also runs a pharmacy, then you are in for a real treat because that is the pharmacy you will be going to, and you will only be prescribed the drugs that they have on hand. So if there is a new wonder drug that will tackle whatever problem you have, but the government pharmacy won't buy it because it costs too much, you will be prescribed a cheaper, less effective drug - what the government calls a suitable substitute.

 

[huchahucha]

Oh, I forgot the best part - if the government is running health care for the good of the people, that most likely means the people will not be able to sue their magnanimous government in the case of malpractice. Instead, the government will have a settlement formula all set up and will just pay you as they see fit - "Oh sorry Mr. Smith. We amputated the wrong limb. We've estimated the value of that limb at $20,000. Here is your check and I am certainly glad we could work this out."

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

Ok, first off, this is not a question from me, but someone I know.

Basically, they want to know why Universal Healthcare is a bad idea (this guy is a devout socialist who's so devout he's called a "communist" by his friends)...basically I'd like some very well thought out posts against it, and, if possible, some videos explaining why it's a bad idea (socially as well as economically).

here is the best answer you can give: "Why would you trust the government to have detailed records from cradle to grave of all its citizens. <give examples of why the govt. is not to be trusted> Are you brain damaged?"

 

[F3d]

...

 

[Zeeder]

Morally, taking other people's money to pay for anything is wrong.

All socialist believe the same thing, all governmental failures(if they even acknowledge the government has failed at every single thing it tries) are do to the fact the THEY were not in charge. It just wasn't done the "right" way.

Medicare is bankrupt.
Social Securtiy is bankrupt.

These are socialist programs. They are filled with fraud, and are waaaaaay over budget. Now a socialist/liberal will always have some excuse for why they aren't working. They'll blame the war. Blame certain politicians etc...
What they can't grasp, and what is beyond their ability to comprehend is that once you give the government this kind of power, you also give people that don't agree with you the same power.
George Bush is the perfect liberal president. Liberals/socialist believe the same thing, they can do "good" with government. Well, guess what liberal morons? George Bush believes the same thing.

 

[F3d]

...

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Zeeder]

Everyone's paycheck is arbitrary and the gov protects some jobs. For instance, nurse anesthetist. They make 140000+ just because there's no programs. There's like 40 seats and 300+ applicants. Even worse when it comes to pharmacists.

The government protecting certain jobs is WRONG. The federal government especially shouldn't be doing this.

Universal healthcare would just increase this problem 10 fold. Pharmacist(I'm one of them) will use their money and power to lobby for their wages even more so.

The federal government needs to get out of healthcare. It has ruined it.

 

[Zeeder]

In addition, paychecks are not "arbitrary". There is no such thing as luck.

Crackheads usually make less than devote mormons because of the decisions they have made in their lives. That's hardly arbitrary. Saying so demeans the value of hardwork.

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Zeeder]

I don't see how the private sector is any better. It just creates more administrative jobs. The states aren't any better. You need to do 3 years just to get an associate degree in nursing in Cali (can't be shorten either). It's amazing how dumb the education system is today.

The problem you are talking about is licensure in general. Once someone starts making money(hair dressers) they want to eliminate competition by having the government mandate school time and license fees.
Pharmacists are the same way. It takes 6 years now to become a pharmacist in Georgia. I take no offense at your comparison. Pharmacists have been around for a long time. We invented coca-cola after all.

Bottom line: If you need government laws to keep your job. Your job isn't near as important as you think it is.

 

[areyou4real]

Two good articles on whether healthcare is a right and whether it's moral to take from some to give to others.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1297-Right_To_Health_Care.aspx
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=14&h=53

Wait times will increase. Canada has wait problems now and their Supreme Court has already allowed citizens to purchase private insurance again.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080121/health_care_080121/20080121?hub=Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index_e.html

You also have to address the economics of our current situation. We are over $9.2 trillion in debt. Our government can't even fund existing entitlement programs, let alone any new ones. These must be reformed before universal healthcare can even be considered. Not my words, but the Comptoller General's. You also only need to look at Mass's universal system - it was only supposed to cost X, but its costs are now spiraling out of control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/?page=full