Universal Healthcare

[misterbig]

I'm curious though. What exactly does it say about it?

Lets see:

Moral Hazard Problem: Tendency of one party to an agreement to alter his or her behavior in a way that is costly to the other person. For example insured people being less careful about their health (since they are insured), doing less preventive steps. Or consuming more health care resources than necessary (since their marginal cost for an extra doctor's visit is zero).

But most importantly, we need to recognize that the total "supply" of health care services is limited. By encouraging more people to consume health care, there will be less available for everyone. Universal health care is the equivalent of a price control (maximum price in this case) and that leads to shortages of any good or service.

 

[Paul10]

....

 

[Sarah]

Not in my plan. I'd force them to comply. Why do you think it's call universal? Doctors don't need to participate in Medicaid because they simply don't want to deal with the crap. Others will take them.

You won't have any say in any plan....if you're gonna make statements....please...be realistic.

I won't even discuss this anymore ...not with you Paul10. The comment I bolded tells me you have no idea what Universal HC will even be like or is like anywhere else.

You can't force anyone to comply. Many Drs have pulled out of Medicaid...look it up. The ones who are will to stay and work for "nothing" are gonna give you just what you're paying for..."nothing."

Watch the 20/20 Vid linked in this thread and you'll see it for yourself.

Anyone that's enlisted doesn't have a job that requires much skill. Officer jobs depend because some are easy and some are more difficult. Their healthcare isn't bad. You're talking about overseas I'm guessing.

No ...I'm talking about right here in the USA...but I'll let someone who has been in the Military themselves TRY to explain to you ...because you have no idea how bad their care is.

 

[therealjjj77]

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).

First, a principal needs to be understood. The government produces nothing. Anything it gives it has to take away from someone which typically ends up being the poor and middle class. So the ones who will pay for it will be us.

With that understanding, let's talk about supply and demand. When you further increase the demand for healthcare while leaving in place all the regulations that currently exist, the prices will increase significantly. This means that the government's estimates will be incorrect and then they'll have to impose a larger tax on Americans. These funds won't be allowed to be used for alternate medicine.

Also, the cost to administer this will grow every year as new forms and ever increasing paperwork gets introduced which will result in even more costs then they predict.

On top of that this will decrease the competition as the health care system will require more regulation then already exists for them to get this universal funding. It will require the healthcare provider to hire more staff to deal with the forms and legalities surrounding this new system. This will limit competition and squash innovations and efficiency in the healthcare industry. Every time you increase the startup costs of a business, you prevent new competitors from entering the industry and starve innovation.

On top of all this, due to the increase in demands, those who pay for their own health care or healthcare insurance will have to pay a much larger amount or have benefits greatly reduced. The companies who provide insurance for their employees will then have to pay higher premiums which means the prices of everything will go up, which will also mean that we will see higher unemployment(unless the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates more until they cannot and our economy faces a crash greater then the Great Depression).

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Sarah]

They pull out of Medicaid because they can get more money that way. Duh. Who wouldn't do that? What happens if it's the ONLY choice they have? They're definitely not going to quit being doctors obviously. They'll still be well into the six figures. Plus, whose to say that the Medicaid money they get is what universal health care would be? Hillary also wants to force them in the system. Is she being unrealistic? Look at Europe. The problem they have is that resources are pooled into useless areas. They do the same thing the U.S. does i.e. create a shortage when they could start more doctor/nursing programs.

No kidding Dick Tracey...isn't that what I said, you're catching on.


How communist is that? What will life be like for the rest of us.

You're right, it was in the U.S. but that's not a good representation to paint the VA hospitals as bad just because of some incident that happens rarely. This also is DEPENDENT on how much the government spends on the health care for the vets.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330551,00.html

Hey look, Gates is going to a military hospital.

http://www.hospitalinfection.org/press/040207la_times.htm

Surprise!!!

FYI, I know military folks and they don't believe the health care they receive is crap.

I know I'm right about it being in the US..because I don't usually say anything if I haven't checked it out.

I believe Gates is a GOVT employee. Where else is he gonna go?

I don't believe you've had many convo's with Military ppl about GOVT HC. Sorry...but I just don't believe it. It shows in your post and your knowledge of GOVT care.


BTW...check out those vids....and stop depending on Foxnews.com

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Sarah]

Hey, look at all the Presidents that have gone there.

humm....I guess they get their mental health care there too.

Thats explains a lot.

 

[SeanEdwards]

One of the most fundamental problems is that Healthcare is not a right. No matter how much they say it is. If healthcare is a right, then that means you have a right to some doctor's time, money, and service. Basically, making healthcare a right means that you must control others. Another question I would ask this communist would be,

"Why don't we just have the government out of it and have the people start charities. Arn't private charities more efficiant than government social programs?"

What about all the emerging infectious diseases? You think you can just ignore that? You think you'll be safe because you have health insurance, and the other chumps can just catch plague and die? I got bad news for you, medical insurance wont save you from the incurable nastiness that is floating around.

You and I are at a lot more risk from incurable TB than we are at risk from UBL, or assorted Iraqis.

 

[Zippyjuan]

How about some basic health care questions. Who should pay? is one of the big ones. Should employers be required to offer it? It is presently optional of course and in the interest of saving costs, fewer are offering it to their employees. This is increasing the numbers of uninsured now. Employer paid insurance is actually paid either from the price of goods or a lower wage offered to the employee. Eliminating this cost from employers may or may not mean lower prices or higher wages- or it could mean higher profits for the company.

Should individuals have to get their own insurance? In 2004, the average monthly cost for a indivudual private insurance policy was $308 and for a family $829. ANd that has been rising ever since.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/chcm090904nr.cfm

In 2004, premiums reached an average of $9,950 annually for family coverage ($829 per month) and $3,695 ($308 per month) for single coverage, according to the new survey. Family premiums for PPOs, which cover most workers, rose to $10,217 annually ($851 per month) in 2004, up significantly from $9,317 annually ($776 per month) in 2003. Since 2000, premiums for family coverage have risen 59%.

Median income is about $45,000 a year or $3750 a month before taxes. Let's figure 24% to taxes leaves about $2800 a month for living expenses. Take off the $800 a month for insurance and $2000 left. Not that bad I guess.

Now let's say you live alone and make minimum wage which is going up to $6.55 an hour in July and let's figure he is full time- 40 hours a week. $264 a week or $1048 a month. If he wants this private insurance, it is going to cost him $ 308 a month which has him down to $740 a month- not including taxes- to live on and pay rent and buy food. He will not be able to afford any insurance- even if he wants to.

Half the popluation makes less than the median income by definition.

If this person gets sick or injured, they are going to the hospital emergency room or not to any doctor at all. If they have an infectious disease, they will spread it through the rest of the population- insured or not. If they do go to the emergency room, then the taxpayers will have to pay the costs of their treatment. If this person had insurance, then they could have gone to a regular doctor and had their condition taken care of when it was easier and less costly to treat.

There are difficult questions about health care. As I tried to point out earlier, the biggest challenge and need is to control the rising costs.

 

[DamianTV]

I just wanna know how the doctors are gonna help people when their Budget runs out...







What if the Socialized Health Care Budget does run out, what would you do then?

 

[therealjjj77]

How about some basic health care questions. Who should pay? is one of the big ones. Should employers be required to offer it? It is presently optional of course and in the interest of saving costs, fewer are offering it to their employees. This is increasing the numbers of uninsured now. Employer paid insurance is actually paid either from the price of goods or a lower wage offered to the employee. Eliminating this cost from employers may or may not mean lower prices or higher wages- or it could mean higher profits for the company.

Should individuals have to get their own insurance? In 2004, the average monthly cost for a indivudual private insurance policy was $308 and for a family $829. ANd that has been rising ever since.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/chcm090904nr.cfm


Now let's say you live alone and make minimum wage which is going up to $6.55 an hour in July and let's figure he is full time- 40 hours a week. $264 a week or $1048 a month. If he wants this private insurance, it is going to cost him $ 308 a month which has him down to $740 a month- not including taxes- to live on and pay rent and buy food. He will not be able to afford any insurance- even if he wants to.

Half the popluation makes less than the median income by definition.

If this person gets sick or injured, they are going to the hospital emergency room or not to any doctor at all. If they have an infectious disease, they will spread it through the rest of the population- insured or not. If they do go to the emergency room, then the taxpayers will have to pay the costs of their treatment. If this person had insurance, then they could have gone to a regular doctor and had their condition taken care of when it was easier and less costly to treat.

There are difficult questions about health care. As I tried to point out earlier, the biggest challenge and need is to control the rising costs.

It's this kind of short-sightedness that allows politicians to decieve the people year after year.

People always talk about the problems but don't ask the real question that needs to be asked:

"The housing market is in a mess so we need the government to fix it!"

"People are dying with guns so we need to ban guns!"

"The price of education keeps rising so we need to subsidize all education!"

"The price of healthcare keeps going up so we need the government to give away free healthcare!"

The real question that needs to be asked and addressed is "Why is the price of healthcare going up?"

Let me tell you why the only medical doctor running for president understands what the real solutions are.

First, the healthcare market is WAY TOO GOVERNMENT REGULATED!!!

Second, it's already being government subsidized for children and elderly and people who qualify for Title 19 and Title 5.

Third, people are being allowed to sue doctors for unscrupulous amounts for just about anything and everything.

So what's the real solution? To solve these problems we HAVE to identify the "Why" the problem occured. Also, there is no reason to resort to government to solve every problem that comes up.

Of course the bureaucrats that are pushing for this are going to give you only numbers that help their case. What they aren't going to tell you is that the real reason why the problem exists in the first place is because of the government interventions we already have in place.

What we ought to do is get rid of the government intervention and let the free market regulate these problems. The free market is great at charity. Who helped the most after the disaster of Katrina? Our government with their blind welfare did very little to helping the people of Louisiana. That money would have been better left in the hands of citizens who could have then sent more church groups and aid to the people who really needed help.

The point is, the government is NOT charitable. Even with the greatest of intentions, centralized government can never be attuned to the true needs citizens have. They will spend endlessly and create endless forms that will only result in more corruption and lead to other problems in society.

 

[Sarah]

Paul10, again, I kindly ask you to leave my thread--you and a few others have hijacked it, and have completely deviated from my original intentions of this topic.

Sorry OP...I am partly to blame I guess since I completely disagree with Paul10 and posted it.
I thought.. as in most forums.. once a thread was started it belonged to the forum...and anyone can reply as long as it is on topic...and the topic here was Universal Health Care. I didn't realize that here you must reply to the exact question and not have debate or difference of opinion going on.

Again apologies...I haven't been here that long to know all the rules.

 

[sophocles07]

Communist just have problems with people being rich. They think the only fair way to do it is if every one is equal and dragged down to the low standard of the poor. However, this just drags down the standard of living for the general population.

To be fair to “Communists,” we should probably say that their problem is not that “some people are rich” but that there is an enormous level of world (America included) poverty, while a few tricksters, swindlers, etc. get money that is unnecessary (Exxon just recorded something like 40 billion dollars in profits, for example).

I think if we had less government interference in business, this would be very much reduced.

Same with health care. It is, as people have said in this thread, such an issue because of prices. Government-pharmaceutical monopolies, etc. If this were fixed, “universal health care” would not be such an issue.

 

[SeanEdwards]

None of you have addressed the facts about the situation with emerging infectious diseases.

How can our community/nation be secure from plagues with a healthcare system that tells some of the population that they can not see a doctor?

I don't have a real firm vision of what the ideal healthcare system should be, but I do think there needs to be some baseline medical care access to everybody, operating in parallel with a private pay to play system.

And this isn't a matter of forcing doctors to be slaves, or any such nonsense. This is more analogous to how our communities deal with fire fighting and law enforcement. We don't have a for-profit justice system, or competition in fire departments. Just as the community appropriates taxes for firefighters, and establishes organizations to provide that service, so should we also establish health care facilities to make sure people with a persistent cough aren't infecting hundreds of people with incurable TB.

None of that necessarily means the end of private healthcare. But whatever we end up with, we can't continue with this current system of leaving millions of people with no healthcare options.

 

[sophocles07]

None of you have addressed the facts about the situation with emerging infectious diseases.

How can our community/nation be secure from plagues with a healthcare system that tells some of the population that they can not see a doctor?

I don't have a real firm vision of what the ideal healthcare system should be, but I do think there needs to be some baseline medical care access to everybody, operating in parallel with a private pay to play system.

And this isn't a matter of forcing doctors to be slaves, or any such nonsense. This is more analogous to how our communities deal with fire fighting and law enforcement. We don't have a for-profit justice system, or competition in fire departments. Just as the community appropriates taxes for firefighters, and establishes organizations to provide that service, so should we also establish health care facilities to make sure people with a persistent cough aren't infecting hundreds of people with incurable TB.

None of that necessarily means the end of private healthcare. But whatever we end up with, we can't continue with this current system of leaving millions of people with no healthcare options.

I agree completely.

People who think "helping people" on a wider or even "universal" basis would make doctors "slaves" is absurd.

Hospitals charge far too much for treatment, in part because of Insurance companies; medication is way out of proportion. (Ex: my mother just had to have two visits for heart problems which amounted to over $65,000 dollars; the visits consisted of tests and emergency room visits; if she had not had company insurance backing, she would have simply had to die. I'm sure this happens all the time all over the country; a combination of horrible food ingredients (big corporations wanting profits over good product) and insurance/medical inflation of health costs (big corporations wanting profits over good product). Both of these corporate problems are results of government-business collusion in order to drive up costs through monopolizing resources.)

I don't know if health care is a "right", but I think it should at least be buyable by normal, lower-to-middle class individuals.

 

[therealjjj77]

None of you have addressed the facts about the situation with emerging infectious diseases.

How can our community/nation be secure from plagues with a healthcare system that tells some of the population that they can not see a doctor?

I don't have a real firm vision of what the ideal healthcare system should be, but I do think there needs to be some baseline medical care access to everybody, operating in parallel with a private pay to play system.

And this isn't a matter of forcing doctors to be slaves, or any such nonsense. This is more analogous to how our communities deal with fire fighting and law enforcement. We don't have a for-profit justice system, or competition in fire departments. Just as the community appropriates taxes for firefighters, and establishes organizations to provide that service, so should we also establish health care facilities to make sure people with a persistent cough aren't infecting hundreds of people with incurable TB.

None of that necessarily means the end of private healthcare. But whatever we end up with, we can't continue with this current system of leaving millions of people with no healthcare options.

This is an interesting subject all within itself. There's a good video to watch about this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The best way of fighting emerging infectious diseases is if people take care of themselves. If they don't, then they are making themselves susceptible to much health troubles or even possibly death. We need to put the responsibility back on the individual.

I might even go as far to suggest that government interventions have furthered stronger strands of viruses and bacteria to emerge.

 

[Sarah]

That vid above is a good one to watch. With Universal Health Care would Govt force ppl to vaccinate their kids if they choose not to?

This is more analogous to how our communities deal with fire fighting and law enforcement. We don't have a for-profit justice system, or competition in fire departments.

The difference is... Dr ...especially those who go into a specialty...pay much more money for their education.
If they're forced to accept GOVT payments only you'll see far less ppl going into medicine.

 

[SeanEdwards]

The best way of fighting emerging infectious diseases is if people take care of themselves.

How exactly does one go about protecting themself from a microorganism that can't be seen?

I've been researching MRSA for a school paper, and apparently this particular bug has been demonstrated to live on hard surfaces, like a counter top, for 20 weeks or more. Hospitals in the UK have practically given up on eradicating this bug. Even when they close hospitals down and steam clean everything, the infection rates don't go down.

It's estimated that 2.2 million Americans are permanently colonized with MRSA, and they don't even know it. They're walking around shedding death spores everywhere they go. How do you protect yourself from that?

If you're interested here's a link that describes how one 23 year old woman died from a MRSA infection. It's fun stuff. Her pulmonary blood vessels were eaten away by bacteria, and she drowned in her own blood:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_09_070507/ris11377_fm.html#0_pgfId-1095796

I might even go as far to suggest that government interventions have furthered stronger strands of viruses and bacteria to emerge.

I would agree that a lot of policies have contributed to this problem, not all of them government policies though. But those are bad policies, that doesn't mean the solution has to be no policies.

 

[therealjjj77]

How exactly does one go about protecting themself from a microorganism that can't be seen?

I've been researching MRSA for a school paper, and apparently this particular bug has been demonstrated to live on hard surfaces, like a counter top, for 20 weeks or more. Hospitals in the UK have practically given up on eradicating this bug. Even when they close hospitals down and steam clean everything, the infection rates don't go down.

It's estimated that 2.2 million Americans are permanently colonized with MRSA, and they don't even know it. They're walking around shedding death spores everywhere they go. How do you protect yourself from that?

If you're interested here's a link that describes how one 23 year old woman died from a MRSA infection. It's fun stuff. Her pulmonary blood vessels were eaten away by bacteria, and she drowned in her own blood:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_09_070507/ris11377_fm.html#0_pgfId-1095796




I would agree that a lot of policies have contributed to this problem, not all of them government policies though. But those are bad policies, that doesn't mean the solution has to be no policies.

Life threatening diseases have always existed. It is important to look at what has historically worked and what hasn't. First, there are no guarantees. In fact, people die every day and it is a part of life. No one dies of old age.

So we don't need to get all frantic when some new disease occurs.

Historically diseases have always succeeded best at taking out the weakest in a population. This ensures a stronger population. The ones who usually go are those who are eating unhealthy or abusing substances or are already having health difficulties.

So this acts to eliminate earlier(since everyone will die) those who are of poorer health, and ensures a more healthy next generation.

Is that such a bad thing?

This actually encourages healthy behavior among those who survive.

No one would eat healthy and exercise if there was no motivation to do so. This provides that motivation(without the intervening hand of government) to have a productive and robust society.