Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I can't help but notice that no one is interested in addressing the questions I raised back in post #170. Don't blame you either - that'll get the juices flowing all around the table. :p

---

Is that the one about paying for other people? Well assuming you've got a health policy you already are paying for other people to be ill, right up until the point when you fall ill when the others pay for you. I assume you're somewhere south of 60 and don't have any serious conditions. On that assumption anything you spend on healthcare cover is likely to be a waste, so you are in fact subsidising others covered by your company.

Whether its an insurance policy or state provided healthcare the model is that you're buying into a healthcare collective, as communist as that may sound to you. Whether it covers all or a few is a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of things. If you truly don't want to pay for others don't get insured and pay as you go instead. Its the only guarantee your money won't be spent on others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The coverage for the truly poor and indigent already exists.

But to play devil's advocate here, let me ask this. Just exactly why should any one be forced (taxed) to pay anything for someone else's health care? I'm not taxed to provide food for my neighbor, and that is one heck of a lot more important than health care. I pay for my home, my electric, my own healthcare, food, water, my retirement and everything else that I use. Why should I pay to provide those services to someone else? Each one can choose what is most important to them and buy accordingly. Can't afford it all? Then work harder or smarter until you can. I select my own options in life and am willing to live with my own bad choices. I see no reason why I, or any one else, must cover for others who are stupid, lazy or have a bad turn of luck.

Please note that the operative word in the last sentence is "must". Anyone can give what ever they wish for those less fortunate. My wife and I contribute generously to local and national charities. But that's a choice, not a requirement.

---

Since you asked.......

I happen to agree with your point of view. Some think that Medicare is unfair since you are expected to pay if you are able, to include your assets. I think it's only fair to expect people to use their own assets first, as many people have reduced incomes but fairly large personal assets.

As an example, both myself and my wife left our jobs early last spring. I took almost all of the summer off and went back to work. At this point she is considering finding something very limited hours part time just to break up her time when our daughter goes back to school.

Right now my income is only about 30% of what our combined income was a little over a year ago. But, our house, our cars, and everything in them is paid in full. We have decent savings and some small investments, and my income more than provides for us.

If we wanted to we could get lower cost insurance, even reduced price lunches for our kid at school. I'm sure the Obama plan would more than take care of our "low income" situation. It would most likely however, ignore the fact that we could pay for the insurance ourselves.



I personally think I should be fully expected to pay for our insurance while I have the means, regardless of whether that is current income or personal assets. I also think that I should never be expected to pay higher taxes for those that think otherwise. I will raise holy hell with any of my representatives that support that logic.



I do disagree with one statement of your post Starter, that being...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I'm not taxed to provide food for my neighbor, and that is one heck of a lot more important than health care.

---

In a situation such as my family, if we chose to take advantage of the reduced price school lunches, not to mention the other available programs, you would in fact be taxed to help put food in a persons mouth who can afford it themselves. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

But to play devil's advocate here, let me ask this. Just exactly why should any one be forced (taxed) to pay anything for someone else's health care? I'm not taxed to provide food for my neighbor, and that is one heck of a lot more important than health care. I pay for my home, my electric, my own healthcare, food, water, my retirement and everything else that I use. Why should I pay to provide those services to someone else?

---

In a purely private system you are paying to provide those services to someone else. Whether you happen to call the payment from your hands a "tax" or an "insurance premium" it still leaves your pocket and goes into someone else's who then provides the service, be it government or a private company. It really doesn't matter what colour you happen to paint the box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I see no reason why I, or any one else, must cover for others who are stupid, lazy or have a bad turn of luck.

---

That is the whole point of insurance is it not? By pooling money together, claims are paid out to those people who happen to be stupid, lazy and/or have a bad turn of luck.

The question isn't necessarily of whether you are or not going to pay, but rather what is equitable and who has control of the system. The latter question is further confused by the motive that drives the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The difference between the above and mandated or government provided is that with them you have no choice. No choice on what or how much coverage you get; the quality of same; the costs or anything else. Someone else is making those decisions for you - either a government clerk or a politician.

---

How is a politician or clerk making the decisions for you any different from a health insurance clerk doing the same? I find the way in which American insurance companies pick and choose which doctors you may use a rather distasteful form of rationing that I haven't seen people mention as yet. People talk about choice but how capable are you of ensuring that the hospitals your cover will send you to in case of particular diseases are the ones you would actually want to be sent to? What level of knowledge do you have that would let you choose? Are you aware of what treatments you are entitled to and what you aren't entitled to?

I'm afraid that with healthcare people keep talking about wanting a choice (the current NHS reforms are hot on that issue) yet when they're offered one they don't have a clue. Choice assumes you have knowledge about where's good and where isn't, what treatments are the best and what aren't. I'm sorry to get paternalistic but the vast majority of the population don't have a clue, they don't have the knowledge base to make such decisions.

As far as I can see therefore, all this stuff about people having a choice with private or public healthcare is all an illusion. The only INFORMED choice most Americans make with healthcare is whether to have some form of coverage or not.

Another point, it is perfectly possible to have varying levels of public healthcare. Singapore does it that way. Bronze gets you a bed on a ward, plain food and the medical care you need. Silver gets you your own room, a TV, nice food and AFAIK some improvement in nursing care (in Asia its a tradition that the family of the patient does most basic stuff like washing and changing the patient so the notion of different standards of nursing care isn't as alien). With Gold you practically get a hotel suite and a nurse detailed to you only. Bronze comes free, Silver and Gold require a premium.

There are a lot of models out there to take a look at. Lumping all 'socialised care' into one mass doesn't help at all.

And furthermore you ARE paying for others already, your taxes go towards Medicare/aid as it is and I believe the inefficiencies of denying non-acute healthcare and treating acute exacerbations or complications is self evident. That part certainly needs reform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

How is a politician or clerk making the decisions for you any different from a health insurance clerk doing the same? I find the way in which American insurance companies pick and choose which doctors you may use a rather distasteful form of rationing that I haven't seen people mention as yet. People talk about choice but how capable are you of ensuring that the hospitals your cover will send you to in case of particular diseases are the ones you would actually want to be sent to? What level of knowledge do you have that would let you choose? Are you aware of what treatments you are entitled to and what you aren't entitled to?

---

At least with my insurance (at every job I've had so far), we've had a choice between at least two networks. So you pick the one that serves your particular area, or certain need, etc. Sure some don't have all the knowledge that they should (I'm probably in that group). But most of the time, you can opt for some other network that may serve your particular needs better. I don't deny that there is some rationing in the current system. But I would like someone to admit that in EVERY form there will be some rationing, and that if it is a government controlled system you have no further option. ie Canadians comming to the US for some treatments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I'm afraid that with healthcare people keep talking about wanting a choice (the current NHS reforms are hot on that issue) yet when they're offered one they don't have a clue. Choice assumes you have knowledge about where's good and where isn't, what treatments are the best and what aren't. I'm sorry to get paternalistic but the vast majority of the population don't have a clue, they don't have the knowledge base to make such decisions.

---

One of the responsibilities of a free society is to inform yourself. If you do not, you will suffer the consequencies. It's always a risk. Life is full of risks. That's what makes life worth living. If you have "the Government Nanny" to take care of you at every turn, thus taking out all risk, you also remove all reward. Life's hard, wear a helmet. Sorry to be crass, but it's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

As far as I can see therefore, all this stuff about people having a choice with private or public healthcare is all an illusion. The only INFORMED choice most Americans make with healthcare is whether to have some form of coverage or not.

---

I know it sounds quaint and simplistic, and many people don't understand it. But I want the freedom to choose. I want the freedom to succeed. I accept that comes with the risk that I will fail miserably. Again, one of the responsibilities you have in living in a free society is to inform yourself. If you don't ... well maybe we should start a government program that hands out helmets. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Another point, it is perfectly possible to have varying levels of public healthcare. Singapore does it that way. Bronze gets you a bed on a ward, plain food and the medical care you need. Silver gets you your own room, a TV, nice food and AFAIK some improvement in nursing care (in Asia its a tradition that the family of the patient does most basic stuff like washing and changing the patient so the notion of different standards of nursing care isn't as alien). With Gold you practically get a hotel suite and a nurse detailed to you only. Bronze comes free, Silver and Gold require a premium.

---

We already have that here. Bronze would be sort of like Medicare/Medicaid. Silver would be like most insurance plans. An Gold would be what those evil greedy executives have. Why does the government have to impose these levels on us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

There are a lot of models out there to take a look at. Lumping all 'socialised care' into one mass doesn't help at all.

---

Yes we already have "socialised care" that doesn't work. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but fix what we have before you go mucking up the entire system. Why is that such a hard concept?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

And furthermore you ARE paying for others already, your taxes go towards Medicare/aid as it is and I believe the inefficiencies of denying non-acute healthcare and treating acute exacerbations or complications is self evident. That part certainly needs reform.

---

Yes reform is needed. Reform does not mean that you have to overhaul the entire system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

You (and others) still don't get it. It's not the coverage, or what it covers, it's how you get there. I'm talking about freedom of choice. Some may opt for NO coverage, it wouldn't be my choice, but I respect their right to make that decision for themselves. I also would never demand that choice be required of others - even though it'll save them a lot of money. Why then do so many people think that requiring the other extreme, ie: forcing coverage for all through taxation, is an appropriate policy?

I'm talking about basic personal freedom here. The ability to make your own choices, for good or for bad, and then live with them.

---

Starter, you are wasting your time. It is like the Borg collective, they cannot see that independence in thought and choice on this subject is in keeping with the way I have noticed a lot of Americans think.

I think in a perfect world, a healthcare system that gave everyone the best coverage and didnt cost anyone anything would be a utopian thing, problem is we don't live there. Obama says this program is a really good deal, his detractors don't believe him, the man on the street who has healthcare doesn't want the gov't taking his choices away and the whole damhned thing will cost more than the 1 trillion dollars Obama says it will cost. OH YA..and the country is broke. The inmates are running the asylum on this one.

I believe in having some form of public healthcare system and I wouldn't go for this mess.

I live in Canada where I still have to carry private insurance for a trip in the ambulance but my medical care is "Free". I pay for drugs while my care is "Free". I donate money to the hospital fund yet it is supposed to be "Funded" ANd I cant leave my doctor because 5 million out of 34 million people in Canada cant find a family doctor taking patients. So even tho I may not like my current doctor, I cant leave. THAT is the model that Obama's supporters really are holding up as an example. Here is the question they have to answer: If this goes through, will you Senator, or you Congressman use this system???OF course not, they have their own program....and you cant have access to it. They know what's best...just trust em.

You Yanks have fought a revolution over less....

The original owners failed too, however!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I don't deny that there is some rationing in the current system. But I would like someone to admit that in EVERY form there will be some rationing,

---

I've been very careful to state clearly that ALL systems ration to some degree, I suggest you read my posts again. I've also stated that politicians everywhere have been afraid to admit this to their population, instead trying to maintain some illusion that universal and total coverage is somehow possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

and that if it is a government controlled system you have no further option. ie Canadians comming to the US for some treatments.

---

You're wrong I'm afraid. Canada might have a pretty rigid system but in the UK and in most other places if you don't like the government system you can go private. Why do you think in Britain people still buy private health insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

One of the responsibilities of a free society is to inform yourself. If you do not, you will suffer the consequencies. It's always a risk. Life is full of risks. That's what makes life worth living. If you have "the Government Nanny" to take care of you at every turn, thus taking out all risk, you also remove all reward. Life's hard, wear a helmet. Sorry to be crass, but it's true.

---

In principle I agree with you and I generally oppose anything that pushes for a nanny state, but I also suggest to you that issues such as healthcare etc etc are far too complex for anyone to be truly informed. In my earlier posts I suggested that even the writers of Obama's reforms (or him himself) do not FULLY understand the current system and the impact of those reforms, how are normal Americans, even senators etc supposed to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yes we already have "socialised care" that doesn't work. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but fix what we have before you go mucking up the entire system. Why is that such a hard concept?

---

Because all I'm hearing from you is a comparison between the American system and all other systems lumped together under the monolithic 'socialised healthcare' banner which is nonsense. There are many ways to skin a cat and no two countries have an identical system with variable rates of private/state health provision. All systems have much to gain from studying others and picking and choosing the best bits to adopt themselves. I believe the US system has things to teach others but I don't see why you can't accept that there are things other countries do which the US can learn from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

THAT is the model that Obama's supporters really are holding up as an example.

---

If Canada is the model Obama's supporters are using then why don't their reforms resemble the Canadian system in any way whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I've been very careful to state clearly that ALL systems ration to some degree, I suggest you read my posts again. I've also stated that politicians everywhere have been afraid to admit this to their population, instead trying to maintain some illusion that universal and total coverage is somehow possible.

---

I wasn't really refering to you, or really anyone else on this site, but the politicians. They keep perpetuating the "illusion that universal and total coverage is somehow possible", without any rationing or other nasty things the "EVIL" insurance companies do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

You're wrong I'm afraid. Canada might have a pretty rigid system but in the UK and in most other places if you don't like the government system you can go private. Why do you think in Britain people still buy private health insurance?

---

Yes but Obama's stated goal has been to transition into a single payer plan. That's why his "Public Option" is so distastefull to so many, we understand that it's being set up to kill private insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

In principle I agree with you and I generally oppose anything that pushes for a nanny state, but I also suggest to you that issues such as healthcare etc etc are far too complex for anyone to be truly informed. In my earlier posts I suggested that even the writers of Obama's reforms (or him himself) do not FULLY understand the current system and the impact of those reforms, how are normal Americans, even senators etc supposed to?

---

If no one including Senators, Congressmen, and the President can fully understand it, tell me again why we're going to turn things over to them? People in a free society have the responsibility to inform themselves on issues that effect them. If they don't they'll suffer to consequences. I know that's harsh, and I'm sorry about that. And that's why charities and the like are set up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Because all I'm hearing from you is a comparison between the American system and all other systems lumped together under the monolithic 'socialised healthcare' banner which is nonsense. There are many ways to skin a cat and no two countries have an identical system with variable rates of private/state health provision. All systems have much to gain from studying others and picking and choosing the best bits to adopt themselves. I believe the US system has things to teach others but I don't see why you can't accept that there are things other countries do which the US can learn from.

---

Yes there are plenty of ways to skin the healthcare cat. All I'm saying is I would like to skin that cat with the least amount of government "help" that I can. Is that so wrong? Why is the government the solution to all problems? Why can't individuals take responsibility for their own lives? And yes I do lump this proposal into a monolithic 'socialised healthcare' banner, used interchangeably with the Canadian model. I do that because that's where I see this current proposal heading. The President, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the "leaders" in Washington all seem to want single payer eventually. This "Public Option" is just the way to get there slowly so that the uninformed won't sqeal too much along the way.

If anyone in Washington was talking seriously about actual REFORM rather than total over-haul. I think it would be a different story.