universal healthcare

[Juan_Bottom]

F*ck Google, I'm with you guys.....................

[tzor]

If we are going to argue that because there is the possibility of fraud, especially fraud of this variety, which one would hope is uncommon...or at least not that common, then you will never come up with a system that approaches working.

Actually my point is quite the opposite. Most so called "solutions" suffer from the single approach fallicy, they fail to understand the wisdom of the founding fathers of the United States who realized that any power inherant in a system will bring out the worst in people and only through a way of balancing the forces by checks and balances can the system continue without falling into eitehr tyrany or oligarchy.

To suggest that "Nation A" is good and "Nation B" is bad is misleading; depending on your single approach the tables can and are frequently turned. Bad things happen in the United States as well. We might never know how many people in the U.S. die each year because they went to the wrong doctor / hospital and as a result their true problem was not realized or they didn't receive the proper procedure that would have prevented the esclation of their problem and eventual death.

I was listening to a series on NPR a while ago about various nations health policies. Even the ones with good systems often have significant flaws that make the system unstable under the long term. You can be affordable, but often at the expense of hospitals and doctors which stresses the system and will eventually break the system. You can eliminate hospitals and doctors but this puts stress on the ones that remain and prevents the necessary care that is needed in order to prevent higher costs and more surgical procedures because medical problems get put off and become worse and more complex.

[Pedronicus]

btw The NHS is the world's largest health service and the world's fourth-largest employer; only the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Indian Railways, and Wal-Mart employ more people directly.[4]

[PLAYER57832]

F*ck Google, I'm with you guys.....................

Hmmm... I think I preferred Alaska, myself. Only place I knew were a single female (not matter looks) could walk into a bar and be sure of plenty of dances IF she wanted ... and to have absolutely NO worries. That is, fights could well break out around you, and you might want to avoid the accidental spillover, but feel even the least bit threatened and several big guys are there to IMMEDIATELY oust the offender.

(at least, thats how it used to be ... ) Haven't been there in a while... And, the place would likely be quite different with a few kids (not to mention a husband) in tow!

[PLAYER57832]

btw The NHS is the world's largest health service and the world's fourth-largest employer; only the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Indian Railways, and Wal-Mart employ more people directly.[4]

And though Wal-Mart offers health insurance, it costs too much for the overwhelming majority of their employees. So, what that really means is that or tax dollars are going to keep those toilet paper rolls cheap ... and the stockholders rich.

But then, Walmart "can't afford" to pay for health care. It would just cost too much!

[Juan_Bottom]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/early ... 200706.pdf

The amount of uninsured is rising every year, as premiums continue to skyrocket and wages stagnate. From 2004 to 2005 the number of uninsured rose 1.3 million, and rose up nearly 6 million from 2001-2005. Leighton Ku, "Census Revises Estimates Of The Number Of Uninsured People," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 5, 2007 http://www.cbpp.org/4-5-07health.htm. With 44.8 uninsured in 2005, in 2007 the number will be much higher. Professors Todd Gilmer and Richard Kronick, in "It's The Premiums, Stupid: Projections Of The Uninsured Through 2013," Health Affairs, 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.143, "project that the number of non-elderly uninsured Americans will grow from forty-five million in 2003 to fifty-six million by 2013." According to these authors, by now the number of non-elderly uninsured by this date clearly would be nearly 50 million.

According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
I want to see the figures for how many people that have insurance are killed by it, too. But that is a pipe dream.


Yup. America's plan is awesome. F*CK!!!! Europe is soooooooooooo stoopid.

[mr. incrediball]

Thats not addressing the issue of government controlling something else.

Im not trying to be the proverbial cynic here, but do we really need government's hand in something else in our life? They can hardly keep together what they have atm.

i really don't understand arguments like this.

after all, in terms of hospital management, what is the real difference between the government and a corporation?

the only difference i can think of is that with a government run system, all the hospitals in a nation are run by the same organization.

which, if you, for example, were born in London, had a history of heart problems, and then had a heart-attack while on holiday in Liverpool, is a good thing, since the hospitals in London and Liverpool can share records easily, surely?

to say that government-run things are "bad" and company-run things are "good" with no evidence to back it up is very narrow-minded.

[The1exile]

to say that government-run things are "bad" and company-run things are "good" with no evidence to back it up is very narrow-minded.

hear hear.

[PLAYER57832]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. .... ****deleted to save space, read in full above****

Good data, but add to this the number of people who have "insurance" that covers squat.

Blue Cross came up with one of the worst. I won't reiterate the full speil, but many, many folks at my husband's old plant would just as soon the company DID NOT offer insurance. If they had no insurance available, they could enroll in PA state's CHIP program. It is NOT free, but covers everything ... and the premiums are reasonable.

THAT is one issue I have not yet seen answered by those against government health care. The REAL customers of health insurance are NOT the employees, the ones using the care. It is the companies. In the old days, companies had pressure to provide benefits, both because the job market was tighter AND because the bosses could look around and see the results. Now, the people making the decisions are in a far distant city . Employees cannot even communicate with them, even if the company executives were willing to listen. FURTHER, the executives answer more and more to stockholders who are even more remote, often are not even truly concerned with company profits. Stockholders pretty much only care about stock profits.

For a market system to work, the user/ buyer has to be the one making the choice in the purchase. Yet another reason why our current US system is not really a "market" system at all, even now.

[Juan_Bottom]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. .... [deleted to save space, read in full above] [\quote]
Good data, but add to this the number of people who have "insurance" that covers squat.

Blue Cross came up with one of the worst. I won't reiterate the full speil, but many, many folks at my husband's old plant would just as soon the company DID NOT offer insurance. If they had no insurance available, they could enroll in PA state's CHIP program. It is NOT free, but covers everything ... and the premiums are reasonable.

THAT is one issue I have not yet seen answered by those against government health care. The REAL customers of health insurance are NOT the employees, the ones using the care. It is the companies. In the old days, companies had pressure to provide benefits, both because the job market was tighter AND because the bosses could look around and see the results. Now, the people making the decisions are in a far distant city . Employees cannot even communicate with them, even if the company executives were willing to listen. FURTHER, the executives answer more and more to stockholders who are even more remote, often are not even truly concerned with company profits. Stockholders pretty much only care about stock profits.

For a market system to work, the user/ buyer has to be the one making the choice in the purchase. Yet another reason why our current US system is not really a "market" system at all, even now.

Thank-you Player57832, you are a poster whom I really respect. You always have something relevant to add.

[DangerBoy]

What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

the fact that it's not really free

[PLAYER57832]

What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

the fact that it's not really free

Technically you are correct, but the problem is we actually already DO HAVE "nationalized" AND truly free care right now.... its called head for your local emergency room for those with too much money to qualify for the medicaid , and medicaid, etc for those who don't. A well managed nationalized system would be far cheaper in the short and long term.

[Curmudgeonx]

"Well managed" governmental bureaucracy = oxymoron

Sweden has upto a 59% individual tax rate, with VAT tax on top of that. US has a significantly lower tax burden

The nature of capitalism is that the market will correct based upon the individual consumers spending their capital freely towards the products that they want and feel they need.

Without going into individual plights, which are moving but are based upon a series of choices resulting in consequences which could have been avoided by making the right choices re: lifestyle/spouse/choosing to procreate probably 10 years ago, I am sufficiently selfish to not want to give 50% of my income to the government so that they can f*ck the spending of same up.

Question: What is the largest population in the developed countries that is served by universal healthcare?

Canada, Sweden etc. have populations less than the New York City metro area. Easy to tax the living hell out of 9 million people to provide them services, now try it with 280 million people and see how bad it gets fucked up.

The system we have is "unfair" for the lower middle class to middle class (say family of 4 with income between $25K to $60K) or singles between $18K to $30K. However, most people get the high quality health services they require. We in the U.S. have exchanged governmental management of our health care system with a quasi-private management (insurance companies). As shitty as our present system may be, I cannot believe that increasing the tax burden on individuals who already pay a premium for health care would be anymore fair. Shifting the burden from lower middle class to the upper middle class would only serve to widen the rift between the haves and the have-nots and put a cap on our goal of a freely vertical economic society.

I have no children. I have made that choice through careful planning. I do not feel any impetus to pay for anyone else's children. I acknowledge that an educational system is beneficial for the general good and ultimately for me, so I pay my property taxes willingly to fund a free educational system for the masses. Satisfactory education for everyone benefits me; satisfactory health care for people without health insurance does not benefit me.

I would choose to opt out, and want the liberty to opt out. I personally have a HSA, which allows me to pay $150 a month into a retirement/health care account, and provides me with health insurance with a $5000 annual deductible and 100% coverage after that for about $60 per month. I pick my medical services provider, and can pay them out of the money that I save in the account while getting credit towards my deductible. This seems like a fair compromise, gives the maximum choice to me, gives me benefits for staying healthy, and only suffers from the inefficiencies inherent in the management by insurance companies.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't see universal health care as a tax burden. Firstly there is no American plan yet, so who knows what the taxes are? And secondly, though you may be paying health care taxes, you won't be paying for private health care. Doesn't that balance out this hypothetical question? I don't see a difference between this system, and the one we have today, in that respect.

[Curmudgeonx]

I don't see universal health care as a tax burden. Firstly there is no American plan yet, so who knows what the taxes are? And secondly, though you may be paying health care taxes, you won't be paying for private health care. Doesn't that balance out this hypothetical question? I don't see a difference between this system, and the one we have today, in that respect.

An increase from the 31% percent tax burden to even 35% would be an increase of $4000 a year, compared to my present costs with my HSA and my wife's HSA cost to provide health insurance costs of $1200 a year, with the remaining present costs of $3000 a year being transferred into an account that, if unused, will be waiting for me in retirement. Roughly same cost if my taxes only go up 4%, but 1) the tax increase is probably going to be higher, and 2) 3/4 of my present spending is MINE (if unused over the next 28 years) to retire on. Helluva better plan in my opinion.

So, anyone able to answer the population and universal health care question? Anyone want to discuss scale of economy and governmental inefficiences?

[PLAYER57832]

Sweden has upto a 59% individual tax rate, with VAT tax on top of that. US has a significantly lower tax burden

You get what you pay for.

The nature of capitalism is that the market will correct based upon the individual consumers spending their capital freely towards the products that they want and feel they need.

EXCEPT ... you miss the point that the users of health care are NOT the consumers of health insurance. Which is why the insurance being provided is becoming poorer and poorer, unless you happen to be one of those lucky folks in the already higher paid positions.

Also, as was explained above, even when the consumer is the user of health care, health care does not operate under the same marketing principals as other products, for a lot of reasons. (the need for specialized education to make an informed decision, inability to "shop around" when sick/injured, the absolute necessity of the care ... and the increased expense to all when it is delayed).

Satisfactory education for everyone benefits me; satisfactory health care for people without health insurance does not benefit me.

I see, so waht are you going to do when the services you want are not available because the folks doing those jobs are sick ... because they could not get tot he doctor in a timely manner.

Or, more to the point, how do you expect to avoid the next epidemic that starts because too many people don't seek care before they have passed their illness on to 2000 others.

That is, even setting aside the whole issue of whether it is OK to just let people die because they cannot afford care.

I personally have a HSA, which allows me to pay $150 a month into a retirement/health care account, and provides me with health insurance with a $5000 annual deductible and 100% coverage after that for about $60 per month. I pick my medical services provider, and can pay them out of the money that I save in the account while getting credit towards my deductible.

And if you even begin to imagine that the vast majority have anything close , you are DREAMING!!!!!

Before you make statements about how the current system is working just fine ... I suggest you really LOOK AT how it actually works for more than just the lucky folks' at the top.

[Curmudgeonx]

HSAs are available to almost every person in America. Contact your local private insurance salesman. My wife's was bought privately through an agent for Golden Rule. After a job transition, when I had classic health insurance for 3 years and never used it once, I signed up for a HSA through my employer, but I could have just as easily bought a policy for the same price through a private insurance carrier. You get an insurance policy and a bank account with tax-deferred savings.

HSAs are not for people at the top; they are available to everyone. Your choice to be uninformed=your consequences relying upon the classic health insurance paradigm that is outdated as employers will not pay for health insurance what they did for the generation prior to ours.

A liberal pollyanna wrote:

And if you even begin to imagine that the vast majority have anything close , you are DREAMING!!!!!

Before you make statements about how the current system is working just fine ... I suggest you really LOOK AT how it actually works for more than just the lucky folks' at the top.

My insurance is nothing special, and my income, while presently good for my geographic area, is nothing special. My present circumstances are based upon significant decisions in my past which resulted in positive circumstances. At the same time, I could work at a fast food restaurant (again), and have similar results, albeit over a longer time.

[Jenos Ridan]

Today I was told that the US is the only country in the western world that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens.
Assuming this is true:
1) Why has there not been a revolution over this?
2) What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

Our health care was fine until the government started fucking with it in the 60's and 70's. Now we are stuck with what we got with the only hope to returning to where we were before Medicare by means of a Revolution. That is where you are correct, sir. A Revolution is happening, people are slowly waking up, but it will happen, and this is one of the many issues we will be revolting against. Government intervention is not the answer, despite generations of brainwashing! Less government and more freedom is the answer to prosperity, peace, and friendly trade relations.

"The best government is the one which governs least" or something like that.

I'm not mocking, I seriously tend to agree with that line of thought. But for the life of me, I cannot seem to remember which Founding Father said that. Was it Franklin? Sounds like something he would say, him or Jefferson.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't see universal health care as a tax burden. Firstly there is no American plan yet, so who knows what the taxes are? And secondly, though you may be paying health care taxes, you won't be paying for private health care. Doesn't that balance out this hypothetical question? I don't see a difference between this system, and the one we have today, in that respect.

An increase from the 31% percent tax burden to even 35% would be an increase of $4000 a year, compared to my present costs with my HSA and my wife's HSA cost to provide health insurance costs of $1200 a year, with the remaining present costs of $3000 a year being transferred into an account that, if unused, will be waiting for me in retirement. Roughly same cost if my taxes only go up 4%, but 1) the tax increase is probably going to be higher, and 2) 3/4 of my present spending is MINE (if unused over the next 28 years) to retire on. Helluva better plan in my opinion.

So, anyone able to answer the population and universal health care question? Anyone want to discuss scale of economy and governmental inefficiences?

I'm lost. There is no UHC plan, so who knows if you would even end up paying more than you do now?--was my point. On average Americans pay 17% of their wages on healthcare.

http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d ... Bib3guY29t

But if every American pays, the costs should go down.

You and JENOS have missed some stuff, because these arguments are repeats. And my European friends do not tolerate tardyness.

[Juan_Bottom]

Thats not addressing the issue of government controlling something else.

Im not trying to be the proverbial cynic here, but do we really need government's hand in something else in our life? They can hardly keep together what they have atm.

i really don't understand arguments like this.

after all, in terms of hospital management, what is the real difference between the government and a corporation?

the only difference i can think of is that with a government run system, all the hospitals in a nation are run by the same organization.

which, if you, for example, were born in London, had a history of heart problems, and then had a heart-attack while on holiday in Liverpool, is a good thing, since the hospitals in London and Liverpool can share records easily, surely?

to say that government-run things are "bad" and company-run things are "good" with no evidence to back it up is very narrow-minded.

It is often attributed to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine — “That government is best which governs least” — actually it was written by Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau was paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review: “The best government is that which governs least."

But this was the pro-government arguement from the last page.

[cowboyz]

no

[Curmudgeonx]

I'm lost. There is no UHC plan, so who knows if you would even end up paying more than you do now?--was my point. On average Americans pay 17% of their wages on healthcare.

http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d ... Bib3guY29t

But if every American pays, the costs should go down.

You and JENOS have missed some stuff, because these arguments are repeats. And my European friends do not tolerate tardyness.

My point was that there are viable alternatives to the classic paradigm of employer determined/paid for health insurance that does not require UHC. You also have no idea how much a UHC plan for 280 million people would cost, since the examples that have been provided are for much smaller populations. I would anticipate that once the inefficient and greedy m-fuckers in Washington get their hands on UHC, it would cost a helluva lot more than a 4% increase in my tax rate. I think that 4% increase is conservative; Sweden goes up to 59%, UK is how much for top tax bracket?

Nothing is free. Someone is going to have to pay for it. Your position is that the individuals that have more resources should pay for this form of care for those not as successful. Well, f*ck that. Life is not fair and don't let the casino television commercials fool you, not everyone is a winner. Compassion for people who make poor choices goes only so far for me. I buy into the individualistic-first concept; you do not. As I stated in my very first post in this thread: The present system (employer provided health insurance managed by financial decisions instead of health care decisions) sucks; I am willing to listen to a solution that does not f*ck me in the wallet on the grounds of "fairness for the less privileged". The US has a traditionally vertical society; the "less privileged" are generally victims of their own bad choices and ignorance not because of a set of insurmountable circumstances. People choose to be idiots, get knocked up at 15, drop out of a decent "free" educational system, use drugs that impact their ability to function, etc.

I pay enough for the stupid choices I have made in my life without having to pay for other's bad choices.

You seem to believe that UHC will be a pancea, but you have not answered my basic questions re: economy of scale for 300 million people, efficient management for 300 million, and who is going to pay for it? (Hint, $80 billion a month into the Iraqi conflict would go a long way towards funding, but how will you get the military-industrial corporate hogs out of the government trough?, especially when the present insurance companies are getting fat at the present health care trough?)

[Snorri1234]

"Well managed" governmental bureaucracy = oxymoron

Sweden has upto a 59% individual tax rate, with VAT tax on top of that. US has a significantly lower tax burden

Their healthcare still costs less than the US one though. That includes the taxpaid stuff.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't see universal health care as a tax burden. Firstly there is no American plan yet, so who knows what the taxes are? And secondly, though you may be paying health care taxes, you won't be paying for private health care. Doesn't that balance out this hypothetical question? I don't see a difference between this system, and the one we have today, in that respect.

An increase from the 31% percent tax burden to even 35% would be an increase of $4000 a year, compared to my present costs with my HSA and my wife's HSA cost to provide health insurance costs of $1200 a year, with the remaining present costs of $3000 a year being transferred into an account that, if unused, will be waiting for me in retirement. Roughly same cost if my taxes only go up 4%, but 1) the tax increase is probably going to be higher, and 2) 3/4 of my present spending is MINE (if unused over the next 28 years) to retire on. Helluva better plan in my opinion.

So, anyone able to answer the population and universal health care question? Anyone want to discuss scale of economy and governmental inefficiences?

I see, so according your figures, in Sweden your tax burden would be roughly $4000 more ... yet, you NOW pay $4200 .. and consider that a good deal?

[Curmudgeonx]

I see, so according your figures, in Sweden your tax burden would be roughly $4000 more ... yet, you NOW pay $4200 .. and consider that a good deal?

My tax burden in Sweden could be quite a bit more than $4K . . . and you completely ignored the point that of the $4K i spend on healthcare now, $3K of it goes into a retirement/health care slush account that is tax deferred unil 28 years from now when I retire.