Universal HealthCare - Why? - The Pros & Cons

Universal HealthCare - Why? - The Pros & Cons

Universal HealthCare - UHC - is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms.

Why do we need it?
* Is one reason because costs have been driven out of the reach of the average citizen?

Is it economically & ethically sustainable?
* Is the funding for this Universal HealthCare going to be like trying to fill a Black Hole?
* Will it go the way of Social Security whereas there are more users than payers?
* Will medical services have to eventually be 'rationed' like in some countries causing death rather than curing the sick?

Experiences:
While most industrialized/advanced countries have UHC, with exception of the USA & Turkey, if you do have it what are your experiences pro & con? And are these experiences typical/universal throughout your system?

Are you perfectly happy with your system? If yes, why? If not, do you think it can be improved? How?

Have you become disillusioned with your system? Why?

Is your system ' FREE ', or do you have a co-pay/out-of-pocket/excess payment? If you pay, is it getting more expensive? Was it always this way?

We would like to discuss these issues with you, & hear your opinions whether you agree with UHC or you disagree with UHC.

Please state the Country you are from, or the Country you have had direct first hand experience in/with their system.

Please, try to keep the discussion civil, & show those with differing opinions than your own the basic respect due all.

Please take time to answer our poll, even if you have decided not to take part in the debate. Thanks

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I thought Medicaid was supposed to be for low-income people. It's been around for something like 45 years now. Hey, I want everyone to be covered by some sort of health plan as well. I just want to have a little choice in what sort of coverage I have. One size does not fit all.

One size fits all, what does that even mean? It's a meaningless talking point. Someone gets ill you treat them it's not rocket science, it's called not being a heartless SOB! Every other western nation seems to manage.

You know, you even have the former heads of one of these blood sucking insurance companies with a sudden change of conscious speaking out against the private insurers, stating they intentionally lied about the film Sicko and such like, give it up. There is no argument against universal health care, there really isn't!

I'd say that 47 million is an under statement too. I thought it was closer to a third without medical insurance and a further third with poor coverage. So that's only a third with decent coverage, quite insane.

Medicare is a drop in the ocean also as to how far it needs to go.

Originally posted by street_spirit:

One size fits all, what does that even mean? It's a meaningless talking point. Someone gets ill you treat them it's not rocket science, it's called not being a heartless SOB! Every other western nation seems to manage.

For someone with a nose for sniffing out talking points, you have quite a few of them in your repertoire. I'll number some more of them as follows, aside from the "if you're not jumping up and down for universal coverage you're a heartless SOB" angle:

Originally posted by street_spirit:

1. You know, you even have the former heads of one of these blood sucking insurance companies with a sudden change of conscious speaking out against the private insurers, stating they intentionally lied about the film Sicko and such like, give it up. There is no argument against universal health care, there really isn't!

The "my way is obviously, self-evidently right...why argue with these idiots???" approach. Shrewd.

Originally posted by street_spirit:

2. I'd say that 47 million is an under statement too. I thought it was closer to a third without medical insurance and a further third with poor coverage. So that's only a third with decent coverage, quite insane.

I'd say that it's 3 million. Or 75 million. Or 300,000. It misses the point.

Originally posted by street_spirit:

3. Medicare is a drop in the ocean also as to how far it needs to go.

Why is that "drop in the ocean" so sickly? It isn't just Medicare, it's Medicaid (q.v.)

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The "my way is obviously, self-evidently right...why argue with these idiots???" approach. Shrewd.

Yet no valid alternative has been put forth as of yet.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I'd say that it's 3 million. Or 75 million. Or 300,000. It misses the point.

It does not miss the point at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong fanfaron, but you were/are in the Armed Forces, correct?
That means you have excellent insurance of course and indeed would be happy with it.
But what do you say to the fellow who works his butt off just to feed his family and pay the bills? Get another job?
It is quite a valid point even if you wish it wasn't.

I'm still waiting for someone who is opposed to UHC to post a valid alternative.
The current state of affairs is unacceptable.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Are you perfectly happy with your system? If yes, why? If not, do you think it can be improved? How?

I'll give my inital reaction before reading the rest of the thread.
USA, Oregon
No, I am not happy with the system. It is the law in Oregon that you have to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle, and a seatbelt when you're in a car. The argument that won and made these law was that people injuring themselves cost money to others. And that wasn't even with UNIVERSAL health care.

Helping people is good. Forcing people to be safe so that you don't have to help them is evil. I love and respect the people who go out of their way to show what is dangerous and in what way it is dangerous. I hate and despise the people who tell me I can't do those dangerous things.

I want to do dangerous things sometimes: spelunking, rock climbing, pickup surfing, going barefoot, eating fatty and salty foods, whitewater rafting, skydiving, hang-gliding, mountain climbing (I've done all of those). I would surely thank anyone who helped pay my medical bills if I got hurt. But if they say "I'll help you, but only if you don't do dangerous things." then I will refuse their help. And if they say they will help me no matter what, but make the dangerous things I do illegal then, I will HATE them for their false charity.

That's one reason why I am opposed to universal health care. The other reason comes from the other direction. : If someone goes mountain climbing wearing a t-shirt and shorts and gets frostbite and loses a limb or two then I am not obligated to help them. If it's easy to learn the dangers and easy to prepare for them, and you don't prepare, then it is not anyone else's responsibility to help you deal with the consequences of your actions.

But what should social medicine provide? Innoculations. Studies to see what diets are best. Advertising/education to show people what diets and lifestyles are most healthy. Care of those who contract diseases (unless they knowingly exposed themselves for their own pleasure). People who had accidents despite the care they took. In sum: things that happened to people through no fault of their own. I would support a universal health care system that worked that way. Is there such a system? I haven't seen one.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

How can providing health care for the 16% of Americans who don't have insurance add only 4% to our nation's health care bill? The only health care now available to those without insurance is emergency rooms — the most expensive and least efficient mechanism for handling medical care.

As to that... the cost to the nation is not that they have to go to the emergency room. The cost to the rest of us is that they get it whether they can pay or not. If you don't want to pay the 12% extra, then make it so that you don't have to pay for them going to the emergency room.
Well... that's not all the reason for the cost. Part of it is that hospitals charge more for emergency care. If they didn't then the percentages would be different.

Originally posted by Ward:

I have a cochlear implant. At the time I received it, it costed £25,000 for the assessment, the implant operation and the hardware plus £12,300 for the initial few years rehabilitation. It costs a further unspecified amount in terms of reprogramming, monitoring, parts, batteries, replacements, upgrades, etc.

Because I live in the UK, it costs me nothing.

Without it, I wouldn't be able to talk today. I'm totally (as in zero hearing) deaf without it.

So, guess which way I'm voting.

Because I've got health care my antidepressants cost around 5% of what they would otherwise. And the only reason i accept that discount is that others do too. I'd rather it not exist. But hey, since I'm paying into the system I'll milk it for all it's worth - all the while advocating an end to the milking.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

PSSST, Seriously, I'm Pro-UHC, but I don't think it can be done right under today's political climate. Hope I'm wrong.

That's me too. If it could be done right I'd support it. But people have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will not be done right even if it logically could. And it isn't just today's political climate either

Originally posted by Immanis:

Yeah, perhaps if the politicians had to deal with the same corrupted health care system as a normal citizens do they would be more eager to do the right thing for once. But again, to do that you needed several honest, disinterested politicians and it is a known fact that one of those born only every millenia or so. And even then, they hardly made beyond town mayor in small communities.

Sadly, even the poorest citizens are eager to do the wrong thing. Either of them may be honest or disinterested, the problem is they make their decisions based on the various humours of their internal organs are producing rather than rational thought.

Originally posted by ersi:

Another (big) part of the problem in health care in the west is that we have privatised drug production everywhere. This also means subsidies for private profit, not general welfare.

True. Very true. That's one place where government should intervene. If a drug is useful but not profitable, it MUST be produced somehow.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Unfortunately, more people know about the US only through rumor and anecdote.

Maybe, but I'd estimate significantly more people know about the US through experience, than US citizens who know about the EU through experience (for example).

I think you're right. I did experience the French medical system. I was really sick with some flu or other and asking the doctor where and how to pay for the meds and treatment. He told me how to turn in the reciepts to get reimbursed for my treatment. And he said (translated) "We aren't barbarians, after all." ... I chose not to turn in the reciepts, since I was able to pay for them at the time.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

And would cutting military spending by 25% "fix" Medicaid and Medicare?

I really don't know, but why speak about paying for all of our health care costs out of defense spending.

The pie chart is for FY 2009. Our concentration on defense spending is 'broken' and needs 'fixing'. By contrast Medicaid and Medicare are just fine. But neither defense spending nor spending on health care are independent of political considerations, so we aren't talking about science. We're talking about opinions. My opinion is that H1N1 and assorted health matters are more of a threat than China and our other bogey men all together.

Take a look at the recent fracas over the discontinuation of the F-22, and you'll better appreciate how and why these issues get resolved.

Not surprisingly, some of the froth surrounding the health care battle has to do with abortion, the camel in the tent.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The "my way is obviously, self-evidently right...why argue with these idiots???" approach. Shrewd.

Well put forward an argument, you seem to just criterise rather then putting forward a valid argument for not having Universal Health care, I can't see one myself so enlighten me please. There doesn't appear to be a valid argument against universal health care thus far, simply scare mongering which has been proven to have been lies.

Originally posted by aefields:

I want to do dangerous things sometimes: spelunking, rock climbing, pickup surfing, going barefoot, eating fatty and salty foods, whitewater rafting, skydiving, hang-gliding, mountain climbing (I've done all of those). I would surely thank anyone who helped pay my medical bills if I got hurt. But if they say "I'll help you, but only if you don't do dangerous things." then I will refuse their help. And if they say they will help me no matter what, but make the dangerous things I do illegal then, I will HATE them for their false charity.

I've been living all my life under a some sort of UHC system, and it never ever interference with my lifestyle. I also have done my share of dangerous things (quite frankly is short of a miracle I'm still alive) and no-one ever refused medical attention because of whatever crazy things I did. In any case, wearing a seatbelt when driving and protective helmet while biking doesn't seems that much of a violation of your rights as responsible behavior that should be enforced (at least the seatbelt) regardless of who pays for the bill.

I have a nice crack in my skull by colliding at high speed with a truck that stopped suddenly in the middle of a street at the bottom of a hill while riding a bike (yes, you can go at high speeds while biking). If wearing a helmet were mandatory over here, I would fared better back then (well, it wasn't THAT bad, but I think I know what a bug feels when it collides with the windshield ).

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by BernG:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Does anybody know which country has the ideal system? Is there such an animal? Is there anything demonstrably wrong with a system that makes the availability of health care dependent on one's income?

I think we're going to have that with us no matter what. Let's see how quick Pelosi, Kennedy and Reid are to get on that public plan with the rest of us.

The plan may be a start but I think its useless unless we also get single payer.

We'd eventually have single-payer by default. My understanding is that a provision in the House bill states that no new private insurance policies can be written up after the health reform bill becomes law.

There is no such provision.

Here's how the wingnut blogs are misrepresenting it:

On page 16 of H.R. 3200, in section 102 entitled Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage, the bill clearly states, "the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enrcoll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the bill becomes law. As verified by the House Ways and Means Committee last week, this provision means that this health care bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not allowing any new policies to be written after the public option becomes law.

Here's what the bill also clearly states, in full context:

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL-Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. ... etc.

The first bold section states the meaning of the paragraph below: It is defining the term "grandfathered coverage." As opposed to banning individual health insurance coverage, it is simply saying that that coverage meeting certain criteria is not to be considered grandfathered.

In other words, it's not illegal; it's simply not grandfathered.

The second bolded section is simply omitted by the wingnut scribes.

Confused? Stupid? Illiterate?

Or lying scum? Which are they? This happens too often, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Originally posted by street_spirit:

Well put forward an argument, you seem to just criterise rather then putting forward a valid argument for not having Universal Health care

Indeed.

Originally posted by street_spirit:

There doesn't appear to be a valid argument against universal health care thus far, simply scare mongering

Exactly.

Originally posted by BernG:

Here's what the bill also clearly states, in full context:

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL-Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. ... etc.

The first bold section states the meaning of the paragraph below: It is defining the term "grandfathered coverage." As opposed to banning individual health insurance coverage, it is simply saying that that coverage meeting certain criteria is not to be considered grandfathered.

In other words, it's not illegal; it's simply not grandfathered.

The second bolded section is simply omitted by the wingnut scribes.

Confused? Stupid? Illiterate?

Or lying scum? Which are they? This happens too often, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

It still seems that new policies can not be written after the government system goes into effect. Which, in practical terms, means that private insurance ceases to exist for the average individual. What will be the sources of income for the "grandfathered" private insurers? Government subsidies? It's not a question of "banning" but being left to die by other provisions.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

The pie chart is for FY 2009. Our concentration on defense spending is 'broken' and needs 'fixing'. By contrast Medicaid and Medicare are just fine. But neither defense spending nor spending on health care are independent of political considerations, so we aren't talking about science. We're talking about opinions. My opinion is that H1N1 and assorted health matters are more of a threat than China and our other bogey men all together.

Take a look at the recent fracas over the discontinuation of the F-22, and you'll better appreciate how and why these issues get resolved.

Not surprisingly, some of the froth surrounding the health care battle has to do with abortion, the camel in the tent.

I wish long health and life to both Medicaid and Medicare. And good riddance to yet another bloated defense program. A good chunk of the stimulus could also have gone a long way toward "fixing" whatever's wrong with M/M.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

A good chunk of the stimulus could also have gone a long way toward "fixing" whatever's wrong with M/M.

Or indeed setting up a UHCS...

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

A good chunk of the stimulus could also have gone a long way toward "fixing" whatever's wrong with M/M.

Or indeed setting up a UHCS...

Yeah, but what about those who don't want to be on a UHCS? How about those who'll want Congressional-quality care?

Originally posted by aefields:

If it could be done right I'd support it<UHC>. But people have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will not be done right even if it logically could. And it isn't just today's political climate either

My point exactly. I am for an overhaul of the 'Health Care System', but with that being said I am totally against having some plan, any plan, being shoved in the face of elected officials to be passed regardless if they had time enough to read it & debate it properly, just because there is some mystical reason that it must be done before any particular date, which can only lead to disaster.

Anything this important to ALL the American Peoples must be thoroughly worked out & responsibly debated before taking the action of final passage, rather than passing anything for the sake of having something/anything to pass.

I'd rather see it take 6 to 12 months to get the right bill presented & passed, than 3 to 6 weeks of rushing & lack of proper consideration only to have passed the wrong bill!

Surely to <insert religious or secular idol here> , proponents of UHC can see that doing the right thing is far superior to doing something half right. I'm a proponent of UHC, & I can agree to take the time necessary to be right. There is too much riding on doing so. The American people don't want France's UHC version, nor England's, nor Germany's, nor Australia's, nor Canada's. Their respective plans may be fine for their respective citizens, but they are simply not good enough for American Citizens. The American People deserve nothing but the very best of any of those plans and then some, minus all of their plans shortcomings whatever they may be. They deserve an American Plan. The American People should demand from Congress that they get not one iota less than a plan that is heads & shoulders above the rest!

Originally posted by fanfaron:

How about those who'll want Congressional-quality care?

An UHCS would be up to par with that.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

How about those who'll want Congressional-quality care?

Quite interesting argument. Isn't congressional care funded by the tax-payer dollars?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

How about those who'll want Congressional-quality care?

An UHCS would be up to par with that.

Really? Why won't they pledge to be on the "public option" with the rest of us, then?

Originally posted by Immanis:

Quite interesting argument. Isn't congressional care funded by the tax-payer dollars?

Mostly; part of the premiums are paid by the Congressmen themselves. They have a pretty large array of options available to them. Look at this site.
(edit)

An UHCS would be up to par with that.

I watched Obama's press conference, and I was reminded of an article I read in the WSJ several weeks back about Obama and the South Park Underwear Gnomes:

"Phase 1: Collect underpants.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profits."

"What about Phase 2?"
"Well, Phase 3 is Profits!!"

That's it in a nutshell.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I wish long health and life to both Medicaid and Medicare. And good riddance to yet another bloated defense program. A good chunk of the stimulus could also have gone a long way toward "fixing" whatever's wrong with M/M.

My guess it that this isn't about what a good chunk of anything would do toward fixing anything health care related. For those who look at anything associated with government with a jaundiced eye, any program designed to keep orphans out of the loop in feeding zoo animals would only float if it were done privately. The government is anathema plain and simple.

All of the posturing I've been watching on this issue only serves to convince me, as though I needed to be convinced, that it's all about gamesmanship. Most Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are going to make sure that whatever is finally settled on is a cash cow for the major health care players. The recent to-do with the F-22 brought absolutely no surprises to the table. The major supporters of the program were all from states which benefited from it. They only lost because there weren't enough states involved. Something similar, but more perverse, will play out in the health care dust up. It's almost all about constituencies, not about solving problems. One of the disgusting features of this dumb show is that the baldfaced liars are already on line with TV ads that make a mockery of truth telling.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

"Phase 1: Collect underpants.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profits."

That's nothing in a nutshell. Is anybody surprised by the premise of the WSJ opinion piece? Anybody surprised that it surfaced there? Anybody surprised that it's easy to do the same thing to any initiative under the sun. Who starts out with an agenda where all the details are fleshed out and finished at the onset? Why look to South Park for explanations of how the world works when we've had the Bible available for centuries for the same purpose. Why does gravity work the way it works? Easy. God wants it to work that way.

Remember Nixon and China? The WSJ and South Park would have had fun with that using the same logic. Oh wait! The WSJ did just that on the China initiative. If a liberal Democrat defused a bomb on a crowded aircraft, the WSJ would argue that he was attempting to steal it.

"What about Phase 2?"
"Well, Phase 3 is Profits!!"

That's it in a nutshell.

Originally posted by Immanis:

Originally posted by aefields:

I want to do dangerous things sometimes: spelunking, rock climbing, pickup surfing, going barefoot, eating fatty and salty foods, whitewater rafting, skydiving, hang-gliding, mountain climbing (I've done all of those). I would surely thank anyone who helped pay my medical bills if I got hurt. But if they say "I'll help you, but only if you don't do dangerous things." then I will refuse their help. And if they say they will help me no matter what, but make the dangerous things I do illegal then, I will HATE them for their false charity.

I've been living all my life under a some sort of UHC system, and it never ever interference with my lifestyle.

You are fortunate. If a majority decided to interfere in your freedom to do dangerous things, would you object then? Do you think that's ever likely to happen where you live?

Originally posted by Immanis:

In any case, wearing a seatbelt when driving and protective helmet while biking doesn't seems that much of a violation of your rights as responsible behavior that should be enforced (at least the seatbelt) regardless of who pays for the bill.

1) Why should it be enforced?
1a) If it doesn't hurt anyone else, why should the government be involved?

Anyway, those are only two examples from my home state. There are others here and around the world. Smoking is a big one.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

"Phase 1: Collect underpants.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profits."

That's nothing in a nutshell. Is anybody surprised by the premise of the WSJ opinion piece? Anybody surprised that it surfaced there? Anybody surprised that it's easy to do the same thing to any initiative under the sun. Who starts out with an agenda where all the details are fleshed out and finished at the onset? Why look to South Park for explanations of how the world works when we've had the Bible available for centuries for the same purpose. Why does gravity work the way it works? Easy. God wants it to work that way.

Remember Nixon and China? The WSJ and South Park would have had fun with that using the same logic. Oh wait! The WSJ did just that on the China initiative. If a liberal Democrat defused a bomb on a crowded aircraft, the WSJ would argue that he was attempting to steal it.

"What about Phase 2?"
"Well, Phase 3 is Profits!!"

That's it in a nutshell.

[/quote] Yeah, but I've read on-the-money though anti-conservative viewpoints in the NYT or Washington Post or on Huffington Post. If anyone can fill in the ? in Phase 2, I'd appreciate it. Maybe I'm just slow.

Just thought of another one: it's illegal to be drunk while white water rafting. It's not like you're going to run your rubber raft into another and cause a wreck Illegal to be drunk while sailing or under motor power - that's a good law, because you could hurt someone else.

Another: You also have to wear flotation devices while on the water. Pointless, stupid regulation.

Also: fining people for going into areas that are posted as "danger, keep out".

Some of those are based on expense of rescuing, so people are kept from getting in danger so that they don't have to be rescued. Well, if they want to get in danger despite warnings, and you don't want to pay for the rescue, then don't rescue them. Simple. But if you insist on rescuing them, don't complain about the expense.

These sort of restrictions can also be made by insurance companies. It's like insurance companies are writing laws. The government should be protecting us from insurance companies being able to do that.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

If anyone can fill in the ? in Phase 2, I'd appreciate it. Maybe I'm just slow.

1. Formulate a universal health care plan for all Americans.
2. Take a year or so to explain the plan to the American public and then try to implement it.
3. Get the UHCS passed and The United States is now on par with the rest of the modern, industrialised world. (Even Cuba, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, etc)

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Who starts out with an agenda where all the details are fleshed out and finished at the onset?

I usually don't buy a car until I see it, though. To quote Susan Estrich, hardly a wingnut, but with the most grating voice in pundit-land:

So am I for health care reform? Do I support the House bill, whatever it is, or the Obama plan, which may or may not be the same thing?

Not yet. Not until I know what it is. Not until someone convinces me that whatever it is will do more good than harm, both for the country and for my family. Mother knows best.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

1. Formulate a universal health care plan for all Americans.
2. Take a year or so to explain the plan to the American public and then try to implement it.
3. Get the UHCS passed and The United States is now on par with the rest of the modern, industrialised world. (Even Cuba, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, etc)

Well, yeah. That's the question mark. The idea is to remove that question mark.

We aren't Cuba or France or Andorra or San Marino. That much should be obvious.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We aren't Cuba or France or Andorra or San Marino. That much should be obvious.

Indeed it is. They all have better healthcare systems than we do.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We aren't Cuba or France or Andorra or San Marino. That much should be obvious.

Indeed it is. They all have better healthcare systems than we do.

Depends on what you mean by "better".

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Depends on what you mean by "better".

I mean several things by "better"

1. All of the countries above citizen's have health insurance.
2. Having health insurance, they will not face the monster that is bankruptcy from having to pay for all kinds of operations. Many are $10,000 ++++
3. They obviously give a damn about their citizens, whereas we let 47 million go without insurance.

(I could go on but don't feel the need to.)

Originally posted by aefields:

You are fortunate. If a majority decided to interfere in your freedom to do dangerous things, would you object then? Do you think that's ever likely to happen where you live?

Hell no, whatever I do is my business as long as I do not bring harm to others. At most they can try to enforce responsible behavior like wearing a seatbelt or respect the speed limits, but if I want to climb the Himalaya in shorts and drunk is my call. UHC is about providing Universal coverage, and that means that it takes care of whatever health problem you have and\or want to solve, who you are and what yo do doesn't matters.

And no, conditional coverage won't happen here no matter what. You will get more anti-smoking campaigns, anti-drugs campaigns, campaigns promoting safe sex and so on, because the smart guys decided that is cheaper to prevent the illness by any mean that treat the disease. And surprise: it is.

Originally posted by aefields:

1) Why should it be enforced?
1a) If it doesn't hurt anyone else, why should the government be involved?

Because that should not bother you that much, and it effectively prevent around 90% of death chances on collision (if I remember the statistics correctly). I think they also enforce the use of air bags, because those give extra chances of survival, and speed limits and signals in the roads. You also promote the removal of the speed limits and the signals? I think these last two are more intrusive in your right to drive in whatever way you want, right?

Here is not illegal to drink while water rafting, skiing or climbing mountains and most of related stuff. And I personally had to throw myself in dangerous waters to save some drunkard moron that got there and didn't know how to return to the shore (well, at least I got the satisfaction to knock him down in the process, you know, safety above anything else).

Expense of rescuing? WTF? Didn't tax money already paid for police and fireman jobs? Well, make use of them, otherwise is money wasted (fires over here are a very rare occurrence, dunno in the States). In any case, when you engage in dangerous activities, most of time help is too far away to be a help at all. Most of people practicing them rely on each other as the ONLY safety line, so for the most part doesn't really adds to the costs of anything (and in the other hand only a handful of people like extreme activities).

If you balance all the costs related with all these situations, and the additional costs of treatment of lets say, high blood pressure, diabetes or heart deceases and similar product of the steady increase in average weight of the population, the former is cheaper, no doubt about that.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Depends on what you mean by "better".

I mean several things by "better"

1. All of the countries above citizen's have health insurance.
2. Having health insurance, they will not face the monster that is bankruptcy from having to pay for all kinds of operations. Many are $10,000 ++++
3. They obviously give a damn about their citizens, whereas we let 47 million go without insurance.

(I could go on but don't feel the need to.)

That still doesn't remove the question mark.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Depends on what you mean by "better".

I don't think it does depend. The all have better healthcare systems by any definition I can think of.

(btw, this being <strong>Debates</strong> and Discussions, the owness is now on YOU to disprove in some way that they are better, rather than blankly stating that "it depends on what you mean by...", without actually presenting any alternative meaning to bolster your argument)

Originally posted by lucideer:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Depends on what you mean by "better".

I don't think it does depend. The all have better healthcare systems by any definition I can think of.

(btw, this being Debates and Discussions, the owness is now on YOU to disprove in some way that they are better, rather than blankly stating that "it depends on what you mean by...", without actually presenting any alternative meaning to bolster your argument)

We have better sex. Now this being a DEBATE site, the onus is on you to disprove it, without any blank answers.

By the way, I look at life expectancy rates, and we're pretty much the same as the EU. I look at cancer-survival rates, and we're better. The system here is broken and is in need of reform. But yours is as well. We don't hear that very much though in the rush to point out how superior to the American system it is.

Originally posted by Immanis:

Originally posted by aefields:

1) Why should it be enforced?
1a) If it doesn't hurt anyone else, why should the government be involved?

Because that should not bother you that much, and it effectively prevent around 90% of death chances on collision (if I remember the statistics correctly). I think they also enforce the use of air bags, because those give extra chances of survival, and speed limits and signals in the roads. You also promote the removal of the speed limits and the signals? I think these last two are more intrusive in your right to drive in whatever way you want, right?

I think there was a miscommunication. I'm not objecting to laws that require cars to have working seatbelts (or airbags). There are two laws here, one which I agree with and one I don't. It is the law that any car sold have working seatbelts. Good law. Long after that became the law here came a new law: if a police officer sees you in a car without your seatbelt being worn you will be fined about $100. Bad law.

Of course it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. Why should it be required by law that you wear it? I am well aware that wearing a seatbelt reduces the chances of being severely wounded or killed. But if for some reason someone wants to take that risk, how does anyone have the right to tell them they can't? Tell them they shouldn't. Educate them of the consequences. Leave the choice to them, I say.

I wear my seatbelt... unless I want to ride in the back of a pickup. I suggest to everyone that they wear their seatbelts. But making it the law that you have to wear them is unconstitutional and Un-American. "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" It's my life, I'm free to do with it as I please, and if it makes me happy to ride in the back of a pickup without a seatbelt the constitution says I can. Oregon law conflicts with federal law (the constitution). What is the legal situation where you live?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We have better sex. Now this being a DEBATE site, the onus is on you to disprove it, without any blank answers.

Although quite funny, what a swerve here.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

how superior to the American system it is.

Superior my arse:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

"Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine."

'"Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country," says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that's the major finding in our study."

thedawgfan's quote here expresses what I feel: "I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death. -Patrick Henry

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Who starts out with an agenda where all the details are fleshed out and finished at the onset?

I usually don't buy a car until I see it, though. To quote Susan Estrich, hardly a wingnut, but with the most grating voice in pundit-land:

So am I for health care reform? Do I support the House bill, whatever it is, or the Obama plan, which may or may not be the same thing?

Not yet. Not until I know what it is. Not until someone convinces me that whatever it is will do more good than harm, both for the country and for my family. Mother knows best.

And you think that your analogy validly argues what? That buying a finished product like a car is equivalent to fashioning a health care plan?

As for Estrich, her requirement can never be met in a meaningful way. Being convinced of a thing is not a guarantee of anything. Will any act of government ever come with a guarantee? Any corporate decision?

You're missing my point, which has nothing to do with this plan or that plan or any plan at all. My point is that there are political groups in the country who are so dead set against anything that doesn't pass their philosophical muster that no "proof" will ever be enough.

On a more personal note, one more to the point of whether health coverage is desirable, I want some sort of medical coverage for everybody in the country. Should there be limits? Of course. Will any plan work perfectly? No. Will there be waste? Yes. Will Estrich like it? I have no idea, but in my view she doesn't have to because any plan that requires everybody's approval will never see the light of day. Bottom line, nobody should die or suffer grievously for want of a proven simple procedure. No free boob jobs, though, and no complex brain surgery for a 95 year old. Sorry, Nanny.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Who starts out with an agenda where all the details are fleshed out and finished at the onset?

I usually don't buy a car until I see it, though. To quote Susan Estrich, hardly a wingnut, but with the most grating voice in pundit-land.

So am I for health care reform? Do I support the House bill, whatever it is, or the Obama plan, which may or may not be the same thing?

Not yet. Not until I know what it is. Not until someone convinces me that whatever it is will do more good than harm, both for the country and for my family. Mother knows best.

And you think that your analogy validly argues what? That buying a finished product like a car is equivalent to fashioning a health care plan?

As for Estrich, her requirement can never be met in a meaningful way. Being convinced of a thing is not a guarantee of anything. Will any act of government ever come with a guarantee? Any corporate decision?

You're missing my point, which has nothing to do with this plan or that plan or any plan at all. My point is that there are political groups in the country who are so dead set against anything that doesn't pass their philosophical muster that no "proof" will ever be enough. Pulling an Estrich out of a hat doesn't change that, the difference being (here, I guess) that her specific questions have nothing to do with the philosophical objections of the people I'm talking about. Those people are already busy making the whole notion of universal health care fuzzy and suspicious, a thing they accomplish by misdirection and lies. If you've been watching TV commercials from interest groups, you know what I mean.

If somebody has a philosophical objection, I'm fine with that. At the point where they obfuscate and tell outright lies, I'm not. I don't think for a minute that you fall into that category, so I have no objection to your misgivings.

On a more personal note, one more to the point of whether health coverage is desirable, I want some sort of medical coverage for everybody in the country. Should there be limits? Of course. Will any plan work perfectly? No. Will there be waste? Yes. Will Estrich like it? I have no idea, but in my view she doesn't have to because any plan that requires everybody's approval will never see the light of day. Bottom line, nobody should die or suffer grievously for want of a proven simple procedure. No free boob jobs, though, and no complex brain surgery for a 95 year old. Sorry, Nanny.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

My point is that there are political groups in the country who are so dead set against anything that doesn't pass their philosophical muster that no "proof" will ever be enough.

Philosophically the issue is simple: you have a system that focus on profit instead of delivering health care. When you extend the benefit to those who can't afford it, you lose profit. When you lost excuses to deny coverage (like the preexisting condition crap) without increasing substantially the fees, you increase the risk of have to pay and lost profit.

And since most of the people that profit from the heath care business are doing so for looong time, they have the money they need to bribe lobbying in the congress and air all the commie-pinko-system-broken-for-all FUD.

Originally posted by aefields:

Good law. Long after that became the law here came a new law: if a police officer sees you in a car without your seatbelt being worn you will be fined about $100. Bad law.

A nice remainder that you are being foolish, though.

Originally posted by aefields:

But if for some reason someone wants to take that risk, how does anyone have the right to tell them they can't?

They can as long as pay the fine isn't it? In the other side of the equation, the fine money ends in roadworks and related stuff, so is not THAT bad. Consider it a tax to the stupidity and lets move to a different example.

Originally posted by aefields:

I wear my seatbelt... unless I want to ride in the back of a pickup.

Not a problem in my home country, the seatbelt is required only for those in the cabin.

Originally posted by aefields:

You are fortunate. If a majority decided to interfere in your freedom to do dangerous things, would you object then? Do you think that's ever likely to happen where you live?

and you don't think that happens in americas current system? It's more likely to isn't it? Many people can't get insurance or have to pay huge premiums because of their lifestyle.

Here in the UK there are frequently stories in the press saying we shouldn't treat drunks, drug addicts or obese people. But we do as it would be morally wrong not to. However America has a system that lacks 'morals' so it will happen...

Originally posted by aefields:

Of course it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. Why should it be required by law that you wear it? I am well aware that wearing a seatbelt reduces the chances of being severely wounded or killed. But if for some reason someone wants to take that risk, how does anyone have the right to tell them they can't? Tell them they shouldn't. Educate them of the consequences. Leave the choice to them, I say.

Who do you think lobbies for such laws? (Apart from the communists and the soccer moms, of course.) Insurance companies, that's who. Doesn't matter whether health care is private or public, there's always going to be someone financially concerned for your wellbeing.

Besides, if you're not wearing your seatbelt, you get killed faster and messier - producing a greater chance of a big ol' pileup and putting others at risk. And who cleans up the mess?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

We have better sex. Now this being a DEBATE site, the onus is on you to disprove it, without any blank answers.

Oh come on now. Everyone knows Europeans have better sex than everyone else

Originally posted by fanfaron:

By the way, I look at life expectancy rates, and we're pretty much the same as the EU.

OK, you mention life expectancy - America ranks 38th in the world in this statistic - of the 37 above it, over 30 have UHC, and two others (NZ and Oz) have Medicare systems that pay for over 70% of the public's healthcare.

Not everyone in Europe has the same system btw, you need to look at individual countries rather than comparing overall averages. In Ireland for example we have what is "technically" UHC, but comes with a private-oriented non-govermental body overseeing the health system and sustaining a competing alternative private healthcare system creating a two tier, multi-class mess. There's certainly a wrong way to implement UHC, but that's a matter of the implementation, not a systemic fault of the system.

Originally posted by lucideer:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

By the way, I look at life expectancy rates, and we're pretty much the same as the EU.

OK, you mention life expectancy - America ranks 38th in the world in this statistic - of the 37 above it, over 30 have UHC, and two others (NZ and Oz) have Medicare systems that pay for over 70% of the public's healthcare.

Not everyone in Europe has the same system btw, you need to look at individual countries rather than comparing overall averages.

Life expectancy in the US is 78.06 years. In the UK, it is 78.7 years. Same for the EU as an overall average. Not a radical difference.

Comparing a country the size of the US with one the size of the UK though in itself is pointless in many ways.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I'm still waiting for someone who is opposed to UHC to post a valid alternative.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I'm still waiting for someone who is opposed to UHC to post a valid alternative.

Kill all the doctors and start over?
Make all doctors slaves wha have to work for free?

No I know, kill all the lawyers, so they cannot sue the doctors and drug companies!

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I'm still waiting for someone who is opposed to UHC to post a valid alternative.

How do you propose an alternative to something that doesn't exist? There are lots of avenues to reform, some more worthy of consideration than others. How will UHC work in this country and be funded? I'm still waiting for that.

Originally posted by broncochick:

No I know, kill all the lawyers, so the cannot sue the doctors and drug companies!

That's a big part of the problem as well. Are we going to get tort reform with UHC?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Are we going to get tort reform with UHC?

They should go hand in hand, no?

In order for UHC to survive efficiently, you must lower the delivery costs I would think.

Malpractice awards should mean free (totally free) health care for the victim, a hefty fine & loss of license for the perpetrator. Forget the BS pain & suffering circus's the lawyers put on to reap their 30%+ fees.

Limit lawyers fees to a maximum of 10% for a successful outcome, & nothing, zero, zip, nada, for unsuccessful outcomes. Fees for expenses that the lawyer incurred in behalf of his client should be limited to a sliding scale established by the pretrial judge in advance of the case going forward, & ultimately paid by the state if the outcome is unsuccessful, for it was the state, through the pretrial judge, who's opinion decided the case merited going to trial.

Being that 80%+ of Congressmen were lawyers at one time, watch that last suggestion float like a lead balloon!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Being that 80%+ of Congressmen were lawyers at one time, watch that last suggestion float like a lead balloon!

Yeah, it will go very far!

The willingness to sue anyone for anything is why things are so expensive. Anyone who has a frivolous law suit ought to be taken out and whipped, and their lawyers shot.