Universal Health Coverage for the USA - "The Healthy Americans Act"

[tk102]

As the results of our recent elections shift the balance of power in Congress, my senator, Ron Wyden (D-OR), has put forth a bill that, if made law, would abolish the system of employer-offered health insurance. Employers who currently offer health insurance would instead augment the incomes of the employees by the amount the normally spent on insurance. Americans, in turn would then be required to enroll in a health plan offered by their state. These plans would have to meet or exceed the standard set by Blue Cross/Blue Shield (which is the plan used by Congress). Enrollment would be mandatory -- making this health care plan "universal". Federal subsidies would be granted to those making an income of 4x the poverty line or less.

 

Links:

PDF of Healthy Americans Act

Ron Wyden's homepage

 

What are your views on this?

 

I personally applaud this effort and am very proud to be a constituent Senator Wyden. It's about time the U.S.A. started looking after their own.

[Jae Onasi]

Might finally bring us into the modern era in terms of health care coverage for all citizens. The only thing I don't want to see is some of the detrimental things in universal coverage--long waits for care, sometimes to the point that it makes the original health problem a terminal problem.

For instance, a gal in England had her surgery for cervical cancer put off so long that by the time she did get the surgery, it had metastasized and she ended up dying of something that could have been easily cured if it had been treated in a timely manner. A Canadian friend of mine had to wait several months to have her badly needed gall bladder surgery, I only had to wait a couple weeks. When Jimbo was on active duty and we were using military health facilities, I had to wait months to have my knee scoped, and since I had a bone chip the size of a small marble floating around in there for months, the delay likely caused more damage than it would have if I'd had the surgery in a more timely manner as would have happened in the civilian sector. If we can avoid those types of problems, great. I wouldn't mind seeing a Medicare-style model--it works for patients, it works for us docs. If Clinton ends up in office (which I think is a very real possibility), I would not be surprised if we saw some kind of universal coverage fairly quickly, and that would be overall a good thing. I think the only ones who would lose out are the insurance execs who make obscene bonuses at the expense of their insurees. It might have the benefit of encouraging tort reform, which would drop the insurance costs for docs (and thus medical expenses overall), which would be a good thing. Last I heard in IL, it cost something like $100,000 per year for an OB/GYN to buy liability insurance.

 

My classmates all thought I was nuts for supporting universal health care when we were all in school, but then again, I was the token liberal in our class.

[JasraLantill]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Medicare-style model--it works for patients, it works for us docs.

 

I agree. Why don't they go the easy route and just offer Medicare-coverage to everyone on an income-based premium? That way, there would be no need to 'reinvent the wheel', so to speak, and spend time and money researching something that they may or may not implement, and that may or may not work. Here in the UK, they have universal coverage (our NHS), but they also have private medical insurance and providers for those who want to pay for it. They could do the same thing in the States.

 

Medicare works fine. The system is already in place. They just need to extend it to the rest of the population.

[Prime]

Beware of universal health care. It has its own demons.

 

<---- Canadian

[Nancy Allen``]

Ah, Canada. As far as health is concerned there it's quetopia. The medical system is really where Homer Simpson is in the upcoming movie: between a rock and a hard place. More hospitals means more doctors, specialists, chemists ect that cannot meet with demand now. It also means more tax dollars that will have to be made up by the tax payer. And even if there was a perfect universal health coverage you're looking at waiting times can be years, I heard one that was TWENTY years. I wish there was a solution to it, I really do, and the Democrats putting in universal health coverage may well be the solution we need, but it's still fraught with problems that will need to be overcome. I just hope that these will be better handled than the current medical crisis spreading the world.

[Emperor Devon]

Most people seem to assume that universal health care will stop any from existing outside the government's control. On the contrary, I think there'd still be a market it. If someone has to wait twenty years for an operation, they'd probably pay to have it done earlier if they weren't extremely tight on money.

 

Since companies that provide health care would be facing large competition from the government, the only logical thing for them to do would be to try and improve their services to the point people would rather go to them. I'd definitely pay for medical treatment and have it the next day than rather wait until the next year and have it for free.

 

If people still want private health care, they can pay for it and life will go on as normal. If someone can't pay for it, the government can take care of them. They might have to wait a while, but it's better than nothing at all.

 

Taxes would be the only problem with this concept. Allowing people to be exempt from them if they get their health care privately would be the logical solution, though that could result in a shortage of funds for the government.

 

Meh, it still sounds better than what we currently have.

[Samnmax221]

Your Health = Not my problem

[Emperor Devon]

Your Health = Not my problem

 

A libertarian indeed.

[Jae Onasi]

Your Health = Not my problem

 

Actually, it _is_ our problem. Addressing basic health issues when you're young and the problem is minor will cost the gov't less than dealing with it later on when someone is older and on Medicare and the problem is major. It costs a lot less to screen women yearly for some cancers than it is to pay for their cancer treatment of massive chemo and radiation later on because they couldn't afford the screening tests that would have caught it at an early enough stage to make it treatable with a simple in-office procedure.

I'd rather my tax dollars paid for simple health screenings than to pay out the nose for problems that got out of hand and the person's now on disability for it (and thus using even more of my tax dollars). That's aside from the ethics issues of wanting everyone to have a good quality of life and all that.

[Samnmax221]

Actually, it _is_ our problem. Addressing basic health issues when you're young and the problem is minor will cost the gov't less than dealing with it later on when someone is older and on Medicare and the problem is major. It costs a lot less to screen women yearly for some cancers than it is to pay for their cancer treatment of massive chemo and radiation later on because they couldn't afford the screening tests that would have caught it at an early enough stage to make it treatable with a simple in-office procedure.

I'd rather my tax dollars paid for simple health screenings than to pay out the nose for problems that got out of hand and the person's now on disability for it (and thus using even more of my tax dollars). That's aside from the ethics issues of wanting everyone to have a good quality of life and all that.

Well thats rather simple, you get rid of Welfare and then you don't need any of it. Thats even less of your tax dollars wasted.

[Jae Onasi]

Well thats rather simple, you get rid of Welfare and then you don't need any of it. Thats even less of your tax dollars wasted.

 

And then I'll be paying enormous amounts of tax dollars into the prison system because people will turn to crime to pay for their health care, or I'll be paying extra to companies so they can cover the costs of those who declare bankruptcy and don't pay their debts. Works for me.

[Samnmax221]

And then I'll be paying enormous amounts of tax dollars into the prison system because people will turn to crime to pay for their health care, or I'll be paying extra to companies so they can cover the costs of those who declare bankruptcy and don't pay their debts. Works for me.

Can't go to prison when you're dead, and thats quite likely to happen if you attempt to rob or assault me. The mistake here is the idea that everyone is entitled to free stuff. I really don't care why people seem to think that every pathetic person in the world needs to be looked after, I do care when people try to force their beliefs on me, and yes making me pay for someone else's health care is forcing your ideas on me.

[Samuel Dravis]

Even if you wanted universal health care, there remains the issue of convincing the doctors that they want to work for the government. Why would they do that when they can likely make more money from the private sector? These guys probably have outstanding loans to pay (med school isn't the cheapest thing) and getting a government salary isn't going to pay that off anytime soon. When they're rid of that, you think they're just going to take a lower paying, likely lower quality job because they're really nice? Some might, sure, but not nearly enough to cover everyone. I like the idea of everyone being covered, but I'm not sure it can be done as easily as enacting some legislation.

[Jae Onasi]

@sam--you may not pay directly yourself, but you're paying indirectly now anyway.

 

Student loans for med/professional schools runs around 100,000-200,000. I'm not kidding.

If it's administered like Medicare is now, the docs work independently, not for the gov't.

 

The quality of the job docs do is not likely to change much if any. Docs are all held to a certain standard regardless of where we work. It doesn't matter where I'm at or who I'm seeing--I give the same type of routine exam regardless (specific problems get specific evaluation/treatment, of course). I may not be getting the same picture of 'lower quality job' you're getting--what specifically are you meaning?

Being a doc for the gov't (e.g. for the VA) currently is not a bad thing--it has decent hours, pay, and benefits. In fact, the hours are less than in private practice and you don't have the headaches associated with running a business. You aren't going to get filthy rich like you might if you're a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, but it's not a bad job at all.

The ones who will lose out a lot are the insurance companies, unless the gov't has some kind of basic plan for everyone and people are allowed to do add-on premium plans that insurance companies sell.

I think if they do anything they'll expand Medicare to everyone since it's working reasonably well and has been since it began in the 60's.

[RoxStar]

America's Health-Care system rewards drug companies for keeping patients with lifetime illnesses alive rather than curing them

 

 

<------------ Diabetic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for Public Medicine. I actually wrote a paper on it, let me dig it up...

[Samnmax221]

America's Health-Care system rewards drug companies for keeping patients with lifetime illnesses alive rather than curing them

Thats a problem with the US Government meddling in business, not any reason why I should have to pay for anyone else's Health-care.

[RoxStar]

Thats a problem with the US Government meddling in business, not any reason why I should have to pay for anyone else's Health-care.

 

bull****.

 

 

All drug companies are inherently rewarded in a free market scenario by keeping their respective consumer base alive and using their medicines. If a cure for diabetes (or cancer or AIDS or alzheimer's etc etc) was found entire corporations (BD Logic, Medtronic/Minimed/ Novo Nordisk) would fail.

 

The only way to even hope for a cure is from a nation with government medicine that will pay for the cure because they won't spend the ridiculous amount of money needed for each diabetic (AIDS victim, cancer sufferer, etc etc) to continue living

 

The US government itself doesn't meddle with business, it's the extremely wealthy businessmen from said companies that get governmental positions and full the cycle.

[Samnmax221]

Oh please, give it a rest. If a company developed a cure for an incurable disease they could and would sell it for as much as possible and make a giant profit. On the other hand a company that is told by the government that they have to develop a cure is not going to see the benefit. The government does meddle in business, haven't you ever heard of subsidies? You still haven't answered why I need to pay for your health-care.

[RoxStar]

You still haven't answered why I need to pay for your health-care.

 

You wouldn't directly, the government would use your tax dollars (which of course would demand a tax increase). You would pay for my health-care the same way I would pay for yours even though I would most likely need more of it. Your logic of "your health = not my problem" causes me to assume that you also believe "your safety = not my problem" and "your roads = not my problem" and "your public works = not my problem" and so on and so forth. This attitude makes me believe that you would complain of any tax dollars you paid that wouldn't directly benefit you even if they benefit the country as a whole. Therefore, I can not give you an acceptable answer as to why you would have the burden of paying for my health when you are *most likely* against the taxation system as a whole and seem to be against aiding others in any way as exemplified by your views on welfare:

 

Well thats rather simple, you get rid of Welfare and then you don't need any of it. Thats even less of your tax dollars wasted.

 

Oh please, give it a rest. If a company developed a cure for an incurable disease they could and would sell it for as much as possible and make a giant profit.

 

The government would be paying for the drug, and since they control the health care system, would control the set price for the drug because the company would lose its business for that entire country.

 

Oh, and "give it a rest" is probably the weakest argument I've ever heard

[Samnmax221]

You wouldn't directly, the government would use your tax dollars (which of course would demand a tax increase). You would pay for my health-care the same way I would pay for yours even though I would most likely need more of it.

It simply makes more sense if everybody pays for their own.

Your logic of "your health = not my problem" causes me to assume that you also believe "your safety = not my problem" and "your roads = not my problem" and "your public works = not my problem" and so on and so forth. This attitude makes me believe that you would complain of any tax dollars you paid that wouldn't directly benefit you even if they benefit the country as a whole.

People do not exist as a whole, people exist as individuals, individuals are masters of their own fate. The government simply can't put people into nice neat little compartments and start deciding what is best for them.

 

Therefore, I can not give you an acceptable answer as to why you would have the burden of paying for my health when you are *most likely* against the taxation system as a whole and seem to be against aiding others in any way as exemplified by your views on welfare:

Welfare and Social Security have been failing for years, do you see things getting any better? All Taxation and Spending has done is destroy jobs, you want to help the poor and the sick, do it with your own money.

 

The government would be paying for the drug, and since they control the health care system, would control the set price for the drug because the company would lose its business for that entire country.

The government would simply award contracts to it friends as it always has, if a company who isn't on their list of friends makes a breakthrough in medicine they won't be allowed to sell it, and knowing our government they'd probably seize it by force. Companies with lobbyists have always gotten a pass from the government to sell inferior and possibly dangerous products to the public, they have kind invitation from me to not interfere with my health.

[Tyrion]

It simply makes more sense if everybody pays for their own.

 

What about those in poor families? Nearly everyone does not deserve the economic ills they're born into, after all. Sure, they're not your trouble, but do you really think they should be put into the street(think of the children too, here: they had no ability to get into a better situation for themselves)?

 

To further the subject, do you believe public education should also be abolished since fundamentally it's none of your concern?

[Samnmax221]

What about those in poor families? Nearly everyone does not deserve the economic ills they're born into, after all. Sure, they're not your trouble, but do you really think they should be put into the street(think of the children too, here: they had no ability to get into a better situation for themselves)?

If companies get their subsidies cut off then they are forced to compete for your business. Competing means attempting to undercut the other companies, next thing you know you have a price war on your hands and everything gets cheaper. Under a Universal Health-care Program certain companies get a monopoly and get to sit pretty without producing much in the way of results, and charge the government large amounts of money to produce next to nothing. Rich or poor everyone is better of when they have an opportunity to decide which company they want to buy their drugs from in a competing market.

 

To further the subject, do you believe public education should also be abolished since fundamentally it's none of your concern?

No, when it comes to public education I think that government restrictions need to be eased so public schools don't get to enjoy a monopoly. As I'm sure you know the American Education System is rather poor compared to the Education Systems in most European countries, this could be fixed if public Schools had to compete with many different private Schools, if they can't they close down.

[Emperor Devon]

Don't you think you're taking libertarianism a bit... far?

 

If companies get their subsidies cut off then they are forced to compete for your business.

 

Which will inevitably drive some out of business. They're all working against each other, not for the greater good.

 

Competing means attempting to undercut the other companies, next thing you know you have a price war on your hands and everything gets cheaper.

 

They have profit on their minds, not humanity. The government is the one concerned about the later, and as such, will take measures to accomplish that over a profit (such as practically giving goods away), which the individual companies will not.

 

Under a Universal Health-care Program certain companies get a monopoly and get to sit pretty without producing much in the way of results, and charge the government large amounts of money to produce next to nothing.

 

If they don't work, they don't get paid. There's no reason the government shouldn't fire people if they're not doing their jobs.

 

It's a common socialist/Communist flaw. People will have more incentive if their careers aren't set in stone.

 

No, when it comes to public education I think that government restrictions need to be eased so public schools don't get to enjoy a monopoly.

 

Since education doesn't seem to be very high on the government's list of priorities, I would agree. Other schools deserve a chance when the ones with a monopoly don't make the best possible effort.

[Nancy Allen``]

It shouldn't be exclusive to those born with a silver dining set up their ass. Besides, if there was some catch all health scheme that benefited everyone then some rich guy could get injured and be supported by a system that they and everyone else pays for. Ditto for the blue collar grunt who, statistically, by rights would need such a system more as they would be more at risk of injury through the physically demanding manual labour.

[Mercid]

Fools! Don't you see the benefit's to a universal health program!?

So what if you die before the treatment is administered? It's your own bloody fault for not booking a check-up a month in advance by using your mystical time seeing abilities like everyone else!

 

When I stay up, my post's get weird.