Universal Healthcare?

[El Sitherino]

You act as though Universal Healthcare is just some "everything free" insurance plan. Why is that?

[SD Nihil]

You act as though Universal Healthcare is just some "everything free" insurance plan. Why is that?

 

Free? No not free. It costs a lot. Not free at all. Government controls on advancement, wages, and care. That's my opinion. And this quite is your interpretation of what you thought I think which in my opinion I never said or think.

[SW01]

No, it is by no means completely free, it is paid for, as I said, through the national insurance contribution in income taxation. But, as has been said elsewhere, you must take into consideration the fact that such a thing overrules the need for everyone to pay for health insurance separately. From what I understand, the contribution we make is less than is required to maintain an insurance plan.

 

Also, on the government being too financially strained to cope, the NHS in Britain was set up only a few years after the Second World War. The government then was not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

[Jae Onasi]

I've done an externship in the VA, which is a federal universal health care system for veterans. The doctors and staff consistently gave excellent care. Some of the best research and changes in standards of care in glaucoma have come out of work done with VA patients. The doctors and other staff advanced according to position in the federal system and time in grade and do very well.

 

Some excellent medical research is coming out of UHC systems like in the UK, France, and Canada. In some ways the research is easier to do in UHC systems because of quicker access to greater amounts of data. These countries regularly update their standards of care to incorporate new treatments and healthcare delivery systems.

 

Also, we could simply extend Medicare to everyone. That would get rid of the then-redundant Medicaid system and save states a ton of money, and it would still allow competition in the health care system. There are lots of ways to ensure everyone has universal access to healthcare.

 

I don't want to hear anymore crap about how poor people are poor because they're just lazy. My mother-in-law worked her butt off all her life. She didn't have the intellectual ability or the money to go to college to get the kind of job that would have allowed her to leave poverty. She raised 9 kids, helped run a farm so you and I would have things to actually eat, and worked very hard in the jobs she did have. She worked even after getting hurt on a job so badly that her back was never the same. She didn't have the opportunities you and I have had. She didn't live in a place that had a lot of opportunities, and didn't have the money to move. She hardly had enough to pay for basic things like electricity, water, and food.

 

Try volunteering in a homeless shelter some time. You'll discover that the great majority of people who end up there are not lazy. They're often times still working in a job, but had so many emergencies and just plain bad things happen to them all at once that it put them so far behind financially they couldn't get out. Yes, some poor people could work harder and improve their lives. Most poor people aren't where they're at because of laziness, however, and I find this continued assumption that they are quite offensive and just plain wrong. While I was working on my college degrees, I was extremely poor. I couldn't afford anything but the very basic college health insurance. If I had had a major medical problem, it would have bankrupt me. Your assertion that while I was poor, I was just being lazy, is completely incorrect.

[Web Rider]

Less options with UHC.

By your own standards below this is not true.

 

Less likely to have that option on UHC. In both PHC and UHC there might not be a good doc for your condition. But in PHC if there is money to be made there will be someone working on a treatment.

Exactly, if there is a local hospital, and a local doctor, it doesn't matter if the hospital is UHC or CHC. The options remain the same.

 

With UHC there is less incentive to do that. No reward. Unless the country's UHC government designates a doctor to work on this condition. Again the care you get in America isn't hindered by a level of care level set by a UHC system.

Honestly, I'd rather it be hindered by a UHC system than by greed. Which is what you are saying defines a doctors decision to provide service. Not if it keeps people healthy, but if it makes them money. As people who've posted here have attested to, that is not the motivating factor for becoming a doctor.

 

If money is the only motivating factor in your life, that's fine, but don't assume that just because we live in a mostly capitalist nation that money is the ONLY motivating factor for everyone.

 

That's right. You try to find the best doc that is good for your budget and good for you medically. UHC you can't choose level of care.

I think I just heard a "woosh" when that went over your head. Since you missed my point, here's what I'm syaing.

 

You just broke your leg.

You need it fixed.

You have a thousand dollars.

Everywhere you go that provides any leg-fixing service and won't leave you with a myriad of other problems(such as infections, disease, or having your eye eaten out by ants), costs $2000 dollars.

Because your leg is broken you cannot work, because you can't afford to get it fixed, you are now disabled. You can never work again, and because you have no money you can't even afford a wheelchair to get around in.

You now put no money in to the system and become a drain on society.

 

Under UHC system your leg is fixed through taxes you and others pay and you're back at work putting money into the system a few weeks later.

 

You know, for some reason, I find it impossible to argue against a system that will not turn you in to a drain on society because you don't have enough money.

 

That's why if it's a risky surgery and the doc refuses to do it even though you are paying them then find another.

that wasn't my point at all. My point is as follows.

Dr A has a great record.

-this is because he doesn't do procedures A, Z, and G

Dr B has an ok record.

-This is because he takes on far more patients, but for all his efforts can't save them all.

 

My point is that even though Dr A has a better record, this does not make him the best doctor for the job. Because his record does not include the procedure you need.

~snipped flame~

[Yar-El]

Seeing as though others are not going to say anything. Each one of our opinions is justified to ourselves. How we each preceive the world depends upon our own experiences and lifespace. My perception of an issue is different from everyone elses. Making the case for or against Universal Health Care is not simple. We have an argument over morals, and one over another set of morals. Do we help those in need over the expense of taking away from another? That is a tough argument to make. Do we take from one person's table to feed another who is capable? Another tough argument to make. Do we prevent those who need assistance from not getting it due to illness or physical condition? Another tough argument to make. Some people see a clear line between good and evil, and others see a world of gray tones. We have a heavy debate on this issue, and both sides are yelling foul. Volunteers and visitors are both yelling at the same time. If the solution to this problem was simple, we wouldn't have people in congress fighting. LucasForums is about bringing people together. We as humanbeings cannot help but express through emotions. It is our nature.

 

One of the deepest theories known is easy to understand. Mankind will eventually destroy itself. Why? We are both cunning and vial at the same time. We are capable in making weapons of mass destruction, but we are incapable of solving the more easier aspects of life. The debate in this forum reminds me of such argument. What is human? What is moral? What is freedom? Was it responsible?

 

One of the well known quotes in science-fiction comes to mind. "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few, or the one." I don't know if we can fully comprehend this paradigm in our lifetime. Living in a world where we are split right down the line can blend the majority. Where does the many stand? We may have a majority that believe one way in these forums, but where does the majority of the world stand? We can argue and debate for days, and we will never be closser to an answer.

 

While posting in this thread, I want everyone (volunteer and visitor) alike to keep this post in mind. This issue does not have an easy solution, and we may never see a true concensous to this argument.

[Achilles]

I suggest everyone take a break, read some John Rawls, and then come back and talk about whether anything we're discussing here is really a "tough decision".

[Bee Hoon]

To SD Nihil,

 

As Astor_Kaine has already pointed out, the onus is on you to find sources to back up your claims.

 

Appeal to them with your plight. They might show sympathy on you and your situation.

An interesting question here is whether you would offer them a job, should you be put in that situation.

 

I do know what he knows when I talk to him. I learned his medical knowledge when he'd talk about it. I learned of his experiences.

A few conversations cannot hope to convey a lifetime of experience and knowledge. Until you have been through the same training and practiced for 40 years, I remain sceptical. And even if you have--I only accept your expertise as a nurse anesthetist, not as a doctor or a community medicine specialist.

 

It is good that your father cared about his brother, but it is irrelevant to the topic.

 

Those in the medical field take the Hippocratic oath which is to do no harm. We show kindness and sympathy for those good people who worked and bad things happened to them. We don't for those that didn't try.

 

literacy. Yes we have that too. Though I'm not sure how that has to do with UHC. We allow all citizens to have access to being literate. We are humane. Our hospitals are clean.

I wonder why you keep saying "we" when referring to those in healthcare. Are you working in the healthcare system? If so, as what?

 

I am fully aware of the Hippocratic oath, and it seems that the point of my post just flew past your head. You, as a person, are not humane. Your stance on poverty is appalling, and you would rather clutch a fistful of dollar bills to your chest than to alleviate a poor person's suffering.

 

As Jae and many of us have repeatedly pointed out, poverty is not always a person's fault. Has it ever occurred to you that illness can drive a person into poverty? Ironic, but it does happen.

 

~snipped~

 

Literacy may be available for all, but there are families who are so desperate that their children have to drop out of school to help support them.

 

Those that do not help themselves I have no sympathy for. That's my right to have that opinion.

So bloggers do not help themselves? I might have taken that as a personal slur, except that it's far too absurd. You might note that many LFers have blogs, all of whom have demonstrated far more compassion and maturity than you have.

 

Which system of health are are you saying they get higher wages on experience? If you mean CHC then yes. For UHC not for doing a better surgery I believe.

I speak personally for the Malaysian health system, (if I remember correctly, housemen are ranked U48, medical officers U52, so on until heads of departments are ranked U64 or similar). As they ascend in rank, their pay also rises--not as much as they might get working in the private hospitals, but most of them have that inner spark to serve the people. The government also provides post-graduate opportunities at local universities.

 

No because it was one instance that only told about a country that matched CHC's mortality level. Not one that was better. Even if there was. The majority of countries that have CHC and those that have UHC II believe CHC have overall better results for the majority.

Well, there is definite proof that you didn't click on them. The links I provided are articles which deal with factors leading to poverty. Nice to know that my courtesy in providing direct links was wasted effort.

 

And how can you expect me to pick out from so many links either. There is too much evidence on it. Look yourself at the many links. I know what I believe and you know what you believe. Your not going to ever change me. I bet neither I am not going to change you.

Once again, as Astor_Kaine has pointed out, you should back up your claims with specific evidence. We are not beholden to do your footwork for you (and here one may be tempted to call you lazy, and a conservative like yourself would condemn you to poverty).

 

I am open to your viewpoint, if you would only start giving us solid proof that universal healthcare is worse than healthcare controlled by capitalist MCOs, as opposed to whining that we should google it ourselves and that poor people are a black hole for your tax money. Until you do so, all further debate is a waste of time as you clearly refuse to educate yourself on the subject, even when we spoon-feed you with links.

 

Edit:

Do we help those in need over the expense of taking away from another? That is a tough argument to make. Do we take from one person's table to feed another who is capable?

How is taxing those who can afford it to provide care for those who cannot, in any way comparable to stealing the food off their tables? After all, those who have problems putting food on the table probably fall out of the tax bracket or are taxed minimal amounts. Keep in mind that these are the same people whom you and SD Nihil regard as lazy bums who enjoy living in poverty.

 

How pleasant that you're suddenly so worried about their well-being.

[Yar-El]

I suggest everyone take a break, read some John Rawls, and then come back and talk about whether anything we're discussing here is really a "tough decision".

Taking a break is a great idea. Everyone will come to a conclusion of their own when they are ready, and not when others want them to be ready.

How pleasant that you're suddenly so worried about their well-being.

I haven't changed my mind. I'm more concerned about what this subject is doing to good people (on both sides of the subject).

 

This post does not contribute to the topic of health care. Please stay on topic. --Jae

 

I understand Jae.

[Jae Onasi]

Honestly, this thread has been more work than the religion threads. Sheesh.

 

If you all want this thread to stay open for discussion, you should all review the rules before you post anything further.

1. We have and will hand out infractions for flaming, and name-calling is definitely flaming. You only need 10 points before you get temp-banned, and some of you are earning plenty just in this thread.

2. If you make a claim, it's generally bad form to tell everyone else to look up your sources for you, and then complain at them when they don't.

3. Leave the moderating to the moderators. Either post something that contributes to the topic, or don't post, please. We're just going to delete those as spam.

 

Keep it civil, folks.

[Astor]

That's what we have in CHC. The doc determines care. UHC government has ultimate control over levels of care and advancement.

 

And the funding comes from high taxes on the people.

 

No, as i've said, it's my Doctor that determines the level of care I recieve, not the government.

 

And a slightly higher tax is a small price for the knowledge that I won't have to pay more for surgery should I be involved in a car accident, or should I need drugs if I develop a condition.

 

I'd much rather have universal care for all, as opposed to great care for some. Yes, it has it's flaws, but with Universal Healthcare, the Elderly, the Infirm, the Young, and both Physically and mentally disabled will all recieve care, whereas with your system, they have the potential to be cast aside in favour of more affluent patients.

 

It's sad that a 'civilised' society should charge its citizens for what should be one of their most basic rights.

 

EDIT: It might also interest you to know that the NHS doesn't simply recieve funding from taxes. Funding is also recieved from prescription drug fees (meaning you only need to pay for aftercare, not the primary care) and other services such as sight tests and dentistry.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Healthcosts/Pages/Prescriptioncosts.aspx

http://www.nhs.uk/Healthcosts/Pages/Eyecarecosts.aspx

http://www.nhs.uk/Healthcosts/Pages/Dentalcosts.aspx

[SW01]

Consider it like this - in a capitalist health care system, all the money you contribute to your health plans is being stuffed into an insurance company's pockets. They are hoping that you will never claim on it, and that company alone profits by it. Then, if you miss paying it and fall ill, you are stuffed. And, if ever you are admitted to hospital, they will want you out at the first available opportunity - to stop spending your money on you.

 

With Universal systems, you make a tax contribution to the healthcare system. This is used to fund that system - to improve equipment, to train doctors, nurses, etc., to put up new wards and facilities. While you may not need it right away, your contribution helps to improve the Health service as a whole. Then, whenever you need it, it is there. Whenever someone else needs it, it is there.

 

To me, that just makes better sense. When I am throwing money at something to do with health every month, quarter, year, whatever, I would prefer that my money goes to improving the provision of healthcare, rather than an insurance broker's new car.

[SD Nihil]

No, it is by no means completely free, it is paid for, as I said, through the national insurance contribution in income taxation. But, as has been said elsewhere, you must take into consideration the fact that such a thing overrules the need for everyone to pay for health insurance separately. From what I understand, the contribution we make is less than is required to maintain an insurance plan.

 

Also, on the government being too financially strained to cope, the NHS in Britain was set up only a few years after the Second World War. The government then was not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Nothing is completely fair in life. I simply believe that CHC is more more fair. You can't change what I think.

 

Also UHC where you said insurance isn't separate from the expenses. That doesn't make it any less of a bill. That doesn't make the amount paid any less than a CHC in my opinion.

 

CHC you can pay who you want to do the surgery. UHC you have less choice. And all is subject to the government's almighty decision in the end.

 

"Less than to maintain an insurance plan". In CHC if an insurance company fails then they fail. You shop for the most competitive and one you want. With UHC if that government is socialistic or communistic then you have to pay because the government says so. Less choice. In socialism or communism if the UHC insurance company fails I believe you'll get charged more to keep that one alive or government bail out.

 

I've done an externship in the VA, which is a federal universal health care system for veterans. The doctors and staff consistently gave excellent care. Some of the best research and changes in standards of care in glaucoma have come out of work done with VA patients. The doctors and other staff advanced according to position in the federal system and time in grade and do very well.

 

Yes, but it is also in a government that is capitalistic. And people in the military don't have to seek help from the VA. They have the choice to seek Private Health Care.

 

Some excellent medical research is coming out of UHC systems like in the UK, France, and Canada. In some ways the research is easier to do in UHC systems because of quicker access to greater amounts of data. These countries regularly update their standards of care to incorporate new treatments and healthcare delivery systems.

 

With CHC we get to our patients quick too. We make advancements in medicine too. There's less to gain from making a cure in UHC because the government can decide if you should get paid for your work or if you have to steel your idea to the government.

 

Also, we could simply extend Medicare to everyone. That would get rid of the then-redundant Medicaid system and save states a ton of money, and it would still allow competition in the health care system. There are lots of ways to ensure everyone has universal access to healthcare.

 

To pay for it that will come with more taxes and cost to the people.

 

I don't want to hear anymore crap about how poor people are poor because they're just lazy. My mother-in-law worked her butt off all her life. She didn't have the intellectual ability or the money to go to college to get the kind of job that would have allowed her to leave poverty. She raised 9 kids, helped run a farm so you and I would have things to actually eat, and worked very hard in the jobs she did have. She worked even after getting hurt on a job so badly that her back was never the same. She didn't have the opportunities you and I have had. She didn't live in a place that had a lot of opportunities, and didn't have the money to move. She hardly had enough to pay for basic things like electricity, water, and food.

 

You have no right to tell me how to think or post. The only power you have is to make sure I don't break forum rules. I never said all poor people are poor and in pain because of their lack of work. Yes there are some instances where people have worked hard and just had bad luck come their way. But in the US the majority who work get rewarded.

 

An interesting question here is whether you would offer them a job, should you be put in that situation

 

If I am to give another a job I have to take under consideration the pros and cons of hiring. Will it look good for my business to outweigh the cost of hiring them. Am I willing to take a hit money wise to pay for them at the expense of me. Will I gain new skills brought by the employee. Will he effect sales in a good way or bad way.

 

In the end it's something I'd just have to weigh. If I was in that same position of needing a job I hope that same thought process is used on me. I don't want to be a burden to the company if I can't bring to the table. Some will end up on the street because though they tried they didn't get the job in time.

 

It doesn't mean that once your on the stret that's now your life. You keep trying. Wish I could remember the name of the movie, but it was about this black guy with his son. His mother left because though he was selling these x ray machines he wasn't making the money.

 

He ended up having to go to a shelter. Living on the street. We are humane. We have shelters and places to go. But not forever. People must see there that you are choosing to try to find work. If your not they won't keep you in their doors. But if your trying they'll be compassionate.

 

Anyway, the guy got an interview finally even though he was in rag clothes. But he used that to his interview. Got the job. Worked hard. Oh it was investment advice he was selling in the company he got this job.

 

He ended up being a millionaire and having his own company. Wish I could remember the name though.

 

But that shows rags to riches. That shows you can have all the bad breaks and still go places. Again not always, but more times than not.

 

And there here in America is always shelter, soup kitins, etc. But people there have to see you are at least trying to make your own way.

 

A few conversations cannot hope to convey a lifetime of experience and knowledge. Until you have been through the same training and practiced for 40 years, I remain skeptical. And even if you have--I only accept your expertise as a nurse anesthetist, not as a doctor or a community medicine specialist.

 

It is good that your father cared about his brother, but it is irrelevant to the topic.

 

The more I talk to him I do. Don't dismiss my father. It isn't irrelevant. It shows those in CHC have compassion and that we are a humane system.

 

 

I am fully aware of the Hippocratic oath, and it seems that the point of my post just flew past your head. You, as a person, are not humane. Your stance on poverty is appalling, and you would rather clutch a fistful of dollar bills to your chest than to alleviate a poor person's suffering.

 

As Jae and many of us have repeatedly pointed out, poverty is not always a person's fault. Has it ever occurred to you that illness can drive a person into poverty? Ironic, but it does happen.

 

The we I was referring to is the US. And for the rest of this is your opinion.

 

So bloggers do not help themselves? I might have taken that as a personal slur, except that it's far too absurd. You might note that many LFers have blogs, all of whom have demonstrated far more compassion and maturity than you have.

 

The keyword you forgot is if. If they do not help themselves then yes I have no sympathy for them. Only pity. That's my right to believe that way.

 

I speak personally for the Malaysian health system, (if I remember correctly, housemen are ranked U48, medical officers U52, so on until heads of departments are ranked U64 or similar). As they ascend in rank, their pay also rises--not as much as they might get working in the private hospitals, but most of them have that inner spark to serve the people. The government also provides post-graduate opportunities at local universities.

 

That's your one country among others who might not have as much success. Also when something is ranked it depends on who the person did the ranking. It depends also on that person's stance on UHC.

 

From our American perspective we feel our CHC is better than most UHCs. That's what we think and present evidence to support that. As other countries do the same if they have a UHC. It wouldn't look good to present info that shows UHC to be not as good as CHC.

 

I think when you get down to things it's all a matter of what you believe. Any data can especially today can be interoperated the way one chooses.

 

I say to the onlookers of this thread just watching. Don't take our words for it find your own opinion. Lokk yourself. Come to your own conclusions. If you don't agree with your government's current health care system then change it by voting, making your voice known to your senators, etc.

 

You can do this in the US. That's what in my opinion makes us so great. You can disagree with your government without receiving persecution from our government.

 

Well, there is definite proof that you didn't click on them. The links I provided are articles which deal with factors leading to poverty. Nice to know that my courtesy in providing direct links was wasted effort.

 

Too many links like you said. You might be picking out just a few to support your opinion. The point is I'm way to busy and don't care to research that heavily.

 

Especially when onlookers on this thread can themselves look up the info on their owns and make up their own minds.

 

Who am I to tell them how to think. Besides, I feel that most of us if not all of us posting here already have our minds made up.

 

own is taxing those who can afford it to provide care for those who cannot, in any way comparable to stealing the food off their tables? After all, those who have problems putting food on the table probably fall out of the tax bracket or are taxed minimal amounts. Keep in mind that these are the same people whom you and SD Nihil regard as lazy bums who enjoy living in poverty.

 

How pleasant that you're suddenly so worried about their well-being.

 

Because it's taking what isn't yours. That's my money not yours. I should be able to choose which charity or who I wish to give or not give to. That is my free right as an US citizen. No government should tell me who disadvantaged I'm to give to. It's not their place.

 

The government and health care systems shouldn't play robin hood.

 

No, as I've said, it's my Doctor that determines the level of care I receive, not the government.

 

I said ultimately it's up to the government.

 

As far as sauces is concerned I can say they only looked at someone who had their own opinion. Or let's say it was Fox. That's a biased organization. I can say it about CNN. I can say these or those stats are based on that country's opinion and withholding and giving info that they want to present.

 

And this is not moderating to say make your own decisions and find yourself. It's just a lot is based on opinion and who is writing the facts on this and that. If I give into that supports CHC that might be viewed as just from a person or group that prefers that. O Readily is well researched. Some just say he lies or is evil.

 

So really it's all up to everyone's opinion.

 

And a slightly higher tax is a small price for the knowledge that I won't have to pay more for surgery should I be involved in a car accident, or should I need drugs if I develop a condition.

 

I don't think it will be slight. And I don't want the government or a UHC to tell me I must pay for someone else.

 

I'd much rather have universal care for all, as opposed to great care for some. Yes, it has it's flaws, but with Universal Healthcare, the Elderly, the Infirm, the Young, and both Physically and mentally disabled will all receive care, whereas with your system, they have the potential to be cast aside in favor of more affluent patients.

 

It's sad that a 'civilized society should charge its citizens for what should be one of their most basic rights.

 

Amount getting care doesn't mean all will get quality of care they need unless ultimately the government says so.

 

Fine her's some proof. I can deal with a headache at least today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW4b-uJlxJ8

 

O Reilly is a smart guy. Forward to about 1 min and 50 sec into it.

[Astor]

Nothing is completely fair in life. I simply believe that CHC is more more fair. You can't change what I think.[/Quote]

 

It's not fair by any stretch of the imagination.

 

That doesn't make the amount paid any less than a CHC in my opinion.

 

An amount paid by someone can't be an opinion.

 

CHC you can pay who you want to do the surgery. UHC you have less choice.

 

No, I reserve the right as patient to recieve a second opinion, and if i'm unhappy with the doctor i'm assigned, I can ask to be treated by another.

 

And all is subject to the government's almighty decision in the end.[/Quote]

 

Let me break down how it works here in the UK:

 

We have Primary Care Trusts - they are responsible for the big decisions.

 

Then we have Hospital Trusts. These trusts are responsible for the Hospitals, and consequently, how care is administered.

 

The only thing the government is responsible for is the political side.

 

With CHC we get to our patients quick too. We make advancements in medicine too. There's less to gain from making a cure in UHC because the government can decide if you should get paid for your work or if you have to steel your idea to the government.

 

What?

 

You have no right to tell me how to think or post. The only power you have is to make sure I don't break forum rules. I never said all poor people are poor and in pain because of their lack of work. Yes there are some instances where people have worked hard and just had bad luck come their way. But in the US the majority who work get rewarded.

 

She's a moderator, and she's right.

 

Too many links like you said. You might be picking out just a few to support your opinion. The point is I'm way to busy and don't care to research that heavily.

 

If you're not willing to take the time to research, then why are we even having this discussion?

 

I said ultimately it's up to the government.[/Quote]

 

No, it isn't, but I'm not going to bother mentioning it any more, as it's clear that you seem to think that UHCs are evil.

 

I don't think it will be slight. And I don't want the government or a UHC to tell me I must pay for someone else.[/Quote]

 

Why not? I'm reminded of a famous quote:

 

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country

 

Amount getting care doesn't mean all will get quality of care they need unless ultimately the government says so.

 

The NHS is duty bound to provide the highest standards and quality of care to all who require, at the point of delivery. The Government has little say in this.

 

O Reilly is a smart guy. Forward to about 1 min and 50 sec into it.

 

[Jae Onasi]

Also UHC where you said insurance isn't separate from the expenses. That doesn't make it any less of a bill. That doesn't make the amount paid any less than a CHC in my opinion.

It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or tittle wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs.

 

CHC you can pay who you want to do the surgery. UHC you have less choice. And all is subject to the government's almighty decision in the end.

When I was in the military system, I had a choice of which orthopedic surgeons I wanted to go to, and I had a choice of which hospital systems within the military that I wanted to go to. I still did my research on the surgeons that were on the military plan. The VA is the same--a vet can go to whatever VA hospital he wants, and can see whoever s/he wants to within the system. My current insurance limits who I can go to based on who accepts my plan, so I'm not sure what you mean by lack of choice. I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.

 

"Less than to maintain an insurance plan". In CHC if an insurance company fails then they fail. You shop for the most competitive and one you want. With UHC if that government is socialistic or communistic then you have to pay because the government says so. Less choice. In socialism or communism if the UHC insurance company fails I believe you'll get charged more to keep that one alive or government bail out.

UHC spreads the risk out over the entire population, not just those who are willing to pay for insurance. We already pay through taxes for Medicaid for anyone on welfare already, and Medicare for the over-65 crowd. UHC would extend healthcare to everyone in the working and middle classes who can't afford insurance right now because of pre-existing conditions, inadequate funds, workplaces not offering health care, and so on. Spreading out the risk might make the costs for us who do pay insurance now go down.

 

Yes, but it is also in a government that is capitalistic. And people in the military don't have to seek help from the VA. They have the choice to seek Private Health Care.

How many disabled veterans do you know who are able to afford the extremely high costs of private health insurance? You're assuming they a. have the funds to pay out of pocket or b. have the funds to pay the outrageous fees that an insurance company would charge for someone who has a pre-existing condition.

 

 

With CHC we get to our patients quick too. We make advancements in medicine too. There's less to gain from making a cure in UHC because the government can decide if you should get paid for your work or if you have to steel your idea to the government.

Research projects are approved here for gov't grants before the work begins, and that's the same in other countries, too. Why would there be less gain from creating a cure? In either system there's a drive to find treatments that are less invasive, more effective, and less costly, because both insurance companies and the gov't want to minimize costs as much as possible. I read British ophthalmology studies just like I do American ones. Why? Both countries are doing great research in eye care, and CHC or UHC has had no bearing on that. I would like to see an example or statistic on where someone has done research for an UHC system and not gotten paid, because I find that difficult to believe.

 

 

You have no right to tell me how to think or post. The only power you have is to make sure I don't break forum rules. I never said all poor people are poor and in pain because of their lack of work. Yes there are some instances where people have worked hard and just had bad luck come their way. But in the US the majority who work get rewarded.

When I speak as a moderator I use the different color to differentiate from when I post as a fellow member so there is no confusion.

You have repeatedly stated that poor people are being lazy and could get out of poverty if they worked harder. A number of us have shown you situations where that is simply not true. I, as a fellow member here, aml personally tired of hearing that an entire group of people are lazy and therefore should be denied a basic right to healthcare.

 

 

 

 

Some will end up on the street because though they tried they didn't get the job in time.

And these are the same 'lazy people' that you say don't deserve basic health care.

Wish I could remember the name of the movie, but it was about this black guy with his son. His mother left because though he was selling these x ray machines he wasn't making the money....He ended up being a millionaire and having his own company. Wish I could remember the name though.

You're using a fiction to prove your point?

 

The more I talk to him I do. Don't dismiss my father. It isn't irrelevant. It shows those in CHC have compassion and that we are a humane system.

It shows that your father has compassion. I've seen plenty of discrimination by insurance companies against those with pre-existing conditions, i.e. they won't even give the person coverage, or will only do so at a rate significantly higher than someone without that condition. The CHC is about making money, pure and simple. I doubt your dad ever had to deal with billing and insurance issues anyway--the hospital insurance department likely took care of that for him, so he never had to deal with the money side of this.

 

 

 

From our American perspective we feel our CHC is better than most UHCs. That's what we think and present evidence to support that. As other countries do the same if they have a UHC. It wouldn't look good to present info that shows UHC to be not as good as CHC.

Our own statistics in the US show our CHC system is not as good as many UHCs in infant mortality and maternal mortality. The World Health Organization provides a lot of health stats that countries can't hide, and also ranks the US a lot lower in infant/maternal mortality than in a significant number of other countries.

 

I think when you get down to things it's all a matter of what you believe. Any data can especially today can be interoperated the way one chooses.

Please explain to me how infant and maternal mortality rates can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Too many links like you said. You might be picking out just a few to support your opinion. The point is I'm way to busy and don't care to research that heavily.

I see. You aren't interested in educating yourself on something that differs from your opinion. That's a pity.

 

Especially when onlookers on this thread can themselves look up the info on their owns and make up their own minds.

Then why are you posting here? If you want to present your opinion, fine, but don't give people a hard time when they ask you for proof to back up why you think that way. That's grossly unfair.

 

Who am I to tell them how to think. Besides, I feel that most of us if not all of us posting here already have our minds made up.

That doesn't mean we can't learn something new or change our minds when we've discovered some information that changes our information.

Because it's taking what isn't yours. That's my money not yours. I should be able to choose which charity or who I wish to give or not give to. That is my free right as an US citizen. No government should tell me who disadvantaged I'm to give to. It's not their place.

So, don't pay for your own insurance then, because you might be paying for someone else's care. That's how insurance works--it charges money to you based on a certain risk level. If you don't get sick, great, but you're paying for someone else's care who did get sick. A UHC would spread that risk to a greater number of people so that our total premiums/taxes at a personal level could be lower.

 

The government and health care systems shouldn't play robin hood.

You think insurance companies are completely transparent? Excuse me while I double over laughing, with all due respect to mimartin.

 

 

 

I said ultimately it's up to the government.

No, it's ultimately up to us because we vote these people in and out of office. Right now I have zero say in my health insurance management. With UHC I would have some kind of say, no matter how small and how indirect.

And this is not moderating to say make your own decisions and find yourself. It's just a lot is based on opinion and who is writing the facts on this and that. If I give into that supports CHC that might be viewed as just from a person or group that prefers that.

Instead of providing this long explanation of why you don't want to provide facts to back your position, how about you provide some facts and let each reader make his or her own decision?

 

I don't think it will be slight. And I don't want the government or a UHC to tell me I must pay for someone else.

Well, you better not pay insurance then, either, and you better not get sick yourself, because in the first case you're paying for someone else, and in the second case someone else will be paying for you, which you would find completely unfair.

 

Amount getting care doesn't mean all will get quality of care they need unless ultimately the government says so.

No--the voters say so. Do you honestly think that poor care would get covered up? No. There will be whistle-blowers in any system. At least the gov't has accountability to all voters, rather than just their shareholders.

[SD Nihil]

It's not fair by any stretch of the imagination.

 

In your opinion.

 

An amount paid by someone can't be an opinion.

 

I wasn't disputing that.

 

If someone gives they give.

 

No, I reserve the right as patient to receive a second opinion, and if I'm unhappy with the doctor I'm assigned, I can ask to be treated by another.

 

Proof, and my point is you have less control over your taxes, choice of level of care because again that's regulated by the government. The government whether the doc made one ultimately the government can say in their opinion how soon you get that surgery.

 

UHC differs from government to government depending on restrictions and limits set by the government.

 

We have Primary Care Trusts - they are responsible for the big decisions.

 

What if the patients whets another treatment? The government can say no if they want to.

 

Then we have Hospital Trusts. These trusts are responsible for the Hospitals, and consequently, how care is administered.

 

And because it's not privatized the tax payer has to pay for it. Whereas CHC you can choose to pay for that hospital or not by seeking this hospital or not. They get paid when you pay them if you wish to pay them for their services.

 

In the US those that come in without money don't even have to and we still try to save their lives though our taxes go up as a result. Does it mean their poverty is their fault no. But if they never tried then yes. If they end up on the streets we're a humane nation with shelters who take in those who are trying to make their way and who do not give up.

 

The only thing the government is responsible for is the political side.

 

Meaning to treat this minority quicker than this non minority group? Explain what you mean.

 

What?

 

Spell checker made a mistake of what I mistyped. I meant instead of steel I meant sell. But then again sell is not correct. The government can easily take your idea for their own if they wanted.

 

She's a moderator, and she's right.

 

That has nothing to do with the topic anyway, but that's true. They can moderate and take action if I do not follow rules. But they cannot or should not tell me or make me not post or speak how I wish to speak about poverty as long as I'm not breaking forum rules.

 

If you're not willing to take the time to research, then why are we even having this discussion?

 

I've seen less than a handful of instances where you guys have given credible sources either. And this about sources isn't on topic in my opinion. That's not moderating. That's me giving my opinion.

The moderators will do the moderating. Thank you.

 

No, it isn't, but I'm not going to bother mentioning it any more, as it's clear that you seem to think that UHCs are evil.

 

In your opinion. And I never said evil. I simply disagree with it.

 

Why not? I'm reminded of a famous quote:

 

I believe JFK was referring to not UHC he was referring to people working. But many things that our leaders of the past have said have been subject to other's opinions, stances, and interpretations. I could say he was maybe referring to the space program and what they can do for this country. See interpretation.

 

The NHS is duty bound to provide the highest standards and quality of care to all who require, at the point of delivery. The Government has little say in this.

 

A standard set and changed based on what the government thinks. A standard in which they can deem what is considered good level of care. Whereas CHC you determine what level of care you wish to receive based on your income and what doc you go to, what hospital you go to, what state you get it from, what insurance you use, and how hard you work.

 

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

O Reilly is a smart guy. Forward to about 1 min and 50 sec into it.

 

Your smiley you put under this isn't an argument. It's just a smiley.

 

It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or title wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs.

 

I don't want to pay all that. And again government in general even in America is slow when to do this and that. The Commission for the Blind in states is too.

 

UHC is subject to government regulation.

 

It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or title wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs

 

Documentation is good from a legal standpoint in that it protects the patient from errors that can effect their plan of care. Paperwork is needed to be correct. You want not the wrong person to get billed or the wrong insurance to be written. Paperwork makes those providing care liable for mistakes. It protects your rights. Let's you know the fine print of things.

 

If you didn't have paperwork how can you go to court and make a case for mal treatment. Especially if the government is backing the UHC system. They are paying the government your money. Why would they go against their own system that is paying them. Why would they want annoy anyone.

 

They protect their own interests. And the UHC has the government's interests at heart.

 

When I was in the military system, I had a choice of which orthopedic surgeons I wanted to go to, and I had a choice of which hospital systems within the military that I wanted to go to. I still did my research on the surgeons that were on the military plan. The VA is the same--a vet can go to whatever VA hospital he wants, and can see whoever so/he wants to within the system. My current insurance limits who I can go to based on who accepts my plan, so I'm not sure what you mean by lack of choice. I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.

 

The VA of the US? If so then that really isn't a UHC system. Because the government is capitalistic. And you can go elsewhere for care besides the VA which is not privatized care.

 

I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.

 

Those with a government that have UHC don't have the choice of not to pay for the UHC. Their tax dollars go to it. They don't have the choice to go to another hospital that is privately run care. If the docs are not on the same page that's their decision and feelings they are entitled to. You cannot make someone think or believe the way you want. If you do that's intolerance, that's oppression. And when a country or people cannot allow or punish those for their opinions then that is fascism. Communism does this.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post

Also UHC where you said insurance isn't separate from the expenses. That doesn't make it any less of a bill. That doesn't and

Large non-contributory block quote removed for streamlined reading.

 

Did I say always it was their fault. No. I said their is food for them, shelters for them, programs for them, and we do provide aid in emergency cases.

 

It shows that your father has compassion. I've seen plenty of discrimination by insurance companies against those with pre-existing conditions, i.e. they won't even give the person coverage, or will only do so at a rate significantly higher than someone without that condition. The CHC is about making money, pure and simple. I doubt your dad ever had to deal with billing and insurance issues anyway--the hospital insurance department likely took care of that for him, so he never had to deal with the money side of this.

 

It doesn't mean that insurance companies in UHC don't think of profit. It means also that wages are also controlled and set by the government in UHC.

 

Our own statistics in the US show our CHC system is not as good as many UHCs in infant mortality and maternal mortality. The World Health Organization provides a lot of health stats that countries can't hide, and also ranks the US a lot lower in infant/maternal mortality than in a significant number of other countries.

 

It depends on who did the study, how they arranged the info, how they sun it, what info they left out, and their own bias.

 

Please explain to me how infant and maternal mortality rates can be interpreted in multiple ways.

 

Depends on where the study was taken, who's hospital they polled, what state, country, did they compare a state to a government, what countries they compared, and who did the study.

 

I see. You aren't interested in educating yourself on something that differs from your opinion. That's a pity.

 

Your not changing your view either. We both have our minds made up. You don't want to learn either in my opinion.

 

Then why are you posting here? If you want to present your opinion, fine, but don't give people a hard time when they ask you for proof to back up why you think that way. That's grossly unfair.

 

I'm not. I just believe whatever I post will be up to interpretation. Like the O Reily source. He researched, but his research was done by one who had an opinion. And one who could've manipulated facts, or not. Or facts to some may seem to be lies to others.

 

It's all what you believe is right, your interpretation, and your bias.

 

hat doesn't mean we can't learn something new or change our minds when we've discovered some information that changes our information.

 

You don't change either. Your mind is made up. Both of us are on what we think system is better.

 

You haven't said anything more than what I know already.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post

Also UHC

Large non-contributory block quote removed.

 

No. I'm paying for my own care and their employees wages as a customer. If they use that money where and how they wish for their care then that's their choice. I'm not paying for them. They are paying with their own money.

 

No, it's ultimately up to us because we vote these people in and out of office. Right now I have zero say in my health insurance management. With UHC I would have some kind of say, no matter how small and how indirect.

 

The current system you must pay for, if the time comes around to vote to keep it or not. If there isn't a time to vote the system in or out you don't get to vote on it. And you pay a lot for others who some might not have worked hard.

 

Well, you better not pay insurance then, either, and you better not get sick yourself, because in the first case you're paying for someone else, and in the second case someone else will be paying for you, which you would find completely unfair.

 

I believe we won't have a UHC. If we do I'll just move to another country that doesn't.

[Astor]

Proof, and my point is you have less control over your taxes, choice of level of care because again that's regulated by the government. The government whether the doc made one ultimately the government can say in their opinion how soon you get that surgery.[/Quote]

 

You want me to provide proof that I can ask for a second opinion?

 

Besides, if i'm ill, i'd rather focus on actually getting the treatment I need as opposed to shopping around for a doctor who will conform to the budget I have.

 

What if the patients whets another treatment? The government can say no if they want to.[/Quote]

 

Again, the Government doesn't. A doctor does, after examinations and tests to determine if anything is required.

 

And because it's not privatized the tax payer has to pay for it.

 

I've never stated otherwise.

 

Meaning to treat this minority quicker than this non minority group? Explain what you mean.

 

I'm curious why you assume I meant about treating minorities. The Government is responsible for the Department of Health, which oversees the NHS.

 

Spell checker made a mistake of what I mistyped. I meant instead of steel I meant sell. But then again sell is not correct. The government can easily take your idea for their own if they wanted.

 

Governments tend not to steal research from doctors.

 

I've seen less than a handful of instances where you guys have given credible sources either. And this about sources isn't on topic in my opinion.

 

It is on topic if you can't be bother to research for your argument.

 

Your smiley you put under this isn't an argument. It's just a smiley.

 

No, it wasn't an argument. But O'Reilly and 'smart' are rarely used together.

[mimartin]

I tried to stay out of this for the most part, but I am offended by the assumption that all people that don’t have health insurance in the United States are lazy.

 

Please don’t lump everyone without health insurance or those living below the poverty line into one misunderstood stereotype. According to National Coalition on Health Care there are multiple reason for the uninsured.

 

You think insurance companies are completely transparent? Excuse me while I double over laughing, with all due respect to mimartin.

You’ll get no argument from me. The main reason I don't sell alot of health insurance. The Health Insurance compaines that are more open are also more expensive.

 

No matter what anyone says, if ran properly UHC would have lower cost than our current system. It is the nature of the beast. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit; UHC would only be in business to cover cost and expenses.

No, it wasn't an argument. But O'Reilly and 'smart' are rarely used together.

You don't watch or listen to O'Reilly very much. If you did you'd heard how smart he is all the time. O'Reilly constantly tells the viewer/listener how intelligent he is. Really nice bookend to the “Fair and Balance” propaganda his network puts out.

[Yar-El]

I tried to stay out of this for the most part, but I am offended by the assumption that all people that don’t have health insurance in the United States are lazy.

That is pretty much where we lost everyone. People have been adding words to each other's posts. Originally, I made a comment similar to, "Lazy people who are capable of working, but they don't work, should not be able to obtain free healthcare." I was trying to look at people who do not have jobs, and they try to take advantage of Medicare type systems. Somewhere after my comments, people started to connect lazy people to poor people. Eventually, some people started to talk about death and dying. People mixed poster's comments together, glossed over what was actually said, and then came up with weird interpretations. (See the first few posts of this thread, and you will see how things got twisted.)

 

Universal Healthcare is a tax burden on everyone. I do support the VA, Medicare, and all the ones we have in place. I don't think making another system is being responsible. We should stregnthen the current systems. Seeing as they allready come out of our paychecks, I don't have a problem with the current system. I do have a problem with a nationalized system. It will be too easy to currupt.

 

Someone asked a question about how I feel about police, hospitals, and fire departments. Without these systsms in place, we would enter into anarchy. They are a necessity.

 

Our founding fathers understood the issues with socializing systems. That is why we arrived to the new world. We escaped high taxes, regulated laws pertaining to religion, and other freedom restraining elements. I believe in our founding fathers. Two terms come to mind, "All men are created equal" -- and -- "United we stand, divided we fall". Universal Healthcare does reflect these philosophies, but it does not reflect another philosophy, "Freedom, liberty, and justice for all." Freedom is very important. Our Bill of Rights must still protect the people at all costs. Freedom of choice, speech, bare arms, press, etc... We have a responsibility to protect such freedoms. I want the freedom to choose between hot dogs and hamburgers. I want the freedom to speak about anything I want. I want the freedom to give my money freely, and to not have anyone tell me to do so.

 

One of the darkests thing to reality is consequences. Do we take a right or do we take a left. Universal Healthcare has more negative consequences than positive ones. Anything that is controlled by an all seeing system is destined to become corrupt, twisted, and anything else you can think of. Everyone is basing their assumptions that everyone in the world is innocent. They are not. Look at the news recently. Our government is regulating the financial system, and they are going to appoint an overseer. Creditcard companies have been regulated for years. Not too long ago sixty-minutes did a piece on creditcard regulation. It turns out that the government overseer is on the side of the creditcard companies. Our government doesn't care about us.

 

People, regulating a larger form of Universal Healthcare is flawed. We are looking at tax burdens ontop of the financial tax burden ontop of...etc... We are also looking at people who will take advantage of the system. Someone who is able to work (capable), and they don't want to work, is not entittled to free healthcare. They need to pull their weight. Everyone has a great argument for those with medical conditions, but those are not the people I'm talking about. Another fault to a regulated system is government kickbacks. Our current military contracts are going to companies that have friends in office, and they are getting kickbacks for establishing connections. Are you telling me that Blue Cross and Blue Sheild and others won't try the same thing? We need to protect our freedom of choice, and where our money ends up. Keep in mind that Presidents and administrations allways change. Who knows what the future holds. Trust no one.

 

We don't live in a utopian society.

 

----

 

P.S. - Please stop putting words in my mouth.

[mimartin]

Universal Health Insurance would put the burden on everyone!

 

The current system only put the burden for the uninsured on the people with health insurance.

 

The uninsured are still treated, but the cost of that treatment is expensed by the health care provider. Those expenses are passed on to the consumers that can pay. So as the system stands now, we are paying for the uninsured no matter their reason for not having health insurance, but the cost is being absorbed by only those responsible and lucky enough to be able to afford health insurance and with the health history have the opportunity to purchase the insurance.

 

Please do not forget, many uninsured are unable to purchase or afford health insurance due to preexisting conditions. It has nothing to do with want or need, but everything to do with ability to be offered coverage. Universal Health Care gives everyone the ability to have health insurance.

 

Someone who is able to work (capable), and they don't want to work, is not entittled to free healthcare. [/Quote] Why are you saying it would be free? I don’t consider an increase tax burden free. The way the system now works, people get free medical procedures. People can afford medical insurance, but don’t have it. They still have broken arms, cancer, babies…. Who do you think pays for these medical procedures?

 

P.S. - Please stop putting words in my mouth.

[Yar-El]

Universal Health Insurance would put the burden on everyone!

 

The current system only put the burden for the uninsured on the people with health insurance.

 

The uninsured are still treated, but the cost of that treatment is expensed by the health care provider. Those expenses are passed on to the consumers that can pay. So as the system stands now, we are paying for the uninsured no matter their reason for not having health insurance, but the cost is being absorbed by only those responsible and lucky enough to be able to afford health insurance and with the health history have the opportunity to purchase the insurance.

Oh, I get it. People who are able to pay are suffering from higher bills due to people who cannot. Well, that s#$ks monkey nuts. They are just dragging the system down by getting free healthcare.

 

Please do not forget, many uninsured are unable to purchase or afford health insurance due to preexisting conditions. It has nothing to do with want or need, but everything to do with ability to be offered coverage. Universal Health Care gives everyone the ability to have health insurance.

Affordable health insurance? That is a tough one.

 

[El Sitherino]

So what do you think about a student who is working relatively inconsistent pay (such as lawn jobs, etc.), should they be denied coverage or the benefit of a plan that can get them the help they need should they encounter a fatal rough spot?

[SW01]

I do have a problem with a nationalized system. It will be too easy to currupt.

 

Corruption? I don't think I can recall an incident of NHS corruption at any level. Consider this: the Health Service is nationalised. A government minister is ultimately responsible for it. He doesn't decide who gets what care when, but is an overseer. If the system becomes inefficient, or fails due to managerial inefficiency, you as a voter in a democratic society exercise your democratic right, and remove the government from office. Governments are accountable to the peolpe. Buisnessmen are not.

 

We are looking at tax burdens ontop of the financial tax burden ontop of...etc...

 

Another thing you must understand: we are not billed for healthcare once we receive it. All of that is included in taxation. At no time will you be required to 'settle your bill.' Further, health insurance is not requisite. At all. We have a private sector for medical care, which you can pay for if you want to. This sector has no influence over the NHS.

 

Universal Healthcare has more negative consequences than positive ones.

 

What are the negative consequences? Specifically? The only major problem with the NHS has been waiting lists, which are being reduced. I can think of many negative consequences for capitalistic provision of healthcare:

1) the wealthy get priority, and by definition the best treatment;

2) the Hippocratic Oath goes out the window: by turning away a sick person because they don't have enough money you are perpetuating harm;

3) hospital management is not accountable to the electorate, or to any elected body, therefore the people have reduced control;

4) a governmental overseer, if open to corruption, can be sidelined by a generous donation from a particular hospital or insurance company to overlook their shortcomings. It has just been said that it happened with credit card companies.

 

Everyone has a great argument for those with medical conditions, but those are not the people I'm talking about.

 

And, surely people with medical conditions are those most likely to have an interest in healthcare? A healthy person who cannot be bothered working is unlikely to be spurred into the workforce by the possibility that he may perhaps at some remote time in the future need to go to hospital. Certainly, it is not the biggest concern of any voluntarily unemployed person I have ever met.

 

Creditcard companies have been regulated for years. Not too long ago sixty-minutes did a piece on creditcard regulation. It turns out that the government overseer is on the side of the creditcard companies.

 

Many of your points seem to indicate that it is your government that is at fault, not the concept of universal health care.

 

I want the freedom to give my money freely, and to not have anyone tell me to do so.

 

I don't imagine your federal government would be best pleased if you informed them that you wouldn't pay your income taxes for that reason...

[mimartin]

Oh, I get it. People who are able to pay are suffering from higher bills due to people who cannot. [/Quote] No, it is not just the people who cannot afford it that are dragging the system down. It is those that can afford it, but choice not to purchase it. According to the National Coalition of Health Care (the link I provided in a previous post). 29.3% of 18-24 years old do not have health insurance, over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families and 40% of the uninsured population resides in households that earn $50,000 or more annually. In 2006, 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance.

 

It used to be easy to get around the preexisting condition requirement. You just signed up for your employer’s group plan during the enrollment time each year or you changed jobs. Now however, 1/3 of all U.S. firms did not offer coverage in 2006. In 1987, 70% percent of employers offered employment-based health insurance, in 2006 that number had dropped to 59%. There are now restrictions and exclusions for preexisting condition even on group health insurance that were not in place in the 80s or early 90s.

 

The availability to purchase health insurance is shrinking.

[El Sitherino]

The availability to purchase health insurance is shrinking.

 

I think this is why many of us are supportive of Universal Healthcare. The best way to increase that market is with a plan that lays out guidelines and boundaries.