Why do we need universal healthcare?

[JMS]

I am saying compare your number against these numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 What does the COST mean if you are not comparing it to the ability to afford the cost. Yes in the US it costs a lot of money. But (cue Patrick Ewings voice here) WE MAKE A LOT OF MONEY. lol

It is called being intellectually honest with yourself. This is why I do not listen the WHO hook line and sinker. Nothing wrong with being objective. Right?

The problem is even if you take healthcare cost as a percentage of GNP we still pay by far and away a higher percentage than anybody else in the world. Even while we recieve substandard care compared to peer and even non peer countries.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

So the questions you should ask yourself.

Should healthcare cost be based on service? If so we pay to much.

Should healthcare cost be based on our ability to pay? If so we still pay to much.

[JMS]

JMS, please check out this website. How can you justify the "YES's" outweigh the "NO's"?

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/uni...health_care.htm

Sorry man, this link doesn't work for me.

[portisizzle]

Should healthcare cost be based on service? If so we pay to much.

Should healthcare cost be based on our ability to pay? If so we still pay to much.

And the government is going to do nothing in order to "reduce" this cost to the consumer. Found any politicians willing to cut costs in HALF yet? Then what is your point?

[jbooma]

People like JMS and myself actually abhor government regulation and love free market systems, but ALSO (and this is a key point) can recognize when a system is broken, and take steps to fix it. A republican will, on the other hand, as Portis has so gracefully done in this thread, claim that getting away from a monopolistic system will be disastrous for America and will bury us into the ground, when EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF DATA shows a broken system that if it continues along the same path WILL bury us.

Chom have you projected the France and Canadian plans and what % of gdp they will be spending in 10 years?? You guys make it sound like those systems are perfect, but they are not.

Healthcare is a problem everywhere even in socialized plans.

Like I have said before one of the main issues in the US is companies inability to put people in place to get their employees a good deal. When you put no effort into establishing a strong benefits department you will be taking advantage of.

[JMS]

Blind dogma?

Yep, "government is the absolute root of all evil". It's a blind declaration of faith which doesn't pass any historical reality test. It's a dogma which ignores the fact that the broken system we find ourselves in today was created by government and can only be fixed by government!!..

It's a declaration in favor of stagnation and inaction in the face of failure.

First you can not prove, nor is any politician that is running for office has in his/her platform, the possibility of cutting the cost to the consumer in half.

Wrong... We have 36 models to choose from all of which would offer better care while halving our per capita costs. The problem is we aren't adopting any of those systems yet. Our political leaders other than Edwards, are talking more about reforming our current system. Something we've been doing since the early 1970's with little benifit.

The entire argument is driven by money. Consumer advocates have long been looking at our healthcare system, but it's only been recently that big business has gotten on board the issue. The out of control costs are a greater issue than the increase improvement of service.

lets deal with this and then we can move to the next assertion that you think WILL happen of the government gets their grubby paws on this system.

I will say this. If you expect and reward incompetence in government. If you refuse to hold your government officials responsible, then you will get more incompetent government managment.

If Costa Rica, Columbia, Morroco, UAE and Chili can all achieve better service, universal coverage, and still beat us on price point per capita; Then I say we can reasonable expect to achieve competent management too from our goverment. Or is it your assertion that Columbia and Chili have less corruption government than the US? Colubmia is more able to deal with government corruption and incompetent management than the US?

That's if we don't re-invent the wheel, and if we just follow the path these many other sucessful countries have laid out for us.

[portisizzle]

Two final points JMS and then I will leave you alone.

Would you go to Costa Rica for a heart surgery?

Do you really expect our government to "cut" the cost of health care with any plan promoted by the current set of presidential candidates?

[helptheSKINS]

Sorry man, this link doesn't work for me.

Here it is again in text. I'm just not buying that universal hc is possible or it should be used in the US.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

1. 
   
2. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in a long line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system?
   
   
3. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
   
   
4. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
   
   
5. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
   
   
6. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if he had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
   
   
7. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
   
   
8. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
   
   
9. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
   
   
10. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
    
    
11. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.
    
    
12. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?
    
    
13. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramactically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.
    

[skinsn24]

The bottom line is, insurance is a gambling game. .

I dont know if you are talking about insurance in general or just healthcare but, insurance is actually used to hedge risk in a situation. Ie it reduces a risk a gambler takes.

People have insurance (house, car, health) because life is a gambling game and the insurance is there to reduce risk.

[Mooka]

What we need to have is affordable healthcare for all, and push preventive medicine, instead of being a diseased nation which we are right now, we need to catch it early. This though is a compelete change in thought for many of us.

Is this possible though?

[GoCommiesGo]

WE need people to take personal responsibility for themselves. People need to take care of themselves and maintain a lifestyle that is by nature preventive.

I saw a report on CNN with new cancer causes 14% of all Male cancer is linked to obesity, 20% of Female cancer is linked to obesity.

How about as a culture instead of looking for an easy out we try to take care of ourselves. Look at the portioning you get in restaurants if you eat that 2lbs of pasta they served you, you are better going off to McDonald's and ordering a #1 Biggie Size.

Eat less and exercise more this is not complex.

[chomerics]

Green, take you lesson from here.

1) How to say absolutely nothing. But do it with style and substance.

2) Include definitive "I win you lose" statement. Whether the truth to this statement is confirmed or not.

3) Provide your argument in such a way as to nearly make it impossible to respond in a reasonable way.

Classic Chrome.

Hey at least you recognize greatness when you see it

[portisizzle]

Hey at least you recognize greatness when you see it

Chrome you are one of a kind. And you can piss me off like no other on this board. Of all the pinkies on this site (Green I am looking at you) you are the only one who can back up an argument with flavor.

[JMS]

Chom have you projected the France and Canadian plans and what % of gdp they will be spending in 10 years??

Inflation is a problem everywhere. But the US healthcare system is growing faster than everybody elses over the last 30 years.

You guys make it sound like those systems are perfect, but they are not.

Nobody is saying all of those 36 systems are perfect. We are just saying they provide better service according to the WHO, They cost half or less than half as much per capita, and they all provide universal coverage.

Healthcare is a problem everywhere even in socialized plans.

Healthcare is a problem everywhere. But it's a problem other countries are manageing much better than the United States from every meaningful perspective. Service, Cost, Coverage, and Inflation.

Like I have said before one of the main issues in the US is companies inability to put people in place to get their employees a good deal. When you put no effort into establishing a strong benefits department you will be taking advantage of.

Yeah because healthcare problems are such a niche concern we as a people choose to mandate trained professionals enlighten us, and only then if we work for a company which can afford trained professionals for this purpose.

How about this, We all need healthcare. If you're healthy today, you need a system which will take care of you when you aren't healthy. We Universally need good healthcare. Why not tackle this problem Universally. Why not address it as a people like every other country in the industrialized world.

Why should we allow ourselves to be carved up into those who are healthy and those who are not healthy; just so we can continue to support a failed system which isn't benifit us.

Why not actually look at what the rest of the world is doing and learn from their mistakes and sucesses.

[Mooka]

WE need people to take personal responsibility for themselves. People need to take care of themselves and maintain a lifestyle that is by nature preventive.

Of course, but it is not only the lazy and unhealthy that are having problems with health care.

[skinsn24]

I am saying compare your number against these numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 What does the COST mean if you are not comparing it to the ability to afford the cost. Yes in the US it costs a lot of money. But (cue Patrick Ewings voice here) WE MAKE A LOT OF MONEY. lol

It is called being intellectually honest with yourself. This is why I do not listen the WHO hook line and sinker. Nothing wrong with being objective. Right?

No opinion on health care here, except that it is really expensive. (as a college student, i got the flu while living in the dorm, went to a doctor, had him do nothing but look at my throat, got a nice bill for 350 dollars!)

But i do take issue with cost compared to ability to afford.

You say, we make alot of money, therefor it is ok for our product (healthcare in this case) to cost more.

I ask these questions then:

Are you ok with drugs being shipped to africa at almost no cost? (say drugs that cost 50 a pill in the US selling for 1 dollar a pill in africa?)

Are you ok with say the exact same car costing americans 50k but south americans only 10k?

It is always good to take the rational or logic from one issue and apply it to another issue to see if it holds. Thats actually the first thing a philosophy of debate class will teach.

[portisizzle]

No opinion on health care here, except that it is really expensive. But i do take issue with cost compared to ability to afford.

You say, we make alot of money, therefor it is ok for our product (healthcare in this case to cost more)

I ask these questions then:

Are you ok with drugs being shipped to africa at almost no cost? (say drugs that cost 50 a pill in the US for only a 1 dollar a pill in africa?)

Are you ok with say the exact same car costing americans 50k but south americans only 10k?

Who pays for the R and D of all these newfangled drugs. And those newfangled drugs in the future? Sorry to answer your question with a question. But.....

[chomerics]

Chom have you projected the France and Canadian plans and what % of gdp they will be spending in 10 years?? You guys make it sound like those systems are perfect, but they are not.

And what about the other 36 countries that are ahead of us? Have you looked at the projection of our health care costs vs the rate of inflation over the past 20 years, past 10? extrapolated them into the future? Please, NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY is saying that there is a perfect system out there, you are missing the point.

What we are saying is that OUR SYSTEM, as it is currently stated, costs MORE MONEY for LESS CARE by a 2:1 margin, and this needs to be addressed. now how do you fix it? What is your ONLY recourse in this case? Government intervention, we have done it in the past when things were broken, and we will do it in the future when things are broken. . . but we CAN fix it, we just need people to stop touting party lines, and recognize the issue.

Healthcare is a problem everywhere even in socialized plans.

Yet, it is a FAR FAR less efficient system we have in place in terms of dollars spent vs care then in other places. Why is that Booma? It costs a person over 2 times the cost for the same services other countries reveive, and we are so far down on the list, it is EMBARRASSING!!!

Like I have said before one of the main issues in the US is companies inability to put people in place to get their employees a good deal.

And like so many many times before, you are wrong.

When you put no effort into establishing a strong benefits department you will be taking advantage of.

Do you think a company can leverage deals with health care providers? Of course they can. . .but wait, wasn't the party you supported AGAINST leveraging purchasing power against the medical industry??? Don't I remember the GOP passing a bill which FORBIDS the largest purchasing company to negotiate a price with drug companies??? I wonder how can a party "supposedly for" the free market put restrictions in place that eliminates competition??? Funny how that works isn't it.

It is called Fascism, and when it is broken down into it's simplest form, where the corporations run the rules and regulations of government, and it is where the free market fails. Maybe you guys need to do some economical and historical background reading on the perils of when a corporation writes the laws of which they obied by. it has happened before in this country and in the world, read up on it, you may become a little bit enlightened.

[skinsn24]

Who pays for the R and D of all these newfangled drugs. And those newfangled drugs in the future? Sorry to answer your question with a question. But.....

It doesnt matter. I posted this:

It is always good to take the rational or logic from one issue and apply it to another issue to see if it holds. Thats actually the first thing a philosophy of debate class will teach.

The question was, are you ok with a product costing less in a country where they have less to pay and more in a richer country.

Because that is what you said.

You said: It is ok for the US to charge more than other countries for health care because the US is richer, even though the product is inferior.

My example say the products are equal too.

[box8276]

A hospital can charge $5 for 2 tylenol, $300 per hour for an emergency room-room, $100 per minute the doctor was actually in the room, another $400 for blood testing, $500 for hospice care, nurses, even $20 for 2 pillows. Total Bill: $4,500.

The look on my brother-in-laws face after opening the bill: Priceless.

He went to the hospital because he had a bleeding ulcer, where he sat in a room for 8hrs. Saw the doctor for about 10 min. Doc sent him home with what amounted to a souped up mylanta. His gripe as well as mine is simple, it seems like hospitals want to keep the meter running on patients, thus making them more money. He should have been in and out in a couple of hours.

[chomerics]

Who pays for the R and D of all these newfangled drugs. And those newfangled drugs in the future? Sorry to answer your question with a question. But.....

Who pays for the $300million dollar paycheck the CEO makes? Who pays for the congressmen to pass laws which stop negotiating power from the largest purchaser? Who pays senators to pass laws which restrict importation of THE SAME DRUG from other countries because it is cheaper :doh:

Don't even go down that path Portis, because you will get pwned just as bad

[portisizzle]

It doesnt matter. I posted this:

It is always good to take the rational or logic from one issue and apply it to another issue to see if it holds. Thats actually the first thing a philosophy of debate class will teach.

The question was, are you ok with a product costing less in a country where they have less to pay and more in a richer country.

Because that is what you said.

You said: It is ok for the US to charge more than other countries for health care because the US is richer, even though the product is inferior.

My example say the products are equal too.

The point is they do not develop or manufacture drugs in Zimbabwe. Someone has to pay for the bleeding edge R and D of these countries. So your suggestion is.......

[jbooma]

And like so many many times before, you are wrong.

.

Sorry Chomerics but you are

If you look at the companies that do have good plans you will notice a strong HR department (that are not paper pushers) and a benefits person that understands how to negotiate with a broker on healthcare.

You would also see a proactive group that pushes education and better health for their employees.

Do you know anything about how a company negotiates their policies? I didn't think so.

[skinsn24]

The point is they do not develop or manufacture drugs in Zimbabwe. Someone has to pay for the bleeding edge R and D of these countries. So your suggestion is.......

You make me laugh. Say its a car, not drugs, any product. It is a simple question.

But if you want to stick to the drugs and R&D think about the health care R&D that other countries use that they didnt develop. You think every surgical procedure in costa rica was developed there?

But from your quoted statement, it would seem you are AGAISNT drugs being cheaper in africa? IS that correct?

[jbooma]

He should have been in and out in a couple of hours.

You are right about that. The problem is ER's are not staffed well and there are many people who go to the ER that are wasting quality time. This is a huge problem and hospitals and dr's are trying to fix with more education for their patients.

The problem is with the internet and webmd people feel they have symptoms for everything. They also do not take advantage of the free calls they have with their coverage to talk to a nurse or dr before even going to the ER to get advice.

[portisizzle]

Who pays for the $300million dollar paycheck the CEO makes? Who pays for the congressmen to pass laws which stop negotiating power from the largest purchaser? Who pays senators to pass laws which restrict importation of THE SAME DRUG from other countries because it is cheaper :doh:

Don't even go down that path Portis, because you will get pwned just as bad

The CEO has a job. Maxmize stockholder value. They do this through innovation and running progressive and successful business. I will leave it to your imagination what some of these companies would look like with a $50,000 per year CEO. Especially in the pharmaceutical industry.

Senators have a responsibility to support out country. We do this by making sure that pharmaceutical companies have the money and ability to do their job. If this means making sure that imported products by companies without the R and D expense are illegal then so be it. Without the business model as it is I suppose that you think innovation will advance just as fast as it does now.

Of course if this the position you must take then you can easily name me other countries who are outputting innovation as well as we do in the United States.

P.S. I just went down the path. Lets see some "pwongage"....