Convince me about UHC

[XT]

@Mr2001

Um… are you suggesting that every other country with UHC has always had it, since the dawn of time? Or did they, perhaps, have transitional experiences that we can learn from when pondering what our own transitional experience might be like?

Since I already said that other countries have had transitions but I don’t think their circumstances were similar to our I can only assume you are asking this question because you haven’t actually read the OP carefully.

And since I’ve already said that you folks can do what you want to as far as use other examples I am forced to assume that you don’t want to tackle the actual questions asked but instead endlessly wish to pick nits.

-XT

[Ms2001]

@xtisme

Since I already said that other countries have had transitions but I don’t think their circumstances were similar to our I can only assume you are asking this question because you haven’t actually read the OP carefully.

You then said that the difference between their circumstances and ours was that “the US doesn’t have UHC” whereas “other countries DO have it”.

I took your comment seriously and pointed out that, since other countries haven’t always had UHC, this isn’t a difference at all. Was that a mistake? If so, I guess I didn’t get the joke.

[Weirddave]

@vivalostwages

My folks, both seniors, had a Blue Cross PPO and Medicare. Thank goodness, too, because they would have been screwed without Medicare, which paid for my dying dad’s hospital bed, some in-home nurse visits, his time in a nursing home/rehab home after 3 days of hospitalization (it would have paid for the first 100 days but he died before that time period was up); and it also pays for my asthmatic mom’s nebulizer.

I’m not saying that nobody has had problems, but I’m glad Medicare exists.

Well, your parents had a Medicare supplement plan on top of Parts A&B(that’s the BCBS PPO part). Those average between $150-$300/month/person (Although PFFS plans are coming online now that are considerably less-and frequently offer better coverage than traditional medigap-because the feds are paying private insurance companies to administer the benefits, a tacit admission that the private sector is more efficient than the government. If any kind of UHC is instituted, this is the model I think it will follow). I am glad that your parents were taken care of, but it’s not exactly accurate to say (and truly you haven’t, I’m just striving for accuracy here) that it was “Medicare” that paid for their treatment.

[Cheesesteak]

@xtisme

Obviously it’s to stupid a question to be answered thus far…since no one has taken a shot at answering it.

Do you really expect someone to give you

realistic costs for a full implementation of UHC in the US
who it would cover
how it would work
how, realistically, it would be implemented give our current system.
How long would it take?
When could we realistically expect to HAVE universal coverage?
What would the initial startup costs be
What would be the yearly cost to the country once it got rolling?

on a message board? A message board where “Cite?” is considered a debate technique?

The “actual” answer to this question is compiled by a team of researchers over a period of months, and is going to be totally different than the answer compiled by a different team. The answer is outrageously complex and the smallest details of administration can swing the results wildly.

Maybe next week you could ask for detailed design requirements for a Moon landing.

[wonky]

@Weirddave

because the feds are paying private insurance companies to administer the benefits, a tacit admission that the private sector is more efficient than the government.

I think you may be hearing admissions you want to hear.

[XT]

@Cheesesteak

Maybe next week you could ask for detailed design requirements for a Moon landing.

I would love them…do you happen to have them handy??

Sometimes people on this board know surprising things. I was hoping that someone actually had some details about UHC in the US. I mean, folks here are always all for it…I’m a bit surprised that someone could be gun-ho for UHC and NOT have all those pesky details. Or even some of them. Or even one of them. Maybe I’m hoping for to much here…

-XT

[elucidator]

Do you doubt the recieved wisdom? Did not St. Ronnie of Bakersfield himself pass this down unto us? Government is inherently less efficient than private enterprise, just as regulation is a burden on the free market, like hobbling a unicorn. Everyone knows the government can’t do anything right, and should only be permitted to do as little as possible. Citation is superfluous.

Except for the military, which is exempt from an otherwise immutable law, and the corporate patriots who serve its needs.

(I’ve often wondered why the red-blooded patriots at Raytheon and Lockheed don’t provide their services on a cost-only basis, and disdain mere profit. I’m sure there is a very good reason, but they never got around to telling me what that might be.)

Seems to me, when it comes to health care (or any other endeavor, for that matter), the profit motive is a built in inefficiency. That energy which is spent on profit is not spent on innovation, nor on the beneficiaries, the $10 that goes to pay dividends is $10 that will not go for a flu shot, or research on a vaccine.

So we must ask the acolytes of St. Ronnie: what, perzackly, is the coefficient of inefficiency in any/all government endeavors? Is it, say, 5 per cent? 1 per cent? And if that ratio for a not-for-profit enterprise (like government) is lower than a comparable enterprise that is saddled with the need for profitability, wouldn’t that mean that a government program is inherently more efficient, rather than less?

Or, to put it another way, cite me examples of captains of bureaucracy who pull down $30 million a year for wrecking everything in sight.

[XT]

Did you read the OP? Do you think that your post is anything like the answer I’m looking for?

I’m asking for the nuts and bolts of UHC here. I’m not asking for a debate on the evils of capitalism or how UHC is a great thing that we really really REALLY need. I’m not asking for anecdotes on how the current system fucks over Unca Joey or Little Suzy. I’m not asking questions about what Ronald Reagan thought or didn’t think about…well, anything at all.

I’m asking very specific questions. If you don’t have the answers well…hijack away I guess. Not like there is anything I can do to stop you. Would be nice if someone actually tried to address the OP but I’m starting to think maybe none of you UHC types actually has any of the details to make an informed decision about this one way or the other. Maybe UHC is faith based. I suppose one could think that if our current system sucks ANYTHING would be better. Of course…you could always have something that sucked worse…

-XT

[Weirddave]

@jsgoddess

I think you may be hearing admissions you want to hear.

Well, it’s a program that they are expanding, touted as a way to cut costs, so…make your own judgement.
And XT, I can give you a lot of what you’re looking for, but it’s a godawful LONG post and I am just not sure if I’m up to it.

[Cheesesteak]

People don’t want UHC because they have a plan built from scratch that they believe will work. They want it because they are dissatisfied with our current HC plan and see dozens of other countries have UHC and it seems to work fairly well for them. There’s no inherent reason to believe we are so different from them that it couldn’t work here too.

Not to mention that there isn’t a plan for you because there isn’t “a” plan. There are countless different options as to who is covered, to what level, and how the payments are structured, it’s impossible to nail down one set of options as “The UHC Plan”

[you_with_the_face]

@xtisme

Did you read the OP? Do you think that your post is anything like the answer I’m looking for?

If you really want to know this answer, why not post your question in GQ?

Great Debates is where we toss ideas back and forth, debate opinions and beliefs, and pick apart each others thought processes. It doesn’t look like you’re trying to do any of that, so I’m starting to think all you really want is a reason to declare that no one has any answers and that’s it.

[XT]

@Cheesesteak

Not to mention that there isn’t a plan for you because there isn’t “a” plan. There are countless different options as to who is covered, to what level, and how the payments are structured, it’s impossible to nail down one set of options as “The UHC Plan”

I’m not looking for The UHC Plan™…I’m looking for ANYTHING at this point. Throw me a bone. Show me something I can look at. If someone has a proposal out there with actual dollars attached to it and real timetables…well, that is what I’m looking for. If there are lots of plans…fine by me. Lets see em.

@Weirddave

And XT, I can give you a lot of what you’re looking for, but it’s a godawful LONG post and I am just not sure if I’m up to it.

Take one aspect and go into detail on that and then move on. I don’t mind long posts. Go for it.

ETA:

@you with the face

If you really want to know this answer, why not post your question in GQ?

Because I don’t think there is a factual answer to this. Unless you are saying there IS a UHC Plan™ out there…in which case why don’t you link to it and we’ll have the mods move this tread.

-XT

[wonky]

@xtisme

Did you read the OP? Do you think that your post is anything like the answer I’m looking for?

I think we all realize what answer you’re looking for.

[XT]

@jsgoddess

I think we all realize what answer you’re looking for.

Really? Well then I suppose my conclusion is that you don’t have it. C’est la vie.

-XT

[vivalostwages]

@Weirddave

Well, your parents had a Medicare supplement plan on top of Parts A&B(that’s the BCBS PPO part). Those average between $150-$300/month/person (Although PFFS plans are coming online now that are considerably less-and frequently offer better coverage than traditional medigap-because the feds are paying private insurance companies to administer the benefits, a tacit admission that the private sector is more efficient than the government. If any kind of UHC is instituted, this is the model I think it will follow). I am glad that your parents were taken care of, but it’s not exactly accurate to say (and truly you haven’t, I’m just striving for accuracy here) that it was “Medicare” that paid for their treatment.

What they were told was this: “When Medicare pays, then Blue Cross pays.”

[wonky]

@xtisme

Really? Well then I suppose my conclusion is that you don’t have it. C’est la vie.

You’re right. I can’t, with any honesty, say, “Universal health care can’t work here,” or “America is just so darned different.” So, I don’t have the answer you want to hear.

[XT]

@jsgoddess

You’re right. I can’t, with any honesty, say, “Universal health care can’t work here,” or “America is just so darned different.” So, I don’t have the answer you want to hear.

Me thinks, once again, that thou doth protest to much. Is your answer then dependent on what (you think…you are wrong but then that is militantly unsurprising) I want to hear? Why? Here is a forum to give a full and complete answer to the questions I am asking regardless of whether I think they are right or not.

I really didn’t think that my (supposed) opinion on the answer held so much power…the power to completely halt the discussion because no one can tell me what ‘I’ want to hear!

Of course, my Occam’s Razor is cutting such that I’m thinking the real answer is…you don’t have one. And are bitching about the small stuff.

-XT

[DMC]

If you’re looking for a variety of plans so that you can learn more, here is a decent starting point.

[Lobohan]

Why do we spend so much on healthcare?

As Per: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050712140821.htm

In 2005, Americans spent 53 percent per capita more than the next highest country, Switzerland, and 140 percent above the median industrialized country

Waiting lists aren’t to blame

One of the commonly cited reasons why U.S. citizens spend more on health care than other countries is that these other countries have waiting lists, especially for elective surgery.The procedures with waiting lists in these other countries, however, represent only 3 percent of spending and therefore cannot explain much of the cost differential

Nor is malpractice insurance

Another perceived cause of higher health care costs in the United States is that malpractice suits increase the prices charged by doctors and cause them to practice defensive medicine, which occurs when doctors order extra tests or procedures to reduce their risk of being sued. The researchers compared the number of malpractice claims and awards in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom and found that while U.S. citizens sue more often, the actual settlements from all four countries were comparable.

According to the study authors, defensive medicine probably contributes more to higher health spending than malpractice premiums, but determining which tests and second opinions should be defined as defensive medicine is less clear. The highest estimate for costs of defensive medicine in the United States is only 9 percent and many experts believe this number is too high.

Which leaves us with the “for profit” nature of American health care. Seriously, anyone should be able to realize that if an insurance company makes $50 million in profits, that there are 50 million dollars in care and preventative medicine that isn’t being done, right?

[Algher]

Here is a bit of testimony:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/test031003.cfm

Moving Towards Universal Coverage
If we are to construct a health care system in this country that focuses resources efficiently to help those who need assistance to obtain health coverage, we need to take the following important steps:

1. Agree on a health care social contract between society and individuals that is explicit and fair.
2. Provide support to people to obtain health care based on their need, not where they happen to work, or their eligibility for welfare, or their military record, or their age. Enable individuals and families to use this support to enroll in a seamless system of coverage according to their choice.
3. Make it possible for the place of work be the location through which most families can get coverage, without employers necessarily being the sponsor of coverage.

4.  Use “creative federalism” to discover the best arrangements for organizing health coverage.
   

I snipped all the stuff explaining those parts. What is interesting is that this is testimony from an economist at the Heritage Foundation - the think tank for when Hoover is a bit too Leftist for you.