Okay, with that out of the way, would you deny someone health care because they can’t afford it? If I couldn’t afford my anti-depressants, which I need to be able to function like a normal person, would you tell me ‘tough luck’? If you would, then that’s one less functioning member of society. If not, then guess what? You’re going to wind up paying for them one way or another. This already happens. When someone can’t pay their medical bill, you pay for it with your own medical bills. You pay for it through your mortgage when they go bankrupt and default on theirs. You pay for it through social programs to help the poor. Why not just say to these people ‘don’t worry, we’ll make sure you’re covered’ and save them the pain and frustration of trying and failing to pay for their care?
Medical care does not respond to market forces. If the doctor tells you you need a heart transplant and you can’t afford it, you don’t find a cheaper alternative. You either get the procedure done or you die. People like Broomstick and her husband get royally fucked in the current system–if you need routine care and can’t afford it without insurance, there’s no way in hell you’ll be able to find insurance you can afford that will cover it. That leads to a snowball effect where the health of the person deteriorates, required even more expensive procedures down the road. The current system prevents people from getting preventative care, which hurts everyone–them and their health gets worse, their employers and the economy when it affects their ability to work, and you as you wind up one way or another paying the bill when they wind up in the ER.
The current system doesn’t make sense, as people wind up using more resources when the can’t access preventative care, making the entire system cost more for everyone, and it causes people to suffer more than they should have to. Your friend who can’t afford drugs in Canada? He would be even more fucked in the US, and I say that knowing what my own care costs me under both systems. The Canadian system has its problems, but at least they take care of their own.
You’re preaching to the choir as far as I’m concerned.
I’m not the lymphoma survivor. My wife is. Other than a dental emergency last year and new glasses (not covered by the basic policy–the “rider” costs a lot for what little it provides and our long-time eye doctor doesn’t participate) every 2 years, my “routine maintenance” requirements rarely exceed my $400 deductible.My wife’s doctor,however, wants lots of tests to make sure they catch any relapse early enough, which cost big bucks.
Contrary to what insurance cos. and company benfit managers think, there is no “normal maintenace schedule” for humans.
OK, good point. As long as we keep in mind that Cuba’s political system is VERY different, and it’s implementation of UHC will reflect the fact that it’s a tiny Caribbean country that is very poor. If we’re talking about whether or not to get UHC in, say, Jamaica, then it would be an excellent comparison.
Even if you’re currently paying 30% and we’re paying 33%, if they add UHC to the US our tax burden will rise even more. So we would not be ‘paying less to ensure everyone gets covered’. For those of us (like me) that currently don’t pay for our health insurance this represents more money out of our pocket. It also potentially threatens my career since I work in the insurance field.
If we had a single payer system ,we would pay less. Everybody would have coverage. Your products would not have the cost of insurance folded in. This system has the consumers paying for the people who are covered. The company just passes the cost along to the customer. When you buy something you pay for their insurance plan.
Our corporations are less competitive due to insurance costs. Take them out and it would help everybody.
Maybe. You may instead (and I would mandate it if it were up to me) instead gain in extra pay what your employer currently pays for insurance. Those who have employers who do not provide insurance (especially those on low incomes) would now be covered as well.
And I understand that you’re worried about you job. But the insurance field is vast and gets on just fine without health insurance all over the world
So I can pay as much in taxes as I do now, plus the increase that will come with the “UHC” and still buy health insurance like I do now, and maybe get the same benfits out of it that I do now?
That sounds like a shit-tastic deal.
I pay 20$ to see a doctor and 10$ a month for my prescription. Cheap.
I wouldn’t buy you food or pay for your house either. I consider health care one of those things that people should be providing for themselves.
The same drug they’re charging him 75$ a week for would cost me … 10$ a month.
Sure they would, because the employers would be paying higher taxes themselves, or the tax would be added to the cost of the Goods and Services directly through GST or VAT.
People pay a higher tax percentage, it means they have less left over so they need a higher base salary to begin with. This free lunch of yours doesn’t exist.
Are you actually serious? You really think that people who don’t like the idea of socialism are going to be interested in this idea of yours?
You would be if I couldn’t afford it. Or do you think the welfare system should be scrapped too?
So? What’s worse, paying a little bit more in taxes now, or face bankruptcy when tragedy strikes? The current system is literally bankrupting people. Guess what happens then? Your tax dollars go into the welfare system to help them with a situation that could have been prevented earlier. I still can’t figure out who wins in that situation, but apparently somebody must since you seem to fond of the system that allows it. Do you just not care as long as it isn’t you who’s sick? :dubious:
I can’t speak for Catsix, but that is part of it for me. I need to see how it will benefit me. We’re talking about a system in which I have it really good right now as a consumer and also an industry that is my career. If you want me to have a favorable view of all but scrapping that industry, then damn right you have to show me why I should without trying to invoke my sympathy for other people. (That shit didn’t fly when I served on a jury and it doesn’t fly now)
Actually I do. While I have no problem with people voluntarily donating money, food, shelter or medicine to those who need it, I do have a problem with being forced to provide basic survival items to others. I believe that it is a person’s responsiblity to provide in some way for his or her own survival. I don’t expect anyone to take care of me, and I certainly don’t demand it.
I expect people to take care of themselves. This includes the expectation that I will have to take care of myself for the rest of my life, whether by directly paying out of my own pocket or by purchasing insurance as a protection against an expense large enough that I cannot pay it out of my own pocket. I find it interesting that you think only someone who isn’t or hasn’t been sick could hold this position, though. I don’t bring up the state of my own health in these discussions because it is not relevant to my position.
You called me a selfish bitch because I don’t believe I should be forced to provide for others, yet it is not the “providing for” that I have a problem with. It’s being forced to that causes me to object. I don’t believe that I have an obligation to take care of you, or Broomstick or her husband, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve never donated time, money, or blood because I wanted to. I also have a lot less of a problem feeling generous to people who don’t sit around and say they are owed, but instead show that they are working to earn. Appealing to my emotions doesn’t work when it’s a Sally Struthers ‘cup of coffee a day’ commercial, so why would it be any different when it’s a Straight Dope poster?
Unfortunately, I believe that redistribution of wealth schemes cater far too much to those who sit around and bang their fists over what society owes them.
BTW, catsick. Did your insurance pay for your heart to be removed? You’d happily let people die rather than contribute to their well-being. Complete cunt doesn’t even begin to cover it
I give up…we’re not going to come to an agreement. I’ll admit to strong socialist leanings, at least on this issue, so I have a very hard time understanding your position on the subject. While I don’t disagree with the idea that people should earn what they have, I do consider health care a human right and denying it to someone who needs it for any reason, well, I have a very hard time wrapping my head around that idea. Especially when the reason is finances.
There have been some good arguments put forth in this thread, but I’ll leave them to those who are better than I am at putting them forward. Suffice it to say that I feel that ensuring everyone a certain level of care to be in the best interests of society, and even if it doesn’t affect me personally (which it doesn’t–I don’t have much to gain or lose if we switch systems or not) it is a goal that I feel strongly about.
Really, for any reason? So, no matter how expensive the treatment or how low the odds of survival, you wouldn’t deny anyone? Would you give an MRI to everyone who had a headache and thought it was a tumor? What about non-necessary things like say, a breast reduction for someone whose back hurts? Surgery for someone’s TMJ?
There’s no line, anywhere, financial or otherwise where you say ‘Sorry, but you don’t get treatment.’?
Oh. It seems there is. What, exactly, is that level of care that you think everyone is entitled to? And since you admit to having strong socialist leanings, what would you do about people who could afford to buy a higher level of care?
Hey catsix, here’s a novel idea–why don’t you READ THE FUCKING THREAD? Most of your questions have already been more than adequately answered already and quite frankly I know that as somebody who has already spent quite a lot of time and effort researching this issue and discussing single payer here in this thread I find it really insulting and thoroughly irritating to have you come bouncing in here with your needlessly hostile and totally uninformed opinions. Really, you and Rand Rover ought to just go have a nice mutual circle jerk in the corner and let the rest of us get on with what has been, minus a few idiots, a very informative and illuminating discussion. Come back when you’ve done the rest of us the courtesy of having at least minimally informed yourself.
The most illuminating part of this entire thread, for me, has been that those of us who have good health insurance now have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to be swayed by socialized medicine.
Not one person here has presented a concrete reason why someone who is employed and making a great salary and who has health insurance that meets or exceeds their needs should want to switch to another system entirely.
There is no evidence whatsoever that this health insurance system that is proposed would in any way be an improvement over the VA system (with such glaring failures as Walter Reed) or better managed than Medicare which requires that everyone covered by it have some other supplemental insurance that they pay for themselves.
Medicare is apparently so well managed and such a high quality health insurance that retired congressmen are written out of it entirely. Considering the mess that the US government has made out of those and other programs that they manage, I have yet to see any rationale in this thread or elsewhere for why “universal health care” would be any better.
If you could prove to me that I, myself would have more and better benefits than I do right now, for less money than I currently pay in taxes, health insurance premiums and co-pays, there wouldn’t be an argument. Those real numbers are never presented by those who say ‘We must have socialized medicine!’
Pointing at New Zealand and Canada does not stand as proof, either. What those countries have done with their domestic policy cannot be assumed to reflect what will happen in the US. You want to convince those who oppose you? Show the numbers for this country. Give me a concrete plan, with figures, that I can compare to the plan I’ve got.
Maybe one isn’t necessary. A move to UHC doesn’t have to be presented as a Pareto improvement. It can be justified even if some people are made worse off or remain in a neutral position.
I will say that I doubt under a UHC system I would have a collection agency chasing me for an allegedly unpaid bill for my son, which the insurance company swears blindly they have paid. The idea of not having to spend literally hours on hold being shifted from department to department trying to sort out a problem between the hospital and the insurance company which, while not of my creation has direct adverse effects on me, is somewhat appealing, to tell you the truth.
And more generally, insurance works better the more people are involved. It allows more effective risk spreading.
I am employed; I make a great salary; my health insurance exceeds my needs. I think we should switch to a different system because our current system is inefficient, unjust, and ultimately harmful to our country.
So, you will only be convinced by actual, concrete, indisputable numbers for a system which has not yet been implemented, and no analogies to similar systems or projections based on current best estimates will convince you. Shall we build a time machine, journey to a point at which the plan has been implemented in the US, then come back and allow you to see the figures?