Pros and cons to universal health care

Just musing here for a minute…

The only people I know who “work for the insurance” - as in, they might actually quit their job if they could get health care without it - are married or cohabiting parents. Specifically, working parents, one of whom would rather stay at home with the kids, but only one of them has a job that offers insurance. Because of the child care costs (and other costs associated with being a working parent, like extra gas to drop off and pick up the kids, time shifting or taking days off for doctor’s appointments or sick kids at home, etc.) the insurance holding one doesn’t make enough to support them alone, so the other has to work, too.

So, I guess the people I could see coming out behind in UHC, in a very roundabout way, are the daycare centers, before and after school programs, nannies and babysitters who might no longer be as in demand if one parent could quit their job and stay home with the kids.

Ow. I think I sprained something stretching so hard to find a downside to UHC.

In Canada, the con tends to be long wait times for surgeries. I am still a little shocked when I read in the news about US celebrities or politicians who discover health problems and are being operated on the very next day.

Despite this, I am very pro-UHC and I think it’s tragic how much suffering and bureaucratic BS the entire US is willing to put up with for what is clearly a broken system. If you go UHC you will pay more taxes. It’s worth it. Everyone’s health will fail them at some point. I’d rather be in the system where health care providers are obligated to take care of me rather than obligated to find a way to turn me away.

And that’s an “upside” that should resonate with all the right-wing social conservatives who want mothers to stay at home. Also, if all those people voluntarily leave the workforce, think of what that does to the unemployment rate. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

Would it have surprised you if I’d stipulated in advance that no self-described “right-winger” would admit to the motives I described? :smiley:

Yet your post supports mine! No interest in “charity or humanity.” No interest in the fact that UHC lowers costs. Just a preoccupation with “Free Riders.”

In the real world, a big problem in healthcare is that too many people avoid doctors and hospitals even when they’re free. I see this problem severely myself, anecdotally, and have read doctors saying it. Perhaps we can ask Dopers in atheist Marxist Europe whether hypochondriacs impose a significant drain on their systems.

I’ll stipulate that America has far more hypochondriacs than it has fraudulent voters. Nevertheless both problems are problems made up by the right-wing to suit their fantasies.

Sure, but that’s for 0.001% of our population. The rest of us have wait times that sometimes extend to forever, if you include all of us who can’t get surgeries unless they’re immediately life-saving.

For example: my SO had a bowel perforation requiring a resection and colostomy. Time to surgery? About an hour and a half, because it was an emergency. And Canadian *emergency *surgery wait times are no longer. If it’s a true emergency, they find room in the operating schedule.

He was told that in 6-10 weeks, they could reconnect the bowel and he’d be right as rain again. His wait time for *that surgery, however, was effectively indefinite, because he had no insurance, and it wasn’t an life threatening emergency. It was expensive to manage (colostomy bags and barriers cost us around $400/month), physically and emotionally draining and made his previous cardiac condition more unstable, but it wasn’t going to kill him in the next few days, so no hospital would do it.

This is what people who point to emergency care being “free” and mandatory don’t seem to get: it’s for life preserving care only. You can’t go to the ER and get a knee replacement, or a colostomy reversed, or, most often, a gall bladder removed.

I know this is just one anecdote, but to me it illustrates the problems with comparing wait times by asking patients, doctors or insurance companies how long their patients wait for care: it doesn’t count people who don’t get care at all. Average in tens of thousands of “forevers” and your wait times suddenly don’t look any better in the US.

*Eventually, he sucked up his pride and went to the VA (Veteran’s Administration) Hospital. He was in the Army for all of 6 months and 1 day during Vietnam, and never felt his term of service was long enough for him to ethically accept the medical services he was legally entitled to. 2 years with a colostomy and no way to afford his cardiac medications, however, and he went in, literally crying and apologizing for needing help. The VA did do the surgery at no cost to him. Had he not been a Veteran, or had he served just one day fewer, or if he’d served 20 years later (now you have to be in the service until retirement to get lifetime medical), he’d still not have gotten that surgery. Or his medications, for that matter.

She already understands that we’re all paying out to cover health care costs for those without insurance. Now explain to her, that under UHC we only have to pay out the costs of their insurance premiums. Then they have coverage, we don’t have to foot that big bill any more. Huge, huge savings. You’re paying anyway, why not pay the lesser amount. A child could understand it, really.

The other things, like cost savings due to people seeking care when their condition is in onset stages instead of leaving it to get much worse and much more expensive to treat, may be too nuanced for her now, but maybe you can work up to it?

You know, I’m as much pro-public healthcare as you can get (like 99.9% of people living in a country with such a system) and I mentioned many times that I held the system used in my country in high esteem.

However, I’m not sold on the idea that a reform of the US system will result in lower costs. Basically, there are a lot of issues that won’t be solved by just reforming the system. For instance :

-As long as insurance is delivered by private for profit insurers, this profit won’t go away.

-As long as there’s a gazillion different plans with a variety of items covered or not, the massive overheads both on the side of the insurers and on the side of the providers won’t go away (for reference, all my doctor has to do is enter a code for whatever he did and sweep my HC card. That’s all the insurance-related paperwork that has to be done. Imagine how many billions are wasted when the insurer and the doctor’s office has to handle it on a case by case basis. Not even counting the patient’s time. That might be the single biggest issue in the USA)

-As long as there’s a “sue anyone I can think of for any reason” mentality, malpractice insurance costs won’t go down.

-As long as doctors have to pay for their education and reimburse huge loans, you won’t convince them to lower their prices.

-As long as, in the name of free market, there’s no will to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry (to cover, amongst other useless things, adds for the general public, whose job is certainly not to figure out what drug they need by watching TV) drug costs won’t go down.

-As long as the majority of large hospitals are private, you won’t get any efficient attribution of the nice toys every single hospital wants to have, and as a result an overuse of those just in order to amortize the huge costs (or cover the hospital’s ass, see above about lawsuits)

-As long as each provider is free to charge, for the same procedure, widely different prices for different patients (insured or not, an issue frequently discussed here) nobody will have a clue what the real costs are and where the money really goes.
I probably forgot some items, but you see the picture. Since there won’t be a massive overhaul of the whole American system, whatever you’re going to come up with certainly won’t reduce healthcare costs to European levels. I suspect that those costs, in fact will rise. “Obamacare” is a good example of that. It’s a good thing because it will prevent some of the horror stories we read about here on a regular basis (sometimes involving dopers) . It might, over time, reduce some costs as a result of a better access to preventive care or early care. But this won’t happen immediately, and will be difficult to notice it, let alone put a price tag on it.
So, call me a skeptic. I fully agree that the American healthcare system is a general nightmare and absurdly costly, but I don’t see any improvements cost-wise until the next revolution. European systems have been created long ago, either on a pre-existing basis (insurance provided and managed, not bought, by large companies, industry branches and/or unions like in Germany or France) or essentially out of thin air (like in the UK) but none had at the time to deal with an existing, dinosaur-sized, health care system with a lot of big players who have a vested interest in not reforming it.

Good luck.

I don’t think this is entirely true. I was in the Army from 2001-2008, and I can use a VA hospital if I want. They do have a sliding scale billing system for non-retirees though. But if you were in the military and you are poor, I don’t think you have to pay anything, and you’re eligible for life.

Pros – longer lives, better health during those lives, less cost to individuals, and less cost to the goverment. Check out the World Health Organization stats, particularly the DALE health indicator scale, and the per capita public and private expenditures, for the top two dozen nations on the DALE scale.

Cons – fewer jobs administering the private insurance system.

It really comes down to where you want your money to go – to bettering your lives or to supporting the insurance industry.

Con - Lack of choice in insurer

Ever had an issue with an insurance claim? Do you really think it will get better when the claims handler is a government bureaucrat who knows you cannot possibly take you business elsewhere?

It’s not like Universal Health Care covers anything and everything a doctor might or could possibly do for a patient. There will still be limits on coverage and disputes about what should be covered that must be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Some things aren’t covered, or at least very poorly covered in UHC systems (almost universally dental care). There generally are complementary insurances (either for profit or non for profit) for these things.

For care that is usually covered…well I don’t know about other countries, but disputes with the UHC system here at least are probably vanishingly rare (I know that anecdotes aren’t datas, but I’m yet to hear about a single instance of that). The only examples I can think of were…coverage of dental care, again.

Insurance claim disputes seem precisely to be a feature of the American system specifically. So your “Ever had an issue with an insurance claim?” doesn’t really help your case because your assumption that it happens in fact tells a lot about the flaws of the US system. Nope, never had an issue with a claim and don’t know anybody who had.

And if for some weird reason you ended up with a dispute in an UHC system, who do you think is more likely to make a big issue out of it : a bureaucrat or an insurer who has a vested interest in not paying you? Easy pick for me, but I guess your milleage can vary.

No, never.

The way universal health insurance generally works in Canada is that more or less your entire interaction with doctors and hospitals is covered, and as you move from treatment to treatment, you’ve being referred to other professionals and facilities that just keep billing the provincial health insurance system. If I get cancer, there just isn’t any point in the diagnostic or treatment process where I would ever have to MAKE an insurance claim, ever, beyond handing over my provincial Health Card and saying “Here you go.” The process is otherwise completely invisible to the patient. I don’t even know what an medical insurance claim form looks like. It just happens.

As noted, dental’s a different matter, but of course it’s not as crushingly expensive so people don’t seem to mind its exclusion from the health care system.

This just doesn’t make any sense at all. You’re committing two rather huge errors.

  1. In a universal health insurance system there are, by definition, no free riders. Everyone pays through taxation. A free rider is someone wh, by definition, enjoys the benefits of something without paying for it. But effectively everyone in a UHI jurisdiction pays for it. Some may end up using more than they pay but that isn’t what a “Free rider” is, just as you are not a “free rider” if you pay your car insurance and they replace your car if it gets totalled.

  2. It just is completely, hopelessly untrue that people in UHI systems consume unconstrainted amounts of health care. That just doesn’t happen, for the simple reason that people do not have the time, inclination or ability to do that. It IS constrained, just not by money. Except for a vanishingly small number of lunatics, people don’t go to the doctor unless they absolutely have to, and quite often they don’t go every when they really should. People’s time is limited, and they will not spend all day visiting the hospital just because there’s no cash outlay.

I personally get free health care and I have a really nice hospital not 10 minutes’ walk from my home. I’ve been there twice in the five years I’ve lived in this city, both pretty unwillingly.

The main problem with the health care system isn’t free riders. It’s old people. Senior citizens are an enormous drain on the health care system, and in this case the USA is the same as everyone else, thanks to Medicare. Old people clog ERs and hospitals and the money spent on them dwarfs everything else, and this demographic time bomb isn’t going away. Health care costs are going up and unless we start floating our grandparents off on ice floes I don’t see how that can be avoided.

Based on the responses America has the dumbest, most costly health care system around (At least in how we give access and charge for health care). Really we are denying people health care to make insurance companies rich. Makes absolutely no sense. The “freeloaders” get covered either way on our dime so why not pay less? It’s a no brainier, but I live in a pretty conservative area and they all have had a little too much Fox News kool-aid and none of them can get past the “freeloader” mentality. They haven’t grasped that we are paying for them already because of medicaid and we are paying astronomically for those that do work and do not buy insurance, and go to the ER for care. If any one can dispute me on this please step forward.

I think what he meant by “free riders” are those people that don’t work and therefore do not pay taxes. The unemployed, homeless, welfare/food stamp recipients are the “free riders” since they pay no taxes yet get health care truly for free.
And your 2nd point is great! I will use that in my future discussions with my friend. This kind of thinking obviously makes zero sense yet I hear that argument over and over that people will “take advantage”. Really? Who willingly goes to the doctor when they don’t need to? Like you mentioned, the lunatics, and perhaps some homeless who want a warm bed, who I am sure would be thrown out as soon as its discovered they have no significant ailment worthy of being admitted. And if they did, well they would be covered.

I do wonder if proper reform of the US system might contribute to unemployment. If I recall correctly from an earlier discussion, a sizeable percentage of medical overhead is admin because the system is so complicated with every insurer requiring different billing codes and so forth. A single payer system, or reform so a standardised billing procedure was universally used could cut the overhead and, with it, a large number of jobs.

Presumably that money would find its way back into the economy via other routes and create new jobs in different areas.

My feelings on the subject:

  • Healthcare should not be for profit. That is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
  • Healthcare should not be tied to your employment or your relationship. That is also an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
  • A little socialism goes a long way.
  • The US pays more per capita for its healthcare than countries with a single-payer system.
  • So called “Free Riders” aren’t a problem in a single-payer system in the long run - you pay now, you use it later. It all evens out.
  • The “reforms” that are going to happen to the US American healthcare system are going to be massively mis-handled due to your lobbyists. You’re basically screwed.

Well, we may need a lot more MD’s, RN, CNA’s, Medical Assistants, Housekeepers, Radiologists, Transport Techs, Physical, Speech and Occupational Therapists, Clerks, Records Keepers, etc. to take care of the influx of people who will suddenly be able to get appropriate medical care.

Yes, since the government bureaucrat isn’t likely to get a bonus if he denies enough claims in a given year.

I’m afraid you’re right, clairobscur. To your list of reasons why U.S. healthcare is expensive you can add GOP malice. Before voting against anything like Obamacare, they pretend they might support it long enough to pack it with poison pills. Win-win for them: they increase the profits of pharmaceutical and insurance companies, while ensuring that taxes or debt increase under “socialized medicine” and Americans will thus hate government even more than before.

You must not be from around here. :smiley: Employees of private companies are hard-working people, doing things best way possible because of Free Market Principles, and proudly pro-American enough to send your children off to fight foreign wars. Government bureaucrats are lazy sniveling dolts, probably from some inferior ethnic group, who want to make your life as unhappy as their own.