I apologize if this has been covered on other threads. But for my benefit, it would help if we could agree on some common definitions.
What exactly do you mean, or what do you want, when you mention ‘universal health care’?
Do you mean government support for rare, but potentially catastrophic loss? That’s insurance. For example, no one should go bankrupt or die unnecessarily because they succumb to treatable diseases or accidents.
Or do you mean ‘Everybody gets everything, for free’? That’s not universal insurance. That’s universal coverage. Like what the NHS does in Britain.
One issue I have with these threads is that everyone throws around ‘universal health care’ with wildly differing definitions. Maybe that’s only my problem. Apologies if that is the case.
We may actually not be that far apart if we are talking about number 1 above. We are probably far apart if we are talking about number 2 above.
Number 2 cannot happen without rationing - rationing of resources, delivery quality or time. It cannot happen. It is fundamentally impossible. You might as well try and drop a baseball and hope it floats up. Skilled personnel, equipment, drugs or service availability are all scarce resources and cannot be subject to unbounded demand.
So which was is it? It would helpful to define that as a starting point.
Most people are talking about something in between 1 + 2 - less than a British system, and more than catastrophic coverage. That isn’t cost effective, since it is far better to make sure everyone gets preventative care to reduce the number of expensive catastrophes.
But as far as rationing goes, with any reasonably finite budget and finite number of doctors and hospitals, there will be rationing. As others have mentioned, there is rationing today in the US. Isn’t it better to ration by need and not by income? Maybe the poor person’s broken leg should be treated before the rich person’s hangnail?
Really. I’ve lived in three as well. Two of which have universal healthcare. One of which has income taxes on average 10 cents per dollar less than the US. I currently live in the US and look longingly at the others. The US is a nasty reality check on what happens when you don’t have it. I know that in those other two countries I will not be left to die.
As to social security retirement benefits: pay them out at a flat rate (with a means test for those with a very high asset ratio) and remove the cap on taxable income.
Maybe. I don’t really disagree with extreme circumstances that represent potential catastrophic loss having some sort of subsidy.
But can we play around with some hypothetical examples just for a little fun? To tease out some basic principles? I know they aren’t realistic, but it still might be helpful.
What if I scrimp and save, and go without lots of material comfort for years and years, and save up enough money so that if I want to pay a doctor $5000 to cure my hangnail, I can do so?
And there is another guy waiting in line who was skydiving off a mountain top without proper training and was drunk, and who broke his leg? And he doesn’t have any money saved, because he’s young and in reasonably good health and doesn’t want to waste money on insurance. And because he blows it all on weekend junkets to Vegas and liquor.
Does he get to go in line ahead of me? Will you force a doctor to treat him before me and take the potential $5000 out of the doctor’s hand?
If Democrats win the election, and take over the Senate as well, we intend to create universal health coverage for everybody. You, of course, may live in what ever country you wish.
Really? If a drunk, obnoxious blowhard who engaged in high risk behavior, and who didn’t think to buy insurance storms in ahead of me and demands to be treated first, you’ll blame the doctor first?
The example is a little exaggerated, of course, but you can start dialing up the ‘hangnail’ to headache, or sore ribs, or a slight contusion above the eye, or a bunch of things and I’m guessing you will still ‘demand’ the doctor treat the other person first.
So you will now strip that person of his right to practice medicine and earn a livelihood, as well? Is that too far of a stretch to assume on my part? I was reading between the lines in your comment.
Wow. For a while there I thought we were on a thread regarding taking care of our indigent citizens in the most intelligent way possible. It didn’t take more than 30 minutes and few posts to flesh out
Someone gleefully espousing that once ‘his party’ gets in control, it will force me to do whatever it wants, abrogate my freedoms, and I have to leave the country if I want something different
Judging what doctors can and cannot do. Which is Sam Stone’s and my contention of exactly what will happen if you put the government in charge of allocating the time of skilled personnel. You guys already validated that assertion and we didn’t even need to break a sweat in this SDMB thread.
And in a roundabout way, the government is already doing it, with the price controls for Medicare services.
We haven’t even broached the 2nd-order effects of your decisions. Such as, who the hell would want to invest 7+ years of their life and a bunch of their money to join a profession where what they can, and cannot do, is micromanaged by federal bureaucrats? Even today, the country is suffering a shortage of family-practice doctors. Why do you think that is? Do you think that will get better under your plan? Why?
Jesus Christ. Why is it suddenly health care that’s the line in the sand? Before health care, there’s ~FREEDOM~! After health care sob sob there’s no ~FREEDOM~!
So, what is it, precisely, that makes health care different than anything you want government to do? What’s the difference between a doctor and an NSA scientist or a firefighter that makes it so that one can’t be funded by taxpayer money but the others can?
Um, you do know that that would happen even with the healthcare system the way it is now, right? People do not get treated on their ability to pay, or who was first, etc. People are treated based on the severity of their conditions-it is called triage.
It doesn’t matter if you were the smart one who scrimped and saved and he was the moron who blew it all on hookers and blow-if he’s the most critical, then he’s treated first. Period.
:rolleyes:
So, demonstrate it. Sam lives in Canada, which is apparently a near fascist state the way you two talk about it. Can you demonstrate that Canadians spend more and die sooner than Americans do? The facts are out there. Show me the ones that support your arguments. I want a system that works and am not wedded to any one idea. So show the data. Prove it.
I see Guinastasia answered this already but it won’t hurt to repeat it. Triage.
It’s so much of a stretch that you ripped the fabric
I don’t think this was directed at me, I’m not a democrat. I’m a long way left of them. I just find the slightly preferable to the republicans. And I really don’t think that you get to talk of abrogated freedoms on this. Let’s take the usual nonsense about choice of doctor for example. Here (if I had insurance) I could go to a doctor my insurance company covered. Or I could pay huge amounts to go elsewhere. In both the public systems I have lived with I could go to any doctor I chose to go to. Which gives you more freedom of choice?
Whereas you would have the ability to pay dictate it. All I ever suggested was that doctors have a responsibility to see to the more seriously injured first. And I stand by my assertion that any doctor who treats your hangnail over a more serious injury simply because you can pay or the other person did something stupid is not worthy of being a doctor.
And thank whatever gods you like that they do at least that. It doesn’t go nearly far enough as it is. Your approach will have people dying because they can’t afford care. Oh wait. That happens already.
Yes. Family practice shortages could be seen as a direct result of the current system. People don’t go for primary care because of the cost - which leaves less money to pay the family practice docs. It’s certainly not the result of any ‘micro managing’ by the federal government. Why would you think it is? Compare to countries with a decent public healthcare system. People in those places tend to actally see their primary care physician and early and get to avoid expensive treatments later because problems are taken care of early.