Odds are your 80-year-old grandmother’s health care is already financed primarily through the government, so there’s no reason to think anything about her care would change significantly.
I don’t want the government to force me to slam my scrotum in the door of my car. Fortunately for both of us, the government doesn’t plan to do either.
Apples and oranges.
The Medicare coverage that is now in place would bear little to no resemblance to full-blown, totally government-run health care program trying to supply all the medical needs of 300 million people.
Medicare is not the only type of coverage available, for one thing. Other private health plans are available to many people, as are supplemental health plans. And Medicare is something of a political football similar to Social Security, in which any politician attempting to fool with it risks his career.
But once the government is fully in charge of trying to furnish everyone’s health care (and when have you ever known of a fully and properly funded and administered government social program?) and people have no options, the government can do whatever it wants.
The govenment doesn’t “plan” to do a lot of things it winds up doing, but that doesn’t stop it from doing them.
The wiser course is to view government’s past behavior and extrapolate from that what it’s likely to do in the future, rather than blindly accepting what it says it does or doesn’t plan to do.
Ok, so you apparently don’t actually have any factual basis whatsoever behind your claim, and it seems you somehow missed seeing the numerous posts that point out that the government already finances the health care of most of the people who might choose to utilize hospice services, as well as the equally numerous indications that the government is not currently forcing into hospice anyone for whom it is paying for health care.
So, conservative polemic, devoid of content. Thanks for playing.
Given that we don’t have UHC at this point in time, doesn’t it stand to reason that I wouldn’t have factual examples of the problems it is causing?
Answered above.
Also answered above.
Plus no one is saying the government will force people into hospice directly, only that once it denies life-saving coverage, hospice will be the likely feel-good option it will suggest. People who have been denied life-saving care will then be “forced” into either hospice as an alternative or dying as they will elsewhere.
No problem. I’m happy to set you straight any time.
[throwing self into lion’s den of GD]
Straw man. The current plan is NOT to create a monolith that supplies health insurance to all 300 million people and eliminate options. It is to provide another option for people who can’t currently get health insurance. There will still be private insurance.
On the subject of hospice and rationing, people don’t want to hear it, but “rationing” of a sort is happening now. It’s called, if you don’t have insurance and you have a semi-urgent condition or need maintenance/preventative care, you’re SOL.* Excuse us while we go intubate the demented person with insurance because their family won’t let go even though Grandma hasn’t been able to recognize her kids for a year and is in septic shock from a UTI for the third time this year. Where would you rather spend your resources, given that they are limited?
EMTALA forces hospitals to provide life saving care/stabilization to all comers in the ED* regardless of ability to pay. If you get pancaked by a truck, you will get your expensive ICU stay/stabilization of fractures/etc., but if it comes to, say, getting PT so that you can become functional again, or finding a rehab center to get transferred to, or any other non-emergent care, you’d better hope there are some philanthropists around.
** Forcing hospitals to accept these patients without getting remuneration from anywhere, BTW, has led hospitals across the country to shut down their ED’s, further compromising ability for ANYONE to get emergency care.
So the conservative line is that government run health care will be so great that private health care will be unable to compete with it and will go out of business. And government run health care will be so awful it will decide to kill off healthy people for no reason except the love of being evil.
Of course this does explain all those snowbirds we see traveling south. They claim they’re just coming down for the warm weather. But obviously they’re fleeing for their lives from the death machine of the Canadian public health system.
:: going easy on the GD newbie :: 
And so here we have another excuse for government health care rationing. 
Still, I’d rather take my chances under the current state of affairs (admittedly deeply flawed but surely with some answer other than government) where I can at least try to obtain coverage by getting a different job, working a second job or through charity and/or medical beneficence (some physicians will see patients/give sample meds to those who can’t pay, and pharmecuetical companies often have programs where the truly needy can obtain medications for free), than to be forced to live with whatever the government says I can have with no other options.
And yes, I know that for now the plan is for limited coverage with other plans available; I just don’t believe it would be long at all before they get squeezed out for one reason or the other and that, governmental slippery slopes being what they are, total government health care will be the end result in fairly short order.
More substance-free polemic. Please be sure to state this same thought at least three more times on top of the half-dozen or so you’ve said essentially the same thing; maybe then it will magically become fact.
Do we happen to have any examples of any large programs where that has already happened?
Post office, perhaps?
I don’t mind a reasonable fear of government ineptness or even government hegemony, but I insist that such fears be reasonable.
A fear of totalitarian government running our dystopian future based on the current proposals for UHC, (in which the single payer concept has been resolutely shunned by every major player), is not reasonable.
Good example, as a matter of fact. It has long been illegal to try to operate a private mail service. IIRC, even UPS had to fight a court battle with the Postal Service after the Postal Service declared that UPS was in fact delivering mail.
IMO, if we ignore the danger and the likelihood of the slippery slope, the slippery slope is sure to prevail. To be cognizant of where government programs are likely to lead seems extremely reasonable to me.
Still, perhaps we have a different understanding of the terms. I’m of the belief that UHC is total government health care, thus “universal”. Are you referring to the current (and in my opinion, foot-in-the-door) plan as the universal one?
Starving Artist, do you need help moving that bar while backpedaling, or are you practiced enough now that you can do it alone?
Pretty ambitious, that government. I mean, they could have settled for national or even global, but noooo, it had to be universal. And everything paid for by the U.S. taxpayers, even those crazy moonies, marsians and alpha centaurians.
You have obviously not been without private insurance for quite some time, and have not had to do what you propose above.
More and more jobs are not offering insurance. If you have a chronic health problem you will likely be unable to work a second job. Charity? Good luck! Most charity is directed at kids, really, once you’re past 18 or 21 or some other arbitrary cut off you’re SOL. Not to mention that charity care can end at any time, whether you still need it or not. Fewer and fewer physicians will give you free care. If you need daily medication of some sort “samples” is a terrible way to get it as the formulation and/or dosing may vary as opposed to a consistent prescription.
I posted a thread last year on the difficulty I had in obtaining medical care while uninsured in this country. It was insane. Among the BS: instead of my paying up front for a tetanus shot I was advised multiple times to wait until I was actually injured than go to the ER. A tetanus shot costs something like $25. A trip to the ER costs thousands.
Those pharmaceutical programs for the “truly needy”? Only apply to some conditions. I tried to get my husband on something like that for his diabetes and they just aren’t out there. If we had not been able to afford his daily medication for his diabetes he would have gone without it until he was sick enough for emergency care. After which he would have been stabilized, sent home, and the same thing again. Until he died. It probably would have been a long, lingering painful death involving things like emergency amputations. Never mind that for the cost of one amputation you could keep him healthy for 10 years.
Your suffering under the delusion that if you were without insurance someone would help you out. The truth is, if you’re without health insurance in the US no one is obligated to do jack for you until you’re turning blue and gasping your last, it doesn’t matter how “needy” you may be.
Right. The USPS has been in effect since day one of this country - ooo! The Founding Fathers were socialists! (No, not really) And there ARE alternative delivery systems beyond just UPS - Federal Express, DHL, Airborne… Oh, yeah, government monopoly on delivery, uh-huh :rolleyes: The USPS has less of a lock on that than ever before.
The “Universal” part of UHC is that everyone is covered, it doesn’t dictate HOW they are covered.
But that’s exactly what I’m doing. The government has been the primary insurer for the nation’s elderly for 40-odd years now, and in all that time it has never mandated putting them out on ice floes. You’re the one saying it’s going to be completely different.
Getting a different job (that provides healthcare) can be very difficult and could take years for those who are under-skilled and in the throes of a recession. Hell…even SKILLED people are having a hard time finding work. Working a second job is next to impossible when you have childcare considerations. You may not even make enough at that second job to afford healthcare plus all the other expenses the average family has. Quality of life (i.e., spending time with your family) is also part of the equation.
The government isn’t saying that their proposed program is your only choice. NEVER DID. But for those who have no other options, it IS an option.
I know that was tongue in cheek, but from talking with snowbirds, I know it’s exactly the opposite. There is a residency requirement to qualify for health-care up here. They don’t want to take any chances that if they stay too long in the U.S., it might appear that they’ve changed residence. They are usually very careful to return well in advance of the time limit, so that there’s no lapse in their coverage by the provincial health care system.
I don’t understand why you think this is bad. There’s a basic level of care for all Canadian residents, and if you want extras, you or a private insurer pay for it. That seems like a fine compromise to me. Where’s the problem?
The Invisible Hand sees all… the Invisible Hand knows all! Who the hell are you–some mere human, just a meat puppet–to try and think about this stuff? How dare you use emotions or reasoning?
The Invisible Hand adjusts nimbly, instantaneously, and unerringly to any and all inefficiencies in all worldly systems! Emotions and even reasoning are inefficiencies that have no place in the Invisible Hand’s dominion.
Question: If the Invisible Hand comes down with a bout of carpel tunnel syndrome, who pays the medical bills?
“Uh… yes. I’m terribly sorry Mr. Hand but you see, non-life-threatening ailments in dorsal extremities are only covered for patients under the age of 55 and it says here that you’re 233. Really* terribly* sorry. And I know it’s not my place to suggest such things sir, but have you considered hospice care? You do look a little bit peaked. Candidly sir? Like death warmed over, actually. …Uh… in a good, efficient, sort of way, of course!”