Why no free healthcare?

Well, at least you can get on a waiting list to see a doctor instead of having to go without. Even if government subsidized healthcare is worse healthcare than what we have now, at least it’s something, which is more than a lot of people have right now.

And of course the demand for health care will rise if we institute a national healthcare system. Know why that is? People are sick. Thousands of people every day ignore that weird lump on their chest or a strange cough because they can’t afford to see a doctor. Meanwhile, the rich and insured can go to the damn doctor any time they feel like it. You may think it’s rationing, but I believe our current non-system is just reinforcing the class divide. It’s reprehensible that one family can take their kid to the doctor when he gets the sniffles while another family has to scrounge up the money for their kid’s heart surgery.

I just don’t think that we should play the market game with human lives. Let the market adjust itself for cars, clothes, gas, whatever–but people’s lives are too important to be dictated by the current economic climate.

As someone with years of formal training in economics I find it a bit insulting when someone starts off a thread talking about ficitonal creations like “a 100% free product.” Everything has a cost, everything.

Even looking at a picturesque mountain scenery has a cost because the time spent looking at nature could have been spent doing something else, the cost is what you give up to get something.

I have some pretty well formed opinions on universal healthcare, it’s pros and its cons. Yes, there are substantial cons to universal healthcare. Now, the fact that so many of you honestly believe a government program can be so flawless shows a lot as to where you are coming from and why you will probably never understand the other side of the debate.

But it’s 2:55 AM on the east coast right now and I’m too tired to get into such a winded and dry debate, perhaps tomorrow.

Wait until 90% of the Baby Boomers are dead (say 2040) and then bring in health care.

In any case, we Canadians don’t have 100% free coverage. Electives certainly aren’t covered, and neither is dental. In fact, the “free” system has a sufficient number of problems that some doctors are opting-out, setting up non-Medicare clinics charging the patients. The patients, sick of having to wait weeks or months for critical tests, as well as not being able to secure a regular family doctor, are paying it.

I don’t think anyone was saying national healthcare would be flawless. I think we’re just saying it would be better than the system we have right now. Except for possibly the OP, everyone here realizes that national healthcare = higher taxes. Some of us are actually okay with having our taxes raised in order to provide a service that we don’t currently have access to.

We already have socialized health care in a way.

Go to the ER without insurance. Let’s pretend you’re having a heart attack.

Are they going to turn you away? No. They’re going to inject you with drugs, do surgery if necessary and then send you the bill after you go home. Since you’re broke, you can’t pay the bill. What are they gonna do? Not a damn thing, they can’t. The worst thing that will happen to you is your credit score will go down.

SOMEBODY, however, has to pay for your hospital stay and your triple bypass. If the hospitals don’t recover their loss through their absurdly high prices, they’ll get a tax break from Uncle Sam when they write off their losses. Either way, it’s coming out of somebody’s pocket.

As I said, there are pros and cons. Everyone should be aware everything has cost, and I’m certainly aware many people feel a product is worth a given cost, that’s how transactions happen in the first place, on all levels.

As I said I might do this more tomorrow when I’m not so tired but I should put things in perspective.

People seem to be creating myths about persons dying on the streets because they cannot afford health care.

The “big three” when it comes to public healthcare in the United States are Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.

Medicare is basically old people, when you reach the age of 65 (67 for people born after 1960 iirc) you begin receiving medicare benefits which is basically government health insurance.

Medicare also covers people with permanent disabilities like blindness and also covers people with renal kidney failure that require dialysis regardless of age.

Medicare also starts covering prescription drugs in 2006 (big bad fascist Bush passed that law in 2003, which despite complaints is the first EVER such program in U.S. history.)

Medicaid is health insurance for the poor. To qualify you have to have a monthly income below X and also have a certain asset level. In some cases if you have low income but high assets you will have to sell off assets to reach the medicaid level if you really need medicaid support.

Some people seem to think you shouldn’t own Jaguars and Bentleys and be receiving Medicaid.

Federal medicaid is also fairly non-inclusive, there is a pretty restrictive list of people that are “guaranteed” Medicaid. It is rather up to State governments to decide how large the scope should be. Medicaid works by basically disbursing money to the State and the State decides how it should be spent and on who it should be spent.

The VA is fairly self explanatory, they provide medical services (as well as loans, scholarships, tons of things really) for Veterans and families of veterans.

Medicare provides services to 40m people, and Medicaid provides services to 42.4m. The VA provides services to a smaller number of people but the VA lists 70m people as eligible for medical services (which is probably where the “larger than the UK” figure comes from.)
Furthermore I should mention that 75.9% of the employed population has health insurance through their employer.

Of the employed that are not covered 37.1% are not covered because their employers do not offer a plan, 46.4% are not covered because the don’t want to be in the employer health insurance plan (basically meaning they don’t want to pay into it each month.) So believe it or not many people who are offered employer health insurance don’t bite (and typically insurance through your employer IS much cheaper than private health insurance.)

What is the difference between paying for health insurance out of your own pocket and paying more taxes for health care? I suppose the answer is one is universal.

Would it not make sense (if you are in favor of universal health care) to take care of yourself (by buying health insurance) and then contributing to a charity that money that you would otherwise pay in taxes?

(For that matter passing the money along to some uninsured member of your family or circle of friends?)

While not an ideal situation, you would be helping others and taking care of yourself.

I know I cannot be the only one, because I have been covered by many large insurance companies. And every single health care plan I have had made me change doctors … even assuming universal health care took away my “personal Doctor” (which was not part of the actual plan) why is it so much worse than when my insurance company does it?

As has been observed, the U.S. has universal health care for at least one large segment of the population: Medicare for the elderly. For better or worse, universal health care for everyone would probably look a lot like Medicare. If you are someone with no or limited health insurance, something like Medicare might look like a great deal. But if you have great insurance through your employer–as congressmen and all other federal employees, and most white-collar professionals have-- Medicare would look like a big step backward. And who do you think has the most impact on how decisions like that are made?

Of course the issue is complex, but as in many other areas of social policy, the people who would have to work to change the current system are the ones who benefit most from what we have now.

Dunno. I don’t necessarily want more healthcare than what is provided. For instance, I don’t feel the need to have my unbroken leg fixed, for instance. Free healthcare isn’t the same thing as free cake.

Problem is that healthcare isn’t an ordinary product, but a necessary one. For instance, the correct price for a life saving medicine is “everything you own”, even if it costs 10 cents to produce, since that’s what most people would be willing to pay for it. Also, there’s a public interestest in having a healthy population. An unregulated free market can’t be used for healthcare without facing dreadful consequences.

As usual, you’re mentionning waiting lists while ignoring that it’s not an universal problem in all countries with a public healthcare system, but only an issue in some specific countries with a public healthcare system. It’s a disingeneous argument, like saying “all cars must necessarily have defective brakes, as proven by the fact that my car’s brakes need to be fixed, so we should ban cars and only ride trains”
You can’t use deductible as an argument if you’re opposed to public healthcare, either. Basically, you’re saying “Since healthcare isn’t 100% free, but only 95% free, we’re better off with no healthcare at all”. Does it means that if there is no deductible, you’re in favor of public healthcare?

As for treatments not covered, it isn’t “rationning”. If for instance, Viagra isn’t paid for by the public healthcare system, you can still pay it from your own pocket, like you would do without such a system. It just means that it has not been deemed useful to include it in the scheme. If people really want Viagra to be included, they can advocate for it, pay more taxes, and it will be. I’m not aware of any country where there’s no private healthcare available if you feel that you need something not covered by public healthcare.

Doesn’t that return us to the moral argument that rich people can afford treatments that the poor cannot? While it is easy to poo-poo your example of Viagra, how about heart transplants? If society decides not to fund it don’t the rich have an ‘unfair’ advantage?

I would also point out that in Economics, we have a maxim, “If there is a line to buy something, that means the price is too low.” If there is a line for healthcare, that means the price is too low.

In any event, it really comes down to this, the majority of Americans do not want to pay for ‘free’ health care.

Are you sure it’s really “in general”? I can pick any doctor I want, here. If I’m unhappy with my doctor, I just see another one. So, in which countries with public healthcare system can you choose your doctor and in which countries can’t you?

Besides, even in countries where you have to register with a doctor to benefit from the public healthcare, you still can :

-Register with the doctor of your choice

-Choose to see any doctor and pay from your own pocket.

Finally, even if you were somehow obligated to see a particular doctor you didn’t choose, it would still beat not being able to see any.
Also, I understand that american private insurers actually have list of doctors from where you must pick if you want to be reimbursed. So, it seems that not only you can’t pick your doctor, but you might have to change your doctor if you want to change your insurer. Apparently, I’ve more freedom of choice with my public healthcare system than most american people with their private insurances.

I think you’ve a very caricatural view of how a public healthcare system actually works.

A lot extra in taxes? Yes, if you forget that you’ll pay a lot less in private insurance. Don’t forget that the american healthcare system is significantly more costly than public healthcare systems in other countries.
As for the extra paperwork for the doctors, it has been demonstrated in a number of previous threads on this topic that it’s exactly the reverse that happens. The administrative cost and time consumed by paperwork is vastly higher with the american private system, since doctors have to cope with dozens of differents forms, from dozens of different insurers applying dozens of different rules. All the paperwork my doctor has to do is to fill a standart form, the same for every patient and every doctor, where he writes the code number for whatever he did and how much he charged me. He does this huge “extra paperwork” in roughly 15 seconds before I leave. According to your nickname, I assume you’re a doctor. Does your paperwork compare favorably with what I described?

That would certainly solve your individual moral concerns, but you know fairly well that not enough people would give enough money to offer free healthcare for everybody who needs it . By a long shot.

Plus, charities can discriminate, contrarily to the government. For instance, if you live in an affluent neighborhood, your local church may receive a lot of money for such a purpose and choose to spend it only on the two poor people attending this particular church, offering them an extra-generous coverage, while letting 50 other people out in the cold. Or they could choose not to help people with, say, AIDS, because this disease was caused by a sinful behavior.

Also, there are economies of scale with an universal public healthcare system that don’t exist in this situation. Donations spread amongst thousands of charities using them in whatever way they want won’t be used as efficiently.

I picked Viagra because it’s way more likely that a public healthcare system will not pay for Viagra than not pay for heart transplant.

But anyway, let’s assume that the healthcare system doesn’t cover heart transplant. You’re still left with more coverage than without healthcare system at all as long as you don’t need a heart transplant. And if you do need a heart transplant, then you’re exactly in the same situation as you would be without this public healthcare system.

As I mentionned previously, you can’t be opposed to a public healthcare system on the basis that it doesn’t cover everything. Either you think that the current healthcare system is lacking, in which case a public healthcare system will be an improvment, even if it doesn’t cover Viagra and heart transplant (people needing one or the other won’t be in a worse situation than before), either you think there’s no need for a public healthcare system, in which case, you should be even more opposed to a public system which would cover everything including Viagra and heart transplants.

Two answers :

-Then if there’s no line, it means it’s just fine? Once again, there aren’t waiting lists in all countries with a public healthcare system.

-The “price is too low” from a market point of view. But precisely, most people supporting a public healthcare system (actually, the wide majority of people, regardless of their opinion about public healthcare systems) don’t think that healthcare should be regulated strictly by a free market. Few people are ready to let people die in the streets just because the market value of their work is lower than the market value of their heart transplant though it might be more “efficient” to let them die in the streets.
And also the market generally fails to take into account external costs (in this case costs tied to the lack of adequate healthcare, like epidemics or a healthy workforce “provided” by the healthcare system), but I’m not basing my opinion on such arguments.

Because of the 13th amendment to our Constitution:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

When compared to Americans, Canadians live longer, live healthily longer, pay less individually for health care, pay less through our taxes for health care, and overall devote less of our GDP for health care. That’s what socialized health care is about in Canada – better health for all for less cost.

Canadians live longer than Americans:
79.3 years = Canadian life expectancy (2001)
77.0 years = American life expectancy (2001)

Canadians enjoy better health longer than Americans:
69.9 years = Canadian healthy life expectancy (2001)
67.4 = American healthy life expectancy (2001)

Canadian individuals and insurers do not pay as much as American individuals and insurers:
28 = Canadian private expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health (2000)
55.7 = American private expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health (2000)

Canadian taxpayers do not pay as much for health care as the American taxpayers:
$1826 = Canadian per capita government expenditure on health in international dollars (2000)
$1992 = American per capita government expenditure on health in international dollars (2000)

Less of Canada’s GDP is spent on health than the USA’s:
9.1 = Canadian total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2000)
13 = American total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2000)

World Health Organization stats: http://www.who.int/whr/2002/annex/en/

Thank you for not attacking the specifics of my argument. Viagra is a ‘nice-to-have,’ while a heart transplant is a ‘need-to-have.’

Imagine that heart transplants are not covered. I could have paid for my heart transplant, but darn it, I have no money due to the higher taxes I had to pay for ‘free’ health care. I guess I should die with a smile knowing I helped my fellowman?

(Someone mentioned economies of scale that a universal plan could obtain. Not true says I. Providing medical care is in many ways a cottage industry. Each customer is unique and needs a hand-crafted product. It is also a very labor-intensive business. When your insurance company or government wants you to wait a week to see the Frangus Specialist in the nearest big city, they are trying to get economies of scale and specialization. It is hard to do in a way most Americans are used to.)

In any case, the OP is answered. Most Americans are unwilling to pay the additional taxes a universal health care system would require.

In Canada we do not pay higher taxes for health care than Americans (see my previous post). In Canada we have personal doctors of our own choice.

There is a lot of personal conjecture directed against socialized health care that is floating about in this thread that is being presented as fact. Let’s stick with the facts, folks.

It is also worth noting the the US does not spend that much less tax revenue on healthcare (5.6% of GDP) than Canada (6.6% of GDP), yet acheives vastly less coverage of its population than those with universal healthcare (Italy and Spain even acheive universality with less!) The US government exerts just as much “slavery” upon its population as elsewhere in this respect, but gets extremely poor value for money from it.

However, there is “free” healthcare for those over 65. It is also “free” for those under 65 with emergency conditions, but only if you go to certain specific hospitals. This fascinating article describes what can happen if you go to the wrong one.

From the post immediately above yours:

With a decent system of socialized medicine, the average Joe’s taxes will go down.