# Would universal healthcare be more expensive or less than the current US system? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2009, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175 "2009-02-24T08:01:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/321 "2009-03-11T11:46:19Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > My husband was born with spina bifida. That is a condition that manifests approximately 8 weeks after conception, or 7 months before birth. I am trying to figure out how in the hell he could “make sure” he was insured before he was even born. > > He doesn’t - that is the responsibility of his parents. And if his parents, for whatever reason, aren’t up to the job, then what? It’s his fault for picking the wrong parents? As it happens, his parents _did_ have insurance, but it didn’t cover all the costs of his necessary and life-saving care from infancy to teen years. By the time he was 20 he has maxed out the lifetime benefits of at least one health policy. On the other hand, between 20 and 40 he required almost no health care at all, so one might argue the initial investment paid off in someone with several decades of good health. > [@](#): > > I’m not the one doing the whining here. Oh please - your incessant “I don’t want to _pay_ for that…!” is like fingernails on a blackboard. > [@](#): > > His parents didn’t prepare him for this? How do you “prepare” for a birth defect? > [@](#): > > They sent him out in the world without group insurance? Group insurance for children ends at a certain point - you don’t know that? Not to mention that maxing-out a policy sort of leaves you screwed for getting another. > [@](#): > > And since then, he/you have done what? We are both college educated. In his best years he earned 100K. In my best years I earned 50K. We have never been in debt, we never “popped out kids” (indeed, his birth defect rendered him sterile so we have no children), we never lived beyond our means. Most of the 20 years we’ve been married we’ve been covered by employer-sponsored insurance, but our recent 8 month gap has been… educational, to say the least. > [@](#): > > You have insurance, what are you on about? How would a UHC make anything any different for you? It would take a hell of a lot of worry out of life. When I lost my job in November of 2009 (not my choice - a lot of us were laid off) we also lost our health insurance as we simply could not afford the COBRA payments of $900 a month, nor were individually purchased policies an option as the premiums were higher. In fact, health insurance premiums would have exceeded the cost of food, housing, utilities, and transportation _combined_. We still paid hundreds of dollars a month for his medications, every month, until I found and got us onto a state program that heavily subsidizes the cost of private insurance. In other words, we found ourselves in this situation through no fault of our own, and yes, other taxpayers are subsidizing my husband’s care. Know what? I don’t give a damn. For 25 years I paid my taxes knowing that (oh, horrors!) they were paying, at least in part, for the food, housing, and care of the less fortunate of society and I didn’t mind that, either, because unlike you I always knew that one day I, too, might land on hard times and I wanted there to be a safety net in place if I did. How would a UHC be different for us? Probably not much, right now. Except we wouldn’t have had 8 months without coverage were I dreaded what would happen if either one of us became ill or injured, when something as simple as a broken leg or bad flu could bankrupt us (you know, us responsible people who had never lived beyond our means). I expect I will, eventually, get a steady paying full time job with insurance once again, but meanwhile, my part time, temporary, “not making a living at it” jobs that are keeping us in a home and putting food on the table will go to those necessities and not health insurance premiums. When that day comes, I will _still_ an advocate of a UHC and yes, I _will_ pay taxes for it. What you don’t seem to realize is that those taxes will _replace_ health insurance premiums, so instead of giving the money to a private company you will give it to a government agency. In exchange you will get cradle-to-grave coverage that will never go away, is never dependent on your job or your status as able bodied/disabled. You whine about freeloaders, but yet you aren’t willing to pay for the government programs that benefit all of society and not just your selfish self. Responsible, adult people understand the need to pay taxes. They don’t like taxes, but they understand why they are necessary. Does that mean the healthy will pay more than they receive? Yes. Don’t you realize that _that is also the case with private insurance?_ In good years you pay more in premiums than you use, and that money goes not only to support the insurance company but to pay for the cost of care of those in the group who are sick or injured. Most will get better, then _they_ will pay more in a year than they use which covers you when YOU get sick and need more care than you paid for in premiums in a given year. _That’s how insurance works._ The privately insured _already_ subsidize the care for those who either can not or will not pay. In order for this to work you _must_ have a large pool of people, most of whom are healthy at any given time, so enough money goes into the system to pay for those who need their benefits. The larger the pool the smaller amount each person has to pay in order for this to happen. UHC is essentially expanding the pool to 300 million people. That’s a very large pool. Larger than the entire population of some countries that have UHC. The fact is that if you have private insurance - and you do - you do NOT pay for the entire cost of your healthcare. Either you are subsidizing those who need more care than you, or drawing from the money paid in by others. The ONLY way you can say you are paying for your own care, truly, is to go without insurance and pay up front in cash - as I did for eight months. Funny thing, that - I could go into a doctor’s office and negotiate a 40-50% discount _because I didn’t have insurance yet had the money to pay on the spot_. I suppose one could argue the doctor was being generous, but I also required some medical testing that I obtained through a hospital and THEY are a business… who nonetheless knocked 50% off the cost of their services when I inquired about reduced rates for “self pay” patients able to pay the full cost at time of service. All of which makes me wonder if perhaps they aren’t doubling the cost of care to the insured to cover the indigent. You know, if that’s the case I’d rather have that up front and visible instead of hidden in the premiums charged by private companies, wouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Jayn\_Newell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Jayn\_Newell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayn_Newell)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/322 "2009-03-11T13:03:04Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Why did you go to the ER and pay $800 to treat a migraine?? It was late at night–nothing else was open–and standard measures weren’t working. Cost wasn’t really my first concern at that point, getting my husband out of pain was. > [@](#): > > They sent him out in the world without group insurance? I know this is a conversation with Broomstick, but I have to say…what the _fuck_? Once a person is no longer dependent on their parents, my understanding is that insurance then becomes their problem. There isn’t a lot the parents can do–when I stopped going to college I had to renegotiate my private health insurance because I would no longer be covered under my parents plan. Fortunately this worked because a) my parents have individual, not group, coverage and b) the most expensive plan was less than $70 a month, so cost wasn’t nearly the issue it would have been here. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/323 "2009-03-11T13:05:11Z")
> [@welby](#): > > WRT to Medicare, I’ve already pointed out that Medicare administrative costs are higher because the current “estimate” of administrative costs leaves out some of the things most costly to private companies, e.g. buildings, employees, etc. I don’t think that’s a good comparison. (Cites from Post 255: [3% overhead hugely understated. (PDF)](http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf) and [GAO says medicare doesn’t spend enough. (PDF)](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01592.pdf)) The first citation, _Medicare’s Hidden Administrative Costs: A Comparison of Medicare and the Private Sector_ is a report issued by the insurance industry. [The Council for Affordable Health Insurance](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Council+for+Affordable+Health+Insurance&year=2008) is a lobbying firm. For this reason alone, the information should be dismissed as invalid. If you still aren’t convinced the report lacks credibility, consider the fact that Milliman, Inc has an FTC violation for purchasing prescription drug histories from a consumer reporting agency to create medical profiles of insurance applicants. > [@](#): > > The proposed respondents, Ingenix, Inc. and Milliman, Inc., provide individual medical profiles, including prescription drug purchase histories of insurance policy applicants, to insurance companies that use them in making underwriting decisions. With applicants’ consent, Ingenix and Milliman obtain five-year prescription drug histories from Pharmacy Benefit Mangers and create prescription medical profiles. Based on their analysis of the information, they report potential medical conditions that may be present. [FTC](http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/09/ingenixmilliman.shtm) > [@welby](#): > > So that brings the debate down to whether it’s more expensive to administer more people, and if so, how much more? I’ll concede that it shouldn’t be 11 times more, but I’m not willing to concede that you can administer 103 million people for the same price you can administer 34 million. Size matters. I am not sure how you are calculating the cost. The CAHI report? It will cost more to deliver care to more people. The larger the population the larger the expendature, but the important measure is spending per capita and the total as a percentage of GDP. > [@welby](#): > > I would also support legislation that disallows drug advertising completely. I think it’s counterproductive, a huge waste, and contributes to the syndrome of “try any new drug” that seems to be out there. This money is better spent elsewhere, even if only to line the pockets of stockholders. We agree on this point. 🙂 Marketing expensive drugs like laundry soap is consumerism to the extreme. Most of the time the medication isn’t even covered by insurance. There has to be lobbying reform if Americans want government to be responsive to the public instead of a small but extremely wealthy segment of the population > [@welby](#): > > Dictating profit levels would set a scary precedent. The only way around it is to compete in some fashion to offer the same drugs at lower prices, but I don’t see how the government can get into the drug manufacturing business. I don’t disagree but free marketeers can’t have it both ways. When public funds subsidize an industry with no strings attached, there is no incentive for that industry to invest in product development or technology to increase efficiency and profits. The social benefit of a competitive market is the innovation. If tax dollars are used to subsidize an industry, the government has an obligation to regulate that industry and every right to impose conditions that benefit the public. Otherwise, the taxpayers are subsidizing the wealth that buys political influence. > [@welby](#): > > We’ve been talking a lot of hypotheticals, but I’m not aware of any specific bill that’s been proposed to offer UHC aside from the [HR 676 Medicare For All](http://www.medicareforall.net/1index.html) bill, which is just an expansion of the already unworking Medicare system. Are there any workable plans that have been proposed? I think the President wants to give people a choice to keep their private insurance or buy into a public fund --essentially medicare. I think it’s a good idea. It allows the country to move towards UHC without imposing change on people still resistant to the idea. What do you think? Interestingly, it seems the insurance industry suddenly favors mandates. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/324 "2009-03-11T14:14:46Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > His parents didn’t prepare him for this? They sent him out in the world without group insurance? And since then, he/you have done what? You have insurance, what are you on about? How would a UHC make anything any different for you? Curlcoat, not all advocates for UHC lack health insurance. Similarly, not everyone who advocates for high wages earns a minimal hourly salary or lacks a college degree. I think your opposition to UHC is rooted in social values the same way many UHC supporters are motivated for reasons beyond self interest. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/325 "2009-03-11T23:04:12Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Like I said, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. One that you still cannot address meaningfully, I see. You’re very good at deflection. Snort. You are the one deflecting here, since whether or not I have “a fundamental lack of understanding” on how the police force works is immaterial to this thread. What am good at is staying on point and not allowing others to drag me into side discussions so they can - ahem - deflect attention from the topic at hand. > [@](#): > > You’re back to this making a living thing. And honestly, everyone cannot go from zero to median national income without any intermediary steps. Do you really think that there are that many people who are trying to make a career out of working at a low income job as opposed to people who are working there while they’re in school, or until they have enough money to go to college or into some sort of training program? Or until their spouse finishes college/training? Or working there to supplement the household income and are _not_ the primary breadwinner? Whether or not there are “that many” people who are trying to make a living (I never said career) from working at low paying jobs is also immaterial to my opinions on the subject, and what I said that this is a response to. _The middle class cannot afford to support all of these people._ Is that clear enough for you? If their parents are not responsible enough for the ones who have to work their way thru college, if they marry and leave home before they have enough education to support themselves decently - why do you think it is my responsibility to run myself into financial trouble to give these folks insurance? Especially now, when anyone is lucky to even have a job? As for working in a low paying job to suppliment the primary breadwinner, I don’t even know why you brought that one up. > [@](#): > > You’re already doing that. You’ve got private insurance, and there are thousands of people insured by your company who make much higher use of their coverage than many others, many who use their coverage more than you. Yup, I am supporting those who have babies and take their kids in for 7973723 checkups because they have insurance. BUT, those people are also paying a premium that the insurance actuaries have figured out will cover the cost of providing everyone care. I am not in a group that includes a high percentage of people who are paying little or no premium. I also pay a rather high copay to go to a specialist and for the first time in decades, I also pay a copay for lab work and xrays. UHC isn’t going to be able to require all these poor people to pay $50 to see the doctor or $1000 for an inpatient stay, so who do you think would end up picking up that slack? This is a basic insurance reality that _you_ are not grasping. If you force me into a UHC with hundreds of thousands of people who cannot afford to pay $400 - $500 a month premium and a $50 copay, the shortfall has to be made up and the government does that by billing the taxpayer. > [@](#): > > That’s been addressed earlier in the thread, and frankly, if you’re going to assert that, I’m going to demand a cite. Demand away, but you are going to have to do the work yourself because it is such a basic truth, that isn’t even limited to healthcare. Any time a group of people have access to something for a discount, they are far more likely to use/buy than if they had to pay full price. And it’s one of the cornerstones of the pro-UHC advocates, that if we had access to cheaper healthcare, more people would go in for preventative care which would supposedly cut down on expenses later. Besides, you yourself were the one that listed a bunch of reasons why folks with insurance were more likely to go to the doctor than those without just one or two posts ago… > [@](#): > > Have you ever heard of rape? Does that exist in libertopia? Libertopia??? Good lord, I am so far from liberal… Anyway, what does rape have to do with the subject? Do you think it always results in a pregnancy? Do all pregnancy result in babies? Do all babies have to live with their birth mother? Those are all choices. > [@](#): > > Sure, they should be planned for, but that presumes time. You can’t put a year’s worth of salary in the bank in a year. You can’t replace a $35,000 a year salary when you’re not eligible for that sort of employment for yourself. How do you plan for a child born with multiple unforeseen challenges that progress to the point that one of the parents loses their job because of the time they’re forced to spend at the hospital? You don’t have that child until you can. This is such a simple thing, yet apparently it is far simpler to just have the kid and then expect that someone else will take care of the expense. > [@](#): > > How do you plan for your 23 year old husband of seven months to be mugged on the street right outside your house and knifed to death, leaving you in the middle of a complicated pregnancy? How do you plan for your mother, your only parent, to be gunned down walking home from the grocery store with Thanksgiving dinner? (These are all cases of people I know.) And how frequent are those things that we should try out this multi-billion dollar experiment to cover them? I won’t even bother to ask you for any details as to why example A was already pregnant or why example B caused financial problems because these sorts of things aren’t that common and aren’t directly connected to the UHC topic. > [@](#): > > You’re right, and it doesn’t help anyone to get to a point of having a savings, having life insurance, having a big down payment for a house when they’re paying premiums for private health insurance that are rising at twice the rate of inflation every year with deductibles that are doubling every four years. This doesn’t make any sense to me - what are you trying to say? > [@](#): > > Does it matter? Are people making $201 - $499 a month somehow more or less able to access health care? It’s a red herring. No, it’s an attempt to find out if you have any clue as to how many people are out there that fall into this gap, who would desperately need a UHC. > [@](#): > > Because school isn’t free. Because people going to college still have to have a place to live and food to eat and that requires a job. Why are you asking ridiculous questions that are answered on their face? So parents have no responsibility to ensure that their children go into the world ready to contribute and not just take? When the kid turns 18 you just boot him out the door with whatever public school education he managed to get? Oh gosh no, we can’t expect _parents_ to be responsible for their choice to have children!! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Do you have any idea how many manhours of work are lost to illness every year in this country? I’m not doing your homework on this one. Having a UHC isn’t going to make a bit of difference with that. > [@](#): > > And that would be why? Because they can’t afford to. Mmm, which is… exactly my point. Which has what to do with the subject? They can’t afford to take time off of a low paying job because they need every penny they can get. Even if I fund their doctors appointments and RXs, they still won’t be able to take time off of work to go see the doctor when they get a cold or the flu. > [@](#): > > Because it’s irrelevant why someone is in the gap between Medicaid and private insurance. No, it’s not. People who choose to do things with their money other than plan for the future & be responsible for themselves have already gotten this country into deep trouble, the mortgage crisis being the latest example. And the more you require that the taxpayer bail these people out, the less responsible they become and the fewer taxpayers you have left. > [@](#): > > I doubt it completely because you don’t seem to understand that these people will be paying for insurance right alongside you. No, they won’t. If they could, they would already be doing it. A UHC premium would be based on income, it wouldn’t be the same amount across the board. Then when the government screws that up as they have screwed up the funding for Medicare, Medicaid, etal, they would levy taxes to make up the shortfall. I would end up paying a higher premium and more taxes than all of these folks you think would be “paying for insurance right alongside” me. > [@](#): > > Which is private insurance. It’s not a public program, it’s not Medicaid, Medicare, etc. You are trying to change how terms are used in the industry and by the government. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/326 "2009-03-11T23:51:45Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > And if his parents, for whatever reason, aren’t up to the job, then what? It’s his fault for picking the wrong parents? Why are you making it _my_ fault? I was not involved in their decision to have a child and for all I know they also decided to go ahead and have him knowing he had the bifida. I also wasn’t involved in the decision to send him out in the world without the skill/education/funding to take care of his medical issues himself. Yet for some reason you demand that I pick up the slack? > [@](#): > > Oh please - your incessant “I don’t want to _pay_ for that…!” is like fingernails on a blackboard. Oh gosh, I am sooo sorry that my lack of willingness to let you dictake how I spend my hard earned money is irritating you. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > How do you “prepare” for a birth defect? You realize that each and every pregnancy has the potential to end up with a baby that is less than perfect, and you don’t decide to have a baby unless and until you can deal with it yourself. This business of not only turning a blind eye to all these people who have children who can’t support them but _glorifying_ them has got to stop! Who in their right mind thinks that Octomom should be rewarded for having 14 artificially conceived children while living on welfare? Why are there movies and TV shows with heroines who are young teen age mothers? And the Duggers? And Jon & Kate plus 8? > [@](#): > > We are both college educated. In his best years he earned 100K. In my best years I earned 50K. We have never been in debt, we never “popped out kids” (indeed, his birth defect rendered him sterile so we have no children), we never lived beyond our means. Most of the 20 years we’ve been married we’ve been covered by employer-sponsored insurance, but our recent 8 month gap has been… educational, to say the least. No savings to cover that, no credit? > [@](#): > > It would take a hell of a lot of worry out of life. So you want the US goverment to lay out billions of the taxpayer’s dollars to make you worry less? > [@](#): > > I, too, might land on hard times and I wanted there to be a safety net in place if I did. So instead of creating that safety net yourself, you just assume that because you pay taxes - that went to support others without their own safety nets - the taxpayers should support you too? > [@](#): > > when something as simple as a broken leg or bad flu could bankrupt us (you know, us responsible people who had never lived beyond our means). Responsible people have savings, enough that a broken leg or flu wouldn’t bankrupt them. > [@](#): > > What you don’t seem to realize is that those taxes will _replace_ health insurance premiums, Sigh. No, they won’t. Everyone in the policy I currently pay into is paying at least $400 a month, as well as high copays and deductibles. In order to cover people who cannot afford at least $400 a month (which is employee only premium) and $50 a dr visit and $1000 an inpatient stay, the government would have to set premiums higher for those who can afford it and/or mask the costs in taxes. It is a simple mathematical fact that if you add a bunch of people to my policy who cannot pay the premiums or the copays/deductibles, the money has to come from somewhere to make up the difference. > [@](#): > > You whine about freeloaders, but yet you aren’t willing to pay for the government programs that benefit all of society and not just your selfish self. Responsible, adult people understand the need to pay taxes. They don’t like taxes, but they understand why they are necessary. I don’t have any problem paying taxes that go to things that actually benefit all of society, but I do have a major problem paying taxes to support freeloaders. > [@](#): > > Does that mean the healthy will pay more than they receive? Yes. What does this have to do with the subject? > [@](#): > > All of which makes me wonder if perhaps they aren’t doubling the cost of care to the insured to cover the indigent. You know, if that’s the case I’d rather have that up front and visible instead of hidden in the premiums charged by private companies, wouldn’t you? You should find out if that is true before jumping to that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/327 "2009-03-12T00:08:02Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Responsible people have savings, enough that a broken leg or flu wouldn’t bankrupt them. How about cancer or AIDS (say from a blood transfusion after being hit by a drunk driver… just so you can’t say it is the fault of the victim). How many people have say $1 million to cover this themselves? I just got back from the dentist and paid $600 for a filling. Sure, this would have be about $30 in Prague, but I can’t go to Prague for $600 so I did it here… no insurance and I paid in cash. If I got cancer, I could not come up with a million dollars for treatment… and I’d wager, neither could you. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/328 "2009-03-12T00:47:03Z")
> [@Jayn\_Newell](#): > > It was late at night–nothing else was open–and standard measures weren’t working. Cost wasn’t really my first concern at that point, getting my husband out of pain was. You think spending $800 is a good use of recources for a migraine? See, I don’t care if you want to pay that - it’s your choice - but you seem to think it would be OK to expect the taxpayer to do so. > [@](#): > > I know this is a conversation with Broomstick, but I have to say…what the _fuck_? See my response to **Broomstick**. When someone has a baby, they are responsible for more than just keeping it alive until it is 18. In the case of **Broomstick’s** husband, his parents also had the responsibility to see that he had healthcare/insurance until he could take care of it on his own no matter how long that would be, as well as ensuring he had the training/education to get a job that would support him. People don’t seem to realize that there is no magic cut off point when they aren’t responsible for the lives they brought into this world. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/329 "2009-03-12T01:04:42Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > See my response to **Broomstick**. When someone has a baby, they are responsible for more than just keeping it alive until it is 18. In the case of **Broomstick’s** husband, his parents also had the responsibility to see that he had healthcare/insurance until he could take care of it on his own no matter how long that would be, as well as ensuring he had the training/education to get a job that would support him. People don’t seem to realize that there is no magic cut off point when they aren’t responsible for the lives they brought into this world. I was on my parent’s health insurance until I turned 18. After that, it was impossible for my parents to provide health care at any price… i was immediately made uninsurable. I didn’t get coverage from a job until I was 26… I was working full time (40 hrs) from the time I turned 16 and going to high school. How was I supposed to get insurance when I turned 18… and how could it have been my parent’s responsibility given that no insurance company would touch me? It was not a matter of money… I had $30K in the bank when I was 18. ---
**Author:** ![welby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@welby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/welby)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/330 "2009-03-12T01:45:18Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > The first citation, _Medicare’s Hidden Administrative Costs: A Comparison of Medicare and the Private Sector_ is a report issued by the insurance industry. [The Council for Affordable Health Insurance](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Council+for+Affordable+Health+Insurance&year=2008) is a lobbying firm. For this reason alone, the information should be dismissed as invalid. > > If you still aren’t convinced the report lacks credibility, consider the fact that Milliman, Inc has an FTC violation for purchasing prescription drug histories from a consumer reporting agency to create medical profiles of insurance applicants. Okay then, try [this](http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/january/cahis_claim_of_medi.php), which is the product of the Physicians for a National Healthcare Program, another obviously biased source, but in your direction. The author agrees with the fact that Medicare overhead is underreported. I disagree with her obvious attempt to play with words and numbers, and completely disagree with her statement that Medicare costs are “excessive.” Medicare costs are underreported, to the tune of almost half, and yet folks still insist on using the Medicare 3% thing with a smug smile and the implication that saving those costs will just pay the way for everyone. Further, you didn’t address the GAO report, which states that expenses should be higher than they are. One thing that higher administrative expenses would help with would be in the reduction of fraud in Medicare (GOA again). The question in this thread is whether national health care would cost more. If you want to show that it would not, then use accurate numbers. Funny thing is, even with accurate numbers Medicare still has lower costs. I’m not saying we won’t realize savings, I’m saying that they’re not as large as the pro-UHC crowd would have us beleive, and that affects the bottom line. > [@](#): > > I am not sure how you are calculating the cost. The CAHI report? It will cost more to deliver care to more people. The larger the population the larger the expendature, but the important measure is spending per capita and the total as a percentage of GDP. Calculating cost is actually the tricky part, depending on who you want to influence. The Kaiser Family Foundation published [this](http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/The-Federal-Employees-Health-Benefits-Program-Program-Design-Recent-Performance-and-Implications-for-Medicare-Reform-Report.pdf) comparison fo the Federal Employee’s Health Benefits Program with Medicare. I think the comparison is valid, since the FEHBP is very similar to the president’s [campaign](http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/health_care_spin.html) plan. The 3% figure for medicare is calculated: Admin Costs / Payment for Services However this doesn’t work very well because seniors use more services than younger folks do, resulting in a perceived difference in the amount of overhead expenses. However, if calculated on a per enrolee scale as in the Kaiser foundation report above, we find: > [@](#): > > These percentage comparisons may be deceptive, because service costs for Medicare beneficiaries are much higher than those for FEHBP enrollees. The two programs might spend the same dollar amounts on administration, but Medicare’s spending would appear lower as a percent of claims. Absolute dollar amounts for private insurance administration are difficult to obtain, but one source does produce estimates for Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. For plans operating a PPO on an administrative services-only basis—essentially the way Blue Cross operates under FEHBP—mean administrative costs per member year were $271 in 2002 > (Sherlock Company, 2002). Medicare’s costs in 2002, $4.8 billion for about 36 million fee-forservice > beneficiaries, were about $133 per beneficiary, or about one-half as large. So using that formula, we find that the cost differential is closer to twice rather than the 6-7 times pro-UHC folks would have us beleive. So again, there’s a saving to be had, but how much is it really? And can the savings be realized?[Probably not.](http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_inflated_health_savings.html) The actual savings during implementation would be closer to $44 billion - assuming a 90% adoption of paperless Medical records over a period of ten years. The costs for that adoption, I’ll point out, will be on doctors offices, which will likely affect timely adoption of the systems. Unless we want to fund that too in the hope that it’ll get done in a timely fashion, thus decreasing our savings even further. > [@](#): > > We agree on this point. 🙂 Marketing expensive drugs like laundry soap is consumerism to the extreme. Most of the time the medication isn’t even covered by insurance. There has to be lobbying reform if Americans want government to be responsive to the public instead of a small but extremely wealthy segment of the population. If you’re ever in D.C. let’s grab a beer downtown and find some lobbyists to beat. I’ll bring the bats. 😉 > [@](#): > > I don’t disagree but free marketeers can’t have it both ways. When public funds subsidize an industry with no strings attached, there is no incentive for that industry to invest in product development or technology to increase efficiency and profits. The social benefit of a competitive market is the innovation. If tax dollars are used to subsidize an industry, the government has an obligation to regulate that industry and every right to impose conditions that benefit the public. Otherwise, the taxpayers are subsidizing the wealth that buys political influence. I think we’ve got to start by smacking the taxes back on them, and making sure that more research money is sent to non-profit researchers rather than drug companies. Heck, this might make them sit up and take notice. But I don’t see a way for the government to simply start mandating prices. > [@](#): > > I think the President wants to give people a choice to keep their private insurance or buy into a public fund --essentially medicare. I think it’s a good idea. It allows the country to move towards UHC without imposing change on people still resistant to the idea. What do you think? Interestingly, it seems the insurance industry suddenly favors mandates. I dunno. I honestly think it comes down to costs, because many people vote thier wallet. That’s why I favor a serious look at ways to save money, then steps to realize those savings. Once we get a handle on costs we’ll have a way to handle all those new enrollees. Right now we’re looking at a revamp of Medicare when Medicare doesn’t work like it should, and that just seems bizzarre to me. Legislative steps that could be taken: Reform taxes on Drug companies to be more reflective of other corporations, and allocate the additonal tax revenue to a UHC fund, or use it to supplement the potential insurance pool in the Presidents plan - without touching additional revenue. Better yet, let this money initially fund the IT initiative below. Require medical offices and hospitals to implement the electronic records systems, with a standard set of data and format that is readily recognizable and transferrable no matter what software the medical office uses. (A lot simpler than it sounds). Seriously overhaul Medicare administration and increase it’s size and capabilities to reduce fraud (no more automatic approvals, though many would disagree with this). This is all stuff that could be done in the next 2-4 years, with both savings and revenue being realized almost instantly from fraud reduction, additional tax revenue, and some cost reductions in medical records management. In other words, I’d prefer to get the infrastructure in place and functioning before setting the American public loose on it. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/331 "2009-03-12T01:45:46Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Why are you making it _my_ fault? _It is no one’s fault_. It just happened. It was an accident. > [@](#): > > I was not involved in their decision to have a child and for all I know they also decided to go ahead and have him knowing he had the bifida. The technology to detect spina bifida before birth _did not exist_ when my husband was born. NO ONE could have known he had the problem until he was born. > [@](#): > > I also wasn’t involved in the decision to send him out in the world without the skill/education/funding to take care of his medical issues himself. Excuse me? He was college educated, worked for companies with health coverage for 15 years, then went into business for himself (at which point he was covered by my insurance). You are _assuming_ he was a “freeloader” all his life. Until November 2009 he was covered by insurance - just as you are. Then \>poof\<. Are you absolutely certain YOU are immune to the same fate? > [@](#): > > Yet for some reason you demand that I pick up the slack? Not you personally, no, but it’s STUPID for 1 in 6 Americans to _have NO health insurance at all_. You think that doesn’t affect you? YOUR premiums take up the slack when those without insurance use an ER or hospital or what have you and can’t pay the cost. > [@](#): > > You realize that each and every pregnancy has the potential to end up with a baby that is less than perfect, and you don’t decide to have a baby unless and until you can deal with it yourself. His parents _did_ have insurance when he was born. Where do you get the impression they _didn’t?_ I told you they maxed out a health insurance policy - that would imply _they had insurance_. Are you actually reading my posts, or do you have comprehension problem? > [@](#): > > This business of not only turning a blind eye to all these people who have children who can’t support them but _glorifying_ them has got to stop! Um… my in-laws supported both their offspring up to adulthood. I’m sorry, where did you get the idea they didn’t? > [@](#): > > Who in their right mind thinks that Octomom should be rewarded for having 14 artificially conceived children while living on welfare? My in-laws are not Octomom. They only had two children. That’s far from “irresponsible”. This is relevant how…? > [@](#): > > Why are there movies and TV shows with heroines who are young teen age mothers? My in-laws were several years married and in their twenties when my husband was born. This is relevant how…? > [@](#): > > And the Duggers? And Jon & Kate plus 8? Again, my in-laws only had two children. These freaks are relevant how…? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > We are both college educated. In his best years he earned 100K. In my best years I earned 50K. We have never been in debt, we never “popped out kids” (indeed, his birth defect rendered him sterile so we have no children), we never lived beyond our means. Most of the 20 years we’ve been married we’ve been covered by employer-sponsored insurance, but our recent 8 month gap has been… educational, to say the least. > > No savings to cover that, no credit? Yes, we had savings. They are nearly exhausted. Clearly, you have _no idea_ how expensive routine care is for someone with a neurological disorder along with diabetes. As I said, we paid hundreds of dollars a month _just for medication_ in order to maintain his health. Pretty much all we got from unemployment in a month. Meanwhile we still had to pay the rent, buy food, etc. As for credit - are you suggesting we borrow money without the means to pay it back? Is _bankruptcy_ your idea of “responsible” behavior? > [@](#): > > So you want the US goverment to lay out billions of the taxpayer’s dollars to make you worry less? As a taxpayer, I’d rather my taxes go to taking care of my fellow citizens than to a lot of other uses. > [@](#): > > So instead of creating that safety net yourself, you just assume that because you pay taxes - that went to support others without their own safety nets - the taxpayers should support you too? I’m sorry - what country do live in where taxes are _optional?_. I pay my taxes because I am a _responsible_ law-abiding citizen. And why do you feel that paying taxes for social programs (to the deserving) is NOT a safety net? > [@](#): > > Responsible people have savings, enough that a broken leg or flu wouldn’t bankrupt them. Even people 18 or 20 years old who just haven’t had time to build up a nest-egg? > [@](#): > > Sigh. No, they won’t. Everyone in the policy I currently pay into is paying at least $400 a month, as well as high copays and deductibles. In order to cover people who cannot afford at least $400 a month (which is employee only premium) and $50 a dr visit and $1000 an inpatient stay, the government would have to set premiums higher for those who can afford it and/or mask the costs in taxes. My God, are you REALLY that ignorant? You actually think your health insurance premium is $400 total? That is what YOU pay. The remainder is paid _by the employer_. If you don’t believe me have your husband (you are covered by your husband’s policy, yes?) ask HR where he works what the TOTAL cost, per month, of your policy is. That is, YOUR portion AND the EMPLOYER’s portion. It is highly unlikely it is only $400 a month - $800 is probably much closer to the mark. Maybe higher, because, frankly, a $1000 ceiling on inpatient is MUCH better than most people with insurance have. That money your husband’s employer pays is money that _can’t_ go into raises or training or upgrading equipment… It is generated by your husband’s labor so you are, in fact, “paying” for it in time and effort if not cash. > [@](#): > > It is a simple mathematical fact that if you add a bunch of people to my policy who cannot pay the premiums or the copays/deductibles, the money has to come from somewhere to make up the difference. So, when someone without insurance goes to an ER and can’t pay… where do you think the money to cover that comes from? It comes from the charges made to private insurers, like yours. Then the insurer raises premiums to cover the increased costs. _You are already paying for these people_. > [@](#): > > I don’t have any problem paying taxes that go to things that actually benefit all of society, but I do have a major problem paying taxes to support freeloaders. So why do you assume people without insurance are “freeloaders”? The truly destitute have Medicaid. The elderly have Medicare (paid for by YOUR TAXES, I might add). The uninsured are largely _working people_ who do not get insurance through an employer and can not obtain private insurance. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Does that mean the healthy will pay more than they receive? Yes. > > What does this have to do with the subject? _That’s how insurance works!_ As I said before, are you truly that ignorant? > [@](#): > > You should find out if that is true before jumping to that conclusion. Yet it’s OK for you to assume my in-laws knew my husband had a birth defect when that was impossible at the time? It’s OK for you to assume they didn’t have insurance when I have _repeatedly_ stated they did? It’s OK for you to assume anyone without insurance is a “freeloader” and irresponsible? Lady, I am NOT the one making unwarranted assumptions here. > [@](#): > > See my response to Broomstick. When someone has a baby, they are responsible for more than just keeping it alive until it is 18. In the case of Broomstick’s husband, his parents also had the responsibility to see that he had healthcare/insurance until he could take care of it on his own no matter how long that would be Parents CAN’T carry children on their policy past a certain age - it varies somewhat, but typically 18 unless they are in college, then only until 23 or 24 or graduation. You don’t know that? And I guess by your standards orphans are just screwed because, you know, their parents were so irresponsible as to die before their children were fully independent. > [@](#): > > as well as ensuring he had the training/education to get a job that would support him. What makes you think they didn’t? But, for the sake of argument, lets assume his parents died young, leaving him entirely on his own at, say, 18 - why should he be left without any recourse because of that? What if there are irresponsible or uneducated parents? Their children should suffer because they were “irresponsible” enough to “choose” bad parents? > [@](#): > > People don’t seem to realize that there is no magic cut off point when they aren’t responsible for the lives they brought into this world. Well, you know, I’d love to go hit my father-in-law up for money to take care of his sons medical needs BUT HE’S BEEN DEAD FOR TWENTY FIVE YEARS so that’s just a little difficult to do. I could go ask my mom for help, I suppose, BUT SHE’S DEAD, TOO. Perhaps this has escaped your narrow mind, but parents don’t live forever. There is a cut-off point - it’s called _death._ Dead people can’t loan you money. Are you really having that much trouble understanding that we are middle-aged? That we don’t have a huge, wealthy family to rely upon or sponge off of? Lack of health care isn’t an issue for poor people, or people with too many kids, or whatever stereotype you’re seething over - it’s a problem that hits people of all types, including those that even you might consider responsible. Tell me, **curlcoat** - if your husband lost his job and health insurance tomorrow _what would you do?_ Do you have sufficient savings to take care of your health problems from now until the end of your life? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/332 "2009-03-12T01:56:08Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > Curlcoat, not all advocates for UHC lack health insurance. Similarly, not everyone who advocates for high wages earns a minimal hourly salary or lacks a college degree. I think your opposition to UHC is rooted in social values the same way many UHC supporters are motivated for reasons beyond self interest. My opposition to UHC is rooted in the fact that people seem to want to tax me into the poor house. We are middle class, yet we are already paying 30%+ in income tax between the fed and the state, as well as property tax, sales tax, user fees on the car and truck, gas tax and on and on. We are already paying $3500 a month to the state and fed, and you want us to pay more? He is only eight years from retirement - will we be able to afford it? It’s not like we go on vacations to Hawaii or anything, the most we blow money on is a weekend in Vegas and you want to add to our tax burden? My opposition is also is also rooted in the fact that I am sick and tired of picking up the slack for people who don’t want to be responsible for themselves. I suppose if I was still able to work and still able to suck up extra taxes, this part wouldn’t be so important to me, but here I am trying to remain responsible for myself when I’m unable to work and you want me to be responsible for all these other folks? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/333 "2009-03-12T01:57:58Z")
If you’re paying that much in taxes you need a competent accountant to help you with that problem. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/334 "2009-03-12T02:03:43Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > How about cancer or AIDS (say from a blood transfusion after being hit by a drunk driver… just so you can’t say it is the fault of the victim). How many people have say $1 million to cover this themselves? Oh fercrissakes, how about if the aliens land and while they are sticking a probe up your butt, you get an infection? I can afford to pay a million bucks to cover that just as much as I can cover AIDS or cancer, which is not at all. Which means I also cannot cover the thousands of people in the US that would need treatment for AIDS, cancer and alien probes. If they even got treatment that is, which isn’t really likely - do you think the people of this country can afford to pay for all of that expensive treatment? Where is that money going to come from? ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/335 "2009-03-12T02:14:05Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > My opposition to UHC is rooted in the fact that people seem to want to tax me into the poor house. We are middle class, yet we are already paying 30%+ in income tax between the fed and the state, as well as property tax, sales tax, user fees on the car and truck, gas tax and on and on. We are already paying $3500 a month to the state and fed, and you want us to pay more? He is only eight years from retirement - will we be able to afford it? It’s not like we go on vacations to Hawaii or anything, the most we blow money on is a weekend in Vegas and you want to add to our tax burden? > > My opposition is also is also rooted in the fact that I am sick and tired of picking up the slack for people who don’t want to be responsible for themselves. I suppose if I was still able to work and still able to suck up extra taxes, this part wouldn’t be so important to me, but here I am trying to remain responsible for myself when I’m unable to work and you want me to be responsible for all these other folks? What? You don’t work ? Does this mean you “allow” your spouse to pay your portion of all your, food, shelter, medical bills and including your share of the tax burden, and expect him (or her) to fully fund your retirement, too? That’s unconscionable! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/336 "2009-03-12T02:14:48Z")
For those who grouse about “paying for other’s health care”: Federal, state, and city workers and retirees all have health plans, and you are already paying for those through your taxes. You are also paying a good percentage of the coverage for thier dependants. Every company that provides health coverage for thier workers is factoring that cost into the prices you pay. You can avoid most of this cost by shopping at WalMart, but you still pay for the health care of management and corporate folks. And you get to pay more at WalMart, because the folks that might otherwise start buisinesses to compete with them, instead stay at thier corporate jobs so they can keep thier health insurance. And those folks that don’t have insurance…well when they go bankrupt and the hospital doesn’t get paid, they pass that cost on to everyone who can pay, insured or not…so you get to pay for thier care (such as it is) as well. Not wanting to pay for other’s care isn’t a reason to keep the existing system…you are already paying for such, and paying for those fancy buildings and executive salarys at the insurance companys as well. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/337 "2009-03-12T02:59:27Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > _It is no one’s fault_. It just happened. It was an accident. You are, however, trying to make it my responsibility. > [@](#): > > The technology to detect spina bifida before birth _did not exist_ when my husband was born. NO ONE could have known he had the problem until he was born. Then why did you say it was? > [@](#): > > Are you absolutely certain YOU are immune to the same fate? Nope. But neither do I expect the rest of the world to take care of me either. If my husband’s company folds and there is no COBRA and neither of us can get a job, then we just live on what we have now, for as long as we can. Because we have planned ahead, we have a house with a lot of equity, and between us we have five pensions as well as other IRAs, so we would probably last until we qualified for Medicare. > [@](#): > > YOUR premiums take up the slack when those without insurance use an ER or hospital or what have you and can’t pay the cost. Not my premiums, my taxes. Which you want to raise by giving free access to healthcare to _everyone_. > [@](#): > > His parents _did_ have insurance when he was born. Where do you get the impression they _didn’t?_ I told you they maxed out a health insurance policy - that would imply _they had insurance_. Are you actually reading my posts, or do you have comprehension problem? Apparently you do - did I say insurance? You asked how one plans ahead for a birth defect, and I said that parents should assume that any baby born with have something wrong with it that will require expensive care for years or life. Insurance is part of this, but so is setting aside money for ongoing treatment, make sure that if the baby will be able to take care of itself in later life that it gets an education, that should something happen _any_ time during the child’s life, there is a fallback plan. Other than being supported by the government. > [@](#): > > Um… my in-laws supported both their offspring up to adulthood. I’m sorry, where did you get the idea they didn’t? Your in-laws last name is Duggar or Octomom? They have been in a movie or on TV? Where did you get the idea from what I said that I was talking about your in-laws? > [@](#): > > My in-laws are not Octomom. They only had two children. That’s far from “irresponsible”. This is relevant how…? It’s relevant because it is quite possible that your in-laws couldn’t even afford two children, I don’t know because I don’t know them, your husband or his sibling. OTOH, it is not at all uncommon for people to have children when they can’t afford them, or more than they can afford. And society supports it. > [@](#): > > My in-laws were several years married and in their twenties when my husband was born. This is relevant how…? > > Again, my in-laws only had two children. These freaks are relevant how…? Not everything is about you, but if you continue to assume it is it would tend to make one wonder. > [@](#): > > Is _bankruptcy_ your idea of “responsible” behavior? Oh, OK, then - you stay solvent and I’ll go bankrupt. Wait, no, how is that right? Isn’t this a country where I get to support myself on what I earn? > [@](#): > > As a taxpayer, I’d rather my taxes go to taking care of my fellow citizens than to a lot of other uses. Which has zero to do with the subject at hand. > [@](#): > > And why do you feel that paying taxes for social programs (to the deserving) is NOT a safety net? Because a safety net is what responsible people plan for so they don’t have to be supported by others, which is supposed to be the absolute last option. Somehow over the years, this has been turned into the government will take care of everyone and the “deserving” is anyone who has had a blip in their perfect life. > [@](#): > > My God, are you REALLY that ignorant? You actually think your health insurance premium is $400 total? Actually, our premium is $500 something since there are two of us, and yes I am well aware that his employer also pays into it. I’m also aware that if the employer wasn’t paying into it they wouldn’t suddenly decide to give him a bigger raise or bonus, nor would he work fewer hours. > [@](#): > > So, when someone without insurance goes to an ER and can’t pay… where do you think the money to cover that comes from? It comes from the charges made to private insurers, like yours. Then the insurer raises premiums to cover the increased costs. _You are already paying for these people_. I am not paying for them to anything near the level that I would be under a UHC. ERs provide extremely basic care to those who cannot pay, and private hospitals flat turn them away. The amount of money those people suck out of the system wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket of the amount _everyone_ would take if they had free access to all froms of healthcare. > [@](#): > > So why do you assume people without insurance are “freeloaders”? Because in my experience they generally are and you have been unable to prove they aren’t. > [@](#): > > The elderly have Medicare (paid for by YOUR TAXES, I might add). Yes, Medicare doesn’t work - good idea to have that same government cover us all, huh? > [@](#): > > _That’s how insurance works!_ As I said before, are you truly that ignorant? No, I am the victim of someone who cannot follow a thread. > [@](#): > > Parents CAN’T carry children on their policy past a certain age - it varies somewhat, but typically 18 unless they are in college, then only until 23 or 24 or graduation. You don’t know that? Insurance isn’t the only way that parents should be responsible to the lives they chose to bring into the world. > [@](#): > > But, for the sake of argument, lets assume his parents died young, leaving him entirely on his own at, say, 18 - why should he be left without any recourse because of that? If his parents died when he was 18, they wouldn’t have been that young - unless they were irresponsible enough to have him when _they_ were 18. But, leaving that aside, this isn’t the sort of person you want covered by a UHC, you want everyone covered. So noone has to be responsible at all. > [@](#): > > Lack of health care isn’t an issue for poor people, or people with too many kids, or whatever stereotype you’re seething over - it’s a problem that hits people of all types, including those that even you might consider responsible. Prove it. > [@](#): > > Tell me, **curlcoat** - if your husband lost his job and health insurance tomorrow _what would you do?_ Do you have sufficient savings to take care of your health problems from now until the end of your life? Yup. My life wouldn’t be a whole lot of fun and I’d have to buy all my drugs in Mexico, but we could do it. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/338 "2009-03-12T03:00:27Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > If you’re paying that much in taxes you need a competent accountant to help you with that problem. Know all about California income tax do you? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/339 "2009-03-12T03:24:45Z")
> [@Ca3799](#): > > What? You don’t work ? Does this mean you “allow” your spouse to pay your portion of all your, food, shelter, medical bills and including your share of the tax burden, and expect him (or her) to fully fund your retirement, too? That’s unconscionable! > 😛 It’s always been the deal here. When I could work, we used my income to get us where we are now - no car payments, almost no credit card debt (we owe \< $600 on one card), pay more into our IRAs, and to do things like put a new roof and new flooring in the house. He’s not funding my retirement tho, as I do have pensions. And, it’s his choice! Any time he decides that he isn’t getting enough for his money, he can opt out. Can’t do that with a UHC. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/340 "2009-03-12T03:52:48Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > And, it’s his choice! Any time he decides that he isn’t getting enough for his money, he can opt out. Can’t do that with a UHC. I sure wish I could opt-in. I’d be happy to pay $500/mo. Can’t do that in our system. I think I have been at least as responsible as you. No debt of any kind whatsoever and a 6-figure savings. However, a short stay in hospital could bankrupt me. I have been looking for medical evacuation insurance so that I could be airlifted out of the USA to Europe for emergency medical treatment… such flights are typically about $50,000 which I have in cash if need be… but while I can get medical evac coverage to get me out of Somalia or Afghanistan, nobody will sell it to me to get out of the USA. The costs here in the USA are outrageous. 75 minutes with a dentist cost $600 today in northern Nevada. Roughly 16 hours with various doctors in Prague cost $450. Perhaps you’d like Somalia. Nobody has to pay a cent for anyone else, you are 100% on your own and if you are not responsible, you die. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175.md?page=18)