If you are against universal healthcare...why?

[DanXIII 8]

I'm not trying to create a flamewar, though I know that one will inevitably ensue...but if you are against providing health care to all Americans, why?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

First off, anyone can walk into a hospital and get healthcare. They have to take you in if you walk through an emergency room door.

 

Second, when has the gubmint done anything but make things more expensive and less effecient? It would fock up our whole system and cost trillions more than any BS number they throw out there.

 

Third, a large portion of those who are uninsured are that way by choice. They "choose" to buy big screen tv's, Dishnetwork, cars that are worth more than the house they live in, and drugs from the CIA.

[Me_2006 14]

Because in my experiences studying history, most things "nationalized" or "universal" haven't gone well. The government doesn't run things as well as the people/free market and competition among those in the industry are what have made America the greatest and most prosperous nation in the history of civilization.

[DanXIII 8]

Excellent points, all RP. I will address them in order:

 

 

First off, anyone can walk into a hospital and get healthcare. They have to take you in if you walk through an emergency room door.

 

Absolutely true. But...is this the most efficient way to do it, from a cost-benefit standpoint?

 

Second, when has the gubmint done anything but make things more expensive and less effecient? It would fock up our whole system and cost trillions more than any BS number they throw out there.

 

I am not sure that anyone is suggesting that the government run it. I'd like to see all the people both pay for it and benefit from it, however. I am completely against eliminating private care for those who can afford it.

 

Third, a large portion of those who are uninsured are that way by choice. They "choose" to buy big screen tv's, Dishnetwork, cars that are worth more than the house they live in, and drugs from the CIA.

 

Perhaps. What of those who ARE insured under an HMO who refuses to pay for needed care? Should those people be forced into bankruptcy and financial ruin because of a week-long stay in the hospital? If so...wouldn't that further drive up healthcare costs as is happening now?

[Strike 5,532]

I think all Americans should have health care. I just don't think the gov't should pay for it. I think all Americans should have cars too but I don't think the gov't should pay for that either. Of course, I have other issues as well such as the fact that any program the gov't touches is run worse than the equivalent private sector program, the fact that Hitlery's program would garnish people's wages, the fact that socialized medicine doesn't work well in most countries that have it, and the list goes on and on. But I don't even have to address those other points as I don't think it's the govt's role is to supply healthcare to everyone.

[Blitzen 0]

I live in a province with universal health care. Public health care costs a fortune. We're currently spending over 40% of our program spending on it and it will expand dramatically as boomers age. The problem is that getting more of the private sector involved won't solve much of anything because the major costs moving forward will be in treating old agers with debilitating diseases and the private sector doesn't want to touch that. They want to take over the low cost slice of the system, which doesn't solve the problem. I have no idea what the solution is or whether there is even such a solution. The system, whether public, private or mixed, will eventually cost too much for society and several people won't be getting treated. To give you an idea, there are no family physicians open to new patients in the region where I live. The result of this is that I have to drive close to 3 hours to see my doctor and a little over two to see our pediatrician. If I don't want to drive that much, I have to go to a hospital emergency for things like ear infections. And it won't get better anytime soon. To keep costs down, doctor salaries (i.e. how much work they can do and bill government) have been controlled meaning that doctors leave the province for other regions to make more money.

 

It is a total clusterfock. I don't think universal health care is sustainable.

[Blitzen 0]

Forgot to add that waiting times at the main hospitals near where I live are often at least 9 hours. Thank god there is a smaller hospital I can go to where waiting times are usually much shorter than that.

[VikesFan 1]

I'm not trying to create a flamewar, though I know that one will inevitably ensue...but if you are against providing health care to all Americans, why?

 

This is easy:

 

1) It's expensive

2) This country cannot afford it

3) it will cause health care expenses to rise

4) it will cause the quality of care to fall

 

Healthcare reform is definitely needed, but reform that will actually work will involve less government, less conflict of interest (about the only thing that the government should be dealing with), less insurance, and more competition. Until those are met, it will remain the mess that it is.

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 40]

Right now we have 3 players in the game. Those who need health care, those who provide it and insurance co's (with Medicare you can add Da Gubmit as a minor but ever growing player). Now, add Da Gubmit in as a major player. When was the last time Da Gubmit stepped into anything and made it cheaper or better?

 

4>3 and the 4th player is the most inefficiently run organization in this country. How could things possibly improve under Gubmit controlled UHC?

 

Besides, the goal of UHC is not to provide it, as that is being done now. The goal is to make the middle class pay even more for it (to ease the burden of what is now being skimmed from Medicare) and expand the role of Da Gubmit in a lucrative endeavor to skim more money from the private sector. UHC is nothing but another tax.

 

HTH

[FlaHawker 24]

I'm not trying to create a flamewar, though I know that one will inevitably ensue...but if you are against providing health care to all Americans, why?

Go ask the Brits what they think of universal health care. Their system is in shambles. I don't truist the US postal system with my mail, so why on Earth would I trust the government with my health?

[jerryskids 6,790]

I live in a province with universal health care. Public health care costs a fortune. We're currently spending over 40% of our program spending on it and it will expand dramatically as boomers age. The problem is that getting more of the private sector involved won't solve much of anything because the major costs moving forward will be in treating old agers with debilitating diseases and the private sector doesn't want to touch that. They want to take over the low cost slice of the system, which doesn't solve the problem. I have no idea what the solution is or whether there is even such a solution. The system, whether public, private or mixed, will eventually cost too much for society and several people won't be getting treated. To give you an idea, there are no family physicians open to new patients in the region where I live. The result of this is that I have to drive close to 3 hours to see my doctor and a little over two to see our pediatrician. If I don't want to drive that much, I have to go to a hospital emergency for things like ear infections. And it won't get better anytime soon. To keep costs down, doctor salaries (i.e. how much work they can do and bill government) have been controlled meaning that doctors leave the province for other regions to make more money.

 

It is a total clusterfock. I don't think universal health care is sustainable.

Fascinating insight from someone living it, thanks! This sounds exactly like what John Stossel (sp?) reported on his special about UHC. He also made an interesting analogy: what if we had universal groceries? Right now people shop for what they need and can afford, nothing more. But what if all food were free?

[cortezthekiller303 0]

I think we should have universal coverage and I think the government should pay for it. Here's why:

 

When you add up everyone in this county that recieve government coverage in one form or another: medicare, medicaid, disability, CHIPs, etc...and then you add in everyone that is one a government administered plan in one form or another: local, city, state, and federal employees, civil service employees, their families, the Armed Forces and their families, it adds up.

 

In fact, it adds up to around 60% of the coverage in this country. Why not just cover everyone, get rid of the administrative overlap, and maintain the added coverage with the savings?

 

The biggest problem with health insurance, private or goverment based, is that it keeps people chained to a job that they otherwise would not want. It actually discourages people to live where they want. It hinders productivity because they dont care about the job and have it strictly for the benefits.

[jerryskids 6,790]

One thing I might support is universal preventive care; if more people got regular wellness checks, we'd have a lot fewer bigger health problems. I suspect though that a lot of the people who do not do it today, would still not do it if it were free.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

Here's an article that accurately (and hilariously) summarizes how I feel on the subject:

 

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/arc...08&month=01

[edjr 6,580]

First off, anyone can walk into a hospital and get healthcare. They have to take you in if you walk through an emergency room door.

 

Second, when has the gubmint done anything but make things more expensive and less effecient? It would fock up our whole system and cost trillions more than any BS number they throw out there.

 

Third, a large portion of those who are uninsured are that way by choice. They "choose" to buy big screen tv's, Dishnetwork, cars that are worth more than the house they live in, and drugs from the CIA.

 

 

on the one hand you say anyone can walk into the ER and get healthcare (and never pay for it). Then you say, people "choose" to buy big screen tv's instead of insurance. you just said it all right there. the system we have, like everything else, is broken. Unless hospitals start saying NO to people without insurance (which will never happen), people that DO have insurance will keep paying higher rates for the people that never pay. What do you suggest?

[Quickolas1 80]

Right now people shop for what they need and can afford, nothing more.

 

Bold assumption. See subprime lending crisis.

 

But what if all food were free?

 

it was in star trek

[Blitzen 0]

Fascinating insight from someone living it, thanks! This sounds exactly like what John Stossel (sp?) reported on his special about UHC. He also made an interesting analogy: what if we had universal groceries? Right now people shop for what they need and can afford, nothing more. But what if all food were free?

 

There's been talk, on and off, about applying a moderating charge, i.e. ask people to pay a fee to consult to minimize abuse. But no politician wants to touch this.

 

What I could possibly see, if a politician has enough balls to do it, would be for the Federal government to decide to tax registered retirement savings an additional 1% to support the health system. There's prolly a couple trillion dollars in there so even at 1%, it would generate significant money.

[gocolts 300]

I agree with most of what has been said here against universal health care. Another tidbit to chew on is this. Look at the mess the Democratic party is in right now. they can't even run their own party, yet they want to take over the health care system?? I don't think so.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

on the one hand you say anyone can walk into the ER and get healthcare (and never pay for it). Then you say, people "choose" to buy big screen tv's instead of insurance. you just said it all right there. the system we have, like everything else, is broken. Unless hospitals start saying NO to people without insurance (which will never happen), people that DO have insurance will keep paying higher rates for the people that never pay. What do you suggest?

 

I suggest that the mouthbreathers who choose not to buy insurance, and who are forced to go into a crowded emergency room and wait for a long time before being treated, if given "free" healthcare would clog every doctors office anytime they sneezed.

 

I don't think you could start turning people away from the emergency room, but giving them the opportunity to see a doctor for free anytime they want is a recipe for disaster.

[GettnHuge 2]

There's been talk, on and off, about applying a moderating charge, i.e. ask people to pay a fee to consult to minimize abuse. But no politician wants to touch this.

 

What I could possibly see, if a politician has enough balls to do it, would be for the Federal government to decide to tax registered retirement savings an additional 1% to support the health system. There's prolly a couple trillion dollars in there so even at 1%, it would generate significant money.

 

You just hit the long time Democrap MO. Give a large group of people something that the gov't controls, then every election play

that card for their benefit. How many decades have libs used the threat: Repubs are gonna take away your SocSec! They're going

to take away your welfare!

 

I have good health coverage, so why should I pay so much more than I do now for the same thing and on top of that to pay for

peeps who are too lazy or made bad choices in their lives? fock em

[edjr 6,580]

I suggest that the mouthbreathers who choose not to buy insurance, and who are forced to go into a crowded emergency room and wait for a long time before being treated, if given "free" healthcare would clog every doctors office anytime they sneezed.

 

I don't think you could start turning people away from the emergency room, but giving them the opportunity to see a doctor for free anytime they want is a recipe for disaster.

 

Why not do what Mitt Romney did for Massachusetts? Everyone must have insurance or they pay a penalty on their taxes. It's a start, right? It's better for everyone to be insured. A lot less people going to the Dr without it that way. no?

[gocolts 300]

Another thing a lot of people don't realize is that if you are poor, you can go to the hospital and fill out income forms and get most of your bill paid for by charity, if not all of your bill. When I worked and was poor, I would do this. I didn't even know about it until some lady at the hospital told me that if I make below a certain wage, it was there and it was there to help people who are poor. I am not sure where the cutoff is, but you can make like 25,000 a year and save around 60% of the total bill.

 

This may not be everywhere in the country, but here in southern Indiana it is. It's called the little sisters of charity and comes from the churches. The Hospitals names are St. Mary's.

[Baby Jesus 0]

Another thing a lot of people don't realize is that if you are poor, you can go to the hospital and fill out income forms and get most of your bill paid for by charity, if not all of your bill. When I worked and was poor, I would do this. I didn't even know about it until some lady at the hospital told me that if I make below a certain wage, it was there and it was there to help people who are poor. I am not sure where the cutoff is, but you can make like 25,000 a year and save around 60% of the total bill.

 

This may not be everywhere in the country, but here in southern Indiana it is. It's called the little sisters of charity and comes from the churches. The Hospitals names are St. Mary's.

How are people on disability treated?

[Toro 1]

Because it is not a power given to the US gov't based on the Constitution.

[Baby Jesus 0]

Because it is not a power given to the US gov't based on the Constitution.

Neither is invading foreign lands based on bullcrap evidence, but that didn't stop us.

[ERZER 0]

The biggest problem is the manner in which it is going to be paid for; it is going to rest squarely on the shoulders of the "middle" and dare I say upper class. Even then, I suspect the limitations of services to be provided are going to eventually make people wish they had never heard of it.

 

Besides the purported affordable and all reaching aspects we are told about, where has universal health care been any more successful than what we have in this country. Before you answer that, keep in mind the "bench marking" you use to compare. If the economies or political structures are not the same you really can't compare them.

[gocolts 300]

How are people on disability treated?

I have to pay for health insurance.

[Baby Jesus 0]

I have to pay for health insurance.

How does that work? (seriously)

[gocolts 300]

How does that work? (seriously)

I pay for it on a monthly basis. It comes straight out of my check every month. Doesn't cover everything either. I have to pay a portion of everything from doctor visits to prescriptions too just like most people.

[Baby Jesus 0]

I pay for it on a monthly basis. It comes straight out of my check every month. Doesn't cover everything either. I have to pay a portion of everything from doctor visits to prescriptions too just like most people.

So, your legs are focked up and you get a government check and you still have to pay for healthcare?

 

How does healthcare for all not make your life better?

[gocolts 300]

So, your legs are focked up and you get a government check and you still have to pay for healthcare?

 

How does healthcare for all not make your life better?

For the reasons that many posters have already listed.

[Baby Jesus 0]

For the reasons that many posters have already listed.

Hey, it's your disability check. You're the one that said you haven't even been able to afford cable for the past two years. Hope you have fun the rest of your life posting chain emails at the geek bored.

 

[gocolts 300]

Hey, it's your disability check. You're the one that said you haven't even been able to afford cable for the past two years. Hope you have fun the rest of your life posting chain emails at the geek bored.

 

You're right, I can't afford cable TV. I probably would save money on universal health care, but I am thinking about the bigger picture and not what would just benefit me personally.

[Baby Jesus 0]

I am thinking about the bigger picture and not what would just benefit me personally.

[Toro 1]

Hey, it's your disability check. You're the one that said you haven't even been able to afford cable for the past two years. Hope you have fun the rest of your life posting chain emails at the geek bored.

 

 

You don't understand the point.

 

See, just because something will benefit you financially, doesn't automatically make it justified or right. At least gocolts has the integrity to recognize that even though universal healthcare would directly benefit him, it's not the correct answer to the question of how poor people should pay for their healthcare.

 

That's the problem with most liberals and poor people - they automatically judge the success of a program if it benefits a certain sector of Americans and fail to recognize the negative consequences. If it is free to me, then it's gotta be the correct thing, right? Wrong.

[Baby Jesus 0]

I am thinking about the bigger picture and not what would just benefit me personally.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why not do what Mitt Romney did for Massachusetts? Everyone must have insurance or they pay a penalty on their taxes. It's a start, right? It's better for everyone to be insured. A lot less people going to the Dr without it that way. no?

 

 

A whole lotta people don't pay taxes.

 

I would suggest instead of giving cash as welfare why not provide an insurance policy instead. Lazy focks would have to make some money and spend it on food instead of taking their gubmint check to the casino and shoving it into nickel slot machines.

[GettnHuge 2]

Neither is invading foreign lands based on bullcrap evidence, but that didn't stop us.

 

are you talking about the spanish american war again?

[IndyTom 0]

Don't think I saw it mentioned but universal health care also doesn't spur innovation. If you take away the incentives (i.e. $$) for labs, universities, and pharmas for R&D because the Gov is going to regulate the pricing of whatever cure that is created anyway, they are less likely to want to innovate.

 

Like a couple of others have mentioned, most English can't stand it. I happen to work for a British owned company and work with many Brits locally and abroad. Their system is a nightmare. On top of the fact that their taxes are pushing 40% due to universal health care for the UK, some still turn it down and pay out of pocket for private care. Even in a country with universal health care like England, providers (doctors, some hospitals, etc.) still have the option to accept only privately funded health care. Those also (no coincidence) happen to be the practices that have the best physicians and specialists. Its still a market driven economy and the best providers can still live very well without adding their names to their government's list of a provider that accepts universal health care.

 

The reality is Barrack or Hillary will use universal health care as a differentiator in the national election. However, as well all know, it takes Congress to write the law. Not sure it will ever see the light of day in our lifetime - especially in today's economy.

[Toro 1]

Uh, did our posts get moderated? :tinfoil: