IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

The idea that the US can't afford UHC is tantamount to declaring it a failed state.

Only in the eyes of the cattle who prefer to be tended by unseen authority.

@georgeob1,

Have you really thought about that george?

We pay about 20% of GDP for health care. That means we can pay 20% of GDP to get UHC. To argue we can't afford what we already pay for health care would point to us being a failed state.

Being able to afford it is NOT the same thing as not wanting the government to administer it. Spendi makes a good point about "we can't afford it" as an argument. We can afford it because we already pay it. The only argument is HOW we pay for it.

2 Replies

@parados,

We here in Germany are fortunately in situation, where we will ever have mandatory health insurance ... at least as long as we have a constituion:

Quote:

Article 79 [Amendment of the Basic Law]

(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible.

Quote:

Article 20 [Basic institutional principles; defense of the constitutional order]

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.
(2) ...
(3) ...
(4) ...

Many here are questioning if we an afford it in the way it done.
However, it's often forgotten that we, in 1990 got from one day to the other 17 million new members to our insurances, who got all and everything like the 60 million old members, from the very day onwards, but who hadn't paid a single penny in that system.

We could "afford" that.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Many here are questioning if we an afford it in the way it done.
However, it's often forgotten that we, in 1990 got from one day to the other 17 million new members to our insurances, who got all and everything like the 60 million old members, from the very day onwards, but who hadn't paid a single penny in that system.

There's one man who can answer your question, Schäuble. He would have become chancellor long ago if he hadn't been shot in 1990.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Schäuble never had been a specialist in health and social security .... but he's been the chief negotiator for our government in the consultations for the Unification Treaty - in 1989/90. Wink

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

That's a wild thing to say George. We fight in an alliance with you. Cattle indeed. Your emotions are carrying you away.

You choose other things instead on the back of the underprivilege.

In actual fact George that denigrates your acheivements. Saddam's glorious palaces were built on underprivilege.

No animal, let alone cows, would forego luxury to look after sick cows. Which brings the US closer to cattle it seems to me. There's an item on the CBS News I see most nights relating to the unseen authorities you have.

And what does the perpetual anxiety cost? Even for those with Cadillac cover. They have relations and neighbours. They have consciences.

And there might not be enough of them to justify manufacturing and distributing expensive medical equipment.

You can afford it. To argue you can't is to denigrate your nation. It is obvious you can afford it.

I thought you were a Christian. One day, when knuckledraggers have become extinct, everybody in the world will get free health care. It makes economic sense. And military sense.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Yes, exactly - his field is finances, and he's the only one who told then chancellor Kohl exactly what this Einigung would cost. I know his then estimates for all items including medical insurance, and it's all proved to be accurate to the last decimal point. Not that Kohl ever told the Bundestag about it Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I'm sure, you know it - but actually, we could and can afford it. (And had no choice - if we didn't want to get a completely new constitution.) Wink

0 Replies

When you say we can "afford" UHC, you are suggesting that it costs the same as what we spend now. How do you propose to add 30 million more patients, many of which do not contribute to taxes, and spend the same or less money?

To be fair, I generally agree. We *could* afford it. The problem is that people will not allow the changes necessary for that to happen - ie, rationing certain things.

2 Replies

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

When you say we can "afford" UHC, you are suggesting that it costs the same as what we spend now. How do you propose to add 30 million more patients, many of which do not contribute to taxes, and spend the same or less money?

To be fair, I generally agree. We *could* afford it. The problem is that people will not allow the changes necessary for that to happen - ie, rationing certain things.

To be frank, it would likely cost less then it does now. We don't really have any data showing that it would be MORE expensive.

Those '30 million' people are already providing a huge drain and burden on the system; you aren't pricing them into the current model, but you should be, because they sure are costing everyone money as it is when they show up at the emergency room and don't pay. When their ailments get bad enough that they end up on welfare or medicaid, it costs everyone. When they miss work or lose their job b/c they can't afford to pay for the health care they need to stay healthy, it costs everyone.

HC is already heavily rationed in this country right now. We just do it according to how much money you personally have. The rich and even most middle class folks like it just fine this way, because hey - in the end they get theirs, and who gives a **** about anyone else? This is the Conservative ethos in a nutshell regarding health care.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@sstainba,

Quote:

When you say we can "afford" UHC, you are suggesting that it costs the same as what we spend now. How do you propose to add 30 million more patients, many of which do not contribute to taxes, and spend the same or less money?

We aren't adding 30 million more patients. (It's now close to 50 million that are uninsured and the number is growing.)

We are only insuring 30 million more patients that already exist in the system. We don't deny them health care. We just mandate they use the most expensive form of health care. We pay for the health care of the uninsured already through higher costs for those that do pay.

0 Replies

I beg to differ. While you are correct that those people still use some of the health care dollars in the country, UHC will allow them to now swamp clinic offices as well as EDs. This is basic supply and demand. When the supply of something [free] rises, demand will rise to consume it. And we still don't have the physicians to treat all of these people, especially if we keep telling them they are going to get paid less and less.

2 Replies

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

And we still don't have the physicians to treat all of these people ...

Well, what does one have of country that doesn't have enough physicians to treat its own population?

0 Replies

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

I beg to differ. While you are correct that those people still use some of the health care dollars in the country, UHC will allow them to now swamp clinic offices as well as EDs. This is basic supply and demand. When the supply of something [free] rises, demand will rise to consume it. And we still don't have the physicians to treat all of these people, especially if we keep telling them they are going to get paid less and less.

You are overblowing these problems. Are our clinics so swamped that they can't handle these people? Once these people are insured, will it not represent a new revenue stream for the clinics to use to hire more people to see them? Are actual doctors required to see the majority of these people (who currently go to the ER)? Will physicians simply quit working rather then face the new reality of what our society considers fair pay for them?

You seem to assume that these are all easily answered questions which point to problems with UHC, but I don't think that's the case at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

sstainba wrote:

I beg to differ. While you are correct that those people still use some of the health care dollars in the country, UHC will allow them to now swamp clinic offices as well as EDs. This is basic supply and demand. When the supply of something [free] rises, demand will rise to consume it. And we still don't have the physicians to treat all of these people, especially if we keep telling them they are going to get paid less and less.

You are overblowing these problems. Are our clinics so swamped that they can't handle these people? Once these people are insured, will it not represent a new revenue stream for the clinics to use to hire more people to see them? Are actual doctors required to see the majority of these people (who currently go to the ER)? Will physicians simply quit working rather then face the new reality of what our society considers fair pay for them?

You seem to assume that these are all easily answered questions which point to problems with UHC, but I don't think that's the case at all.

Cycloptichorn

On the contrary, I think it's you who thinks these questions are too easily answered. And it sounds like your answer is to just screw all of the healthcare workers.

If the UHC system is anything like medicare or medicaid is today, it will NOT represent a new revenue stream, it will represent a sinkhole.

As for physicians quitting... We're already mentioned that several times. That is happening NOW. You are telling these people that they need to go to school, spend $250,000+ for their education, then workd for 3 to 6 years making $40,000/yr while working 80-100 hr weeks and then when they finally get out of residency, they have to take payment that barely (or simply doesn't) cover expenses. All of that and also, they must assume enormous personal risk which requires ridiculous mal-practice premiums so that their patients don't use them as a lottery.

Sure... I mean, who *wouldn't* want to do that????

3 Replies

@sstainba,

Quote:

As for physicians quitting... We're already mentioned that several times. That is happening NOW.

No it isn't, and I highly doubt you can provide evidence that it is. I also wonder why we don't have enough medical schools to cover the number of applicants, if it's such a bum deal to be a doctor. Your rhetoric doesn't match reality.

You are also making the erroneous assumption that the majority of people who will go to these clinics need to see a doctor. I've been to clinics several times and never seen an actual doctor, because the reason I went didn't necessitate one.

Your posts sound like you've swallowed every bit of propaganda that AHIP shovels out, whole. I also note that you didn't respond to my post regarding the fact that insurers should not charge those with athsma or other pre-existing conditions higher premiums, because their entire business model is structured around amortizing such costs.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@parados,

In the first place it is 16%, not 20%. In the second, the government raises the cost (and generally degrades the quality) of nearly everything it touches. Though in its untested hand highly politicized projections it promises to reduce cost, there is simply no precedent for our government actually accomplishing such promises.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Boy.. you showed me that we can't afford 16% of our spending!!!

Why didn't Bush just hire Blackwater to invade Iraq since the US military is so incapable and costly?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

As for physicians quitting... We're already mentioned that several times. That is happening NOW.

No it isn't, and I highly doubt you can provide evidence that it is. I also wonder why we don't have enough medical schools to cover the number of applicants, if it's such a bum deal to be a doctor. Your rhetoric doesn't match reality.

You are also making the erroneous assumption that the majority of people who will go to these clinics need to see a doctor. I've been to clinics several times and never seen an actual doctor, because the reason I went didn't necessitate one.

Your posts sound like you've swallowed every bit of propaganda that AHIP shovels out, whole. I also note that you didn't respond to my post regarding the fact that insurers should not charge those with athsma or other pre-existing conditions higher premiums, because their entire business model is structured around amortizing such costs.

Cycloptichorn

Semantics. They might not be "quitting" but there is a movement toward privately-insured and cash practices - which was mentioned about 3 pages back.

It's a bum deal to be a primary care doctor. There will be an estimated shortage of about 40000 PCPs in the next several years. There is no incentive for medical students to go through all of that work only to be **** on.

You're right that a lot of people don't need to see a doctor. Then again, most of them don't need medical attention either. The problem is that they think they are entitled to a doctor. Many patients get pissed if they only see a nurse or a PA. It doesn't matter if it's needed or not, they WANT it. And that's all that seems to matter in this country - I WANT.

I haven't swallowed an propaganda. But unlike you, I actually have first-hand knowledge of the health care system and how it works. All of your grand ideas are worth exactly jack **** because you have no clue how the system functions at all now.

I didn't respond because it's ridiculous. You want them to charge the exact same price for every-single-person regardless of how ill they are or how expensive. That's not a business model, it's a death sentence. Insurance companies won't do anyone any good once they've been run into the ground by idiotic ideas like that.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

You certainly can argue that the USA health care is a lot better than that in Switzerland, France, Germany et al - but all those countries pay less and all people get more ...

What I always wanted to ask: do you get sickness payments when your employer stops paying your salary (here: that's after six weeks) from your health insurer?
We then get 70% of the regular wage or salary before deductions, up to 78 weks in three years.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know