IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I haven't proposed a system, only a few things I think any such system should include. And I've never said they shouldn't be covered. I've kept most of my comments in reference to people who are ill of their own doing.

Okay.

From that, I'll assume that you are in favour of some kind of universal health care.

However, you want to punish people for unhealthy lifestyles. I see your point, but don't think that it can be handled without a large bureaucracy that eats up whatever money you'd otherwise be saving. And it would never be completely fair. (If you'd rely on blood tests to determine the premium, you'd just run into numerous other problems. A single test is not really enough to determine somebody's lifestyle. To get somewhat reliable results, you'd have to constantly monitor everybody. Not a very pleasant idea.)

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

(To get somewhat reliable results, you'd have to constantly monitor everybody. Not a very pleasant idea.)

http://www.computer-help.net/Images/Killroy-blinks-2.gif

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The Euro-weenie wannabe's in America may try to get some sort of program started, but the current insurance lobby will put an end to it and personal responsibility will continue to be an American idea. Lord knows it no longer exist in Europe.

So you're in favour of the insurance lobby over having something like universal health care?

And why do you think a system that completely relies on private insurance companies (like the Swiss one) and on individuals to choose their health insurance freely requires less personal responsibility than the one in the US, where large parts of the system are, in fact, socialized?

McGentrix wrote:

I am sure if our defense was bought and paid for by a foreign nation, we too could have all the extra cash for social programs that gave the poor every thing they wanted.

And if you were completely in favour of personal responsibility over government-run programmes, wouldn't you be in favour of a militia where every man in favour of a war could serve his country gun in hand over a system where some chicken hawks can send others to fight their wars?

I'm just asking, mind you...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
I haven't proposed a system, only a few things I think any such system should include. And I've never said they shouldn't be covered. I've kept most of my comments in reference to people who are ill of their own doing.

Okay.

From that, I'll assume that you are in favour of some kind of universal health care.

However, you want to punish people for unhealthy lifestyles. I see your point, but don't think that it can be handled without a large bureaucracy that eats up whatever money you'd otherwise be saving. And it would never be completely fair. (If you'd rely on blood tests to determine the premium, you'd just run into numerous other problems. A single test is not really enough to determine somebody's lifestyle. To get somewhat reliable results, you'd have to constantly monitor everybody. Not a very pleasant idea.)

It's not punishment. Since when is taking responsibility for something punishment? I don't see why you think there need be a huge bureaucracy. There are medical charts and physicians already in place that already make the decisions. Constant monitoring isn't required. The illnesses caused by poor life choices do not come on suddenly - they take months and years. A blood test at a yearly physical would be sufficient. And yes, one blood test is enough. Hell, if someone makes a huge change, stops smoking and looses 50 lbs... he can always request a new panel be drawn so his record reflects this.

And on second though... have you ever worked for the government? EVERYTHING they do is a huge bureaucracy. To think that there would be any sort of universal health plan that didn't have a lot of red tape is crazy.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

To think that there would be any sort of universal health plan that didn't have a lot of red tape is crazy.

My insurance company has 500,000 members ... and 320 employees.
I'm sure, you've got internet and phones as well.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I haven't proposed a system, only a few things I think any such system should include. And I've never said they shouldn't be covered. I've kept most of my comments in reference to people who are ill of their own doing. So would this mother have to pay in for each of her children as well ? Would this be a percentage of take-home or a flat rate?

Don't mind McG, he's just being his usual grumpy self.

Look, from a self-interest point of view, you already are paying for those kids' health insurance. You either pay for them up front, or on the back end, when the go to the emergency room, or don't get the simple problems fixed (too expensive at the time) and they become big problems later, which some hospital has to cover.

If the mother gets into a car wreck, and she can't afford health insurance - gets saddled with, say, 75k in bills - she can either A) not pay the bills, and screw the hospital, and make your costs go up, or B) pay the bills as best she can, and screw her kids out of necessities of life such as food or health care themselves - or apply for welfare, in which case you end up paying for that as well.

Many families are one serious accident or emergent condition away from financial ruin. The middle class has less money in savings now then at any time since the great depression. Debt, across the board, is higher now then at any time since the great depression. Those who are un- or under-insured aren't immune to problems, and the point is that they don't just sit around and die when they run into problems. They create problems for everyone else around them. By giving some form of insurance to those people, you short-circuit a certain amount of problems right away.

You speak of 'personal responsibility.' I think this will still exist to a certain degree. Let's say that one is a lifetime smoker; should they have to pay higher rates then others, who haven't wrecked their bodies through smoking? Sure. Maybe they won't be eligible for some surgeries. The point isn't for the state to pay for everyone to stay alive, indefinitely, in every situation; the point is to find a middle route between that situation and the one we currently have.

I will state that I believe that helping others who need help is the right thing to do. I've been lucky. My family has been lucky. Worse turns of luck could have really screwed us. There are hard-working Americans out there who did everything right, and had bad luck, and are now screwed; they deserve something done for them. It will probably cost you and I money. I'm okay with this. Are you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hokie: Much of the increase in cost is due to the misuse of services.

You do have a problem with the English language don't you?

0 Replies

I will say, that while there is overwhelming evidence that costs have risen dramatically over the last 5-7 years, there's not a lot of evidence presented here that 'misuse of services' is a leading factor for these rises in costs. I would be interested in seeing the data behind this, as it does not correlate with the data I have seen.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
To think that there would be any sort of universal health plan that didn't have a lot of red tape is crazy.

My insurance company has 500,000 members ... and 320 employees.
I'm sure, you've got internet and phones as well.

your insurance is not run by the US gov't.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

your insurance is not run by the US gov't.

No, it's part of our universal health care system.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I will say, that while there is overwhelming evidence that costs have risen dramatically over the last 5-7 years, there's not a lot of evidence presented here that 'misuse of services' is a leading factor for these rises in costs. I would be interested in seeing the data behind this, as it does not correlate with the data I have seen.

Cycloptichorn

where is the data you've seen? and by "data" i'm sure you're not referring to CI's little list.

I've already explained what I mean by misuse, so I'm not going to rehash that. I'm still confused why CI is sooooooo stuck on this. It seems a bit silly. The list he posted even says, in other terms, that it is not complete. Hell, it doesn't even say "these are the most significant factors." It ONLY says that these factors are INCLUDED in those that raise costs.

CI, if you're seeking to prove me wrong, at least get a better list.

0 Replies

I don't understand, where the sense of defeatism and acrimony comes from, towards the idea that the US gov't could do something efficiently. Our country runs pretty well, I would say, given that so many are constantly and continually critical of every aspect of its' governance.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I will say, that while there is overwhelming evidence that costs have risen dramatically over the last 5-7 years, there's not a lot of evidence presented here that 'misuse of services' is a leading factor for these rises in costs. I would be interested in seeing the data behind this, as it does not correlate with the data I have seen.

Cycloptichorn

where is the data you've seen? and by "data" i'm sure you're not referring to CI's little list.

I've already explained what I mean by misuse, so I'm not going to rehash that. I'm still confused why CI is sooooooo stuck on this. It seems a bit silly. The list he posted even says, in other terms, that it is not complete. Hell, it doesn't even say "these are the most significant factors." It ONLY says that these factors are INCLUDED in those that raise costs.

CI, if you're seeking to prove me wrong, at least get a better list.

The data I've seen are industry examinations of health care companies - where they pay their money our, their rates of return on investment for investors, etc. I can tell you that much of the pressure to cut costs - and therefore deliver a lower-quality product - comes from the ever-present desire to generate returns for investors, and therefore capture more market share.

Our health care should not be beholden to an industry which places negative pressure on providing its' customers with service!!!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Mandated coverage from federal and state governments adds additional costs.

https://www.aicpa.org/

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I will say, that while there is overwhelming evidence that costs have risen dramatically over the last 5-7 years, there's not a lot of evidence presented here that 'misuse of services' is a leading factor for these rises in costs. I would be interested in seeing the data behind this, as it does not correlate with the data I have seen.

Cycloptichorn

where is the data you've seen? and by "data" i'm sure you're not referring to CI's little list.

I've already explained what I mean by misuse, so I'm not going to rehash that. I'm still confused why CI is sooooooo stuck on this. It seems a bit silly. The list he posted even says, in other terms, that it is not complete. Hell, it doesn't even say "these are the most significant factors." It ONLY says that these factors are INCLUDED in those that raise costs.

CI, if you're seeking to prove me wrong, at least get a better list.

The data I've seen are industry examinations of health care companies - where they pay their money our, their rates of return on investment for investors, etc. I can tell you that much of the pressure to cut costs - and therefore deliver a lower-quality product - comes from the ever-present desire to generate returns for investors, and therefore capture more market share.

Our health care should not be beholden to an industry which places negative pressure on providing its' customers with service!!!

Cycloptichorn

unfortunately it IS an industry and you will NEVER change that. that is, unless you want the government to take over development of new technologies and drugs as well. the health care industry is too complex to be managed wholly by the gov't.

oh, and my defeatism comes from having worked in the gov't for a few years. the hoops are numerous.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I will say, that while there is overwhelming evidence that costs have risen dramatically over the last 5-7 years, there's not a lot of evidence presented here that 'misuse of services' is a leading factor for these rises in costs. I would be interested in seeing the data behind this, as it does not correlate with the data I have seen.

Cycloptichorn

where is the data you've seen? and by "data" i'm sure you're not referring to CI's little list.

I've already explained what I mean by misuse, so I'm not going to rehash that. I'm still confused why CI is sooooooo stuck on this. It seems a bit silly. The list he posted even says, in other terms, that it is not complete. Hell, it doesn't even say "these are the most significant factors." It ONLY says that these factors are INCLUDED in those that raise costs.

CI, if you're seeking to prove me wrong, at least get a better list.

The list proves you are wrong. You're the one that wants others to agree with your wrong conclusions about what's driving health care costs. Even your logic goes wanting.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hokie: Much of the increase in cost is due to the misuse of services.

You do have a problem with the English language don't you?

If it makes you feel better:

I RETRACT THE WORD "MUCH" IN THE ABOVE SENTENCE. PLEASE SUBSTITUTE IN THE WORD "SOME"

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I will say, that while there is overwhelming evidence that costs have risen dramatically over the last 5-7 years, there's not a lot of evidence presented here that 'misuse of services' is a leading factor for these rises in costs. I would be interested in seeing the data behind this, as it does not correlate with the data I have seen.

Cycloptichorn

where is the data you've seen? and by "data" i'm sure you're not referring to CI's little list.

I've already explained what I mean by misuse, so I'm not going to rehash that. I'm still confused why CI is sooooooo stuck on this. It seems a bit silly. The list he posted even says, in other terms, that it is not complete. Hell, it doesn't even say "these are the most significant factors." It ONLY says that these factors are INCLUDED in those that raise costs.

CI, if you're seeking to prove me wrong, at least get a better list.

The data I've seen are industry examinations of health care companies - where they pay their money our, their rates of return on investment for investors, etc. I can tell you that much of the pressure to cut costs - and therefore deliver a lower-quality product - comes from the ever-present desire to generate returns for investors, and therefore capture more market share.

Our health care should not be beholden to an industry which places negative pressure on providing its' customers with service!!!

Cycloptichorn

unfortunately it IS an industry and you will NEVER change that. that is, unless you want the government to take over development of new technologies and drugs as well. the health care industry is too complex to be managed wholly by the gov't.

oh, and my defeatism comes from having worked in the gov't for a few years. the hoops are numerous.

It's funny - on one hand, people believe that the US is the best system in the world and the best country in the world. On the other hand, many of these same people decry any ability for us to self-improve or to make our situation any better, because they don't trust that same system.

Universal/mandated health care doesn't remove health care from being an industry. But, what's the requirement that it be a for-profit industry? Isn't helping people a profit?

But, then, you might counter that it's difficult to raise money from investors in order to get the money to back up the system. After all, investors want a return on their investments, and they don't want to hear about intangible good feeling returns. So where do we find a large, large pool of investors whose money could guarantee a nationalized insurance system?

Why, they are called taxpayers. And it isn't as if people won't still have to pay some sort of premiums at all - there will still be money coming into the system. Just not money which is beholden to make people profits.

Yes, it is going to require a basic-reorganizing of the health care industry, which will be fought tooth and nail by people who are quite willing to prop up the old, poorly-working and supremely inefficient system b/c they profit from it personally. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I will say, that while there is overwhelming evidence that costs have risen dramatically over the last 5-7 years, there's not a lot of evidence presented here that 'misuse of services' is a leading factor for these rises in costs. I would be interested in seeing the data behind this, as it does not correlate with the data I have seen.

Cycloptichorn

where is the data you've seen? and by "data" i'm sure you're not referring to CI's little list.

I've already explained what I mean by misuse, so I'm not going to rehash that. I'm still confused why CI is sooooooo stuck on this. It seems a bit silly. The list he posted even says, in other terms, that it is not complete. Hell, it doesn't even say "these are the most significant factors." It ONLY says that these factors are INCLUDED in those that raise costs.

CI, if you're seeking to prove me wrong, at least get a better list.

The list proves you are wrong. You're the one that wants others to agree with your wrong conclusions about what's driving health care costs. Even your logic goes wanting.

No, CI... you commented on my "problem with the english language" but then you failed to read that your list is only inclusions and does not claim to be the only reasons. You are interpreting it to be what you want and not what it actually is. You can argue with me all you want, but you're going to need a better source than that list.

0 Replies

Also, I would like to add that the government already pays for the vast majority of new products and scientific advancements. The canard that single-payer or some sort of universal health system would stifle innovation is illogical bullshit. It shows that the proponent of said argument doesn't really understand the complex nature of the University research system, or the difference between Applied and Theoretical research.

Also, the concept that innovation would die in these areas beggars belief. I firmly disagree with the notion that people are going to stop working for new technologies, if they aren't guaranteed to make them rich. It's ridiculous. The vast majority of discoveries made by humankind were done so not for money, but to advance the body of knowledge for humanity as a whole. This will continue no matter what type of health insurance we have here in America.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know