Is it time to reintroduce universal healthcare?

[Snowguy716]

This is what makes me so angry about conservatives: When talking about liberal issues like medical care and social security, or liberals in general, they do this:

They create a straw man that is nothing like what liberals are... they work with much effort to make this straw man.. and then once this made up "liberal" is completely made up, they are repulsed by it. It would be laughable if it didn't happen ALL THE TIME.

So this nil expense that could be sacrificed on somebody who isn't a citizen should come over the nil expense for each and every American individual then?

First of all, you're missing one important aspect of universal healthcare: It's universal. That means everybody has it. That means that there would be more than nil expense for American citizens in each and every case. In fact, everyone would be adequately covered. Then, beyond that, foreign visitors who were injured would be covered as well in emergencies.

I just don't see the logic of your argument... it seems to be "Yeah, I got denied medical care when I was a little kid in Australia. Great.. you're arguing that this is wrong? I think we should be doing exactly the same thing."

[AuLukey]

When did I get denied healthcare in Australia? Or am I not seeing your point. Let me make something clear on here, I am neither liberal nor conservative on this subject, I could care less either way as long as my family and I can keep on living. The moment at which that criterion is threatened is the second you will see me stand up and raise hell.

As for universal healthcare, what I was trying to say is that at this point, people in the United States both legally and illegally that are not citizens can get healthcare for free. My argument was in support of yours. It was that if people who are not citizens are getting free healthcare in this country, then why not give free healthcare to the people that are actually paying taxes to support this? Unless you have a clean bill of health for your entire life, the increase in tax vs. current medical bills including non-prescription health insurance will eventually equal out.

The deed that the honest American will be doing by paying extra taxes to cover universal healthcare is that cancer patients who survive will not be surmounted with debt the rest of their lives. However, in keeping with this, the ethical debate whether to "waste" resources on keeping a brain-dead patient on life support will come up in much worse conflicts. Instead of the family footing the bill to keep the person alive, it will then become the taxpayer who is paying to keep this person alive. There are pros and cons to everything in medicine and that is one sort of debate I would not want to be involved with. Is there a certain point where the funding of universal healthcare stops and the family can choose to support the patient on their own bill? Or is it the decision of the supervising doctor under governmental regulations that must make the decision? The Code of Ethics doesn't touch that subject.

[Cadeho]

I'll say... I was scheduled to have two ct scans this week.. and total they'd cost $6000 of money I don't have. I am also uninsured. Does time with a machine have to cost that much?

[AuLukey]

I'll say... I was scheduled to have two ct scans this week.. and total they'd cost $6000 of money I don't have. I am also uninsured. Does time with a machine have to cost that much?

Well, I do have to say that with universal healthcare, there would at least be some stronger governmental control over the price of medical care. I'd be interested to see how the medical profession salaries vs actual cost of the care has changed over the past one hundred years.

[snoogit]

Well, I do have to say that with universal healthcare, there would at least be some stronger governmental control over the price of medical care. I'd be interested to see how the medical profession salaries vs actual cost of the care has changed over the past one hundred years.

While this may sound like an unusually conservative stance from me, I don't think Doctor's wages are causing the big spike; the biggest problem is the relatively new industry of "Malpractice Insurance" which is draining any upgraded salary the doctors have. IMPO Malpractice insurance amounts to taxing doctors twice for being a doctor.

While malpractice is a dreadful thing, mistakes do happen even in the best circumstances. One thing about having more state control of healthcare would be that the doctors themselves wouldn't be liable for malpractice, the government would. Just like you can't sue a teacher for their actions, you have to sue the school system itself. Whereas with the system right now anyone can go after any doctor they wish. If there was an agency, or an institution that could take the burden off the doctors, it would go a long way to reducing costs.

On a different matter (but still on healthcare)

I think if we had a system like Medicare part A for everyone (meaning hospital visits, non elective surgery, and ER are covered for all) with the rest able to be covered by personal insurance (Prescriptions, Doctor visits, elective surgery, etc.) would be a great start to converting everyone to an eventual full institutionalized medicine.

I really can't see private insurance lasting much longer if it has to take on the full brunt of the bill. There has to be a compromise.

[Snowguy716]

Medical coverage and human health is not a market product, in my opinion, but having said that, government should be able to negotiate fair prices for cost while still having private companies develop and make equipment.

The research side could be sponsored by the government, or at least moreso. It's the sole reason, according to the pharmaceutical comapnies, that our drug prices are so high compared with other countries. If we remove that cost from the companies, then they can't charge double the price for medicine that they charge nations with socialized medicine.

[Charlotteman]

The skyrocketing costs of medical care in the country are basically because the QUALITY of American healthcare is skyrocketing!

America is the undisputed capital of fine healthcare in the world today. It's one of the few things we do best. We don't do cars best anymore......or electronics....or appliances, education, etc etc.

But no other country in the world comes close to America's standards of health care. And it is because we invest in the finest high tech medical technology available. CT machines, ultra sound equipment, even new X ray machines cost LOTS of money. They cost a lot because they are the best.

When a hospital buys a new CT, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. The money is made up by hospital fees. With a CT, there are probably a few lives saved when the machine picks up critical data. We pay high medical costs because we have the very best technology and care available.

The salaries of doctors and nurses are not the reason health care costs are out of this world. Hospitals don't make huge profits---most of them are non-profit.

When you get the best, you have to pay for it.

[Pillsbury]

While this may sound like an unusually conservative stance from me, I don't think Doctor's wages are causing the big spike; the biggest problem is the relatively new industry of "Malpractice Insurance" which is draining any upgraded salary the doctors have. IMPO Malpractice insurance amounts to taxing doctors twice for being a doctor.

While malpractice is a dreadful thing, mistakes do happen even in the best circumstances. One thing about having more state control of healthcare would be that the doctors themselves wouldn't be liable for malpractice, the government would. Just like you can't sue a teacher for their actions, you have to sue the school system itself. Whereas with the system right now anyone can go after any doctor they wish. If there was an agency, or an institution that could take the burden off the doctors, it would go a long way to reducing costs.

On a different matter (but still on healthcare)

I think if we had a system like Medicare part A for everyone (meaning hospital visits, non elective surgery, and ER are covered for all) with the rest able to be covered by personal insurance (Prescriptions, Doctor visits, elective surgery, etc.) would be a great start to converting everyone to an eventual full institutionalized medicine.

I really can't see private insurance lasting much longer if it has to take on the full brunt of the bill. There has to be a compromise.

In most cases the doctor is allowed a certain degree of....error. The basic legal question of any civil action is whether or not the doctor and/or nurses violated the Standard of Care. Usually if a nurse violates the Standard then the hospital assumes the defendant status (but sometimes in unusual cases the nurse may be added, but usually not, as he/she is acting as agent for the hospital). Doctors are independent contractors in most cases, except for cases where they are employed at a medical school which runs a hospital (much like the Medical College of Georgia here in Augusta) which makes it more difficult. The point is that a doctor sends you a seperate bill from the hospital for his/her services rendered. And then they complain about tort reform. Even now, for a plaintiff to even bring a lawsuit in most jurisdictions they must have find another doctor of the same expertise file an affidavit stating that the defendant violated the Standard of Care. It's a very tough standard. Especially here in Georgia since the Republicans passed Tort Reform on the misguided notion that trial lawyers have caused a rise in malpractice insurance claims, when in all actuality they have not changed much over the past few years.

[AuLukey]

While this may sound like an unusually conservative stance from me, I don't think Doctor's wages are causing the big spike; the biggest problem is the relatively new industry of "Malpractice Insurance" which is draining any upgraded salary the doctors have. IMPO Malpractice insurance amounts to taxing doctors twice for being a doctor.

While malpractice is a dreadful thing, mistakes do happen even in the best circumstances. One thing about having more state control of healthcare would be that the doctors themselves wouldn't be liable for malpractice, the government would. Just like you can't sue a teacher for their actions, you have to sue the school system itself. Whereas with the system right now anyone can go after any doctor they wish. If there was an agency, or an institution that could take the burden off the doctors, it would go a long way to reducing costs.

On a different matter (but still on healthcare)

I think if we had a system like Medicare part A for everyone (meaning hospital visits, non elective surgery, and ER are covered for all) with the rest able to be covered by personal insurance (Prescriptions, Doctor visits, elective surgery, etc.) would be a great start to converting everyone to an eventual full institutionalized medicine.

I really can't see private insurance lasting much longer if it has to take on the full brunt of the bill. There has to be a compromise.

I agree, in fact I agree with every statement you've made. In a way though, salaries must reflect the cost of malpractice insurance, even if the doctor never actuallys sees it in the long run.

My aunt is one of the primary obgyn's in southern Georgia, due to this fact, her malpractice insurance has raised significantly as her number of clients has. She is one of many doctors (and I'm really not trying to brag) that isn't in the medical field for the money. She wants to help bring life into this world. Every baby that is born she knows by name, despite being in her fourties.

She owns her own practice so she has staff expenses, business expenses, etc to handle. She went over this whole deal with me whenever I decided (initially) to become a med-student back in high school. It's just sad that even though she works in a very poor section of town to reach out to people that need lower cost healthcare, she still can't lower costs too much without being able to support her family. With all of her expenses she must handle, her biggest she has to deal with is malpractice insurance.

Despite her job's purpose of bringing life into this world, you'd be amazed at the reasons people will sue doctors for these days. As you said, mistakes happen, but even when they don't and everything goes right but the baby still dies due to natural reasons, people sue for damages. So while Americans may be receiving the best healthcare in the world, many don't appreciate that. That is, in my opinion, the biggest problem of all and the reason why malpractice insurance is as high as it is.

[Pillsbury]

^ That's tragic and I'm sorry your aunt has to pay such high insurance premiums especially for giving her expertise to such a poor area of the state. I have personally known of doctors who pay upwards of $400,000 a year in malpractice insurance; of course they also made quite a bit too. But I don't really think the increase in malpractice insurance is tied to malpractice lawsuits the way people try and connect the two. I think insurance companies want us to beleive that it's all the big bad trial lawyers' fault. Georgia is a great example of this. Tort Reform was passed this year with an eye toward reducing damage awards and thus reducing insurance rates, in turn, reducing healthcare costs. It sounds great, until you realize they capped punitive damages at $300,000.00---which means that a poor person or housewife or whatever who didn't have a job or made very little money, if they died at the hands of a negligent doctor, then their familly wouldn't get much more than $300K. That's not fair to me. Plus, in the past few years they've upped the standards for bringing actions against doctors, making it much harder to sue doctors than before. You think insurance premiums have come down? Mag Mutual told the state of Georgia before they passed it they would reduce premiums if tort reform was passed----so far they have not reduced them........

[snoogit]

I have personally known of doctors who pay upwards of $400,000 a year in malpractice insurance; of course they also made quite a bit too. But I don't really think the increase in malpractice insurance is tied to malpractice lawsuits the way people try and connect the two....

...You think insurance premiums have come down? Mag Mutual told the state of Georgia before they passed it they would reduce premiums if tort reform was passed----so far they have not reduced them........

I agree Malpractice insurance is not going up because claims are, its going up because the insurance companies CEO's salraies are (<<-- My massive overgeneralization of the insurance industry)... I know tort reform is mostly 90% bull, 10% fact, but then again most things are. Really I still put the blame squarely on insurance companies, and their neverending increases in premiums. O think whats funny about your post is a doctor spending more on malpractice insurance then the insurance company would have to pay out if a case was won. That to me is more rediculous then any malpractice lawsuit.

[Pillsbury]

^ Ha, yeah I hadn't thought about that part. Of course one of those doctors had been sued quite a few times in the past so maybe the insurance company was a little shell-shocked... It's a sad situation all the way around. I've heard of doctors wanting to pay settlements out of their own pocket so their premiums wouldn't increase

[AuLukey]

I agree Pillsbury, although I feel it is out of my place to ask my aunt how much her insurance is, I do know that when she is sued, she never settles out of court. Her pride is too strong for that, despite the fact that she hasn't lost a suit yet (due to the irrational reasons people sue her for,) she spends about as much on lawyers as she would have had she settled out of court. This may be the reason her insurance is so high.

[Snowguy716]

I would agree what Bush says about limiting lawsuits for malpractice.. IF

He wasn't getting money from doctors organizations and insurance companies.

Of course anyone who is put out of business because of lawsuits over honest mistakes that have led to little suffering but big settlements is tragic, and settlements should be prudently based on how much suffering and economic loss the patient has/will have, but it should never range over $100,000,000 or something outrageous like that.

I can understand that if the malpractice leaves someone disabled and unable to work, paying $5,000,000 for suffering and economic loss or something, but come on people, let's be reasonable here... and let's do it in order to keep the good doctors in business and not to line the insurance companies with extra profits.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

The skyrocketing costs of medical care in the country are basically because the QUALITY of American healthcare is skyrocketing!

America is the undisputed capital of fine healthcare in the world today. It's one of the few things we do best. We don't do cars best anymore......or electronics....or appliances, education, etc etc.

But no other country in the world comes close to America's standards of health care. And it is because we invest in the finest high tech medical technology available. CT machines, ultra sound equipment, even new X ray machines cost LOTS of money. They cost a lot because they are the best.

When a hospital buys a new CT, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. The money is made up by hospital fees. With a CT, there are probably a few lives saved when the machine picks up critical data. We pay high medical costs because we have the very best technology and care available.

The salaries of doctors and nurses are not the reason health care costs are out of this world. Hospitals don't make huge profits---most of them are non-profit.

When you get the best, you have to pay for it.

That's why nationalization of the health care system makes little sense. Why make drastic changes to something that's already the best? Reforms are necessary to make the system more free and less restricted by government, not the other way around.

There's a statistic that the average surgeon in the socialized health care countries makes $80,000 USD, while in the United States, the average surgeon makes over $166,000. Do you guys think doctors only become doctors out of the goodness of their hearts? No. A doctor is a tradesman, he provides a service and we receive the benefit of health by purchasing the service. Giving government further control over this transaction means that the bridge between doctor and patient is severed and it becomes doctor, bureaucracy, bureaucracy, patient. It is that way now, but going further down that path doesn't sound like too good of an idea.

Socializing health-care means that doctor's will be paid by the government and effectively become employees. They will be less free and less productive as is the case with anyone in government.

Further reading has led me to conclude that nationalizing the system would mean losing our privacy, losing our control over our personal health-care, and giving control of the system over to an organization that can't do anything right - the Federal government.

I don't trust the Federal government with my health care. What do you trust the Federal government with?

Another issue, perhaps more important, is that health care is not a right. Our rights are to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness - nothing more. It is not our right to receive rewards from the hardwork of others, what we have a right to do is to work for what we want and reap the benefits of our industry. I have no right to the fruit of your labors, and you have no right to fruit of mine.

Government providing the complete health care package means that government is far overstepping its bounds as intended by the founding fathers. Maybe that doesn't matter to the proponents of universal health care, but it matters to those who love liberty and freedom.

Certainly, government has already played with fire and broken the rules, that does not mean that government should break further rules and become more involved with the people. It's not necessary and morally unacceptable.

[Charlotteman]

When I was in the medical profession a few years back, a big idea was floating around called "single payer system". It essentially means that doctors and hospitals would basically stay the same they are now. The difference would be that there wouldn't be any insurance companies to bill, no people pouring out their life savings because of a catostrophic illness etc.

The federal government would pick up the tab for everyone's health care. Taxes would go up, but there wouldn't be any more health insurance payments. Businesses wouldn't have to be burdened with paying their employees health insurance (talk about anti-business!----why should businesses cover the health of their employees?)

Health care would remain the best, as it is now. But NOT ONE American would be refused world class health care for any reason.

There would still be for-profit private hospitals of course, nothing wrong with that. But it's a major wrong to let so many Americans go without the proper health care they need to be the best citizens they can be.

[Recchia]

I agree with psychology and think that people with diagnosed mental disorders should be entitled to any proposed universal healthcare.

I have mixed emotions on the obesity issue. On one hand, obesity can be attributed to mental disorders and therefore, under my feelings, its effects (heart disease, etc.) should be able to be treated with universal healthcare. On the other hand, I think obesity is a product of our culture and people's inability to accept change in their lifestyles and take responsibility to themselves. When people choose to be obese, they need to accept the consequences, and shouldn't drain our healthcare on their self-inflicted wounds. If you're lazy and then become obese, I have no sympathy for you and I don't think our healthcare system should have sympathy on you either. If you're depressed, bulimic, a binge eater, etc., or have a diagnosed mental disorder that leads to obesity, then I beleive you should be entitled to help. Obese people that refuse to make changes in their eating habits or physical activity habits get no sympathy from me unless there is some other factor preventing them from doing so.

I used to weigh 300 lbs a few years ago, and it was completely my own fault. I ate garbage and was practically sedentary. I expected no sympathy then. Luckily I realized what I was doing to myself and lost over 100 lbs and am now healthy again. It takes will power and the desire to change.

I'll end my little speel by suggesting that people get out of their cars and onto their feet again, even if its just walking from one store to another in a strip mall rather than reparking. I lost my first 40 lbs by simply walking three miles a day, and not all at once. I would walk to any stores I had to go to and stopped driving to class, etc.

[snoogit]

Seems the US healthcare system isn't so great afterall: Link

[Charlotteman]

My life is an open book:) so I'll share my medical experience of yesterday that illustrates the rising costs of medical care.

I've been having some stomach pain, and saw a gastroenterologist. He set me up for an endoscopy of the tummy, in which a tube with a camera was inserted to explore, and to ascertain if there are any other problems. I'll get the results in a week.

The reason I share this is to show how far medical science has come in the last 30 some years. In the 1970s a doctor visit was usually somewhere between $20-$25. If similar circumstances had happened to me in the 70's, the doctor would have probably offered his condolenses that I have an ulcer. He would have probably recommended cutting out spicy foods and booze, and to take plenty of Rolaids for pain. That would have been that.

But TODAY, medical science wants to be certain that I don't have stomach cancer or other gastric disorders. The machines that do that kind of work cost a LOT OF MONEY. The ER in which they did the procedure was manned by highly trained professionals looking at my every need. The ER itself was unbelievably high tech.

So here's my point---I would have paid $20 to see a doctor in the 70s when medical care was cheap. But what if more was going on than an ulcer? With such minimal care, I could have had all sorts of unkown problems.

So when the skyrocketing cost of medical care comes up, remember my experience. I said it before, but I'll go ahead and say it again. The reason for skyrocketing health care costs, is that the quality is skyrocketing!

[Snowguy716]

Moonshield, I should hope that if you ever come to the point where your health is failing and you've blown all your savings on it and you can no longer afford it, you're just ready to accept death, because under your system, that's what you get and that's what you deserve.

I don't trust my health to the private sector. It seems that the system you support would be total private domination of hte health care market, and unfortunately for you, that is not the direction we're going in, despite lame attempts by the ruling party to make pharmeceuticals and insurance companies rich by letting them write our policy.

I guess I wouldn't feel so strongly if my mother hadn't had her life saved by tax-payer funded health care, and it is something that I am ever grateful for. I am thankful for every person out there who supports state funded healthcare for catastrophic medical costs. But it doesn't seem to be enough for you. You seem to be the type of amoralist who doesn't care as long as you get yours because you somehow worked harder for it than anyone else did.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there that have worked very hard, even harder than you, I might say, and have still relied on tax-payer funded healthcare to stay healthy. It would be a tragedy in my mind to see someone die or remain injured because they were denied healthcare by our government.. one in which they vote.

Healthcare is a right, whether you believe that or not. And don't fool yourself into thinking that Republicans are going to agree with you. Just take a look at Medicare Part D.

So I guess my question to you is this: How do you suppose a working mother with no health insurance pays her hospital bills if she needs to be hospitalized? I'd like to hear your opinion. Do we starve the kids so mommy can be healthy or do we let mommy die so the kids can eat? And don't give me the private charity line, because if private charity were enough, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Making personal attacks doesn't help the argument.

--

Please show me an example of where someone was denied healthcare in the United States. It is illegal for a hospital to deny emergency treatment. As for insurance, the number of Americans without health insurance is 15.7%. We shouldn't change the whole makeup of the health care system because of 3/20 of the population. Without the illegals, the number would be even lower.

I'm not going to waste time attempting to knock down strawmen (like mommy will die) and countering attacks on my character. I'm sorry snow, but I've got to go make money, and better myself. Oh, and I'm not Republican. I will vote libertarian this next election.

[Gusterfell]

Please show me an example of where someone was denied healthcare in the United States. It is illegal for a hospital to deny emergency treatment. As for insurance, the number of Americans without health insurance is 15.7%. We shouldn't change the whole makeup of the health care system because of 3/20 of the population. Without the illegals, the number would be even lower.

15.7% and growing is uninsured. Millions more are underinsured or barely able to afford insurance. As much as some people like to deny it, the cost of healthcare is a looming crisis in this country, a crisis that has already been averted in every other industrialized country. If you are among that 15.7%, you won't be denied treatment, but you'll come out of a severe accident or illness saddled with thousands of dollars in debt. Is this the way the wealthiest nation on earth should be treating its neediest citizens.

Illlegals aren't counted in those percentages BTW. They aren't Americans.

I'm not going to waste time attempting to knock down strawmen (like mommy will die) and countering attacks on my character. I'm sorry snow, but I've got to go make money, and better myself. Oh, and I'm not Republican. I will vote libertarian this next election.

Sounds like the argument of one who knows he's on the losing side of a debate.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Illlegals aren't counted in those percentages BTW. They aren't Americans..

Perhaps but,

Non-citizen immigrants (44.1 percent uninsured) were much more likely to be uninsured than native-born citizens (13.3 percent).

http://www.cbpp.org/8-30-05health.htm

We don't see those numbers too often.

I agree that the number of uninsured is increasing (it's impossible to disagree there), the question is of what should and shouldn't be done. The system should be made more free, and less regulate. Prices would fall as competition increases.

[Gusterfell]

I agree that the number of uninsured is increasing (it's impossible to disagree there), the question is of what should and shouldn't be done. The system should be made more free, and less regulate. Prices would fall as competition increases.

The problem with deregulation is that there is, by definition, little means of enforcing quality standards. Carried to the extreme, fewer regulations would open the door to quackery and cure-all elixirs competing on the same level as legitimate medical science. At best, a deregulated system would provide the best care only to the wealthiest patients. Those who couldn't afford to pay up would be left to die when the money runs out.

[Snowguy716]

Making personal attacks doesn't help the argument.

--

Please show me an example of where someone was denied healthcare in the United States. It is illegal for a hospital to deny emergency treatment. As for insurance, the number of Americans without health insurance is 15.7%. We shouldn't change the whole makeup of the health care system because of 3/20 of the population. Without the illegals, the number would be even lower.

I'm not going to waste time attempting to knock down strawmen (like mommy will die) and countering attacks on my character. I'm sorry snow, but I've got to go make money, and better myself. Oh, and I'm not Republican. I will vote libertarian this next election.

I'm a bit lost. Was this really a personal attack on you or are you just dodging the question? I just don't get people that are willing to accept that 3/20 without insurance is good enough. If it's acceptable, then give your's up and give it to someone else... I mean, having no insurance seems like a walk in the park to you! You would get treatment even if you were sick.. and it's high rate treatment.. so why have insurance at all?

Come on.. where's the next line? Well, I work hard for mine. Or is it gonna be "It doesn't matter, the government shouldn't be meddling in our lives?" I've heard them all Moonshield. How about you name one country that has a successful, completely private medical system. That's not a strawman, because even in made-up form, it doesn't exist.