Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by KermitKebab on June 25, 2012 at 8:35am

Excuse me but what exactly do you mean by "universal"?  Are you talking about one government-sponsored insurance for the whole nation?

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on June 25, 2012 at 8:54am

Universal Health Care, yes, government sponsored

Permalink Reply by Will on June 25, 2012 at 9:29am

In the UK we see cases in which you go to the hospital and they don't treat you and recommend you call their version of 911 instead.  Or the doctor says, "We don't have to treat premies that small," and your baby dies because he can't even get an incubator. Or you want surgery and you can't get it because the waiting list is too long.

How do you who want universal, defend practices like that? 

This is a false dilemma.  We need not agree with each decision of every insurance company in order to not want them all massed into one insurance company, be it under government control or not.  We need not agree with each decision ever makes to grant government control over a type of decision.

The difference is whether you have a chance to go elsewhere.  The way it is now, if you don't want to pay such bills yourself, try a different plan.  They are legion, and since I've ridden in an ambulance myself, I know your experience is not universal.  But if these insurance companies are all rolled into one big government insurance company, you can't try a different plan.  You're stuck, and if they don't cover what you want or need, you'll have to live with it.  (Or maybe die with it, depending on how badly you need it.)

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on June 25, 2012 at 9:38am

In the UK those with means can go elsewhere just as they do in the United States. The difference is those without means, still have access to healthcare and preventive medicine - something that cannot be said for quite a large number of people in the US. 

Is the relatively small number of problem cases (naturally the ones we hear about most) enough of a reason to abandon the concept of universal healthcare? E.g. does the harm it causes outweigh the benefit? Universal healthcare works extremely well in Scandinavia and Germany - with very few horror stories of its evils, and extraordinarily high approval ratings by those who live with it. 

Yes it sucks if you are the one who go screwed by the system... but that is the case here as well, with the added complication of bankruptcy causing costs and insurance company profiteering (especially on the backs of those who need it most - those with preexisting conditions, or those unlucky enough to own their own companies and not have access to a group plan).

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on June 25, 2012 at 10:03am

You didn't answer the question Will. You giving extreme cases that are currently being reviewed.

 

I am giving you a very real case.

 

The city has a set fee for Ambulances.  Everyone pays this fee.  Most major insurance carriers will make you carry extra coverage, fully deny, or as in my case only partially pay because they insist that every form of health care providor seperately negotiate a fee system for them that is not offered to another insurance carrier or even an individual who wants to pay cash.

 

Are you ok with that system?

Permalink Reply by Will on June 25, 2012 at 10:09am

Didn't answer your question?  You didn't answer mine, either.  "How do you who want universal, defend practices like that?"

I gave cases that were both "extreme" and "very real" in a system of the type you propose.

Are you ok with that system?

But actually I did answer your question.  This is a false dilemma.  We need not agree with each decision of every insurance company in order to not want them all massed into one insurance company, be it under government control or not.  We need not agree with each decision ever makes to grant government control over a type of decision.  I am not obligated to choose between one big government insurance company and your insurance company's policies.  

Liam, I would prefer not to have access to a health care system that lets babies and old people die because the personnel aren't required to help them.

But . . . I'm at work, and we're getting nowhere.  Best to you all.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on June 25, 2012 at 10:20am

Liam, I would prefer not to have access to a health care system that lets babies and old people die because the personnel aren't required to help them.

I understand that. I do not think that is commonplace in that system, and certainly that should be addressed (if not prosecuted). Again see examples of Germany, Scandinavia, Canada for universal coverage systems that appear to work well overall. 

I do not support a healthcare system that lets babies and old people die (or poor people, or people with chronic pre-existing conditions) because they do not have the financial means to access it before it becomes an emergency.

We have 46 million people in this country without health insurance. The bulk of them not by their direct choice. That is equivalent to the entire population of Spain. I do not support a system that allows that to happen.

Permalink Reply by Chuck Knight on June 25, 2012 at 3:05pm

And, we have 350 million people in our population.  46 million represents only 13% of that population.

 

In other words, our current system works, and works pretty well in the majority of cases, for 87% of the population.  That means that nearly 9 out of every 10 people are covered under the current system.

 

So, perhaps you could explain to me, in words I can understand (not hyperbole or talking points) why some insist that it *naturally* follows that the system is "broken" and needs to be completely replaced with something else?

Permalink Reply by Nick H on June 27, 2012 at 5:06am

If I created a drug that screwed 13% of those who take it, I'd be shut down by the fda

Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on July 13, 2012 at 11:10am

"If I created..."

Not really.  If you created a drug that screwed 13% of those who took it and didn't disclose that particular side-effect then yes, you'd be fined.  It depends on the other 87% and how well it worked.

Permalink Reply by Nick H on June 27, 2012 at 5:21am

Also, who wants to live in a system where 9 out of 10 are ok, some great, some just barely enough, while the 10th guy is totally screwed? All at a cost per person more than it costs other nations to cover everyone.

Permalink Reply by Chuck Knight on June 27, 2012 at 10:06am

OK, that's a fair point.  And, that just shows the system is imperfect. 

 

Even imperfect, I don't see how it follows that it's so bad, that it needs to be thrown out and replaced with something else.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page