Universal Health Care

OutOfBreath

Well, you might need a tax increase on top of the general savings. But then again, if you count in all the money you spend on private health insurances... What difference if you pay a health insurance company or over the tax bill? UHC gives coverage to all. Wouldn't it be worth it to pay a tax that you (and everyone else) actually could get a use for, as opposed to multi-billion army escapades around the globe?

(Btw you have one of the lowest tax-levels internationally, that you more than make up through what you pay privately for things that people in other countries get for "free" through their taxes.)

Peace
Dan

Thecure

know1 wrote:

You don't think there would be government guidelines to determine who really needed that surgery? Surely the government wouldn't blindly pay for everything that every doctor orders.

Or maybe it would, because government spending is way out of control.

i live in canada and i have never been refused a surgery that was needed. secondly, maybe i am wrong in this please forgive, but don't HMO also do the same thing. they can tell a doctor to not give this medication but this one that might be cheaper. they can decide if they want to pay for that kidney transplant or not. i had a friend who had insurance and he was refused a kidney transplant becuase teh HMO decided that it was not needed. that might just be one story but it was true.

Thecure

unsung wrote:

Ok what domestic funding is going to be cut to pay for this domestic UHC program? Don't give me Iraq, that is foreign policy. What domestic is going to be cut?

Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax, I have enough taxes. The only way I go along with paying for this is to eliminate welfare for those that are able bodied to work, eliminate funding for health care to non-citizens, eliminate bailing out mortgage companies and the people who signed for loans they knew they couldn't afford.

And to those that want the government to manage UHC, go ask the Veterans of this country how their health care works for them.

what do you mean non-citizens, do you mean illigal immigrants? in canada if you don't have status the only way you can get to see a doctor is by going to emergency rooms. it will be the same as you have now.

know1

Thecure wrote:

i live in canada and i have never been refused a surgery that was needed. secondly, maybe i am wrong in this please forgive, but don't HMO also do the same thing. they can tell a doctor to not give this medication but this one that might be cheaper. they can decide if they want to pay for that kidney transplant or not. i had a friend who had insurance and he was refused a kidney transplant becuase teh HMO decided that it was not needed. that might just be one story but it was true.

Don't mistake me for defending the insurance industry. I think it is the root of all of our problems.

know1

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, you might need a tax increase on top of the general savings. But then again, if you count in all the money you spend on private health insurances... What difference if you pay a health insurance company or over the tax bill? UHC gives coverage to all. Wouldn't it be worth it to pay a tax that you (and everyone else) actually could get a use for, as opposed to multi-billion army escapades around the globe?

(Btw you have one of the lowest tax-levels internationally, that you more than make up through what you pay privately for things that people in other countries get for "free" through their taxes.)

Peace
Dan

Right - they're both wrong in my opinion. Let's get rid of the government and health insurance involvement and the situation will be a lot better.

Kel Varnsen

unsung wrote:

Ok what domestic funding is going to be cut to pay for this domestic UHC program? Don't give me Iraq, that is foreign policy. What domestic is going to be cut?

Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax, I have enough taxes. The only way I go along with paying for this is to eliminate welfare for those that are able bodied to work, eliminate funding for health care to non-citizens, eliminate bailing out mortgage companies and the people who signed for loans they knew they couldn't afford.

And to those that want the government to manage UHC, go ask the Veterans of this country how their health care works for them.

I am not sure why people think they would have to pay more. In that link provided by the second poster showed a table where the US government spends considerably more per person on health care than the Canadian government and here everyone is covered. So if you could have a system where the government spends less per person, no one is paying crazy rates for private health insurance and malpractice insurance rates are lower because there are less lawsuits why would your taxes go up?

And honestly I think my favorite thing about universal coverage is that no one has to worry about "can I afford it" if they need to see a doctor. That way a guy who is having mild chest pains can go to the doctor even if there is only a slim chance it might be something deadly, rather than waiting until the chest pains are unbearable and he decides to go and he has a fatal heart attack (where he could have been saved if he went in early). Or you know a guy over 50 can get an annual check up without having to worry about paying for it so that his doctor can catch any problems at a stage when they are still preventable (that on its own would probably bring healthcare costs down quite a bit since preventing a disease, or catching it early is usually way cheaper than treating it after the fact).

mert

Kel Varnsen wrote:

And honestly I think my favorite thing about universal coverage is that no one has to worry about "can I afford it" if they need to see a doctor. That way a guy who is having mild chest pains can go to the doctor even if there is only a slim chance it might be something deadly, rather than waiting until the chest pains are unbearable and he decides to go and he has a fatal heart attack (where he could have been saved if he went in early). Or you know a guy over 50 can get an annual check up without having to worry about paying for it so that his doctor can catch any problems at a stage when they are still preventable (that on its own would probably bring healthcare costs down quite a bit since preventing a disease, or catching it early is usually way cheaper than treating it after the fact).

And best case scenario - by going early, the problem is caught earlier and fixed and/or treated earlier, therefore costing less.

Some of us will just have to agree to disagree... This discussion was brought up on another forum I frequent, with some Americans being very anti-health care, and pretty much everyone else not understanding that.... It seems just as weird to me that some of you would want to have to pay for health care, as my opinions seem to you. My personal values and morals don't understand how a "developed" country could survive without the infrastructure to provide for its people... It also seems to me like people are buying into the whole American dream dogma when they think that health care isn't a great thing - but that's just my opinion, and it's probably just as heavily influenced by my Canadian liberal upbringing.

Wow, but wordy there but to sum up: this is a cool discussion that probably will never get anywhere....

know1

mert wrote:

It seems just as weird to me that some of you would want to have to pay for health care, as my opinions seem to you.

Newsflash: In a UHC system, the healthcare fairy does not swoop down and sprinkle FREE healthcare on everybody. We all STILL PAY FOR IT. And the issue is more that some of us look and see how much the cost of everything goes up when government gets involved and realize it's not a smart solution. Just because you're not physically writing a check out of your checkbook for healthcare does not mean you are not paying for it.

blackredyellow

unsung wrote:

Ok what domestic funding is going to be cut to pay for this domestic UHC program? Don't give me Iraq, that is foreign policy. What domestic is going to be cut?

Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax, I have enough taxes. The only way I go along with paying for this is to eliminate welfare for those that are able bodied to work, eliminate funding for health care to non-citizens, eliminate bailing out mortgage companies and the people who signed for loans they knew they couldn't afford.

And to those that want the government to manage UHC, go ask the Veterans of this country how their health care works for them.

How much do you (and your company) pay for your health insurance now?

I sat down with my HR person last year to talk about insurance trying to decide if it was better for my wife and I to go with her work or mine. I don't know what the average is, but for my company, a decent family medical plan costs about $1,000 a month. The employee pays about 30% of that and the company pays about 70%.

So yes, taxes would pretty much have to go up, but I can't imagine that they would go up $12,000 a year for a couple. My take home pay would probably go up if me and my company didn't have to pay for health insurance.

Kel Varnsen

blackredyellow wrote:

So yes, taxes would pretty much have to go up, but I can't imagine that they would go up $12,000 a year for a couple. My take home pay would probably go up if me and my company didn't have to pay for health insurance.

Would taxes go up that much though? I still think that if everyone had easy access to regular doctor visits health care costs would go down. I mean under the US system (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong), if a person with no insurance walks into a county hospital complaining of a major headache, which is actually a stroke, is treated in a hospital, and dies after spending time in the hospital then since he is dead and has no insurance doesn't the government basically pays the bill for his care? Now if the same person had easy access to regular doctor visits and his risk factors could be identified early so that he doesn't end up having that stroke. I would think that a once a year or what ever visit to your GP for a check up would be way cheaper for the government to pay for than the time spent in the ER and possibly the ICU.

Plus I am pretty sure that with a universal system, malpractice lawsuits go down. I mean if your family member dies in surgery and then after that you are still sent his bill for the doctor fees, you might be pissed off and call a lawyer. But if you don't have to worry about paying out of pocket for the surgery, you are probably a lot less likely to be pissed off. That means a lot less judges and other court staff freed up to deal with other issues.

know1

blackredyellow wrote:

How much do you (and your company) pay for your health insurance now?

I sat down with my HR person last year to talk about insurance trying to decide if it was better for my wife and I to go with her work or mine. I don't know what the average is, but for my company, a decent family medical plan costs about $1,000 a month. The employee pays about 30% of that and the company pays about 70%.

So yes, taxes would pretty much have to go up, but I can't imagine that they would go up $12,000 a year for a couple. My take home pay would probably go up if me and my company didn't have to pay for health insurance.

This is partially why I believe that we could just pay for healthcare ourselves and keep the government bureaucracy out of it. The extra income that is being spent now on supporting the insurance industry's infrastructure could be in our pockets to pay for our healthcare. Why transfer that extra money to the government's infrastructure?

fanch75

mert wrote:

Wow, but wordy there but to sum up: this is a cool discussion that probably will never get anywhere....

This is a great way to disagree with someone. Honest, not backing down, but saying "Hey, we disagree, what else can I say?" without throwing out an insult. Well done!

mookie blaylock 10

it's always the same people that are against helping others when this topic comes up. at least you count on them for that. greed and ignoring those who need help...oh, what a life filled with bliss it must be.

know1

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

it's always the same people that are against helping others when this topic comes up. at least you count on them for that. greed and ignoring those who need help...oh, what a life filled with bliss it must be.

What are you talking about? Perhaps some arguing against it are doing so because they believe there is a better solution that will help more people. Greed has nothing to do with it for me.

cincybearcat

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

it's always the same people that are against helping others when this topic comes up. at least you count on them for that. greed and ignoring those who need help...oh, what a life filled with bliss it must be.

Yep, that's exactly what it's all about. Jesus, the drama of some people.

blackredyellow

know1 wrote:

This is partially why I believe that we could just pay for healthcare ourselves and keep the government bureaucracy out of it. The extra income that is being spent now on supporting the insurance industry's infrastructure could be in our pockets to pay for our healthcare. Why transfer that extra money to the government's infrastructure?

I just see that as heading in the wrong direction... Right or wrong, If people have to pay large sums of money for tests or whatever, A LOT of them just won't do it, and end up with larger problems down the road. Even with health savings accounts and things like that, it still comes down to a financial decision on whether to have a procedure, instead of a health decision.

If the average person had occasional minor stomach pain, and the doctor advised them to undergo a few tests that were going to cost a couple thousand dollars, how many do you think would do it? Most of us would just say that the pain isn't that bad and deal with it. Then two years later, we find out we have stomach cancer that could have been treated much cheaper then. Now who pays for this incredibly costly treatment?

And like I mentioned before, the idea of catastrophic insurance would be an administrative mess as well.

fanch75

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

it's always the same people that are against helping others when this topic comes up. at least you count on them for that. greed and ignoring those who need help...oh, what a life filled with bliss it must be.

I don't know you or what you've done to help others, but I would suggest doing a self-check before tossing out insults like that.

The reason I say that is I'm not sure if compassion or helping others is defined as simply stating, "Those people over there need to pay for healthcare for these people over here." Tossing the responsibility someone else's way may be considered a bit selfish, as well.

Again, I don't know you or if you've helped others, so I apologize if this doesn't apply to you. I just get annoyed when people get on a high moral horse and feeling so great about their own morals because they favor nationalized healthcare.

know1

blackredyellow wrote:

I just see that as heading in the wrong direction... Right or wrong, If people have to pay large sums of money for tests or whatever, A LOT of them just won't do it, and end up with larger problems down the road. Even with health savings accounts and things like that, it still comes down to a financial decision on whether to have a procedure, instead of a health decision.

If the average person had occasional minor stomach pain, and the doctor advised them to undergo a few tests that were going to cost a couple thousand dollars, how many do you think would do it? Most of us would just say that the pain isn't that bad and deal with it. Then two years later, we find out we have stomach cancer that could have been treated much cheaper then. Now who pays for this incredibly costly treatment?

And like I mentioned before, the idea of catastrophic insurance would be an administrative mess as well.

Just realize this - WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS ALREADY.

The medical industry and the health insurance industry aren't donating things like those thousand dollar tests. PLUS - we're paying for the infrastructure and salaries of the health insurance industry.

I truly believe that through a combination of increased salaries and income (due to not having to pay health insurance premiums) and the reduction of the monopoly and fixed cost pricing, plus the cost of paying for the health insurance industry, that health care costs will be lower and more reasonable for everyone.

know1

Double Post

Collin

I live in a country that has one of the best healthcare systems in the world and has the highest-quality medical care.

Healthcare insurance is a part of the our social security system. To benefit you must join a health insurance fund 'group'. Most of these are linked to religious groups or political parties, however, there is little difference because reimbursement rates are fixed by the government.

You indeed pay a some of money, which is directly deducted from your salery. This is part of our social security system.

You do have cover the entire cost, however, up to 75% is reimbursed.

You do not have to wait if you need immediate medical care. You just call an ambulance (if necessary) and it takes you to the nearest hospital or to a specialist who is most suited, for example a burn centre.

You can also opt for additional (private) insurance.

I would not want it any other way. The waiting list is definitely not an issue here. If you need it, you'll get it, usually within days. It's definitely not a perfect system, I don't think a perfect system exists. But it seems to be a very good one, so good people from other countries are coming here, often people from country that do have waiting lists. It's cheap (even with travel costs added) and it's of high quality. I don't mind paying for it, neither do my parents or anyone I know.