Universal Health Care

stupidcorporatewhore

I think a lot of the problems of the united states would go away if people never had to worry that their lives would basically be ruined if they got sick.

for those of you whose principal worry about UHC is that you will be paying for someone else's health care, you should stop paying taxes.

you probably don't want to pay for other people's trash pickup, fire and police services, public education, street maintenence among other things.

it's terrible when you're a f**king hypocrite and you don't even know it.

cheeseandrice

OutOfBreath wrote:

Thing is that it can of course be done poorly, and a poor way in the US would be to go over the federal budget with federal oversight. Integrate the cost into state taxes (for instance) and let them deal with it. The bigger the bureaucracy the larger the cost. Universal health care trims away a fair portion of bureaucracy by default, and to keep it that way, put it down at least to state level in the case of the US.

Peace
Dan

Ithink this would be a great idea, but as with a state run program, would this mean that in less populated states you would have to pay more out of your pocket in taxes? Not sure, your thoughts?

OutOfBreath

cheeseandrice wrote:

Ithink this would be a great idea, but as with a state run program, would this mean that in less populated states you would have to pay more out of your pocket in taxes? Not sure, your thoughts?

Well, you want it state-level, the state must pay for it. But then adding a federal evening-out program or something are slippery slopes as to containing unnecessary bureaucracy. Thing is, you'd probably pay less in less populated states. I work with sick-leave numbers in my region, and it is a clear trend that people in densely populated areas are more sick (or at least have more sick-leaves) than in rural areas.

Point is, that there must be no crossing ifs and whens on the bureaucracy. (Which largely accounts for the clutter of big bureaucracies) Single-payer, decisively put on either federal or state level, and incorporated into those taxes is the thing. Clear responsibilities, no questions as to where the bills go, and what gets covered and how much, that's the ticket. Just pay your share, get well and get out, and the hospital deals with getting the rest of the money from the single-payer on a regular and predictable basis. Minimal overhead, better efficiency, and ultimately more health for the buck.

Peace
Dan

Pats54

scb wrote:

I think this (that I bolded) is the most important point. YOU have healthcare for YOURSELF and YOU are happy with it and so YOU don't think there needs to be a change (except maybe to not subsidize those damn free loaders).

But the problem is that having health coverage for YOU (or me) isn't good enough. EVERYONE needs health care. I have a hard time understanding why, even if we can't agree on the best way to do it, we can't at least agree on this.

Agreed if they can come up with a plan that has little or no impact on my current coverage yet helps the less fortunate thna myself I am all for that. I would be very scared if the Govt tried to do the whole thing itself and come up with big whole sale changes. Look at how fucked up the educational system is. I live in MA and they can't even do a dam highway project right. At the end of the day the thing is going to cost over 30bln dollars, I think we were told it was going to be approx 6-8 bln. But the Great Liberal Lion Teddy K. was able to deliver the Bacon for all of his union croonies. What a country!

If they come up with a govt plan all of those assholes in Congress and in the House better be on the same plan.

kenny olav

Whenever I think about the fact that we don't have some kind of universal health care system in this country, I get increasingly pissed off until I finally stop myself from thinking about it. It is just completely fucking wrong, and maybe people here on this thread have articulated why it's wrong very well. It's also inefficient.

Poll after poll shows most Americans want UHC. Personally, I think we should have a single-payer system in each state, where the funds are public and the management remains private, but there should be publicly mandated guidelines. The only reason we don't have UHC is because the HMOs have bought out politicians. That is the ONLY reason. Think about it: part of the money you pay for health care is being used to deny other people health care so that well-connected people can have more money for their own pleasure.

mert

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

later, when my mother got seriously ill, another poster (a candian, mind you) who i haven't here seen in ages...perhaps he was banned...had the audacity to say..."well, i'm glad my money is paying for your mother's problems"...and said it sarcastically. it was disgusting. i have to wonder if he'd still be so callous now that my mom has passed away, if he were still around here.

my dad is still living well and going strong, thanks to the wonderful people who helped him get through what were a few life threatening situations.

Sorry to hear about your mom. With no sarcasm whatsoever, I am glad my money helped your parents, and that your father recovered so well! Man, it makes me angry when people think they can be douche bags online because it's not "real life." If it's not acceptable to say to a friend, it's not acceptable to say period. Thanks for sharing that though!

mookie blaylock 10

mert wrote:

Sorry to hear about your mom. With no sarcasm whatsoever, I am glad my money helped your parents, and that your father recovered so well! Man, it makes me angry when people think they can be douche bags online because it's not "real life." If it's not acceptable to say to a friend, it's not acceptable to say period. Thanks for sharing that though!

thanks to you as well. i mention my mother's passing only because of the surprise at what a couple of people had to say is all. these kind of things happen and it makes a person feel inclined to speak more strongly about this than they normally would. i guess i see it that way.

_

Pats54 wrote:

Agreed if they can come up with a plan that has little or no impact on my current coverage yet helps the less fortunate thna myself I am all for that.

Yea! That's 2 of us! Now let's get some more to join in and move forward from there.

unsung

I just watched a special on this. I'll keep what I have, thanks. The poor can get UHC but I'll pass for myself and my family. Health care is not a Right.

Kel Varnsen

I am curious, for people who are happy with the system that the US has, does it not bother them that the government is spending more per person on health care than a lot of countries with universal health care? Does it not bother them that their life expextancy is lower and their infant mortality rate is higher?

stupidcorporatewhore

unsung wrote:

Health care is not a Right.

yes, it is. If we have the money for a useless war, we have money for OUR people.

_

unsung wrote:

Health care is not a Right.

I believe it is. But even if it weren't, isn't it just basic human decency to take care of one another?

ryan198

scb wrote:

I believe it is. But even if it weren't, isn't it just basic human decency to take care of one another?

i agree...but maybe we should ask Ron Paul what he thinks?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/libertarian-legacy-ron-pa_b_111079.html

_

ryan198 wrote:

i agree...but maybe we should ask Ron Paul what he thinks?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/libertarian-legacy-ron-pa_b_111079.html

Wow. :(

That's so sad, but thanks for sharing. I just hope we'll learn from things like this before the same fate befalls too many more people.

ryan198

It sucks so bad. I've writing the conclusion of my dissertation, and am trying to tie everything up, and what I read today has put me so far down in a hole it's ridiculous. I always believed that people who said W. was an actual criminal, instead of figuratively, were wrong, BUT no. The Bush family are top level MF's, who have been able to maintain power and wealth illegally while taking away basic civil rights from the people.

The sad part is that their doctrine is so convincing that people actually believe that "universal health care" and "free education" is a communist goal (see: Debbie Riddle Texas State Rep.), or that it shouldn't be a basic right when 40 years ago this would have been laughed at.

_

ryan198 wrote:

It sucks so bad. I've writing the conclusion of my dissertation, and am trying to tie everything up, and what I read today has put me so far down in a hole it's ridiculous. I always believed that people who said W. was an actual criminal, instead of figuratively, were wrong, BUT no. The Bush family are top level MF's, who have been able to maintain power and wealth illegally while taking away basic civil rights from the people.

The sad part is that their doctrine is so convincing that people actually believe that "universal health care" and "free education" is a communist goal (see: Debbie Riddle Texas State Rep.), or that it shouldn't be a basic right when 40 years ago this would have been laughed at.

What's your dissertation on again? I think you may have mentioned it but I can't remember.

ryan198

scb wrote:

What's your dissertation on again? I think you may have mentioned it but I can't remember.

It's kind of changed since I've last written here I think. Anyway it is tentatively titled: "Pledging a Grievance to the Flag: Baseball, Citizenship, and White Neoliberalism" (obvious influence from a particular band). The main idea is tracing how citizenship in America has changed over the course of the past 50 years, using baseball as my empirical example (Little League World Series, and Red Sox Nation). Right now I'm trying to fit my project into the broader American experience...it's really painful.

_

ryan198 wrote:

It's kind of changed since I've last written here I think. Anyway it is tentatively titled: "Pledging a Grievance to the Flag: Baseball, Citizenship, and White Neoliberalism" (obvious influence from a particular band). The main idea is tracing how citizenship in America has changed over the course of the past 50 years, using baseball as my empirical example (Little League World Series, and Red Sox Nation). Right now I'm trying to fit my project into the broader American experience...it's really painful.

That sounds interesting! And in what subject are you getting your graduate degree?

ryan198

scb wrote:

That sounds interesting! And in what subject are you getting your graduate degree?

Kinesiology...the study of human movement!

kittykat416

I'll throw my Canadian two cents in here (which, hey, is actually worth two American cents now! ). I also work in a hospital, which gives me another perspective....

1. I definitely agree with the posters here who mentioned the importance of PREVENTATIVE health care. The problem with only catastrophic health care coverage is that is leaves the costs of the most beneficial health care (prenatal care, childhood immunizations, annual checkups, etc) to the individual. In some cases, the individual can afford it; in many, they can't. Hence the reason why poverty correlates with poorer health status.

2. Although in most situations, a privatized market lowers prices because competing parties need to have competitive prices, in the case of health care, this doesn't seem to work. Health care costs in the US are largely HIGHER than elsewhere, because health care is a FOR PROFIT industry. This means drug companies want to maximize profits, physicians want to maximize profits, medical equipment manufacturers want to maximize profits, hospitals want to maximize profits, etc. The poster who is a hospital administrator indicated that it is NECESSARY for pharmaceutical companies to be profitable so they can fund research into new drugs; however, pharmaceutical companies tend to fund research into drugs that they feel are the most profitable, not the most needed. For example, they create yet another statin drug or ACE inhibitor, or erectile dysfunction drug (not that sexual wellbeing isn't important, but it isn't exactly lifesaving), etc. Most of these "new" drugs aren't really new at all, don't have much added benefit or reduced side effects. But they are profitable because they are marketed to chronic diseases that affect a large part of the north american population (i.e. heart disease). However, drugs that are needed but don't have as much profitability potential don't get developed (such as new antibiotics, or treatments for rare, life threatening diseases).

I think it would be pretty impossible at this stage to de-privatize the aspects of health care (drugs, medical supplies) that drive up the costs. But in Canada, gov't regulate drug prices, which helps to keep the costs down. It may be worthwhile to consider having gov't regulation of new drug development, so that even if there are fewer research dollars available (due to lowered drug prices and narrowed profit margins), those research dollars can go towards significant advances, rather than the easy-buck drugs.

3. With regards to who "deserves" health care, I struggle with this as well.

As an example, I saw a guy at my hospital who was admitted with a serious bacterial infection of his heart valve, due to IV illegal drug use. The doctors asked the guy if he was interested in entering a drug-rehab program (at no cost to him), and he said absolutely not. Now, the treatment for this kind of infection is about 6 weeks of IV antibiotics. Usually what we'd do is treat the person in hospital until they were stable (i.e. 1 or 2 weeks) and then send them home with an IV and have a nurse come to their house every day (at no cost to them) and administer the antibiotics at home for the remaining 4 weeks. However, for this guy, we can't do that, because no home care nurse is going to assume responsibility for care of an IV in a person who is a known, active IV drug user (since that guy will most likely be using the IV to administer IV drugs to himself). Which means we have to keep him in the hospital (at no cost to him) for the entire 6 weeks. Essentially providing a free baby-sitting service.

Now, I get annoyed when I think about patients such as this, because I feel like it is my tax dollars that are paying for this guy's treatment, which was directly caused by IV drug use, and this guy indicates he has absolutely no intention of stopping his IV drug use.

However, if I suggested that this type of person doesn't deserve universal health care (which is actually "free" to him, 'cause I know he's not paying taxes), where do we draw the line in that type of judgement? When I'm 65, should I be denied universal access to cardiac care because I didn't go to the gym 3 times a week and stay away from McDonald's when I was 30 years old? Should smokers who develop lung cancer be turned down for universal access to chemotherapy? I would say NO, unless cigarette smoking was made illegal, fast foods were banned and the public was somehow legislated to do X number of hours of exercise every week to earn their universal health care (which I am no way suggesting should be done).

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have a right to access medical care (it doesn't say it has to be "free" or "socialized medicine", but they do have the right to access it):

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.




I wish I knew the answers to how to provide universal health care to everyone in a way that was sustainable and responsible (for both the providers and the recipients) and fair to everyone. It is a complex problem with no simple solutions.

(sorry that post was rather long...)