Why is America seemingly so opposed to a Universal Health Service?

[Sidhe]

There have been plenty of good arguments against UHC. You two just don't listen to them.

Me? I do listen to both sides. However I should point out that so far I haven't told anybody what MY position on UHC actually is. I've been telling everybody what other Americans think of UHC.

What I think of UHC is kind of irrelevant--there are 300 million American citizens out there, and I haven't voted since 1992.

Resort to popularity fallacy. Just because people are brainwashed into hating socialism doesn't mean they are being rational.

They're not valid arguments any more than there resort to popular is, they are just avoiding the subject, no one has debunked any of the statistics, no one has explained how cheaper healthcare for all is worse than paying 50% more for a bloated bureaucracy, that is in it souly for the money and actually will do anything to worm out of paying for anything? Can you show me where any of the above points are untrue? Actually answer each one and tell me why each of them doesn't matter? Can you show me any links to why the current system is better than a private/national healthcare system?

Has anyone provided any links to suggest this? Have you got anything at all except opinion?

 

[GinandTonic]

In fact, there is no working government health care program in the world (that I am aware of) that successfully provides for 300 million people.

The competion being China and India, you are setting the bar astonishingly low. Not really the pier-group the richest (decent sized) nation nation on earth should be aiming for.

 

[Merkinball]

They're not valid arguments any more than there resort to popular is, they are just avoiding the subject, no one has debunked any of the statistics, no one has explained how cheaper healthcare for all is worse than paying 50% more for a bloated bureaucracy, that is in it souly for the money and actually will do anything to worm out of paying for anything? Can you show me where any of the above points are untrue?

Can you show me that any of them are? Can you show me that the root of the evil is not the government's 47% involvement in the first place?

Again, I want someone to point to me, one f--king thing, that the government does better than the private side. One business. One little business, that the government can actually run more efficiently, and more effectively than the private sector. If the government was good at business, they'd own Wal*Mart. If the government was good at business, they'd own Microsoft.

The government sucks at everything it touches. It destroys everything it touches.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Sidhe,

With all due respect, I have to disagree with your statement that people are "brainwashed into hating socialism." A majority of Americans support universal healthcare. Polls have consistently shown that for some time. Even this poll, conducted by a GOP pollster, concluded that 51% of Republicans think that "universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American." It's simply not the case that the American people don't want universal healthcare.

Cleo

 

[Sidhe]

Can you show me that any of them are? Can you show me that the root of the evil is not the government's 47% involvement in the first place?

Again, I want someone to point to me, one f--king thing, that the government does better than the private side. One business. One little business, that the government can actually run more efficiently, and more effectively than the private sector. If the government was good at business, they'd own Wal*Mart. If the government was good at business, they'd own Microsoft.

The government sucks at everything it touches. It destroys everything it touches.

Merkin you seem to be forgetting I'm not advocating universal healthcare in the hands of the government but of the state, by the state for each states needs. Which is in fact how it would go down in reality. So please stop throwing the argument of centralisation in as it's not in any way how it would happen any way, it's quite frankly pointless to discuss it as it's both unrealistic and unrealistic it would happen that way. And we all know it wouldn't work for such a large country anyway. Hell China doesn't run it's country on a centralised basis even.

Sidhe,

With all due respect, I have to disagree with your statement that people are "brainwashed into hating socialism." A majority of Americans support universal healthcare. Polls have consistently shown that for some time. Even this poll, conducted by a GOP pollster, concluded that 51% of Republicans think that "universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American." It's simply not the case that the American people don't want universal healthcare.

Cleo

Well your doing precious little about it quite frankly. Schwarzenegger had to scrap the idea after it became clear it was unpopular and would lose him votes. What you say and what happens in reality are obviously vastly different things, or it would be at least being mooted by the Republicans and Democrats. The fact is the Republican candidates are against it, because it's a vote loser, so the chances of it happening are zero, unless someone gets in who is pro UH, which again is unlikely even on the Democrat side, because if I'm not mistaken Obama isn't in favour? If it's such a popular option why is it such a vote loser, and why are so few candidates advocating it?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Merkinball,

Again, I want someone to point to me, one f--king thing, that the government does better than the private side. One business. One little business, that the government can actually run more efficiently, and more effectively than the private sector.

Healthcare. As cutlass already pointed out on this thread, Medicare is more efficiently run than private insurers.

Cleo

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Sidhe,

There are two factors in American politics -- votes and money. Healthcare companies will spend billions of dollars attacking any universal healthcare plan introduced (see Hillary Clinton's plan during Bill's presidency). In a small election (Congressional, say), if you come out for universal healthcare in a district where the incumbent doesn't support it, your opponent is going to get a lot of money in his campaign coffers. What's more, our media refuse to report on things of any import (preferring instead candidates' bowling scores or shark attacks), so paid advertisement is almost the only source of information on issues that most people receive.

And, by the way, things are moving forward, but slowly. I'm sure Congress, now, has more proponents of universal healthcare than it has had in a long while. (And I agree with you that the "brainwashed anti-socialism" thing certainly played a role in American history, and that's maybe why we hadn't switched to a modern healthcare system earlier, but it's just not the case anymore that the People don't want it.)

Cleo

 

[skadistic]

You just want him to be a wage slave!!!!

If by wage slave you mean honest, hard working, self responsible, citizen who doesn't become a burden on then yes I do.

I'd also like to add that some of that inflated cost for Americans comes from people who ,by way of misguided laws, must have their employer provide health insurance whether or not they have it from their spouse. I have guys that get great coverage from their wives and don't need it from me but because of the laws I have to give it to them.

 

[skadistic]

Merkinball,



Healthcare. As cutlass already pointed out on this thread, Medicare is more efficiently run than private insurers.

Cleo

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/health/pdh5.html

I really how how efficient that last bit is.

Some studies say its overhyped.
http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0602/0602.news_medicare_eff.html

Looks like fraud and marketing aren't factored in the costs.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

skadistic,

Double-coverage can be important sometimes, like if someone loses a job and there's a processing delay in adding that person onto their spouse's plan. There could be a few days of uncovered-ness during which a car accident or something could financially ruin the family for the rest of their lives. I know in my state, even with an excellent health benefits plan, there could have been delays in coverage between my wife and I if everything hadn't worked out perfectly.

I think a good option would be to eliminate double-coverage but institute a policy whereby people can immediately (i.e., by default) fall under the coverage of a spouse if they lose their job, which is probably along the lines of what you'd support ("misguided laws"), but at least I see where those people are coming from. Or, you know, health insurance for everyone.

Cleo

 

[Merkinball]

Merkinball,



Healthcare. As cutlass already pointed out on this thread, Medicare is more efficiently run than private insurers.

Cleo

Yeah, if you use his/hers utterly simplistic and elementary analysis.

First - Medicare and Medicaid ration care to a ridiculous level. So much so, that patients on Medicare and Medicaid have significantly worse health than people who are covered by private insurance.

Second - Not all people on Medicare or Medicaid use the program to its fullest extent. Some people only need partial coverage. In fact, the majority of the people on these programs only have partial coverage. So of course this is going to drop per patient cost.

Third - Medicare and Medicaid ration care to a ridiculous level. On almost everything. They ration drugs, the tell you what drugs to take, they have limits on treatments available, they have limits on preventive care and procedures. It's not a blank check. The regulate every single little aspect of a persons care in an effort to reduce costs. Private insurance covers new treatment covers expensive treatments and state of the art procedures that medicare and medicaid either haven't approved yet, and don't approve period.

Fourth - Medicair and Medicaid are running in the red big time. These programs are accumulating billions in debt, and the costs of medicaid and medicare are currently rising much more dramatically than in the private sector.

The idea that this organization is run better than private insurance is absurd, and ridiculously short sighted. It's about as trite as pretending that if government got out of it, that private insurance firms would just habitually jack up prices.

Here is some more information on the wonderful quality of care that you guys want us all to fall under...which sucks compared to health insurance. I bet it just needs some more funding....which...all of a sudden...doesn't make it so financially feasible...

Out of 48 HEDIS
measures for effectiveness of care, Medicaid
lags behind private insurance in all but seven
measures. Only 50 percent of doctors will
accept a new Medicaid patient – compared to
more than 70 percent for Medicare and privately
insured patients. Compliance with evidencebased
treatment for a typical Medicaid patient
is estimated at 54.9 percent, slightly below
the already-poor average of 55.2 percent for
private managed care patients and 57 percent
for Medicare patients. Estimates of improper
claims and fraud are hard to verify, but suggest
that between 3 percent and 10 percent of all
Medicaid claims filed are irregular in some way.

Tip of the iceberg.

Check this out. It pretty much blows every fanciful notion that you guys have about universal healthcare in this country out of the water. Universal healthcare will be this: http://www.shps.com/medicaid/book/SHPS_Making_Medicaid_Work.pdf except it will be for everybody. And you won't have a choice. And doctors won't have a choice. And we'll all be collectively f--ked.

Who's signing up now?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Merkinball,

Umm . . . good lord. The only people on Medicare are the elderly, who have more health problems. The only people on Medicaid are the poor, who have more health problems. Private insurers do not provide their customers with a "blank check." (!!!) Private insurers frequently deny coverage for new procedures and medicines. Medicare is not the same thing as Medicaid.

Wow, after reading your post, I don't think we're ever going to agree to the terms of the debate, much less anything resembling a resolution. I appreciate your views, but I don't think this is going to go anywhere.

Cleo

 

[MobBoss]

Healthcare. As cutlass already pointed out on this thread, Medicare is more efficiently run than private insurers.

Cleo

I am going to have to call bullshat on this one. If medicare were run by private insurerers, it would actually be profitable, not to mention it would also be much less corrupt, and far less bloated of a system. Medicare/medicaid is rife with fraudulent claims and scams. Private insurance comanies are much better at weeding such fraud out and preventing it for the sole reason it affects their profit margin/bottom line. Not so with the government, where peoples tax dollars are often considered 'free money'.

Point being cleo, if private insurers ran it this sort of story would be far less common: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921/

Law enforcement officials said it's just one of the many widespread, organized and lucrative schemes to bilk Medicare out of an estimated $60 billion dollars a year — a staggering cost borne by American taxpayers.

Its simply just far easier to scam the government that it is to scam a private insurer.

And if the government were in charge of ALL healthcare, that 60 billion a year would be a drop in the bucket. Fraud, waste and abuse would be even worse.

Merkinball is simply flat out right on this one.

 

[El_Machinae]

With Universal Health Services, would doctors need to hire representatives whose sole job was to cajole the reticent insurer into actually paying for the service, while the insurer hires representatives to foist these payments onto someone else?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

MobBoss,

Fine, call "bullshat" on that if you want. But cutlass pointed out that private insurers spend more on overhead than Medicare does, and despite your a priori reasoning based on assertions of faith in the Free Market, you haven't shown him to be wrong. Take it up with him.

Cleo

 

[Merkinball]

Why do poor people on medicaid have more health problems? This is befuddling. I mean, medicaid is so much better than private health insurance right? It's cheaper, it's better, it's more efficient, it's more effective than insurance...right? That's the rationale in this thread right? Governments better? Why would earned wages be more indicative of a persons health than their healthcare plan. Think about that one...

Anyhow, like I said, that link blows every single notion that's been tossed around about how grand medical coverage would be if the government did everything for us right out of the water. Every last minute little detail. Gone.

 

[El_Machinae]

Do the medical clinics also spend more on overhead when dealing with private insurers (compared to when they deal with Medicare)?

 

[JollyRoger]

Also, on the private insurance side of the fence, their profit margins are healthy, in part, because of their own fraudulent denial or underpayment of legitimate claims.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss,

Fine, call "bullshat" on that if you want. But cutlass pointed out that private insurers spend more on overhead than Medicare does, and despite your a priori reasoning based on assertions of faith in the Free Market, you haven't shown him to be wrong. Take it up with him.

Cleo

Surely you understand that perceived 'overhead' costs arent the only cost involved right?

 

[Merkinball]

MobBoss,

Fine, call "bullshat" on that if you want. But cutlass pointed out that private insurers spend more on overhead than Medicare does, and despite your a priori reasoning based on assertions of faith in the Free Market, you haven't shown him to be wrong. Take it up with him.

Cleo

Take him up on that? I already did it. It's bogus. Medicaid and Medicare are awful programs. Did you read the link? I don't think you did. You wouldn't continue blathering pretending like it's actually better if you had read it through and through.

Those systems are tragically broken, and far less effective at helping people, and keeping people healthy than private insurance. Cutlass' analysis was retardedly simple, and didn't take into account all of those "externalities" that you guys seem to be such a huge fan of talking about in every little debate we have.

I'm also really curious as to whether Cutlass' analysis takes into account just federal funds, but federal and state funds as well.