Support for national health insurance

[Ken H.]

As to "cold-hearted cruel attitudes," you have no idea what our attitudes are about our fellow man. You draw a conclusion based on your narrow vision of obligations one to the other and how they should be carried out.

Nope, only my opinion of certain views expressed here. Nothing more.

[Ken H.]

Need can't be the a significant criteria in crafting public policy.

Of course it can. As a matter of fact I think it should be one of the primary criteria in crafting public policy. After all, if meeting a need of the populus isn't one of the primary responsibilities of governments, what is?

[Ken H.]

I would really like for someone from the other side of the aisle to explain how we help people by flipping them an impersonal stipend once a month, instilling in them the belief that they can't take care of themselves without our "generous" help.

Because for a large percentage of them they can't. Plain and simple. We keep trying to argue this from the perspective that everybody in the world is able-bodied. But that's just plain not true.

Welfare, along with other government handouts, is a poison which kills the soul of an individual.

Are there abusers of the system? Of course. There are abusers of ALL systems. Does it create some dependencies? Of course. There are dependents on ALL systems. But to advocate throwing out the entire systems because of the small percentage of abusers and dependants, is to 'throw out the baby with the bath water,' and our humanity along with it.

[Ken H.]

...please spare us the pious lectures about how caring you are when you support the remote control destruction of an entire class of Americans simply because you want to feel like you are doing something worthy.

Boy did I miss something somewhere in this thread! What entire class of Americans did you manage to destroy with the touch of a remote control Jerry?

[David]

Need can't be the a significant criteria in crafting public policy.

Of course it can. As a matter of fact I think it should be one of the primary criteria in crafting public policy. After all, if meeting a need of the populus isn't one of the primary responsibilities of governments, what is?

 

The point is that there's too much need for government to meet, and if "need" holds too much sway, our expectations of government balloon all out of proportion. You see evidence if this everywhere. Take education, for example. The original mission was to education. Now it's expanded to sports, entertainment, babysitting, nutrition, etc. It all costs money.

 

I know you aren't religious (neither am I), but this isn't new. Jesus was roundly criticized for healing a very small number of people. He left a lot of people unhealed.

 

All I'm saying is that people "need" plays too large a part in your recommendations.

[Dave McReynolds]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Need can't be the a significant criteria in crafting public policy.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Of course it can. As a matter of fact I think it should be one of the primary criteria in crafting public policy. After all, if meeting a need of the populus isn't one of the primary responsibilities of governments, what is?

 

I don't know if this is what David meant, but I agree that "need" isn't one of the primary responsibilities of government, with respect to the health care issue, in this sense:

 

A person who has destroyed his liver with alcoholism needs a new liver desperately. An 85 year-old man with clogged arteries needs a by-pass desperately. A 30 year-old woman who has a breech delivery and the unbilical cord has wrapped around the baby's throat needs a c-section desperately. A 40 year-old man who has been in an industrial accident needs rehab, but perhaps not as desperately as the other three examples.

 

If we allocate health-care resources based on need, the first three get treated first, and if there's any resources available, the man needing rehab gets treated next. If we allocate health-care resources based on the probable benefit to be derived from the resources used, the pregnant woman gets treated first, the 40 year-old man second, and the first two get treated after everyone who has a sore throat or foot fungus gets taken care of.

 

(Edit: sorry David, you and I must have been typing at the same time. I didn't mean to preempt your answer)

[David]

No worries, David. That's a good answer. I don't view the government as a safety net or a leveler. It can function that way, but there's no turning the dial back.

 

When you look at people who live their lives based on the needs of others, they are stretched too thin and overwhelmed--just like our government. You have to balance need with the other things I listed in the original post.

[smiller]

[General comment, not necessarily to David] We seem to be doing a better job at identifying problems than proposing solutions. With regard to social welfare programs (including health care) it seems the we can either:

 

1. Continue with our current system, tweaking as necessary.

 

I'm going to guess from many of the comments here that #1 is a non-starter. That leaves:

 

2. Toss out the current system, replace it with nothing (or whatever those in need can scrounge from family or a charity.) If no assistance can be found, T.S. Elliot, hope you don't linger too long. In this case I don't think Ken's opinion is too harsh.

 

3. Replace the current system with something else that both works better and does not involve the government. Can anyone step up and clarify that 'something'?

[Jerry_75_Guy]

Boy did I miss something somewhere in this thread! What entire class of Americans did you manage to destroy with the touch of a remote control Jerry?

 

( Damn!!!; with four remotes in the family room, and more buttons of unknown function than I can count.........wait a minute, I've been wondering what that "Class Delete" button was on my DVR. I should have known no good could come of from that one )

[Dave McReynolds]

We seem to be doing a better job at identifying problems than proposing solutions. With regard to social welfare programs (including health care) it seems the we can either:

 

1. Continue with our current system, tweaking as necessary.

 

I'm going to guess from many of the comments here that #1 is a non-starter. That leaves:

 

2. Toss out the current system, replace it with nothing (or whatever those in need can scrounge from family or a charity.) If no assistance can be found, T.S. Elliot, hope you don't linger too long. In this case I don't think Ken's opinion is too harsh.

 

3. Replace the current system with something else that both works better and does not involve the government. Can anyone step up and clarify that 'something'?

 

Does "works better" include coverage of those who can't afford to pay for coverage, or are currently uninsurable, and if so, how do you do that without involving the government? And if not, then are we back to option #2?

[smiller]

Does "works better" include coverage of those who can't afford to pay for coverage, or are currently uninsurable, and if so, how do you do that without involving the government? And if not, then are we back to option #2?

I would say that it does, and if we don't want to subsidize coverage for the indigent or uninsurable (and propose no other option) then I guess we are indeed at option #2. As to how we would do it without involving the government, that's the essence of my question. Same with food stamps and the like. (And I should note that I'm no fan of big government, I'm just at loss for a better solution.) My question is to those who don't like the government taking on these tasks. To them is it to be option #2, or if not, what would you like to see as #3?

[Jerry_75_Guy]

[General comment, not necessarily to David] We seem to be doing a better job at identifying problems than proposing solutions. With regard to social welfare programs (including health care) it seems the we can either:...........

 

3. Replace the current system with something else that both works better and does not involve the government. Can anyone step up and clarify that 'something'?

 

Or perhaps option #4.?:

 

As previously noted elsewhere in the thread, at least regarding healthcare, a number of other countries already have programs that cover most all of their citizens. If we (the U.S.) are really serious about crafting a workable national healthcare system, why wouldn't we start by examining each of our 'friends and allies' systems, find ways to improve upon them, and adapt the better aspects of them to suit our needs?

 

Why not learn vicariously?; if you want to learn to fly, isn't the most efficient first step to watch and talk to those already doing it, as opposed to just trying to 'hammer it out in committee"?

[smiller]

Or perhaps option #4.?:

I'm fine with #4, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm going to assume that it is equally abhorrent (if not even worse) than option #1 for the 'no government' crowd, and thus also a non-starter. I'm wondering what that group in particular would propose as a solution.

[DavidEBSmith]

I'm fine with #4, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm going to assume that it is equally abhorrent (if not even worse) than option #1 for the 'no government' crowd, and thus also a non-starter. I'm wondering what that group in particular would propose as a solution.

 

You don't really have to wonder, do you? The free market will work it all out. The way it worked out the banking industry in 1929, the way it worked out automobile safety and emissions in the 1950s, the way it worked out Love Canal in the 1960s, the way it's providing clean water to our troops in Iraq today.

 

The "no government" folks have the same blind faith in a slogan masquerading as a philosophy as the Soviets had in communism. Any failure is not a failure of their philosophy, it's just that it hasn't had time to work itself out or it's because of opposition from liberal/reactionary forces.

[Pilgrim]

I'm fine with #4, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm going to assume that it is equally abhorrent (if not even worse) than option #1 for the 'no government' crowd, and thus also a non-starter. I'm wondering what that group in particular would propose as a solution.

 

You don't really have to wonder, do you? The free market will work it all out. The way it worked out the banking industry in 1929, the way it worked out automobile safety and emissions in the 1950s, the way it worked out Love Canal in the 1960s, the way it's providing clean water to our troops in Iraq today.

 

The "no government" folks have the same blind faith in a slogan masquerading as a philosophy as the Soviets had in communism. Any failure is not a failure of their philosophy, it's just that it hasn't had time to work itself out or it's because of opposition from liberal/reactionary forces.

 

Eebie, I think that you (not just you, either) ignore something with your thoughts. Even with the tax burden that Americans have, they still contribute large sums to charities and nonprofits that function as charities, such as Habitat for Humanity. Look at Saint Jude's Hospital for another example.

 

The U.S, especially since WWII more or less, is a nation of givers. We have become wealthy beyond the imagination of much of the world and we have responded by passing much of our blessing along.

 

We don't know what form a new paradigm (Damn! I swore I'd cut my fingers off if I ever typed that word.) of charity might take if the government quit trying to do it all. One thing I am certain of though, is that it would take care of the truly needy and leave those who are not needy gasping for air like a fish on the beach. And that last part is a good thing.

 

Pilgrim

[Whip]

gasping for air like a fish on the beach

 

That's how I feel every April 15th.......... next week.....UGH!!!!

[Ken H.]

The point is that there's too much need for government to meet, and if "need" holds too much sway, our expectations of government balloon all out of proportion. You see evidence if this everywhere. Take education, for example. The original mission was to education. Now it's expanded to sports, entertainment, babysitting, nutrition, etc. It all costs money.

Oh I agree that 'scope creep' is a problem. But there are major things (fire fighting), and minor things (football) that universality is important to for a successfully society. And IMO health care is one of the things that belongs on the major things list.

[keithb]

For those of you still interested in this topic an interesting article showed up the the L.A. Times today. It is titled "The Pharmacist will see you now". First byline is "to expand its strapped healthcare system Britain is allowing some non-physician medical professionals to treat patients. The article goes on to say "though many countries are slowly loosening the rules on non doctors giving out medicines, none has given pharmacists as much power as Britain has in its effort to increase services and cut costs in a financially overburdened health system".

 

Interesting stuff based on the conversation going on here. The pharmacists will be the first port of call for things like colds, minor stomach and skin problems. That will save doctors an estimated 57 million consultations a year. I understand the mission is to reign in costs but just one death would have major consequences I believe. Nurses are also getting on the act of treating patients according to the article. Interesting stuff going on in Britain medically speaking.

[lawnchairboy]

Nurses have been functioning as primary care practitioners in the United States for some time, depending on the respective states' practice act, they also prescribe medicines, make referrals and most of the time, do a pretty good job within their scope of practice.

[smiller]

I understand the mission is to reign in costs but just one death would have major consequences I believe.

Not commenting on any specific part of the British healthcare system, but in general... if your standard is 'just one death' being unacceptable then nothing would be affordable... not healthcare, not air travel, not cars or highways, not even food. A reasonable risk metric has to be established. And as to the British system, I'm not sure that pharmacists giving out medicines results in more deaths than people not getting medicines at all.

[DavidEBSmith]

Eebie, I think that you (not just you, either) ignore something with your thoughts. Even with the tax burden that Americans have, they still contribute large sums to charities and nonprofits that function as charities, such as Habitat for Humanity. Look at Saint Jude's Hospital for another example.

 

I was reading something to day from Gov Schweitzer of Montana who was talking about the massive environmental damage that has been done to his state by a hundred years of poorly regulated mining. Essentially, he's complaining because the mining companies have extracted vast amounts of gold and silver and made vast amounts of money, and simply dumped the waste from mining which is leaching into the water supply, potentially poisoning people and killing wildlife.

 

It's simple economics for the mining companies to conclude that it's more profitable to dump the waste than to dispose of it safely and expensively, especially if (a) they won't have to deal with it for 50 to 100 years and (b) somebody else (the citizens of Montana) will have to pay for it.

 

Assuming you believe the citizens of Montana have some sort of basic right to not have their water supply poisoned, the fairly obvious solution is to have some government that (a) forbids the mining companies from dumping untreated waste into the water supply and (b) makes it more expensive to do so than to treat the waste. It disrupts the free market, it causes economic inefficiency, but the value of having non-poisoned water is one that is perhaps not measured properly by the "free market".

 

So how would charitable giving solve this problem? Would we hope that people would donate money to build waste-treatment facilities for the mining companies? Or do we let them poison the water and then donate money to build water purification plants for the citizens of Montana?

 

The "no government" people are obsessed with money that the government gives to people. Actually, they're obsessed with the money that the government gives to poor people; they don't seem as interested in the money that the government gives to rich people and corporations (in the form of tax breaks, government contracting, business development projects, and the like). Charity is not the solution to the health care problem. We've had charity-supported hospitals for years, and that hasn't solved the problem. Vis this Washington Post article:

 

Nonprofits frequently charged higher prices to poorer people with no health insurance than they did to better-off patients who had coverage, researchers found. At the same time, many of the hospitals' top executives enjoyed generous perks such as paid country club memberships and stays at expensive hotels.

 

The dirty little word that the "no government" folks hate is regulation. What they really object to is the government telling them they can't do whatever they want to do, even if what they want to do is dump cyanide waste into the river so they don't have to pay to deal with it. Unregulated charity is abused as unregulated free enterprise is abused.

[keithb]

Good point. I was thinking more in line of non doctors prescribing medication.

[Dave McReynolds]

The "no government" people are obsessed with money that the government gives to people. Actually, they're obsessed with the money that the government gives to poor people; they don't seem as interested in the money that the government gives to rich people and corporations (in the form of tax breaks, government contracting, business development projects, and the like).

 

Another good example of this is a Wall St Journal editorial within the last week about a way to soften the landing in the housing crisis.

 

When a building or house has become run-down to the point that nobody wants to buy it, bums move in, the neighborhood starts going to pot, and sometimes the county or city will buy the property, or take it over for past-due property taxes, and tear the place down. A vacant lot is less of a problem than a decrepit building. This WSJ editorial, expanding on the concept, proposed that government would buy up the NEW houses that aren't selling and tear them down, thus hastening the day when the supply and demand for housing would come into equilibrium once again.

 

Why try to find an altenate use for a new house that isn't selling? If builders are out of work, why don't we just shortcut it and have the government bid out contracts for houses that will be torn down? It would save a lot of wear and tear on our environment if the houses were built sequentially on the same lot. Or, rather than waste the lumber, why not just bid out contracts for the CONCEPT of building houses that will be torn down, and then just send checks to the winning bidder?

 

This is different, of course, from food stamps, which are immoral.

[Pilgrim]

Assuming you believe the citizens of Montana have some sort of basic right to not have their water supply poisoned, the fairly obvious solution is to have some government that (a) forbids the mining companies from dumping untreated waste into the water supply and (b) makes it more expensive to do so than to treat the waste. It disrupts the free market, it causes economic inefficiency, but the value of having non-poisoned water is one that is perhaps not measured properly by the "free market".

 

So how would charitable giving solve this problem? Would we hope that people would donate money to build waste-treatment facilities for the mining companies? Or do we let them poison the water and then donate money to build water purification plants for the citizens of Montana?

 

The "no government" people are obsessed with money that the government gives to people. Actually, they're obsessed with the money that the government gives to poor people; they don't seem as interested in the money that the government gives to rich people and corporations (in the form of tax breaks, government contracting, business development projects, and the like). Charity is not the solution to the health care problem. We've had charity-supported hospitals for years, and that hasn't solved the problem. Vis this Washington Post article:

 

Eebie,

I'm damn near at a loss . . . I don't think you're obtuse, but you are missing the points by such a margin that it must be deliberate.

 

Let me simplify, at least insofar as I see things:

• 
  
• Clean water is a public benefit. Public funds are appropriately distributed for public benefit. However, that doesn't stretch as far for me as it does for you. Montana should have killed its own snakes in that respect, decades ago. Montana polluting Wyoming waters is an appropriate subject for the feds to address.
  
• Welfare (by whatever name) is a personal benefit. The federal government should not be in the business of distributing federal tax revenues to invidividuals. Period. You can talk all day about who needs what and how very much they need it, but as experience everywhere has shown, it can't be afforded because programs grows like kudzu vines.
  
• I obviously don't speak for what others are concerned about, but I will say that corporate welfare aggravates me as much as anything we've covered here. I've not brought it up because it was outside the scope of this discussion.
  
• ". . . money that the government gives to rich people and corporations. . ." Giving money to rich people? I presume you mean letting them keep more of the money that is their own. It's fine with me that it's done, as long as I don't pay a higher percentage of income than they do. When it happens it needs to be adjusted. Go buy a politician and make it happen for me, would you?
  
• You can't draw valid conclusions about how charity hospitals would work as long as the current tax structure exists. I'll admit right here that I am not as privately generous as I would be did I not send as much to the federal coffers as I do. And probably, neither do you.
  

 

Pilgrim

[Dave McReynolds]

You can't draw valid conclusions about how charity hospitals would work as long as the current tax structure exists. I'll admit right here that I am not as privately generous as I would be did I not send as much to the federal coffers as I do. And probably, neither do you.

 

It's a nice thought that charitable giving would make up for the loss of tax revenues, and you personally may even plan to do that, but not very many other people would.

 

This is a chart that shows tax collections as a percentage of GDP. Note the sharp dropoff after the Bush tax cuts in 2002.

 

This is an article discussing charitable giving as a percentage of GDP. Note that the all-time high percentage of 2.3% occurred in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, as compared with 2.2% for 2003, after the Bush tax cuts.

 

In fact, the opposite has been argued: that tax cuts, such as eliminating the estate tax, will reduce charitable giving by reducing the tax incentive to do so.

 

When taxes are cut, people spend the extra money on whatever strikes their fancy at the time, the same as they would with any other extra money they might get. I don't think you can base public policy on the premise that people will take their tax cuts and voluntarily fund a public healthcare system.

[Whip]

Hey David

 

Your comparin it to GDP not real numbers......that's a no no. GDP is a complicated and some what subjective #. In the real world charities got more cash than ever before.

 

After reading that article it doesn't make your case very well. Matter of fact it makes Pilgrims case better than yours.

 

For 2003, 55 percent of responding charities in the Giving USA survey reported an increase in charitable contributions in 2003 compared to 2002, 8 percent reported virtually no change and only 37 percent reported a decline in gifts. This is an improvement over 2002, when surveyed organizations were split nearly 50/50 between increases and decreases in contributions.

 

· Giving to health organizations rose an estimated 10.7 percent (8.2 percent adjusted for inflation).

 

 

Nice try.

 

 

Have a nice day.

 

Whip

[DavidEBSmith]

". . . money that the government gives to rich people and corporations. . ." Giving money to rich people? I presume you mean letting them keep more of the money that is their own.

 

E.g., farm subsidies to large farms. Which the conservative Heritage Foundation says 3/4 of which goes to the top 10% largest farms, and which are often used to buy smaller farms so that the large farms are eligible for more subsidies. And which can't be considered letting rich people keep their own money - subsidies are transfer payments plus price guarantees.

 

I'm not saying farm subsidies are good or bad. I'm just curious as to why government payments to wealthy landowners aren't repugnant to the "no government" folks but government payments to poor non-landowners are.

[Rob_Mayes]

I think the benefactors of our current sytem have us believe that nationalized systems from other countries are bad. Every foreigner I have ever spoke with would not trade the USA system for theirs.

[Ken H.]

Or, rather than waste the lumber, why not just bid out contracts for the CONCEPT of building houses that will be torn down, and then just send checks to the winning bidder?

Reminds me of what I often have thought would be the best product of all time - A paper shredder that attached directly to a printer.

[russell_bynum]

I think the benefactors of our current sytem have us believe that nationalized systems from other countries are bad. Every foreigner I have ever spoke with would not trade the USA system for theirs.

 

And yet many of them buy their own private insurance on top of their nationalized insurance.

[Ken H.]

I think the benefactors of our current sytem have us believe that nationalized systems from other countries are bad. Every foreigner I have ever spoke with would not trade the USA system for theirs.

Yes, as a matter of fact in response to an earlier challenge in this thread, I believe three Canadians, two Brits and an Australian have weighed in on this thread (or something like that I didn't just now go back and count), and all of them have spoken in favor of their UHC system over our (the USA) market driven one.

[smiller]

And yet many of them buy their own private insurance on top of their nationalized insurance.

They may buy supplemental insurance, just as Medicare recipients may buy supplemental insurance. This is simply because most health care systems do not cover every conceivable need in order to keep costs under control. Do you think that's a bad idea?

[Ken H.]

Clean water is a public benefit. Public funds are appropriately distributed for public benefit.

And why isn't health care just the same? Where fundamentally is the difference?

[Boffin]

I think the benefactors of our current sytem have us believe that nationalized systems from other countries are bad. Every foreigner I have ever spoke with would not trade the USA system for theirs.

 

And yet many of them buy their own private insurance on top of their nationalized insurance.

 

I get optional (taxed!) private health insurance for me and my wife through work - I opted for this because it will significantly shorten the wait for non-urgent/life threatening treatments such as joint-replacement. In fact, my private insurance does not cover me for emergency treatment - it doesn't need to as that is covered by the NHS. This is a common reason to opt for private schemes in the UK. Many of the top-up insurance schemes sold here do not give medical cover as such, they just pay out a fixed sum for each day in hospital, or for new spectacles etc to supplement lost income. Although we have "statutory sick-pay" here, for many semi-skilled workers it is below normal take-home pay. I am fortunate enough to get up to 6 months sick pay at full salary, dropping to half salary for a further 6 months per illness.

 

Andy

[russell_bynum]

And yet many of them buy their own private insurance on top of their nationalized insurance.

They may buy supplemental insurance, just as Medicare recipients may buy supplemental insurance. This is simply because most health care systems do not cover every conceivable need in order to keep costs under control. Do you think that's a bad idea?

 

So...I gotta pay for my nationalized health insurance. And I gotta pay for that guy's nationalized health insurance because he can't or won't pay for himself. And I gotta pay for that other guy's nationalized health insurance because he's here illegally and operating under the system (but still drawing from it). And I gotta pay for my own private health insurance to give me the coverage that I don't get with the nationalized health insurance because they slashed my coverage to keep costs down since we're now insuring people who aren't paying their fair share.

 

Nope...I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

And I gotta pay for that other guy's nationalized health insurance because he's here illegally and operating under the system (but still drawing from it).

 

Just for the record, I think there are many of us who would be in favor of national health insurance who would be against making it available to non-citizens who are here illegally. Whether we will get our way or not remains to be seen, of course. If we don't, I guess we'll just have to grin and bear it, the same as the rest of you will on the broader issue.

[smiller]

Nope...I don't see anything wrong with that.

Except, that's not what I said.

 

Getting back to my point... you are concerned with the potential expense of a national healthcare program, yet an attempt to mitigate cost by controlling benefits is wrong. Seems kind of contradictory. Almost as if your mind was made up in advance.

[doc47]

Seems to me it goes back to the point that the health of a nation is the wealth of a nation. We have the luxury to debate this because of the advances in public health that have taken place over the past 150 years.

These advances have been built on the bedrock that we ARE, in fact, our brother's keeper.

The greater part of the advances occurred before the antibiotic and health-care era (ie: pre-1930). They were accomplished by legislating and providing things like clean water, housing and sanitation, trash and garbage clearance, protection of a non-contaminated food supply, etc. All these things were accomplished by (dare I say?) government!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that one of the major reasons poor countries stay poor is that they are too sick to improve. (See Plagues and Peoples by William H. McNeill, considered one of the medical classics in the subject; see also Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond)

It was recognized, even by capitalists, that sick people don't make good workers. That to have a productive, functioning work force meant to provide some sort of health care and general public health benefits.

Of course, it took the labor movement to drag the employers, kicking and screaming, into fulfilling that promise.

We humans are social creatures and are interdependent. Our interest in health care and in public health must extend to our own people and beyond our own borders. The SARS epidemic travelling to Canada from Asia is an example of just how vulnerable AND interdependent we are. Health threats abroad have the potential to effect us here, perhaps catastrophically.

If an infectious disease catastrophe does strike, who will respond? We were unprepared for Katrina. I would hate to see what will happen if pandemic flu hits. (Ref:The Great Influenza by John M. Barry. So far the best popular work on the subject.)

The public health system in this country and worldwide has been undermined since the drastic spending cuts of the Reagan government in the early 1980s. County health departments are drastically underfunded. Is that a local issue? Don't bet your life on it! It is not a local issue any more than the collapse of a bridge is a local issue.

It is a matter of priorities. Where do we choose to spend our dollars? Personally, I'd rather see my tax dollar go to a poor family for health care than to Halliburton or Bechtel.

[marcopolo]

I think the benefactors of our current sytem have us believe that nationalized systems from other countries are bad. Every foreigner I have ever spoke with would not trade the USA system for theirs.

 

And yet many of them buy their own private insurance on top of their nationalized insurance.

 

Yes, but we're talking pocket change here. For example, my wife and I have supplementary insurance that costs about $50 a month in total (for the both of us). With it, I can have a private room if I'm admitted to hospital, and not pay out of my own pocket. It also covers things like glasses and contact lenses, prescription drugs (drugs in hospital are covered by national healthcare) etc. Our supplementary insurance also covers us for out-of-country travel (on top of what the national healthcare plan covers). We get this primarily for travel to the U.S., so that we don't end up bankrupt as a result of a car/bike accident that lands us in an American hospital (not being facetious here, BTW).

 

We spend more at Starbucks each month, than we do on supplementary insurance.

[marcopolo]

And yet many of them buy their own private insurance on top of their nationalized insurance.

They may buy supplemental insurance, just as Medicare recipients may buy supplemental insurance. This is simply because most health care systems do not cover every conceivable need in order to keep costs under control. Do you think that's a bad idea?

 

So...I gotta pay for my nationalized health insurance. And I gotta pay for that guy's nationalized health insurance because he can't or won't pay for himself. And I gotta pay for that other guy's nationalized health insurance because he's here illegally and operating under the system (but still drawing from it). And I gotta pay for my own private health insurance to give me the coverage that I don't get with the nationalized health insurance because they slashed my coverage to keep costs down since we're now insuring people who aren't paying their fair share.

 

Nope...I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

 

My view (up here in Canada), is that the overwhelming majority of our citizens are working, productive members of society who pay income tax that funds, among other things, universal healthcare. We don't design a system on the basis of the relative few who might abuse it. We do have fraud artists (both patients, and doctors). Some get caught; some don't. One of the more significant sources of abuse (from what I've read) is Americans from border states who come into the country and pose as Canadians and try to get free medical services. Some are successful; others not.

 

Finally, in both our countries, the tax system funds programs that we either can't use, or don't agree with. How about people still paying school taxes when they have no kids in school?

[russell_bynum]

Getting back to my point... you are concerned with the potential expense of a national healthcare program, yet an attempt to mitigate cost by controlling benefits is wrong. Seems kind of contradictory. Almost as if your mind was made up in advance.

 

Controlling costs becomes a much bigger issue when we have to cover people who are not paying into the system.

 

With my HMO, coverage is limited and there are some hurdles that I have to jump through to get coverage...all of that is done to control costs by limiting payout. HMO's compete to be selected by my company as one of our providers, so there are incentives for HMO's to provide more and/or cost less than the competition.

 

What happens when that incentive goes away?

 

And what would happen to my premiums (or coverage) if my HMO had to cover all the illegals, unemployed people, etc?

 

 

Frankly, it's OK with me if you decide that you're willing to pay more and/or get less in exchange for providing health care to everyone, but nobody seems to be willing to admit that the quality of coverage for those of us who have made decisions to put ourselves into a position where we can afford good health insurance is going to go down and/or we're going to have to pay more.

[russell_bynum]

My view (up here in Canada), is that the overwhelming majority of our citizens are working, productive members of society who pay income tax that funds, among other things, universal healthcare. We don't design a system on the basis of the relative few who might abuse it.

 

You're in a different situation than we are, then.

 

Go to an ER somewhere in the US (at least...somewhere in the southern US) and just watch what's going on.

 

Here's one for you: in the first few months of 2006, 70% of the women giving birth at Parkland Hospital in Dallas were illegals.

 

That's a very different situation than having "a few fraud artists" screwing things up.

[Whip]

Does anyone with health insurance today believe that they will have better coverage if we have national healthcare/insurance?????????????

 

 

....and does anyone believe they are not taxed enough?????????????????

 

 

[smiller]

Does anyone with health insurance today believe that they will have better coverage if we have national healthcare/insurance?????????????

For the zillionth time all of the plans proposed by all of the candidates pretty much maintain the insurance-based care provider system that we have today. If you are already insured you may well see no difference whatsoever in your coverage. Except, maybe, that it is no longer lonked to/controlled by your employer, and yeah, I could go for that.

[russell_bynum]

Does anyone with health insurance today believe that they will have better coverage if we have national healthcare/insurance?????????????

For the zillionth time all of the plans proposed by all of the candidates pretty much maintain the insurance-based care provider system that we have today. If you are already insured you may well see no differnce whatsoever in your coverage. Except, maybe, that it is no longer lonked to/controlled by your employer, and yeah, I could go for that.

 

Please explain how we are going to start covering people who are not currently covered and it isn't going to either lower my standard of care or raise my premiums.

[ghaverkamp]

With my HMO, coverage is limited and there are some hurdles that I have to jump through to get coverage...all of that is done to control costs by limiting payout. HMO's compete to be selected by my company as one of our providers, so there are incentives for HMO's to provide more and/or cost less than the competition.

 

What happens when that incentive goes away?

 

Because it won't be a free market, and because providers will presumably be forced to accept the government fee schedules (similar to Medicare now) I doubt that there's much of a problem with that loss of incentive. It's not like insurance companies have been going broke trying to offer these combinations.

 

And what would happen to my premiums (or coverage) if my HMO had to cover all the illegals, unemployed people, etc?

 

If your HMO had to start covering everyone without other systemic changes, obviously the cost would go up. However, that's a pretty unlikely model.

 

Frankly, it's OK with me if you decide that you're willing to pay more and/or get less in exchange for providing health care to everyone, but nobody seems to be willing to admit that the quality of coverage for those of us who have made decisions to put ourselves into a position where we can afford good health insurance is going to go down and/or we're going to have to pay more.

 

You keep trying to apply free market principles used by insurance companies to a system that may have nothing to do with insurance companies and won't be bound by free market concepts.

 

Most importantly, there are many different plans out there, and they all tend to come at the configuration in different ways. The key thing is that until a plan's implementation is actually crafted, there's no way of knowing all of these details, which makes it irresponsible to embrace or reject out of hand, other than for dogmatic reasons.

[russell_bynum]

Most importantly, there are many different plans out there, and they all tend to come at the configuration in different ways. The key thing is that until a plan's implementation is actually crafted, there's no way of knowing all of these details, which makes it irresponsible to embrace or reject out of hand, other than for dogmatic reasons.

 

We're talking about adding people who are covered without adding people who are paying. Something has to give.

[smiller]

Please explain how we are going to start covering people who are not currently covered and it isn't going to either lower my standard of care or raise my premiums.

It won't raise your premiums per se but it may raise your tax bill, functionally the same though when it comes to your wallet. How much it might cost depends on a lot of factors but no one ever said that we can get something for nothing. You have to balance the cost against what we believe is right as a society and (if money is the primary concern) what costs us less in the long run. Do you really think that you aren't already paying for all those uninsured people in the ER?

[ghaverkamp]

Most importantly, there are many different plans out there, and they all tend to come at the configuration in different ways. The key thing is that until a plan's implementation is actually crafted, there's no way of knowing all of these details, which makes it irresponsible to embrace or reject out of hand, other than for dogmatic reasons.

 

We're talking about adding people who are covered without adding people who are paying. Something has to give.

 

Was cost not evident from what I wrote?

[Rob_Mayes]

Does anyone with health insurance today believe that they will have better coverage if we have national healthcare/insurance?????????????

 

That is a question. If you have it good why bitch? I would hazzard to guess that BMW owners/bikers are generous and caring people. I hope we are not just into ourselves. I think we should ask "Who does need help? Not just if the fortunate are happy."

 

What I see is there are many over 50 that do not have it good. Young marrieds with chronically sick children will skirk bankrupcy all of their lives. Personally, my Aunt died because she did not have any coverage during a period of unemployment. Fifty percent of my close friends, all hard working Americans, have health insurance issues that adversly affect their lives.