Universal Healthcare - A Bad Idea

I agree with the ideal, but still don't think it's comprehensive enough. To pick a couple of examples, some people simply can't afford it, and some people have pre-existing conditions which insurance companies will disqualify coverage for.

However, there are free clinics out there; there is medicaid, there's lots of programs, as you've said, that exist that people can use. I just think it needs a little revisioning to iron out exactly who can get access to them; but how that revisioning should work is beyond me... this is definitely out of my area of expertise, I'm a pharmaceutical guy

 

Aflac??

the very first reason that comes to mind is narcotics abuse... I think there was a study in florida about the rampant presciption of painkillers where something like 15-20 doctors alone ended up costing the taxpayers the equivalent of what 500+ other doctors in the same area...

 

Well, the most extreme case I have witnessed, a mother has two children from a previous marriage. Mom and kids are on medicaid. Mom meets a new guy and moves in with him. They live in a very affluent, upperclass subdivision. Mom and "stepdad" have been together for years, but don't get married. It seems as though she is not getting married to keep her medicaid benefits. She certaintly doesn't qualify for welfare, with the man's income listed at that residence.

Everyday, medicaid patients go to emergency rooms to get treated for the common cold, etc, because they don't want to have to make an appt and go see a regular doctor. Try doing that with your HMO! Medicaid patients do not need any referals. If they get a pimple, they go see a dermatologist, etc, etc. There is just no incentive for medicaid patients to make financially responsible healthcare choices.

 

I havnt read the rest of this thread, nor will I.

This topic is going to go nowhere and Karl is going to make sure of that.

Looks like interval just realized that before I did. Which is most likely why she is also not posting. You're a fucking dumbass Karl. You'd have nowhere near the balls to come and say half of the shit you talk if this wasnt on the internet.

 

I, too, am a pharmaceutical guy. I agree that the system needs a complete overhaul, I just don't think universal healthcare is the answer. I think it would be an ineffective use of money, for one. We would be better off providing assistance to those in need rather than a blanket entitlement program for everyone. I hate to keep being redundant, but look at public housing! Government entitlement programs in the country have a long history of being of being overly-complex and sub-standard.
By the way, if you are switching employer insurance coverage, with no gap in coverage, insurance companies can no longer exclude preexisting conditions. If you have had a gap in coverage, they can only exclude the condition for 12 months, or 6 months past your last documented treatment or procedure for the condition.

 

If everyone needed a supplemental policy, didn't we just defeat the whole purpose? A supplemental medigap policy with no prescription drug coverage cost over $125 per month from AARP, for one person. Can the family of 4 earning $19,000/year afford it?

 

I second that, it's futile to discuss

 

I think that universal health care is a good idea. That is, as long as it's quality care!

I like your post! hahahaha

 

The shortage of the flu vaccine can be directly attributed to government intervention in healthcare. Price controls on flu vaccines were imposed during the Clinton years, in an effort to increase access to the vaccine. Only two companies continue to manufacture flu vaccine, because there is simply not enough money in it. We have cheaper vaccines, but MOST people who NEED them will NOT get them! We have had a vaccine shortage for several years, but this year is the worst. Have we really saved any money? Not with treatment costs and time off from work. Have we increased access to flu vaccine? I don't think we have. More of this is what we have to look forward to with Universal, Government Healthcare.

 

HAHA! wait.... how in the hell do you know communism works..... when it NEVER has? And don't say anything about China because the only reason why they're getting better is because they are slowly movin towards capitalism.

 

Acctualy up until recently our Liberals had a majority over the Conservitives, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois so basically any bill they put foreward could be passed, unless you didn't need to vote along party lines...Now with Paul Martin (PM, and leaderof the Liberals) is leading a minority government so they can't do anything stupid cause if they get defeated in a vote, an election is automatically called...And yes the Conservatives do want to cut funding to health care, but that is because they eant to privatize it more, but the rest of our parties are more left then them so it probobly won't happen...

PS- when speaking of Candian politics, you need to make note that Liberal and liberal means two different things, capital "L" Liberal is a party, and less liberal than our NDP and Bloc Quebecois which are lowwer case "L" liberal...Same goes with Conservative...

 

when has communism worked? Native american tribes, aztec tribes, etc... modern day cuba could be working if america would trade with them again...

how has capitalism 'worked'... how do you define what a working economic system is like?

 

That's a bizarre reason to not get married, since she and the kids would most likely qualify for coverage on the husband's plan.

Here in Oregon, I've heard that people with no coverage are most likely to overuse emergency rooms. People on the state health plan with access to regular preventive care don't typically show up in emergency rooms for routine care. Cutbacks in state coverage have supposedly increased the frequency of emergency room visits, ultimately increasing costs to taxpayers.

Who said everyone would need it? My employer offers a range of health plans. I could choose one with more coverage and higher copays and deductibles, but I don't.

OK, so it works for subsistence economies. I've also seen it work for small-scale religious communities. However, it does not work on a centralized, bureaucratic level for large-scale industrial economies.

You really think that Castro's faltering police state is a good model?

I would define a "working" economic system as one that maximizes prosperity and opportunity. South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, etc. have generally fared better than North Korea and Vietnam. Also compare Western and Eastern Europe. Even China has largely abandoned communism in favor of capitalism.

 

Some people cant afford to have a family on their health plan. A woman I work with has complained about htis herself. If costs her 250 out of each paycheck to insure her family, and that's a good amount of her check.

And not all people are lucky enough to have employers that offer them a range of plans. Think you will get that at McDonalds? Nope.

 

First of all, the Aztecs were NOT communists. If they were, they never would have been able to build the empire that they did.

As for the Native American tribes that were communists, if you examine their standard of living you'll see that it was quite abysmal. They were hunter/gatherers, for chrissake.

Cuba could NOT work if America traded with them (that's not to say that America shouldn't trade with them). There might be an economic spike for a couple years as foreign products flowed in, but that wouldn't make Castro's policies any less stupid. Castro recognizes that the lifting of the embargo (if he even wants that, which is questionable at best) would almost certainly be accompanied by international demands on his government.

Communism is stupid. Pure and simple. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of economics can understand why.

 

Agreed!

Yes, but at a cost.

Maybe not typically, but very often. Try doing it with your HMO! Also, all the specialists, etc. I believe in reasonable access to care, but someone with free coverage should not get BETTER coverage than me,IMHO. Afterall, I work and pay for my healthcare.

Emergency rooms are only required to treat true emergencies for the indigent. How often are these cases true emergencies? This is abuse of the system. Emergency rooms should demand payment for non-emergencies prior to treatment, or refer these patients to a clinic.

Who would need it then? Most likely, the poor, who already can't afford it. Good plan. I do choose a more expensive plan, with better coverage, but does have a deductable. How does your personal insurance coverage relate to this argument? Right now, you have that choice. With universal, government healthcare, there will be little if any choice. As I stated earlier, we can expect more situations such as the current one with flu vaccine if our government begins controlling healthcare. Again, consider government housing, public education, social security, etc.

 

The Aztecs were murderers with an emphasis on slave labor, sounds like communism to me Kandahar.

American Indians held the notion of private property, they were certainly not communist. If you study the cultures of Paleo-Indians you would find that they certainly did not live abysmally, just differently (and they did have agriculture).

The only "tribe" or "society" in the Americas prior to Euro conquest that would be even remotely close to communism would be the Inca. This is only suggested by a fringe element of leftist historians and, well, they're wrong.

 

Yea, Cuba might have a better economy, but it'd still be a dictatorship.

 

If our system is to the point where we need a certain percentage of the population not to be covered in order for everyone else to recieve health care, we have a serious problem. This is not a public vs. private fuinding problem, but a shortage in doctors. I have bluecross blueshield. In August of 2003, I was diagnosed with a heart murmur. I had to wait six weeks to see a Cardiologist. This completely debunks the argument that if we went socialized we would have to ration healthcare. What it does show is that there are not enough doctors. So enough complaining, here is my plan: Pay for people's medical school in exchange for a commitment to work as a doctor for x number of years. People might be thinking communist when they read this, but how is this really any different from the army paying for someone's college in exchange for service? It is no different.

Peace, Alex

 

We have almost 50% more doctors per 1000 persons than Canada.