The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

The founders wrote the Bill of Rights as not a bestowment of rights from the government to the people; instead, the statement serves to solidify the basic rights we each inherit simply because we are born human. These are basic and fundamental rights that we were written as a promise from the government to the people- that they will strive to protect and insure that each individual's rights will not be impeded.

With that in mind, I can't fathom how our society does not support a universal health care system. Of course, I understand that private individuals don't wish to subsidize this program with higher taxes and corporations don't feel that they should either but do you think our society would be enriched if such a program was instituted?

As we enter 2008 and I observe the presidential race heating up, I am finding that I will be persuaded by the candidate which has the best and most comprehensive plan for universal health care; however, some of these individuals wish to support UHC by eliminating funding in other areas, i.e. the military.

So, I'm asking you learned men and women what your opinions are on this issue as I am still trying to make up my mind.

I am all for universal health care. I know alot of conservative people hate the idea, but I think its great. We are the only post-modern country without some kind of universal health care system, its ridiculous. I actually wrote a letter to my congressman about it.

Looking at the levels of fraud and waste in the current government health care systems (i.e. Medicaid, Medicare), I just don't see that working. The enormous costs just to administer such a program beyond just the medical part make it untenable.

"We're from the Government and we're here to help..."

I may sound cynical, that's just because I am.

Some good reading. Came across this back when I was trying to get into med school:

http://www.amsa.org/about/priorities.cfm

F$&@ NO! You want socialist health care, move to a socialist country. The Constitution says it will protect your rights, not pamper your every need.

I don't remember seeing "the right for the government to pay for your medical care" OR even "the right to get medical care" anywhere in the bill of rights.

1, like he just said, it already costs so much dang money that it will cripple us to implement, unless we seriously reform the system,

2, people don't take really good care of themselves and I don't want to be the one to foot the bill for the medical problems they develop because of it.

What a novel idea. Take a look a housing while you are about it. I know of places in this great land that folks live in 30,000 square foot mansions and right across the street folks live in 300 square foot trailers. Occupants of the mansion think they are so much better than the trailer folk they refuse to even speak to them, much less invite them in for tea, And $400 haricuts. It just don't seem fair.

Some have suggested a Government with a mandate of " .... take from each according to their abilities; Give to each according to their needs". Would not that be a nice place to live?

Then, the issue becomes how much health care is one entitled to?
Artificial hips, knee replacement, organ transplants, long-term nursing home care, etc.
All of this at what amounts to fixed charges administered by what will have to be a massive bureaucracy.

Another perspective.
Would you be as compelled to complete college, medical school, and an internship to become part of a gov't controlled program that controls your income?

I use this example just because I personally knew a UK med student finishing her research in the U.S.. She had no intention whatsoever of returning to the UK to practice, even the gov't paid for her schooling, because of the income controls and lack of incentive.

The government has taken upon themselves the responsibility to protect and enable your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One's ability to be healthy should not be an entitlement granted to those who can afford to do so; this infringes upon one's ability to life and it certainly infringes upon one's ability to pursue happiness. Being healthy is not synonomous with being pampered.

Red Ryder brings up a point which sticks in my mind also. If there is a UHC, how do you enforce individuals to engage in personal accountability and responsibility? With such a high obesity rate, there are more adults being plagued with preventable diseases which means that they have not taken the necessary steps to protect their own health so why should the government, or tax payers, take on the responsibility of cleaning up after their bad choices. This is a problem which I've thought about and haven't found a clear answer to.

Universal health care is not as great of an idea as it originally seems. Sure it's easy to see a primary care physician, and it's free. But when you need to see a specialist you're screwed. Take for example Canada and the UK. Say you're diagnosed with cancer by your primary provider, you are going to wait forever to see an oncologist. There are fewer specialists in these countries because there is no incentive for doctors to spend the extra years involved in learning a specialized trade, when the compensation from the government isn't going to be enough to balance it out. So with fewer specialists, you have a much longer waiting time. Hence why long term cancer survival rates in the UK and Canada are significantly lower than in the US. Also evidenced by the fact that when the rich get sick in the UK and Canada, guess where they come? Here.

Also the quality of the care is arguably lower. Since doctors are paid the same per visit, by the government, their incentive is to see as many patients as possible to make as much money. So therefore they are going to spend less time with each patient, which decreases the quality of care.

One good solution that I've heard is to offer a tax-cut or tax credit for an individual to buy health insurance while also abolishing Medicaid. Don't force the individual to use that money for health insurance but tell them that's what it is for. This way the individual has a choice, if you gain more from using the money in other ways that's fine. But the moment you get sick and start racking up health care bills don't come to the government complaining about the costs when you had the option to buy health insurance. As to my references, I'm in my last semester of an economics degree and just had a class on public finance, but take my opinions for what you want.

You also bring up a valid point. When I look at the UK, France, or Canada, I can't help but wonder - who pays for breast implants, nose jobs, and hair plugs?

Yet, the UHC plans that are being proposed do not seek for the government to foot the bill instead they seem to require that each individual must acquire insurance whether its through their employer, private insurance, or through the government. These plans are aimed at young individuals who believe that having health insurance isn't important thus they do not have coverage.

Think of it this way: Remember you're last trip to the DMV or the last time you had to deal with the IRS. Now make your healthcare the same. I don't want that! And I sure as hell don't want to pay for it either.

Those are also valid points, Achilles and FTrooper. Yes, the US is the only wealthy, industrialized country which does not have UHC; however, we have 300 million citizens and permanent residents (with a variable undocument population). Those other countries have, what, about 30 to 50 million people? If there are problems in the UK with how soon people can visit an ocologist then just imagine what the wait lists can be here in the US.

The preamble of the constitution does say "promote the general welfare".
There are very wide interpretations of that. We have a welfare system and a state supported health care system. There are free clinics you can go to if need be.

I believe the problem lies in the pharmaceutical world. Drugs are expensive in the USA, way more expensive that pretty much any other country. Why? Because they can charge that money and we will pay it or pay the consequences (which in some cases include death).

We also have a social health care system that resides in the military. Champus/Tricare/ whatever you call it/ is actually pretty damn good compared to many civilian options. And last time I checked, it was completely supported by tax dollars. How many people in our country are supported by champus or tricare? It's not just the active military, but retired, dependants, etc...

So why not try and base a system off of the military health care system?

Exactly, and one problem that's being observed in the US with government health care programs such as Medicaid and some cases Medicare, is that doctor's will refuse to see a patient with those insurances. The doctor doesn't make enough money from those insurances so they can refuse to see the patient. Of course this isn't the case with emergency rooms where they are required by law to see any patient that comes. This is why the waiting line in ER's tend to be so long, if someone who can't afford a doctor gets sick, they go to the one place where they can't be refused treatment. Then everyone else who can afford treatment pays the bill of those who can't.

I broke the lower portion of my ankle during high school, went to a German Hospital and waited 2 and a 1/2 hours waiting to even SEE the doctor.

Nevermind the swelling and massise brusies that were showing up. Then when I was finally operated on and had a 7 in plate and 6 or so screws in my leg I got jack shit for pain relief, not even an asprin or something simple like percoset.

screw socialized healthcare.

amen.

Well, with all that in mind, I can't fathom how our society COULD support a universal health care system.

Since when has a "NICE TO HAVE" been a "RIGHT TO HAVE?" Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...how dare the government regulate the latter by giving me health care that you have to pay for...and vice versa.

Especially as I choose not to smoke (unless drinking heavily) why should I pay for the morphine smokers will need to stay "comfortable" at the end?...and I don't think it's fair for you to pay for my liver replacement that I'll inevidably (sp??) need by my 32nd Bday...

2 of the MULTITUDE of reasons NOT to support that $hit.

~D

SOCIALIST/socialized medicine......it is a bunch of crap! Time for me to vent on lazy leeches of society. My wife is a pharmacist and routinely is complained to by government assistance receiving people who complain that they have to pay $2 for a prescription.....gimme a freaking break! Then you have government assistance receiving people that have substance problems and even have more kids because they do not have to pay for it. I do nto believe that a child should ever be denied health care....that is plain wrong. But some sort of motivator to lazy leeches must be made to make them get off of public assitance. The intent of the program is not to give someone a free ride, but it is to give subsistence to someone in a time of need so that they can become self-suffient again. This brings me to the point of illegal workers here in the US. If you would have asked me several years ago, I would have said to crack down and deport them all because they take jobs away from Americans. Now, I think that if they come here, work hard, and do not make trouble, there needs to be some sort of other consideration. If you have to go work at McD's to put food on the table......do it, you are not above that.....you are on welfare dammit! I do not like self-pitying people who are lazy and won't take a "menial" job to make ends meet.:icon_rage

And dies in line waiting!

Welcome to the USSR.

You also do not see the right to get free streetlight, paved streets, public schooling through grade 12, a police and a fire department. Yet, the government still provides you those services through your tax dollars. What does this issue have to do with the bill of rights?

Your point 1) Of course it will raise taxes and needs to be well organized. We could start by managing pharmaceuticals and their outrageous prices. Not everything needs to be for profit, and healthcare is one area where profits should not be a factor.

2) Even healthy people have unforseen issues and accidents affect their health. You don't want to pay the bill for fatties, smokers, or folks who ride jetskis? How would you draw the line on who gets healthcare and who doesn't?

That is a normal wait in a large city ER here.

Read Achilles post. We already have Universal Health Care in the US, it's called the Emergency Room.

I'm opposed to "socialized medicine" on principle, but I'm beginning to wonder, given the facts and reality of it all, if it would be better to formalize possibly streamline the the mess we already have where people WITH insurance ultimately pay for those WITHOUT it.

Yes, lines suck and so do convoluted forms that you fill out every april. But do you deny that those two departments get the job done. Would you do away with the DMV? Would somehow privatize it with a for profit organization? How safe would the streets be without a DMV assisting law enforcement? Neither of those organizations are perfect, and are at best the 80% solution, but let's hear your ideas to do it better.

This just may be a philosphical difference between you and me. If you were speeding through a red light, cut me off, honked your horn and gave me the finger, I would still stop and help you if I saw that you had gotten into a car accident. Maybe your speeding was directly correlated to your accident, in the end, I don't care about the causes but more concerned about getting you healthy and back on the roads to speed, cut off, etc.

People should be accountable for their actions. People should be responsible for their actions. Ideally, this is how the world should work but it doesn't. In spite of that person's unaccountability or irresponsibility, I find it unacceptable to judge whether a person is worthy enough to live a healthy life based upon subjective factors.

If I remember correctly, emergency rooms are only required to stablize an individual; if an indigent person walked into a private hospital, the ER only has to stablize them enough to send them to a public/free hospital. And, please correct me if I am wrong, that private hospital can bill the person for those services and the transport to the free hospital. So, it isn't in the most dire of circumstances that a person will receive free health care; it is that a person shall never be denied of emergent health care because of their financial status.

Are we actually going in the direction of saying: "if you are too lazy to work then you don't deserve to be healthy or live."

Both of those examples are regulatory in nature...regulating my health and forcing the general populace to pay for that is ricockulous.

An argument I've often heard concerning smoking bans and taxes is that it will save money on healthcare costs. There are several other reasons behind smoking regulations, but I can only imagine how much louder the "save money" argument will become when everybody is paying for everybody else's health care under a UHC program. How long until the argument is extended to, say, taxing and banning red meat? Or saturated fats? Socialized medicine is a wide open door for government to regulate all kinds of "dangerous" behavior (and not just food) in the interests of "cutting health care costs", and I sure as hell don't trust them with that kind of power.

I hope so, because you would then have MADE the decision to not contribute a thing to this society.

Your generocity in the above example is reflective of the private sector that would not allow this to happen, however, so why regulate/force people to assist others when there are plenty of people who are willing to do it?

The constitution exists to protect the individual rights of americans...the governement should exist to protect that constitution, not the other way around. Socialism, even in the most charitable disguise, violates indivdual rights by forcing the government to infringe on those individual rights.

Oh, and philosophically I am libertarian...so yes, we may differ.

~D