What is wrong with universal healthcare?

[Declan]

If every single person were in the same insurance pool, the risk would be spread, there would be less administrative costs, and no marketing cost for the insurance company. The larger the group plan, the lower the cost is, so by doing this we would have the lowest possible price for health insurance.

The ability (and motivation) to shop based upon price and quality (which combined = value), is what keeps prices in check. If no one price shopped, no vendor would ever have a reason to be price competitive, and prices would skyrocket, just as they have in the medical field.

One of the things that we should have long ago done with healthcare is to require price transparancy. All medical providers should be required to post prices, just as my doctor does.

More people will shop for the lowest premium rather than they will the best coverage. It is just what happens when people are struggling. It doesn't matter if doctors post their price or not--unless you work in the field, you probably have no idea what additional things will be needed when you walk in the door.

 

[Fearandloathing]

In 1776, and again in 1812, your nation tried to tell us how to run our nation. How did that work out?

How would it work out if it came to that again now?

Other way around friend. The colonials attacked the British in 1776. The US attacked Canada in 1812.

In both affairs you attempted to invade Canada and were humiliated once by a young woman named Laura Secord

 

[jimbo]

No because Hitler's government ensured that every man had a job, whereas your country allows people to be jobless.

And one of the best job possibilities was killing of those who were not allowed to work.

 

[jimbo]

And you base that statement upon what?

I think he's talking about the typewriter, the one invented by that government worker, Remington, or perhaps that little box sitting on your desk, in your lap, or in your pocket, all invented or improved by Gates, Jobs, Hewlett, Packard. All of which worked for the government.

 

[jimbo]

There is nothing wrong with UHC. I used to live in the USA. Got ****ed over by insurance. Live in New Zealand now and the system is GREAT.

Screw the US health care system... it is a joke to perhaps a hundred million people.

Congrats. You utilized another of our freedoms. The ability to move if you don't like it where you are.

Over the years, quite a few people in other countries have not had that option.

 

[imagep]

More people will shop for the lowest premium rather than they will the best coverage. It is just what happens when people are struggling. It doesn't matter if doctors post their price or not--unless you work in the field, you probably have no idea what additional things will be needed when you walk in the door.

Under my plan, the government would shop for the lowest premium, and every individual would be covered under a blanket policy with a standard major medical plan. The government would use the money that it already spends on healthcare (about 50% of all healthcare spending in the nation) to pay for this large group policy.

Since the policy would be a moderately high deductible policy, with a consumer pays portion for every health care need, consumers would have every reason in the world to shop for healthcare based upon the value of the services provided, so the relationship between the insurance company and the insured would be one of mutual help, rather than an adversarial relationship. Consumers price shop to keep their share of the costs down, and this in turn saves the insurance company money as their portion is also kept down.

What I am suggesting is universal insurance, paid for by the taxes we all ready pay, but administered by the private sector. It's not free healthcare or government controlled healthcare, but it does provide that no family will be economically devistated by health care costs.

 

[Declan]

Under my plan, the government would shop for the lowest premium, and every individual would be covered under a blanket policy with a standard major medical plan. The government would use the money that it already spends on healthcare (about 50% of all healthcare spending in the nation) to pay for this large group policy.

Since the policy would be a moderately high deductible policy, with a consumer pays portion for every health care need, consumers would have every reason in the world to shop for healthcare based upon the value of the services provided, so the relationship between the insurance company and the insured would be one of mutual help, rather than an adversarial relationship. Consumers price shop to keep their share of the costs down, and this in turn saves the insurance company money as their portion is also kept down.

It's universal insurance, paid for by the taxes we all ready pay, but administered by the private sector. It's not free healthcare or government controlled healthcare, but it does provide that no family will be economically devistated by health care costs.

Sounds like a giant government subsidy to the top 1% under the guise of "helping the poor". Are you sure you did not plagiarize off George Orwell's paper?

 

[imagep]

Sounds like a giant government subsidy to the top 1% under the guise of "helping the poor". Are you sure you did not plagiarize off George Orwell's paper?

What makes you think that?

And are you talking about the guy who wrote 1984?

 

[Declan]

What makes you think that?

And are you talking about the guy who wrote 1984?

Because you are trying to get one thing by pretending it is the opposite. There is no better system that involves government money other than the government being the insurer. The government guarantees where we get to where we need to be on this issue--the "market" does not. The government should only expand its current programs like medicare and medicaid, do away with the VA health programs, and anybody who gets left out swims alone in the deep end.

 

[imagep]

Because you are trying to get one thing by pretending it is the opposite. There is no better system that involves government money other than the government being the insurer. The government guarantees where we get to where we need to be on this issue--the "market" does not. The government should only expand its current programs like medicare and medicaid, do away with the VA health programs, and anybody who gets left out swims alone in the deep end.

The system that I am proposing is similar to what you are talking about, except that every citizen would receive the exact same benefit.

My feeling is that if something is so important that the government should provide it for some, then it should be provided for everyone.

If you want to think of my system as something like "medicare for everyone", then that's more or less what I am suggesting.

Now sure, we could allow the government to be the insurance company, but there would be so much pushback from private sector insurance companies that it would never happen. I'm being pragmatic by suggesting that the government purchase this insurance from the private sector, and allow the private sector to administer the insurance. There are administration costs regardless of if the government does it, or if the private sector does it, so it's more or less a cost wash.

My suggestion would be that we bid out the policies in groups. We could establish statistically identical groups simply by using the last four numbers of everyones social security number. So if your social security number ends with 0000, then that would be one group, 0001 would be another. This would allow for ten thousand different groups, and lots of opportunities for insurance company to have a piece of the action. The lowest bidding company would get their choice on how many groups they wish to administer, then the remainder of the groups would be available at that same price for any other insurance companies who will sell the policies at that price. If there are still groups left over, then the second highest bidder get's a shot, at the price that it bid, so on and so forth.

With all the policies being identical, and with guaranteed payment by the government, the administration of such policies would be a breeze, and could be done fairly inexpensively. Absolutely no marketing costs involved would also help to pull down the cost.

 

[joG]

This is probably something that has been discussed already, but there are so many threads it would be good (for me mostly) to get an overview in a new thread of the debates for and against Obamacare. That's if people are prepared to give them.

I have never understood this vehement objection to universal health care, nor have I really understood what the basis for the opposition is. Is there some philosophical, moral or religious reason for objecting to a nation collecting resources to ensure all its citizens are healthy? I come from a country that has free healthcare and I live in a country that has free healthcare, so I'm rather biased I suppose; it just seems so fundamentally natural for this to be the case.

I would love to hear people's thoughts and reasoning, if you're willing.

Think of it as a new tax of over 15 percent. That is what Americans spend on medical care. Many people do not want to spend their money that way.
Also it is a huge, complicated and intransparent law that is restructuring 15 percent of gdp based cash flow. This is a big change and carries great risk, especially for an economy on the brink of tipping into recession.

 

[blaxshep]

Sounds like a giant government subsidy to the top 1% under the guise of "helping the poor".

Are you calling him a Democrat?

 

[Declan]

The system that I am proposing is similar to what you are talking about, except that every citizen would receive the exact same benefit.

My feeling is that if something is so important that the government should provide it for some, then it should be provided for everyone.

If you want to think of my system as something like "medicare for everyone", then that's more or less what I am suggesting.

Now sure, we could allow the government to be the insurance company, but there would be so much pushback from private sector insurance companies that it would never happen. I'm being pragmatic by suggesting that the government purchase this insurance from the private sector, and allow the private sector to administer the insurance. There are administration costs regardless of if the government does it, or if the private sector does it, so it's more or less a cost wash.

My suggestion would be that we bid out the policies in groups. We could establish statistically identical groups simply by using the last four numbers of everyones social security number. So if your social security number ends with 0000, then that would be one group, 0001 would be another. This would allow for ten thousand different groups, and lots of opportunities for insurance company to have a piece of the action. The lowest bidding company would get their choice on how many groups they wish to administer, then the remainder of the groups would be available at that same price for any other insurance companies who will sell the policies at that price. If there are still groups left over, then the second highest bidder get's a shot, at the price that it bid, so on and so forth.

With all the policies being identical, and with guaranteed payment by the government, the administration of such policies would be a breeze, and could be done fairly inexpensively. Absolutely no marketing costs involved would also help to pull down the cost.

Still a corporate subsidy. We should be moving toward a nationalized healthcare system that includes government own facilities and government hired providers. Until we get there, we just need to be growing what we have into a single payer government system and expanding it as the money allows. I don't care about insurance company profits, hospital profits, or doctors making $600,000.00 a year being forced to live off $100,000.00.

 

[Declan]

Are you calling him a Democrat?

If I were, then my post would have stated that.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I think he's talking about the typewriter, the one invented by that government worker, Remington, or perhaps that little box sitting on your desk, in your lap, or in your pocket, all invented or improved by Gates, Jobs, Hewlett, Packard. All of which worked for the government.

Huh?

Gates worked for "the government"? Has anyone told him? When was this, when in college or when he convinced IBM to use his OS?

Hewlett Packard - when did either of them work for the government, and is so what did they invent while doing so?

For the record, the first typewriter came along in 1575 in Italy. The E Remington company, an arms manufacturer build a type writing device which was successful, but far from the first to be built and marketed in the US.
That company, E. Remington and sons sold the typewriter division in 1886 to the already existing Standard Typewriter Company, which then changed its name to Remington Typewriter in 1902 and then merged to form Remington Rand in 1927.

So, there is no "Remington" in there other than the original owner and not one trace of anyone in any of those companies having invented a damn thing let alone work for government.

 

[jimbo]

Huh?

Gates worked for "the government"? Has anyone told him? When was this, when in college or when he convinced IBM to use his OS?

Hewlett Packard - when did either of them work for the government, and is so what did they invent while doing so?

For the record, the first typewriter came along in 1575 in Italy. The E Remington company, an arms manufacturer build a type writing device which was successful, but far from the first to be built and marketed in the US.
That company, E. Remington and sons sold the typewriter division in 1886 to the already existing Standard Typewriter Company, which then changed its name to Remington Typewriter in 1902 and then merged to form Remington Rand in 1927.

So, there is no "Remington" in there other than the original owner and not one trace of anyone in any of those companies having invented a damn thing let alone work for government.

That was intended as satire.

 

[blaxshep]

Still a corporate subsidy. We should be moving toward a nationalized healthcare system that includes government own facilities and government hired providers. Until we get there, we just need to be growing what we have into a single payer government system and expanding it as the money allows. I don't care about insurance company profits, hospital profits, or doctors making $600,000.00 a year being forced to live off $100,000.00.

Another liberal utopia pipedream. Don't get me wrong I actually agree with the principle that there is too much profits in healthcare and I advocate the elimination of the insurance "middle man" overhead but the driving force of healthcare as we know it is profits. The closest thing we have to what you are asking for is the VA, and I think we all know what a disaster that is.

 

[imagep]

Still a corporate subsidy. We should be moving toward a nationalized healthcare system that includes government own facilities and government hired providers. Until we get there, we just need to be growing what we have into a single payer government system and expanding it as the money allows. I don't care about insurance company profits, hospital profits, or doctors making $600,000.00 a year being forced to live off $100,000.00.

How the heck is that a corporate subsidy?

Is it a corporate subsidy if the government pays a construction company to build a bridge or a new courthouse?

How about this for a compromise. Since my plan would essentially put the VA, medicare, medicade, schip, etc out of business, those government entities could be included in the bidding process, and if they are the low bidders, they they would be treated just like any private sector insurance company.

My only concern about this is that the private sector companies would be taking a risk (risk that the underbid or that administering the program would cost more than expected), while the public sector entity, if the had a loss, would simply pass along the cost of that loss to the taxpayer, which of course would be a terrible deal for the taxpayer. Personally, I highly suspect that the private sector could do a better job at a lower price than any government entity, but that's just my best guess.

 

[imagep]

Another liberal utopia pipedream. Don't get me wrong I actually agree with the principle that there is too much profits in healthcare and I advocate the elimination of the insurance "middle man" overhead but the driving force of healthcare as we know it is profits. The closest thing we have to what you are asking for is the VA, and I think we all know what a disaster that is.

I think that hell just froze over. First time that I have ever agreed with you on anything.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Here in the states, all one has to do is look at the VA healthcare system to see how it would work for everyone.

That's because its government run, a single monolithic bureaucracy instead of a health care system.

The VA system is about as far away as you can get from Universal health care

 

[Fearandloathing]

It stifles innovation and new development. If a company thinks that it's cure for cancer is gong to net it $100,000,000,000, they'll be willing to risk $99,000,000,000 to develop it. Take away that motivation and you just lost a huge amount of research effort.

Ebola vaccine clinical trial in Halifax overwhelmed with volunteershttp:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...halifax-overwhelmed-with-volunteers-1.2835412

Jointly funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada, the trial will test whether lower doses of the vaccine can induce an immune response in an individual.

Where's America's E-bola vaccine? You are testing the one developed where there is no innovation.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't understand how that follows? We're not talking about nationalising drugs companies, we're talking about free healthcare provision. How does one effect the other by your logic?

The government will never pay as much for drugs as a private insurer.... is the counter argument. right now our government health programs reimburse hospitals far below the actual cost it takes to deliver the care. "free healthcare" isn't free somebodys gotta pay somewhere, and someone has to decide how much. right now hospitals will bounce outrageously high bills off of private insurance, but the Medicaid and medicare costs the government pays the health provider is low. so in reality if all health insurance became public, there would be less incentive to develop new drugs.

unless the government pays big pharma directly or begins funding our universities to do this research again.

 

[chromium]

The primary reasoning against universal healthcare is that it is government run, those that oppose it feel that the private sector does a better job.

If it's truly universal then by definition it's an improvement for everyone without health care access. The private sector doesn't do a damn thing for those people, so i always read opposition to UHC as "they should hurry up and die"

 

[Perotista]

That's because its government run, a single monolithic bureaucracy instead of a health care system.

The VA system is about as far away as you can get from Universal health care

It is my understanding and correct me if I am wrong, that Universal Health is run by the government or the government pays for it via taxes which would make it single payer.

 

[gdgyva]

Where's America's E-bola vaccine? You are testing the one developed where there is no innovation.

i dont remember reading anywhere in the thread where canada produced zero innovations

but if you need MORE proof that you are FAR down the list.....

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care | NCPA


Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.