Healthcare: A right or privelege

The government should not have anything to do with controling our healthcare...Insurance is a business, not a charity...Just like anything else in this world, if you want quality, you're going to have to pay for it.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

And less people end up covered.

And the people who choose not to purchase coverage get fined.

Fail, IMO

I think you are being too cursory. Coverage is subsidized with existing Medicaid funds for those who earn X amount per year. As you make more, you get less of a subsidy. Most people NOT poor will still get covered through traditional methods such as work. True, it is a mandate to obtain health care coverage, much like the mandate to obtain car insurance. If you do not, then you no longer get something like a $1200 tax credit. To say that less people end up covered than before this plan is flat out wrong. Is it perfect? Maybe not. Can it be improved and is it POLITICALLY viable as a solution? Absolutely.

Quote:

Originally posted by ishootdung

The government should not have anything to do with controling our healthcare...Insurance is a business, not a charity...Just like anything else in this world, if you want quality, you're going to have to pay for it.

Then do you support a Massachusetts style plan? The only people subsidized under such a plan are those already receiving Medicaid benefits. It saves money because former Medicaid beneficiaries who were served in expensive ER's are not served on time for much less $ with primary care doctors.

It is the responsibility of the person themselves to provide for anything other than emergency life saving care. Anyone who says it is a right needs to go ahead and assert their "right" to food, clothing, and shelter provided by the government since those are also "rights". You ahve no right to take from what I work for to provide for yourself. It is theft whether you or the government does it, the government just gets away with it because they have the most guns.

Quote:

Originally posted by brian1243

Most people NOT poor will still get covered through traditional methods such as work.

Except that's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. The law stipulates that all business with more than 10 employees must offer or provide health insurance for their employees. All that does is make business costs rise, which has adverse effects throughout the economy, including acting as a disincentive for businesses to operate in Mass. and serving to keep that money out of the pockets of the workers.

Quote:

Originally posted by brian1243

True, it is a mandate to obtain health care coverage, much like the mandate to obtain car insurance.

"Mandatory insurance" is just a cleverly worded tax.

Quote:

Originally posted by brian1243

If you do not, then you no longer get something like a $1200 tax credit.

Yeah, like I said, they make you pay a penalty if you feel you don't need health insurance. The penalty is attached to the persons income tax filing, so while you make it seem like they don't receive some extra subsidy, the reality is that if you choose not to purchase health insurance the government taxes you for your choice.

Quote:

Originally posted by brian1243

To say that less people end up covered than before this plan is flat out wrong. Is it perfect? Maybe not. Can it be improved and is it POLITICALLY viable as a solution? Absolutely.

Perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic, however, the point remains the same: It's inefficient and wasteful and, IMO, not any business of the government whether or not I feel that I'm in good health and able to get by without this added expense.

Quote:

Originally posted by brian1243

...

Then do you support a Massachusetts style plan? The only people subsidized under such a plan are those already receiving Medicaid benefits. It saves money because former Medicaid beneficiaries who were served in expensive ER's are not served on time for much less $ with primary care doctors.

I'd also be careful about that "it saves money" part. From all accounts the financial costs of the mass plan are massive, overrunning original estimates and by some accounts are expected to double within the next three years.

Like all government programs, they need to find a way to pay for it, and since the government has no money of its own, it's just going to take more of yours and mine to do it.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

You ahve no right to take from what I work for to provide for yourself. It is theft whether you or the government does it, the government just gets away with it because they have the most guns.

Plus they have the support of the mindless masses.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Do the supporters of socialized healthcare have any concerns over the government at some point mandating what you can and cannot eat; lifestyles; recreational activities etc?

I dont, cause i simply dont see that happening..
we cause a riot when the govt tells us they want to put up CCTV cameras in public places..
we dont have, nor want national Identity cards..
I dont think wed be too easy to convince that we need to have incentives for control on our lifestyles..we have
a large public health system, but were not russia.

All here who work and pay taxes, pay the 2.5% medicare levy....so we WILL get treatment for whatever the hell we want
no matter what the govt 'incentives' us to do..

the ones who dont work, and need the health system...will use it..thats what its there for..
just like alot of the 20 something year olds who complain that theyre 'young and healthy' and dont need it, yet
still pay it, who then in 50 years time, when they dont work and cant afford to pay for health insurance anymore...or no one will insure a 70 year old with hip problems..will be then using the public system again..

It is funny how many people don't remember that medicine was affordable to the masses back BEFORE the government got so heavily involved in it. Doctors used to make house calls to the sick and check up on them until they got well.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

It is funny how many people don't remember that medicine was affordable to the masses back BEFORE the government got so heavily involved in it. Doctors used to make house calls to the sick and check up on them until they got well.

medicine is still affordable for us..
and my doctor also makes house calls...i pay for the service, but i chose to pay it then go to his
practice and be around other sick bastards.

You won't find house calls in the US. Doctors can't afford the malpractice insurance for that. I promise you that a litigation reform that includes a loser-pays system like the rest of the world has and a trial system that would rely on trusted experts to decide the merits of the case would do wonders for health care costs. I can't believe we still let a jury of regular people (who are not even required to be literate) decide the merits of a deeply scientific case that includes experts on both sides giving opposing testimony. We should at least have an unbiased, independent, scientific panel of experts go through these cases beforehand to ensure that they have at least some merit before throwing them in front of a jury who may or may not even understand what is said in front of them. A lawyer who shall remain nameless got in front of a jury and got millions with no scientific evidence from peer reviewed studies based just off him channeling how the poor child knew they were in distress during the birth and if the doctor had just done a c-section 5 minutes earlier she would never have had the birth defect.

House calls still happen in the bad old publicly funded EU/UK.

Re government being proscriptive over lifestyle issues, yes they did try that in the UK to a degree & the public reaction was pretty strong. So now they're encouraging healthier lifestyles & providing help with quitting smoking, diet etc. In Spain there's so far no issue re healthy lifestyle but then you hardly ever see on obese person, although they all smoke their heads off - well a lot do.

The idea of everyone paying for themselves is OK if every body can. That's where I part company with the idea, many simply can't & end up going without & nobody gains from that. I have the chance to live & work in the US but one reason I'm not at the moment IS the health care system. We're spoilt over here perhaps but I don't see that denying anybody the best modern health care available is acceptable socially in the modern world. Me me me, is part of what's caused the global crisis we're all enjoying right now & it is also short sighted. A healthy population is good for any country..

I hate this fucking argument. I can't get health care for my handicapped son because I'm not poor, or rich enough.
Socialize it, if you don't like it, take your fucking gun and hide someplace where nobody gives a shit about anyone else.
I'm so pissed off about this shit, I actually want to start busting heads.

Quote:

Originally posted by 11111111112

Doctors and administrators will have to take paycuts. If they don't like it they can go for the big bucks in Canada... Oh wait... I mean the U.K.... Oh wait. They'll stay, they have nowhere else to go.

The problem is that primary care practitioners (family doctors, not specialists) have had pay cuts forced on them almost constantly over the past 15 years; add to that a private practice that doesn't do anything but family healthcare outside of a major metropolitan area and you have doctors who barely take in $40k a year as thanks for them being in school continuously through age 28 with the dream of helping people. Government needs to regulate how healthcare/insurance companies can use the revenue that they receive from premiums; being an insurance billing processor, I've seen the compensation to an independent medical clinic for a 3-hour comprehensive annual physical go from $150 down to $65, to say nothing of the overhead costs from gowns, syringes, etc.

The system is broken. While I don't believe in socialized healthcare, healthcare needs to be properly regulated by the government so the money is distributed where it's needed, not to the executives of non-profit insurance companies llike Blue Cross on the order of millions of dollars (that could otherwise be saved by individuals on their premiums). The US is too large to effectively implement nationalized healthcare like a number of European countries; the raw numbers are just not manageable.

Personally, I think that socialized medicine is a nightmare, but letting HMO's and accountant's dictate what treatments should be provided is a nightmare of equal proportion...

Quote:

Originally posted by 4tookerplace

I hate this fucking argument. I can't get health care for my handicapped son because I'm not poor, or rich enough.
Socialize it, if you don't like it, take your fucking gun and hide someplace where nobody gives a shit about anyone else.
I'm so pissed off about this shit, I actually want to start busting heads.

I feel for your situation, but the reality is that even in socialized medicine, those with money will get quicker attention than those without... Waits for appointments will be extremely long and lack of selection of your care providers will be the norm... Is there a solution??? We have some great minds here...What can be done my friends???

I find it mildly amusing that people throw up the communist red scare flag as soon as the topic comes up.
We don't seem to mind that we can send our kids to school for free across the nation for 12 or so years where they have access to 2 or 3 meals a day(btw, I worked at a few schools where these meals were all some of the kids would eat for the day). Seems that it would be in our collective best interest to be able to send our kids to the hospital too.

I was on my way to being a doctor and have many friends that are doctors now. Huge school loans (on the order of mortgages) to pay off, HUGE insurance premiums to pay and getting squeezed from both sides when it comes time to collect from patients and insurance companies. The ones that did it for money have to specialize and the ones that did it just to help human beings in need are being suffocated by bureaucracy. I don't envy any of them.

The system is broke. Health care is not a right but we might want to look into making it more accessible to our citizens.

The creator of the socialized health care system in Canada, Claude Castonguay, believes it was a mistake and advocates allowing the private sector to provide greater choice to the people of Canada. In the UK, they are still struggling to bring wait times down on heart surgery to below three months and in order to reduce costs they removed certain life saving medications from the list of available treatments for new cases of pulmonary hypertension thereby resigning a certain number of the population to certain death. Is that better? Really? If so, then why are Canadians spending their own money to come to the US in order to get care instead of sitting on the waiting lists hoping they don't die before it is their turn.

The simple fact of the matter is the socialized health care works until you really get sick. If you have good health then it works great. But I can guarantee that any of you would trade cash for the chance to have a hip replacement or otehr surgery in a few weeks instead of waiting a year or so.

I too feel for 4 tookerplace. That situation should simply NOT be allowed to happen. The main priority is for the health of the child & nothing else.

Someone talked about 2 tier care. yes OK in Spain, UK & other countries, people who can afford it pay for private care if they want to & so probably get faster treatment for non urgent/serious problems but still I stand by the idea that health care should be provided on the basis of need, not ability to pay. So, I think what number 4 is saying is that he falls between being able to afford the right care & not being poor enough to get state help. That's appalling in the richest country on the planet, no wonder he wants to hit someone.

OH yes, BTW rockingthefreeworld. Nobody waits a year or so that I know of for a new hip.

OK. Six months then. According to the statistics from the end of 2007 that I could find from the UK Health Services, the median wait was around 160 days. Still too long. And since some people obviously get theirs sooner than a month, that would mean someone out there is waiting around 11-12 months.