Exactly, insurance premiums rise because unhealthy people are using their medical insurance. So you ARE paying for them through your premiums! If everyone infrequently got sick we wouldn’t have to pay as much. It is the Governments job to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its citizens, and if they are unable to get healthcare because of rising costs why shouldn’t they do something to assist those in need?[/quote]
Because they cannot do so without other peoples money?
Yes, you should.
Because if you are not allowed to steal from person A on behalf of person B, it is also wrong to steal from A on behalf of person C, that happens to live very far away.
I’m most convinced that UHC is impractical when I listen to Canadians and Europeans share their experiences…
“We only waited three or four hours in the ER…”
“We got to see a doctor after only three weeks…”
“We were placed on a six-month waiting list for surgery…”
…and they’re serious! As if those are examples of reasonable and acceptable medical service!
That’s absolute horse-shit compared to my own and my elderly relatives’ experiences with health care service. And we were hardly rich, and we were hardly bankrupted.
Second, I’m deeply concerned of the disastrous long-term economic effects such a huge entitlement program would have. As if SS alone wasn’t enough of an albatross across our backs.
Finally, I’m astounded at how anybody could think that a government run program would operate more cheaply and more efficiently than private enterprise after a single trip to the DMV.
Are you kidding? The government couldn’t manage a Dairy Queen without running it into the ground, and you want them to manage health care for every man, woman, and child in America?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I’m most convinced that UHC is impractical when I listen to Canadians and Europeans share their experiences…
“We only waited three or four hours in the ER…”
“We got to see a doctor after only three weeks…”
“We were placed on a six-month waiting list for surgery…”
[/quote]
I haven’t experienced those problems. I can get an appointment with my doctor whenever I want. If it wasn’t for the Canadian Healthcare system, I’d probably be dead since I’m a contractor with a pre-existing condition.
Yes and yes. Your insurance is also “for-profit.” It is beneficial to the companies to pay out as little as they can.
You also forgo universal coverage.
You can if you want, but the discussion is about anti-trust laws and private monopolies. I don’t think government monopolies are subject to AT laws.
We have universal healthcare in Canada, yet I can still go to a private clinic and pay for service.
I fully agree that government-run healthcare is inefficient; it just seems that private insurance is a replica of the system on a smaller scale. Each has their pros and cons, but it’s basically the same thing. You pool with others to spread risk and costs. In both cases, other people have the final say in whether your care gets paid for or not.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I’m most convinced that UHC is impractical when I listen to Canadians and Europeans share their experiences…
“We only waited three or four hours in the ER…”
“We got to see a doctor after only three weeks…”
“We were placed on a six-month waiting list for surgery…”
…and they’re serious! As if those are examples of reasonable and acceptable medical service!
That’s absolute horse-shit compared to my own and my elderly relatives’ experiences with health care service. And we were hardly rich, and we were hardly bankrupted.
Second, I’m deeply concerned of the disastrous long-term economic effects such a huge entitlement program would have. As if SS alone wasn’t enough of an albatross across our backs.
Finally, I’m astounded at how anybody could think that a government run program would operate more cheaply and more efficiently than private enterprise after a single trip to the DMV.
Are you kidding? The government couldn’t manage a Dairy Queen without running it into the ground, and you want them to manage health care for every man, woman, and child in America?[/quote]
Correct on every point. My mother found out she had ovarian cancer while she was covered under Tri-care (the Military medical HMO) and the the Air Force doctors could not treat her so she had to travel 100 miles to see some civilian doctors who accepted Tri-care but at least she started chemo the very next day after the biopsy came back.
I can only imagine what bureaucratic hoops she would have had to jump through to start treatment. I guess that is why medical marijuana is legal in Canada:
“Sorry, we cannot start treatment for an other six months but here is some wicked G-13 to help see you through your ordeal.”
[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
I can change my insurance.
My insurance has competition.
Yes and yes. Your insurance is also “for-profit.” It is beneficial to the companies to pay out as little as they can.
You also forgo universal coverage.
Must I quote your posts on monopolies back at you?
You can if you want, but the discussion is about anti-trust laws and private monopolies. I don’t think government monopolies are subject to AT laws.
Because that is what mandatory health care would be.
We have universal healthcare in Canada, yet I can still go to a private clinic and pay for service.
I fully agree that government-run healthcare is inefficient; it just seems that private insurance is a replica of the system on a smaller scale. Each has their pros and cons, but it’s basically the same thing. You pool with others to spread risk and costs. In both cases, other people have the final say in whether your care gets paid for or not.
[/quote]
You do have several problems with risk management though that are very hard to control in the private sector and next to impossible to control in a politicized environment.
The problem of negative self selection and moral hazard alone would ruin any SS system.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Well some of the argument would assume healthcare to be a right. When it is in fact a service and a privilige.[/quote]
The same could be said of police protection or firemen.
At some point, a society decides that it can provide health care to all its members and takes steps to do so.
It doesn’t produce perfect systems; far from it. Then again, no other system is perfect either. It’s simply a societal decision to ensure, as much as possible, that each and every one of it’s members is cared for if they get sick or hurt; regardless of whether they can afford it, or have planned for it. A small kid born to parents too poor or dumb to have insurance will be cared for.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I can only imagine what bureaucratic hoops she would have had to jump through to start treatment. I guess that is why medical marijuana is legal in Canada:
“Sorry, we cannot start treatment for an other six months but here is some wicked G-13 to help see you through your ordeal.”[/quote]
If that were true, you’d expect cancer death rates to be much higher in Canada than in the US, when they actually are pretty close.
[quote]pookie wrote:
If that were true, you’d expect cancer death rates to be much higher in Canada than in the US, when they actually are pretty close.
[/quote]
Close in which direction?
EDIT: Pookie, I am just jealous you have access to wicked G-13.
[quote]pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Well some of the argument would assume healthcare to be a right. When it is in fact a service and a privilige.
The same could be said of police protection or firemen.
At some point, a society decides that it can provide health care to all its members and takes steps to do so.
It doesn’t produce perfect systems; far from it. Then again, no other system is perfect either. It’s simply a societal decision to ensure, as much as possible, that each and every one of it’s members is cared for if they get sick or hurt; regardless of whether they can afford it, or have planned for it. A small kid born to parents too poor or dumb to have insurance will be cared for.
[/quote]
Except our society cannot provide health care service for everybody, on demand. The supply is obviously limited, and the demand is practically unlimited. No legislation, program, or initiative can change that fact.
The truly tragic part of UHC is that the people who will be the hurt the most are the poor, the unfortunate, the small kid born to parents without means. Those are who get hurt by well-meaning but misguided governmental intervention.
It’s exactly like Social Security. It’s exactly like welfare. It’s exactly like every other governmental entitlement program that, in the end, harms those who it had intended to help.
We cannot legislate away the fact that demand will always outpace supply, be it money, healthcare, or opportunities. To try and force it just hurts everybody, and the poor feel it the most.
I really don’t understand the hub-bub over the exorbitant cost of health care.
I just got a quote from BC/BS for my family of 4.
$308 a month.
$10K deductible
No out-of-pocket after deductible is met.
If people would start taking charge of their own insurance needs instead of only worrying about how much their employer’s insurance co-pay is, and how much the prescription card will pay - we would not have the problem with health care that we do today.
Family of 4 - including a 44 year-old tobacco using male: $308 a month.
[quote]pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Well some of the argument would assume healthcare to be a right. When it is in fact a service and a privilige.
The same could be said of police protection or firemen.
At some point, a society decides that it can provide health care to all its members and takes steps to do so.
It doesn’t produce perfect systems; far from it. Then again, no other system is perfect either. It’s simply a societal decision to ensure, as much as possible, that each and every one of it’s members is cared for if they get sick or hurt; regardless of whether they can afford it, or have planned for it. A small kid born to parents too poor or dumb to have insurance will be cared for.
[/quote]
Well, if you want UHC, you better start with changing our culture to favor marriage and having children again. The worker to beneficiary ratio for Social Security is already becoming too great a burden. Now tack on keeping UHC afloat and see what happens.
Does that mean that any hospital visit is paid by you until you reach $10,000?[/quote]
Just like with most regular insurance - my deductible must be met before the insurance kicks in. But his is better than the normal 80/20 insurance. It pays all of it. Everything I spend on medical expense goes toward the deductible.