Why do you disagree with universal free health care?

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

Why do you disagree with universal free health care?

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Raibeart
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 533

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:49 am Post subject:

fellfire wrote:

well, you see there is a difference. Here in the US we have never had a National Health System. One might ask that if the UK is unwilling to change the current system given the ideals they are used to in their country, why should the US be expected to do just that?

Maybe because of this???????

http://www.cbpp.org/8-30-05health.htm

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: Why do you disagree with universal free health care?

Lester wrote:

2. So why trust private companies to spend our money for us if it's so inefficient? They don't gain profit if we get better treatment.

for the same reason we trust private companies to give us fast food, phone service, nice computers, etc.

Just the other day, we were in Arbys. We sat down without our french fries having been told they would be brot out to us. they never came. when we reminded them, they gave us a supersized fry and a apple turnover. That is service. you aint going to get that from the Federal govt.

CryxicKiller
Known Associate

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject:

American and British ideals are not that different. Even here in the US, everyone wants universal health coverage, but they disagree on how to achieve it. Some say the government should step in while others maintain that private enterprise is the way to go. Fellfire's point is valid though; it is difficult to change such a long-standing and institutionalized system. I fully support government-run health care because all the important indicators give it the nod over private-controlled initiatives. The World Health Organization (WHO) is the authoritative body on the global state of health, and their 2000 rank for the US (37th) was dismal considering this nation's resources. Most Western nations bested this country's health care system. You can find the WHO health reports since 1995 in the following link: http://www.who.int/whr/previous/en/index.html.

In general, private service is of superior but exclusive quality. Also, in response to cornopean's latest post, I don't mind my phone service or fast food being handled by private companies because my life is not necessarily in immediate danger with those endeavors. When you treat like health like phone service, however, and that's pretty much what health care here does, you're going to get many people who won't be a part of the system and who could end up dying (and who often do end up dying; thousands every year). The stakes are different.

CustomFordGirl
Known Associate

Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 446
Location: Greensburg, PA

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:03 am Post subject:

Cryxic, you seem to be under the impression that if someone doesn't have health insurance, they won't get proper treatment.

FYI - I currently have no health insurance. I've been unemployed for the past 3 years, and like I've said before, I'd rather go without insurance than be on the government's cheap-ass dime. (Need I tell my story again?)

It is federal law that all patients receive the same level of care regardless of whether they're insured or not. In fact, the doctors don't even know what your means of payment is - that's taken care of by the office assistants.

I had government health care when I had my daughter, and the coverage I got was terrible -- but the service I got was great. Note: the coverage was government, the service was private.

Please don't be naive enough to think that a nanny-state government is a good government. That's the sort of government we rebelled against 231 years ago.. one that runs (sorry, takes care of) every aspect of your life.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: Re: Why do you disagree with universal free health care?

cornopean wrote:

Lester wrote:

2. So why trust private companies to spend our money for us if it's so inefficient? They don't gain profit if we get better treatment.

But Arby's gets more money the more you go to them, insurance companies get less money the more you go to them, besides, what is the equivalent to supersizing your fries and giving you an appleturnover in medicine? Oh I'm just gonna supersize your triple bypass and through in a liver transplant...

fellfire
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject:

CustomFordGirl wrote:

CFG, I am a bit confused with what you are indicating here. You are uninsured, but when you had your daughter, you were insured. Have you had medical coverage since you have been uninsured?

I'm not sure what to reply to here - getting medical coverage when you are uninsured or when you are insured by the government.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: Re: Why do you disagree with universal free health care?

the idea that the US health system is free market oriented is a myth. our problems all stem from a deluge of govt regulations that interfere with incentives and raise prices.
http://www.economist.com/finan.....id=9407716

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: Re: Why do you disagree with universal free health care?

cornopean wrote:

Your right, it's a compromise, but still, reply to my one above, I'm not convinced that private is equal to better.

CustomFordGirl
Known Associate

Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 446
Location: Greensburg, PA

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject:

fellfire wrote:

I'll make it easy, and give you a truncated medical coverage time line.
Feb 2001 - Apr 2003: on BCBS through employer.
Apr 2003: No more employer, no more insurance.
Pregnant (Oct 2003 - July 2004): government health care.
Jan 2005 - present: daughter covered by her father's plan; myself, uninsured.

Before 2001, I was uninsured. This is when the dentist story takes place. She wouldn't try to make me get the work done, because she knew I couldn't afford it yet, and I thanked her for that. After I got insurance, I had it taken care of. After that, I got the government health care, and had to have another tooth filled, and at that time I asked that dentist about the previous assessment I had gotten - that the other tooth would be pulled because Medicaid wouldn't pay for the root canal and a crown - and he said that was true.

I currently am uninsured, because I WON'T go back on the government health care system. I'm sure there are a lot of people in the country that feel this way.. and if the health care industry is taken over by the government, next they'll be wondering why there are still so many people without coverage, because it doesn't occur to them that the people want control of their health care.
BTW - another reason I have for not going back to the government health care: I would have no prescription drug coverage, because of my age and the fact that I have no major medical problems. So if I get sick and need medication, I'll have to pay for them outright, so what's the point in having the coverage in the first place? It's cheaper for me to just go to the ER.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: Re: Why do you disagree with universal free health care?

Quote:

But Arby's gets more money the more you go to them, insurance companies get less money the more you go to them,

but private companies want you to do business with them. Insurance companies have to offer you a good product or you will take your money elsewhere. The govt has no incentive to either innovate or offer you better service. The govt has no competition. and if the govt provides health care, there will be no competition and hence no innovation or improvement.

Quote:

besides, what is the equivalent to supersizing your fries and giving you an apple turnover in medicine?

if a pregnant woman goes to a doctor's office and the doctor offers all sorts of extras in order to win the lady's business.
nowadays, noone cares about this b/c they aren't spending their own money.

Quote:

Oh I'm just gonna supersize your triple bypass and throw in a liver transplant...

I suppose while he is burrowing around in there he could offer to bore out your gall bladder or install some sort of slow release contraceptive. Very Happy

CryxicKiller
Known Associate

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:23 am Post subject:

CustomFordGirl wrote:

On your first sentence: the impression I am under is that if people don't have health insurance, they will get no treatment, forget "proper" treatment.

I understand your wishes regarding government health insurance, although I obviously disagree. Hopefully if you were sick and had the option of dying or going to the government, you'd take the latter choice. But it sort of shouldn't matter what you choose because the good government would take paternalistic intervention and forcefully cure you.

I don't know what a "nanny-state government" is, but I wish for a responsible and a helpful government. One should not be particularly impressed with great service from the private sector since organizing the system like that will prevent large numbers of people, like the current 45 million, from obtaining coverage. Yes you generally do have great service from the private sector, but if not everyone has it, it does not mean much. And the reason why this issue is supposed to be different is because a person's health and her or his life is (reputedly) the most important thing in......her or his life (no way!). I wouldn't be that peeved if some people did not have internet coverage, for example, but surely you can imagine why health coverage is sharply different.

Your assumptions about government-run health care are wrong, however, and that's one of the most disturbing things in this argument. Many governments around the world do a great job in handling health care; the French are kings of health care and their government pretty much does it all. No system is perfect and all are looking for ways to change and improve. However, the systems of many other Western nations are notably better than here in the US. The numbers easily show this too: plenty of nations have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than this one. America is good with treatment (probably the best in the world), but kind of horrible with prevention, which leads to its relatively low international ranking.

Finally, people should feel much more comfortable placing matters that relate directly to their survival to the government rather than to private enterprise with financial motives.

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:46 am Post subject:

CryxicKiller wrote:

On your first sentence: the impression I am under is that if people don't have health insurance, they will get no treatment, forget "proper" treatment.

Your impression is partly incorrect. Hospitals are required by law to reender treatment to those who need it, regardless of their ability to pay. And, as far as i know, patients can't be denied innoculation on account of inability to pay either.

Of course, you're partly correct in the sense of "needing" it. Usually, you'll only be treated even if you can't pay if your health is actually in a serious state of disrepair; you can't get preventative medicine. And they won't go to extroadinary lengths to save you if you've got something terminal.

And, of course, you can get as much medical attention as you want if you pay cash. You don't actually need insurance; most people just can't afford to pay cash all the time, depending on their health needs.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:56 am Post subject:

Hello? Cornopean?

CryxicKiller
Known Associate

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:02 am Post subject:

exton wrote:

My impression is mostly correct. I was wrong to blatantly say "no treatment," but in America one of the first things you're asked about when you go to the hospital is something relating to health insurance, which will prove problematic if you don't have any. "Usually," they won't treat serious diseases or conditions, even if imminent, if you don't have insurance. Period. That's why thousands of people die every year in this country: they're not cured of their illnesses because they can't afford the operations, surgeries, etc. The system is far more brutal than you portray it. You do live in the US, right? Hehe....