The Case Against Universal Healthcare

The Case Against Universal Healthcare


  • Total voters
    47

shagster01

New member
The government option is medicare/medicaid and those have been around for a long time.

And the numbers using it increase under ACA. Medicaid is slow to reimburse, and requires a TON of paperwork. It is also inadvertently raising the number of people using ER's as a doctors office for non-emergencies. This costs the hospitals, doctors, and clogs the ER with people taking up space that should be used for emergencies.

Not to mention that the burden that ACA puts on employers have caused many to switch coverage plans. For example, I am now offered a health savings plan instead of a regular policy. It's ok for me, as I am healthy. But if I got a serious illness, I'd be less covered than I was a few years ago. How is that better?
 

lovemeorhateme

Well-known member
I just wanted to give a brief outline of how the health service works in the UK and how the British people generally view healthcare.

Firstly, we see access to healthcare for all as a basic human right. No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone arguing for the abolition of the NHS (National Health Service). It's not perfect, but the nature of the debate here is about how to reform the health service. No political candidate would suggest abolishing the NHS or they can guarantee they wouldn't get voted in.

We look at the health system in the US and feel utterly perplexed by some of the horror stories we hear. We can't understand why there is such resistance to the idea of healthcare that is free to all at point of need. We look on in horror when we hear stories of people denied insurance claims, being landed with huge medical bills and even going bankrupt because they can't afford to pay for their treatment.

I can go and see the doctor and get any treatment I need without worry. There are no co-pays for medical treatment, and all I pay is a small prescription charge for the medications I need. As I need several, I have a prescription prepayment certificate which costs just around £11 ($17-$18) a month which is all I pay for any medications I need. Depending on one's age and financial circumstances, many people are exempt from even prescription charges, and prescriptions are free to all in Wales and Scotland. If I need specialist treatment, I have no problems getting it but depending on how serious the problem is there could be a bit of a wait. At no point do I have to worry about whether or not my medical conditions are 'covered', at no point do I have to worry about large bills or debts.

On my current wage of £1,000 a month ($1,500) I come home with about £926 ($1,382) a month after tax and national insurance. So the system isn't prohibitively expensive to the taxpayer, and it ensures that everyone has equal and fair access to the healthcare they need without regard to income and without worry about cost. What is so bad about this system?
 

Morpheus

New member
Since Shaggy mentioned working in a hospital while blaming Obamacare for the ills of the world, my wife also worked out of a hospital system for 15 years, beginning in '99. Medical providers and hospitals have always whined about losing money, mostly while they are explaining why they couldn't afford wage increases, and even while in the process of massive, luxurious, expansion projects. Having said that, the increase in their present-day complaining began about 2002. This had nothing to do with Obamacare; it was, and is, due to the huge insurance corporations that negotiate rates with the providers. Notice I didn't say that they fixe those rates, but they negotiate them with the provider. Much like unions use their collective numbers to negotiate a better contract, insurance companies use collective bargaining to gain bargaining power, so providers cannot so readily overcharge. The question to ask is, if hospitals and doctors are losing money year after year, why are they still in business? And when it comes to cutting staff, they do it for the same reason all blood-sucking corporations do, to maximize profits. That's the same reason they schedule unnecessary procedures and surgeries, even when patient safety is put at risk.

The problem is not UHC, it is the way we have blended it with our old for-profit corporate insurance system. Whenever health and human services are privatized the profit-motive comes into conflict with providing services, and the services suffer in order to increase profits. We should remove private insurance companies from the equation. Actually profit-driven hospitals are just as, if not more, dangerous. Instead of denying services, they push unnecessary, dangerous and expensive procedures for profit.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
You might just want to remove the Christian tag from your profile then.

When you remove it from yours with your left wing leanings, support for Abortion/Murder? You left wingers love to support your Gay marriage...do you feel a moral obligation not to support politicians that support these things?



The "goats" will believe that they are "saved", but they have deluded themselves. By ignoring and rejecting the needs of others you are ignoring and rejecting Jesus. If you don't love others enough to care for their physical and emotional needs, then you don't truly love Christ. If that isn't "moral obligation" enough for you then what is?

Nice skew job on the qualifications to be a member of the BOC. Read the book again...what you have spewed here is not the Gospel nor is universal healthcare an object of the bible.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Pete, do you go to work for free? Or do you expect compensation for your service?
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
"I'm a responsible person, I've got mine, me and my family are taken care of, screw everyone else"

No, I take care of my own just as you should do for yours, I got mine because I payed a hefty sum for it so, I make no apologies. My taxes pay for the indigent as well but, I do not believe my obligation is to pay more than I do now so that you can say that their is some sort of fairness in it, or that we all get the same lesser health plan. Nothing is fair and anything good you have you will have to work hard for, just like everyone else, and if you want something better you will have to sacrifice & work even harder, it is just the way it is...
 

lovemeorhateme

Well-known member
No, I take care of my own just as you should do for yours, I got mine because I payed a hefty sum for it so, I make no apologies. My taxes pay for the indigent as well but, I do not believe my obligation is to pay more than I do now so that you can say that their is some sort of fairness in it, or that we all get the same lesser health plan. Nothing is fair and anything good you have you will have to work hard for, just like everyone else, and if you want something better you will have to sacrifice & work even harder, it is just the way it is...

Everyone should take care of their own, on that we agree. But sometimes others fall ill and need help. We can let them suffer and do nothing, or we can set up a system which helps to prevent that suffering and ensure everyone, regardless of age or income can receive the health treatment they need. Which is more compassionate?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Everyone should take care of their own, on that we agree. But sometimes others fall ill and need help. We can let them suffer and do nothing, or we can set up a system which helps to prevent that suffering and ensure everyone, regardless of age or income can receive the health treatment they need. Which is more compassionate?
Why do you think the only choices are do nothing and let others suffer or set up a heartless system to provide care to the people that are able to take advantage of it?
 

shagster01

New member
Since Shaggy mentioned working in a hospital while blaming Obamacare for the ills of the world, my wife also worked out of a hospital system for 15 years, beginning in '99. Medical providers and hospitals have always whined about losing money, mostly while they are explaining why they couldn't afford wage increases, and even while in the process of massive, luxurious, expansion projects. Having said that, the increase in their present-day complaining began about 2002. This had nothing to do with Obamacare; it was, and is, due to the huge insurance corporations that negotiate rates with the providers. Notice I didn't say that they fixe those rates, but they negotiate them with the provider. Much like unions use their collective numbers to negotiate a better contract, insurance companies use collective bargaining to gain bargaining power, so providers cannot so readily overcharge. The question to ask is, if hospitals and doctors are losing money year after year, why are they still in business? And when it comes to cutting staff, they do it for the same reason all blood-sucking corporations do, to maximize profits. That's the same reason they schedule unnecessary procedures and surgeries, even when patient safety is put at risk.

The problem is not UHC, it is the way we have blended it with our old for-profit corporate insurance system. Whenever health and human services are privatized the profit-motive comes into conflict with providing services, and the services suffer in order to increase profits. We should remove private insurance companies from the equation. Actually profit-driven hospitals are just as, if not more, dangerous. Instead of denying services, they push unnecessary, dangerous and expensive procedures for profit.

I work for a non-profit health system.
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
When you remove it from yours with your left wing leanings, support for Abortion/Murder? You left wingers love to support your Gay marriage...do you feel a moral obligation not to support politicians that support these things?

Not all left wingers are pro abort or pro gay marraiage
 

PureX

Well-known member
I'm against it completely. However, I'd budge a little if our taxes were only covering genetic diseases or no-fault problems.

But if you chose to smoke or eat big macs your whole life why do I have to pay for the related health problems?
You are confused. You would not be "paying for someone else's health problems". You would be paying into a system that would then cover your own health, and your family's health, for life. That's exactly what you already do with health insurance, but without the profit motive of the private health insurance industry, or the massive overhead involved in having 800 different health care insurance providers, each with it's own paperwork, forms, staff, investigators, etc.,.

Also, because there would be one payer for all health care services (the government) instead of many hundreds, price caps could be set, which are the essential element of every functional national health care system on the planet. The result of which is that EVERYONE gets good health care, and it costs about half what we are currently paying now, in the U.S., for spotty coverage.
 

shagster01

New member
You are confused. You would not be "paying for someone else's health problems". You would be paying into a system that would then cover your own health, and your family's health, for life. That's exactly what you already do with health insurance, but without the profit motive of the private health insurance industry, or the massive overhead involved in having 800 different health care insurance providers, each with it's own paperwork, forms, staff, investigators, etc.,.

Also, because there would be one payer for all health care services (the government) instead of many hundreds, price caps could be set, which are the essential element of every functional national health care system on the planet. The result of which is that EVERYONE gets good health care, and it costs about half what we are currently paying now, in the U.S., for spotty coverage.

10406596_10153123334557726_7326868142725630328_n.jpg
 
Top