Universal Healthcare

[Utyran]

You are free to express your views here, but, please leave off with the personal attacks, and insults.

How would you act if somebody showes up your doorstep and tells you "Hello Mr.Everymen iam here to grab your property and make your children to debt slaves because i can vote for that to feel myself a better person which i don't be."

That said: Move to a different country. Preferably one with no government, no taxation, and no public services. I think Somalia would fit the bill nicely, don't you?

Better idea: We take you and your socialist buddys, took you on a ship, bring you to a lone island far away and you show us how a universal healthcare system that will be better and cheaper would work. My Land, my property. Don't tread on me doesn't mean i will run away. It means you get beaten and if you try to grab my stuff and die... on a UHC Hospital waiting list ofcourse.

 

No I have a better idea, take your opinion and attitude with you when you go, your time here is now at an end.

 

Buddah

[marharth]

You are free to express your views here, but, please leave off with the personal attacks, and insults.

How would you act if somebody showes up your doorstep and tells you "Hello Mr.Everymen iam here to grab your property and make your children to debt slaves because i can vote for that to feel myself a better person which i don't be."

 

 

That said: Move to a different country. Preferably one with no government, no taxation, and no public services. I think Somalia would fit the bill nicely, don't you?

Better idea: We take you and your socialist buddys, took you on a ship, bring you to a lone island far away and you show us how a universal healthcare system that will be better and cheaper would work.

My Land, my property. Don't tread on me doesn't mean i will run away. It means you get beaten and if you try to grab my stuff and die... on a UHC Hospital waiting list ofcourse.

We already have "socialist" islands that work just fine thank you very much.

 

Your perfect libertarian country doesn't seem to be so great though does it?

 

EDIT: Seems like he was banned for a previous post, so I guess he won't be able to reply to this.

Edited September 17, 2011 by marharth

[ffa1mf]

Does universal HC reduce the quality of that care?

 

I live in a country with universal health care. My wife, daughter and brother work in the health care system. My brother and daughter have worked in countries without universal health care systems. I have the best health care and the quality is very high. Maybe I don't get immediate, on demand treatment based on my wishes and I get placed on a priority list by a doctor, but I know that I'll get treatment and it will be the best for my illness and that I can get regardless of my financial or social status.

 

 

Can Universal HC reduce the options patients have?

 

Depends on what is meant by options.

I have two friends who didn't like the options for the treatment of their MS (my country says the treatment they wanted isn't proven or safe) so they went to another country for treatment. Spent tens of thousands of dollars and got about 6 weeks of some relief - one is back to where they were before, the other requires surgery to fix what was damaged by the treatment in another country. A coworker didn't like their options for cancer treatment so they went to another country, spent tens of thousands of dollars and - died. I'll admit the health care system is not perfect and sometimes they could do things a bit faster or efficiently, but this goes back to the first question on quality of care. Any doctor I've ever seen has discussed my options within the system of care available. Between the Dr. and me we have decided the best way to go in treatment. The options are available.

The options I have available are not specifically "care" options. Do I want a private room instead of a ward - well that's an option if I want it, but I or my insurance pays the difference. Do I want a 24 hour nurse instead of a ward nurse? Well yes I can get that too, but again either I or my insurance is paying for it.

 

 

Can Universal HC be used as a social and political tool?

 

Perhaps not so much as a social tool (I'm not sure how that would work anyway), but politicians use the presence or absence of health care all the time to scare voters. No one wants to be in the position of not having health care when they need it, as opposed to when they can afford it.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

Can Universal HC be used as a social and political tool?

 

Perhaps not so much as a social tool (I'm not sure how that would work anyway),

 

What I'm talking about is the chance that those supporting the pet agendas of the party in power will find it easier to get health care services easier than those that don't . I'm thinking more along the lines of forcing people to buy newer cars, because of the impact on exhaust fumes. The inability to get foods prepared in a certain way, because of healthy concerns. The hardening of Abortion rights. The pressuring of those who speak out against certain pet causes.

[roquefort]

Here in the UK we have the choice, which is fine. The vast majority of the people here use UHC, and are generally happy to. You don't have to opt for one or the other, and can dip into private options if (for example) you want to jump the queue for some reason. This will not affect your entitlement to free-at-the-point-of-demand UHC options.

 

I'd say it's a good system.

[brokenergy]

Australia has universal healthcare and you can still choose have the quality of healthcare that you want from private. A public healthcare system is a last resort for people of low income to fall back to and to have the same basic services as everyone else. That said, while there are problems with funding, waiting times and other issues, most of the time this can fixed if people can mannage risk better (such as drunken assults, drugs, obesity etc). That said if people were to stop smoking, mannage their drinks and lost weight you can save hundreds and thousands of dollars in healthcare costs.

 

Will healthcare be used for politics? Like everything else yes. It's not so much as the removal of healthcare more in the lines of the only publicly owned private healthcare insure is going to be considered to be sold. The whole point is to make them look bad while you support the people. How do people pay for public healthcare? A simple levi which increases as you earn more. I consider this as a great incentive for people (especally under the age of 31) to obtain private healthcare insurace, whether from the only publicly own private insurance or by thousands of other providers. So I have nothing drastic to complain and glad that I have a safety net to protect me.

[ffa1mf]

What I'm talking about is the chance that those supporting the pet agendas of the party in power will find it easier to get health care services easier than those that don't . I'm thinking more along the lines of forcing people to buy newer cars, because of the impact on exhaust fumes. The inability to get foods prepared in a certain way, because of healthy concerns. The hardening of Abortion rights. The pressuring of those who speak out against certain pet causes.

 

The system does get abused - recently a couple of doctors were fined, lost their license, etc. for taking bribes from patients who wanted treatment sooner and paid to jump ahead of the line as it were.

I know politicians have lobbied the health care system to have patients obtain treatment from sources outside of the country because the patient and politician were convinced the other treatment was better (my thought is how do they know - they are not doctors - and should desperation drive healthcare or some other process?).

However, such occurrences are rare and individuals caught are usually punished for breaking the rules/laws associated with the UHC system.

 

I think that some of the problems you suggest are not entirely solved or compounded by UHC.

 

The whole pollution, global warming, oil supply debates likely have a bigger impact on governments forcing new cars on consumers than UHC. While there is a degree of association between health care and these issues, I think its something else other than health care that drives such issues.

 

Smoking and body weight and not living a healthy life style are more likely an issue in a UHC country, but then countries without UHC are establishing similar rules on the population. So is it a UHC thing or is it simply that an unhealthy population causes problems for health care systems (UHC or not) and counties without such rules are looked down upon as uncaring and inhumane if they don't do something to try and control quality of life within their country?

 

Does it actually matter if a government sets healthy lifestyle rules because they want to solve a UHC issue, because they want to be seen as a "caring" country and copy what other countries do or because health insurance companies (or even health care professionals) have lobbied governments to set such rules? While governments do pass laws and set rules, its not always a government idea - sometimes its industry, sometimes its a lobby group, sometimes its the majority of the population.

[Aonghus]

I'm not normally one to get into political discussions in this type of topic. I'm not likely to read anything to cause me to change my views, nor am I likely to say anything that will cause others to change theirs. Still, I can sum up my opposition to a UHC model (based on fear,) with five words:

 

The Department of Motor Vehicles

 

:wallbash:

 

(I should probably also add that in my personal philosophy there is no phrase more frightening than, "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.")

Edited September 18, 2011 by Aonghus

[roquefort]

'(I should probably also add that in my personal philosophy there is no phrase more frightening than, "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.") '

 

The victims of Hurricane Katrina, or those caught up in the Japanese tsunami or the immediate aftermath of 9/11, might not have found those words so frightening though. Some situations are so big that only governments can effectively deal with them.

[Aonghus]

'(I should probably also add that in my personal philosophy there is no phrase more frightening than, "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.") '

 

The victims of Hurricane Katrina, or those caught up in the Japanese tsunami or the immediate aftermath of 9/11, might not have found those words so frightening though. Some situations are so big that only governments can effectively deal with them.

 

You may find it surprising to find that I agree with you there. The problem, IMHO is that these are exceptions that prove the rule. Too often in my lifetime I've seen government intervening simply because it could. Even worse are the cases where it falls into the "governmental fallacy"

 

1. Something needs to be done.

2. This is something.

3. This needs to be done.

 

The road to hell in three easy steps.

 

As an example, I would point to a recent decision in my (rather libertarian) state requiring all children up to the age of eight to be in car safety seats. Are children killed in car crashes? Yes. Is this a tragedy? Yes. Do safety seats help protect children in car crashes? Yes. but accepting the logic in the state's decision is one small step from requiring parent to drape their kids with bubble wrap 24/7.