You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Problems with the current system:
Healthcare in America is provided primarily by private entities, which charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense
Healthcare in America is provided primarily by private entities, which charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of the medical profession, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. Adding to the price difference is the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organizations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred.
This system has enormous problems. As of 2006, 44.8 million people in America do not have health insurance. Many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. Without health insurance, the up-front costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. In fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. In 2001, there were 2,038,549 bankruptcies due to medical costs.
Health insurance does not fully cover medical expenses. Different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, thresholds and other expense-minimizing devices. As a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness or injury.
The existing system is also increasingly expensive. Health care spending is now 15% of U.S. gross domestic product which is the highest in the world. The costs to businesses, which commonly pay premiums for their employees instead of additional salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. The annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. Paying more doesn't result in more value either; obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world, the U.S. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries.
Types of Universal Healthcare:
Universal Health Care, or UHC, refers to a wide range of different systems, but the commonality is that the government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. Every developed nation (OECD member) in the world, apart from the United States, has a UHC system. There are three main types:
In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidized. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well.
In an optional public system, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated), and is used by people who prefer it and can of course afford it. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden.
In a subsidized private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada.
How UHC Will Improve Things:
The single largest problem with healthcare in America is that many people don't have it. It's obvious how UHC solves this. All developed nations other than the United States guarantee healthcare for their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. The two reasons which make a person uninsurable, insurer decisions and affordability, no longer exist with UHC.
The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost (which shows up as a bill each month or as a benefit from an employer), and government cost (which to the individual shows up as taxation). UHC is inherently cheaper - far cheaper - due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive.
When it comes to individual health care costs, according to the World Health Organization, average American individual spending on healthcare (not including any taxes) is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured, actual costs are higher. Compare:
United States: $3371
Australia: $1017
Canada: $916
Sweden: $532
United Kingdom: $397
Australia is the runner-up, meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation on average. This would be justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.
It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. Compare:
United States: $2887
France: $2714
Australia: $2106
Canada: $2338
Sweden: $2468
United Kingdom: $2372
American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. You may be asking “How is this possible?” well here are the reasons: The US government incurs massive costs when ER visitors have no coverage or money and preventative care prevents many ER visits in the first place. Furthermore, the limited coverage that it does provide (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Veterans, etc.) cannot take advantage of economies of scale, has to subsidize corporate profit, and does not have the negotiating advantage of a monopoly.
In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care for more people than the American health care system. How can it not improve things here?
***I'd like to thank my friend G.B. for allowing me to use some of his arguments for this post**
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
Last edited by OddManRush; February 12th, 2008 at 11:51 AM.
if people weren't poor they could afford health insurance.
I don't understand that argument.
I am a poor college student paying my way through college with a job selling shoes, one slow step at a time. Even still, I can find a way to pay for my health insurance. And trust me, I make very little after you throw in CSUN tuition.
But here is my real beef, when you start throwing the government into the privacy of your body condition, you are inherantly going to have to raise the taxes. Why? Well, the poor are no more likely to pay now more on healthcare then they pay before you create that system. So, the govt. deficits go way up. Unless you raise taxes, and the middle class/upper class are paying for other peoples Healthcare. And, now that the govt. is involved, they are going to have some of the same frustrations that the private sector healthcare has. Unhealthy people living unhealthy lifestyles. Are we going to pay for them to abuse their bodies? If yes, then that is complete bull that taxpayers are paying for people to waste even more tax money. If no, then it is still bull, because now the govt. is mandating how you live your lifestyle.
Universal Healthcare is the detour route to Socialism.
__________________ ~ No man has ever gone through life without having a scared heart.
This all makes too much sense OddMan. If we went against the profit incentive dogma on this issue then who knows what other parts of the economic and social systems we'd be tempted to make more efficient, rational and humane. Once you start to use reason solve problems it's a slippery slope. I'm sure Kingrick has it all figured out.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
This all makes too much sense. If we went against the profit incentive dogma on this issue then who knows what other parts of the economic and social systems we'd be tempted to make more efficient, rational and humane. Once you start to use reason solve problems it's a slippery slope.
Is that the same profit incentive agenda that makes our country the greatest power on earth, and the lack thereof of the semi-socalist govt's in Europe to fail to do so. There are better ways.
__________________ ~ No man has ever gone through life without having a scared heart.
But here is my real beef, when you start throwing the government into the privacy of your body condition, you are inherently going to have to raise the taxes. Why? Well, the poor are no more likely to pay now more on health care then they pay before you create that system. So, the govt. deficits go way up. Unless you raise taxes, and the middle class/upper class are paying for other people's health care. And, now that the govt. is involved, they are going to have some of the same frustrations that the private sector health care has. Unhealthy people living unhealthy lifestyles. Are we going to pay for them to abuse their bodies? If yes, then that is complete bull that taxpayers are paying for people to waste even more tax money. If no, then it is still bull, because now the govt. is mandating how you live your lifestyle.
You are ALREADY paying for the poor's health care. They go to the ER for expensive procedures on our dollar instead of getting much cheaper, more efficient preventive care. This just results in more expensive care for you and me. Just look at health care expenditures per capita if you don't believe me.
Do you think you should have a choice whether or not to buy car insurance? And if so, how is this different?
The vast majority of this is funded by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. A healthier citizenry is in everyone's best interest. And I mean, it's not like we're throwing money away at far worse things... oh, wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingrick
Universal Healthcare is the detour route to Socialism.
No, it isn't. That's crap. There is HUGE difference between govt. mandating insurance and govt. running the hospitals.
I am a poor college student paying my way through college with a job selling shoes, one slow step at a time. Even still, I can find a way to pay for my health insurance. And trust me, I make very little after you throw in CSUN tuition.
But here is my real beef, when you start throwing the government into the privacy of your body condition, you are inherantly going to have to raise the taxes. Why? Well, the poor are no more likely to pay now more on healthcare then they pay before you create that system. So, the govt. deficits go way up. Unless you raise taxes, and the middle class/upper class are paying for other peoples Healthcare. And, now that the govt. is involved, they are going to have some of the same frustrations that the private sector healthcare has. Unhealthy people living unhealthy lifestyles. Are we going to pay for them to abuse their bodies? If yes, then that is complete bull that taxpayers are paying for people to waste even more tax money. If no, then it is still bull, because now the govt. is mandating how you live your lifestyle.
Universal Healthcare is the detour route to Socialism.
You're already paying for the healthcare of the poor and uninsured in emergency rooms across the country. In fact, as my post showed, Americans pay MORE for healthcare in the form of taxes than any nation with UHC. The rest of your post makes a valid point, but there are easy solutions. For example, put a tax on tobacco products. That way, those taxes essentially pay for the healthcare of anyone who later has problems due to tobacco products. Or provide more incentives in the form of tax breaks or subsidies for healthy living. Write off that gym membership for example.
EDIT: Beaten like a mule.
Last edited by OddManRush; February 12th, 2008 at 03:18 PM.
You are ALREADY paying for the poor's health care. They go to the ER for expensive procedures on our dollar instead of getting much cheaper, more efficient preventive care. This just results in more expensive care for you and me. Just look at health care expenditures per capita if you don't believe me.
Do you think you should have a choice whether or not to buy car insurance? And if so, how is this different?
The vast majority of this is funded by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. A healthier citizenry is in everyone's best interest. And I mean, it's not like we're throwing money away at far worse things... oh, wait.
No, it isn't. That's crap. There is HUGE difference between govt. mandating insurance and govt. running the hospitals.
First of, yes your right that I am paying for their ER visits. Not the same thing as all of their medical.
But your key is there with "roll back the Bush tax cuts." You want other people to pay more money for that plan. Isn't that called wealth redistribution, hense the socialism point.
__________________ ~ No man has ever gone through life without having a scared heart.
You're already paying for the healthcare of the poor and uninsured in emergency rooms across the country. In fact, as my post showed, Americans pay MORE for healthcare in the form of taxes than any nation with UHC. The rest of your post makes a valid point, but there are easy solutions. For example, put a tax on tobacco products. That way, those taxes essentially pay for the healthcare of anyone who later has problems due to tobacco products. Or provide more incentives in the form of tax breaks or subsidies for healthy living. Write off that gym membership for example.
EDIT: Beaten like a mule.
Again, tax and spend. I can afford it with almost nothing, I am sure other people with jobs can figure it out too. We need to bring out knowlege, not force. Let people know how to get it, it is very available if you look.
__________________ ~ No man has ever gone through life without having a scared heart.
Look, I know it's hard to accept Kingrick, but the fact of the matter is that taxes could actually be lowered if the United States switched to UHC, and individuals would spend less of their personal income on healthcare as well, improving the economy. This was explained in my post but here are the reasons:
Preventative care is cheaper than emergency room care.
The economics of scale.
The bargaining power of a monopoly in terms of deciding how much to pay for prescription drugs and administrative salaries.
First of, yes your right that I am paying for their ER visits. Not the same thing as all of their medical.
You do realize how much more expensive it is to pay for health services on an emergency basis and not a preventive basis is, right? Hence the point about per capita expenditure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingrick
But your key is there with "roll back the Bush tax cuts." You want other people to pay more money for that plan. Isn't that called wealth redistribution, hence the socialism point.
Is public education socialism? Is law enforcement socialism? Are public health clinics socialism? Is the DMV socialism? Is requiring car insurance socialism? All these things require tax dollars.
Your socialism point is nonsense. Socialism is govt. running the industry. It is quite obviously not.
Look, I know it's hard to accept Kingrick, but the fact of the matter is that taxes could actually be lowered if the United States switched to UHC, and individuals would spend less of their personal income on healthcare as well, improving the economy. This was explained in my post but here are the reasons:
Preventative care is cheaper than emergency room care.
The economics of scale.
The bargaining power of a monopoly in terms of deciding how much to pay for prescription drugs and administrative salaries.
And finally the elimination of a profit motive.
I will accept that that is a fair point. But, we are talking about the govt. here. They can't touch anything simple without screwing it up.
__________________ ~ No man has ever gone through life without having a scared heart.
Again, tax and spend. I can afford it with almost nothing, I am sure other people with jobs can figure it out too. We need to bring out knowlege, not force. Let people know how to get it, it is very available if you look.
Did you miss the part of my post where I said that over a MILLION Americans went bankrupt in 2001 due to medical costs DESPITE their having health insurance?
Universal Healthcare: Cheaper and More Effective 
Kingrick
...AD NAUSEAM.