PDA

View Full Version : Universal Health Care



Sabireley
02-26-2009, 07:50 PM
If the government has a monetary interest in healthcare, and therefore wants to reduce the cost of healthcare, coercing the population into healthy habits, or avoiding unhealthy habits must certainly follow. Will we see a fat tax, mandatory employer sponsored exercise programs, others...?

Gerry Clinchy
02-26-2009, 11:31 PM
Actually, I just read somewhere the other day that in Japan the govt measures people's waistlines and does issue some kind of a fine if they don't reduce their weight!

An interesting turn of events ... since the govt is paying for the health care, they get to legislate healthy living habits? Since use of drugs like coke is definitely unhealthy, will it be just as illegal to be fat as to use coke? It occurs to me whether then everyone should be required to take urine drug tests, to weed out those who are using unhealthy drugs? Goes without saying that smoking would also become illegal. Then maybe a law limiting consumption of alcohol (oops, we tried that once, and it didn't work.)

This could get humorous if it weren't so scary.

Richard Halstead
02-27-2009, 12:07 AM
I have health care for federal employees similar to what the Big O (I don't mean Oscar Robinson) wants everyone to have in the last 6 months I had to pick up the amount not covered. After paying 4000 dollars I wonder about some of the sanity of those that created the rules. An RN nurse and LPN are covered at 160/hr for the RN when a aid at $20/hr could do the job, but that's not covered and is paid at my cost.

I am not at the poverty line, but with the costs of what health care doesn't cover I will be there soon. Maybe I'll get some of plumber Joe's earnings when Obama spreads the wealth?

YardleyLabs
02-27-2009, 07:10 AM
The majority of health care costs in this country are already paid by the government, either through direct insurance programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, military benefits, or federal employee insurance, or through tax subsidies for costs paid by businesses and private individuals. Universal health care is actually a much less radical change than those that have happened with the growth of managed care providers, or even the shift from a predominantly non-profit hospital industry to one that is largely for profit.

badbullgator
02-27-2009, 07:44 AM
The majority of health care costs in this country are already paid by the government, either through direct insurance programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, military benefits, or federal employee insurance, or through tax subsidies for costs paid by businesses and private individuals. Universal health care is actually a much less radical change than those that have happened with the growth of managed care providers, or even the shift from a predominantly non-profit hospital industry to one that is largely for profit.


So Jeff do you ever disagree with any thing the left says?
Goberment running every aspect of your life is not a good thing, do you agree with that?

kjrice
02-27-2009, 11:02 AM
I don't recall so many problems with health care until the advent of "managed care." It is just another scam.

labdoc
02-27-2009, 01:07 PM
I love this topic! I truly believe socialized medicine or whatever you want to call it is coming, and soon. So...even though many do not want this, what could the US do to avoid being like Canada and Europe with government dictated treatments, long waits, etc? As far as the fat tax, smoking tax, drinking tax, etc, if a person is higher risk for health problems due to items under their control, they should pay more in any health care service or insurance. I sure can't see any Democrats passing that one as it does not redistribute expenses or wealth evenly.

Steve
02-27-2009, 01:13 PM
I have health care for federal employees similar to what the Big O (I don't mean Oscar Robinson)

Apologize immediately for that slur against one of the greatest b-ball players of all the time! Saw The Big O last night when my Cats beat WVU.

Oh yeah, universal health care is BS. You can no more legislate health care than you can a good economy. We will end up with rationed care and more people will die of diseases that are routinely treated in uor current system.

Leftists push universal care because that gives them one more way to control the masses.

subroc
02-27-2009, 01:31 PM
...We will end up with rationed care and more people will die of diseases that are routinely treated in uor current system...

This is what I believe the outcome of government controlled health care will be.

Mike W.
02-27-2009, 01:32 PM
It's bad news.

Juli H
02-27-2009, 01:56 PM
The government has done enough already to f up the country....might as well add another pig to the pile.

Juli

YardleyLabs
02-27-2009, 03:04 PM
So Jeff do you ever disagree with any thing the left says?
Goberment running every aspect of your life is not a good thing, do you agree with that?

Quite often. I believe in universal health care coverage that is not financed through employment while the administration is actually looking to increase the portion of the bill paid by employers. One of the major mistakes in this country is that we expect employers to pay the bulk of health care costs. That severely affects the ability of our business to compete globally since no other country treats health care as a cost of employment. It also results in a variety of corporate shenanigans to avoid having to provide benefits for lower income employees while preserving benefits for more valued employees, including outsourcing labor to other countries.

I believe that there is lots of room for discussing the level of benefits that would be covered by a national plan. Once that package is settled, I do not believe that there should be any tax benefits to those purchasing additional coverage. It should not be allowed as a business expense and there should be no tax deductions for medical expenses or for supplemental insurances. People with higher incomes would still be able to purchase a higher level of service either by paying directly or by purchasing supplemental insurance, but the government would not be subsidizing that expense through tax preferences.

I understand and share concerns about the bureaucratization of medicine. However, we already ate that apple and have been paying the price in our health care for some time. I don't want government running my life and I don't want Microsoft or my insurance company running it either. Unfortunately I have to live with all three. At least the government gives me the illusion of a vote.

Bob Gutermuth
02-27-2009, 03:12 PM
How much will it cost to insure the uninsurable, like people with AIDS and crack heads who cannot get insurance due to their health conditions? I don't want my insurance going up because we have to pay for thsoe who don't give a snit about their own health.

YardleyLabs
02-27-2009, 03:19 PM
How much will it cost to insure the uninsurable, like people with AIDS and crack heads who cannot get insurance due to their health conditions? I don't want my insurance going up because we have to pay for thsoe who don't give a snit about their own health.

Once they have spent their own money, their bills are being paid by taxpayers through Medicaid (based on income) and Medicare (based on disability). The people who benefit from universal coverage are those who are working full time but don't have health insurance and can't afford regular care. Those people now avoid seeking the medical services that might allow them to catch their illnesses before they become disabling.

Bob Gutermuth
02-27-2009, 03:32 PM
Its my experience that many addicts don't even seek treatment until they are at the very end of their rope or they are forced into it, thru arrest or something similar. One of my former training partners was a neonatologist, according to him most pregnant dopers do not get any prenatal care but when they do get it they (medicare users) are the first ones to sue if something is wrong with their child. I object to paying for their care in the first place and in the second place I do not like they way that they treat malpractice as a lottery.

Gerry Clinchy
02-27-2009, 06:51 PM
The majority of health care costs in this country are already paid by the government, either through direct insurance programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, military benefits, or federal employee insurance, or through tax subsidies for costs paid by businesses and private individuals. Universal health care is actually a much less radical change than those that have happened with the growth of managed care providers, or even the shift from a predominantly non-profit hospital industry to one that is largely for profit.

If we look at the VA medical system, there are many shortcomings there. HMOs seemed like a good idea since a doctor visit was so cheap for members. It seemed less good when the HMO stepped in to deny certain procedures to members. I can remember a friend being sent home from the hospital after major surgery in spite of her doctor's strong objections, because that's what the insurance company wanted based on the efficiency of the use of funds rather than medical judgment.

While the health care may be "subsidized" in non-obvious ways, it isn't quite the same as actually being run by a government agency. It seems that government agencies are often allowed to do things that would not be permitted of a private enterprise. People are quick to critique practices that stem from "for profit" motives. That's a harder battle to fight when the government decides to take control and run something ostensibly for "the greater good of all".

Federal bureaucracies often turn the simple into a charade. Right now, locally, the Dept of Homeland Security is in a small skirmish over proper security clearance "permits" for the people who care for and escort the mules along a historic canal route. Also, a local joke that they might have to get permits for the mules:rolleyes: The canal is no longer in use. There are not strategic implacements anywhere their route along the canal. Even the intercession of Congressman Dent carried no weight with the bureaucracy. They responded to his letter quoting chapter and verse of their regulations. You'd think they'd be looking at the high profile risks rather than concentrating on a couple of muleskinners?

I think that this is the real fear/danger of health care that is overtly government-operated.

YardleyLabs
02-27-2009, 07:27 PM
If we look at the VA medical system, there are many shortcomings there. HMOs seemed like a good idea since a doctor visit was so cheap for members. It seemed less good when the HMO stepped in to deny certain procedures to members. I can remember a friend being sent home from the hospital after major surgery in spite of her doctor's strong objections, because that's what the insurance company wanted based on the efficiency of the use of funds rather than medical judgment.

While the health care may be "subsidized" in non-obvious ways, it isn't quite the same as actually being run by a government agency. It seems that government agencies are often allowed to do things that would not be permitted of a private enterprise. People are quick to critique practices that stem from "for profit" motives. That's a harder battle to fight when the government decides to take control and run something ostensibly for "the greater good of all".

Federal bureaucracies often turn the simple into a charade. Right now, locally, the Dept of Homeland Security is in a small skirmish over proper security clearance "permits" for the people who care for and escort the mules along a historic canal route. Also, a local joke that they might have to get permits for the mules:rolleyes: The canal is no longer in use. There are not strategic implacements anywhere their route along the canal. Even the intercession of Congressman Dent carried no weight with the bureaucracy. They responded to his letter quoting chapter and verse of their regulations. You'd think they'd be looking at the high profile risks rather than concentrating on a couple of muleskinners?

I think that this is the real fear/danger of health care that is overtly government-operated.

Actually, Obama has made it clear that he does not favor direct federal administration of health benefits. This would be done by insurance companies as it is now. Only Medicaid and some workers comp programs are directly administered by governments and that is at the state level. Even there, almost all have contracted out the actual payment and medical management to private companies that are the same ones used by many company health plans.

tpaschal30
02-27-2009, 09:52 PM
Actually, Obama has made it clear that he does not favor direct federal administration of health benefits. This would be done by insurance companies as it is now. Only Medicaid and some workers comp programs are directly administered by governments and that is at the state level. Even there, almost all have contracted out the actual payment and medical management to private companies that are the same ones used by many company health plans.

Which continues the 3rd party payer system that causes runaway costs.

YardleyLabs
02-28-2009, 07:42 AM
Which continues the 3rd party payer system that causes runaway costs.

I don't believe you will find even 20% support for ending third party payment of health care costs. Unfortunately that means that health care cost containment will continue to be dependent of bureaucratic action by third party payers and very limited cost sharing by consumers.

Interestingly, I suspect that the biggest questions will continue to arise around health care decisions affecting end of life. Insurance companies and Medicare now basically pay people with less than six months to live to give up their rights to medical treatment in return for free palliative and custodial care. I expect that trend to grow and would not be surprised to see more creative innovations in the "rewards" offered to those that give up rights to treatment.

tpaschal30
02-28-2009, 08:24 AM
I don't believe you will find even 20% support for ending third party payment of health care costs. Unfortunately that means that health care cost containment will continue to be dependent of bureaucratic action by third party payers and very limited cost sharing by consumers.

Interestingly, I suspect that the biggest questions will continue to arise around health care decisions affecting end of life. Insurance companies and Medicare now basically pay people with less than six months to live to give up their rights to medical treatment in return for free palliative and custodial care. I expect that trend to grow and would not be surprised to see more creative innovations in the "rewards" offered to those that give up rights to treatment.

Or rationing is the most likely option since the will to live is stronger than a socalled reward. I'm sure nobody will ditch 3rd party payer now, since they see sticker shock. The government began the end of that with Medicare.
Ever increasing deductables with catastrophic and/or hospitilization coverage would and could get the ball rolling back toward a market driven system.

badbullgator
03-02-2009, 08:54 AM
Has anyone thought about how overwhelmed the health care system would be if everyone had coverage? Millions of people who do not seek care for many things will be lined up to receive services. Now I am not saying people should not be insured because they will overwhelm the system, but I am saying it would cause great problems in the health care delivery system as we know it. Add to this decreased reimbursement to providers and you will soon see a major shortage of healthcare providers because who wants to spend the time it takes to become a nurse, physician, medical technologist, radiology tech….for less money than they are making now and with an increased work load?
Think there are waiting list in other countries with nationalized healthcare, wait till you see it here. The other countries have had decades to deal with it. We would be starting from scratch.
Just saying