Universal Low-Cost Healthcare

[Nylo]

Why not make national healthcare low-cost, instead of free? If people want healthcare, they should still have to pay for it; it's not cheap to pave the way of modern medicine. But I never hear about this concept, it's always about FREE healthcare.

[onefingersalute1]

you go all the way or not at all dont half ass it

[d3c0y2]

What the guy above said, in a nut shell.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/24/07 08:40 PM, onefingersalute1 wrote: you go all the way or not at all dont half ass it

What he said

[K-RadPie]

I'm sure the doctors would be VERY happy about it.

[Buckdich]

You could try universal health insurance, its the private sector's answer to the problem.

[MortifiedPenguins]

So basically subsidised healthcare?

My home state is already trying that.

[Korriken]

At 7/24/07 08:40 PM, onefingersalute1 wrote: you go all the way or not at all dont half ass it

I sense a perfectionist fallacy. Free healthcare places a huge burden on society, cheap healthcare places a big, but not AS big burden on society. Those that stay sick should pay a larger portion than those who keep themselves healthy.

[Elfer]

At 7/24/07 10:08 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/24/07 08:40 PM, onefingersalute1 wrote: you go all the way or not at all dont half ass it

I sense a perfectionist fallacy. Free healthcare places a huge burden on society, cheap healthcare places a big, but not AS big burden on society. Those that stay sick should pay a larger portion than those who keep themselves healthy.

So hospitals have an incentive to keep patients sick, and people who are sick through no fault of their own get fucked over.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/24/07 10:08 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/24/07 08:40 PM, onefingersalute1 wrote:

I sense a perfectionist fallacy. Free healthcare places a huge burden on society, cheap healthcare places a big, but not AS big burden on society. Those that stay sick should pay a larger portion than those who keep themselves healthy.

Thats kinda of a double negative.

These healthcare plans were designed to make sure that the sick don't have to pay as large of a amount as the rest of us.

[damionford]

I sense a perfectionist fallacy. Free healthcare places a huge burden on society, cheap healthcare places a big, but not AS big burden on society. Those that stay sick should pay a larger portion than those who keep themselves healthy.

Thats kinda of a double negative.

These healthcare plans were designed to make sure that the sick don't have to pay as large of a amount as the rest of us.

Well That goes with the concept "No Free Lunch" someone will always get screwed over no matter what

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/24/07 10:30 PM, damionford wrote:

Well That goes with the concept "No Free Lunch" someone will always get screwed over no matter what

Well, then whats the point of installing universall medical plans, if your screwing the ones that actually need them.

You don't help the people that don't really need the help.

[cellardoor6]

In order for that to happen, the government would probably still have to raise taxes to a level that the majority of Americans won't accept, and intervene in the business of insurance companies, hospials, doctors and private parties.

Either the government could do it in sync with the health industry, or do it by taking over the health industry and limiting their decision making, limiting the free market.

The first option is reasonable, this was done in Massachusetts to good effect. The second option is ridiculous and is what is being proposed by the Democrats to do at the national level.

If the government takes over the healthcare industry it would be disastrous. Allowing the government to create a monopoly, allowing its own bureaucracy infect what is actually a good system (for those who are insured) is a bad, bad idea.

Forcefully making healthcare cheap by cutting costs and creating artificial, non-market driven policies would ruin innovation, ruin efficiency, cause poor quality, and just basically sabotage a healthcare industry that produces medical advancements at a higher rate than any other in the world due to its openess to private investment, and freedom from the ineptitude of politicians who know absolutely dick about anything.

[Der-Lowe]

Isn't that way how transportation works?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

Because the problem of cost is still there.

O.K. so people have to foot say about 20% of their bill?

For operations that costs thousands of pounds, that is still gonna cost the government a lot.

The way to go I think, though I don't actually know the figures or if it would be cheaper or even viable, would be to get the government to buy insurance for everyone. That way you have the government paying, as I believe should be the case, but with private institutions running it so you have a better service.

Like I say, no idea if it's feasible or not.

[Begoner]

A prominent point of a universal health-care system is to shift the burden of paying health costs from a single individual to the entire nation, so that the chronically ill, those who suffer from a costly disease, and the poor don't have to foot a relatively larger bill than anybody else. This would be negated by what you are suggesting.

[Memorize]

At 7/25/07 04:56 PM, Begoner wrote: A prominent point of a universal health-care system is to shift the burden of paying health costs from a single individual to the entire nation, so that the chronically ill, those who suffer from a costly disease, and the poor don't have to foot a relatively larger bill than anybody else. This would be negated by what you are suggesting.

So it's basically a 'lets-make-everyone-poorer' scheme.

Nevermind those who already struggle and get by just barely with their bills, let's tax them more at other people's expense.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/25/07 04:56 PM, Begoner wrote: A prominent point of a universal health-care system is to shift the burden of paying health costs from a single individual to the entire nation, so that the chronically ill, those who suffer from a costly disease, and the poor don't have to foot a relatively larger bill than anybody else. This would be negated by what you are suggesting.

If you can afford health costs why should you be forced to receive generic services with the liberating bonus [sarcasm] of raised taxes.

[Begoner]

At 7/25/07 05:02 PM, Memorize wrote: So it's basically a 'lets-make-everyone-poorer' scheme.

Nevermind those who already struggle and get by just barely with their bills, let's tax them more at other people's expense.

Those who already struggle and get by just barely as it is can hardly afford costly medical procedures which may be necessary to ensure their welfare. Many people have to decide between buying pills or paying for the gas, or may find themselves in other such deplorable situations.

Let's assume for a second that everyone will be equally sick throughout life, regardless of the amount of money they possess. So every person would have to pay x for medical expenses. However, if a universal health-care system is implemented, the funding for it may be strictly tax-based (ie, no out-of-pocket expenses for going to the doctor). Thus, the entire country pays 300 000 000 x. The lowest quintile of the population in terms of income only pays 0.7% of all federal taxes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/
Tfdb/Content/PDF/distribution_taxes_2000 .PDF

So that means that 60 000 000 people (20% of 300 000 000) only pay 2 100 000 x (0.7% of 300 000 000 x). Or, each person only has to pay 0.035 x. Alternatively, that means that the poorest people will have to pay 28.5 times LESS for medical expenses than they do with the current system.

[Begoner]

At 7/25/07 05:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If you can afford health costs why should you be forced to receive generic services with the liberating bonus [sarcasm] of raised taxes.

First, let me point out that all proposals for a universal health-care system allow for private practices to charge more for expensive procedures that aren't strictly necessary. Thus, the rich would be entitled to a higher standard of care as the poor.

However, since I value all human life equally, I do not think that the rich should be favored over the poor when receiving medical care. They are not more worthy of life than anyone else.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/25/07 05:22 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 7/25/07 05:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

First, let me point out that all proposals for a universal health-care system allow for private practices to charge more for expensive procedures that aren't strictly necessary. Thus, the rich would be entitled to a higher standard of care as the poor.

But they would still be footing the bill for everyone else.

Just like most middle class people would be footing the bill for both the slow inneficient public health and the more costly and effective private practice.

It's inefficient and more then likely, the middle class will go towards the cheaper public health options and slow down an already slow process.

[Begoner]

At 7/25/07 06:44 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: It's inefficient...

Actually, the universal health-care systems of all developed European nations are far more efficient than the US's current system; they yield an equal (or greater) life expectancy than that of the US for half the cost.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/25/07 05:22 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 7/25/07 05:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

However, since I value all human life equally, I do not think that the rich should be favored over the poor when receiving medical care. They are not more worthy of life than anyone else.

You make it sound like the only important things in this argument is the concept of having more money [not the money itself] and the equality of humans [which is evident]

I go to a store and i purchase a Teddie bear that is 5 inches high, for 3$'s for my grandmother.

My Friend goes to the same store, and purchases the 8 inch teddie bear for 6 Dollars, But the store clerk gives him the 5"

My Friend asks why; and the store clerk tells him that my friend shouldn't be favored over me because he brought more money along with him. My friend ends up paying more for the same sirvice.

[Begoner]

At 7/25/07 07:56 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You make it sound like the only important things in this argument is the concept of having more money [not the money itself] and the equality of humans [which is evident]

I go to a store and i purchase a Teddie bear that is 5 inches high, for 3$'s for my grandmother.

My Friend goes to the same store, and purchases the 8 inch teddie bear for 6 Dollars, But the store clerk gives him the 5"

My Friend asks why; and the store clerk tells him that my friend shouldn't be favored over me because he brought more money along with him. My friend ends up paying more for the same sirvice.

It might be acceptable for the rich to be entitled to superior products and services than the poor. They may purchase bigger houses, faster cars, or nicer teddy bears. However, when it comes down to a matter of life and death, both should be treated equally. If we have the capacity to save lives, we should not selectively employ that potential to prolong the life of the rich. The poor should not be left to die because of a lack of money -- their life is just as important as anybody else's.

[Memorize]

At 7/25/07 05:19 PM, Begoner wrote:

Those who already struggle and get by just barely as it is can hardly afford costly medical procedures which may be necessary to ensure their welfare. Many people have to decide between buying pills or paying for the gas, or may find themselves in other such deplorable situations.

So basically you're going to force certain people to pay more for others.

[Begoner]

At 7/25/07 08:54 PM, Memorize wrote: So basically you're going to force certain people to pay more for others.

Yes. I value one man's life over another man's Jaguar.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/25/07 07:13 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 7/25/07 06:44 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Actually, the universal health-care systems of all developed European nations are far more efficient than the US's current system; they yield an equal (or greater) life expectancy than that of the US for half the cost.

France has run itself into debt over theres, Britian has a waiting list as long as the Cubs last world series victory and have I mentioned America's strong distaste for increased taxes and a population of 300 million.

We can't run Walter Reed for god's sake. I for one, don't want to invest the government to fuck up something else.

At least not Federally.

[Nylo]

At 7/25/07 09:45 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 7/25/07 08:54 PM, Memorize wrote: So basically you're going to force certain people to pay more for others.

Yes. I value one man's life over another man's Jaguar.

Ok, so let's say that government foots the bill for medical insurance. You'd still be heading for disaster with the number of people you're opening service to; it's a bottle neck catastrophe waiting to happen. Let's take immigrant migration for example; border states are going to to get way more money, and hence better facilities, than other states in health-care aid because they can't control their population boom. Couple that with the dying Baby-Boom generation and all I see is the classic example of the road to hell paved with good intentions.

The goal should be to make health-care affordable, not universal; there's a huge difference. More people would be helped by going about it realistically rather than through an ill-planned revolution. Either way it would be helping more people than the current system does now, why does heath-care have to attain utopia to get the green light?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 7/24/07 08:21 PM, Nylo wrote: Why not make national healthcare low-cost, instead of free? If people want healthcare, they should still have to pay for it; it's not cheap to pave the way of modern medicine. But I never hear about this concept, it's always about FREE healthcare.

Makes sense. You make people pay a small amount towards their healthcare (certainly no more than they can afford), and it's still cheap enough for them to seek out medical care when they need it, while at the same time, keeping people from filling up the doctor's office with cases of sniffles.

[superratso]

I think you should be paying something, because the whole thing of America being in over 8,800,000,000,000 dollars in debt, and the reason that number doesn't go down much is because of all these free things.