Thread: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited

Fool enough based upon how the rest of the world works? heh. Rationing. Rationing away unnecessary care maybe. For profit hospitals try to milk well-insured people for all they're worth and the only thing standing between you and a procedure that would do more harm than good is the integrity of your doctor under intense pressure from the non-physician running his hospital to be "more productive." Sorry, just because we use only the newest expensive drugs and expensive machines when they haven't been proven to be more effective doesn't mean we have higher quality care in America. It just means we're willing to throw money away to make it look like we're doing more than the hospital down the street because consumers of healthcare don't have a clue what's going on and the incentives of those who do are COMPLETELY misaligned because we're still worried that adopting universal healthcare is like surrendering to the red army.

Funny, you all hold up Medicare as the ideal model for "Health care". Medicare turns down more procedures than all the insurance companies in America combined. And as far as the "For Profit Hospitals" go, if you don't like their prices and want to point the finger, find the nearest mirror and point it. You democommies are the ones that insisted they treat ANYONE that walks through the door, regardles if they could pay or not. That's like telling a grocery store that they have to give groceries to anybody that walks through the door regardless of their ablity to pay. How long do you thuink they would be in business??

Since the Canadian P.M. and other high officals of Canada (and from all over the world) have came here to have their medical procedures done, I would say that speaks for it's self.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

I voted yes, as I consider healthcare a human right. But to increase efficiency, government should buy it on the (regulated) market for those who lack the funds, not directly provide it. And there should be small fees to deter waste.

Health care is a States rights issue, not federal.

If we do not provide people free universal health care, then what will happen to the lower class that cannot afford healthcare and the illegal immigrants as well? Does America want to be responsible for the death of its own people that couldn't afford healthcare? Lets put it this way, there's a student that just graduated out of high school and wants to go to college to be a doctor. But this student does not have the money to go to college. And this student did not win any scholarships but his grades were outstanding. Now, do you want to limit the opportunities this student or any other student has to become someone in life? Why are we limiting opportunities in America? Why are we limiting the chance to save someone's life just because he/she could not afford Healthcare? And one thing that stands out clear, doctors work for insurance companies and not for its people. If you want to see my point, watch the documentary video by Michael Moore "Sicko" on youtube.

Originally Posted by Rickrolld300

If we do not provide people free universal health care, then what will happen to the lower class that cannot afford healthcare and the illegal immigrants as well? Does America want to be responsible for the death of its own people that couldn't afford healthcare? Lets put it this way, there's a student that just graduated out of high school and wants to go to college to be a doctor. But this student does not have the money to go to college. And this student did not win any scholarships but his grades were outstanding. Now, do you want to limit the opportunities this student or any other student has to become someone in life? Why are we limiting opportunities in America? Why are we limiting the chance to save someone's life just because he/she could not afford Healthcare? And one thing that stands out clear, doctors work for insurance companies and not for its people. If you want to see my point, watch the documentary video by Michael Moore "Sicko" on youtube.

Friend, I have been part of the lower class most of my life and my family always had health care and it wasn't provided for by the government. And as far as Illegals go, tell them to go back to the country from which they came. They are 'ILLEGAL' or don't you know what the word means???

I quite school in the 9th grade and isn't it funny that I was able to take care of my family for the last 49 years??? How is that possible without the governments help AND no education??? I find it hilarious that someone without a high school diploma has been able to do something all you educated Democommies are saying you can't do.

Originally Posted by Rickrolld300

If we do not provide people free universal health care, then what will happen to the lower class that cannot afford healthcare and the illegal immigrants as well? Does America want to be responsible for the death of its own people that couldn't afford healthcare? Lets put it this way, there's a student that just graduated out of high school and wants to go to college to be a doctor. But this student does not have the money to go to college. And this student did not win any scholarships but his grades were outstanding. Now, do you want to limit the opportunities this student or any other student has to become someone in life? Why are we limiting opportunities in America? Why are we limiting the chance to save someone's life just because he/she could not afford Healthcare? And one thing that stands out clear, doctors work for insurance companies and not for its people. If you want to see my point, watch the documentary video by Michael Moore "Sicko" on youtube.

I wouldn't watch Michael Moore for anything more than a laugh. Tell that fat Sicko to go to his beloved Cuba the next time he needs any kind of medical procedure

Originally Posted by sbskeeper

Or we could cut costs by staying in the private sector by increasing preventative care, reduce the amount of people that use the emergency room as a primary source of care,

Preventive care from who? It doesn't pay to provide preventive care, so naturally the private sector isn't good at providing it. Some HMOs think about it, like Kaiser, but they have a tendency to undertreat their patients to save money because of the way they're structured, while many others overtreat to make money off of procedures. It's difficult to align the incentives of profit and health.

limit the life of patents on name brand drugs so that more generics are available and medicines are more affordable for everyone, and reduce the amount of uninsured. Unless we address the factors that are actually responsible for driving up the costs of healthcare in the US we are just adding bureaucracy costs of increased wait time and less efficiency to an already expensive system.

Limiting the life of patents would probably mostly discourage new drug development a little with little impact on costs. I can't think of many amazing new brand-name drugs that we need to get off-patent so that we can save people because the drug companies aren't innovating anyway. Exception to the lack of innovation is biologics (e.g. monoclonal antibodies), but those generally don't become generic so a patent isn't needed.

The best solution for drug costs is single payer. A single buyer has the power to drive down costs. This is precisely why drugs are cheaper everywhere else. Another solution for both cost and lack of innovation would be to limit their advertising. America is one of the only places in the world where prescription drugs can be advertised directly to consumers, and as a result drug companies spend more on that than actual drug R&D. It's more reliably profitable to make something look good than to make something new.

The biggest impact on innovation but not cost would be to require that they demonstrate superiority to existing therapy (for any population of patients) rather than merely superiority to placebo for a new patent. Also, drug research needs to be made more independent of the company with a stake in the research outcome results - we get too many biased studies done by the drug companies.

Originally Posted by beenthere

Funny, you all hold up Medicare as the ideal model for "Health care".

Medicare? No, not medicare, though Medicare does better than our private insurance companies when Medicare is not being provided by private insurance companies (Medicare Advantage, Part D). I said the French earlier. The VA in America was also good for about 10 years before it became severely underfunded.

Medicare turns down more procedures than all the insurance companies in America combined.

Which doesn't tell me anything about whether those procedures were appopriate or not.

...You democommies are the ones that insisted they treat ANYONE that walks through the door, regardles if they could pay or not. That's like telling a grocery store that they have to give groceries to anybody that walks through the door regardless of their ablity to pay. How long do you thuink they would be in business??

The problem is that EMTALA only effectively applied to Emergency Departments, which are great for saving lives, but extremely inefficient as a primary source of care. I had no part in passing EMTALA.

Since the Canadian P.M. and other high officals of Canada (and from all over the world) have came here to have their medical procedures done, I would say that speaks for it's self.

Medical tourism goes both ways and all over the place. America tends to have the most cutting edge, if not proven to be effective, techniques, but America is extremely expensive. There are other countries that also have cutting edge technology, again like France. It's about half as expensive to get the same procedure in Canada, but they do place limits on elective procedures. Britain and France have a similar arrangement as Canada and America do in terms of France importing British patients. Cuba is also a popular medical tourism destination for low cost at acceptable quality, attracting >20k patients per year.

About 10 times as many people leave America to get care elsewhere, as come to America for care. I wish I could find something more recent but here's an example:

750,000 left in 2007: http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/9...-in-healthcare

65-80k came here in 2007: http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/hea...tsourcing.html

Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited

Preventive care from who? It doesn't pay to provide preventive care, so naturally the private sector isn't good at providing it. Some HMOs think about it, like Kaiser, but they have a tendency to undertreat their patients to save money because of the way they're structured, while many others overtreat to make money off of procedures. It's difficult to align the incentives of profit and health.



Limiting the life of patents would probably mostly discourage new drug development a little with little impact on costs. I can't think of many amazing new brand-name drugs that we need to get off-patent so that we can save people because the drug companies aren't innovating anyway. Exception to the lack of innovation is biologics (e.g. monoclonal antibodies), but those generally don't become generic so a patent isn't needed.

The best solution for drug costs is single payer. A single buyer has the power to drive down costs. This is precisely why drugs are cheaper everywhere else. Another solution for both cost and lack of innovation would be to limit their advertising. America is one of the only places in the world where prescription drugs can be advertised directly to consumers, and as a result drug companies spend more on that than actual drug R&D. It's more reliably profitable to make something look good than to make something new.

The biggest impact on innovation but not cost would be to require that they demonstrate superiority to existing therapy (for any population of patients) rather than merely superiority to placebo for a new patent. Also, drug research needs to be made more independent of the company with a stake in the research outcome results - we get too many biased studies done by the drug companies.



Medicare? No, not medicare, though Medicare does better than our private insurance companies when Medicare is not being provided by private insurance companies (Medicare Advantage, Part D). I said the French earlier. The VA in America was also good for about 10 years before it became severely underfunded.



Which doesn't tell me anything about whether those procedures were appopriate or not.



The problem is that EMTALA only effectively applied to Emergency Departments, which are great for saving lives, but extremely inefficient as a primary source of care. I had no part in passing EMTALA.



Medical tourism goes both ways and all over the place. America tends to have the most cutting edge, if not proven to be effective, techniques, but America is extremely expensive. There are other countries that also have cutting edge technology, again like France. It's about half as expensive to get the same procedure in Canada, but they do place limits on elective procedures. Britain and France have a similar arrangement as Canada and America do in terms of France importing British patients. Cuba is also a popular medical tourism destination for low cost at acceptable quality, attracting >20k patients per year.

About 10 times as many people leave America to get care elsewhere, as come to America for care. I wish I could find something more recent but here's an example:

750,000 left in 2007: http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/9...-in-healthcare

65-80k came here in 2007: http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/hea...tsourcing.html

Hey, Live, I think the democommies have cut and ran

If people want to opt out of a UHC that's their business. But to force Americans to pay for Israel's health coverage, to force taxpayers to pay for corporations which deduct expenses for such insurances thereby benefiting the rich, but to deny such coverage to those who are poor but who pay their taxes is the most supreme stupidity. It takes an idiotic RepubliCON traitor to defend it. The great irony being that these hate filled clowns call themselves "pro life".

Originally Posted by Mr_Truth

If people want to opt out of a UHC that's their business. But to force Americans to pay for Israel's health coverage, to force taxpayers to pay for corporations which deduct expenses for such insurances thereby benefiting the rich, but to deny such coverage to those who are poor but who pay their taxes is the most supreme stupidity. It takes an idiotic RepubliCON traitor to defend it. The great irony being that these hate filled clowns call themselves "pro life".

{{""If people want to opt out of a UHC that's their business"}}

Except your loving Democommie in the White House will not let us if this goings into effect.

{{""But to force Americans to pay for Israel's health coverage""}}

This is the second time you have made this allegation now prove it.

{{"" to force taxpayers to pay for corporations which deduct expenses for such insurances thereby benefiting the rich, ""}}

Once more, nothing but silly allegations, where is your proof???

{{""but to deny such coverage to those who are poor but who pay their taxes is the most supreme stupidity""}}

Maybe you missed it but the government put out the figures the other day. the top 3% pay 97% of the personal taxes. 50% of the bottom households don't pay any taxes. Now what was that you saying about the "POOR" paying their taxes???

Like I already said, after working for 51 years and never earning over $63,000 in one year, raising 6 children with a 9th grade education, being a one income household, how was I able provide health care for my family without the government help?? Do you think you might be able to figure a way to do it for yourself??? Do you think other "poor" people can figure out a way to do it for themselves??? If not, maybe we should shut down the schools after the kids get through the 9th grade, it would seem that the schools dumb them down after that.

{{""It takes an idiotic RepubliCON traitor to defend it""}}

And here we have another Democommie sitting behind a screen calling names. Like I said, I was able to do it, why can't you???

{""The great irony being that these hate filled clowns call themselves "pro life".""}}

And of course we have the "Pro choice" crowd responcible for more than 100,000,000 american lives up to now don't we.

second time

As you well know it is the $100+ multibillions given by Washington DC to Tel Aviv that has kept its economy going. Without those dollars, the government there would have gone bankrupt. In fact, previously you approved when you wrote:

"the more Israelis we keep healthy the more Arabs they will kill"

That's a fine statement made by a "pro lifer".

silly allegations

A business can deduct medical insurance costs:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...109807,00.html

quote: ''you can deduct the ordinary and necessary cost of insurance as a business expense, if it is for your trade, business, or profession''

Operating expenses are deductible as everybody in the accounting business knows. I used to work in that field for many years.

the government put out the figures the other day

We've gone over this on other threads - the fact remains that the wealthy shelter trillions overseas in tax free accounts while the middle class pay through the nose. This is a settled matter.

calling names

You are the one who used the term "you idiots" and Democommie in your posts. Somehow when anyone else uses terms like that it is wrong but it is OK for you. Here is a quote from your earlier post:

''you IDIOTS want to push abortion ''

see: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

"Pro choice" crowd responcible for more than 100,000,000 american lives

Margaret Sanger was financed by RepubliCONS and the Supreme Court which approved of abortion was controlled by your fellow RepubliCONs.

As for me, I have indicated several times previously that I oppose abortion unlike your pro death RepubliCON party.