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

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by Mitchell243, Jan 12, 2012.

?

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

  1. Yes

    40.6%
  2. No

    59.4%
  1. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    American children from from RepubliCON lack of health care:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169216.php

    Lack Of Health Insurance Linked To 17,000 Childhood Deaths, US

    A new US study concluded that lack of health insurance may have contributed or led to nearly 17,000 hospital deaths among American children over two decades.

    The study was the work of lead researcher Dr Fizan Abdullah, pediatric surgeon at Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues and is due to be published on 30 October in the Journal of Public Health.

    Abdullah and colleagues said that their study, which was funded by the Robert Garrett Fund for the Treatment of Children, is one of the largest ever to examine the effect of insurance on preventable deaths and potentially saveable lives of sick children in the US.

    He and his colleagues reviewed over 23 million hospital records from 37 states covering the period 1988 to 2005 and compared the risk of death between hospitalized children with and without health insurance.

    The results showed that 0.47 per cent (104,520) of 22.2 million insured hospitalized children died compared with 0.75 per cent (9,468 ) of 1.2 million uninsured hospitalized children.

    After adjusting for potential confounders, they calculated that an uninsured child in the study was 60 per cent more likely to die in the hospital than an insured child.

    Even when they compared rates of death by underlying disease, he and his colleagues found the uninsured still had a bigger risk of dying than the insured.

    Abdullah told the media that:

    "If you are a child without insurance, if you're seriously ill and end up in the hospital, you are 60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next room who has insurance."

    To establish what proportion of the uninsured child deaths would have been prevented had the children been insured, Abdullah and colleagues carried out a statistical simulation that projected the anticipated number of deaths for insured patients based on the severity of their illness (among other factors), and then applied this figure to the uninsured group.

    The result showed that in the uninsured group there were 3,535 deaths that could not be explained by disease severity or other factors. Applying this proportionally to the total number of children in the US who were hospitalized during the period of the study (117 million), the researchers calculated an excess of 16,787 deaths among the nearly 6 million uninsured hospitalized children.

    The researchers stressed that the findings only cover children who died while still in hospital and do not reflect rates of death after discharge. Neither did they include children who died without ever attending a hospital, they added, suggesting that in fact this meant the real death toll of uninsured children could be higher.

    They also warned that the study only looked at records that were made after the deaths occurred, so it does not prove that lack of insurance raises the risk of dying, only that they are linked. However, because of the large volume of records, and the fact they managed to identify and eliminate the effect of many of the confounders, they said they were confident that their analysis showed a very strong link between health insurance and risk of dying.


    .... more at link ...


    Thus, while RepuliCONs call themselves "pro life", they laugh and rejoice as their policies kill children every year.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't matter if you call yourself a Keynesian or not. Reagan, for example, would ramble about supply-side economics but his period of power was standard Military Keynesianism. The important point is that FDR's record is misinterpreted by both the right (making ludicrous comments, for example, about socialism) and the left (under-selling the conservatism and the policy changes forced by world war)
     
  3. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, you are correct - but a point needs to be emphasized that right wingers in their delusionalism continue to insist that only Democrats practice Keynesianism. The reality, by stark contrast, is that Republicans do it far more than they do but never admit it, nor do Democrats condemn them for their hypocrisy.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fair enough comment!
     
  5. DaveInFL

    DaveInFL Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0

    In Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Information is tasked by the govt to collect data about the health care system. All health care providers are required to provide data to the CIHI, which is then compiled and presented.

    You can find all the reports in the CIHI web site - wait times by province, by procedure, by illness; availability of family physicians and specialists; availability of diagnostic equipment; costs of wait times in terms of lost work, lost wages, reduced standard of living; costs of the health care system; projections of future costs. Tons of data.

    Canada does a good job of analysing their system. Canadian health care has problems, and its heading into worse problems, but the Canadian govt is open about its system and they are working on the problems.

    Go read real data. It has nothing to do with right wing or left wing politics, or US politics. You have the link (http://www.cihi.ca/), there is no excuse for you to ignore the truth. Try to live up to your name.
     
  6. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    First off, I have never had the taxpayer taking care of me or my family. Second, I do not WANT to give up my health care so I can get sub-level service just so I can pay for somebody elses health care they didn't take the time, effort, or energy to plan for.
     
  7. constructionguy

    constructionguy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me add 2 words to this, they are strange words only whispered in certain circles, usually around the water cooler, or in a bar. You never hear these 2 words spoken about on TV, the press, and you get funny looks if anyone hears you utter such nonsense. What are these 2 words ?

    Personal Responsability.................'nuff said.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that health care has public good characteristics. Just leaving it to the individual is therefore assuredly irrational
     
  9. constructionguy

    constructionguy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So does free sex, maybe government can pimp out a few million.

    The so called "public good" is what the "public" deems it to be. It's your health, not the governments. If a person wants to be fat and lazy, he can. Eat twinkies all day, cool, gobble 'em up. You may die sooner, but I think you'll have already realized and expected that to happen.

    I remember a long time ago when smokers were demonized as the reason healthcare costs were going up. They still are, but anyway, we were told if x amount quit, costs would come down. I think it's pretty safe to say a good 40-50% less people smoke today and not once did I see a reduction in HC costs.

    The only thing I see as "irrational", is expecting someone else to be in charge of/take care of, me from cradle to grave. "Irrational", is believing your body, your life, belongs to the "public" that is run by an elite few.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't understood the point. A public good, due to its non-rivalry and non-excludability characteristics, wiill certainly be underprovided by the market. Leaving it to individual decidsion making is therefore, without doubt, inconsistent with economic rationality. Now it would be true to note that there is no such thing as a 'pure' public good. However, those against universal health care are ignoring the social benefits achieved and therefore are attempting to enforce a result that guarantees deadweight loss on us all (I.e. We are not talking about redistribution within a zero sum game context).
     
  11. darckriver

    darckriver New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What? Do you mean our individual governments own different amounts of wealth??? No government is giving anyone anything. There is no such thing as free, as in somehow all medical services for everyone are provided at no cost. With UHC, government merely determines who pays for what, how, and how much, and where the money comes from. Every dime paid to service providers can ultimately be traced back to some extra-governmental source. If the source happens to be a government mandated and controlled pool - so be it - but that pool is still funded by a subset of its citizens in the final analysis. That is, unless some government has a tree that produces real wealth somewhere in its "backyard" that nobody know about.

    The real issue is this - if there is one very large medical pool, and government manages that pool efficiently, and dictates the conditions of payment in and out of the pool in a non-counterproductive/non-politically motivated manner (big "ifs", but not impossible), it can POTENTIALLY manage medical costs and quality of service in ways that tend to reduce price gauging, reduce overall costs, and work towards eliminating various discriminatory medical issues. A particular UHC design may work better for some nations than others - depending on such things as government efficiency, specific HC system structural design, productivity of the nation's people, political divisiveness (and esp. wisdom) within the governmental body - plus a zillion other characteristics of the particular nation. To say that what works for one nation must also work for another, is to overlook a huge assortment of factors that will ultimately determine how well that system will actually work for that nation.

    .
     
  12. constructionguy

    constructionguy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe true in a Utopian society, but humans will never reach such status. You also forget, as well as individuals are "inconsistant" and without "economic rationality", so is the government. All your doing is putting those same faults from one persons hands to 500+ in Washington.

    Intersting concept you have though, having a central government manage individual faults.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not a cunning reply. The whole approach is based on the premise of market failure. Its this failure that you're ignoring. You're the one being utopian, you just don't realise it.
     
  14. constructionguy

    constructionguy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not really, because I somewhat agree. If you identify the problem, then fix it. In your case, market failure, as you say, which is pretty broad. Nobody is addressing the real problems of why healthcare costs so much. Instead, you are championing a plan to spread out coverage, reduce benefits, and raise the cost. To use your terminolgy, "irrational" at best.

    Your sole premiss is that those who have should pay for those who have not. Not a winning proposition when you start to run out of those who have.
     
  15. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Let's see, Medicare turns thums down on more medical procedures than all the Medical insurance companies combined and you say it's for our own good??? My Medical insurance pays for all procedures, medication, ect., my doctor prescribes where if we had UHC if they said no, it cost to much or we think your to old, then I would be out of luck. So let me determine what I want and need and you do the same for yourself and family
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really, public good analysis is provided in detail and studied in depth

    Efficiency analysis does show that universal health care is cheaper. This partially reflects the economies of scale involved.

    This is completely wrong. We get a double gain with universal care: an increase in efficiency (see the empirical evidence into efficiency using input-output analysis) and a reduction in the losses associated with market failure.

    My whole premise is based on efficiency criteria. We can of course also add equity concerns, as advertised by amenable mortality rates.
     
    Sadanie and (deleted member) like this.
  17. _Lisa_

    _Lisa_ New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh we give free healthcare to people.....illegals. It's only if you are a citizen that they nail you for it.
     
  18. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Contrary to this mythical nonsense, Canadians love their health care:

    http://www.openleft.com/diary/14275...h-care-and-want-it-to-be-even-more-socialized

    "By an overwhelming margin, Canadians prefer the Canadian health care system to the American one. Overall, 82% said they preferred the Canadian system, fully ten times the number who said the American system is superior (8%) ...

    "Considering both cost and patient care factors, a majority of Canadians (55%) think that the health system should be more public, and only 12% think that more of the health system should be private. One in four (27%) believe that the current system strikes the right balance between publicly funded and pay-per-use care. "



    That's right ~ contrary to the Faux network lies that we see posted on this forum, the Truth is that Canadians have a FAR better HC system than we do.

    I'll gladly take it any day over ours. There is no excuse to ignore this Truth.
     
  19. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I noticed that right wingers failed to address the Truth about the fact that 45,000 Americans die every year and that thousands of children have died from RepubliCON health care.


    45,000 means 450,000 in ten years and 900,000 in 20 years.

    Thus, while innocent children and adults die from RepubliCON health care, the right wing rejoices despite calling themselves "pro lifers".

    Such wicked hypocrisy!
     
  20. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then move to Canada!!

    http://www.nrlc.org/news/2009/NRL05/UniversalHealthCare.html
    The Fraser Institute counts the number of Canadians on waiting lists for medical procedures at 827,429; the median wait time for an MRI is 10.1 weeks. (The U.S. has five times as many MRI machines per capita.) In 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the waiting period between referral from a family doctor and surgery averaged 18.3 weeks across the provinces, with a high of more than half a year (27.2 weeks) in Saskatchewan, which pioneered Canada’s health care system.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm
    http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/rationing-health-care-part-2/
     
  21. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Like I said, if you like Canada's health care system so much, move there.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/danny-williams-canadian-o_n_446481.html

    Danny Williams, Canadian Official, Seeks Heart Surgery In US


    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients’-remedy-for-health-care-go-to-america/
    The Canadian Patients’ Remedy for Health Care: Go to America!


    If you want to bring health care down in the U.S. get rid of the Government paperwork that doesn't do us, the ones being treated, any good but costs us about 31% of the medical bill.
     
  22. DaveInFL

    DaveInFL Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You dodge the issue yet again.

    I am not interested in an unscientific popularity poll.

    I am dealing in facts as reported by the CIHI.

    You obviously know I am right and you are biased and locked in ideology. I know its hard to learn you were a pawn of the socialists. Don't be a useful idiot for the manipulators, join the real truth seekers.
     
  23. Jebediah

    Jebediah Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,488
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most people have never studied the insurance industry so they don't comprehend this little fact.

    Good post.
     
  24. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,413
    Likes Received:
    2,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The french system works best. A basic government health insurance for everybody with the option of upgrading for extra. While we might see some benefits in health, the primary benefit for doing this is cost. And it's not because of "death panels" that it would be cost-saving, but rather because of reduced overhead (yes, even governments are more efficient than thousands of different insurance companies each with different policies that require providers to hire extra staff to untangle them), and increased purchaser power that drive down costs. We would certainly need to keep politics away from specific decisions though (i.e. how things are covered by the basic plan must be based upon cost-benefit, not which company contributed to your political campaign). And who knows, we might even get drug companies to actually make new drugs instead of combine two existing drugs into one and pretend they're new, because a system that uses a formulary would cover the drugs separately instead of the "new" brand name drug at 1/10 the cost.

    The cost-saving in overhead might sound theoretical, but if you look at America compared to other well-developed countries, the primary difference isn't in health care quality, but rather in health care costs. America pays a lot more for the same services but for a smaller proportion of its citizens. As a result, our businesses have trouble competing in the world market and our citizens suffer.

    It's also a moral issue to me. If we really believe in equal opportunity, the playing field must be as level as possible when it comes to health. No rights can be enjoyed if we are deprived of some basic level of health, and not everybody is at fault for their health conditions. It's really the same principle that applies to the opportunity to get an education, but on an even more basic level.
     
    Sadanie and (deleted member) like this.
  25. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do I tend to think that people that don't want universal healthcare are sociopaths?
     

Share This Page