universal health care?

Question

i've started to look into the candidates for the 08 election and one of Hillary's main positions is universal health care, and i was thinking would this just end up like the social security? I mean it looks all good now (but so did the social security) except for more money leaving my paycheck each month.

So my main question is wont this end up like the Social Security? it cost to much and will eventually end up running out of funds unless we make people pay alot more then social security, which i wouldn't like because i don't really need health care and if the government let me keep that money instead of them taking it since i'm "to stupid to take care of my self" i would be able to manage.

Answer 1

You hit the nail on the head! People are so naive to think that the government is competent enough to handle something as huge, important, and vital to society as healthcare. Look at any other social program the government has tried to take on... Then look at all of the problems inherent with them. Think about this: When Congress fails to set the appropriations/budget for welfare and the money gets stretched thin, people end up not getting checks for awhile. Now, what if the same happened to National Healthcare?... Sorry Marge, your heart transplant is postponed due to lack of funding. Think this can't happen? Haha it happens everyday in Canada, France, and many other places.



It IS NOT the government's job to provide healthcare. In fact do some research into Socialized Healthcare systems in Europe and Canada. Its free, but is it acceptable quality? Is it acceptable that people die waiting for government agencies to approve their applications to recieve life-saving procedures? Do you know what standing in the line at the DMV feels like? Well imagine that but your life depended on it and instead of being able to yell at the dumb woman behind the counter, you are on a 1-800 number at the mercy of a little automated lady-menu-thing. And tell me, when was the last time you heard of Austrailia or Canada or France making a ground-breaking medical discovery? Socialized medicine - like socialism - offers NO incentive for people to better themselves or produce anything extrodinary... which is why Socialize anything ALWAYS fails.



If you nationalize healthcare then taxes are going to rise substantially and insurance rates are going to go through the roof. Ulitmately NO ONE will have the option but to rely on government subsidized healthcare and people like me who were willing to sacrafice the few extra dollars a month for insurance so that I could choose my healthcare options are going to be forced to ride the same boat as everyone else.



Why not leave taxes where they are and perhaps even lower them so that people will have the extra money to take responsibility for themselves and put it toward healthcare. I guarantee you that these people who scream for the government to pay for their healthcare will just as soon turn around and buy a new X-Box or get their nails done. You can afford to do all that but you can't spend the money to take care of your health????



My BIGGEST problem however are the HUGE misconceptions about the proposed National Healthcare. Some people are advertising it as "Free" Healthcare. Hillary Clinton claims that it would only cost about $800 per year per person to administer. This is IMPOSSIBLE.



You are forgetting that NOTHING is free. Doctors will still need paid, medical facilities still need funds, and the program itself will cost billions to start, employ its administrators and to continue running.



All of this will be funded by tax dollars.



I personally believe that this is an unfair practice.



#1 The government, through this agency will essentially control your healthcare. This means that you will have to apply to the government for the healthcare that you need. Then if you need a procedure or treatment, you will have to get that approved as well. What other countries that have socialized healthcare have experienced is that the all-knowing, all-seeing government takes this one step further and actually places you in a wait status for the procedure based on the severity of your condition compared to other peoples'. So, lets say you are diagnosed with cancer, but the doctor does not feel that treatment for it is needed yet. Buddy the second I find out I have cancer, I'm doing eveything I can to get cured. Under National Healthcare however, you do not have that right. You have to wait in line as funding is allocate first to people with more severe cases than you. People say that then you can opt to pick up private health insurance, but in reality NO insurance company will provide coverage to ANYONE who has cancer as a pre-existing condition, so then you are at the mercy of politicians and the system.



#2 Under National Healthcare, you do not have the right to refuse treatment either. If you are prescribed a medication that is cheap, but that makes you go bald, and the only other medication for your condition is very expensive, the system is likely to provide you with only the cheapest medication. If you refuse it, the you are dropped from the National Healthcare plan because you would be considered a risk. Then, just like abovr, you are stuch with NOTHING as no insurance company will then pick you up with that pre-existing condition unless you are willing to pay HUGE premiums.



#3 Why should I, if I am willing to pay for insurance to avoid all that I have described above, have to have my taxes raised for others to have free, government-controlled healthcare that I will not benefit from??? Do you even realize how much your taxes will rise to be able to implement this???

Answer 2

Hillary first introduced her health care plan when Bill was president and she was the first lady. She has been trying for 15 years to get her bill passed but can not get enough democrats or republicans too support it. The concept of Universal Health Care is great (but so is the basic concept of communism) but her plan has been looked at for 15 years by democrats and republicans and no one feels it to be workable. The plan will require everyone to get health insurance. Those who do not can be fined by the government and have their wages attached to pay for a policy the government selects. She talks about using the same basic plan the federal employees have; I retired from federal civil service and had their insurance for over thirty years. The insurance was costing me almost $600. a month and they paid very little. A lot of things wee not covered and I often ended up paying the entire cost. It was always a hassle getting anything out of the companies. Her plan will help the insurance companies and may benefit the very poor but most people will not benefit from it and the doctors offices and hospital will be so crowed you will have to stand in line. The best thing would be to force medical costs down, force the insurance companies to do better with their policies, and allow greater tax write offs on medical costs. For those who are in real need of coverage, and everyone who ends up with exceptionally high claims, the government does need a better plan; Hillarie’s however, according to those who have studied it in the past 15 years does not do the right thing.

Answer 3

Universal health care means long waiting times even for major surgery. Taxes will go up. Doctors and nurses will be paid based on years of service not skill. A doctor in New York will be paid the same as a doctor in a small american town. Which doesn't work because New York has a way higher cos of living. I live in Canada so trust me I know what I'm talking about. What's going to happen to the 60 year old brain surgeon that goes from making 2 million a year to 300k a year. He'll quit. Who's going to want to pay top dollar and spend 7 or more years in college when salaries aren't as high. Guess what in Canada the government pays 70% of tuition for college students for anything not just doctors and nurses. And I'm 19 and pay 50% taxes. What I'm trying to say is that Socialism equals more taxes and less motivation. In Canada there's talk of fully subsidising health care students to take care of the shortage of nurses and doctors. And I'll be paying 60% taxes if that happens.

Answer 4

1... I am very conservative, I hate our current state of affairs with wasteful government, and large bloated special interest groups on the payroll.



2.. I am even more sickened by the state of our health care system. I am a republican on about all issues except for this one.



3.. Unless you've been truly shafted by a health insurance company, or hospital, you probably are ignorant and naive on the issue.



4.. Just because you have insurance MEANS NOTHING. When you get a major health problem, they WILL find a way to limit their liabilities, if not deny you any coverage at all.



Perfect example: Say you get cancer...if your insurance provider "finds" records of you being a smoker in college...BAM... they'll deny coverage because you "lied" on your application (Remember, when you said you were a non-smoker?). Should have used all that money you spent on insurance premiums on a casket!



5. It doesn't matter what your past is, or how good you think your provider is....if they want to, they WILL deny you. They will find a reason, they always do.



6. It is UNAMERICAN to watch an innocent person die when there are resources available to save them. That's just a fact. People who think otherwise should be ashamed of themselves, doesn't matter what your politics are.

Answer 5

No...but it will bankrupt this country. The problem with Universal healthcare is all about Population size and Taxes.



In order for every anerican to have healthcare, taxes would have to be raised by about 500%.



This would completely break the middle class.



You can research this, just check when Hillary tried this as 1st lady. It was Crushed by both Dems. and Repubs.



Also, it would become like medicare in that doctors would have to accept whatever limits the gov. set for different procedures, Which would drive them elsewhere, costing us the best physicians in the world.



If this does not make sense to you, just research the economic side of this issue.

Answer 6

It sounds as if you understand the point. The country is already forecast to go bankrupt just based on the current entitlement programs alone. Adding this debacle on top of it would send us into the dark ages. You can kiss social security goodbye within 10-15 years. This national healthcase would send us there in 5. And that is with the seizing of the bulk of your wages and substantial cuts in benefits.

Answer 7

Well, if you take a look at the rest of the world, you will find out that many other countries have government assisted health care for those who need it. And it works for them.



But then, hey, the more sick, uncared for Americans there are, the more disease will spread in the USA, and the fewer Americans there will be in the world.



And then Manifest Destiny will take place, and Canada will rule North America, as it was always meant to. And Germany, of course, will rule Europe (And make all our beer.). And France will make all the wine and cheese for the world (Cause theirs is the best.)

And Egypt will rule Africa.

And Russia will rule Asia.

And Japan will rule Oceania.

And there will be peace and love for all.

Answer 8

I agree. also I think are health care in general will become worse if we get free health care. the saying ''nothing comes for free '' is very true

Answer 9

The first logical fallacy you've fallen victim to is that it is already a foregone conclusion that social security is "wrecked."



This reminds me of all the hysteria of Y2K. Remember all the gloom and doom about how we'd never be ready? Yeah...



The second logical fallacy you're laboring under is the notion that just because social security is screwed -- anything the government gets its hands on will also be screwed.

Answer 10

that is why you should vote republican. dems want to socialize health care which is a terrible idea. the taxes we would be would be huge. why cant everyone just take care of themselves

Answer 11

It'll be far worse than Social Security, but you're on the right track.

First UHC doesn't work anywhere it's tried. Read this Canadian doc, who now lives in the US, and studies world health care:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Then look at the fact that California, dominated by liberals, couldn't pull it off:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080129/ZNYT02/801290745

Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM



Note in there that Hillarycare for the states--aka Mitt Romney's fix--didn't work: "Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers."

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080129/ZNYT02/801290745

Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM

There are 6.5 million people in Taxachusetts--there are 300 million in the US.

BTW, CA is having to shut down its "free" clinics:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-clinics14feb14,1,5252458,fu

ll.story?ctrack=1&cset=true



So now everyone who deals with reality can see that UHC can not work--it's been in place for more than 60 YEARS (Britains NHS started in the 1940s. Oh, BTW, for them specifically:

"Staff are being laid off, and deficits are at an all time high (£1.07bn for 2005-2006)” (Hazel Blears, Labour Party Chair and Minister Without Portfolio, labourachievements.blogspot.com/2006/08/23-investment-in-nhs.html).

In the National Review Online article, Coburn & Herzlinger state “more than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S.” Just recently Alex Smallwood of the BMA (British Medical Association) was quoted in the Scotsman as saying: “’Rationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil. We need to formalise rationing to prevent an unregulated, widening, postcode-lottery of care. Government no longer has a choice.’” (Moss, “NHS rationing is ‘necessary evil,’ says doctors,” 26 June 2007).



How about Social Security? We all know it's a Ponzi scheme--illegal for all but the government to try--violates the laws of math, logic, and economics.



Let's look at Medicare--and it's getting harder and harder to find docs who are willing to put up with THAT program:

In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40--up 120%. "Medigap" insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane "donut hole" coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to "balance" their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.

"That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors' payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.



Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991."

http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=vs_mar05_top&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=11037



So what DOES work?

http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/0217er17.html

A doctor owned and run hospital that sees everyone gets care, no matter what happens to the bottom line.



http://www.simplecare.com/ a doctor-driven group where reasonable rates are charged.



Note you can go to a walk-in clinic at Wal-Mart or CVS or the like in many cities and get many of the most typical reasons for seeing a doc addressed for under $100.



The price of LASIK has DROPPED dramatically over a decade. Plastic surgery is CHEAP. Compare a major procedure like a tummy tuck with the bill an uninsured patient will get for a medically necessary appendectomy WITHOUT complications.



Any large scale plan to fix the problems? Yes, you can see PART of it (the book offers much more--including how to increase the number of doctors and nurses):

QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all.

That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented).

http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html

Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com

Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World



Reality MUST be dealt with. People are going to have to take some responsibility for themselves and their choices. Health care should not be any more "free" than food or shelter should. However, people should NOT be driven into bankruptcy by medical bills--THAT is what INSURANCE is for. The current system fails miserably to deliver:

"Aldrich’s situation is "asinine" but increasingly common, said Dr. Deborah Thorne of Ohio University. Thorne, co-author of a widely quoted 2005 study that found medical bills contributed to nearly half of the 1.5 million personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, said that ratio has likely worsened since the data was gathered. ... Like Aldrich, Thorne said, three-quarters of the individuals in the study who declared bankruptcy because of health problems were insured. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20201807/



It's time for people to stop being diverted by the nonsense the pols have dangled in front of them--UHC--which CAN NOT WORK--and look for REAL solutions to the REAL problems.