Not Obamacare, but some sort of national healthcare to provide services to those who can't help themselves.
It's called family, friends, churches, community.
Why must taxpayers be robbed to provide for others that made bad choices? Why can't we accept responsibility for our actions and accept the consequences?
I've made some faulty choices, but I do not expect to be bailed out by others. I am paying the price and accept the responsibility for payment in full of my own accord.
Why do you have to be moralistic about something as basic as human health? It's not always bad choices - sometimes it's just circumstance, bad luck or unavoidable disaster that keeps people poor and let's not pretend there's a level playing field to begin with. Universal healthcare is really in every one's interest, rich or poor. Untreated diseases can spread through the whole community, not just among those who can't afford healthcare. Apparently it's cheaper too.
When you pay for an insurance premium, a good portion of it goes to pay other policy holders expenses, ever think about that? Must be a happy world logic,commonsense lives in.
logic,commonsensemust mus of have went to a private school, have enough cash to pay for every medical/dental need, has a private library, police, fire and recue team, and no need to collect social security or join any other government program. "Why must taxpayers be robbed to provide for others that made bad choices?" Wake up call, it's because you live in a society.
I think some kind of national healthcare is essential.
[As an aside, isn't it important for a capitalist country to have an efficient and healthy work force and not one continuously stressed by the thought of illness or injury?]
At some time in their lives everybody is in the position of not being able to help themselves, the very old, the very young and those not blessed with a healthy constitution.
As it is in your country, the only people who are totally free from worry are those very few who can afford anything that life throws at them. Most of the rest would be financially floored by any life threatening illness.
Not to mention, how can free marketers support saddling our business owners with the financial burden of providing health insurance to their employees?
That's the argument I simply can't understand.
We are hobbling our own job providers. How can they compete with businesses in countries that don't have this albatross around their necks?
Makes NO sense to me.
And that's just the financial argument.
I will leave the moral argument for others, who have already argued it formidably.
States should be in charge of healthcare system.
Think about it this way. Right now, states can make changes that effect jobs. If state A tries one thing and state B tries another, we can watch what happens. Maybe state A will have higher unemployment and state B lower unemployment. This does two things. It shows that state B's policies worked better, and people in state A can go to state B for a job if they need to.
The same kind of competition could help healthcare.
That would probably be even worse than the system you have now!
Because there would be increased competition? How does competition hurt a market?
If someone loves Obamacare, they can move to Massachusetts, or another state if they adopt something similar.
Competition should have no place in health care.
People don't always have the option of moving from one place to the other.
You're kidding right? No Competition means absolute Monopoly and that cannot be allowed because then they could charge whatever they want without recourse.
Is that why health care in countries that have nationalised health care are so much cheaper than the States?
You don't agree Cags! The facts are out there and very easy to check.
Not worth checking. Because it's actually meaningless.
Just because it appears to work, doesn't mean that it actually works. It is a pure and unadulterated raping of the Economies of the world is what it actually is.
You've lost me there! Because something is cheaper it's raping the worlds economies!
Monopolizing a specific industry is raping the Economies.
That's where you're going wrong, health care shouldn't be an industry, it should be about people.
That's not where I went wrong. One's health is up to oneself. If sick, then it is the Health Industry which helps them.
We do things slightly differently, our health care attempts to prevent you from actually becoming ill in the first place. It's not all ways perfect but it sure beats having an industry that needs sick people to prosper!
Sounds like someone has been buying into the BS their government has been spewing forth.
Hm,let's look at this BS then. For my sixtieth birthday I got a kit from my local health service to send them samples of my poo to screen for bowel cancer. Every six months I see the practice nurse who tests for diabetes, liver function, lung function and a dozen other things that are beyond my comprehension.
If I were a woman, I would have been checked for various gynaecological things from about the age of 25.
But according to you this is all government BS!
It's a shame you had to have someone do this for you and you couldn't handle it yourself.
Why is it objectionable to anyone that all citizens have financial protection against immediate and skyrocketing future health care costs?
I simply don't get that.
Do you really want to have to go bankrupt if (God forbid) your child or wife becomes chronically ill or requires an operation?
And how did you get that out of my statements on this entire thread. When financial protection against immediate and skyrocketing health care costs and government domination of said sector of the private sector is absurd. Government cannot protect citizens against the financial costs. It's a lie.
Then stop reading things into things people post and you won't have trouble grasping it.
This is nothing more than a fear spreading issue. Which is how INSURANCE got it's start to begin with by making people FEARFUL of being sick.
That's how it is now.
The insurers charge whatever they feel like charging without recourse.
Even large employers don't have much choice when it comes to paying up, because the health plan down the street may lure them in with a lower rate this year, but hike that rate up 25% next year.
Health insurance is NOT a buyer's market at the group purchasing, or especially at the individual purchaser level.
And the reality is, the government already pays for health care for poor people, people on disability, and old people. The right course of action is close the hole and cover the rest of us poor saps in the middle, too.
And, I'm not willing to agree with your assessment.
High costs are NOT the fault of the insurance companies. They make between 1-4% profit. That's on the low side of standard for any industry.
The problems are more than that, the costs of medications/treatments, physician/nurse salaries, and lawsuits contribute more to our high costs than anything else
I have little experience of American health care. I was in the US once and needed medical attention. I was asked if I had cover or was I paying myself. I was given more than an impression that paying myself would result in a smaller bill than if my insurance company were paying.
Many providers are willing to negotiate their prices down if you pay cash. Some do it to be nice, others do it to get any money period, and some do it because it's less work than dealing with the carriers.
And why is that better than just walking in and walking out knowing that you've paid through your taxes?
One reason, is it depends on if your taxes will actually go to paying that or not. The US government isn't good at holding onto the money they promise you in the future. At 100% efficiency it's not a horrible idea, but we are nowhere near that. We are increasing our debt by trillions and trillions of dollars and don't seem to care, even though that hurts the dollar, drives up prices, lowers our credit rating, etc...
But surely having your health care funded at the whim of the market is no better and probably even worse for the economy!
If the market has proper competition, then no. Competition brings prices down.
The government isn't good at managing money and pricing things. The US Postal Service, for instance, loses billions of dollars every year. FedEx and UPS both make great profits on the other hand.
People misunderstand why healthcare is expensive in the US. It's not because of the insurance companies. Our physician/nurse salaries are disproportionately high, as are some pharmaceuticals, and insurance costs from lawsuits are very high as well.
If they are anything like Fedex and UPS in the UK they both charge considerably more as well.
Right. They have to.
See, the government can provide the postal service for cheaper, and lose $5 billion+ every year, because it doesn't have to earn a profit. It just makes more debt.
It could do the same thing with healthcare.
BUT, that would mean MORE debt every year, and that's a bad thing. The more debt we have, the more the dollar weakens(among other things). This drives the cost of EVERYTHING higher. Really, increasing government debt is a form of taxation.
So what you're saying is stuff health care the dollar is more important!
I'm saying, if we take something like Obamacare, it will effectively raise the prices of everything else, from gas to food to clothes and everything else.
If we don't get control of government spending(Obamacare is part of that, it's a huge expense), everything will keep costing more and more.
It will also increase the cost of healthcare because of the weakening dollar.
Basically, I'm saying that you can't just transfer costs to government debt with no consequences.
The CBO has found that, at our current rate, we will reach a point within the next decade or two where our government will be spending 20% of revenues on nothing other than interest payments. That's a scary scenario.
Because, when government debt increases, they have to borrow or print more money. Either action weakens the dollar.
For instance, let's consider printing. If the government doubled the money supply overnight, then other countries would say 'nothing has really changed, you have the same amount of money, it's just each individual bill is only worth half what it was worth'. The value of the dollar would drop.
What does that have to do with prices?
If someone is exporting something to the US, they need to get paid. We pay US dollars for things in the US, but somewhere along the line that is exchanged into a different currency. The importers aren't going to be able to charge the same prices if the dollar isn't getting them as much of currency X.
It's called purchase parity power, and is used in calculating the exchange rates for currencies.
The more money we print, the less worth our money has.
As far as debt, it's basically the same thing. The more we add to debt, the more we reach the point where we can't pay our debt. Eventually, if we add to our debt more than GDP grows, we will reach a point where 100% of revenues go to paying interest on the debt. Then, all other government spending has to be borrowed(who will lend to someone who has no money) or printed.
That's trying to simplify micro/macro economics into a short post.
But what has any of that got to do with health care?
If you carry on spending 16% of GDP on health care, that money comes from somewhere and that somewhere is the economy isn't it?
If you reduce the amount you spend on healthcare then that money becomes available for other aspects of the economy, like reducing debt!
First, it has to do with the fact that the US government is NOT an efficient machine when it comes to money. They can't operate a profit. When you have the government step in, you get more inefficiencies.
That means the same 16% of GDP won't end up buying the same amount of stuff.
Implementing Obamacare would increase the government deficit, so taxes would have to be raised to make up for that. Besides everything else, raising taxes isn't a good idea with double-digit unemployment.
Competition brings prices down everywhere. Without competition there would be one healthcare provider who could charge whatever they wanted.
A market is a place where things are bought and sold, do you really respect your health so little that you would have people barter over it?
A free market brings innovation and helps everyone. All of the great things we enjoy are due to innovation and competition. Yes, I want healthcare companies competing for me.
This argument is akin to arguing against restaurants because businesses should not compete for the basic human need to eat. There is no reason at all why healthcare should not be privatised, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that general health of the population would rise.
No, eating out is a luxury, you can eat just as well at home. Fancy a major op on the kitchen table?
You already have private health care in the US and plenty of evidence that the general health of the population suffers.
Sorry innersmiff, I didn't notice that you had posted, please revise my post to read "They already have . . ."
This statement is untrue. Don't place the blame of the population on private health care. It's not mutually exclusive.
A person's health suffers because most citizens refuse to take care of themselves. It has nothing to do with the Health Care industry.
But if people are afraid to use their health care industry because of costs . . .
Let's say our healthcare system is poor.
How is that causing obesity in Americans?
Not enough people have access to lyposuction?
Now you're just talking in circles. And defeating yourself within the constructs of this conversation.
The costs of Health Care are related and powered by other things, other than profit alone.
True. Americans eat so much fast food, and drink soda(Diet! Aspartame proven to increase appetite!).
How is healthcare responsible for obesity?
Health Care isn't responsible for obesity. People are.
BLAME THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Now you're not making sense. There's no rhyme or reason to blame the insurance companies for something a person does. Ridiculous.
You still need to buy food unless you grow it all yourself. I wager I won't see you complaining about farmers exploiting the consumer in that regard. You can also make steps to lead a healthy lifestyle without going to the hospital (there would also be a greater incentive too if healthcare wasn't free).
To call it 'private' is not quite right . From a libertarian perspective neither the mercantilism of America nor the nationalism of Britain is the most ideal or moral solution.
But you might hear me complain about supermarkets exploiting the consumer and the farmer!
But are you be opposed to competition in the food market in general?
Having known a few farmers in my lifetime, I think I am opposed to competition in food stuffs. If you look at prices over, say, the last twenty years, competition has done nothing to provide us with cheaper food, quite the reverse.
There's a lot of factors in food. My dad works in apples, and trust me, the price of apples has nothing to do with greed.
Monsanto is one huge problem. Poor eating habits is another.
There's one thing we can agree on
But I wonder, how would you feel if Monsanto was involved in health care?
Do you not think it might have something to do with the inflation of the money supply?
Between 1999 and 2009 whilst the price of milk went up 32.3%, sliced bread 147%, sugar 42% etc etc, oh yes houses 123%, the average wage went up only 13.6%!
Inflation doesn't necessarily affect all prices evenly. There are even huge differences between the different foods you mentioned. It might also be down to the fact that inflation benefits the richer and therefore those who have more leverage first, and when it finally gets down to the workers they are at a loss, especially if their unions have not successfully demanded wage increases in proportion to their loss of spending power.
Either way the stats don't make inflation look good.
Post office = $5 billion loss last year.
UPS = $4 billion profit last year.
Private competition is better than government control.
How about this.
USPS - $65 billion in revenue. $5 billion in losses. Profit margin = -7.7%
UPS - $53 billion in revenue. $4 billion in profit. Profit margin = 7.5%
But think about it. An entry-level position in the post office pays $20/hr, and usually includes overtime. Government is irresponsible with money. There is no question.
No, the cost of using the service, what would it cost me to post 100 grams by each service.
We don't do grams.
5 pound package.
2nd day air.
Shipping from AZ to UT(picked randomly)
UPS - $29.71
USPS - $29.62 if purchased online, $42.50 if done in office.
OK so maybe they make all their profit out of us. £1.40 Royal Mail, £5.95 UPS.
I don't know anything about Royal Mail, but we aren't concerned with UK Government. We're concerned with US Government.
Here, I'll go into more detail.
US REVENUES - $31 billion
US PROFIT - $3.7 billion
US PROFIT MARGIN - 12%!
So, here in the US, the UPS makes 19% higher profit margin while providing equal or better service.
What are you going to use now?
Who says it is?
I'd put it down to poor education.
But you say that our system here is responsible for poor health.
Anybody know of a resource comparing waiting lists for treatments by country?
"Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S."
So? Surgeries and ER visits are easily scaled so that people with the most important issues can be seen first.
The American system is being outperformed by literally dozens of public systems, in the last WHO health care ranking the US was ranked 37 and that has apparently fallen significantly.
Furthermore according to the Years of potential life lost, Index the US was third worst in the thirty developed nations being better only than Mexico and Hungary. Canada was significantly better by the way, but the US was also superseded by poorer nations like Poland, New Zealand and Slovakia.
Not to mention that according to Harvard studies 45 000 people die annually in the US because they don't have health insurance.
Did you ever read those studies or know how they came up with their figures? I would like to know how a researcher proves that the lack of insurance was what caused a person's death. I could easily claim that millions of people die every year because they have health insurance. After all, millions of people who have health insurance die every year, right?
Until someone comes along and tells me how that figure of 45,000 was contrived - er, I mean deduced - I'll remain skeptical about the number. (For those who like to jump to conclusions, skeptical does not mean that I believe that the figure is absolutely wrong; it does mean that I'm not convinced that it is correct.)
http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-ins … adults.pdf
Good attitude, here is the report of the study feel free to read it and analyze their methods for errors.
Thank you so much for that link, Josak. And thank you for the compliment to my healthy skepticism! Yes, I know you were being sarcastic, but I believe it is worth accepting as a genuine compliment, because I think a healthy skepticism is important in delving into any subject, especially anything related to government.
It took me a long time to read the article, and I confess that I have forgotten a great deal of what I ever learned in statistics classes, so I didn't get as much out of it as someone with a stronger statistics foundation would have received. But here are several things that I found to be of interest:
1) In addition to the correlation (which I misunderstood to have been reported as causation) between lack of insurance and predictability of death, the correlation between (a) being unemployed, or (b) a former smoker, or (c) a regular drinker, and death was very nearly the same (unrelated to insurance status); being a current smoker had a much higher hazards ratio.
The highest hazards ratio of all, far higher than the lack of insurance, was the overall health self-rating or physician rating of "fair or poor." In fairness, the article did state that there could be some association between fair/poor health ratings and lack of insurance, and I agree that that could be the case.
2) The study was supported by a Health Resources and Service Administration National Research Service Award - the government.
Obviously, researchers have to receive funding from somewhere, and it would be extremely skeptical on my part to look askance at the fact that a study that supports the goverenment's position was paid for by the government, but.... If the funding had come from the insurance industry or from Big Pharma, and if the results tended to support the underwriters' views, it would be proper to keep some question in the back of our minds, in my opinion.
3) The exact wording in one part of the conclusion was this (bolding is mine): "The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance."
The reason why they specified private insurance was because the study did not include the government health insurance programs that we already have in place. Those programs currently serve specific portions of the population that already have a higher predictability of death, due to age or indigence and their concomitant health problems.
One very big question that I have was not addressed in the study at all - that is, Was there any measurable number of those living at the end of the study who were either being kept alive by "heroic means" or whose lives were being extended through medical treatment (because their insurance would pay for it) but whose quality of life was in a very low category? There may not have been anyone at all in that group in the study, but I think it is a legitimate question to ask.
And finally, I may have misunderstood this altogether - I'll try to follow-up and reread it when I can - but it sounded to me like the writer said that the study subjects were only asked about their insurance status in the interviews that took place between 1988 and 1994, but their vital data was studied and analyzed in 2009. Did I understand that right?
So does that mean that there was no follow-up to determine whether those individuals' insurance status had changed at any time in the intervening decade-and-a-half? To my mind, that would be worth including in the study - certainly worth more than just speculating about how the results would or might have varied if that had been researched. My apologies, if I did not grasp what Wilper was saying there.
Again, thank you for the link. It was a wonderful lesson in the power of statistical analysis and extrapolation.
No seriously I was not being sarcastic at all... Seriously. If we just accept things without checking them we could easily be duped, I like finding the facts and I think it's great that other people want to check them.
I am sorry I came across as rude, it was not my intention.
by trish1048 9 years ago
For or against?Personally, I hate the idea. The government needs to stay out of my personal life. I like my freedom of choice.
by funnebone 10 years ago
I hear the term national healthcare being thrown around and I would like to know, both as a Doctor and as a human, who would pay for this and what would it pay? For those of you unfamiliar with our current government healthcare system ie medicare and medicaid, they are awful programs that doctors...
by William R. Wilson 9 years ago
Have you ever wondered why we want to destroy America? Why we want to let the ACLU get their pedophile hands on your children? How could anyone believe those stupid scientists about something as silly as global warming? And healthcare for poor people? Ridiculous, isn't...
by vshining 9 years ago
We all know affordable healthcare in America do not exist and it's sad because America is suppose to be the land of the plenty, but yet we have people dying because they can't afford healthcare.I appreciate the President for wanting to help the poor and middle class people that can’t afford...
by SparklingJewel 7 years ago
This link has good information on this subject. I haven't read it all yet. It is from a conservative news site.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=106694
by Stephanie Launiu 4 years ago
Is Obamacare better or worse for the future of healthcare in America?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|