The abortion thread has started to develop into a discussion about Universal Healthcare, so I thought I would start another thread devoted to that instead of continuing to derail the other thread.
Should the United States have Universal Healthcare? Should the United States not have Universal Healthcare? Why/Why not?
Last edited by LyLMyssChaos; 01-27-2006 at 07:48 AM.
I found a chart that outlines the "pros and cons" of universal healthcare at Balanced Politics.org
Here are what they list for pros:
The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million.
Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.
We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.
We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.
Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.
Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs.
Here is what they list for the cons:
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; if they can't run an office such as the DMV efficiently, how can we expect them to handle something as complex as health care?
"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
You can go to their site to get an explanation of each of these issues.
Are there any healthcare historians around here? I know a fair amount about the current state of HC, but was hoping someone could fill me in on something. When and why (and by whom) was it decided that healthcare in this country should be the responsibility of one's employer and tied to employment?
Universal healthcare is a lovely idea, and in theory, I would like to see it. However, there are real questions as to whether it would be feasible in the US. The places in the world where it is the most efficient and effective tend to be rather different from this country in a couple of ways: smaller population size, smaller land area, and much, much more homogeneous population.
I agree, I think it's a great idea, but it really isn't feasible. Not in our current society. I'm all for making sure that everyone has the opportunity to have healthcare, but I would much rather make my own choice as to who provides it for me.
"Universal healthcare" doesn't mean there aren't any choices.
I understand that. It means government sponsored healthcare, which I have had and I tell ya, I never want that again. They told me which doctor I could see, then when that doctor prescribed medications, they told me I couldn't take those ones, that I had to take other ones that "they" felt I should take(even though I was allergic, I wound up having to pay out of pocket for the meds the doctor wanted me on.) They also determined which medical procedure they thought was appropriate for my condition and over-rode the opinion of 3 doctors because it didn't fit their "formulary." That is the kind of thing I am leery about.
I understand that. It means government sponsored healthcare, which I have had and I tell ya, I never want that again. They told me which doctor I could see, then when that doctor prescribed medications, they told me I couldn't take those ones, that I had to take other ones that "they" felt I should take(even though I was allergic, I wound up having to pay out of pocket for the meds the doctor wanted me on.) They also determined which medical procedure they thought was appropriate for my condition and over-rode the opinion of 3 doctors because it didn't fit their "formulary." That is the kind of thing I am leery about.
Yep and I don't like them either! Our "big splurge" is paying to be on DH's work PPO plan instead of the HMO. We were on the HMO once and *shudder* I never want to do that again!
I am on a PPO and still have to follow a drug formulary tier system. My BCP would be the highest (Tier 3) but thank goodness there is a generic version available so I pay Tier 1 prices.
I am all for a Universal Healthcare. There are thousands of US Citizens who don't have ANY type of healthcare for themselves or their families.
Universal Healthcare
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by msnicolea
