Page 1 of 14 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 131

Thread: Universal Healthcare

  1. #1

    Default Universal Healthcare

    Right, The duchess here, and I'm curious to know what people's opinions are on universal healthcare, the idea that healthcare should be provided to anyone who needs it. (more or less) Now this is not to have a go at health insurance and those who buy it, if I could afford it, I would go privately with Bupa for example. But I see no reason as to why people should be denied basic treatment because they cannot afford it. Having money shouldn't decide who lives and dies. I also support it as a lot of countries with universal healthcare tend to have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than those without UHC. Using the US as an example which does not have UHC and yet has a lower life expectancy that other countries that do have it. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html
    I know that not all countries above the US have UHC, but a lot of them do, and I also realize that are likely to be confounding variables involving the US in particular given the rather ruthless nature of the insurers, and the inefficiency of the system itself ( U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters ) and denying because of pre-existing conditions for example although Obama's legislation may curb that. But in a nutshell I believe that UHC is essential in a modern society today, but that insurance companies should be available to people who want it.

    So with that hopefully made fairly clear I wonder what you lovely people all think.

  2. #2

    Default

    1. I'm in favor of everyone but me dying.

    2. We've got enough problems right here on earth. The Universe can take care of itself.

  3. #3

    Default

    I agree with UHC all the way... its sad how the Tea Bagging Republicans are once again trying to derail something good that this administration is attempting... the penalty or "tax" that would be imposed upon those who do not comply is only $90 per individual, and guess what? *que drumroll* ...there is no penalty for not paying the penalty...lol Im so sick of the Tea Baggers attempting to scare the elderly and sick that they are somehow gonna be facing "death panels" and crazy crap like that... everytime throughout history that some program is put in place to help those who struggle the GOP seems to think its wrong... Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps/Link, are all examples of the Government taking care of its people who are in dire straits... exactly what a government should do... serve and care for its people! ...and as of late, it seems ya cant talk any sence into them mainly because its impossible to win an argument with stupid... stupid is too dumb to know when they have lost the arguement... an example of this would be "trickle down economics" let me know when that starts working would ya? Thanks for the chance to vent...

  4. #4

    Default

    I support universal health care as someone who has a lot of family members and friends who cannot afford health care. It sickens me that corporate greed and the greediness of big business gets in the way of the US having universal health care. There are people that can use it. I am on Medicare myself, so I am grateful for that but as I said- I have family members and friends who can't find full-time jobs despite trying or jobs that offer benefits that include health care.

    So, I support it even though many I know don't because they think it's a form of fascisim and socialism and they hate that. To them, they feel like that universal health care is evil and a threat to liberty and personal freedoms. I don't agree with them on that. I think we need to have something where everyone can get health care. I hate the fact that my sister doesn't have insurance and nor does her idiot fiance'- or that my mom and dad have a mountian of medical debts from the time my dad's benefits ran out after he lost his job in 2010 until just late last year when my mom got on Medicare.

    I believe health care should be a right, not a priveledge just for those who have insurance. I hate this I-need-insurance crap, high meidcal costs and I hate how the libertarian movement wants to disassemble what we have and let corporate greed run roughshod on us. It forces people to have to make hard choices sometimes between groceries or paying their bill. Even I have had to face that on things that my insurance won't cover at least once in my lifetime.

    So, in a nutshell I support universal health care in the US but I doubt it won't happen til I see a pig fly.

    WildThing121675

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by WildThing121675 View Post
    they think it's a form of fascisim and socialism and they hate that. WildThing121675
    Then they should legaly exempt themselves from Social Security, and not use Medicare... ever! ...those are Socialist Programs!

  6. #6

    Default

    My biggest problem with universal healthcare is that government has shown it's inability to do almost anything effectively. For example: I am a former foster child, so I get some benefits from the State of California. My family and I sought to extend these benefits, but immediately ran into a brick wall. Different departments passed the buck, and others had no clue what the others were doing. A huge bureaucracy formed. I fear this is exactly what UHC in America is going to create.

    The irony is that the cost of healthcare now is because of those who never had the means to pay. Your $200 ace bandage from the emergency room has hidden cost of those unable to pay themselves. It almost creates a vicious cycle. I (shamefully) don't know exactly how the law works, but my understanding is that the main portion of it is that the federal government will cover your healthcare cost in the event that you cannot pay. Whether or not this law will work in America will hinder on if the government can effectively complete this task. If it cannot, the cost of healthcare will more than likely continue to go up hurting those who can currently afford to pay for their healthcare, and those who cannot afford it now most certainly won't be able to afford it later.

    tl;dr predictable incompetence of government and bureaucracy will raise healthcare cost, causing the law to do more harm than good.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Auby View Post
    The irony is that the cost of healthcare now is because of those who never had the means to pay. Your $200 ace bandage from the emergency room has hidden cost of those unable to pay themselves. It almost creates a vicious cycle. I (shamefully) don't know exactly how the law works, but my understanding is that the main portion of it is that the federal government will cover your healthcare cost in the event that you cannot pay.
    The government isn't strictly required to pay for the cost, but hospitals are required by law to stabilise the condition of anyone who comes to the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay; they're not required to treat any underlying chronic conditions, though. They're also not allowed to call out debt collectors on people who have outstanding debts. In practice, this means that for the uninsured, the government (and insurance companies who pay for everyone else's treatment) have to cover the cost of their emergency room treatment.

    I think the PPACA (Obamacare) is really not a drastic enough change. It still maintains the insurance companies as profit-making entities, and it seems like it will inevitably drive up premiums for those who can afford to pay, (especially those who don't get health insurance through their employer). UK/Canadian style single payer would have been the best way forward, in my opinion. I know that Vermont has decided to implement it as an alternative to the standard PPACA system.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Auby View Post
    tl;dr predictable incompetence of government and bureaucracy will raise healthcare cost, causing the law to do more harm than good.
    It depends on how "universal healthcare" is implimented - lots of possible models with various limitations & advantages ect.

    The NHS has it's problems with bureaucracy, but leaving that aside...

    It is possible to argue that the National Health Service doesn't cost the UK enough:

    Spending on healthcare drops as proportion of GDP | News | guardian.co.uk

    1) if you look at international comparisons we're solidly in the middle of the OECD pack, below many countries that we would compare ourselves to economically.

    2) in order to get to our 9.8% of GDP the government spends 8% of GDP on the NHS, and people with the money to afford it spend 1.8% of GDP on healthcare in the private sector.

    The reason the NHS costs 8% of GDP and healthcare in the US costs 17.4% and still doesn't cover everyone is because the politicians in charge of the NHS don't want to have to raise the taxes to pay for it any higher than they have to, and people in the US think "this is my/ my families' health! I'm going to pay as much as I can afford!" and the profit making medical system will take you for all the money you have.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ClaraRiddle View Post
    The reason the NHS costs 8% of GDP and healthcare in the US costs 17.4% and still doesn't cover everyone is because the politicians in charge of the NHS don't want to have to raise the taxes to pay for it any higher than they have to, and people in the US think "this is my/ my families' health! I'm going to pay as much as I can afford!" and the profit making medical system will take you for all the money you have.
    It seems the US is one of the worst countries in the world for spending millions of dollars on prolonging the lives of very ill people by a few weeks at most. It's inhumane. And ironic, considering it's also a country where most people believe in an afterlife. You'd think they'd want to get there sooner.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by x000017 View Post
    The government isn't strictly required to pay for the cost, but hospitals are required by law to stabilise the condition of anyone who comes to the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay; they're not required to treat any underlying chronic conditions, though. They're also not allowed to call out debt collectors on people who have outstanding debts. In practice, this means that for the uninsured, the government (and insurance companies who pay for everyone else's treatment) have to cover the cost of their emergency room treatment.

    I think the PPACA (Obamacare) is really not a drastic enough change. It still maintains the insurance companies as profit-making entities, and it seems like it will inevitably drive up premiums for those who can afford to pay, (especially those who don't get health insurance through their employer). UK/Canadian style single payer would have been the best way forward, in my opinion. I know that Vermont has decided to implement it as an alternative to the standard PPACA system.
    My understanding is that hospitals were already required to preform emergency medicine. So this law really isn't that drastic. Some other token things: children can stay on their parent's healthcare plan longer, and you cannot be denied/dropped for having a preexisting/developing condition.

Similar Threads

  1. universal Badge for tb, ab, dl
    By Countryboy95 in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11-Jan-2011, 00:34
  2. Need help with the Healthcare issue.
    By ChildishDaze in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 18-Dec-2009, 08:45
  3. Seriously? (Palin on healthcare)
    By harris in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 21-Aug-2009, 20:56
  4. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    By Takashi in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24-Feb-2009, 22:54

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.