Universal Health Care? In This Economy??

[knapplc]

Health care is so great in America right now, why change anything at all? (with shot of sarcasm)

The economy is so great in America right now, why not spend more? (more sarcasm)

Sarcasm is such an effective form of communication, why not use it all the time? (now with 20% more sarcasm!)

[StlSluggers]

Health care is so great in America right now, why change anything at all? (with shot of sarcasm)

The economy is so great in America right now, why not spend more? (more sarcasm)

Sarcasm is such an effective form of communication, why not use it all the time? (now with 20% more sarcasm!)

Teach me more, master.

[StlSluggers]

Health care is so great in America right now, why change anything at all? (with shot of sarcasm)

The economy is so great in America right now, why not spend more? (more sarcasm)

While I don't necessarily like the idea of spending more, in a bad economy deficit spending is a must. There is no way around plunging further in the red in the situation we're currently in. When you can't affect the economy via interest rate reduction, deficit spending is the only way to put a shot into the arm of the national economy.

Deficit spending may be required right now, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that deficit spending in an area like health care would have a signficant impact on the economy. There are almost certainly other areas where the impact would be both broader and more magnified.

[Cleveland Steamers]

The economy is so great in America right now, why not spend more? (more sarcasm)

While I don't necessarily like the idea of spending more, in a bad economy deficit spending is a must. There is no way around plunging further in the red in the situation we're currently in. When you can't affect the economy via interest rate reduction, deficit spending is the only way to put a shot into the arm of the national economy.

Deficit spending may be required right now, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that deficit spending in an area like health care would have a signficant impact on the economy. There are almost certainly other areas where the impact would be both broader and more magnified.

A second, larger, stimulus package would definitely have more immediate impact in the overall economy than instituting universal health care.

But getting back to universal health care...aren't we paying for those without health care anyway in the form of higher insurance premiums? People that aren't insured, don't get preventative health care and don't get treatment until it's almost too late, when a hospital can't turn their treatment down. Hospitals can't afford giving treatment for free, obviously, so those who have insurance pay for it in higher premiums since the hospitals gouge the insurance companies to make up for their losses. With nationwide insurance premiums rising as much as 20% per year, the cost of American health care using the free market, private insurance sytsem is completely unsustainable for the future.

[StlSluggers]

But getting back to universal health care...aren't we paying for those without health care anyway in the form of higher insurance premiums? People that aren't insured, don't get preventative health care and don't get treatment until it's almost too late, when a hospital can't turn their treatment down. Hospitals can't afford giving treatment for free, obviously, so those who have insurance pay for it in higher premiums since the hospitals gouge the insurance companies to make up for their losses. With nationwide insurance premiums rising as much as 20% per year, the cost of American health care using the free market, private insurance system is completely unsustainable for the future.

I'm sure we pay a portion of that expense in everything we buy, but there's no guarantee that the gov't would do it cheaper. Also, there would possibly be risk that certain industries with less than competitive marketplaces would have incentive to not pass those savings on to the customer, thus doubling what we pay on health care in that arena.

[knapplc]

Teach me more, master.

I'm not as good as I'd like to be. It's an art form, and I'm a paint-by-numbers guy.

[Cleveland Steamers]

But getting back to universal health care...aren't we paying for those without health care anyway in the form of higher insurance premiums? People that aren't insured, don't get preventative health care and don't get treatment until it's almost too late, when a hospital can't turn their treatment down. Hospitals can't afford giving treatment for free, obviously, so those who have insurance pay for it in higher premiums since the hospitals gouge the insurance companies to make up for their losses. With nationwide insurance premiums rising as much as 20% per year, the cost of American health care using the free market, private insurance system is completely unsustainable for the future.

I'm sure we pay a portion of that expense in everything we buy, but there's no guarantee that the gov't would do it cheaper. Also, there would possibly be risk that certain industries with less than competitive marketplaces would have incentive to not pass those savings on to the customer, thus doubling what we pay on health care in that arena.

True...but in heathcare, the difference in government health care and private insurance based health care is huge. Private insurance health care is *said* to be much more expensive to run and administer. I think a study in the last couple of years reported that 31% of all health care dollars go to administrative costs in private insurance health care, which is just obscene. If I'm not mistaken, the administrative costs for Medicaid/government employees is something like 10%...a huge difference (though I have also seen a study that said private insurance care admin costs are as low as 12%, so how is one truly know?). Even if the true admin costs for private insurance are relatively low at 16%, it takes costs down dramatically considering that health care will soon account for over 19.5% of our GDP in the near future (2017). Throw in the 40+ million people who are currently uninsured that in most cases get treatment for free when their afflictions become almost untreatable, and universal health care seems more acceptable than our current system.

By universally giving people coverage, people are able to get treatment for small ailments that would normally later turn into high cost medical issues. I'm obviously no expert and have no idea the dollar amount per year that this preventative care would later save the nation, but I can't imagine the dollar amount would be small with the increased cases of obesity, diabetes, etc...

I'm not a giant proponent of either system...I just want something that costs less, provides coverage on everything, and helps our nation become healthier as whole. Whichever is more likely to do that is fine with me...and after reading more and more, universal health care seems more likely to offer those desires.

[Yoda]

Just wondering but who would benefit from a uhc system? Who would lose?

[JTWood]

Looks like Obama's gonna go this route whether we can afford it or not:

"Sen. Daschle has a deep commitment to securing high-quality, affordable health care for everyone in our nation," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "His new leadership position confirms that the incoming Obama administration has made health care reform a top and early priority for action in 2009."

[AussieDodger]

Looks like Obama's gonna go this route whether we can afford it or not:

"Sen. Daschle has a deep commitment to securing high-quality, affordable health care for everyone in our nation," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "His new leadership position confirms that the incoming Obama administration has made health care reform a top and early priority for action in 2009."

And how is this a bad thing?
You guys have no idea what you are missing.