by Alston » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:40 am
Universal health care could mean that more people go to the doctor for preventative care. This could mean that some diseases are prevented and prevented cheaply. This could also mean that we have more people who are able to work and contribute to our economy instead of more people who are too sick to work and who need help from the government.
Is it possible that universal health care improves the economy (http://cheaper-insurance-online.com/blog/2009/03/could-universal-healthcare-trigger-an-economic-boom/) in the long run?
Our current system is biased towards costly emergency care for the poor and against cheap preventive care. If a hospital wants to take money from Medicare, it cannot turn away people in emergency situations. Also the Hippocratic Oath will make health care providers help those in immediate need of medical intervention. This can mean that those without health insurance only see a doctor after it it too late to prevent their condition from having a major impact on their lives.
Universal health care could put an end to this and allow people to see their doctor when a few ounces of prevention eliminates the need for several pounds of cure.
Disabled people pay less in taxes. A better health care system may mean that we have more people who are tax payers and fewer who are "tax eaters."
Link edited by moderator.
Is it possible that universal health care improves the economy (http://cheaper-insurance-online.com/blog/2009/03/could-universal-healthcare-trigger-an-economic-boom/) in the long run?
Our current system is biased towards costly emergency care for the poor and against cheap preventive care. If a hospital wants to take money from Medicare, it cannot turn away people in emergency situations. Also the Hippocratic Oath will make health care providers help those in immediate need of medical intervention. This can mean that those without health insurance only see a doctor after it it too late to prevent their condition from having a major impact on their lives.
Universal health care could put an end to this and allow people to see their doctor when a few ounces of prevention eliminates the need for several pounds of cure.
Disabled people pay less in taxes. A better health care system may mean that we have more people who are tax payers and fewer who are "tax eaters."
Link edited by moderator.
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 06:16 am Post Subject:
Hey Alston, thanks for starting this interesting discussion. IMO we all need to share our views about the most debated topic of the recent time. After talking to several of my friends I’ve realized that people are not very sure about the pros and cons of universal health care & most of them are very vague about the whole business.
I’d hope that the experts would contribute to this discussion & offer their insight.
~Jeremy
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 05:03 am Post Subject:
Let me first say that I really feel for people that don’t have health insurance and have major medical problems, and in fairness I have a great medical plan with limited restrictions and my employer covers 75% of the premiums.
That said, I have a real problem paying for someone else’s health coverage past Medicare or Medicaid. In my numerous jobs, I have seen people not elect health coverage as they didn’t want to pay the premiums so they could have money to spend on other things. Just as you see people not have auto insurance or home insurance. People want “stuff”, material items, and don’t want to hinder their life style in order to afford insurance. Where do you draw the line on who gets free or low cost healthcare? I’ve seen numbers like 75K thrown around. Personally I don’t want their health care as I am happy with my coverage and I don’t want to pay for someone that was too lazy or self indulged to carry coverage that is available to them at a price. Is it expensive, sure. I paid about a third of my bi-weekly paycheck at my old job to have family coverage. Did I want a new flat screen or some other “want, or even go out to eat”….sure but I wanted to cover and protect my family. It is about setting priorities and being responsible for yourself and your family. There are some people with real needs and there are programs set up for most of those people. I just don’t want to pay for people that are either too lazy or too cheap to get the coverage they need. Cause you know the government will always take care of us. Hey its working for Canada.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 01:52 pm Post Subject:
Hi,
A better health care system may mean that we have more people who are tax payers and fewer who are "tax eaters."
Are you sure that an universal health care system wouldn't signify an increase in taxes for most of us Americans? If it turns out like that, then I'm sure most Americans won't vote in it's favor.
Also, I'd count upon the risk of a number of insurance carriers losing billions of dollars (I guess it's always been their choice that such proposals should never get counted while formulating laws).
Roddick
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 02:15 pm Post Subject:
Of course it will cost more in taxes. The question is will we benefit more than the cost.
Employers will no longer have to pay for group medical insurance, so the higher taxes might be offset by this fact. Also, they may have less absenteeism this increase in productivity may be a boon to our economy.
The benefits to universal health care may more than offset the costs if more people are able to afford preventative care. This can mean that fewer people will need costly interventions. This can also mean that we pay less to pay for those on social security disability and that those people who would have been disabled are working and paying taxes.
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 05:48 am Post Subject:
Oh Man, did this topic hit my hot button... :evil:
First of all, let me way that I absolutely agree with PREVENTIVE health care. Frankly, those who think otherwise need to read something.
Universal health care? Whoa, that's a can of worms I'm not sure you really want to open. While I can't argue that our present system need significant overhauling, when it works- it's the best in the world. The changes that must be made cannot be cosmetic- they have to be far reaching and wide ranging. There are dozens of intangibles that have to be entered into the equation, and given my experience in this area- I have never seen one attempt at "nationalized," "universal" or "single-payer" healthcare systems concepts that solve every issue raised. The compromises that must be made are astounding, and the typical end-game casualty is the patient.
Doctors get pissy, lawyers get pissy, and the patient suffers. Doctors don't WANT to take cuts in pay. Lawyers WHINE about their loss of income due to less tort law action coming their way. Try messing with the Trial Lawyers Association and the A.M.A. lobbies sometime when you want to get laws changed.
The red tape will amaze you. Especially in a governmental single-payor system. You people actually want our federal government to have charge of a system of that magnitude? Are you kidding me? This would be a trillion $$ enterprise, and the feds can't handle a hurricane? Or Medicare? Or Social Security? Or the banking and real estate industries? Shall I go on?
Then there's the poor patient. The patient who has to wait anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to be seen for a "routine" appointment. The patient who dies waiting for the kidney transplant. Not because they can't find a donor, either, by the way. You don't believe this? Go live in Canada or England for a while. Tell me why wealthy Canadiens are flocking to the United States for treatment when Canada has such a marvelous national healthcare system.
Then there's the legislators, who are terrified of getting "unelected" come election time and will do almost anything to pander to the special interests. Keeping in mind that most of our nation's congresspeople are lawyers, good luck with that one, too. Try getting truly meaningful tort reform legislated. Try capping medical malpractice awards in court. This usually doesn't work.
The problem isn't the doctors. The problem is the system that reward various people in the healthcare chain for NOTHING AT ALL. The chain is broken, the system needs to be overhauled. the administration of the chain has a compound fracture, and the problem is NOT just the insurer, it's NOT just the lawyers, and it's NOT simply tort reform. We need to reform the system we have, and not create a burdensome, expensive and bloated nightmare that will eventually run amok.
Comments? Just curious, you know... :lol:
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 05:50 am Post Subject:
Sorry, I forgot to say something here.
Unless there are significant provisions built into any nationalized or universal healthcare legislation to protect the insurance industry...you do realize that all of you health insurance agents and intermediaries out there are out of a job, don't you?
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 05:14 pm Post Subject:
I've been sewing my parachute for the last couple of years.
Eventually we are either going to be out of jobs or will have our jobs radically changed. It may not happen in the next four years, but it will happen. Health insurance agents who start sewing their parachutes after the plane starts to go down are going to be hurt badly.
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:27 pm Post Subject:
Health care reform is coming...but not as quickly as first thought. The answer s simple...Increased utilization of HSAs and tax incentives for preventative treatment. Throw in a stripped-down McCain credit...and there you go!
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 03:57 pm Post Subject:
The part that could hurt our economy is the fact that universal health care could put a lot of people out of a job, i.e. - agents, marketers, health insurers and all who work for the them to name a few.
In my opinion, the health insurers should be part of the discussion or unemployment numbers will get worse and that is bad news for the economy.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 04:42 pm Post Subject:
I don't know... I'm so on the fence! I personally spend A LOT of money in health insurance for hubby, 3 kids and me... and that's not even counting copays/co-insurances...
I do know that it needs to be changed... perhaps baby steps would be better than a whole program overhaul...
If they start with a "preventive" universal program I could be convinced even if it'd cost me a little more in taxes...
I just want to make sure that the new benefits are comparable to what I would get if I just paid an individual policy...
Add your comment