Consensus emerging on universal healthcare - but single payer is off the table

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well unless I misunderstand the rationale - I would guess that presumably the rich people's quality of care would go down...

In practice of course it wouldn't - many countries that have publicly funded healthcare programmes also have supplemental insurance and there are many private healthcare companies that offer "premium" care.

Yep.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The World Health Organization ranks the quality of care in the U.S. at 37.

That list is total BS.

They probably consider the "average" quality of care, which includes 45 million people who receive no healthcare at all.

But that brings the argument back to cost. You and are paying more than our counterparts in other industrialized countries for our healthcare because there are 45 million without healthcare. Radical concept I know, but it would be cheaper to cover all Americans than what we are paying now.

And not just coverage... but actual quality care.

Exactly. Every American who is in dire need of immediate medical attention can go to the Emergency Room and be treated. It's the ol' adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Edited December 2, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

Well unless I misunderstand the rationale - I would guess that presumably the rich people's quality of care would go down...

In practice of course it wouldn't - many countries that have publicly funded healthcare programmes also have supplemental insurance and there are many private healthcare companies that offer "premium" care.

Why would an employer continue to provide healthcare coverage to his employees when they

can use the "free" government program instead?

Yes, there are alternatives to the NHS in the UK. How many people do you know in the UK

who buy supplemental private insurance? Honestly.

[rocks 494]

Well unless I misunderstand the rationale - I would guess that presumably the rich people's quality of care would go down...

In practice of course it wouldn't - many countries that have publicly funded healthcare programmes also have supplemental insurance and there are many private healthcare companies that offer "premium" care.

Why would an employer continue to provide healthcare coverage to his employees when they

can use the "free" government program instead?

Yes, there are alternatives to the NHS in the UK. How many people do you know in the UK

who buy supplemental private insurance? Honestly.

i know of some and it is because of the requirements for specialist care.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well unless I misunderstand the rationale - I would guess that presumably the rich people's quality of care would go down...

In practice of course it wouldn't - many countries that have publicly funded healthcare programmes also have supplemental insurance and there are many private healthcare companies that offer "premium" care.

Why would an employer continue to provide healthcare coverage to his employees when they

can use the "free" government program instead?

Yes, there are alternatives to the NHS in the UK. How many people do you know in the UK

who buy supplemental private insurance? Honestly.

Why buy a luxury car when you can buy an economy car? The mindset of many who have a lot of disposable income is to spend the money to have the best.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why buy a luxury car when you can buy an economy car? The mindset of many who have a lot of disposable income is to spend the money to have the best.

Because healthcare is not a car?

The main purpose of a car is to go from A to B; even the crappiest car can do that.

There is, however, a world of difference between a good doctor and a crappy one.

[HAL 9000 96]

The World Health Organization ranks the quality of care in the U.S. at 37.

That list is total BS.

They probably consider the "average" quality of care, which includes 45 million people who receive no healthcare at all.

But that brings the argument back to cost. You and are paying more than our counterparts in other industrialized countries for our healthcare because there are 45 million without healthcare. Radical concept I know, but it would be cheaper to cover all Americans than what we are paying now.

And not just coverage... but actual quality care.

Exactly. Every American who is in dire need of immediate medical attention can go to the Emergency Room and be treated. It's the ol' adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Well, to put some political flavor into it... that's exactly what some neo-cons were saying as if there is a magical fund that will help patients pay for what ails them.

You can only prevent illness in this country, the current way things are set up, by having the capital to be able to do so. Of course, this is at the healthcare provider level. I am sure there are many things that an individual can do to make sound life choices.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well unless I misunderstand the rationale - I would guess that presumably the rich people's quality of care would go down...

In practice of course it wouldn't - many countries that have publicly funded healthcare programmes also have supplemental insurance and there are many private healthcare companies that offer "premium" care.

Why would an employer continue to provide healthcare coverage to his employees when they

can use the "free" government program instead?

Yes, there are alternatives to the NHS in the UK. How many people do you know in the UK

who buy supplemental private insurance? Honestly.

Perhaps the UK can do more to increase salaries so that more can put supplemental private insurance on the table of affordability. Or more simply, the UK can simply regulate supplemental carriers to make them more affordable.

Similar to what Obama has pledged to do in the US- make existing coverage more affordable for both the company and the employee. Which means that the available government program wouldn't need as many subscribers, meaning that the taxable base for running those programs would be less.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well unless I misunderstand the rationale - I would guess that presumably the rich people's quality of care would go down...

In practice of course it wouldn't - many countries that have publicly funded healthcare programmes also have supplemental insurance and there are many private healthcare companies that offer "premium" care.

Why would an employer continue to provide healthcare coverage to his employees when they

can use the "free" government program instead?

Yes, there are alternatives to the NHS in the UK. How many people do you know in the UK

who buy supplemental private insurance? Honestly.

My dad?

[HAL 9000 96]

Why buy a luxury car when you can buy an economy car? The mindset of many who have a lot of disposable income is to spend the money to have the best.

Because healthcare is not a car?

The main purpose of a car is to go from A to B; even the crappiest car can do that.

There is, however, a world of difference between a good doctor and a crappy one.

As is there a difference between being able to have a doctor and none.

[Heracles 417]

Since when have liberals cared about not costing the taxpayer further taxes?

so the current wars don't cost the taxpayer anything? that was all a liberal idea, right?

National Defense is a separate issue. The best health care system in the world is useless for the dead.

PS You must have missed the news story about a possible large scale attack on US soil in the next few years.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Aficionado

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why buy a luxury car when you can buy an economy car? The mindset of many who have a lot of disposable income is to spend the money to have the best.

Because healthcare is not a car?

The main purpose of a car is to go from A to B; even the crappiest car can do that.

There is, however, a world of difference between a good doctor and a crappy one.

Under a single payer system, you would or should be able to choose your doctor. Choice is tantamount to quality of care.

[Heracles 417]

I wasn't being funny. That's really how I feel.

wow... a lot of things are running through my mind but unlike you i have the sense to keep them to myself.

Ironic considering half your posts in this thread sound like they are coming from a 18 year old.

[rocks 494]

Since when have liberals cared about not costing the taxpayer further taxes?

so the current wars don't cost the taxpayer anything? that was all a liberal idea, right?

National Defense is a separate issue. The best health care system in the world is useless for the dead.

PS You must have missed the news story about a possible large scale attack on US soil in the next few years.

i never said that it wasn't a separate issue.

best healthcare system in the world? one that 45 million can't afford? yes, that's fantastic.

I wasn't being funny. That's really how I feel.

wow... a lot of things are running through my mind but unlike you i have the sense to keep them to myself.

Ironic considering half your posts in this thread sound like they are coming from a 18 year old.

...

please keep the insults coming.

[Heracles 417]

We get into this circular argument over the cost of a single payer system over and over. It's really simple math. If the current cost per American for health care is higher than any of the industrialized nations who have national healthcare and we can provide universal coverage for all Americans at a significantly lower cost, then I don't understand the fuss. Whether your paycheck is being deducted for insurance premiums or for a special tax that pays for a single payer system, all the data shows is that it will be less money out of our pockets.

Presumably all those "socialist" countries have less corrupt/inept government than the US does.

I don't believe that either

Well maybe their healthcare systems are #######? I'd take my PPO plan over the NHS any day.

Anyone who thinks UHC will cost less is on crack. NHS is simply not an option for the US as it would require a complete overhaul of the medical system. Probably costs trillions to setup. UHC is the only option and will come at a cost. IE Increased taxes for individual taxpayers. What Fancy Pants fails to realize is that in countries like Aus we the taxpayer foot the bill by paying up to 3% in extra an Medicare levy on income taxes.