"Universal Health Care'

[Slytovhand]

As the topic says.

We've got it down under (well - not 'universal'... so the cosmetic needs to be paid for...).

Go for it....

[Greenday]

Well, if it can be run like the Canadians, then awesome. I just don't want to see my taxes go sky-high because of it. Any presidential candidate who says we will have universal health care without raising taxes is full of crap. It can't be done. The only imaginable way to do it would be to cut funding elsewhere, and a crapload of it too.

[Boozy]

Any presidential candidate who says we will have universal health care without raising taxes is full of crap.

I suspect you're right - but then, the US should have raised taxes about five years ago. You can't go to war and cut taxes. It just can't be done.

The thing about raising taxes to pay for universal health care is that the average family will still come out ahead financially. Private insurance costs a fortune, whether you're paying it personally or your employer is.

[AFPheonix]

Taxes will be raised, but we won't be paying premiums to our private coverage, unless you want to.
Also, your place of business won't be having to pay for your sick ass anymore, so you can get more of your pay in the form of money than in benefits packages. Woot.

Furthermore, overall costs will go down as we, the people who actually pay for our healthcare, won't be covering for the people who mosey into an ER and mosey out without paying the bill. They'll be assisting their own coverage.
Kids will have coverage. The people who get stuck working part-time hours at a fast food restaurant because the business keeps their hours down on purpose to keep from having to offer them benefits will have coverage.
People like me who spend half of my day dealing with retarded insurance stuff will be able to spend more time on things like hunting down supplies of backordered meds for people who need it, since we'll only have one payor to deal with. If they play their cards right, they can set up a pretty sweet, easy to use payer system for people making claims.
I can come up with more if you'd like.

[Boozy]

People like me who spend half of my day dealing with retarded insurance stuff will be able to spend more time on things like hunting down supplies of backordered meds for people who need it, since we'll only have one payor to deal with.

That's another good point, and often overlooked. Health care administration costs are about 25% of total services in the US, compared with 3-8% in Canada.

[daleduke17]

Illinois has some form of (basically) universal healthcare already for kids called AllKids. It is one of the most screwed up programs going right now. Several doctors around the state refuse to accept it as the state government won't pay the offices. That to me shows that the US wouldn't be able to do universal healthcare without screwing it up. I know, small sample size, but, it says a lot.

Also, universal healthcare will be used as a scapegoat to get more taxes passed. Anyone who would oppose it would be seen as ignorant and in need of being removed from the town (look around my area for comments towards people against the recent school referendum for similar comments). We're already taxed out the ass depending on where we live.

[AFPheonix]

Tricare works quite well, and is a government administered plan. Medicare also works quite well.

The VA system, before it was inundated with tons of extremely disabled vets without getting adequate money to handle them, worked pretty well, too.

Just because your local lawmakers wanted to please the public on its face but didn't want to actual work of making the plan functional doesn't mean that we couldn't get a decent national plan.

[Slytovhand]

I sort of get the impression that the US government has the attitude of 'We do it better than everyone else, so we don't need to go look at how others do their stuff'...

Does this seem about right... or am I being overly judgemental and (wilfully) ignorant?

Slyt

[AFPheonix]

Some of it is it would frankly be a large chore to switch to a single payer system, and insurance companies have a pretty good sized lobbying system in the capitol.

Also, historically America has had a love/hate relationship with a strong central government. We started out with a very weak federal system that only got any real power under Lincoln. I think in general, especially in the heartland, that people are distrustful of too much power located centrally where they don't have as much influence over it like they would with local governance. A universal plan would hand more power and influence to the Federal government.

[daleduke17]

I think in general, especially in the heartland, that people are distrustful of too much power located centrally where they don't have as much influence over it like they would with local governance. A universal plan would hand more power and influence to the Federal government.

But remember, us folks are holding on to our guns and religion...blah blah blah.... :rolleyes:

[protege]

I know, small sample size, but, it says a lot.

Yeah it does. You get the government involved in *anything* and they'll fuck it up. The problem is, that when mistakes are made, there's too much finger-pointing, and not enough effort put into fixing the problem. For example, Pennsylvania's road suck. Some of it was because they simply weren't designed to last. That's why our turnpike is constantly under construction. The rest, is because our wonderful PennDOT contracts out much of the actual work. Some of the contractors know what's up, some do not.

There was a case on I-79, where the brand-new road had to be torn up and replaced *multiple* times...because someone fucked up. Something in the road itself wasn't right...meaning the surface kept cracking. A serious crapstorm ensued over it, but in the end, nobody was held accountable--not PennDOT, not the idiots who designed and built the road, nobody.

Look at the mess with Katrina--wasn't the government in charge of the levees and other necessary things down there? We all know how well *that* worked :rolleyes:

[AFPheonix]

Local government, yes. The very government YOU as a voter and taxpayer and someone with a voice has the most ability to influence. You want your local government to shape up? Well, get your ass involved then.

[IDrinkaRum]

Yes, but if this type of Universal Healthcare can be messed up at the local/state level, can you imagine the headache at the Federal level? The politicians can't even go to the bathroom without getting into trouble. No matter how involved every man, woman, and child could be, there is a real possibility that Universal Healthcare as presented by the U. S. Federal Government could be royally f^(&ed up.

[AFPheonix]

I've already posted examples of perfectly good healthcare systems administered by the federal government. Just because your local government can't seem to get its act together doesn't mean every level can't.

[daleduke17]

I've already posted examples of perfectly good healthcare systems administered by the federal government. Just because your local government can't seem to get its act together doesn't mean every level can't.

This is true. Look at I35W. The bridge collapsed due to not enough money being put towards maintenance. It was federal money that was supposed to pay for it. They took money from road maintenance to other things.

That's happened a lot of times in the past. The federal government here will screw stuff up like usual.

[CancelMyService]

The federal government gives tax cuts to the wealthy, which means less money is available to local/state government, which means services they pay for end up getting cut and/or underfunded to the point of collapse so conservatives can point and say "See? Government always messes stuff up"

A lot of people have been Pavlov'd into instantly reacting negatively to anything that would raise taxes, even if they'd save a lot more money on other things (premiums, co pays) that more than offsets any tax increase.

I believe Grover Norquist's term for it was drowning the government in the bathtub. You could never have a politician come out and say "We're going to get rid of or privatize these social programs that everyone likes and depends on", instead you just slowly cut funding until the programs can no longer function properly. Then of course they recommend the private alternative that is loads more costly and inefficient than the government program it replaced. Not to mention the lack of regulation/oversight ends up causing HUGE problems later on.

[powerboy]

I would love to have Universal Health Care. It would have to be set up exactly like Canada for in order for it too work.

[Boozy]

The federal government gives tax cuts to the wealthy, which means less money is available to local/state government, which means services they pay for end up getting cut and/or underfunded to the point of collapse so conservatives can point and say "See? Government always messes stuff up"

Well said. This is a ubiquitous Republican tactic that both conservatives and liberals need to understand better.

The Bush tax cuts left me scratching my head. It wasn't just that I disagreed with them, it was that I couldn't understand the reasoning behind them. They didn't seem to make any sense for anyone on either side of the political spectrum.

Until my dad explained the "drowning big government" concept to me.

They're doing it with Social Security, too. Once it goes bankrupt, it's private accounts or nothing.

[ebonyknight]

A lot of people have been Pavlov'd into instantly reacting negatively to anything that would raise taxes, even if they'd save a lot more money on other things (premiums, co pays) that more than offsets any tax increase.


I know living in on the East Coast in a certain important Metro area, that taxes can go to things that make things better. I live in one of the highest taxed counties on the east coast and I don't complain. I see my tax dollars at work when I leave the county. Roads, infrastructure, maintenance and other things here are superior to other places.

As long as thinks keep working well and we are "better maintained" than surrounding areas, I don't mind it when they ask for a tax increase.

Now as to whether income taxes and other federal taxes should be around, that's a different story.

As long as I have the option of keeping "private insurance", I am all for "universal insurance". If I am to have it forced upon me, no way.

[Slytovhand]

I know living in on the East Coast in a certain important Metro area, that taxes can go to things that make things better. I live in one of the highest taxed counties on the east coast and I don't complain. I see my tax dollars at work when I leave the county. Roads, infrastructure, maintenance and other things here are superior to other places.

As long as thinks keep working well and we are "better maintained" than surrounding areas, I don't mind it when they ask for a tax increase.

Now as to whether income taxes and other federal taxes should be around, that's a different story.

As long as I have the option of keeping "private insurance", I am all for "universal insurance". If I am to have it forced upon me, no way.

I had 2 thoughts to this EK...

Firstly, are the infrastructure improvements still in high wealth sectors? Or are they being done in the really low economic areas as well? (just a question, naturally - cos I ain't there...)

Secondly, in Oz, we have both. For that matter, they've just upped the income you need before you start paying the Medicare surcharge, with an expected drop in the amount of private health insurance (but that's after the last government was doing stuff as well...))

Slyt

[ebonyknight]

I had 2 thoughts to this EK...

Firstly, are the infrastructure improvements still in high wealth sectors? Or are they being done in the really low economic areas as well? (just a question, naturally - cos I ain't there...)

Secondly, in Oz, we have both. For that matter, they've just upped the income you need before you start paying the Medicare surcharge, with an expected drop in the amount of private health insurance (but that's after the last government was doing stuff as well...))

Slyt

Well, because it's one of the most highly taxed, there aren't a lot of lower economic areas anymore. But places that were, were cleaned up. I have yet to see pot holes or other road maintenance issues last long in my area, while other states and a certain district, have crappy ones.

Where my parents live, they are actively increasing the value of the land (personal property taxes) to drive out lower income groups. Whether it will work or not, I don't know. Everywhere else, tax assessments are dropping (housing slump) while in my parents area, the assessments actually increased or stayed the same. But those lower income areas (the ones I know of) have been renovated.

What's Oz? Ozwald state penitentiary, like in the HBO series? ;)

[Slytovhand]

What's Oz? Ozwald state penitentiary, like in the HBO series?


Ummm... Oztrahlya... (Australia, as it's affectionately known by the locals)