The Case Against Universal Healthcare

[PureX]

I guess it's a balance of economies. You pay far more for your healthcare than we do. Why do you think that is?

It's because our pharmaceutical, insurance, hospitals and medical supply companies are all price-gouging us for everything related to health care, and raking in record profits.

The key to cost-effective national heal care is to set price caps to stop the price gouging. And the U.S. health care related corporations know this. Which is why they are fighting health care reform with everything they've got. And since they can legally bribe our legislators, it's unlikely that we will ever get realistic health care reform.

President Obama had a 'supermajority' in Congress when he tried for reform. That means there were so many democrats in the House that the republicans could not possibly deny their majority vote. Yet when Obama tried to get a single payer national health care system passed into law, suddenly all his democratic legislators fell into mass confusion, and the best they could come up with was a 25 year old republican idea in which the government forces everyone to buy private health care insurance.

It's been wrongly labelled "Obamacare', and it won't work because it does not address the price-gouging, which means it does not address the excessive costs of health care in the U.S. But it was the only reform that could get past the wall of bribery in Congress. And that's WHY it could get past it: because it did not address the price-gouging. The U. S. legislature is controlled by corporate money. And those corporations involved in Health care at every level are making massive profits by price-gouging. So they have no incentive to allow us to have a single-payer national health care system. The U.S. is effectively an oligarchy.

 

[chrysostom]

the primary problem with uhc is the lack of market forces necessary to contain the costs
and
arbitrary cost controls prevent incentives necessary to improve technology

perhaps the biggest problem is this prevailing concept
that
there is no need to suffer
when
there is a pill or procedure that will solve your problem
but
first we have to run a few tests

how do you say no to a doctor?

does your doctor ever say that time is all your body needs to heal itself?

 

[chrysostom]

we have the best and the worst

out veterans have free health care
you just have to wait for it
and
you have to put up with the corruption

thanks to the unions
many have cadillac health plans
you pay nothing
go as often as you like
for whatever ails you
this alone drives up the cost for everyone else

most get healthcare from their employers
so
you don't get to shop around
you get whatever they give you
you go to the doctor
the doctor gets paid by the insurance company
and
the company you work for pays the insurance premium
and
you think it is free

the medical industry is booming
they can charge whatever they want
this promotes medical technology
many come here from places with uhc to get our advanced procedures
or
simply because they don't want to wait

 

[PureX]

thanks to the unions
many have cadillac health plans
you pay nothing
go as often as you like
for whatever ails you
this alone drives up the cost for everyone else

This is just flat out false. "Cadillac" health insurance policies cost "cadillac" prices. And the insurance companies are posting record-breaking profits every year, and have been for 20 years. So no one else is paying for these "cadillac" insurance policies except the businesses who's workers are demanding them.

And besides that, these "cadillac" insurance policies are nearly non-existent, unions or no unions. It's a case of blaming the rarest anomaly to further the agenda of union-hating/busting.

most get healthcare from their employers
so
you don't get to shop around
you get whatever they give you
you go to the doctor
the doctor gets paid by the insurance company
and
the company you work for pays the insurance premium
and
you think it is free

The people you work for shop around plenty. But health care is a captive market, which means the suppliers can price-gouge regardless of the competition because they all know we HAVE TO BUY. And this is the fundamental problem that must be dealt with by any meaningful health care reform. Also, we should never have attached health care insurance to wage compensation. That was an idiotic thing to do, and it still is an idiotic thing to do. If we went to a national single-payer health care system everyone's wages could be increased by hundreds of dollars per month, since employers would no longer be paying those big insurance premiums for their employees.

the medical industry is booming
they can charge whatever they want
this promotes medical technology
many come here from places with uhc to get our advanced procedures
or
simply because they don't want to wait

This is another lie. Very few people come to the U.S. for medical procedures because they can get good care in their own countries. In fact, a lot of Americans are now going to other countries for health care procedures because of the absurd price-gouging for those procedures, here. Again, this is an example of the very rare anomaly being used to further the dishonest agendas of the U.S. health care industry; that want desperately to keep the U.S. from adopting any real and effective health care reforms.

 

[chrysostom]

And besides that, these "cadillac" insurance policies are nearly non-existent, unions or no unions. It's a case of blaming the rarest anomaly to further the agenda of union-hating/busting.

the dirty little secret
is
the unions cannot afford their own plans
and
their solution was to get more people paying for healthcare

sounds like obamacare

the democratic party is owned and operated by the unions
with
a lot of help from the feminists
who
supply the votes
and
not much else outside of the rhetoric

sounds like the war on women

 

[PureX]

If anyone is actually interested in seeing an honest comparison of various national health care systems, this is an excellent documentary:

Frontline: Sick Around The World

 

[chrysostom]

did anyone notice where

purex

explained the problem with veteran healthcare

 

[rocketman]

The harder you work, the more you benefit. I believe in that principle, and it's as true in the UK as it is in the USA. Our tax system may be a little different, but yes the more someone earns the more they will be better off.

I can't see that it's covetousness to believe in healthcare for all. It seems to be a peculiarly American idea amongst Christians, for I've never encountered a Christian outside of the USA who thinks that. Why do you think that might be?

Well, if you were speaking of everyone paying the same percentage of tax off their gross wages than yes, you could say it is a fair system but, just as in the U.S. the UK screws you for achieving more. The more you make the higher percentage is taken and you call it fair in some convoluted way.

 

[rocketman]

World healthcare statistics compiled from data held by the World Health Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development which show quality of care and cost per person.

If the data is correct, healthcare in the UK is generally to a higher standard and is done for $5,000 less per capita than the USA. Why do you think that is?

Because your country taxes earners to death....that is why.

 

[rocketman]

You would pay no tax on the first £10,000 so that's a reduction of another £2,000 from your calculation, but other than that you're correct.

The thinking behind it is that the poor cannot afford to contribute as much, and I tend to agree. As I already said, the harder you work the more you earn. There's no limit on that. But a 40% tax would have much more of an impact on the life of someone earning say £10,000 a year than it would on someone earning £100,000 a year. Yes the person earning more would pay more, but it would still impact them less. I don't look at what others who are better off than me have and say 'I want that', but I am glad that through myself and others a system exists where everyone can get the healthcare they need.

I'm happy to pay a little more if that's what it takes so we can have such a system, and I know no one here who would object to that. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't dismantle the NHS. Any government which tried would start a revolution in all political and social classes. Once countries have universal healthcare, they tend to see the benefits and never go back. There's not a single case I'm aware of where a country adopting universal healthcare voted to dismantle it again.

We've had universal healthcare since 1948. It's not new, it's not perfect; but it is fair, compassionate and just.

No, it is more of "once the government has it's hooks in you they will never let you go".... I am sorry LMOHM, I see why you like the piece of mind of UHC but, I don't trust my government enough to give them yet more money in expectation of them doing the proper thing with it, right now I have a bit more control of my own health care than I would under a government program. Like with all social programs the U.S. government can not be trusted to put the money that is collected for said program into said program...they rip off programs to fund other things it is a bottomless pit.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Well, if you were speaking of everyone paying the same percentage of tax off their gross wages than yes, you could say it is a fair system but, just as in the U.S. the UK screws you for achieving more. The more you make the higher percentage is taken and you call it fair in some convoluted way.

If I earned more, I would be happy to pay more. I have no issue with that. I don't feel like I would be screwed for achieving more. No matter what, the more I earn the better off I am.

Do I believe the UK is too expensive? Yes. Do I believe universal healthcare is the problem? No!

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Because your country taxes earners to death....that is why.

That's not a great explanation. Why does it on average cost $5,000 more per person for treatment in the USA and the UK?

As for taxes.. take off co-pays and take off insurance premiums and see if you really would be much worse off. I don't pay to go see the doctor. All I pay is £10 a month for my prescriptions as I need quite a few of them. Other than that I will be charged absolutely nothing for treatment, specialist treatment, operations.. anything. Not a single penny. Even with insurance, co-pays can make medical bills in the US massive!

Do you think it right that someone becomes bankrupt and loses everything because they become ill and cannot afford treatment?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

No,it is more of "once the gogovernment has it's hooks in you they will never let you go"....

It's more the case that no one questions the principle of healthcare that is free to all at point of need. And why would we? That system benefits everyone else as much as it benefits me. We don't think anyone should suffer through inability to pay for medical treatment. As stated earlier, this whole idea of rejecting universal healthcare is a peculiarly American phenomena.

Not you, but others on this site have even gone as far as to suggest it's a sin for me to use the healthcare system that I believe in and I've paid into. Why have I only heard that from American Christians? What is so different about American Christians that many would argue universal healthcare is a sin (such as coveting), while Christians outside of the US would argue that universal healthcare is a great way of demonstrating the Christian ideals of love and compassion.

 

[rocketman]

If it's all about money, those in the U.S. should consider the government can create U.S. Notes, which is a debt free currency, and spend it on UHC.

Yea, they could but, will they? I will take the bet of no...Like the gangsters they are, politicians have an insatiable need for more of your money to squander, one only has to look at the social security system to see that.

Presently, the government creates bonds and exchanges them for Federal Reserve Notes (debt for debt). Is anyone denying that U.S. Notes exist and have been used successfully in the past? If not, then why couldn't they be used to finance a healthcare system without taxing the people? The answer is they could but the current system maintains a power structure that isn't going to allow that.

So, you are asserting that you create debt with a bond/loan and then it somehow magically pays for itself? This country is in deep dark debt right now to the tune of 18 trillion + from just this sort of thinking. Either this country can afford to pay for it or it cannot...creative finance will not fund something this large.

 

[WizardofOz]

The Case Against Universal Healthcare socialism

 

[rocketman]

If I earned more, I would be happy to pay more. I have no issue with that. I don't feel like I would be screwed for achieving more. No matter what, the more I earn the better off I am.

Do I believe the UK is too expensive? Yes. Do I believe universal healthcare is the problem? No!

I believe that government programs are part & parcel to the reason why healthcare is so expensive.

That's not a great explanation. Why does it on average cost $5,000 more per person for treatment in the USA and the UK?

Good question, I know it was much cheaper before Obamacare came down the pike. People in the U.S. are paying an average of 30% more since it came to pass...sometimes more.

As for taxes.. take off co-pays and take off insurance premiums and see if you really would be much worse off. I don't pay to go see the doctor. All I pay is £10 a month for my prescriptions as I need quite a few of them. Other than that I will be charged absolutely nothing for treatment, specialist treatment, operations.. anything. Not a single penny. Even with insurance, co-pays can make medical bills in the US massive!

You pay a co-pay every month from your paycheck LMOHM whether you see a physician or not, how can you say that you do not pay a co-pay? and all in the UK pay a tidy sum in taxes to support your UHC albeit cheaper than the U.S. by the stats. The price of care has much more to do with lawyers & the litigious U.S. society as well, if american lawmakers wanted to bring down the price of care, tort reform would bring down the price immensely but , being politicians are mostly lawyers they have not moved a finger to change that environment. The price of malpractice insurance doctors have to carry is astronomical, there are many facets to why HC is so expensive in the U.S.

Do you think it right that someone becomes bankrupt and loses everything because they become ill and cannot afford treatment?

If they go bankrupt in this country, bankruptcy assures they don't lose everything, in fact it is a dismissal of the debt, not saying it is a good thing. People that can afford HC have went bankrupt depending on what care was received also, and I assure you that some in your country drain the HC system more than others also depending on what care was received.

It's more the case that no one questions the principle of healthcare that is free to all at point of need. And why would we?

It is not a question of the principle but, a question of who is managing the system...nobody trusts the government to do the right thing with the money. They have proven they are not trustworthy of managing social programs.

That system benefits everyone else as much as it benefits me. We don't think anyone should suffer through inability to pay for medical treatment. As stated earlier, this whole idea of rejecting universal healthcare is a peculiarly American phenomena.

Benefits everyone? that would mean that I could come there illegally and receive that same level of care as an illegal alien? This is another facet of the "American phenomena" that you do not account for when it comes to cost. We are also paying for the care of millions of non-citizens as well with our tax dollars. Does the UK give free care to non-citizens? The U.S. does...every day, just come to any emergency room in any hospital and you can watch it happen.

Not you, but others on this site have even gone as far as to suggest it's a sin for me to use the healthcare system that I believe in and I've paid into. Why have I only heard that from American Christians? What is so different about American Christians that many would argue universal healthcare is a sin (such as coveting), while Christians outside of the US would argue that universal healthcare is a great way of demonstrating the Christian ideals of love and compassion.

Expecting others to pay your way as well as their own is the sticking point LMOHM. I think that the U.S. citizenry, especially the middle class are weary of always being the ones to subsidize these programs and give increasingly more money while others make a lifestyle of living on these social programs it is not just health care it is a social program snowball where the workers keep paying and the takers keep taking. It is being seen by the most taxed in our society as theft at this point...at some point people start saying when is it enough?

 

[Nick M]

Which part of the government pays the bills in a universal healthcare system did you miss? That would include the wages of medical staff.

Who pays the government? You said it was free, not me. There is nothing free about it. You need to expound on this a little bit more.

 

[Nick M]

I disagree that enabling everyone to receive the healthcare they need is coveting.

So do I. I said your desire for somebody to have what others have is coveting. Coveting is desire, not an action.

Having the belief that access to healthcare should not be based on one's ability to pay is not coveting and you've done a very bad job of demonstrating otherwise.

It certainly is. And this is not debatable. The demon possessed atheist Red77 (arthurbrain) agrees with you. That should tell you something.

You cannot show in the Bible where it states this should not be a function of government.

Now you are pushing it. I can show you what government exists for. I do it here everyday. You have not shown how they are to take from wealthy in taxes and give it to somebody else. In fact, I can show you how that is compared to tyranny by God.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Who pays the government? You said it was free, not me. There is nothing free about it. You need to expound on this a little bit more.

I said free at point of need. That means if I go to see the doctor I pay nothing at that time, if I need treatment I pay nothing at that time. It doesn't mean the system isn't paid for. It's not a charity, it's funded from taxation. I've made that clear on numerous occasions.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

So do I. I said your desire for somebody to have what others have is coveting. Coveting is desire, not an action.

At what point did a compassionate, empathetic desire become 'coveting'? I desire those in the world who die from not having access to clean water to have that access. I have access to clean water. Is it coveting to wish that others could have the same?

Do you desire to help those who are suffering? Or are you, as I suspect, too selfish?

It certainly is. And this is not debatable. The demon possessed atheist Red77 (arthurbrain) agrees with you. That should tell you something

Firstly, AB isn't an atheist. Secondly, we most certainly don't agree on everything. Thirdly, it tells me he's not from the USA. He's British, and as I've said on numerous occasions you will not find a British person, Christian or otherwise who is against universal healthcare. Why do you think that is? Every single one of my Christian friends here would agree with me. Are you going to call them all 'demon possessed' too?

Now you are pushing it. I can show you what government exists for. I do it here everyday. You have not shown how they are to take from wealthy in taxes and give it to somebody else. In fact, I can show you how that is compared to tyranny by God.

I would like chapter and verse which states universal healthcare is sinful, please. I can give you many references about helping others, helping the poor and being kind and compassionate.