Universal Healthcare?

[VTBob]

I don't have an article to refer to for discussion, rather I'd prefer to see what our board member's views on universal healthcare are.

I for one believe in expansion of Medicaid and Medicare, rather than producing universal healthcare in the United States. Medicaid is administed differently by the individual states, and I feel it should fall under complete federal jurisdiction and be made available for ANY individual who falls beneath a certain monetary or disability level. I'm no economist, so I wouldn't be able to judge what income level would be proper, but I feel our current system is too weak. 40.6 million Americans are currently participating in Medicaid, but there are millions of other ones who are not technically "disabled" or poor enough to fall under its support.

If our nation would expand Medicaid and Medicare for the elderly, so that all of our citizens in need are covered, I think that'd be sufficient. Those who are above the income line would remain in privatized healthcare, so that the tax burden would not grow to cover the entire 275 million (is that what it was with the most recent census?) popultion.




...anyhoo, what're your feelings on universal healthcare?

[akhhorus]

Relatively bad idea, but I think its inevitable. I believe that the business world will push both parties to do it, even if they have to pay much higher business taxes to make it happen just so they won't have the health costs.

[Spence]

I don't really care how we get there, so long as we get to a system of publicly-funded universal healthcare. It's absolutely necessary to control costs and save the hundreds of thousands of jobs that flee the country every year due to the high cost of employee health insurance. [Our foriegn competitors don't have to worry about it since they operate from countries that already have universal coverage.] GM and Ford are sinking under the cost and it is a heavy burden on businesses in most industries. We're going to have universal coverage in this country because business cannot afford to keep footing the bill and it would be the mother of all political massacres in Washington if the politicians allowed tens of millions of middle class people to lose their employee healthcare and have no replacement. The only question is how many jobs we lose before it happens.

I favor a system that allows people to opt out and seek private insurance if they wish. That would make universal healthcare less susceptible to criticism.

[BurgundyNGold]

Relatively bad idea, but I think its inevitable. I believe that the business world will push both parties to do it, even if they have to pay much higher business taxes to make it happen just so they won't have the health costs.
These are my exact thoughts on the matter. Business, which seemingly drives everything these days, cannot continue to afford to cover the rising cost of health care for their employees and their families. Most businesses anyway. They'll drive the Fed to do something, although I hope that it's not the Canadian state-run system.

[VTBob]

I favor a system that allows people to opt out and seek private insurance if they wish. That would make universal healthcare less susceptible to criticism.


Thats what I was leaning towards with my initial post I suppose, I just feel we should have in place a "limited" universal healthcare system so that if one wishes to remain with private healthcare for whatever reason, they can do so...

[akhhorus]

These are my exact thoughts on the matter. Business, which seemingly drives everything these days, cannot continue to afford to cover the rising cost of health care for their employees and their families. Most businesses anyway. They'll drive the Fed to do something, although I hope that it's not the Canadian state-run system.

I dont know if it will be that, but it might be free healthcare for everyone who makes less than X per year. Or free healthcare for everyone under 21 and over 65. That is much more plausible than Universal Healthcare, is cheaper and will reduce their financial committments significantly.

[BurgundyNGold]

I dont know if it will be that, but it might be free healthcare for everyone who makes less than X per year. Or free healthcare for everyone under 21 and over 65. That is much more plausible than Universal Healthcare, is cheaper and will reduce their financial committments significantly.
Either of thise options are plausible, the the under 21 and over 65 one has to account for at least half of all helathcare costs. Kids and old people are expensive, lol.

Anyway, the way I figure, they have to handle the problem of illegals and Big Pharma before they can even consider a UHC plan. And, since both of those issues will take effort and won't be particular popular, I'm thinking that they'll never do it.

[RedskinsDave]

I think if anyone had an idea of how HHS is run they would not want to be part of any expansion of medicare and medicaid.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think if anyone had an idea of how HHS is run they would not want to be part of any expansion of medicare and medicaid.
I would think that any such progam would require a complete overhaul of the social services system in place. After all, HHS and FDA are not set up to work that way. Who knows, maybe they go away. Or maybe they reorg and roll up into a a new Department of Public Health.

Some things would have to go away to be able to afford the administration of any such program anyway. Sadly, like what happened after 9/11, when government has the opportunity to slash or eliminate ineffective agencies and bloated costs, they usually choose to just slap a band aid on the stack of baid aids and throw more money at the problem.

[dukeuch]

I don't really care how we get there, so long as we get to a system of publicly-funded universal healthcare. It's absolutely necessary to control costs and save the hundreds of thousands of jobs that flee the country every year due to the high cost of employee health insurance. [Our foriegn competitors don't have to worry about it since they operate from countries that already have universal coverage.] GM and Ford are sinking under the cost and it is a heavy burden on businesses in most industries. We're going to have universal coverage in this country because business cannot afford to keep footing the bill and it would be the mother of all political massacres in Washington if the politicians allowed tens of millions of middle class people to lose their employee healthcare and have no replacement. The only question is how many jobs we lose before it happens.

I favor a system that allows people to opt out and seek private insurance if they wish. That would make universal healthcare less susceptible to criticism.

One problem with "opt-out" is that typically the wealthier, healthier population takes advantage of the opt out, and leaving a greater percentage of unhealthy (or unlucky) individuals remaining in the universal pool, which increases costs/premiums of those in the pool, often substantially.

Unfortunately, I see only two ways of guaranteeing affordable healthcare in the years to come 1) Price control and 2) Reducing benefits/access in terms of high cost procedures which produce very little benefit or increased rates of success. Right now we have a system where every available option is utilized, and as the costs of the newest, most exotic options, rise, the expected benefits often fall. It's tough medicine, but at some point cost/benefits of procedures need to become a bigger part of the equation.

[BurgundyNGold]

I favor a system that allows people to opt out and seek private insurance if they wish. That would make universal healthcare less susceptible to criticism.
As long as they still pay their share to the universal system, I don't care who opts out. It's like if you don't have kids but still pay for the schools or if you don't drive but still pay for the (occasional) upkeep of roads. That's part of living in a community, everyone has to pay a little bit.

Allowing people to get or keep supplemental or different coverage seems to be common sense. I'm sure the folks who can afford to do so would prefer to use their plans anyway.

BTW, I expect to see some kind of partnership between private healthcare and the government -- not a federal system in the model of Walter Reed AMC or Bethesda NMC. The government will broker the rates for the policies and for the services en masse so that the best rates can be acheived. Certain coverage levels health care providers will jump on board with this. Others, will not, enabling the capitalistic healthcare system to thrive at the higher costs of a personal policy.

[Spence]

As long as they still pay their share to the universal system, I don't care who opts out. It's like if you don't have kids but still pay for the schools or if you don't drive but still pay for the (occasional) upkeep of roads. That's part of living in a community, everyone has to pay a little bit..That's what I had in mind. I didn't mean that people could choose whether or not to support public health, only that they could choose whether or not to participate. After all, we don't allow people to pick and choose which parts of the government they wish to fund. You earn a living, you pay taxes, and that's it. I just don't want people complaining that they're forced into a national healthcare system. If they feel they can do better, let them go ahead and try. They still have to support the system, though. I'm a progressive, remember. ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

That's what I had in mind. I didn't mean that people could choose whether or not to support public health, only that they could choose whether or not to participate. After all, we don't allow people to pick and choose which parts of the government they wish to fund. You earn a living, you pay taxes, and that's it. I just don't want people complaining that they're forced into a national healthcare system. If they feel they can do better, let them go ahead and try. They still have to support the system, though. I'm a progressive, remember. ;)
Well then we agree, again. You'd better watch out. Apparently, I'm a closet Newt Gringrich. :D

[VTBob]

Apparently, I'm a closet Newt Gringrich. :D

Is this cause Bill O'Reilly agreed with your views on the King funeral thing? Speaking of which, I feel like I need to wash off the filth, I never felt I'd agree with O'Reilly on anything...eeewwwwww...


anyhoo, back on subject when do you all feel the US may become a state which has universal healthcare? 5 years? 10? Please feel free to debate...

[BurgundyNGold]

Is this cause Bill O'Reilly agreed with your views on the King funeral thing? Speaking of which, I feel like I need to wash off the filth, I never felt I'd agree with O'Reilly on anything...eeewwwwww...
Nah, just something I've been told recently.

anyhoo, back on subject when do you all feel the US may become a state which has universal healthcare? 5 years? 10? Please feel free to debate...
No less than 5 years and probably more than 10. The pain isn't great enough for corporate America yet, but it likely will be in 10 years or so.

The politicos will have to be convinced on both sides of the aisle, or at least completely on one side of the aisle and have a good number break on the other side. This won't work if it's perceived as a partisan plan. A few campaigns of sweet, delicious pocket linings should take care of that.

Then, the massive vessel that is the federal government will have to be conviced to change course. This could take years in and of itself. Hell, it's taking years to implement something as comparatively simple as adding Rx medicine to Medicare -- an existing program.

It might be 20 years before we see UHC in the US.

[higgybaby]

I favor a system that allows people to opt out and seek private insurance if they wish. That would make universal healthcare less susceptible to criticism.



I think a version like this would be good.

[dukeuch]

That's what I had in mind. I didn't mean that people could choose whether or not to support public health, only that they could choose whether or not to participate. After all, we don't allow people to pick and choose which parts of the government they wish to fund. You earn a living, you pay taxes, and that's it. I just don't want people complaining that they're forced into a national healthcare system. If they feel they can do better, let them go ahead and try. They still have to support the system, though. I'm a progressive, remember. ;)

I agree with both you and B&G on this, but it is not so an easy task to disengage risk pools from establishing premiums, or the government program equivelant of premiums, from the populaiton being covered. It can be done if GOVERNMENT acts as the insurer, negoitaitng rates of reimbursement with providers. This is somehting that America has not been willing to do.