Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
IMO, bureaucracy is the bane of all governments.lforrest said:In concept I would like UH, but in practicality it is a bureaucratic nightmare.
1. Potential loss of personal liberty. Death panels, & restrictions on unhealthy practices.
2. General government inefficiency due to a lack of economic structure. Currently you or your company can shop around for cheaper insurance.
3. Payment caps for procedures; such as we have with insurance now. Except now a good doctor can make it without being tied to an insurance Co. This would destroy the patient DR economy. It would be bad for the physicians, and eventually for everyone else when it becomes hard to find a DR with an opening.
4. Lower quality of care. If you had a day in court would you feel safer with a public defender or a lawyer you hired.
All that data proves is doctors make more in the US, and insurance companies are making a killing. I'm not a fan of for profit insurance either, as their profits depend on not paying out for care.River Jordan said:You need to look at the data. Single payer systems are far superior to our for-profit system in the US in just about every metric you care to mention. Basically in the US, we pay far more than other developed countries and get far worse care. And death panels? Really? That was the "Lie of the Year" in 2009.
1. A death panel is a politically loaded word for a group of people that prescribe the worth of a person to decide if it is worth spending money on them. Like my example with the old pet. While this is an extreme case, it is a possibility in a system with limited resources. The same motivation would be used to promote laws that make the population healthier. Like the former ban on large Sodas in NY.StanJ said:IMO, bureaucracy is the bane of all governments.
1. How do you arrive at these conclusions? Please qualify, and what the heck is a death panel?
2. A tax based system means the government pays the hospital bills, and sets the prices. No insurance company could compete, as they are obliged to make money.
3. Setting fair market rates doesn't impede the professional. Some doctors may get into it for the money but mostly they do it as a calling. I have NEVER had a problem finding a GP, and specialists always abound. I have a regular Ophthalmologist and Endocrinologist, along with my GP.
4. You believe at present you don't have some doctors that are better than others? That would be pretty naïve and the comparison to public defenders is not applicable on so many levels and indicates you don't understand that system. Public defenders ARE fully qualified and in many cases successful lawyers.
1. Never heard of this and they sure don't exist in Canada where we have been on UH for decades. The government spends what they have to and of course budgets exist because that's how governments run, but never to the detriment of patients. Some bans are common sense, just like the seat belt laws. If the government has to pay the consequence of people's lifestyles then they have the right to legislate certain laws.lforrest said:1. A death panel is a politically loaded word for a group of people that prescribe the worth of a person to decide if it is worth spending money on them. Like my example with the old pet. While this is an extreme case, it is a possibility in a system with limited resources. The same motivation would be used to promote laws that make the population healthier. Like the former ban on large Sodas in NY.
2. If there is no competition they would beat out the insurance companies at first, but when they become the single payer they would only have government oversight to limit their expenditures.
3. Around here it is common for the older more experienced doctors to not participate in an HMO, and to have their schedule booked months in advance. Specialists are also booked far in advance in many cases.
4. There obviously are varying degrees of skill among doctors, and lawyers. The comparison is applicable when we are talking about doctors who would be working for the Gov. And just because someone is qualified doesn't mean they are good at their job.
Yes they do, and you don't have it yet in the states. Obamacare was getting there but the Republicans fought it at every turn, and as they have the majority in both the house and senate, it is likely they will repeal it.[email protected] said:Republicans hate universal health care? First of all it isn't universal. There are lots of cracks in the system and many people fall through them and get nothing.
I do not believe you will see the health care system repealed. It is now an established bureaucracy and from now on all we'll hear is chatter about "fixing" it. The law will not be repealed. For all their supposed hate of socialism, the Republicans have never, repeat NEVER been successful at repealing a single one.
The health care system as it exists now is a very lucrative insurance money maker, and Republicans are much in favor of such things.
Although this may be I don't look at it that way.HammerStone said:I kinda view the American insurance system as a tale of two evils. Big business and big government are both machines that will crush people if enabled.
StanJ, to simply answer your original query, I would point out the VA. That's a government run healthcare system that is overburdened yet it has the second largest budget of any department, so much so that there has been widespread cooking the books which directly resulted in patient deaths as appointments were cancelled to meet quotas. There are also honest questions of healthcare quality, so much so that I know many veterans who opt to go to private doctors. Wait times are not good and the VA itself was using a 30+ year old database ('76 Unix) even through the first part of the 2000s.
Also, Canada, Great Britain, etc. all have UH, but all of these countries are a fraction of the size of the US (Canada is literally about 1/10, GB about 1/5 and even Germany is not much larger). All of these countries even have relatively homogenous populations as well, making care much simpler. In the US, you're dealing with anywhere from 5x to 10x the population size, and you're dealing with illegal immigration population perhaps even as much as half the size (or more) of Canada.
This is a far larger system that is currently run anywhere. Many of the countries you mention with UH do have excellent services in some arenas, but so does the US.
It shows that Americans pay about double what other developed countries pay, and get worse care despite the extra expense. Doctors' pay and insurance profits are definitely a factor in that.lforrest said:All that data proves is doctors make more in the US, and insurance companies are making a killing.
It's a pretty fundamental issue....do we want our health care system to be run primarily for profit, or do we want it run primarily for the public good?I'm not a fan of for profit insurance either, as their profits depend on not paying out for care.
Well if that's what you call "death panels", then we have that now. They're called insurance companies.Death panels are a real possibility, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence withholds payment for treatments where it is deemed too costly for the benefit to the patient. Many of us have been there with pets, do you spend thousands in vet bills for an old animal that you know will die soon anyways?
Well that's kinda the point. We (the US) were spending ridiculous amounts of money on health care....way more than other developed countries...and we were getting worse care for it. So obviously something had to change, because the previous system just wasn't working and was spiraling out of control. The ACA is one attempt at fixing that. It's reduced the rate at which health care spending is increasing, but it's still increasing. IMO, it's merely a step along the inevitable path to a single-payer system.ATP said:Well let's see, 18 trillion dollars in debt. Hmm.... <_<
Let's keep spending money, sure that works.
You were already paying for "the bum across the street" (nice Christian attitude btw). Whenever he went to the ER for care and didn't pay, those costs were passed on to you in both higher medical fees and insurance premiums. Not only that, but his costs were already higher because he couldn't afford insurance, which meant he never got routine preventative care, which meant by the time he went to the ER his problems were worse than they should have been, which raises costs.Dan57 said:"Universal" just means to me that I not only continue to pay for my own healthcare, but I also pay for the bum across the street.
The data is very clear that single-payer systems are far superior to for-profit systems in both costs and care.heretoeternity said:Government healthcare sounds good
So we shouldn't have a health care system because people get bored and hang out in doctor's offices? Um..... :blink:but ultimately becomes corrupted like everything else...it's called abuse of the system...people get bored..oh make an appointment with the doctor, and get complete check up..meanwhile someone who needs a checkup and is working, has to wait weeks, months sometimes to get an appointment for an ailment..the clinics have become more like a old folks club, day care for children, aboriginal drop in centre or whatever..Cost to the taxpayer is horrendous.
The abortion question is a legitimate issue, but I can't deny some kid treatment for her disease because I'm worried someone else might get an abortion. More than likely that person will get their abortion either way, so withholding care from the kid just seems spiteful to me...the other thing is universal health care is abused financially by the abortionists who commit their horrendous crimes on humanity, the abortion of babies at tax payer expense, even though it is an "elective" procedure....