|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:25 pm
One of Obama's plans is to basically take over the healthcare system and cover everyone.
Proponents of government-run healthcare argue that this plan will make healthcare more affordable and will reduce the number of uninsured citizens. They add that if you are not satisfied with your current healthcare, you can take the government's plan.
The Dark Side (because there is always a dark side): It's the government attempting another powergrab. Under government-run healthcare, you don't get to choose your own doctor and if you refuse the government's plan, you're either fined or denied healthcare. In countries like Canada and Great Britain, where there is government-run healthcare, patients are put on a waiting list and many patients have died while on that waiting list. Here's info on Great Britain's healthcare system from Conservatives for Patient's Rights (www.CPR.com):
Health Care in Great Britain
By Jason Shafrin on April 23, 2008 2:04 PM
Great Britain represents all that is good and bad with centralized, single-payer health care systems. Health care spending is fairly low (7.5% of GDP) and very equitable. Long wait lists for treatment, however are endemic and rationing pervades the system. Patients have little choice of provider and little access to specialists.
Percent Insured. ~100%
Funding. Great Britain has a single payer system funded by general revenues. With any centralized system, avoiding deficits is difficult. In 2006, Great Britain had a £700 million deficit despite the fact that health care spending increased by £43 billion over five years.
Private Insurance. 10% of Britons have private health insurance. Private health insurance replicates the coverage provided by the NHS, but gives patients access to higher quality care, and reduced waiting times.
Physician Compensation. Unlike in the case of other single payer systems such as Norway, most physicians and nurses are mostly government employees. In 2004, the NHS negotiated lower salaries for doctors in exchange for reduced work hours. Few physicians are available at night or on weekends. Because of low compensation, there is a significant shortage of specialists.
Physician Choice. Patients have very little physician choice. However, under the experimental London Patient Choice Project, patients waiting more than six months for treatment will be offered a choice of four different treatment providers.
Copayment/Deductibles. There are no deductibles and almost no copayments except for small copayments for prescription drugs, as well as for optical and dental care.
Waiting Times. Waiting lists are a huge problem in Great Britain. Some examples: 750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs. "A top-flight hospital like Suffolk Est PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding."
Benefits Covered. The NHS system offers comprehensive coverage. Because of rationing, care might not be as easy to get as advertised. Terminally ill patients may be denied treatment. David Cameron has proposed that the NHS refuse treatment to smokers or the obese
Do you support or oppose government-run healthcare? Remember to respect the opinions of others and back up your position.
Ready? Set? DEBATE!!!!
And have fun! biggrin
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:39 pm
Ugh, One of the worst things I've ever had to debate on: universal healthcare. First let me say IF we had this I wouldn't have had my surgeries that I desperatly needed and my grandparents would all have died a lot sooner. Second my dream is to become a doctor of some sort that wouldn't truly be nesscary in that form of healthcare : plastic surgeon, dermatologist, coroner. The money would come from our taxes and then be put into a big ol' pot just like social security. It WILL run out plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:58 am
If there were to ever be universal care then it would be best from the private sector. but befor befor any reform there would have to be a dramatic increase in doctors to handle the extra load. govermemnt shoiuld stay out altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:23 am
I oppose anything "government-run". It's just another way the government can control our lives. Obama says that this healthcare will get more people into hospitals. Then, he says that their aren't going to be more doctors hired? WTF!!!!!How do you expect to keep any hospital/medical clinic running if you are getting more patients than you are doctors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:28 am
This is just another way for the government to have more control. Plus, doesn't this scream out socialism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:31 am
We should look to the swiss, everyone is insured and No goverment involvment, its like car insurance required but completly private and they do it in a way that they dont raise taxes to cover it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:36 pm
James628 We should look to the swiss, everyone is insured and No goverment involvment, its like car insurance required but completly private and they do it in a way that they dont raise taxes to cover it. Then what if you can't either afford insurance or the fines? You don't have to drive a car, but are you going to just not live? Anyways, with universal healthcare, you are putting your very LIFE in the same hands that caused the bank that served the US Congress to close down due to thousands of bounced checks, cares more about getting earmarks to special interests than fixing the Social Security mess they made, and all but completely forced banks to make bad loans that govbernment knew would sink them. I don't know about you, but I don't trust my life to those clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:52 pm
The health care system needs change. But NOT this kind of change.
The first thing that needs to be done is tort reform. If the number of frivolous lawsuits is reduced, then eventually malpractice insurance will go down. If malpractice is reduced, then that cost won't have to be passed on to the consumer. One of my friends in HS's dad was a neurosurgeon. His malpractice insurance was $80,000 a year!!! How ridiculous! Furthermore, the doctors wouldn't have to order unnecessary tests to cover their asses.
The next thing that needs to be done is allow people to purchase insurance across state lines. This will increase the options and in turn the competitiveness. It will lower costs through what this country was economically founded on-- capitalism...the FREE market.
Universal Health Care, like what is found in England, is poor. First of all, the quality is so much less than our current system. Canadians come to the US for higher quality care. Second, the British system was formed when? During World War II-- when EVERYTHING there was being rationed. They've just never been able to get away from the system. Third, there is no system to use your own money for health care. On Glenn Beck this week, he had a gentleman from the UK that could not even buy pain meds for a broken ankle since it was going to be a while for him to get into the doctor!
Personally, I don't want a bureaucrat telling me that my life isn't valuable enough to be treated for breast cancer. Or that I have to wait in line for medicine that could save my life while the disease spreads.
No...UHC is NOT the answer. Besides, I don't trust a government that can't even run "Cash for Clunkers" for a week to run my business (I'm going to school to be a Dr of Chiropractic) or to run my medical needs for the rest of my life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:30 pm
plus an interesting fact rand paul brought up, of those 40,000,000 people without health insurance here 1/3 make over $50,000 a year 1/3 qualify for medicaid but dont know how to do the paer work for it and 1/3 are not citizens.
I agree that malpratice lawsuits make up the largest problem, that is what congress should be targeting not those "villanous" insurance companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:37 pm
Why should we trust a clearly incompatent government that screwed up a cash for clunkers, or I say, cash for punkers program with our healthcare decisions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:21 am
If we had the vast amount of funds and a stable economic status, why not. But sadly we dont, and it is proven that this system seams to fail if the economy is bad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:15 am
What we all should really be focusing on is what this white elephant 'healthcare reform' is going to do to our Constitutional rights. I wish I had it on hand, but I was sent a great commentary on this issue by a Constitutional attorney, and the repercussions of this situation are very frightening. The government would be able to access our personal financial information AND our rights given to us by our Constitution would be severely curtailed.
And let's not forget that these are the same folks who have botched up just about every thing they've sunk their greedy claws into. Personally, my husband is on dialysis. Under this plan, I'd best just pay for his funeral now, because some bean-counter is going to look at the 18k per month it takes to keep him alive, and decide he's not worth it.
Yup, I'll keep my guns and my rights, and they can all keep their change...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:49 pm
I dont realy like the way the question is worded Quote: Do You Support Universal Healthcare? I think everyone wants universal health care, it is the government run means to that end rather, that is the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:37 pm
No. Because I have personal experience with socialized medicine and I know how shitty the care is.
My step grandfather lives in Hong kong. He's a jazz musician (Allen Youngblood, look him up.)who's pretty popular over there. His lung blew out and he had to sit in the hospital for TWO WEEKS before they got around to fixing it, AND it got infected in the hospital.
Yeah, socialized medicine is just grand. lol
You can just imagine the waiting list for cancer or something like that if something that's immediately life threatening right then and there takes 2 weeks to get around to.
Oh yeah, just stick a breathing machine in 'em until you decide to get around to it.
If you had cancer, you'd die before they got around to treating you.
We need competition between health insurance and we need doctors who want to be paid a lot. You know why? Because if you take the money away from the doctors, they aren't paid enough to give you good enough care.
Besides, I'd like to choose my own doctor thank ya very much. 4laugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
