<p>I myself am not the biggest advocate of anything close to "hilarycare." While I realize that I have a bit of a bias due to the fact that Im on the "recieving" end of our current system, in the end, it all comes down to the fact that all universal health care does is promise "access" to medical treatment...it does nothing whatsoever to guarantee the condition of care. There are plenty of other reasons as to why its great and why its garbage....so what do you guys all think?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nearly anything is better than no care.</p>
<p>If the government would help protect doctors against frivolous malpractice suits, the cost of healthcare wouldn’t be nearly as high. I’ve had two relatives move out of my state because they could no longer afford the insurance for OBGYNs. </p>
<p>There needs to be some type of subsidy system; you can’t have kids without health care. It’s not like they chose their parents. So basically I’m right in the middle of where the Republicans and the Democrats are, some government assistance, but not control.</p>
<p>ok first of all there is no such thing as “no care”…if you were in a life threatening situation and walked into an emergency department they BY LAW cannot refuse you health care…the problem is how you pay afterwards</p>
<p>and to those people who say they get care but the doctors dont do all that they could because they know they are not going to get paid as much is a complete and total myth…a recent study done by the university of michigan even showed that insurance and financial status had no effect whatsoever on healthcare</p>
<p>and yes I do agree everyone deserves treatment but a universal system hurts those who can afford it too much to be dubbed anything but illogical</p>
<p>
Personally, I believe that a non-universal system hurts those who can’t afford it too much to be dubbed anything but illogical, offensive, and heartless.</p>
<p>There is a big difference between a health plan and actual access to medical care. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.</p>
<p>by universal health care, clinton (and obama) are proposing plans that would guarantee that everyone had adequate access to health care. people who are able to and desire to pay for their own plan can still choose to do so. </p>
<p>and also, i seriously doubt that the quality of care will go down. everyone makes this claim but no one ever elaborates…</p>
<p>“by universal health care, clinton (and obama) are proposing plans that would guarantee that everyone had adequate access to health care.”</p>
<p>Of course they have plans; they are politicians trying to get elected to the highest office in the most powerful nation on Earth.</p>
<p>“and also, i seriously doubt that the quality of care will go down. everyone makes this claim but no one ever elaborates…”
-ask a canadian…</p>
<p>Oh no you didn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Technically, you’re right, but I would emphasize the “if you were in a life threatening situation” part of your scenario. Try getting maintenance monitoring of chronic conditions without insurance; the doctors in private practice don’t want those patients. Why would they?</p>
<p>I’d like to see the U of M study that demonstrates “that insurance and financial status had no effect whatsoever on healthcare”; would you mind posting it please, dabulls? This abstract of a recent article published in the journal, Academic Medicine (2008 Jan;83(1):5-13) is all I found:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
ok. no. there is no debate here. as it is in EVERY other country that has a form of universal healthcare, those who are wealthy enough to buy their own plans are allowed to do so. why would the government EVER refuse this?! it means they’re spending less money!</p>
<p>
again you did not elaborate and perhaps you are watching a little bit too much CNN?</p>
<p>EDIT:
bud you couldn’t be any farther from the truth!!! ROFL!!! i have a question for you: why is it that the infant mortality rate for poor people is MUCH higher than that of wealthier people? answer: a poor pregnant women is FAR less likely than a wealthy women to have access to doctors who can guide her through her pregnancy and try to ensure that no complications occur.</p>
<p>I talk to Canadians, Brits, an Irishwoman and several Aussies often about their medical care–all of whom have had major surgeries. I’ve never heard an Aussie complain, the Brits are generally satisfied too, the Canadians do grouse about difficulty in securing second opinions, but with tenacity do get them, and the Irishwoman does seem to have a devil of a time getting in to see a specialist, but is regularly brushed off at the emergency room (she is seen). I doubt any system is perfect, but I do think the statements about universal care causing the care to go down are based on old information or acceptions to the rule.</p>
<p>
imagine trying to secure second opinions without any health insurance :P.</p>
<p>Did someone mention “Infant Mortality Rate”? Look where the U. S. ranks and give some thought to the healthcare systems of the countries whose rates are lower:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934744.html[/url]”>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934744.html</a></p>
<p>Ok I’m not very informed about this topic. Just putting it out there before you start calling me ignorant, narrow-minded, etc. </p>
<p>IF we were to begin a universal healthcare plan, where would the funding come from? Isn’t that the biggest question? Forget about the benefits; we have to think about the cost before we weigh the options. Is taxes going to go up? If they are, can our nation really afford something like that when our economy is slowing down?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’ve heard from Canadians (living in Canada, not US immigrants) that the fact that its UNIVERSAL means there’s a waiting list long enough to envelop the earth a few times around. I know a kid who desperately needed heart surgery (he is 19 and had a hole in his heart) and they postponed the surgery 3 times and didn’t perform it until a year later. </p>
<p>Such a case could not happen in a private healthcare system because you are paying your buck for the company to treat you. They will never postpone your surgery 3 times because they have a monetary interest In a country with 300 million people, situations like this would happen nonstop if we had a universal healthcare system. </p>
<p>P.S. And no I am not a rich kid. I’m pretty low income and have lived WITHOUT insurance my whole life. Thank God I haven’t needed it.</p>
<p>
actually if people paid more taxes and actually received benefits like free daycare, free education all the way through college, universal healthcare, etc. they’d be much better off in the long run.</p>
<p>also, once we start providing universal healthcare there will be a MUCH larger push towards preventitive health care. right now a majority of health costs are incurred by those who are obese/overweight, smokers, etc. if this were to happen medical costs would decrease around the board.</p>
<p>
that’s a big misconception. they wouldn’t waitlist you for life threatening things like heart surgery. they would waitlist you on non-life threatening procedures like hip replacement, etc. then again those who are waitlisted have the option to just pay for the operation themselves.</p>
<p>
not really. insurance companies often refuse care. there is some family suing their insurance company because the insurance company refused to pay for the daughter to get a kidney transplant because the company said it was an “experimental procedure.” the girl died literally right before the insurance company finally approved it.</p>
<p>
it’s people like you who would benefit from universal healthcare. if you don’t have health insurance then your family probably pays virtually no taxes if any at all…</p>
<p>“…if you don’t have health insurance then your family probably pays virtually no taxes if any at all…”</p>
<p>This is a false assumption; employment and health insurance are no longer closely correlated.</p>
<p>If this “Hillarycare” system were to actually become reality, would the government pay the doctors? </p>
<p>I’m not really sure exactly how it would work, but in my opinion, socializing such a major industry in a free enterprise society seems to work against the basic ideals of our country…</p>
<p>(Don’t freak if I’m totally off key, I’m no expert on any of this ^^)</p>
<p>World rankings in health care systems: (according to the World Health Organization):
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
etc. </p>
<p>Note that all the major western economies (the West being Canada, EU, Japan, etc) are ranked above the US and these countries DO have public health care. Are there problems with the public system? Sure, but it doesn’t look like the US is doing any better. The market incentives in this case actually flow in a way such that overall social welfare is decreased - It is more profitable for insurance companies to sell insurance to healthy people and deny it to sick people (who they would have to pay for) - so they find reasons to drop the insurance of people who actually need it. Logical, fine (if you take the profit-oriented perspective). Ethical - no way.</p>