posted by Leatherneck:

"The difference for some opposed to govt funded health care insurance has to do with the philosophical opposition to health care becoming just another govt welfare program. If we are going to take the money away from the war and redirect it, rather than putting it into healthcare, I'd rather it go into providing free college tuition for four years. Go to college, get a better job, work hard and you can afford health insurance on your own or get a good job providing it. While I do have some compassion for the poor, most of our ancestors came to this country poor and worked their way up. There aren't really many excuses for being poor in this country.

 

Sorry about that HHSDad. I didn't see your admonition about staying on topic until after I made my post."

 

 

I do agree that we have enough "welfare" programs but my argument is dealing with "oversight". Who is to make sure the healthcare industry is doing their job. Just as Congress has decided to look into "steroids in baseball" and the "Patriots videotaping scandel", are they not allowed to look into whether or not CITIZENS of the U.S. are being ripped off by businesses. In this, shouldnt they be allowed to work to get costs down. While socialism deals with gov't owning business in no way would gov't own these companies. Companies will still make FORTUNES but gov't will make sure things are on the up & up. Are people really so naive to think that you rarely get an itemized bill from a hospital. Why not? Well probably they dont want to see your inflated costs for a tylenol, meals and probably things you may not have received. This is a rip off to you but also the insurance companies. This drives up the cost of premiums. Raised costs reflect on individuals and businesses. So, in turn medical companies & providers are ripping off everyone. Is this ok?? If not, who is allowed to do something?

 

regarding people were poor before argument. In 1790, there were 13 states and roughly 4 million people. Now there are 50 states plus other terriotories plus over 300 million people. The divide from rich to poor is MUCH bigger 200 years later were hte top 1% controls the vast majority of the money.

posted by Leatherneck:

"The difference for some opposed to govt funded health care insurance has to do with the philosophical opposition to health care becoming just another govt welfare program. If we are going to take the money away from the war and redirect it, rather than putting it into healthcare, I'd rather it go into providing free college tuition for four years. Go to college, get a better job, work hard and you can afford health insurance on your own or get a good job providing it. While I do have some compassion for the poor, most of our ancestors came to this country poor and worked their way up. There aren't really many excuses for being poor in this country.

 

Sorry about that HHSDad. I didn't see your admonition about staying on topic until after I made my post."

 

 

I do agree that we have enough "welfare" programs but my argument is dealing with "oversight". Who is to make sure the healthcare industry is doing their job. Just as Congress has decided to look into "steroids in baseball" and the "Patriots videotaping scandel", are they not allowed to look into whether or not CITIZENS of the U.S. are being ripped off by businesses. In this, shouldnt they be allowed to work to get costs down. While socialism deals with gov't owning business in no way would gov't own these companies. Companies will still make FORTUNES but gov't will make sure things are on the up & up. Are people really so naive to think that you rarely get an itemized bill from a hospital. Why not? Well probably they dont want to see your inflated costs for a tylenol, meals and probably things you may not have received. This is a rip off to you but also the insurance companies. This drives up the cost of premiums. Raised costs reflect on individuals and businesses. So, in turn medical companies & providers are ripping off everyone. Is this ok?? If not, who is allowed to do something?

 

regarding people were poor before argument. In 1790, there were 13 states and roughly 4 million people. Now there are 50 states plus other terriotories plus over 300 million people. The divide from rich to poor is MUCH bigger 200 years later were hte top 1% controls the vast majority of the money.

 

 

Personally, I would much rather the top 1% control the vast majority of the money than for the government to control it. "Oversight" can quickly turn into mandates and before you know it you have nationalization.

 

To be fair, I believe that all of us on here want a strong and successful USA. I just think that we have very different opinions and beliefs as to how we can get there. I thoroughly appreciate the respectful discussion from all sides of the issues.

The reason I'm for universal healthcare is simple. Even if you have insurance and pay all your premiums it doesn't mean your insurer is going to pay for your care. I have a friend who had to have MAJOR surgery that entailed taking out his asophogous and stretching his stomach to replace the asophogous that had died. He could either have the procedure and live a normal life and eat normally, or be on a feeding tube, or die. The insurance company wouldn't pay for the procedure and now he's $200,000 in debt.

 

There are people who have died b/c insurance companies won't pay for care. These are companies making billions and they can't eat the cost of care? That's capitalism gone wild. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privledge

I'd like to clarify two misconceptions held by most people.

 

1) Insurance companies help control healthcare costs by negotiating with providers. These negotiated prices reduce the cost that the provider would have normally charged you, had you not been with that insurer.

 

2) Hospitals charge exorbitant fees for things like Tylenol for one reason. To pay for all those patients they care for and never receive a dime of compensation.

If we had univeral health care, how can you be certain that the procedure have even taken place? I have spoken with many people who have been involved with the Universal Health Care that they had in England and even some folks from the Scandanavian countries where it is common as well. Their opinions on it are dramatically different than how I have heard many idealistic Americans refer to it.

 

In many cases people from those countries come here to have their surgeries because the research in those countries actually hasn't reached the level that it has here on account of a lack of personal incentive by the medical industry.

The reason I'm for universal healthcare is simple. Even if you have insurance and pay all your premiums it doesn't mean your insurer is going to pay for your care. I have a friend who had to have MAJOR surgery that entailed taking out his asophogous and stretching his stomach to replace the asophogous that had died. He could either have the procedure and live a normal life and eat normally, or be on a feeding tube, or die. The insurance company wouldn't pay for the procedure and now he's $200,000 in debt.

 

There are people who have died b/c insurance companies won't pay for care. These are companies making billions and they can't eat the cost of care? That's capitalism gone wild. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privledge

 

At what point in our history did it become a right?

Isn't Hillary's healthcare plan a mandatory one whether you want it or not?

Why shouldn't it be a right. I find it morally reprehensible to think that it isn't.

At what point in our history did it become a right?

 

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, :devil:

 

But I'd say when Mr. Jefferson penned the phrase:

 

We are endowed by our creator with certain inaleinable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

My guess is that if life is a "right" upon which this country was founded, then health care that supporst and continues that life could be called a "right." :thumb:

Interesting article on the subject that debunks some common misconceptions

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PrescriptionForChange/Story?id=2578064&page=1

 

A good FAQ

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

The reason I'm for universal healthcare is simple. Even if you have insurance and pay all your premiums it doesn't mean your insurer is going to pay for your care. I have a friend who had to have MAJOR surgery that entailed taking out his asophogous and stretching his stomach to replace the asophogous that had died. He could either have the procedure and live a normal life and eat normally, or be on a feeding tube, or die. The insurance company wouldn't pay for the procedure and now he's $200,000 in debt.

 

There are people who have died b/c insurance companies won't pay for care. These are companies making billions and they can't eat the cost of care? That's capitalism gone wild. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privledge

 

 

I don't know the particulars of your friend's insurance, but that sounds odd. If the insurance contract required them to cover that type of procedure, the insurance company was obligated to pay it. If the contract did not cover that type of procedure, then the premium would have so reflected the lack of coverage and the insurance company would not have been paid for that type of exposure. Bottom line: with some exceptions (which usually result in plaintiff lawyers getting paid big fees) the insurance companies cover the procedures the collect a premium to provide. If the procedure is not covered, they should not be obligated one iota to eat the cost of care. They are running a business, not a charity. Frankly, I'd be mad as hades if my medical insurer was covering procedures that they are not required to cover, as that would mean that my premiums would be adversely affected.

 

Should the gas companies give subsidized gas cards to the poor and then be able to charge me more at the pump? I don't think so.

 

And to the extend universal, govt paid health insurance is provided to the poor, then the govt should have the right (and to me the obligation) to tell poor people receiving health insurance for free that they can't smoke, eat red meat, they have to exercise, they have to take drug tests, etc. etc. etc.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, :devil:

 

But I'd say when Mr. Jefferson penned the phrase:

 

We are endowed by our creator with certain inaleinable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

My guess is that if life is a "right" upon which this country was founded, then health care that supporst and continues that life could be called a "right." :thumb:

So you have the right to have someone else pay for your health care?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, :devil:

 

But I'd say when Mr. Jefferson penned the phrase:

 

We are endowed by our creator with certain inaleinable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

My guess is that if life is a "right" upon which this country was founded, then health care that supporst and continues that life could be called a "right." :thumb:

 

 

To me, that is stretching quite a bit. How did this country survive and thrive for 200+ years without mandated government run healthcare? I don't buy that a right to life is a right to health care. Was health care even an issue when Jefferson wrote that? I doubt it.

Isn't Hillary's healthcare plan a mandatory one whether you want it or not?

 

As far as I know. Edward's was as well. Hillary's provides the option of buying private insurance or receiving it from an employer in addition to a government supplied option. If I remember correctly, Obama's plan advocates a single, government provider, but I don't believe it is mandated. I believe Romney's plan in MA mandated coverage while retaining private choice options. Instead of using a government provider MA pays for the private provider for those who can't afford it.

 

Our government's hands aren't exactly out of the healthcare market anyhow. There are plenty of lobbyists working on the behalf of insurance companies, special interest groups, or other facets of healthcare that influence a great deal of our healthcare market. Personally, I don't want the government to provide healthcare in terms of controlling it and running it, but I also don't want the government to serve as an extended arm of the healthcare industry's special interests. I would prefer a system of private choice where the government would help pay for those who can't afford it while also being a fair advocate for the consumers.

We pay 60% of healthcare now. People are going bankrupt b/c of a sickness that their insurance companies won't pay for b/c of "pre existing conditions" that are so conveniently broad to cover normal problems like asthma. The fact is that you are paying for the healthcare of those on medicare, medicaid and the VA. You wouldn't pay more if we suddenly had a single-payer system and we could do away with the paperwork associated with the medcare-aid programs b/c they'd be redundant.