Poll

Should U.S. government play a role in managing health insurance?

Private Sector, like Kaiser, Blue Cross etc.51%51% - 14
Federal Government48%48% - 13
Total: 27
Graphic-J
The Artist formerly known as GraphicArtist-J
+196|6122|So Cal
Rising cost in health care, coupled with increasing numbers of Americans with no health insurance, have many people agreeing that we need to guarantee Health insurance to all our U.S. citizens. Many people also agree that employer-based health insurance is a drag on the economy, tying workers to jobs they would otherwise leave.
.
Some have suggested that the best way to guarantee such "universal" health insurance coverage is for federal government to manage the plan.(Keep in mind, maybe higher taxes) Others argue that a private sector could do the best job.
.... What do you think?
https://i44.tinypic.com/28vg66s.jpg
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6538|Texas - Bigger than France
I don't know the answer, but from what I read it seems that about 1/3 of every dollar earned in distant to near future will be spent on healthcare.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6487|Northern California
Well, I think we've seen what happens when private health care runs amok...we have the dreaded "HMO" thanks to Kaiser and Nixon, and we have 75 million uninshured.  I'm sure I don't need to rehash Mike Moore's movie to illustrate the obvious need we have to insure everyone either with single payer plans or universal health care like most other developed nations have.  And imagine if OUR government did that, we'd easily top the other nations' plans.....or would we?

And yes...raise the friggen taxes already!  I'd gladly have a 5%-10% increase in taxes to pay for my healthcare and that of others because I'd still be saving money in healthcare allowing me to pay for extra healthcare services if needed.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6126|North Tonawanda, NY

IRONCHEF wrote:

And yes...raise the friggen taxes already!  I'd gladly have a 5%-10% increase in taxes to pay for my healthcare and that of others because I'd still be saving money in healthcare allowing me to pay for extra healthcare services if needed.
Sure, you might be willing.  But not everyone wants to.  The government ought to intelligently spend the money they already get from taxes before they start taking more.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6711|US
No, because the government does not usually spend money efficiently.
ReDevilJR
Member
+106|6347
How many agree that if people would exercise regularly, and eat properly, there wouldn't be a need for high costs in health care?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6597|132 and Bush

We need to allow consumers to shop across state lines. Competition will help move the prices down. The government can't manage the social programs it has now. We spend much more than anyone else (In some cases nearly twice the amount of other "Universal" programs). However, our coverage falls way behind. I believe the first step is to address the cost by scrutinizing the private sector. There are ways to increase the availability without trashing the entire system. If that does not prove adequate enough then we should move to more drastic ideas.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6487|Northern California

ReDevilJR wrote:

How many agree that if people would exercise regularly, and eat properly, there wouldn't be a need for high costs in health care?
Health care costs are not high because we're fat asses.  Costs are high because there is a pimp managing the doctors and patients and this pimp is in it for the money, not the health care.  Go see Sicko..or just pay attention to how your hospital bill is paid/managed.  it is said that 33% of the health care costs are just in overhead..management of the billing..something the doctor should do himself.  This is why single payer healthcare is ideal for our country given our reluctance to give a shit about those 45 million (the size of californiain population) who can't get healthcare.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6545|San Diego, CA, USA
Need we see how Walter Reed was handled (that's Government healthcare for you).
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6732|Salt Lake City

Health care will never be right as long as it is controlled by corporate interests whose sole purpose is to make money.  I haven't been to a doctor in years, but I had to go recently.  Somehow I had hurt my knee to the point where I had fluid building in the joint.  I put it off as long as I could, but eventually had to go to the emergency room when I could no longer bend it enough to get into the car.

Per my insurance I had to pay a $100 co-pay at the time I went to the emergency room.  The total bill for the emergency room was $750.  I paid that $100 up front and still had to pay $350 on the back end after the insurance had paid.  After years and years of paying and never going to the hospital, I had to more than 50% of a simple hospital visit, and I had insurance.

Maybe government run health isn't the answer.  Maybe treating them more like the utilities is the answer.  As a utility companies are treated as an oligology.  As such, they are somewhat regulated, and must appear before a panel to plead their case as to why they should be allowed to change rates; this only happens in upwards rate changes.  They may also be limited to the amount of return they allowed.  The utlities in Utah are only allowed like a maximum of 15% return.  Anything else must be invested in infrastructure or returned to rate payers.  Regulating them by requiring them to make a case as to why they should be allowed to make a rate hike, as well as limiting them to a reasonable return, say in the area of 13-18%.
Graphic-J
The Artist formerly known as GraphicArtist-J
+196|6122|So Cal

IRONCHEF wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

How many agree that if people would exercise regularly, and eat properly, there wouldn't be a need for high costs in health care?
... Go see Sicko......
...
I just knew "Sicko" was going to be mentioned. But yeah maybe Michael Moore has it right THIS TIME.
https://i44.tinypic.com/28vg66s.jpg
Fred[OZ75]
Jihad Jeep Driver
+19|6756|Perth, Western Australia
I'm an Aussie so I didn't vote as this is up to the sepo's

We have universal health care like every other OECD country except the US, what it does is set a minimum level of health care which any private hospital or service needs to meet or better otherwise people just go to the public system. The public system is far from perfect and if you don't have private cover of some type then you pay more tax so there is plenty of incentive for those how can afford private cover to get it.

The biggest problem is mainly people going to the government hospital for general GP visits and clogging up the hospital and the "waiting list" for general surgery (ie non-life threatening conditions). Then again for basically free health care that's the price you got to pay, if you want better get private cover lower your tax and get a government rebate of 30% of the private insurance cost.

Also we don't really pay that much extra in tax compared to Sepo's, then again we only help out in US invasions and don't invade countries on our own which is where most of the US tax dollar seems to be going. Oh we also control our boarders so we don't end up paying for other countries health care costs too (well except those Kiwi's)

(Edit for typo-dyslexia)

Last edited by Fred[OZ75] (2007-08-07 17:48:55)

GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6369|Kyiv, Ukraine

Fred[OZ75] wrote:

I'm an Aussie so I didn't vote as this is up to the sepo's

We have universal health care like every other OECD country except the US, what it does is set a minimum level of health care which any private hospital or service needs to meet or better otherwise people just go to the public system. The public system is far from perfect and if you don't have private cover of some type then you pay more tax so there is plenty of incentive for those how can afford private cover to get it.

The biggest problem is mainly people going to the government hospital for general GP visits and clogging up the hospital and the "waiting list" for general surgery (ie non-life threatening conditions). Then again for basically free health care that's the price you got to pay, if you want better get private cover lower your tax and get a government rebate of 30% of the private insurance cost.

Also we don't really pay that much extra in tax compared to Sepo's, then again we only help out in US invasions and don't invade countries on our own which is where most of the US tax dollar seems to be going. Oh we also control our boarders so we don't end up paying for other countries health care costs too (well except those Kiwi's)

(Edit for typo-dyslexia)
In Eastern Europe, public hospitals are no-questions-asked.  The doctors are barely paid, but take minor bribes (in the $20-200 range) to expidite their services.

You then have private care clinics (Swiss, German, Arab, Swedish) with top-quality care but forced to compete pricewise.

End result, birth of my kid, with 5 ultrasounds, German doctor, Westernized facility, in Romania...$700 start to finish out-of-pocket, including all bribes and a generous tip to the nurses.

What the poll leaves out though is the 3rd option.  Both.  They can and do successfully co-exist.  The emergence of a national healthcare system provides a new standard of competition for the private clinics.  We'll end up with a very good system for the average joe.  Free healthcare but with a lower (but still safe) service standard, and privatized healthcare with top service but no more $100 aspirins dispensed at the hospital.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-08-08 05:14:04)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard