Americans want universal health coverage, group says

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/07/universal.coverage.ap/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not surprising. I've known for a while that the majority of americans favor social democratic type benefits. Frankly I'm surprised that the old red baiting/race baiting arguemetns have managed to suceed in preventing those programs from being assed for this long.

[MODU]

Straha,

That's the same topic which you posted to earlier this morning.  No need for a secondary thread. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

This one is about the majority supporting it not abotu the panel calling for it.

[David S]

My guess is that we will have a socialized healthcare system in the not too distant future. Some corporations support it because they want to get out of the burden of healthcare costs, although they are apparently not clever enough to realize that they will be paying for it through taxes anyway. Citizens want it for the same reason, but they probably anticipate sticking the cost on someone else.

Big government folks likes it because it expands government. It will dramatically increase government revenue and give government even more reason to control your life. Swell!!!!

[MasterJedi]

I wonder if they'll want it if we have to jack their taxes way up.

[adam]

Americans are vastly uninformed on this issue. Like anything else, you the word "free" and of course it's going to come off as appealing. You'll never hear these pollsters inform their victims of the great cost to vital programs and the massive tax hikes that follow. If someone told the public the truth about universal health care - most wouldn't want it anymore.

[MODU]

I want Universal Ford Five-Hundred coverage!    Gimma a free car, Congress.  hahaha

[7,052,770]

Better to pay for it with taxes gradually over time than be stuck with a huge lump sum once when you're not prepared for it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Major Democratic politicians tend to be consistantly to the right of the American people on this issue. A Pew poll showed 65% agreeing that the government should guarantee insurance for all, even if it means raising taxes. Only 30% were opposed. I wonder if Hillary will have any health care plans, or if she doesn't want to remind people that Congress wouldn't pass her last plan.

[MODU]

Major Democratic politicians tend to be consistantly to the right of the American people on this issue. A Pew poll showed 65% agreeing that the government should guarantee insurance for all, even if it means raising taxes. Only 30% were opposed. I wonder if Hillary will have any health care plans, or if she doesn't want to remind people that Congress wouldn't pass her last plan.

Once the general public sees the size of the tax increase which they must pay for universal health care, they'll change their tune quickly. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Major Democratic politicians tend to be consistantly to the right of the American people on this issue. A Pew poll showed 65% agreeing that the government should guarantee insurance for all, even if it means raising taxes. Only 30% were opposed. I wonder if Hillary will have any health care plans, or if she doesn't want to remind people that Congress wouldn't pass her last plan.

Once the general public sees the size of the tax increase which they must pay for universal health care, they'll change their tune quickly. 

Yeah, we're really kicking ass on the life-expentency / health care spending curve.

[MODU]

Wow . . . look how big the US is compared to the rest of those countries listed.  What, do you think that this would be a linear scale?  Maybe we could all live to 130 years then once we switch to socialistic health care.    There are so many falacies with that graph it's funny.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow . . . look how big the US is compared to the rest of those countries listed.  What, do you think that this would be a linear scale?  Maybe we could all live to 130 years then once we switch to socialistic health care.    There are so many falacies with that graph it's funny.

What falacies? So what about all the countries like Singapore and Japan that spend much less on health care AND live longer?

[agcatter]

Just what I need.  A 6 to 8 month wait for an MRI.

Why don't you guys try it in The People's Republic of California and then get back to us.  Let us know how that works out.  I'm sure Meathead Reiner can sell that tax increase just like he sold Prop 82.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just what I need.  A 6 to 8 month wait for an MRI.

Why don't you guys try it in The People's Republic of California and then get back to us.  Let us know how that works out.  I'm sure Meathead Reiner can sell that tax increase just like he sold Prop 82.

In 2004, there was a health care Proposition with a lot of support from small businesses.

[agcatter]

If any state would pass that kind of a big government massive tax program it's California followed closely by Taxachusetts.

Go ahead, be my guest.  I'll stay here thanks.

[John Dibble]

Wow . . . look how big the US is compared to the rest of those countries listed.  What, do you think that this would be a linear scale?  Maybe we could all live to 130 years then once we switch to socialistic health care.    There are so many falacies with that graph it's funny.

What falacies? So what about all the countries like Singapore and Japan that spend much less on health care AND live longer?

Could it possibly have to do with something other than health care? For instance, maybe they have healthier diets - less processed food, less overeating, which is true for a lot of the asian countries like Japan. You know, preventative care you don't really need a doctor for. Other factors might come into play as well. Due to such factors, it might partially explain why they pay less - if they have less health problems to begin with, they will likely have to spend less, so the relationship isn't necessarily one way. And correlation does not imply causation anyways, so graphs like this can be deceptive at times.

There's also issues with the countries at the low end of both life span and spending - I'd wager that many are third world countries. Such countries would not have money for healthcare, for sure, but there are other factors. For instance, they would have less money for sanitation, lower availability of food, more exposure to the weather(inferior shelter), and other things that generally decrease life expectancy. Don't get enough food regularly and health care won't do you a fat lot of good, now will it?

What I'm getting at is that life-expectancy isn't determined by health-care alone. That's a fact, and you shouldn't ignore it. Or do you hate facts too?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow . . . look how big the US is compared to the rest of those countries listed.  What, do you think that this would be a linear scale?  Maybe we could all live to 130 years then once we switch to socialistic health care.    There are so many falacies with that graph it's funny.

What falacies? So what about all the countries like Singapore and Japan that spend much less on health care AND live longer?

Could it possibly have to do with something other than health care? For instance, maybe they have healthier diets - less processed food, less overeating, which is true for a lot of the asian countries like Japan. You know, preventative care you don't really need a doctor for. Other factors might come into play as well. Due to such factors, it might partially explain why they pay less - if they have less health problems to begin with, they will likely have to spend less, so the relationship isn't necessarily one way. And correlation does not imply causation anyways, so graphs like this can be deceptive at times.

There's also issues with the countries at the low end of both life span and spending - I'd wager that many are third world countries. Such countries would not have money for healthcare, for sure, but there are other factors. For instance, they would have less money for sanitation, lower availability of food, more exposure to the weather(inferior shelter), and other things that generally decrease life expectancy. Don't get enough food regularly and health care won't do you a fat lot of good, now will it?

What I'm getting at is that life-expectancy isn't determined by health-care alone. That's a fact, and you shouldn't ignore it. Or do you hate facts too?

I'm not denying that there may be reasons other than health care for why Iraq also does poorly on the health care spending / life expectancy chart, but the fact is this is a thread about health care, and the most reasonable way to gauge the sucess of a countries health care is to look at things like life expectancies, infant mortality, and so on.

[MODU]

What falacies? So what about all the countries like Singapore and Japan that spend much less on health care AND live longer?

Most of the nations listed don't have the population that the US does, for starters, so they don't have the issues which we do.  Our healthcare is expensive due to legal suits, cost of living, insurance, technology, etc, and turning it into a governmental monstrosity will only increase the cost without improving service.  We can cut costs quickly by reducing the legal rewards on court cases since that drains available funds to provide aid while also jacking up doctors performance insurance.  Of course, our medical quality is so much more higher and advanced than many other countries (including developed countries) that we treat many international patients at our facilities than in their home countries.  There are so many factors involved with health care that comparing just spending vs life expectancy in order to prove a point is fallacious and ignores the big picture.

[John Dibble]

I'm not denying that there may be reasons other than health care for why Iraq also does poorly on the health care spending / life expectancy chart, but the fact is this is a thread about health care, and the most reasonable way to gauge the sucess of a countries health care is to look at things like life expectancies, infant mortality, and so on.

Seeing as how life-expectancy can largely be affected by so many variables, I think one of the best measures would be recovery rates for serious diseases as well as how long a country tends to keep people with fatal, incurable diseases alive. Such measures would be much more direct indicators of the efficacy of a health care system because diseases like that typically can not be dealt with without some degree of healthcare, whereas life expectancy is multi-variable.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Ending the culture of lawsuits(whether its by mass genocide/simple economic changes doesn't matter I just want it gone) would improve alot of things besides simply just medicine if it was done...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ending the culture of lawsuits(whether its by mass genocide/simple economic changes doesn't matter I just want it gone) would improve alot of things besides simply just medicine if it was done...

Lawsuits are responsible for 0.46% of the costs of medical care in this country.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/903

[David S]

If any state would pass that kind of a big government massive tax program it's California followed closely by Taxachusetts.

Go ahead, be my guest.  I'll stay here thanks.

Tennessee did something like this with their TennCare plan. It provided health-care for about 1/4 of the state's population. The cost of the program had been growing at about 12% per year and the state finally realized that the program was unsustainable. It was expected to consume about 90% of the state's revenue growth within a few years. The program has now been remodeled (by kicking out about 300,000 people) and is now expected to be sustainable. We'll see. Anyways so many cuts have been made that everyone is pissed off.

One of the problems with programs like this is that they are like Frankenstein (the undying monster). Once they are created they cannot be killed. They just grow until disaster strikes.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Ending the culture of lawsuits(whether its by mass genocide/simple economic changes doesn't matter I just want it gone) would improve alot of things besides simply just medicine if it was done...

Lawsuits are responsible for 0.46% of the costs of medical care in this country.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/903

And your point is? Its still a good enough justificaiton for some good old fashioned carnage.

[Nym90]

I'd like to see universal coverage as an eventual goal, although any implementation of it should come in smaller steps rather than in one shot.