Question for universal health care advocates

[SPC]

I'm just wondering, even if you think our health care system needs to be changed, why do you think the government can sucessfully manage it? Hasn't the government already proven that it can't even count votes or keep bridges safe? Why do you think the government will take care of your health any better through a single-payer system?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because bad health care is better than no health care. We can keep the private system for people who can pay. A common misconception is that universal health care means ONLY government-health care, because that's the system in Canada, the one Americans are most familiar with, but Canada is the only country in the world with such a system.

[minionofmidas]

I'm just wondering, even if you think our health care system needs to be changed, why do you think the government can sucessfully manage it? Hasn't the government already proven that it can't even count votes?

It can. If it chooses to.

[7,052,770]

Considering the immense scope of the government, the low amount of money it really has, the fact that everyone bitches about it, half of the country actively hates it, and that its few errors get magnified hugely while most successes go unnoticed, the government actually does a pretty good job, even the Mississippi state government.

If both the French government and French citizens can spend less to run a higher quality healthcare system, then there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that America can do it even better.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They'd do a much better job than the private insurance companies, whom you have to fight tooth and nail for them to pay out. They will do anything to avoid making a payment that they are supposed to make. This is a huge problem for health care providers, but of course no one cares about them.

[Smash255]

Decisions will actually be made on how it could impact someone's else, not how it impacts some Corporate fat cat's bottom line. 

[Bono]

Decisions will actually be made on how it could impact someone's else, not how it impacts some Corporate fat cat's bottom line. 

No, they will start being made on how they impact the bureaucrat's bottom line's. If you want them to be made on how they affect people, you have to give people control, not the government or third party payers.

[Bono]

Because bad health care is better than no health care. We can keep the private system for people who can pay. A common misconception is that universal health care means ONLY government-health care, because that's the system in Canada, the one Americans are most familiar with, but Canada is the only country in the world with such a system.

But the problem is that that system is what most liberals want to implement. Just remember jfern's thread a while ago saying that "single payer seems to be the way to go", and that bill Arnold vetoed in California that would have banned all health insurance except the state provided one. Even though I still wouldn't be happy about it, a universal coverage system like Switzerland's would be much better than a single payer system, which is the most horrible universal coverage model available to be honest.

[Nym90]

Because the governments in Canada, the UK, and other countries that have national health care systems seem to do a fine enough job. I don't see any reason to believe the US wouldn't be equally successful.

[Bono]

Because the governments in Canada, the UK, and other countries that have national health care systems seem to do a fine enough job. I don't see any reason to believe the US wouldn't be equally successful.

You're joking, right? For a start, chew on this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753

[SPC]

But, can someone point out how the same government who can't count votes, track down terrorists, manage foreign wars, or keep bridges from falling down will be able to get us health care that is more efficient than the current system? People also seem to forget that we are not capitalistic in the health care industry to begin with, so what makes people think that more government control is the way to go? Third-party payers and government have no incentive for quality health care, but private companies do.

[Ebowed]

Third-party payers and government have no incentive for quality health care, but private companies do.

No, they have an incentive for profit.

[7,052,770]

can't count votes

Actually, they do a fantastic job of that, considering how many elections there are, how many votes there are to count, and how many controversial elections there have been lately (2004 WA gov and 2006 FL-13)

track down terrorists

Republicans' fault

manage foreign wars

Republicans' fault

keep bridges from falling down

actually they do a fantastic job


So as long as it's not run by Republicans, the government does a fantastic job.

[Brandon H]

After seeing how they build levees and bridges, do I really want them running health care?

[SPC]

After seeing how they build levees and bridges, do I really want them running health care?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about Katrina. Thanks, Brandon.

[Bacon King]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't Canadians choose to pay for immediate elective surgeries and such in the private sector, rather than waiting on the government lists?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't Canadians choose to pay for immediate elective surgeries and such in the private sector, rather than waiting on the government lists?

Only in Quebec I believe. Of course people in other provinces can just come to the US, but there's no private sector healthcare in most of Canada.

But I don't see anything wrong with having both. It's like the school system. If you can afford a private school and want to send your kid there you can, but otherwise there's public schools. If I had my way I'd actually outlaw private schools and have both a public and private-sector health care program, but it serves a precedent.

[NDN]

IMO, these steps are the best way to ensure decent health-care for all, without the loss of choice and bureaucratic hassles of countries like Canada and the UK:

1. Implement a Compulsory Health Insurance system akin to Switzerland. Everyone by default is covered for certain basic health-care procedures. If you wish to receive better care, you can opt for private health insurance instead.

2. Implement said system on a state level, with federal grants.

3. Gut regulations such as the ban on imported drugs from Canada or archaic laws designed to safeguard HMOs.

4. Provide temporary relief for those who are laid off in the inevitable insurance recession.

Of course I have very little faith in our government's ability to implement anything resembling the above. We'll probably wind up with a half-assed, pages-long patch work plan that primarily just increases paperwork and offers tons of goodies for big pharma and the HMOs (at tax-payer expense). And to be blunt, I'm not thrilled with the idea of the same government that's spied, detained, and tortured people the past few years potentially having access to my medical records without my express consent.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The third (numbered 4) point in your plan is a reform that would greatly reform healthcare in this country and make it more affordable and better for everyone even with the current system largely retained, but you can bet how pissed off the prescription drug and insurance industry would be about it and how much they'll fight to prevent it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Do universal health care advocates on Atlas support giving free viagra prescriptions to violent sex offenders in prison like how the french model of healthcare does?

[NDN]

The third (numbered 4) point in your plan is a reform that would greatly reform healthcare in this country and make it more affordable and better for everyone even with the current system largely retained, but you can bet how pissed off the prescription drug and insurance industry would be about it and how much they'll fight to prevent it.

Hm, I could have sworn I included a 3rd above it. That's what I get after typing with 3 hours of sleep. Fixed.

I'm sure that the Republicans and a lot of Democrats would fight it tooth and nail. However, given the huge support for it I could see a grassroots movement sprouting up again in favor of lifting the ban.

[Bono]

The third (numbered 4) point in your plan is a reform that would greatly reform healthcare in this country and make it more affordable and better for everyone even with the current system largely retained, but you can bet how pissed off the prescription drug and insurance industry would be about it and how much they'll fight to prevent it.

Honestly, the amount of influence HMOs have is pretty overrated. They only represent 20% of the health insurance market, and their share has been sharply declining for the last 10 years.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The third (numbered 4) point in your plan is a reform that would greatly reform healthcare in this country and make it more affordable and better for everyone even with the current system largely retained, but you can bet how pissed off the prescription drug and insurance industry would be about it and how much they'll fight to prevent it.

Honestly, the amount of influence HMOs have is pretty overrated. They only represent 20% of the health insurance market, and their share has been sharply declining for the last 10 years.

Lobbying. Nuff said.

[Bono]

The third (numbered 4) point in your plan is a reform that would greatly reform healthcare in this country and make it more affordable and better for everyone even with the current system largely retained, but you can bet how pissed off the prescription drug and insurance industry would be about it and how much they'll fight to prevent it.

Honestly, the amount of influence HMOs have is pretty overrated. They only represent 20% of the health insurance market, and their share has been sharply declining for the last 10 years.

Lobbying. Nuff said.

well yea, I agree that their privileges should all be ended, of course.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The third (numbered 4) point in your plan is a reform that would greatly reform healthcare in this country and make it more affordable and better for everyone even with the current system largely retained, but you can bet how pissed off the prescription drug and insurance industry would be about it and how much they'll fight to prevent it.

Honestly, the amount of influence HMOs have is pretty overrated. They only represent 20% of the health insurance market, and their share has been sharply declining for the last 10 years.

Lobbying. Nuff said.

well yea, I agree that their privileges should all be ended, of course.

Anyone with any common sense would. But given how rare common sense is in DC....