|8 votes (33.33%)|
|11 votes (45.83%)|
|1 vote (4.16%)|
|1 vote (4.16%)|
|1 vote (4.16%)|
|2 votes (8.33%)|
24 members have voted
If you change "the poor" to "everyone" then yeah, that's basically what my high school civics teacher told us about political philosophy: liberals have an optimistic view of human nature and are willing to give most people the benefit of the doubt, conservatives have a pessimistic view and aren't. The problem with knee-jerk conservatism in that regard is that sometimes it's okay to tolerate a few cheaters if you do better overall. That's certainly true for casinos, and casino operators tend to be some of the most conservative folks around. They know that the cost to prevent all cheating would be prohibitive, so they go with a plan that discourages it but costs a ton less. Why can't we do that with healthcare? We don't need to prevent all cheating, we just need to lower the costs and accept the leaks.Quote: terapined
maybe it comes down to this
Those on the left feel the poor are overall good people and deserve compassion and health care
Those on the right view the poor as overall bad lazy people and get nothing and if they die, too bad.
Does this sum it up ? :-)
I think a lot of what you're suggesting is very workable. I don't think too many are actually proposing "free health care for everyone, regardless of what the services are" -- I'm certainly not. If someone wants liposuction or wants to have an ill-advised piercing removed, that's not free. What I'm proposing is that everyone has guaranteed coverage that is associated with their person, not their job. I'm all for the idea of a basic deductible for non-standard things, but I do believe that well-checkups and preventive medicine should be free (that is, covered 100% -- I'm not suggesting that doctors don't get paid for that). By putting a single administration in place and a concise set of policy terms, you can actually influence the public's consumption of healthcare in exactly the way you propose -- people are financially encouraged to live healthier lives and not make poor choices. With the existing system, there is far too much of a disconnect between the individual's pocketbook, the plan coverage, and public policy goals. Do you feel an incentive from your insurer to live a healthier life? Do you know anyone who does? You can't make the doll dance if you have dozens of different puppeteers pulling on different strings.Quote: Paradigm
If you want to get a viable consensus on single payer government health coverage, you will need to include a check and balance on personal responsibility in order to save money. Nothing like putting in a universal "everyone pays the 100% of their first $3600 in annual health insurance costs" to avoid abuse of a "free" health care system.
The problem that many conservatives have with a Single Payer Health Insurance Plan is that individuals that intentionally lead healthy lives tend to subsidize those individuals that don't. Throw out the health issues like cancer, mental health and other catastrophic health issues that can hit anyone regardless of their lifestyle...I am talking about the Type 2 Diabetes cases where individuals are overweight and continued to eat like crap and never exercised...same with cardiovascular diseases for the obese and sedentary. There are exceptions with these diseases and others, my point is this country was built on individuals working hard and being personally responsible for their actions...health care is no different.
There is a reason life insurance costs more for smokers than non-smokers...why should health insurance be different. People should be allowed to make their own choices in life, but those choices come with bearing associated costs.
If someone on the left or the right comes up with a plan that allows everyone to get insurance at a cost that aligns with their commitment to use services only when needed and holds them personally accountable for maintaining a healthy lifestyle (or pay more for the choice not to), then they may have a winner.
Here is a thought, Universal Health Care with mandatory annual physicals...everyone starts at the some standard base premium this year and your cost contribution to the plan next year is based on how close you come to hitting healthy lifestyle milestones next January 1st. If the grid says you need to lose 15lbs this year and get your BP/Cholesterol down 30 points or it is going to cost you an extra $75/month in 2018, do ya think you might be more motivated to do that? Keep in mind you will pay 100% of the first $3,600 in annual costs of services you use in the system regardless of your lifestyle health score. A universal health plan with incentives for personal responsibility to live healthier and a cost hurdle to using services...many could get behind a plan like that.
But just a blind, everyone gets access to health care without incurring any costs, everyone pays the same premiums (or tax) to fund healthcare costs that continue to spiral out of control due to a failure to connect the user of services to the payment of services and no incentive for personally responsibility...if you put that system in place you are destined to have a two tiered system with crappy common care for everyone except the wealthy that can afford optional private care. Just ask Once Dear about that UK system...I lived in London for 5 years and know about my experience there. And guess which system employs the best doctors who can make the most money...one clue, it ain't the Medicare/National Health Care hospitals and medical facilities. But I am sure Soopoo and our other resident MD members can speak to that.
In other words, federal insurance policy could provide incentives in exactly the same way as federal tax policy. When the US wanted to encourage home ownership, they gave everyone a mortgage interest deduction. The US can encourage better public health by providing tax incentives for quantifiable good-health acts (getting a checkup yearly, not smoking, etc.) We can also drastically cut costs by reducing overlapping bureaucracy -- I know that sounds funny when referring to the federal government, but right now there are dozens of overlapping private benefits departments. But none of that is possible when there are multiple insurance underwriters peeling off profits at every step of the overly-complicated process.
Yes, single payer would hose the for-profit insurance industry, but that's a cost I'm willing to incur for the sake of more efficient and greater public health.
Like I said, I don't know history very well but I recall something like this happening in the last century.
Everyone on this site seems to be against authorities confiscating cash bankrolls but seem to have no problem with the same powers that be forcing people to have/buy a health plan. They also seem to have no problem with one doctor charging 10x the price for the same procedure as another doctor. I thought doctors and such were supposed to be concerned about saving lives but it is clear they just want to live in mansions and live like the elite.
In the meantime let's tax these poor bastards at the same time. Last I seen we have over 300 taxes that most people don't even realize are implemented in your day to day activity.
Funny how you all think the problem or solution is some fair health care system! The truth is that the whole thing is too far gone. I'm not just talking about health care. It's over and you all just don't want to accept it.
Who's forcing you to eat dollar burgers? I don't eat dollar burgers for the same reason I don't eat KFC -- I feel terrible afterwards. If I want a burger, I'll either grill it myself or go to In-n-Out (when I'm in Vegas) or Five Guys (locally). And guess how many burgers I eat in a month on average? How many burgers do you eat in a month?Quote: monet0412
No reason to go too far into it but it is interesting that this same government forces its citizens to eat gmo food, poison drinks, dollar burgers
Public nutrition policy is kind of an involved topic, not something amenable to a quick/dirty solution. A lot of moving parts and past decisions went into the fact that it's easier and cheaper to get high-calorie, low-nutrition processed fast food into your belly than a healthy meal. That's backwards. Think about the number of people who have burgers and sodas for lunch every day, and then look at global obesity rates. 35% of the US population has a BMI over 30 (obese). Check your BMI here:
There is some evidence that a gut bacteria is partly responsible for increased caloric uptake, and there is also evidence that an avian virus can cause obesity. https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mysterious-virus-cause-obesity/
In any event, it's hard to enact good public policy to address a nationwide health epidemic when a significant percentage of the people "suffering" from the disease don't want to stop suffering. How do you get people to stop eating crap? I always come back from Vegas about 7 pounds heavier, and I'm actually trying to eat properly when I'm there...
You think changing the public diet to vegetables will help? It won't. First off they are just as contaminated as you 97 cents a pound chicken. Your only thinking of your situation and others like you. Your not thinking about the millions who can't afford anything but dollar burgers and you want them to have to pay for health care and if they don't pay let's just fine them 😄
How is that any different than being sick of subsidizing people who get sick simply because they got old? Want to do away with Medicare?
You're supposed to get sick as you get old. I heard people die when they get old too.
I remember in college, first thing my economics teacher said was, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." (Okay, maybe not the first thing.....but the first thing I remember well.)
I don't know all the answers, but I know having a system where you are guaranteed something by doing nothing (or very little), is no good at all.