The biggest difference is that social security is a mandated tax and corresponding social program, not the purchase of a service. That may seem like a fine line, but as it is with most taxes the lines are extremely fine and sometimes quite foggy. Medicare is part of the social security program and can be mandated accordingly as a purchase of a service through a government agency as part of the payment received from that agency. To mandate that someone purchase a service from a private or even quasi-private company is not part of what government is supposed to do according to the Constitution. As for the cost of this being a savings, well, let's look at this logically. It is fairly safe to assume that the people who are being added to the insurance rolls are folks with lower incomes. Statistically that is a group that has a much higher percentage of smokers, drinkers, and people with poor health habits and poor diets. In other words, much higher risk individuals. Add to it the increased costs to all healthy insured individuals of people who can not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Again, higher risk and higher cost individuals. This will greatly INCREASE the cost of health insurance, not decrease it. What do you think would happen to your car insurance if your insurance company had to add all really high risk drivers to their pool? Yep, you got it.....or should I say you will get it over and over and over again, and it won't be painless.
Well.. my logic tells me that, that group of people's medical costs are already factored into insurance prices... since one of the main reasons medical costs are so high is that so many people don't have insurance and therefor don't pay their bills forcing hospitals to increase their prices to people who can pay... like those with insurance... with the federal government and states often picking up the slack. (which means you're paying for it anyway) On the flip side if the vast majority do have some level of insurance the hospitals will have a better chance of getting paid and can (in theory) level off their prices to everyone. With the current system.. said people wait until their medical needs are more serious and then rack up huge hospital bills that end up being passed on to others... since they can't afford regular care. You can argue the point either way, but if you or your family has ever had an emergency situation and not had insurance at the time you know how devastating it can be..
Actually the uninsured can not be factored into the insurance costs. The uninsured are generally covered under Medicare and the taxpayers bear the cost of their treatment. If the uninsured were included in the calculation of insurance costs then the profits of the insurance companies would be astronomical. The major reason that health care is so expensive is the basic rules of supply and demand. The demand is high because most people look upon health care as "free" because they pay little or nothing out of their pocket for the care. Most doctors will tell you that as much as 95% of the people in their waiting rooms are not sick. They may not feel good, but they are not sick enough to be in a doctor's office. Add to it the massive amount of fraud within Medicare and the billing of insurance companies and you have the current system of expensive care. In a nutshell, the patients aren't accountable and will go to the doctors whenever they feel like it, the doctors will bill what they can get away with, and the insurance companies have no incentive to reduce the waste. Do you really think that adding an overblown government agency to that formula will improve it?
Thats not the case so far as I know.... I know from experience with members of my family and acquaintances that when they can't pay the bills they simply ignore them... sure it goes on their credit, but generally they have little to no credit anyway since they are low income, they also wait until they absolutely have to go to the hospital, rather than catching things early with non-emergency visits at clinics... and they don't qualify or aren't signed up with any programs as they are: white, make a few dollars more than the cut off point, and live in rural areas. Insurance via work is a very rare thing among smaller or rural outfits... Here is the wiki on Medicare... and here is Medicaid Interesting bit from the Medicaid wiki... "It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid." PS: all of the people I know in that situation are very hard workers, who simply don't make enough to make ends meet.
The people that live in developed countries that provide access to quality health care to all of their citizens have, almost by definition, a belief that it's a good thing to do so. This is not a belief held by a majority of the Americans I know; in fact, it is a small minority of those I know personally who believe this. Most of those I know express the attitude that, when it comes to health care, it is every man for himself. (I'm from the southwestern U.S., and I know there are regional differences, but I'm speaking of those I know.) That being the case, we must first ask, it seems to me, whether the interlocutor believes this to be a good thing, or not; otherwise, we end up debating details, when there is the core issue yet to be resolved....
It's increasingly clear that this debate, for many, is not about whether the changes will lead to an overall improved or more efficient health system at all. It's all about me and f*ck the rest.
I'm sorry Steve, but you are way, way out in LEFT field on this one. The issue is not one of me first at all. We have a government mandated program that we cannot pay for. We have a government mandated program for which we do not have a sufficient number of physicians to provide the services for. We have a government mandated program that has a history of bloated waste in its past forms such as Medicare. Steve, you'd better take a real good look at what this program could do to you and your business. Your clientele is predominately middle class Americans and Canadians with the vast majority of them being from the US. As the tax burden of this program grows the taxes to pay for it will come increasingly from the middle class. Let me do the translation for you, less middle class income, less travel to foreign destinations like Mexico, less income for Steve. You may think that is far fetched, but it is a very real scenario that may have a major impact on you. I have to deal with the US government and various state governments and the waste they generate and the stupidity of their actions every single day. Do you really think that the US government with its history of dumb actions is going to make any undertaking like this better? Think real long and hard about what you see here on this very board. If this is such a great idea then why do you not have one US resident jump right in and defend this program? Don't you think it just a tad odd that only Canadians, Brits, and Mexican residents are defending this program?
47 million without healthcare, people going bankrupt daily because of healthcare costs, rated by WHO as No 37 in the World based on quality and fairness, higher infant mortality rate, lower life expectancy, a system that costs more than most 1st World countries to deliver worse results. It really cant be that perfect as it is. I'm not saying the proposed new system is the answer but surely it's worth a try..... when you look at it on a national basis rather than purely an individual one. I think the reason Canadians and Brits jump in is because our health care systems keep being cited as reasons why socialised health care doesnt work when in actual fact the converse is true. They have their faults but overall they work quite well, no one wants for healthcare and cant have it, fewer people die for lack of it and no one goes bankrupt. The recent thread about the viral email stating everyone under 59 being denied heart treatment in the UK is the kind of thing that prompts us Brits and Canadians to respond on an issue that has nothing to do with us. Millions of Americans believe that heart treatment story to be true when it simply is not. It would be wrong for us to sit by and let that go uncorrected. And the reason you wont find many (non expat) Americans on here against the current system is precisely as you said: People who can't even afford basic healthcare are not likely to be taking trips to Cancun a couple of times a year. That's why they are absent from this forum and this debate, not because they dont exist. That's kind of condascending. I dare say you know as much about my business as I know about yours. Cancuncare is but one of 160 websites I run, which cater to many different demographics. In fact, the sites I target to the UK and which have nothing to do with travel out perform my Cancun network financially by some margin. I would be a little naive if after almost 6 years as a full time web marketer my eggs were all in one basket with this one site alone. While increased tax burden due to the health issue could well give rise to fewer trips abroad for the Cancun demographic here, it's a needle in a haystack of many different issues that influence US middle class travel abroad - especially in these times of increased unemployment, credit restrictions and most of all the misunderstanding of the crime in Mexico issue. Then there are factors such as increased popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook that impact on the traditional forum model, plus a huge growth in the sheer number of travel sites that compete for the same market. Year on year the site ages and as it does it becomes increasingly renowned as an authority site - with that comes improved search engine rankings, extended reach and increased traffic. Even if there are fewer middle class who travel, the site will find more of those that do. Whatever health care solution there will always be people who want and can afford to vacation to Mexico. So please dont fret about my business and livelihood, cancuncare is but a small piece of the pie. The healthcare system the US adopts is unlikely to have a noticeable effect here imho, and even if it does it's not going to have much effect on my overall business since it is extremely diverse both in product and target market
[Brief aside follows] I know you're talking business, Steve, but on another question, when I've looked at Twitter, etc., it looked like even less thought was going into what was being said than on typical forums and represented a further "dumbing down" of society. Most of what I saw were "one liners". Was that not representative?
Twinimini said: You've identified problems with health care delivery in the U.S., and said what the solution is not. What do you think is the solution for the American people and their real health care needs- which they will all have, from time to time? On what terms would you prefer to see medical care offered to the American people?
