• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Do People Say Universal Health Care Is Unsustainable?

I think you're making a jump that is quite true. Nothing is free, here or there. Never will be. And out of pocket, when i was poorer, was small because I went without care. At least until the blood poisoning hospitalized me. ;)

And that was your choice to go without health care. I do not know the exact circumstances behind your life story so it's hard to comment or conduct any serious analysis. You may not have been able to prevent the disease, but you most certainly could have gotten health coverage one way or another. Unless of course you were so poor that you qualified for some sort of charity, be it government-run or private. But you can't convince me that you had absolutely only one option and that was to go without care.
 
And that was your choice to go without health care. I do not know the exact circumstances behind your life story so it's hard to comment or conduct any serious analysis. You may not have been able to prevent the disease, but you most certainly could have gotten health coverage one way or another. Unless of course you were so poor that you qualified for some sort of charity, be it government-run or private. But you can't convince me that you had absolutely only one option and that was to go without care.

No. This was the 1960's. We lived in the projects. Being sick was common. The blood poisoning was from insect bites. They treated me, others paid. This ran of the costs for everyone. My mother worked, but had no issurance. There were no policies that she could afford. The employer provided no group insurance. So I got no care until it was an emergency. They saved my life once I got bad enough, but nothing before then.
 
I would say that the poor do not pay more than others. Unlike the UK, the poor in this county have a wide variety of choices. They can either go without health care and risk getting into huge debt (which may or may not be forgiven by write-offs or bankruptcy courts), or they can purchase HDIP to ensure they're covered in a catastrophic emergency, or they can sacrifice certain things for a more expensive plan. We've already had this discussion, but I've lost count of the number of people I know personally who A) qualify as "poor" B) have no health insurance and C) have one or many of the following: Cable, internet, an automobile or two, a house, expensive clothing, expensive food, a beer and alcohol budget, etc. Health care is not exclusive to rich folk.

And what type of comparison would make the numbers meaningful? You mean the fact that the poor in the UK pay roughly 10K a year in insurance contributions is meaningless if I don't offer some sort of comparative analysis?

Going without care is largely not better. While some things have been added over the years, that cost is merely moved. Someone else is paying for it, and likely paying far more than those in Europe, but as we don't really monitor it well, it mioght be more difficult t o see. Much of the cost here is hidden.

What would make it meaningful would comparing overall cost. Passing on their cost to me and you is not eliminating the cost. If we pay more more overall, but just pass it on, and a number go without care, due to lack of being able to afford it, their system would still be much better to my way of thinking.
 
Fact is, if ElijahGalt said that UHC was a better system than privatized care, ElijahGalt would not believe it.
 
Back
Top Bottom