• 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!

UHC vs Privatized Care

Choose which option fits your view the best:

  • I live in a country with UHC and I would never want privatized-only medicine

    Votes: 11 25.6%

  • I live in a country with UHC and I do want privatized-only medicine

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • I live in a country with privatized-only medicine and I want UHC

    Votes: 23 53.5%

  • I live in a country with privatized-only medicine and I would never want UHC

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • I live in a country with privatized-only medicine and I want a public option only

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • Total voters
    43
This is from a post I made on another thread: “I was enlisted Air Force, and therefore I received a lower level of medical care than officers. (I had several personal experiences and several observations that clearly demonstrated this; and it appears to be true currently.) In the military this can be considered just in a system where people are not equal. In fact most of the world is like this. So, if we had a basic government regulated system for emergency health care (or health care in general) where the government had their noses in it to minimize cost but provide some fairly good care; then allowed private companies to sell insurance policies for expenses above what the government system provided, would we have an architecture for a solution?”

Right now we have several classes of people when it comes to health care. One class is the no insurance class. The no insurance class costs me money is several ways, e.g. having to charge me more to cover the cost of treating the no insurance class. Many members of the no insurance class are children that are not getting timely treatment when the costs would be the lowest so they are costing me more, sometimes much more over a long time. Unless we find a way to not treat those that can’t pay, including having them die in the ER parking lot, we’ll continue with this high cost architecture for health care.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
You guys can argue that validity of UHC all you want as that is what the thread is for, but I'd really love to hear from those who live in a country with that system and their opinions on the treatment they receive and the benefits/downsides of it. Also, I'd like to know whether they would prefer to switch to a privatized-only system (for the few members that are not in the US).
Click to expand...

Well see, most people would characterize the U.S. as a majority privatized system, but a majority of medical spending in the U.S. comes from public sources.
Is the U.S. a private or public system?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well see, most people would characterize the U.S. as a majority privatized system, but a majority of medical spending in the U.S. comes from public sources.
Is the U.S. a private or public system?
Click to expand...

It's a system with all of the abuses and inequalities of private care, but few of the cost savings or efficiencies of public care.
 
Kandahar said:
It's a system with all of the abuses and inequalities of private care, but few of the cost savings or efficiencies of public care.
Click to expand...

If you're thinking that greater overhead costs are something natural to private insurance, you should review the laws passed, specifically the HMO act and the minimum benefit mandates, pushed by the states and the feds.

Me thinks your beliefs about this are too one sided.

Also, politicians in America will have a hard time making those cost efficiencies in public medical care programs, actually materialize.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you're thinking that greater overhead costs are something natural to private insurance, you should review the laws passed, specifically the HMO act and the minimum benefit mandates, pushed by the states and the feds.
Click to expand...

I don't think greater overhead costs are something natural to private insurance (although Medicare does do a better job in that respect). But I *do* think that combing the legal text looking for loopholes to take advantage of consumers is something natural to private insurance. And I think that charging more in order to make a profit (which public programs don't need to worry about) is something natural to private insurance. And I think that out-of-control cost spirals are something natural to private insurance. And I think that being accountable to shareholders rather than the public is something natural to private insurance. And I think that having uninsured people is harmful to the economy as a whole.

Me thinks your beliefs about this are too one sided.
Click to expand...

If my beliefs about this are one-sided, it's because I have the small example of every single other developed country in the world on my side. None of which spend anywhere near as much on health care as the United States does, and most of which get as good or better results.

Too one-sided? Maybe by American political standards, but I imagine that if you examined the views of everyone in the developed world and the vast array of health care systems that exist within it, you'd find that my views on this issue are a lot closer to the median than yours. ;)

Also, politicians in America will have a hard time making those cost efficiencies in public medical care programs, actually materialize.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of political systems more dysfunctional than ours, and they all do a better job in terms of health care cost efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I don't think greater overhead costs are something natural to private insurance (although Medicare does do a better job in that respect). But I *do* think that combing the legal text looking for loopholes to take advantage of consumers is something natural to private insurance. And I think that charging more in order to make a profit (which public programs don't need to worry about) is something natural to private insurance. And I think that out-of-control cost spirals are something natural to private insurance. And I think that having uninsured people is harmful to the economy as a whole.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, then all the other private insurance industries in the world would be "spiraling out of control."
That isn't the case.

There is a definite problem with medical insurance and that is too much regulation in terms of expected output.

Kandahar said:
If my beliefs about this are one-sided, it's because I have the small example of every single other developed country in the world on my side. None of which spend anywhere near as much on health care as the United States does, and most of which get as good or better results.

Too one-sided? Maybe by American political standards, but I imagine that if you examined the views of everyone in the developed world and the vast array of health care systems that exist, you'd find that my views on this issue are a lot closer to the median than yours. ;)
Click to expand...

That's not true though.
The Swiss and Singapore are but 2 examples of countries, who are 1st world and do not operate a gov single payer system.
Singapore has lower costs than any of the nations with a Single payer and the outcomes are better.

Not at all.
I think a single payer has it's place, but it's not for all people.
A single payer should be available where the failures of nature exist, chronically disabled people and those with rare diseases, not the common individual.


Kandahar said:
There are plenty of political systems more dysfunctional than ours, and they all do a better job in terms of health care cost efficiency.
Click to expand...

Our political system is ostensibly pay to play.
Those with the most votes and most money will benefit most, from a single payer.
Example, Medicare.
 
I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand. If the government controls the money, they control your health. If they control your health, they control your life. Why would you ever want that?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If that were the case, then all the other private insurance industries in the world would be "spiraling out of control."
That isn't the case.
Click to expand...

That's because in most other nations, private health insurance companies have to compete with public insurance...and in most countries the private plans are tightly regulated anyway.

There is a definite problem with medical insurance and that is too much regulation in terms of expected output.
Click to expand...

The US has by far the least regulated health care market in the developed world...and is also by far the most expensive/wasteful.

That's not true though.
The Swiss and Singapore are but 2 examples of countries, who are 1st world and do not operate a gov single payer system.
Singapore has lower costs than any of the nations with a Single payer and the outcomes are better.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to a dual-tier health care system. An important distinction though: Switzerland and Singapore have universal health care, whereas the United States does not. Additionally, Singapore tightly controls costs which is why it's able to get such good results (along with a generally healthier lifestyle than Western nations). As for Switzerland...well, it's better than the United States by quite a bit, but you did manage to find the second-most inefficient system in the developed world. ;)

Not at all.
I think a single payer has it's place, but it's not for all people.
A single payer should be available where the failures of nature exist, chronically disabled people and those with rare diseases, not the common individual.
Click to expand...

Whether a health care system is single-payer, dual-tier, or something else is an important distinction, but that distinction pales in comparison to whether or not UHC exists at all.

Our political system is ostensibly pay to play.
Those with the most votes and most money will benefit most, from a single payer.
Example, Medicare.
Click to expand...

If countries with totally dysfunctional political systems like Italy and Greece are able to reign in their health care costs with a universal health care system, I'm pretty confident that we can too.
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand. If the government controls the money, they control your health. If they control your health, they control your life. Why would you ever want that?
Click to expand...

As opposed to having a corporation control your life? :confused:
 
ksu_aviator said:
I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand. If the government controls the money, they control your health. If they control your health, they control your life. Why would you ever want that?
Click to expand...

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that we are the government. I would rather have my health care decided by my representatives than by private companies that I have no control over, who put their profit before my health. Boo has already suggested we can have a tiered system with private health care available as an option.

The system we have been stuck with, is the most expensive in the world, and unaffordable now to 1/6 of our fellow citizens. More and more are having to travel outside the U.S. to receive affordable health care.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I don't have a corporation controlling my life.
Click to expand...

If you have private health insurance, then they have control over your life in exactly the same way that you just described the government would have control over your life.
 
Catawba said:
I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that we are the government. I would rather have my health care decided by my representatives than by private companies that I have no control over, who put their profit before my health. Boo has already suggested we can have a tiered system with private health care available as an option.

The system we have been stuck with, is the most expensive in the world, and unaffordable now to 1/6 of our fellow citizens. More and more are having to travel outside the U.S. to receive affordable health care.
Click to expand...

You think you have control over your representative? That's a riot. You have a lot more control over a company trying to do business with you than you do a politician. A business deals with you one on one, a politician blows in the direction of the political winds. If you are up wind of him, you ain't gettin nuttin.

You do realize where all the extra money goes? Approximately $200 a month, or $2400 per yer per person at about $650 billion a year is wasted by having comprehensive medical insurance. If you subtract that from out total cost for health care, you would find we have one of the cheapest systems in the world. We spend $2 trillion a year on health care and we would spend $1.35 if we didn't have comprehensive health insurance. It is a full on waste of money. There is no math in the world that can make comprehensive health insurance better for you. It is like playing roulette. Play long enough and you will lose. It doesn't matter if the government runs it or a private company. You lose.
 
Kandahar said:
If you have private health insurance, then they have control over your life in exactly the same way that you just described the government would have control over your life.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. I have a contract with them and they are required to pay claims with in that contract. The government regulates that. If the government is the one you hold the contract with, who regulates them?
 
ksu_aviator said:
No, they don't. I have a contract with them and they are required to pay claims with in that contract.
Click to expand...

Is your health insurance through your employer? If so, you are still beholden to a corporation in the same sense that you described, it's just not the health insurance company.

If it's an individual health insurance plan, good luck getting them to pay a major claim. Just because they are required to, doesn't mean that they will do it without putting up a big fight. Fortunately the Affordable Care Act eliminated some of the worst abuses of the health insurance industry (e.g. kicking people off plans once they got sick, denying coverage because they failed to report an old irrelevant preexisting condition, etc). But you are deluding yourself if you think that mere legal obligation will stand in the way of their profits.

Furthermore, as important as the ACA was, there is still a lot of abuse that remains unregulated in private health insurance plans. For example, it is still legal (at least for a couple more years) for insurers to bury exclusions for specific conditions deep in the fine print, which no one without an actuarial or medical background would know if they need or not.

The government regulates that. If the government is the one you hold the contract with, who regulates them?
Click to expand...

The people do.
Furthermore, your argument doesn't make sense. If you trust the government to regulate private insurers effectively, why would you not trust the government to make policies for itself effectively? In this logic, all that private insurance does is add one more layer of bureaucracy.
 
Last edited:
I want high risk individuals out of private risk pools.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No, they don't. I have a contract with them and they are required to pay claims with in that contract. The government regulates that. If the government is the one you hold the contract with, who regulates them?
Click to expand...
I had one experience with two insurance companies (I couldn't avoid dual coverage for a rational reason.) both saying that the other one was primary. So neither one would pay. And the government denied that they had regualitory responsibility. I was on my own with them.
 
Last edited:
It depends purely on the UHC plan, but I would favor a UHC system over privatized health insurance.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You think you have control over your representative? That's a riot. You have a lot more control over a company trying to do business with you than you do a politician. A business deals with you one on one, a politician blows in the direction of the political winds. If you are up wind of him, you ain't gettin nuttin.
Click to expand...

Yes, the other citizens an I in my district can vote him or her out office and replace with someone we feel represents us better. I have no such control with private companies, or the price they choose to charge me.


You do realize where all the extra money goes? Approximately $200 a month, or $2400 per yer per person at about $650 billion a year is wasted by having comprehensive medical insurance. If you subtract that from out total cost for health care, you would find we have one of the cheapest systems in the world. We spend $2 trillion a year on health care and we would spend $1.35 if we didn't have comprehensive health insurance. It is a full on waste of money. There is no math in the world that can make comprehensive health insurance better for you. It is like playing roulette. Play long enough and you will lose. It doesn't matter if the government runs it or a private company. You lose.
Click to expand...

I've already lost with the private health care system, it is barely affordable for me and my wife for just catastrophic coverage, and we are middle class. 1/6 of our fellow citizens cannot afford health care and is completely unacceptable for the richest country on the planet. We are the only industrialized country that hasn't upgraded to UHC.
 
Universal coverage provides the widest risk pool for the lowest cost.
 
Kandahar said:
Is your health insurance through your employer? If so, you are still beholden to a corporation in the same sense that you described, it's just not the health insurance company.

If it's an individual health insurance plan, good luck getting them to pay a major claim. Just because they are required to, doesn't mean that they will do it without putting up a big fight. Fortunately the Affordable Care Act eliminated some of the worst abuses of the health insurance industry (e.g. kicking people off plans once they got sick, denying coverage because they failed to report an old irrelevant preexisting condition, etc). But you are deluding yourself if you think that mere legal obligation will stand in the way of their profits.


Furthermore, as important as the ACA was, there is still a lot of abuse that remains unregulated in private health insurance plans. For example, it is still legal (at least for a couple more years) for insurers to bury exclusions for specific conditions deep in the fine print, which no one without an actuarial or medical background would know if they need or not.
Click to expand...

All of those examples are abuses that should be adjusted in court. What you are describing is a failing court system...i.e. a failing government.


The people do.
Click to expand...

LMAO....so you are saying you get everything you want out of government?

Furthermore, your argument doesn't make sense. If you trust the government to regulate private insurers effectively, why would you not trust the government to make policies for itself effectively? In this logic, all that private insurance does is add one more layer of bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that the government has done such a fantastic job of regulating that you think they should just take over? Have you seen what happens to people at the VA or on Medicare or SCHIP? Do you honestly want that?
 
Catawba said:
Yes, the other citizens an I in my district can vote him or her out office and replace with someone we feel represents us better. I have no such control with private companies, or the price they choose to charge me.
Click to expand...

You have a very skewed view of reality. The reality is, I and your other fellow citizens in your district can vote for someone that will royally screw you over and then there is zero you can do about it.




I've already lost with the private health care system, it is barely affordable for me and my wife for just catastrophic coverage, and we are middle class. 1/6 of our fellow citizens cannot afford health care and is completely unacceptable for the richest country on the planet. We are the only industrialized country that hasn't upgraded to UHC.
Click to expand...

It is actually 1/8. And UHC is a serious downgrade to civil liberties. War worthy downgrade.
 
ksu_aviator said:
All of those examples are abuses that should be adjusted in court. What you are describing is a failing court system...i.e. a failing government.
Click to expand...

No, the courts (usually) do their job. They can't do anything about it if the companies are doing something unethical but legal, and they can't do anything about companies that try to nickel and dime their customers through the legal system. Many of these health insurance companies bank on the fact that some of their customers will be too poor/stupid/sick/dead to fight back if they deny a claim...and often they're right.

LMAO....so you are saying you get everything you want out of government?
Click to expand...

Nope. I said the government is accountable to the people, unlike a private health insurance company.

Are you arguing that the government has done such a fantastic job of regulating that you think they should just take over?
Click to expand...

It seems that you and I are in agreement on that point, as the gist of what you are saying seems to be that the government is failing at regulating private insurance companies who are prone to abuse. Did I understand you correctly? And if so, then why not just cut out the middleman and do it themselves? It seems like it would be a lot easier to simply provide insurance as a public service, instead of trying to provide regulation of a for-profit industry as a public service. And indeed, the example of every other developed country confirms that this is indeed the case.

Have you seen what happens to people at the VA or on Medicare or SCHIP? Do you honestly want that?
Click to expand...

Yes? :confused:
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
You have a very skewed view of reality. The reality is, I and your other fellow citizens in your district can vote for someone that will royally screw you over and then there is zero you can do about it.
Click to expand...

You don't get a vote at all in your private company's policy. They do whatever maximizes their profits, rather than whatever maximizes the public interest. The two are not always the same thing.

It is actually 1/8. And UHC is a serious downgrade to civil liberties. War worthy downgrade.
Click to expand...

Yee-haw. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom