• 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:


  • Total voters
    43
As has been pointed out ad naseum, preventative medicine is not cheaper en mass.
Preventative lifestyle choices are cheaper.
Having government cover everyone for everything will not change this.

To me it seems, that just from most of these arguments, all the crowing about the sick and poor being left out is not the real intention behind UHC.
It's that people don't want to pay for their own medical care.

You do realize I said it wasn't cheaper?

Boo said:
It is possible to catch something early, to do some preventive efforts, and while such may not be cheaper overall, it is healthier.

No. I think you're not listening well. It is about how to cover the most people in the best manner. This includes cost, but not just cost. Access and health also matter. I do consider it a public health issue. Lack of access is a problem, and whiel some focus on those who abuse ERs, it is also true others never get needed trreatment and suffer. Both are probelms. Both need to be addressed.
 
I like to see some supporting evidence for that last part.

Expensive and wasteful can have many reasons, seems to me you're lumping the blame on the lack of government regulation.
Need proof.

It's actually a combination of lack of government regulation, and the lack of competition from a universal health care plan of some sort. Those are the two major differences between the US and most other countries. If not these differences, to what do you attribute our grotesquely inefficient health care market?

Actually all Americans are entitled to, at least emergency care, so we do have universal access.

That is not universal access. Most services are not provided in an emergency room, and waiting until a health problem becomes severe enough to be an emergency means it will cost many times more to treat.

We have a type of UHC though.

Getting treated when you get hit by a bus does not qualify as universal health care. We do not have general purpose universal health care in this country.

Don't be too confident, we haven't been able to reign in Medicare yet.

If you are suggesting that we should stop intentionally making Medicare more expensive than it needs to be as a favor to the health care industry, then I agree. But what do you think is so unique to the American political system that makes this task insurmountable, whereas far more dysfunctional polities like Italy and Greece are able to do so?
 
Incorrect.
They are pooling money and providing a service.

It seems you checked your otherwise extensive knowledge of economics, at the door.

The key part of my previous statement:
Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are actually providing a tangible service. Health insurers are just moving money around and not providing anything of value that couldn't be provided more efficiently by the government.

I will grant you that government bureaucrats probably aren't so great at performing gastric bypass surgery. They are pretty good at collecting and writing checks though. So who better to pool money for the public, than the public itself?
 
Last edited:
You do realize I said it wasn't cheaper?



No. I think you're not listening well. It is about how to cover the most people in the best manner. This includes cost, but not just cost. Access and health also matter. I do consider it a public health issue. Lack of access is a problem, and whiel some focus on those who abuse ERs, it is also true others never get needed trreatment and suffer. Both are probelms. Both need to be addressed.

So making everything, even more expensive is better for the country?
I thought the purpose of a Single payer or UHC was to bring down costs and provide universal access?
 
So making everything, even more expensive is better for the country?
I thought the purpose of a Single payer or UHC was to bring down costs and provide universal access?

Didn't say that. Not remotely. A single payer sytem will bring costs down. We have the world as an example. And it will allow greater access than we have, and again, we have the world as an example. We can do it better, learnign form all of them if we have the will. And it will likely be at least two tiered here. But it is all in how it all works together. How well it is designed.
 
It's actually a combination of lack of government regulation, and the lack of competition from a universal health care plan of some sort. Those are the two major differences between the US and most other countries. If not these differences, to what do you attribute our grotesquely inefficient health care market?

No we have a patch work of government regulation, which eliminates choice in many areas.
In some cases there is less regulation, in others a lot.
The policy price differences in each state are evident of this.

The main difference between the U.S. medical market and other countries with less costly systems, is that the countries with less costly systems tend to ration care by restricting supply.
Not enough to hurt a lot of people, but enough to restrict the availability of some care.

That presents another cost problem not factored in to the equation, the time lost waiting for some services.
It's an unmeasured opportunity cost.
Getting that knee surgery in 2 weeks vs. waiting a month or 2.
How much does it cost the economy to have that person being unproductive, then multiply it by the number of people who have to wait for these not serious but necessary services.


That is not universal access. Most services are not provided in an emergency room, and waiting until a health problem becomes severe enough to be an emergency means it will cost many times more to treat.

Even then, most people can visit the doctor, get treated and opt to be billed.


Getting treated when you get hit by a bus does not qualify as universal health care. We do not have general purpose universal health care in this country.

Fortunately it's not limited to just emergencies.

If you are suggesting that we should stop intentionally making Medicare more expensive than it needs to be as a favor to the health care industry, then I agree. But what do you think is so unique to the American political system that makes this task insurmountable, whereas far more dysfunctional polities like Italy and Greece are able to do so?

The politicians respond to the voters better here, at least when it comes to medical benefits.
Democracy has it's downside and that's when the voters wants, conflict with the state's finances.
 
My Step Grandfather lived in Whales till he was 17 and his family still lives in Whales and London and he says that he only remembers positive things about the health care system over there and his family that still lives in London and Whales does not complain and only speaks of positives about their health system.
 
Erm no.
See right now, in order for those risk groups to get covered, they generally have to draw a check, which also means they're restricted from working.
Some of them just want medical coverage.

I thought the whole purpose of social programs was to take care of the needy?
Why are we now rejecting it?

Because why do that when you can just have UHC and a private option?

Incorrect.
They are pooling money and providing a service.

It seems you checked your otherwise extensive knowledge of economics, at the door.

And no one pools money better than the government, which is why the government is often left the check when private insurance companies are unwilling to cover those who are high risk.
 
Last edited:
Because why do that when you can just have UHC and a private option?



And no one pools money better than the government, which is why the government is often left the check when private insurance companies are unwilling to cover those who are high risk.

The government is a horrid "pooler of money."
They've all but spent our pooled SS retirement funds.
 
The government is a horrid "pooler of money."
They've all but spent our pooled SS retirement funds.

No, that's spending, not pooling. They can pool the **** out of some money, and because of that, they can deal with high-risk candidates much better as well.
 
No, that's spending, not pooling. They can pool the **** out of some money, and because of that, they can deal with high-risk candidates much better as well.

Yea but if they spend all that pooled money, we still have to pay for the costs incurred by the program in place.
I agree that they can pool resources well, but they are terrible, terrible managers of those funds.

I have no problem with the government taking care of high risk people, that makes sense to me.
I believe the programs that serve those high risk people, should be liberalized so that more high risk people can be covered.
I've been involved with helping people in these programs and they are insanely stupid, with rules that trap the disabled in poverty.
 
The government is a horrid "pooler of money."
They've all but spent our pooled SS retirement funds.

Social security has a much greater time delay: You pay in, and then a few decades later you theoretically get paid. It's unlikely that public health insurance would have that problem, because there would be no pooled funds to speak of for the government to waste. The government would be constantly collecting cash and using it to pay out claims. It could even be mandated by law to collect the premium that the actuaries determine will cover all of the costs...and if they don't collect enough then the next year they simply raise the premium.
 
Yea but if they spend all that pooled money, we still have to pay for the costs incurred by the program in place.
I agree that they can pool resources well, but they are terrible, terrible managers of those funds.

So it is your argument that there is no way the government can be responsible enough with the money? I do understand why you feel that way and it is unfortunate that our government has been so reckless in the past as to lost that much credibility with many of its citizens.

I have no problem with the government taking care of high risk people, that makes sense to me.
I believe the programs that serve those high risk people, should be liberalized so that more high risk people can be covered.
I've been involved with helping people in these programs and they are insanely stupid, with rules that trap the disabled in poverty.

The problem I have with that is it seems when it is only the "leeching class" or moochers that get taken care of by the government, it is underfunded, money is stolen from the programs, conservatives hate it anyway, and they do not even receive good treatment (nor do the doctors get paid as they should). If we fix those issues, sure, but it's going to seem like the costs are inflated since we are insuring only high-risk individuals.
 
So it is your argument that there is no way the government can be responsible enough with the money? I do understand why you feel that way and it is unfortunate that our government has been so reckless in the past as to lost that much credibility with many of its citizens.

It's 1 part government and 1 part unrealistic expectations of the citizenry.

The problem I have with that is it seems when it is only the "leeching class" or moochers that get taken care of by the government, it is underfunded, money is stolen from the programs, conservatives hate it anyway, and they do not even receive good treatment (nor do the doctors get paid as they should). If we fix those issues, sure, but it's going to seem like the costs are inflated since we are insuring only high-risk individuals.

I don't consider people, who stricken with faults of nature to be the "leeching class" or "moochers."
Most, if not all, would gladly trade off their disability, in order to be functionally normal.

We already cover these people, but we require them to draw a check, to fit into a restricted income category and we require some to have X amount of credits.

As an example, a friend of mine has a son who was born with a liver enzyme condition.
Now as long as his son takes his meds and nutrition supplements, while observing a specific diet, his son is great.
The problem is that the meds cost a yearly mid range 5 figures, which would quickly max out an insurance max.

So his son has to be on SSI, he's never had the chance to work to earn disability credits, because if he works and makes more than the federal poverty rate for 12 months, he will lose his SSI medical benefits, because he makes too much to qualify for the SSI check.
Our system for the disabled is messed up.
 
Universal coverage provides the widest risk pool for the lowest cost.

This is true. However, i must note: A single payer system will be far too reliant on taxpayers to provide the funding needs for research and developing. Therefore, a competitive balance between both public and private health care initiatives, where the most high risk individuals (aka the elderly, or those afflicted from chronic disease) are kept off of private risk pools, so low risk individuals can actually pay a price for premiums that accurately reflect potential liabilities.
 
This is true. However, i must note: A single payer system will be far too reliant on taxpayers to provide the funding needs for research and developing. Therefore, a competitive balance between both public and private health care initiatives, where the most high risk individuals (aka the elderly, or those afflicted from chronic disease) are kept off of private risk pools, so low risk individuals can actually pay a price for premiums that accurately reflect potential liabilities.
I disagree about the research and funding because we have some kick arse research happening here. To look at just a couple - try the HPV vaccine, At present they are working on a Malaria vaccine - something few others will touch because there is no money in it for private enterprise since most people suffering from Malaria live in third world countries
 
I disagree about the research and funding because we have some kick arse research happening here. To look at just a couple - try the HPV vaccine, At present they are working on a Malaria vaccine - something few others will touch because there is no money in it for private enterprise since most people suffering from Malaria live in third world countries

I'm sure that the Oz government kicks in a fair bit of money through the CSIRO. Will try and find some figures
.
 
I'm sure that the Oz government kicks in a fair bit of money through the CSIRO. Will try and find some figures
.

It is not just CSIRO though - there is a LOT of medical research going on in this country - every major hospital has a research centre. Crikey! Even we have a "research nurse" and we are a smallish outback rural hospital
 
This is true. However, i must note: A single payer system will be far too reliant on taxpayers to provide the funding needs for research and developing. Therefore, a competitive balance between both public and private health care initiatives, where the most high risk individuals (aka the elderly, or those afflicted from chronic disease) are kept off of private risk pools, so low risk individuals can actually pay a price for premiums that accurately reflect potential liabilities.

That seems like the problem we have now. Scooting the sick off to never never land and private insurance enjoys profit on the healthy.
 
This is true. However, i must note: A single payer system will be far too reliant on taxpayers to provide the funding needs for research and developing. Therefore, a competitive balance between both public and private health care initiatives, where the most high risk individuals (aka the elderly, or those afflicted from chronic disease) are kept off of private risk pools, so low risk individuals can actually pay a price for premiums that accurately reflect potential liabilities.

If you look, I believe you will find the tax payer already carries that burden. Much of research is done at teaching hospitals and research schools largely financed by the government. The private stuff is no where near as large as some think. I looked this up once for folks, and it was very time consuming, so I would prefer others look for it as I am busy at the moment.
 
The idea that good research cannot be funded by the government is preposterous. I don't see any private companies in the US building a large hadron collider, do you?
 
The idea that good research cannot be funded by the government is preposterous. I don't see any private companies in the US building a large hadron collider, do you?

Most research is actually done in universities and the pharmaceutical industry buys the basic research and takes it from there. They do less basic research than they would have you believe.
 
I disagree about the research and funding because we have some kick arse research happening here. To look at just a couple - try the HPV vaccine, At present they are working on a Malaria vaccine - something few others will touch because there is no money in it for private enterprise since most people suffering from Malaria live in third world countries

If you look, I believe you will find the tax payer already carries that burden. Much of research is done at teaching hospitals and research schools largely financed by the government. The private stuff is no where near as large as some think. I looked this up once for folks, and it was very time consuming, so I would prefer others look for it as I am busy at the moment.

Industry is picking up about 57% of the tab for medical investigation, with the National Institutes of Health kicking in another 28%, reported researchers in a special issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, previewed at a press briefing here.

Overall industry spending on drug, biotechnology and medical device research increased by 102%, from $26.8 billion in 1994 to $54.1 billion in 2003.

Source

Also, the U.S. is the global leader in biomedical research, attributing about 80% of the total global R&D expenditures for this sector.

This study presents a US perspective. However, previous analyses indicate that about 70% to 80% of total global biomedical research and development is sponsored by the US public sector, US-based foundations, and US-headquartered corporations

F1.large.gif


source
 
There weren't nearly as many votes as I would have liked (though luckily the conservative spam bots haven't ruined this poll yet also), but I think this poll still overtly shows the divisiveness of the current system, and the unitedness of those under UHC.
 
Source

Also, the U.S. is the global leader in biomedical research, attributing about 80% of the total global R&D expenditures for this sector.



F1.large.gif


source

Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S.

Funding of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cancer Research Funding

Cancer Research Funding - National Cancer Institute

Why Is Long-Term Government Funding for Biomedical Research So Critical?

Why Is Long-Term Government Funding for Biomedical Research So Critical? • American Gastroenterological Association (AGA)
 
Back
Top Bottom