• 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
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?

I do not consider the United States to be a country with UHC. For me, the word "universal" symbolizes all - and not everyone in the US has health care. The day that anyone in the US - foreign or domestic, poor or rich, young or old - can get health care without having to show ID first, then we'll be a UHC country.
 
I am in favor of UHC.
 
This a false dichotomy. UHC with a private option can and does exist. It's The model that I am in in favor of. Utilizing the positives both the private and public systems is the key to building a high quality system.

Btw KSU, it is 16.7 or 1/6 people that are currently without coverage, but this number is decreasing. If you want to play a numbers game, we can play a numbers game.
 
This a false dichotomy. UHC with a private option can and does exist. It's The model that I am in in favor of. Utilizing the positives both the private and public systems is the key to building a high quality system.

Btw KSU, it is 16.7 or 1/6 people that are currently without coverage, but this number is decreasing. If you want to play a numbers game, we can play a numbers game.

The options never say a private option can't exist. Read them again.
 
I do not consider the United States to be a country with UHC. For me, the word "universal" symbolizes all - and not everyone in the US has health care. The day that anyone in the US - foreign or domestic, poor or rich, young or old - can get health care without having to show ID first, then we'll be a UHC country.

Since hospitals do not and cannot deny sick people, I do consider the US to be a country with UHC. Furthermore, Medicare is essentially universal health care for old people.
 
Last edited:
Since hospitals do not and cannot deny sick people, I do consider the US to be a country with UHC. Furthermore, Medicare is essentially universal health care for old people.

That's not even true. Hospitals can and do deny sick people. I think you are mistaking having a life-threatening emergency with being sick. They will stabilize you and send you on your way for better or worse.
 
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.

I like to see some supporting evidence for that last part.

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

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

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. ;)

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


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.

We have a type of UHC though.

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.

Don't be too confident, we haven't been able to reign in Medicare yet.
 
I do not consider the United States to be a country with UHC. For me, the word "universal" symbolizes all - and not everyone in the US has health care. The day that anyone in the US - foreign or domestic, poor or rich, young or old - can get health care without having to show ID first, then we'll be a UHC country.

I think you guys are going too far.
We need some levels of support to "fix" our system but not everyone wants a government system, nor do they want to pay additional taxes for it.
 
I'm in favor of that.
If we focused our government insurance things on those most likely to get sick or injured and left the rest to the market, if would work well.

Socialism for health insurers. With hugely reduced risks and costs, they will be raking in the profits while doing less for fewer people.
 
Universal coverage provides the widest risk pool for the lowest cost.
That is lowest cost per person covered. But, if we dumped the non-payers at the curb and had a private but uniform health insurance system providers (e.g. using identical claim codes and forms) we would have a lower total cost system.
 
I'm in favor of that.
If we focused our government insurance things on those most likely to get sick or injured and left the rest to the market, if would work well.

It won't cheapen anything. That just means the government has to cover the riskiest bunch, meaning your insurance may drop (but not much since emergency rooms will still be abused) but your taxes will spike.
 
Socialism for health insurers. With hugely reduced risks and costs, they will be raking in the profits while doing less for fewer people.

That's not the goal though.
The goal is to make sure that the real "lesser among us" have the ability to be covered for their chronic and expensive conditions.

I don't see you getting too upset when doctors, nurses, other health care professionals are earning a profit.
 
It won't cheapen anything. That just means the government has to cover the riskiest bunch, meaning your insurance may drop (but not much since emergency rooms will still be abused) but your taxes will spike.

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?
 
That's not the goal though.
The goal is to make sure that the real "lesser among us" have the ability to be covered for their chronic and expensive conditions.

I don't see you getting too upset when doctors, nurses, other health care professionals are earning a profit.

Hiving off the expensive chronic conditions is a gift to the insurers. You don't see me getting upset because I made no comment to provoke your strawman slur.
 
Hiving off the expensive chronic conditions is a gift to the insurers. You don't see me getting upset because I made no comment to provoke your strawman slur.

So, having a single payer system is guaranteeing profits for hospital staff and their servicers.
Why only go after insurers?

Seems to me your outrage is selective.
 
Hiving off the expensive chronic conditions is a gift to the insurers. You don't see me getting upset because I made no comment to provoke your strawman slur.

That's true. And it allows them to make more profit without the major part of the risk. And the risk with the gocvernment would be, much as it is now, heavier and less able to be effective. What works is to have a diverse popualce of well peopel and needy people. This spreads the risk, cost and profit much more evenly and allows less bruden overall.
 
That's true. And it allows them to make more profit without the major part of the risk. And the risk with the gocvernment would be, much as it is now, heavier and less able to be effective. What works is to have a diverse popualce of well peopel and needy people. This spreads the risk, cost and profit much more evenly and allows less bruden overall.

You talk as if we don't already do this.
The fact is we do cover the chronically ill and disabled, typically through government.
The problem is, that to qualify, you have to usually draw a check and have enough "credits."

What I'm proposing is that, you do not have to draw a check and you do not need X credits in order to get government coverage for your disability.
The only other option for disabled people, is to draw a check under the SSI system, which generally restricts them to a life of poverty and social welfare, based on the program rules.

Obama has slightly and inadvertently "softened" this, with the Medicaid provisions in the Health Care bill, but it is not enough to actually fix what is wrong with our system for the disabled/chronically ill.
 
You talk as if we don't already do this.
The fact is we do cover the chronically ill and disabled, typically through government.
The problem is, that to qualify, you have to usually draw a check and have enough "credits."

What I'm proposing is that, you do not have to draw a check and you do not need X credits in order to get government coverage for your disability.
The only other option for disabled people, is to draw a check under the SSI system, which generally restricts them to a life of poverty and social welfare, based on the program rules.

Obama has slightly and inadvertently "softened" this, with the Medicaid provisions in the Health Care bill, but it is not enough to actually fix what is wrong with our system for the disabled/chronically ill.

Yes we do this now, and badly. Largely because of the reasons I listed. As long as government only deals with the most needy, without benefit of having healthy people offsetting costs, the system will continue to struggle.
 
Yes we do this now, and badly. Largely because of the reasons I listed. As long as government only deals with the most needy, without benefit of having healthy people offsetting costs, the system will continue to struggle.

Healthy people already offset the costs through mandatory taxes that all workers pay.
Seriously, where have you been?

SSD taxes are paid by everyone.
The problem is that the program needs serious reform.
Healthy people are less of a worry than fixing the disability program for the people who need it most.

That's the point of social welfare, to help the needy.
Not to make sure healthy people can get their cold checked out.
 
That's not the goal though.
The goal is to make sure that the real "lesser among us" have the ability to be covered for their chronic and expensive conditions.

I don't see you getting too upset when doctors, nurses, other health care professionals are earning a profit.

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.
 
Healthy people already offset the costs through mandatory taxes that all workers pay.
Seriously, where have you been?

SSD taxes are paid by everyone.
The problem is that the program needs serious reform.
Healthy people are less of a worry than fixing the disability program for the people who need it most.

That's the point of social welfare, to help the needy.
Not to make sure healthy people can get their cold checked out.

I am trying to put you comments in context of health care, which may be my mistake. This would include not only SS, but medicaid and medicare.

Now, as for what the purpose is, while I'm not sure exactly how you getting a cold check out fits in, good halth requires more than just handling an emergency or serious illness. It is possible to catch something early, to do some preventive efforts, and while such may not be cheaper overall, it is healthier. And makes the nation healthier. Might help in preventing potential outbreaks of contagens in te future as well.

So I would sugegst there is more than one single purpose to health care reform.
 
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.

Incorrect.
They are pooling money and providing a service.

It seems you checked your otherwise extensive knowledge of economics, at the door.
 
I am trying to put you comments in context of health care, which may be my mistake. This would include not only SS, but medicaid and medicare.

Now, as for what the purpose is, while I'm not sure exactly how you getting a cold check out fits in, good halth requires more than just handling an emergency or serious illness. It is possible to catch something early, to do some preventive efforts, and while such may not be cheaper overall, it is healthier. And makes the nation healthier. Might help in preventing potential outbreaks of contagens in te future as well.

So I would sugegst there is more than one single purpose to health care reform.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom