Quick poll: Do you want universal health coverage?
March 11, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Uncategorized
In his campaign, President Obama cited universal health coverage as a top priority, and now he and pro-coverage forces are gearing up for a big push on Congress to pass a bill. So what do you think? Please take our poll and let us know.
What do you think about universal health coverage?
- I'm opposed: I don't think the government should be involved in health coverage (56%, 2,369 Votes)
- I favor it: We need a system in which everyone has health coverage (34%, 1,413 Votes)
- Not sure (10%, 432 Votes)
Total Voters: 4,214
Loading ...
March 11th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Universal Healthcare: Absolutely, the United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t provide health care to its citizens, to some degree. Removing the burden of healthcare from the employer will allow us to be more competitive, in world trade. We have agreements with other countries not to subsidize products that are in competition with products made here in the United States. Providing health care will reduce the cost of manufacture without having it labeled a subsidy. How any thinking person could be against providing health care is beyond my comprehension.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
What! This Country does NOT need another FAT CAT agency and a nightmare from where no one will ever recover. Yes something needs to be done, I wish I had the answer I just feel this is wrong, and who’s to say the employer will not end up paying for it in the end anyway. I’m sure there is some sort of way they will pass it along to the businesses, like they’re doing with COBRA.
We are a small company, hurting, and did what we had to do to survive, now we’re being slapped on the wrist because of that.
No one wants to see anyone out of a job and without insurance so why did the liberal Arts and all those other piglets get millions from the stimulus package, to do whatever they do, give it to the people who need it! If obama owes people favors for supporting him, he should let them stay a nite at the whitehouse instead of giving them the taxpayers hard earned money.
We have enough Fat Cats in government
March 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am
We half-ass it already. Seriously, poor people clog up the ERs, so service stinks and the hospitals take a hit for providing services to these people. We need a basic government plan for all, with higher options available for more coverage, just like any other business plan.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Canada has national health care and residents wait years for treatments. Many of them come to the US to get surgical procedures instead of waiting. You have to be dying to get immediate attention. They tout in their tourism that they don’t pay for health care or college, but their taxes are high. Ours would only go higher with national health care added. I agree that small businesses are suffering and the everyday citizen does not realize these things cripple businesses. This administration is handing out money like candy. The common person thinks it’s great, but in reality where is the money coming from? And who would stand to benefit from a national health care program? The more we depend on government for these things, the farther away we get from the republic on which this nation was founded.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am
If the US is paying for universal self defense [military] and education [K-12], why not universal healthcare? If the Europeans and Asian countries can afford to provide this for their citizens, the US can do likewise. It’s time for ultra right wingnuts to get over the so called “socialist” label. This is nothing more than a smoke screen to distract people from the real issues. Just look at Yolanda’s post above……….
March 16th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
to Lee Preble: Are you kidding?? Absolutely NOT. Did you know that in Canada that the average time between diagnosis and getting to see a specialist is 17 WEEKS?? If you are diagnosed with cancer, you (or your child/spouse/mother/best friend) could be advanced into the next stage with little hope of recovery by that time! Why do you think Canadians (and others with universal health care) come to the US in droves? They do it precisely because we DON’T have universal health care and, therefore, have the best healthcare in the world. Do you want a bureaucrat deciding whether you get to see a doctor or receive a certain type of medicine/treatment that would save your life? I know I don’t. Those decisions should be left to you and your doctor ONLY.
We have Medicare and Medicaid – those should be fixed, not made for everyone to be subjected to (including doctors who don’t get paid nearly enough for their services under these plans!)
March 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I am opposed to national health care. Too much government involvement will not work either. I am for is some type of standardization of pricing out our health care cost. Like the usual and customary cost. Why are the prices of health care cost, discounted in some cases 50 to 75 percent for some insurance companies. Why can’t the cost be priced in such a manner that it is afforable whether you have insurance coverage or not. Then make those who are not covered by insurance liable for that cost.
And if you want the liability insurance to go down, lets continue with the word of mouth references on the internet about what a physician is really like. Does he make you wait so he can see sales men? Does he charge based on how long you spend with him, even if you have to wait in the little office for 10 to 15 minutes? Let’s put a rating system in place so that the patient driven health care has a fair chance of choosing the right doctors and facilities for them.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Anything the government gets involved with gets screwed up. Have you been to the DMV lately?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I voted for it but not because I think the government should provide it. I do think the government needs to be involved because I do not think the insurance companies and the medical community has the ability to solve the problems of our present health care system. Everyone should have basic health coverage. I don’t think that is hard to achieve. What is hard is to bring down spiraling costs. That will take removing all the willing hands that get involved in the administration and duplication of services that exists. And, I think this is the biggest challenge.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I would like to know more about it. I am a diabetic and need my coverage. Would this cut down on the type of coverage and benefits I have with city insurance?
March 16th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
One government program that provides healthcare for all. Let’s stop wasting our money on multiple programs..Medicare, Medicaid, Managed Care entities and the administration of them all. Do you realize the cost of this?
I’m okay with paying higher tax dollars to see Universal Health Care become a reality.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
This is a MAJOR blunder! Universal Health Care doesn’t work anywhere and it is costly and inefficient. Don’t take this giant step toward socialism.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
No to Nationalized, universal, socialized health coverage — whatever name they decide to use for it. Not only should the government not be involved (other than possibly providing a tax credit for at least part of the cost) it is time health coverage become a personal thing, not a benefit of employment. Health insurance costs lots more because of all the administration costs. Every time someone changes employment his health insurance has to be redone. Stupid!! If each person bought and paid for his own families insurance, and was provided a tax credit for doing so, the Admin costs for not only the businesses, but also the insurance companies would be greatly reduced, and the family health coverage would not be disrupted every time there was a job change. Get wise Washington — and STOP trying to be every thing to every one. We don’t need a Sugar Daddy, we need a governing body – only!!
March 16th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
There are a lot of cogs in the healthcare machine. Research costs money. Pharma-companies won’t do research w/o profit. Doctors pay a lot for their insurance. Hospitals need to make a profit for many reasons. We all want the absolutely best and latest treatments. Those require research. And so on… The last routine physical I had cost me over $450. I could have shopped around, but I like my doctor. I was with him for 15 minutes and had bloodwork done. I paid for it. I would be happy if the gvt. paid for preventative care, not reactive care.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
MEDICAID & MEDICARE – Do your research and tell me how these bankrupted systems will be converted to a new and unimproved Universal Health Care System. What will happen is peopel with good insurance will have mediocre insurance. The best way is to offer businesses more incentives to offer coverage to their employees. Here’s a novel idea – if the feds are so concerned about health insurance and cost to Americans, then why don’t they let you write off all of your medical expenses? Those would be good starts to assist the best medical care in the world. Is it a perfect system? No – but why risk bankrupting this system like the other Health Insurance Programs operated and overseen by the government? Why force people with good benefits to take less or punish them by possibly taxing them onthose benefits? The best thing the government can do is step aside and offer incentives to the health insurance providers/companies and businesses to make the current system better. They may even want to consider someone fixing their Medicaid and Medicare problems.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I think if we lived in a country where everyone had a job that offered affordable health insurance, then our government would not need to step in to help. In the past year, I’ve seen too many people who have no insurance or inadequate insurance without prescription benefits. In these cases, people die with preventable or treatable ailments.
There used to be a time in the US where citizens helped each other through hard times. Now, it seems that citizens have that “I got mine, you get yours” mentality. If this changed a little, the people would not look to the government for help.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Tax brackets north of 50% of income, not adjusted gross income, fund a mediocre “universal healthcare system” in many countries. I am sure some countries are better than others, but “universal” in my experience living overseas and paying the associated tax “universal” meant those with connections to get into hospitals to avoid the long waits had treatments. Many forms of treatment weren’t available as they “aren’t covered”. Many employers in EU provide private health care insurance because the state systems are not all they cracked up to be. I completely agree our health system is full of problems, however, universal is not the method to achieve a competitive, competent, affordable health care system.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I think if we lived in a country where everyone had a job that offered affordable health insurance, then our government would not need to step in to help. In the past year, I’ve seen too many people who have no insurance or inadequate insurance without prescription benefits. In these cases, people die with preventable or treatable ailments.
Usually, the insurance company is determining what doctor patients see, not the patient. Yes, poor people clog up ERs because they don’t have insurance and don’t have family doctors. They can’t afford to go to the doctor. Visits without insurance are quite expensive, and if there’s medicine involved – then who pays for that.
Believe it or not, there are people living here without jobs, and not all of them are lazy and uneducated. The sitation is really bad, but I know it can get better.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
It’s an absolute necessity for there to be coverage for all Americans. Too many people remain uninsured because their employers don’t offer it (and for some, even when it’s available through the employer, it’s still to expensive) and if there’s a hint of a pre-existing condition, insurance companies just won’t cover them. Period.
I have individual coverage, and my premium with a $2000 deductible is $571/month. If I had family coverage, it would cost well over $1000/month. How many of us are making enough money to pay these kinds of premiums?
Those who say there shouldn’t be universal coverage can’t imagine what it’s like to not have any, or to not afford any, or to barely afford what they have. We should not be working to pay for medical insurance!
Those naysayers are arguing based on political rhetoric, not representative of reality.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I think it is unfortunate that this survey is loaded to be for or against something with which very few are familiar. Ex: Am I for Universal Health Care? If it means single payer, rationing, etc. Absolutely not! If it means things like guaruanteed access to care, community rating for purposes of premium cost, insurance coverage for everyone who is working (unemployable, destitute, etc. covered by Medicaid or Medicare currently), I am absolutely in favor of Universal Health Care.
Like so many other things in which the survey is tailored to be black and white, and the obvious options are not offerred, this type survey will appeal to naysayers. You’d better get ready for it, folks; because like it or not, you are going to have it, and we well should have some type of universal access to healthcare. I’d suggest that you unbiasedly research the subject before taking an absolute position.
Dave Fletcher
March 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Health care is not a right. Rights require action (i.e., life, liberty, private property, pursuit of happiness) and are not subject to the demands of others. When the free market was more involved in health care everyone had coverage either through paying or charity. Now the state has taken away competition and demands doctors work for what the state deems is “fair”. You wouldn’t want the state to set your wages and they should not set wages for anyone in the medical profession. Many nations with universal healthcare are now rethinking it because the level of care has greatly suffered, innovation is almost nonexistant, and costs are skyrocketing. The citizens of countries with nationalized healthcare pay exorbitant taxes for steadily declining lifestyles. This nation is based on individual rights-keep the government out of healthcare!
March 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I agree with Concerned. My company has employees in 12 different countries; most of these countries have universal coverage. As others have stated, the universal system is not the perfect solution, there are a number of drawbacks including the long waiting time for appointments. We offer employees in these countries supplemental insurance plans so their coverage will be more similar to coverage offered to our US employees. All that glitters is not gold.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Canada along with other countries has a 14% tax on everything (including food and clothes) to pay for the insurance.
I am compasionite enough to say something needs to done, but if your looking at the person making min. wage how will they be able to purchase food to feed their family as well as clothes with a 14% (probably more) tax on everything.
That’s why foreigners love buying clothes in the states as in most states food, clothing is tax free.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
The government does all right with the Post Office. I can mail a letter across country in one day for $.42
I would like to trust them with setting up a fair Health care system.
Let the government fix it. We have to have faith in Obama. The people against Universal Ins. are getting it from their employers and not feeling the pain of the rest of us. I can’t afford $1000 a month for just me and my husband. My 32 year old daughter can’t afford $1300 a month for her family of 4. “Something is better than nothing”. Too may people are without or will soon be without insurance. You could soon be one of them.
We need a CHANGE !
March 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
If you want to see government run health care visit a veterans hospital.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Nothing will ever change in our United States until our Philosophy changes. Health Care should be a right, not a luxury. Health care for all, instead of for profit. I said it above, and I’ll say it again. I am willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone in this country receives healthcare. As for me, I have dual coverage through my employment and as an armed forces retiree. So, I’m not asking for this for myself. I am asking for others.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I concur with Jeff. As someone that has manged a health care plan for our company for 10 +years, had decorated WWII and Korean veterans as family members that have been denied treatment, and waited for medicare to finally approve medically necessary care for my Mother…too late and too little, all I can say is that although our system isn’t perfect it is the best out there even with the high deductibles or cost of insurance. Governement ran programs don’t work…we aren’t properly caring for our elderly or veterans with ‘national health care’ what makes anyone think we will care for our children or middle aged citizens any better. Leave me to help my employees and I’ll make my decisions on where to work as an emloyee based in part on health insurance benefits…it’s part of capitalizism.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Jeff: I live in California and believe it or not the DMV is spectactular…if you use their online systems. I just re-registered my car at 4AM on Saturday morning in 30 seconds. People do not plan, don’t think, etc., then complain because they have to show up and wait.
With regard to healthcare from a source other than employers, the increase in pay will not be equal to the cost of the insurance which goes away, and it will be taxable. I use my great benefits as an attraction and retention tool…I don’t want to lose that competitive edge.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
We spend 2 to 3 times as much on healthcare in the US as do many other developed countries, and we brag that we have the best healthcare system in the world. We do not. Look at the REAL, unbiased research. Look at our infant mortality rate and other key indicators of a good healthcare system. We spend that much money in part, because of a very complex, multi-payor system with all kinds of “special deals” for certain businesses, including government employees. The government is allowed to bargain for reasonable rates for prescriptions with drug companies, but no one else is. You are right that in some socialized countries adults may have to wait longer for some specialized care, but preventative care is availalble to all, most people do not have to wait any longer that most of us do to see a doctor (and in my clinic, if I’m sick I have to see who is available, not just my doctor), and children get immediate care for what is needed. Drugs don’t cost an arm and a leg (we go to Canada and Mexico for drugs!), and if we were all in one healthcare system, there would be a large enough % of “healthy” people to counterbalance those who have serious health problems. That keeps healthcare down. Small businesses can’t easily afford insurance coverage for employees; that’s why even so many business owners who may otherwise be “conservative” fiscally, know this makes good sense.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Its about time for universal health care. I find it interesting that folks don’t believe it should be a right – well, education is and has been – should we take that away? And what good is the right to an education if you aren’t well enough to attend school because you have no decent health care because of a lack of insurance. Millions upon millions of children – not to mention adults lack insurance. If you don’t have basic health care – what is there? Folks site Canada for those exceptions; I know many Canadians who have NO problem getting adequate health care when they need it. My father lives in Belgiium and has US and Belgium ins. He recently had open heart surgery in Brussels. The hospital billed the US insurance because “they would get more $$”. What I found interesting in his case is that he got the care we used to get in the US – not the ‘drive by’ care we now get and home visits by the heart surgeon and PT person on top of it.
I thought the wording of the poll made it prejudicial-the wording made it sound like it was goverment funded and sponsored. The oppose Q said Government, the favor Q said “system”…
March 17th, 2009 at 12:41 am
We don’t need the government mess the system up more than they already have. Look at how they are unfunded, 51 trillion, for Social Security, not to mention Medicare.
“Some people seem to think that God has handed money to the federal government, and the money will be unavailable if the government doesn’t use it — that if government doesn’t spend money on school lunches, children will starve; that if government doesn’t subsidize single mothers, they’ll die in the streets; that if government doesn’t spend money on research, progress will stop. In truth, all the money the government spends was taken from the people who earned it — who are perfectly able to spend it on anything they think is important. When we repeal the income tax, these people will have a trillion dollars a year to spend on whatever they want and need.” — Harry Browne, 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, bestselling author.
The federal government has an awful track record, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand.”– attributed to Milton Friedman
March 17th, 2009 at 7:42 am
For those who are in favor of nationalized health care….why do you think those countries who are (nationalized) tell us to go back to the USA when we are travelling / living in their country and need serious medical attention? Because they know their systems are inadequate. Our taxes would certainly increase and we would recieve less care for it. I agree our health care system needs an overhaul, but government or universal care is definitely not the answer.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:24 am
On a per capita basis we are #1 in health care cost and most recently #15 in health care quality. I lived in France for six years and functioned quite well under the universal health care system there. I was able to choose my doctor, dentist, pharmasist, etc. I had two operations and major dental work. In all cases the experience was positive, the service was professional, and there were no delays in obtaining the needed services.
If not universal health care, then what as the alternative? The current system is broken and the problems are not going to magically disappear. Let’s take the time to benchmark what is working well in the 14 countries that provide a higher quality of health care than we do and incorporate the best of the best.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Pat B you are right on!! Socialism here we come full force.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Ok Instead of writing a Novel I will keep my answer short: NO CHANCE IN HELL should we be on board with Universal Healthcare. Again More handouts for the poor and we all suffer. Since the new administration has taken over being poor is going to be a luxury (heck why work and make a living if you can get everything just handed to you that you used to be able to only achieve by working)…where is the incentive? Just for the record…I will continue to work…for integrity and pride…since that will be the only thing the GOVT wont take away from me!
March 17th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I agree with many of you who say universal health care yes, single provider no. We go out and shop for our car insurance, home owners, life insurance… why not health insurance? Since everyone will be required to have it, the cost [to a degree] can be deducted from your tax obligation. As for offering good health insurance as a means of attracting employees, if NO employer offers health insurance -everyone will be on the same playing field. Some other benefit will be your carrot. This CAN be done. Everyone deserves good health care. It doesn’t have to be Canada revisited. We can build on other’s mistakes! This is America – and since necessity is the mother of invention – let’s get to it!
March 17th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I agree with DonnB4.Also Argentina as a third world country provide Universal Health Care and free education for all their people. Why we can’t?
Their are not socialists and not communists, just a better way to do capitalism.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I DO NOT feel the US should have their hands in healthcare coverage!!! The nation is beyond broke and in debt the way it is right now. Massachusetts recently passed a law stating that all people must have healthcare coverage of some sort. If going that route, employers should still continue to offer healthcare insurance and some plan can be implemented for others to buy into or receive care. If a person who is ill goes into the ER and has no insurance, they are still seen. If they cannot pay for their bill, it ends up getting written off to bad debt anyways. So what difference would there be? The Dr.’s and clinics obviously provide “free” service to some extent anyways from people who cannot pay. True, everyone deserves good healthcare, but then again I feel that everyone deserves a home with a vehicle and food on the table….and this is certainly not the case is it??
March 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Why can’t we take the Universal Healthcare System, which is a good idea and tweak it to make a great idea? Noone is saying we have to except the UHS as is. Let’s put an American spin to it. This is America! Where is the American ingenuity? I propose a tier UHS…
People who are offered private insurance by employer, keep it.
People who work but cannot afford private insurance can pay part of the premium and receive a supplement (from the government) for Healthcare Only. (part of premium paid depends on income)
People who work but is not offered private insurance can pay part of the premium and receives a supplement (from the government) for Healthcare Only. (part of premium paid depends on income)
People who do not work recieves help getting a job and the above scenerio applies.
People who cannot work get a humanitarian package. Free Preventive and urgent care healthcare until they are able to work. The Humanitarian package is held to the same standards as private insurance.
What are your thoughts?
March 17th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I don’t understand the hostility of some of the responses. Perhaps these posters can’t imagine what it’s like to not be able to afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their family. I’d like to ask those against some form of universal health care – insurance available to all, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and affordable, leaving those who can afford their own to pay for their own if they so choose – how they feel about so many millions of Americans being left uninsured? They can’t afford the premiums. They have pre-existing conditions so no insurance company will accept them, and they either had to waive COBRA when laid off because it was too expensive, or never had medical insurance from their employer to begin with.
How do their consciences cope with that reality?
March 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
This is an interesting series of comments. Lets see – the US spends significantly more per person on health care than any other industrialized nation and almost every other nation on Earth (I believe a few of the small, rich oil producing nations spend a bit more) and our results (infant mortality, life expectancy, quality of care, etc) are middling at best. The other industrialized nations have all have some form of universal health care. They spend less and get better results. So, are Americans unhealthy, risk takers with lots of bad habits? Or we could learn from others and, in the process, reduce our costs while improving our results.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Wendy, I’m with you. There are people who work, but can’t afford the insurance. Depending on the size of the company, insurance can be very expensive. If you have someone making minimum wage, and the insurance costs are in excess if $100 per pay. People sometime have to take other things into consideration such as before or after school care, paying rising utility bills, etc. They will clog up the ER system trying to get help because they have no other choice. If this is not something anyone else has had to do, or seen someone do then consider yourself fortunate. Everyone’s situation is not the same.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Lisa your intentions are kind but mistaken. Each time you mention subsidies by the government what you really advocate is more money out of my pocket as a taxpayer. The free market encourages competition and efficiency while government encourages the opposite. When the government subsidizes anything they disrupt pricing and competition. Who can compete with subsidized care? Guess what-you will put private companies out of business and then we will all have subpar care.
Many countries with universal healthcare are seeing skyrocketing costs, poor delivery of care, and no innovation or research. Competition encourages more cost effective treatment and new research. In a truly free market (not the statism we have now) you would have companies figuring out ways to cover the greatest number of people for much less money.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I still don’t see anyone who’s arguing against it, come up with a solution as to how we can ensure that the currently uninsured can get affordable coverage (unless they think emergency rooms can handle every medical problem–even then, that’s far from free). Don’t believe that hospitals and walk-in clinics are so quick to write off their charges to bad debt–unless you declare bankruptcy, you better believe they will come after you relentlessly for payment, and you’ll end up with judgments for many thousands of dollars. More people do file bankruptcy for unpaid medical bills. Is that system working? Aren’t you open to an alternative??
Do you “naysayers” really understand the scope of the problem?
March 17th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
To all of those “for” the universal healthcare, do you even know what the cost is going to be to carry the coverage? What if it’s a plan that if far from what you currently have through your employer? We may want to address that first before standing up and saying “okay” for the universal healthcare coverage plan. Previously mentioned by another person stating that some in Canada travel to the U.S. as they are on a lengthy wait list for certain medical issues/care….if that were your child or family member or next door neighbor waiting, would you still stand up and be “for” the universal healthcare coverage?
March 17th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
To all of those “for” the universal healthcare, do you even know what the cost is going to be to carry the coverage? What if it’s a plan that if far from what you currently have through your employer? We may want to address that first before standing up and saying “okay” for the universal healthcare coverage plan. Previously mentioned by another person stating that some in Canada travel to the U.S. as they are on a lengthy wait list for certain medical issues/care….if that were your child or family member or next door neighbor waiting, would you still stand up and be “for” the universal healthcare coverage? I’m interested to hear responses!
March 17th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I understand how those fortunate ones want to protect the coverage they have through their employer. Where is it written that employer-provided insurance will be abandoned? Where do the arguments come from, when the details have not yet been ironed out? And where are the studies that support the claims about long waiting lists for certain medical issues in Canada? I sense a panic mode when there’s nothing to panic about. Let’s agree that something needs to be done. How it’s accomplished is t/b/a.
I’m astonished that there’s such a hue and cry about the presumed cost to us taxpayers, when we’ve been spending billions on a war–where’s the outcry against the dollars we’re all spending for that? What are our priorities?
March 17th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Should everyone have health care? It would be nice. And by law they already do in the since that emergency health care must be provided regardless of their ability to pay. Government should not be involved, as they have shown little to no real competence in managing anything they touch. I certainly don’t trust members of Congress to be involved in medical decisions (any level of them) that affect me! And let’s be honest, people in countries like Canada and England who have such a system would, for the most part, gladly trade it for what we have already. Consider the tax rates those countries have just to finance the beast. I don’t know about you, but my taxes are already cutting into my family’s income far too much.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:09 am
You have got to be kidding. The government can’t even give away billions of dollars without screwing it up. If when they give billions to agencies they can’t even make sure the thiefs that ran the company into the ground in the first place weren’t walking away with millions in bonuses, what makes us think this would turn our any better. Before we start adding new programs and taxes, we would be better off fixing what is broken in the first place.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I would suggest that much of what we hear about state-run healthcare in other countries is anecdotal and often not supported by the numbers. I would also suggest that in the U.S. we spend way too much money on exotic treatments at the expense of basic healthcare for all. Yes, I would be personally devasted if one of my children couldn’t get a high-end treatment, but it’s not only about me or my children. The extremely high-end treatments that we’re so proud of save very few lives relative to the number of those we neglect–and when we neglect so many people, how can we possibly think it won’t affect us–through higher crime rates and any number of problems? We need to look at the big picture. Another point is that private insurers are notorious for botching coverage, denying valid claims and generally avoiding payment whenever possible. We all know how many docs drop out of insurance networks because they can’t get paid by the insurers. I have administered employee benefits for 20 years and have watched the system deteriorate, as it will continue to do. Why do we think the private system is so good? I would also add that we’re already paying a growing percentage of our salaries for healthcare benefits. If you make $80,000/year, or $6,667/month and you are paying 50% of your monthly premium of $550/month (if you’re paying a lower percentage, you are or soon will be in the minority) you’re already spending 4% of your salary on healthcare. If you have family coverage, maybe you’re spending 12% of your salary on healthcare. These percentages go up dramatically if you actually use the insurance and have out-of-pocket expenses. Also, the greater the number of uninsured individuals out there, the more we pay in hidden medical costs.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Julie, you either have better personal experiences than the rest of us with government administration of anything, or you’re an extreme optimist to believe they would actually handle it better than the current system we have. Government doesn’t run anything better and more efficiently than the private sector. Never has. And if we do get stuck with government run healthcare, we’ll all be longing for the day when it only cost us 12% of our salary.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I am just looking at instances within my own area on government run places: the post office for example. It doesn’t matter if 200 people are standing in line, each person takes his/her time and there is no sense of customer service in the very least (that I have seen anyways). Another area is the unemployment offices. I participate in daily hearings on unemployment that has my company has protested on. They are backed up months and months and have the mentality that they will get to it when they do. I have been told that. There obviously has been budget cuts in many areas, but we could be dealing with the same issues and mentality if the government runs our healthcare too! We need to look at all sides in a pro/con way.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Julie’s right on the money! There’s too much fear-mongering here. I pay $571/month for my individual health insurance, with a $2000 deductible, because my employer doesn’t provide it. But I consider myself lucky, because I at least found an insurance company who accepted my application–I’ve been turned down by others because of pre-existing conditions. My husband’s self-employed, so we have separate medical insurance for him too–also with a $2000 deductible.
I know too many people who are ineligible for any coverage because they have high blood pressure, or asthma–do you feel they should be denied proper medical care? Emergency rooms aren’t cheap, nor are they fully capable of handling all medical problems. If you don’t want government involvement in universal care, what do you propose? “Let them (those either ineligible for, or who can’t afford insurance) eat cake?”
March 20th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I am absolutely for accessibility for all people, and subsidy if necessary to help them access and pay for the care. Many people feel constrained to work forever just for the health coverage. But the government needs to legislate, not manage the process. If all payments to providers were as low as Medicare/Medi-caid, then doctors are going to find it very hard to stay in business. By the way, for those of you who don’t remember 1965 and the start of Medicare and Medi-caid in the Great Society, many more people received access to medical care and the costs took off (supply/demand?) and have never stopped. Medicare now costs about 30 times what was originally estimated as the maximum. When the legislators put themselves on the same plans and costs as what they mandate for others, I will trust them.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Wendy, if someone has high blood pressure or Asthma, and that is their only worry, they don’t even need health insurance. My Sister developed high blood pressure, (found through a checkup up at the local NexCare) purchased her own testing device, got on the internet and studied about high blood pressure, and within 2 months of following the recommendations she found on the net, has it under control. If she had gone the medication route, she would not have solved her problem. People with insurance tend to let someone else take the responsibility, and remain in a “dis” ease state, rather then do as my Sister did, and take responsibility for her own health.
I have a 40 year old daughter with Asthma. She keeps it under control with ionized water (alkaline) and Tahitian Noni Juice. She keeps an atomizer in her purse “just in case”. Bottom line is, in each of these cases, the cost of regular health insurance would cost MUCH more than the cost of taking responsibility for their own health.
I still am of the belief that everyone should be responsibile for their own health coverage, and get whatever they want. Most people who do not have health coverage, could have if it were a priority to them. But they would rather have someone else pay for that so they could drink and party and buy fancy clothes, etc.
It should have nothing to do with any Employer. I would rather have the $3 an hour my employer pays for my health insurance (which I have NEVER used)added to my pay check.
We should take responsibility for ourselves and not expect our employer or the government to foot the bill. (The only exception to this is the disabled – then the Churches and Foundations should (and would) take over.
Government is for governing. Why can’t you understand that. People who allow the governing body take over everything for them will be sorry one day, when they realize they are no longer governed, but now they are controlled!! Their freedoms are gone, and the dictating party is calling all the shots, and there is NOTHING they can do about it. Our Constitution is the guide line. Too often this is forgotten. The Constitution does not give entitlements. Health Care is YOUR responsibiltiy. Insurance is one reason health care (I call it “sick care”) is so expensive.
We can all be our own health care expert if we just do some studying. You don’t have to have anything you were not born with. It comes upon you from bad habits and ignorance of what is good and what is bad. This information is available, if you just look for it. So stop whinning and start studying. You will be blessed.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Joyce, While you believe that many medical conditions can be treated by home remedies, I wish that were true. You cannot tell me that my asthma can be treated with water and juice. Asthma is not a disease that can be taken lightly–attacks can be fatal, as could high blood pressure.
I was not implying that that was their (or my) only medical problem–I stated that they are pre-existing conditions that disqualify an individual from coverage altogether.
I am assuming that neither you nor anyone in your family has medical insurance simply because no one has ever had any need to seek treatment from a physician, clinic or hospital. That’s wonderful. You don’t have to rely on government for fire protection, nor police protection either, I imagine, since you believe government is purely for governing. I firmly believe that access to adequate health care for all Americans is a necessity. You have your opinion, I have mine.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
To Wendy T:
I’m sure that Joyce would grant that there are times when people actually need the benefit of modern medicine. Homeopathic internet-advice based remedies aside, Joyce is absolutely on the money with the fact that the federal government has no constitutional standing for creating federal-based universal health care. When you cite fire and police protection, you’re missing the point that those are local government functions. While your belief/opinion that health care is a necessity for all Americans could be viewed as laudable, please realize that it is opinion only and is not based in the law.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Ok, I’ll try to make this my last comment. Everyone who is against government-provided health care–what is your alternative? What about people who must see a physician, get treatment at a hospital? (homeopathic methods aside). How does the average working person afford a $2000 Emergency Room bill? Don’t say it’s written off to bad debt, because that’s the exception, definitely not the rule.
Come up with alternative ideas, and those who are in favor of fixing the system will listen. Say it just won’t work?–then present us with something different! Say it doesn’t need fixing? You don’t understand the scope of the problem. Maybe you have great coverage through your employer, and your premiums are reasonable. That’s great. But lose your job and see how much COBRA costs (pre-Stimulus bill). When COBRA runs out, see how much individual coverage costs! Of course, if you have medical problems, forget individual coverage altogether. Few dispute that it’s a problem, but even fewer come up with a solution.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Hi Wendy,
Sorry I didn’t answer sooner, but work took over. Simply put, if the problem or program doesn’t belong to the federal government (as is the case with health care), by definition it belongs to lower levels of government or the private sector. I don’t have the solution. Some things I know are that in general, the private sector and free enterprise tend to handle things much more efficiently than government, especially the federal government. If you take all the money on an individual basis that flows from individuals and their employers in the form of insurance premiums and put it into individual health savings accounts, most folks would find they have more than enough to cover what comes up. For example, your example of a $2,000 emergency room bill would easily be covered by less than four months of the premium that you say you pay ($571). Of course there will be outlier anomalies. As I said, I don’t have the solution, but I do know that the problem doesn’t belong to the federal government, no matter how strongly many folks wish it did.
As the late great Senator Everett Dirksen said, “The mind is no match with the heart in persuasion; constitutionality is no match with compassion.”
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
Sometimes the solution is worse than the disease. With Health Insurance, 57cents of every dollar paid in goes to administration costs, leaving 43 cents to actually go to pay for health care. There is something totally wrong with this picture. I know insurance has driven up the charges for hospital care, Dr care, dental care, etc. because of personal revelations from some of the people involved. If a hospital, for instance, knows you have good health care benefits, they will give you every test known to man. Why –because you need it?? No, because it helps pay for their equipment and for others they treat that can’t pay. Go to a dentist with no insurance and the bill for a procedure is about half what it is if you have insurance. This goes on and on. Is the answer to do away with insurance altogether? Might be a place to start. At any rate, the Employer should not be involved. Health is a personal thing, and a policy should belong to the person, and not have to be rewritten and reapplyed for, and a waiting period for coverage every time someone quits a job.
I personally like the HSA plans. It gives a person an incentive to keep their costs down, because whatever they put in (tax free up to $3000 singles, $5900 families) per year is theirs to keep if they don’t have to spend it for medical related things. These plans have a high deductible, but the tax free dollars they fund the account with takes care of that. If the Government wants to do something for the people, they could fund everyone’s HSA, one time. Sure would be better than spending a trillion dollars on things we don’t even know what, if anything they will do to help the taxpayer.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
To put it in simple terms, universal healthcare is a government run HMO. Take it from someone who lived in Canada and still has her entire family up there. I have already been told to have a room ready in case anyone in my family gets seriously ill and needs serious medical attention.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:05 am
So, from what I’m understanding, most of you would rather have your own good coverage than worry about the vast majority of people in this country who don’t have any at all? Who has studied poverty and the history of the working class in this country? Some people can’t even afford the basics of living, much less healthcare, and it’s arrogant and simplistic to assume it’s because they’re not trying hard enough. Children don’t ask to born and raised in poverty, whether in Appalachia or in a downtown ghetto. They are usually raised without the benefit of learning the social and intellectual skills needed to secure a job with health benefits, yet we judge the adults they become so harshly. If you do think the poor are lazy and therefore don’t deserve decent healthcare, how about all the people who have been recently laid off or lost their homes and can no longer afford insurance premiums? Is it always their fault? I would also add that universal health coverage can be provided through a number of vehicles, so let’s not assume it has to be through a government-administered system. A government mandate with regulations, yes, but there are many creative solutions.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Thank you, Julie! I’m so glad that there are more rational and caring voices out there!
March 24th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Julie:
I believe “vast majority” who have no coverage is an overstatement. If 41MM=/- are uninsured at any one time and we have 304,473,084 as of 3/23/09, that is about 13.4%…a large number to be sure, but not a majority. Again, I suggest we have availability and affordability for all, just not management by the government. What would be good are the elimination of pre-existing condition limitations and making groups available for people to join so the cost is shared. I also believe that since insurance companies and hospitals became “for profit”, the costs have skyrocketed because they are supposed to make money, pay bonuses, etc. In health care, which is a commodity, this may not be the best model. Temporarily, the cost of COBRA is being helped by the subsidy, but that is a short-term fix, at best.
Just a note…my company pays 91% of the cost of health coverage for the employee and the family and 100% of everything else…they complain about a $15 co-pay. We are very fortunate, but sadly get minimal credit for these great benefits.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Many boast that they’ve “studied history”. What history have you studied? Actual history across the many nations over many centuries, or just recent history of the US that has been reworked and rewritten as the progressive liberal movement has moved forward? How about you do some actual research of the many nations that have tried and are still under a universal goverment controlled healthcare system. Do some actual research about how Governments have grown and “progressed” and changed over the centuries. Take a look at full track records of say Europe or Canada. Perhaps maybe then you wouldn’t be so quick to jump to the conclusion that Government should be allowed to take control of your freedoms….one by one until you have none left.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:10 am
How can I be pro for or against when I don’t know how it will be run, What will be covered, who will be covered, who will run it. Naturally it sounds good with health care cost for the private citizen thru the roof, but after (some) politcians finish tearing it apart because they voted against it, what will be left? Please let it work!!
January 25th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
In general yes but I have so may caveats it would not be seen as “univeral”. It is a sorry state of affairs that we have by some estimates 30 million without health care. But some poorly thought out broad sweeping governemnt plan that will cost us all a lot in additional taxes or decreased benefits (Medicare) is a flawed approach. The administration wasn’t bi-partisan in it’s efforts either and that really has ticked off a lot of Americans. We didn’t get in this mess overnight, it took many decades, and we can’t get to what we’d ideally like to see unless it is taken in incremantal steps over many decades. We need to work together and perhaps list 10 top changes needed in our health care system and put one in place each of the next 10 years ahead of us. The one thing I will not ever support is the government running another agency. I’d like to see half of the current agencies dismantled, we’d be alot better off. Bob