Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Health Care Proposal

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 11:23:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm looking for some feedback of THIS proposal - not a discussion about whether or not universal care is right or wrong to begin with. Also, please be nice in your criticism... I'm exhausted and so if there are flaws in my rationale, please don't crucify me :)

Suppose that everyone was granted universal health care, and as such, an estimated cost per person per year was $2,000 on average (the actual figure here is really irrelevant). Under this plan, everyone was covered equally and almost all aspects of health care were included in the price. Now, obviously some people would require a lot more than 2K worth of expenses per year, however, some people would also cost less. Remember, this would just be an average cost applied to each individual via taxes regardless of income. Now to someone who made 50K a year, they might determine that this isn't a bad deal at all and in fact choose to keep this plan. To someone who makes 12K a year, they might feel that 2K was way too much to be billed for and as such choose to reject this health care plan offered by the government, and instead seek a cheaper private plan (or no plan at all). Would this be a fair deal? Keep in mind that even someone making 50K a year could choose a smaller, private plan if they so felt inclined. However, Vi and I were talking about health care options the other day, and I was trying to come up with a seemingly fair alternative besides the obvious of just no universal health care. In my offering, it seems as if everyone would be happy. Those who want to rely on the government for everything absolutely get that option... except they have to pay for it at a flat rate (i.e. the rich not having to pay for a program they don't use, and/or at a higher rate than those who make less money). This would truly be universal care in my eyes.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 11:25:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ps. I realize that there are some flaws here... i.e. the consideration of minors, the reality that the actual cost per person would be a lot higher, etc. This is just one theory/proposal that I'm trying to work out in general. In other words, I'm challenging myself to pretend that universal health care has to be mandatory, and figure out the most fair way to implement the system. If that makes sense :)
President of DDO
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 1:12:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The problem with any public health care you can opt out of is that the public system will also have to pay for the uninsured (or there is so point in having a public system in the first place). This makes the public insurance more expensive than private insurances, which means everybody would opt out, which means there is no public insurance.

I think the better option here is minimal public health coverage than can't be opted out of, with additional optional better health care by private insurers. This is the system we have in France, and it seems to work well. It should be noted that it's quite expensive compared to other European countries, but the basic health care in France is shockingly good. If you are a student or unemployed, the state pays *everything*. Every single euro. There is no cost to the patient at all. If you have a job, this is obviously not the case, you need to pay some money to go to the doctor and for medicine etc. Also, pregnancy is seen as a "chronic condition" and you don't need to pay for medications, same as if you had some incurable disease. Very funny.

I think the best system in general, and for the US is such a system, but with the change that even students and unemployed need to pay a couple of bucks when they go to the doctor. Also, in France many big hospitals are state-owned, and it seems to me that they are badly run, so that doesn't seem to be a good idea either.

However, such a system would be tricky to get working in the US, simply because the current system is so different.
So prove me wrong, then.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 2:19:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Irish system is similar enough to France. You can get basic enough healthcare from the states ( I don't know the pre conditions), and private insurers provide extras such as less waiting time.

I think our system need serious reform though.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 6:53:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think that if Obama's so sure that his plan can survive without using taxpayer dollars, he should have started his own non-profit business called Obamacare, with the only money not being used towards the customers being the expenses, such as salaries (which Obama may or may not abuse), expenses, etc.
IF Obama's plan will work without requiring taxpayer dollars, THEN he should have started it independent of government.
IF Obama's plan will require taxpayer dollars, THEN we don't want it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 7:32:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 6:53:17 AM, mongeese wrote:
IF Obama's plan will work without requiring taxpayer dollars, THEN he should have started it independent of government.
IF Obama's plan will require taxpayer dollars, THEN we don't want it.

Then that is called "private insurance," not a "public option." What you're suggesting pretty much negates the entire idea, so it doesn't make any sense.

Anyways, I like the sounds of what regebro was saying about France's healthcare, because it allows free coverage to those that need it (the poor and unemployed), while giving somewhat of a choice to those that can afford it. That is probably simplifying it too much, but that is the basic idea of what I think it is.

Mind you, I'm not entirely sure I like it, as well. I like Canada's healthcare system because it offers coverage regardless of income, condition, or whatever. There isn't discrimination (except that when you have a more serious condition, you get faster service, for a very obvious reason), and that seems better to me. The costs are tremendous, but we've managed them well for over 40 years now, so the arguments that "oh, UHC will bankrupt us, the costs will be too much," seem so very silly to me.

That being said, Lwerd's idea of allowing individuals the choice is important, and that I agree with, even with my own system. Not that they can opt out of the public healthcare system, because I doubt they will; in this case, I believe private medical companies are important to provide services for those that are willing to pay because they want to bypass what are some long wait times in public care. Those companies not only provide care to them, but also allow wait times to be cut down because less people will be using it.

I mean, really; people are always complaining about long wait times for specialty services, so why not give them the option they want? They'll use it. If the opportunity is there, and they don't use it, then they can't really complain, now can they.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 7:50:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 7:32:32 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/4/2009 6:53:17 AM, mongeese wrote:
IF Obama's plan will work without requiring taxpayer dollars, THEN he should have started it independent of government.
IF Obama's plan will require taxpayer dollars, THEN we don't want it.

Then that is called "private insurance," not a "public option." What you're suggesting pretty much negates the entire idea, so it doesn't make any sense.

The what is the entire idea of the public option? Isn't it something "anybody can buy, regardless of condition, with no money from taxpayers?"
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 8:08:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 7:50:09 AM, mongoose wrote:
The what is the entire idea of the public option? Isn't it something "anybody can buy, regardless of condition, with no money from taxpayers?"

Nope. It isn't that at all. You should really read up on the difference between a "public option," and "public healthcare."
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 8:17:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 7:32:32 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/4/2009 6:53:17 AM, mongeese wrote:
IF Obama's plan will work without requiring taxpayer dollars, THEN he should have started it independent of government.
IF Obama's plan will require taxpayer dollars, THEN we don't want it.

Then that is called "private insurance," not a "public option." What you're suggesting pretty much negates the entire idea, so it doesn't make any sense.

Nope. The idea of the public option is based on the idea that private insurance somehow is inefficient or are doing something wrong, and that it can be done better. The public option is there to fore the private companies to be more efficient and lower their prices.

I, as mongeese, think there is something there that doesn't quite add up. It's very unclear why the public option should be able to lower prices.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 3:39:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 8:17:54 AM, regebro wrote:
Nope. The idea of the public option is based on the idea that private insurance somehow is inefficient or are doing something wrong, and that it can be done better. The public option is there to fore the private companies to be more efficient and lower their prices.

I, as mongeese, think there is something there that doesn't quite add up. It's very unclear why the public option should be able to lower prices.

No, no. That is not what I meant; what mongeese was describing, a literal private company called "Obamacare," isn't a "public option."

I never said anything pertaining to whether or not it can lower costs.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 7:38:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This fails on so many levels.

First, private care always costs more. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that has no "public option," and as a result, our health care cost more by several orders of magnitude than any other country. Private care would most definitely not be cheaper.

Given that, since $2,000 is beyond the budget for minimum-wage workers, a lot of people will not be able to afford health care, and you will still have a high death toll from people unable to afford regular preventive care.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 8:58:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
First, private care always costs more.

Then why was health care significantly cheaper before the government got involved to the extent it is today?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 9:21:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The government has not gotten involved, in fact under Bush when the Republicans were still in power, they basically banned the government from negotiating for lower prices for drugs or treatments under Medicare, Medicaid, etc., and, voila, prices skyrocketted.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 9:41:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 9:21:48 PM, PervRat wrote:
The government has not gotten involved
Okay then. I guess I don't have to pay the taxes that go into Medicare, Medicaid, public hospitals, etc, the FDA does not exist, the AMA does not have a government-granted monopoly on medical licensing, unlicensed practitioners can now rejoice and walk out of the jails they've been put in and refunded for any fines, insurers will be refunded for all the thing they were forced to put in their contracts, the Federal Register and state equivalents will be getting a significant loss by weight, because all those regulators were only pretending to be from the government.

in fact under Bush when the Republicans were still in power, they basically banned the government from negotiating for lower prices for drugs or treatments under Medicare, Medicaid, etc., and, voila, prices skyrocketted.
You're contradicting yourself, you just admitted the government is involved. Furthermore, requiring purchase already, and adding a requirement of no negotiations (which aren't effective anyway unless you give bureaucrats the option not to purchase), means you are INCREASING government involvement-- you now have a direct drug company subsidy in addition to a direct drug consumer subsidy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 10:31:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 7:38:59 PM, PervRat wrote:
First, private care always costs more.

And is generally better and has generally less waiting.

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that has no "public option," and as a result, our health care cost more by several orders of magnitude than any other country.

There is no connection between that. It's not like health care in other countries get more expensive the less the state pays or anything.

Private care would most definitely not be cheaper.

No but experience tells us it's usually better.

I should note though that you usually in these debates have problems in understanding the meaning of words, and you seem to thing that "private health care" and "public option" is opposites. It' s not that simple. In France primary health care is typically private. But there is public insurance, that pays for it.
So prove me wrong, then.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2009 10:39:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 10:31:17 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/4/2009 7:38:59 PM, PervRat wrote:
First, private care always costs more.

And is generally better and has generally less waiting.

False. Waiting lists are very long on corporate-rationed health care. In fact, 50 million people aren't even allowed to get on the waiting list.

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that has no "public option," and as a result, our health care cost more by several orders of magnitude than any other country.

There is no connection between that. It's not like health care in other countries get more expensive the less the state pays or anything.

There is a whopping big connection. Health care systems that are based on delivering health care instead of profits, bonuses for executives and dividends for stockholders are inherently more efficient because no money is wasted on profit.

Private care would most definitely not be cheaper.

No but experience tells us it's usually better.

What experience? We're #38. Canada is #30. France is #1. Private care is proven to be a failure.

I should note though that you usually in these debates have problems in understanding the meaning of words, and you seem to thing that "private health care" and "public option" is opposites. It' s not that simple. In France primary health care is typically private. But there is public insurance, that pays for it.

I have no problems in understanding the meaning of words, nor do I have any difficulty understanding the difference between health care systems. Unfortunately, you and the majority of users on DDO do.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2009 12:14:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 10:39:22 PM, PervRat wrote:
False. Waiting lists are very long on corporate-rationed health care. In fact, 50 million people aren't even allowed to get on the waiting list.

I haven't got a clue what "corporate rationed health care" is, but I'm talking about privately run vs state-run health care. As that's what we are discussing.

There is no connection between that. It's not like health care in other countries get more expensive the less the state pays or anything.

There is a whopping big connection. Health care systems that are based on delivering health care instead of profits, bonuses for executives and dividends for stockholders are inherently more efficient because no money is wasted on profit.

No, it's actually the exact opposite way around. State owned systems (and this is not only for health care but in general) which doesn't have to make a profit are usually very inefficient, simply because nobody cares about the money.

Small note: This is a well known economic fact, and has been a well known economic fact for over 200 years now. I's not up for debate. If you want to disprove the 200 years of economic theory you are welcome to do so, but do that in a scientific paper published in a credible economic research journal, please.

Private care would most definitely not be cheaper.

No but experience tells us it's usually better.

What experience? We're #38. Canada is #30. France is #1. Private care is proven to be a failure.

Frances health care is to a large extent private. Which I have told you before. Again you completely reject reality and facts. Stop doing that.

I have no problems in understanding the meaning of words, nor do I have any difficulty understanding the difference between health care systems. Unfortunately, you and the majority of users on DDO do.

Again, insane fantasies with no connection to reality. Tell me when you want to know something about health care, and I will teach you.
So prove me wrong, then.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:14:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/4/2009 7:38:59 PM, PervRat wrote:
This fails on so many levels.

First, private care always costs more. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that has no "public option," and as a result, our health care cost more by several orders of magnitude than any other country. Private care would most definitely not be cheaper.

Given that, since $2,000 is beyond the budget for minimum-wage workers, a lot of people will not be able to afford health care, and you will still have a high death toll from people unable to afford regular preventive care.

Well, thank you for being the only person to actually respond to my original question. Anyway, private care would not necessarily be more expensive. Like I said, the public option (in my fictional proposed plan) would have to cover various things including - but not limited to - preventive care, mammograms, etc. Surely a private plan could eliminate some of these things, giving people the option of choosing a cheaper plan. So, what other criticisms have you seen with my proposal? You mentioned that minimum wage workers wouldn't be able to afford the 2k a year plan. Well, like I said, they'd have the option of choosing a private plan that's less expensive.
President of DDO