Do you support universal healthcare?

I have employer-subsidized insurance....they pay 3/4, I pay 1/4.   Never use it.  Except for heartburn issues, I've never really needed anything. 

I've paid into everything all my life, like everyone else, and am pretty sure by the time I get old and need something, they'll figure out a way to say I have to pay myself.  Just cynical I guess. 

I don't particularly like or trust government, but I don't trust corporations either.  Pre-ex conditions, loss of portability, convenient denials in the fine print, waste.

I hate to be negative about this, but I've no reason to believe they're going to get this right, and they seem hell bent on ideologies than sitting down together and figuring out the best case for the people. 

I'm with Robert/Epignosis.  I'll have a beer and admit I'm not smart enough to know all the dynamics--all I know is that both sides in Washington seem full of sh*t to me.  If they were sincere they would work together and take time to hammer out a centrist agenda that covers catastrophic issues while maintaining some fiscal sanity.  That means no one loses their house because they get cancer, but if they want plastic surgery or fertility treatments, buy private insurance. 

rushfan4 wrote: Raff wrote: rushfan4 wrote: I think that the greatest fear with Universal Healthcare is that the government historically seems to screw up everything that they touch in some way, shape or form.  Whether it is billions of dollars paid for a war.  Seriously underpaid teachers, police officers, firemen, etc... but on the other hand a messed up education system and a questionable criminal system (depending on various points of view).  Social security and Medicare are both kind of teetering on the brink of failure.  And everybody has heard the stories of the government paying $1000 for each nut, screw and bolt that they purchased for various building projects or paying millions for research to determine which is the proper way to place toilet paper on a roll.  Is it more efficient to take it from the top or the bottom?    I agree 100% that the system needs to be improved, but the big question is do we really think that we can trust our government to do it right and actually improve it?  The even bigger question is: do you really think you can trust anyone else to do a good job - especially people who are in it solely for financial profit? Are we really so sure that the gov't is always the bad guy, and anything private is always good and wonderful? I can tell you that, at least in Italy, it is not so. I was badly ripped off by a private university, while my experience at a state university (even in retrospect) was much more positive. And what about the banks or companies that went so spectacularly belly-up? They were not part of the government, if my memory serves me right. I am not so sure that the gov't is the only entity guilty of wasting resources, manpower, and what not. No doubt.  For years there have been numerous stories of people who needed various treatments to try and fight their diseases, but being denied coverage because the insurance company bureaucrats felt that it was more important that they turn a profit so the company can pay out bonuses, then it was for the sick person to get potential treatment for their diseases.  And no doubt there are stupid and corrupt people in the private industry as well as in the government.    I have no experience with Universal Healthcare.  All I can relate to is the stories that I have heard over many years regarding Canada's health care system.  Stories of waiting weeks or months to see a doctor.  Stories of doctors working as telephone salesman because they can earn more money doing that instead of working as a doctor; etc...  I don't know how much is truth and how much is legend, but I have certainly heard these stories my whole life.

Wow! I wonder how M@X or any of the other Canadians here have managed to stay alive this long, then!


Edited by p0mt3 - September 03 2009 at 20:28

Finnforest wrote: I hate to be negative about this, but I've no reason to believe they're going to get this right, and they seem hell bent on ideologies than sitting down together and figuring out the best case for the people.

Best statement I've read in this thread.

Seriously.

p0mt3 wrote: Padraic wrote: micky wrote: off on a tangent.... but I am the curious sort.... I might be ignored...  but I would be at the risk of an interesting tangent... I am curious just how much personal experience do you all have...that seem to have such a high degree of interest.. and presumably knowledge on the subject quick show of hands..err... posts..... how many here have insurance under our current system... if you don't.. why.... how many have had to use it. ... for what.... and were you.. as a CUSTOMER.. satisfied. I'll start.... I ...as one who had employer provided insurance.. wasn't satisfied when my ex-wife got a infection that went septic... and she was in ICU for a week after she nearly died (after being misdiagnosed I might add).   At the end .. we were presented a bill for THOUSANDS of dollars.... insurance only covered 90% of the total....that was in the fine print.. not that we had much of a choice.. since insurance from other providers for a family of 5 would have meant I was working to pay for insurance... timidly raises hand.... I guess I'll probably be in the minority here, but I am highly satisfied with my insurance.  They cover everything and my co-pays are pretty low.  And hell yes I have had to use it - labor and delivery services for my two kids weren't cheap, and my eldest son spent a week in a hospital when he was six months old....that was a bill I would have had a tough time paying (would have wiped me out, really).  That's why I'm for at the very, very bare minimum some sort of universal catastrophic coverage - no one should have to be bankrupted or wiped out because they or their children got seriously ill.  . . . Just a little asterisk, here . . . labor and delivery services are free* in England.

*It's just like those advertisements where they say it's free but there are tons of hidden fees... in this case, taxes.

Finnforest wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Finnforest wrote:   QFT Jim and I agree on politics. Awesome. Hey Alex!!!  Drinks on me!!!

I've never had liquor before, but I'll take some drink at least.

high five

p0mt3 wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Padraic wrote: micky wrote: off on a tangent.... but I am the curious sort.... I might be ignored...  but I would be at the risk of an interesting tangent... I am curious just how much personal experience do you all have...that seem to have such a high degree of interest.. and presumably knowledge on the subject quick show of hands..err... posts..... how many here have insurance under our current system... if you don't.. why.... how many have had to use it. ... for what.... and were you.. as a CUSTOMER.. satisfied. I'll start.... I ...as one who had employer provided insurance.. wasn't satisfied when my ex-wife got a infection that went septic... and she was in ICU for a week after she nearly died (after being misdiagnosed I might add).   At the end .. we were presented a bill for THOUSANDS of dollars.... insurance only covered 90% of the total....that was in the fine print.. not that we had much of a choice.. since insurance from other providers for a family of 5 would have meant I was working to pay for insurance... timidly raises hand.... I guess I'll probably be in the minority here, but I am highly satisfied with my insurance.  They cover everything and my co-pays are pretty low.  And hell yes I have had to use it - labor and delivery services for my two kids weren't cheap, and my eldest son spent a week in a hospital when he was six months old....that was a bill I would have had a tough time paying (would have wiped me out, really).  That's why I'm for at the very, very bare minimum some sort of universal catastrophic coverage - no one should have to be bankrupted or wiped out because they or their children got seriously ill.  . . . Just a little asterisk, here . . . labor and delivery services are free* in England. *It's just like those advertisements where they say it's free but there are tons of hidden fees... in this case, taxes.

Then why did you say free?

Alex: Yeah, sorry, I sometimes forget some of you guys are younger than I think you are!  We'll make it soft drinks then!!     Nuthin' wrong with that!

MovingPictures07 wrote: *It's just like those advertisements where they say it's free but there are tons of hidden fees... in this case, taxes.

There is no such thing as free healthcare.  It has to be paid for.  Let's just leave things as they are.  Ever escalating insurance fees.  Lots of people uncovered.  CEOs of health insurance companies basically stealing money out of my paycheck.  Sounds like a plan.


Edited by Slartibartfast - September 03 2009 at 21:04

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 03 2009 at 21:14

Re: socialized medicine and "rights"

It makes no sense to me to see people defend such a thing as socialized medicine as an inherent "right." No one ever likes to discuss the philosophy behind things. Does it make sense that someone has the right to a portion of what someone else earns to pay for ailments, no matter where they com from?. Simply, health care is not an inherent right, in my mind, let alone universal health care. It may be a good platform for a society, but people get bogged down with loaded language.