Your opinion on USA Free Health Care

[Scotty 757]

I was wanting to ask what everyones opinion or take was on Obamas Free Health Care plan. Here is some info.


Now when I hear about "Free Health Care" or "Universal Health Care" three places come up all the time. Canada, France, and United Kingdom. Here are some statistics of those places and the U.S.A.

France

Population- 62,048,473 as of 2008.

Taxes
Corporate- 33.33%
Individual- 21% (social charges), 0-50% (income tax)
Payroll Tax- 45%
Value Added/Goods and Services/Sales- 19.6%/5.5% on certain goods

Health Care Ranking in World- 1

Canada

Population- 33,311,389 as of 2008.

Taxes
Corporate- 29.5-35.5%
Individual- 0-29% (federal), 0-24% (provincial)
Payroll Tax- 4.95% (CPP)
Value Added/Goods and Services/Sales- 5% (Goods and services), 0-10% (provincial sales taxes or value added taxes)

Health Care Ranking in World- 30

United Kingdom

Population- 61,399,118 as of 2008.

Taxes
Corporate- 21-28%
Individual- 0-40%
Payroll Tax- 23.8% (National Insurance)
Value Added/Goods and Services/Sales- 0%/15%/17.5%

Health Care Ranking in World- 18

United States

Population- 307,006,550 as July 2009.

Taxes
Corporate- 15-39% (federal), 0-12% (state)
Individual- 0-35% (federal), 0-10.3% (state)
Payroll Tax- 15.3%, 2.9% regressive (federal)
Value Added/Goods and Services/Sales- 0-10.25% (state and local)

Health Care Ranking in World- 37

 

[digital_blue]

I think it's a good start; then again, I'm not American so my opinions probably don't count ... In all seriousness though, why is it so controversial? Is it just the cost that people don't like?

 

[chipdouglas]

there is not a free thing about it.

 

[pullbangdead]

What are you talking about? "Obamas Free Health Care plan" is not anything like what the healthcare bill actually is or does.

 

[Tech_Junkie]

I think it's a good start; then again, I'm not American so my opinions probably don't count ... In all seriousness though, why is it so controversial? Is it just the cost that people don't like?

People will argue different points, but in a nut shell, less free money to the higher wealth at the expense of the American public.

Insurance companies own this country. It's about time they were put on a leash. Obama said that they needed to bail AIG out because they are so big, if they fell the whole country would be crippled. Even during the bailout they were giving each other raises. That's ridicules. No single companies should be that powerful, let alone an insurance company. If the plan does nothing else but put the brakes on all the fleecing these companies are doing, I'd be happy.

 

[pseudolobster]

I didn't really read up on it too much, but as I understand it, it's not free healthcare, just mandatory insurance, with some new rules like the insurance companies can't deny you coverage because you're dying etc.

It seems like a huge step in the right direction, but still has a ways to go. It still boggles my mind that in a "first world country" a person could be denied care and allowed to die in the streets; here in Canada we take it for granted that if you ever need medical help you can just walk into a hospital without any money or identification and you'll be treated, no questions asked. I'm completely flabbergasted that there are a lot of people in the US who oppose this. In my eyes it's a basic pillar of civilized society, like police and fire services, like roads, libraries, and the postal service.

 

[JLSE]

All politics aside, if a new health care system means that less people will die as a result of lack of coverage or being told to go to another hospital, it can only be good.

In Canada they were talking about privatizing some services and people have also sought services in the USA..

As the population increases, the quality of service fades as well, it will be interesting to see how this works in the US with such a high population at the start of things.

Health care in Toronto is not what it was 20 years ago, even finding a doctor here usually results in a trip to a 'walk in clinic'. You end up being treated like a #.

I havent had a family doctor in 10 years since mine retired.

 

[Tech_Junkie]

Its not meant to completely take over the system, just to give people another option, and for those with no option.

All the arguments are totally political, because people will lose money. Being a capitalist country, this is a no, no. It does not matter that they have billions in the bank, it just takes away some of their rights to make more. So they all are crying about it, and using whatever propaganda to turn people.

I've been on the government's heath plan (Medicare) for 7 years now, and my mom for 20+. We have everything, and want for nothing in the way of health care. I see one of the top 10 neurologist in the country, and my mom was taken care of by some of the best surgeons in the country also. If this is bad, then I say you know nothing about government run heath care.

 

[pullbangdead]

I didn't really read up on it too much, but as I understand it, it's not free healthcare, just mandatory insurance, with some new rules like the insurance companies can't deny you coverage because you're dying etc.

It seems like a huge step in the right direction, but still has a ways to go. It still boggles my mind that in a "first world country" a person could be denied care and allowed to die in the streets; here in Canada we take it for granted that if you ever need medical help you can just walk into a hospital without any money or identification and you'll be treated, no questions asked. I'm completely flabbergasted that there are a lot of people in the US who oppose this. In my eyes it's a basic pillar of civilized society, like police and fire services, like roads, libraries, and the postal service.

Those are but 2 of the basics in the bill, and it's a VERY LARGE bill.

Seriously, the law (actually 2 laws, one already signed and the other being signed tomorrow) is over 2000 pages, it's got WAY more in it that mandatory insurance and pre-existing condition coverage.

As such, it's an amazingly complex issue to even begin to discuss the whole thing. But we'll give it a go, I guess.

First, one of the major problems with this for most people is the mandatory health insurance coverage. Freedom to choose is one of the most basic tenants of the United States, and always has been. Requiring, by law, citizens to purchase a good or service as a requirement of being alive goes against so many of the ideas that the country is founded upon. It's my life, it's my money, it's my choice whether or not I want to buy a pencil or a car or health insurance. The reason this provision is there is because they want to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. This is idiotic! It's not "insurance" if you have a pre-existing condition, it's a payment plan! No one understands what insurance actually is, and required coverage of pre-existing conditions goes against the very idea of selling or buying insurance. But by requiring people to have health insurance is the only way to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy insurance, or else no one would buy insurance until they got sick. It's a very logical action that is taken in order to prevent adverse selection, and makes perfect sense. BUT, it goes against basic freedom of choice, and as such is incompatible with the beliefs of a majority of Americans.

Another major problem: the cost. There are all kinds of smoke and mirrors built into the 2000+ pages of legalese in order to hide the cost, but the bill WILL cost money. In a country already in a record amount of debt, already running record deficits on top of our record debt, we're adding one of the largest financial burdens to our budget in recorded history.

Another major problem: this bill, this single action undertaken with no bipartisan support by only one party with majority disapproval of the population of the US, reforms 1/6 of the entire US economy. Let's compare: The US GDP is ~$14.4trillion, of which this bill will reform a full 1/6 of that, or ~$2.4trillion. For comparison, the GDP of the entire country of Canada is less than $1.5trillion. This single bill is reforming an industry larger than the entire domestic production of the entire country of Canada, and it is doing so while a majority of Americans and the entirety of the other political party don't want it. You don't see a problem with this idea?

Finally, the bill does nothign to actually control HEALTHCARE costs. It covers all manner of insurance reforms and changes how millions of people will pay for their healthcare, but there's nothing in there to actually change healthcare costs.

-------------------------------------------

Basically, US healthcare has long been stuck in a weird middle ground between capitalist and that other dirty word, socialist. In that middle ground, it gets many of the worst aspects of both without some of the better aspects of either. So what to do? Based on the tenants upon which America has always operated, many people say the solutions are to move towards capitalism. Remove anti-trust exemptions, allow insurance sales across state lines, remove certificates of need, etc. etc. However, this bill goes the OTHER direction, moving out of the middle ground into another area of middle ground, but one that is clearly more towards the left.

There are some great ideas in the bill, but I personally believe it's just moving us around withing this weird middle ground we're in, and is moving us in the wrong direction.

Not to mention that terrible thing politicians do where they tack completely unrelated bills onto other bills. In this case, the federal government is making a massive change in how student loans for college are administered, which has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare reform, but was part of the bill anyway. I actually like the change in this case, it's a good one. But it should be in its own bill, not attached to insurance reform.

 

[pullbangdead]

Its not meant to completely take over the system, just to give people another option, and for those with no option.

All the arguments are totally political, because people will lose money. Being a capitalist country, this is a no, no. It does not matter that they have billions in the bank, it just takes away some of their rights to make more. So they all are crying about it, and using whatever propaganda to turn people.

I've been on the government's heath plan (Medicare) for 7 years now, and my mom for 20+. We have everything, and want for nothing in the way of health care. I see one of the top 10 neurologist in the country, and my mom was taken care of by some of the best surgeons in the country also. If this is bad, then I say you know nothing about government run heath care.

There is a very large bloch of opinion out there who believe that this bill, as passed, will hurt those covered by Medicare and lower their standard of coverage.

 

[ElektroFreak]

All I have to say is this:

If most of the rest of the civilized world has made public health coverage work (and work well in most cases) is it really the end of the world for the USA? No way.. We're the USA. If anyone can make it work, it's us. I, for one, am sick and tired of watching the quality of life improve for other countries while we can't get our two main political parties to stop arguing long enough to make a plan everyone can live with, much less get anything accomplished other than a lot of whining. I didn't vote for people based on the strength of their whining skills..

 

[Asherz]

We're the USA. If anyone can make it work, it's us.

that made me chuckle, why would the USA be able to make it work over any other country?

Personally I think free health care is a good thing, but I'm from the UK so it's not my place to say anything

 

[ElektroFreak]

that made me chuckle, why would the USA be able to make it work over any other country?

It's what we do! We make it work or bomb the shit out of it... that should be our motto.

but that statement doesn't imply we would be able to do it better than elsewhere.. it only implies that there's no reason we can't make it work.

 

[Asherz]

It's what we do! We make it work or bomb the shit out of it...

lol I haven't laughed that much in a while... In the UK you get arrested for french bangers let alone blowing anything up.

 

[Tech_Junkie]

First, one of the major problems with this for most people is the mandatory health insurance coverage. Freedom to choose is one of the most basic tenants of the United States, and always has been. Requiring, by law, citizens to purchase a good or service as a requirement of being alive goes against so many of the ideas that the country is founded upon.

Massachusetts and other states are already doing this, and there have been minimum problems. So it does work. It works on a sliding scale. If you have no/low income its free, if you work its adjusted to your income. You also have the right to go to choose your own insurance company. No matter what, you should have health insurance. Everyone should. If you you, or someone in your family gets hurt, sick, injured, you could lose everything. I got hurt in New Hampshire, and I had to liquidate everything I had before they accepted me. I lost my house, car, camper, toys, and savings. On top of that I had to drum up 10k in medical bills before they even looked at me. And then I got denied!!! I had to get a lawyer, and after 6 months, the day before my appeal, they accepted me. This can happen to anyone.

 

[pullbangdead]

Massachusetts and other states are already doing this, and there have been minimum problems. So it does work. It works on a sliding scale. If you have no/low income its free, if you work its adjusted to your income. You also have the right to go to choose your own insurance company. No matter what, you should have health insurance. Everyone should. If you you, or someone in your family gets hurt, sick, injured, you could lose everything. I got hurt in New Hampshire, and I had to liquidate everything I had before they accepted me. I lost my house, car, camper, toys, and savings. On top of that I had to drum up 10k in medical bills before they even looked at me. And then I got denied!!! I had to get a lawyer, and after 6 months, the day before my appeal, they accepted me. This can happen to anyone.

Of course it's stupid not to have medical insurance. I have excellent coverage at very low rates. It's idiotic not to have coverage.

But what coverage should be required? Why does the government get to choose what health insurance is right for ME? As a young person in good health, I don't need prescription coverage, I don't need regular office visits covered, I don't need routine care of any sort. I keep track of my spending, and I therefore know that a high-deductible catastrophic-only insurance plan with an attached HSA is perfect for me. But according to the government, is that good enough? Will I be allowed to get the insurance that I want to get? This law changes how all HSAs are handled, and if they decide that the catastrophic plan that is right for me isn't good enough, then I have to spend more money than I want to.

Let's take an example. While I was between undergrad and grad school, I had already come off my parent's insurance, and my insurance provided free to me as a grad student hadn't started yet. It would be stupid to leave myself uncovered, because what if I got hit by a bus or fell down some stairs? So I got coverage, but what should I get? Being a perfectly healthy 21 year old, no health problems, a high-deductible catastrophic plan was great for me. $5000 deductible, and it was EXTREMELY cheap. I could've paid $100+ dollars per month for good insurance that would've saved me $100 every time I went to the doctor. But I was a healthy 21 year old, I've never been hospitalized, and I've been to the doctor <10 times in the past 5 years. It would make ZERO sense for me to pay for insurance that covered normal office visits. If I needed to go to a clinic, I could pay $100 for an office visit, as i did once during that summer with my high-deductible plan. And if I got hit by a bus and needed a million dollars in medical care, I only would've had to pay the first $5000 before the insurance covered the rest.

But is this approach legal under the bill that was passed? No, absolutely not legal. The bill will increase my insurance premiums, because the insurance I will be required by law to buy will be required to cover check-ups and preventative care at zero cost. I don't need that, it's irresponsible for me to pay for that, yet I will be legally required to buy it.

This law will cost me more money that I don't want to spend, it's as simple as that.