Seriously, why do you fear Universal Healthcare as a solution for US?

Families gather around the kitchen table and discuss what insurance coverage to buy.

No families discuss what police protection to buy.

This is not an apples and oranges comparison. It's apples and Toyotas.

 

No families gather around the table in the UK and discuss what insurance to buy. You just are so used to police being socialized you don't know any different

 

They don't go to doctors. They're healthy. I didn't go to a doctor until I was 42.

 

I don't like having to buy auto liability coverage, but if I want to drive I have to get it. I sure as hell don't have $25,000 sitting in a fund. And I am an adult, so I know buying the minimum state liability coverage is foolish.

Health insurance is not an option. You WILL need it, you just don't know when.

 

And how old are you now?

 

54

 

So we're the same age. When I was 42, my appendix burst. Spent over 3 weeks in the hospital. Hospital bill came to over $90k.

 

They don't go to doctors? That is hilarious

 

... not changed, but totally misunderstood.

And, that is worse, as it leaves people hoping for something from capitalism that capitalism will never supply.

 

"Universal healthcare" need not mean single-payer, socialist, government-run healthcare. That is a common misconception among both liberals and conservatives. Many European countries, for example, have universal healthcare systems that are not single-payer, but rather multi-payer, public-private hybrid systems. The problem, IMO, in America is that when it comes to universal healthcare, the Democrats have a fetish for single-payer, apparently oblivious or unwilling to see it's numerous problems. They think the solution is to just provide Medicare for everyone, when Medicare's costs as it is are unsustainable.

 

ERs see a LOT of folks who are younger than 42.

I help pay for them, BECAUSE they don't want to pay for themselves - or they can't pay for themselves.

I pay for FEWER of them with the ACA, because a greater percent of the population pays their own way.

 

Health care has been the number one cause of bankruptcy. And, the rate of care for citizens has been uneconomically low.

We're losing productivity due to people not getting well.

We can see how well we do by comparing to other countries - all of which pay less per capita on health care while serving ALL citizens.

Calling that a success isn't justified.

 

Other countries cover all citizens, but that doesn't mean they all get served. Part of the problem with the American system is lack of competition, as health insurance companies cannot compete across state lines, so the system consists of mini-monopolies through the nation.

 

No, there are states that allow selling health care across state lines. Insurance companies have not show any significant interest in that. So, this "state lines" argument is bogus as far as I can tell. Feel free to cite something, though.

My guess is that insurance companies can't compete with each other without setting up networks of providers who are held to contracts on pricing of their services. Also, insurance companies are businesses, and thus have legal action against them as well as needing to take legal action. Doing all that from out of state while maintaining good customer relations and sales is probably not all that easy.

In my state (and I think most others) providers are members of all the major insurance networks and there are several insurance companies.

I don't see a monopoly situation within or between states. I know there are cases where there are not many companies selling policies on the exchanges, but that's only a piece of the ACA. But, I don't believe that a monopoly situation is what has caused companies to leave the exchange marketplace.

And, it is a problem that is within the power of our government to fix - something congress should be working on!!

 

I know there are nations where there is a basic plan that is single payer and then for-profit insurance is sold to cover additional features - sort of like Medicare in the US, where Medicare coverage by itself is pretty meager, but one can buy policies that mesh with Medicare.

Are you thinking of that, or something else?

Thanks -

 

Provide links of the countries you are referring to.

 

You pay for other people when you pay for auto insurance or life insurance or any other insurance. That's what insurance is. Why is health insurance different for you?

As you know, our cost per capita for healthcare is about twice what any other country pays, and our outcomes are mostly inferior. Why would you oppose just doing what,.... say,..... Canada does (but to fit U.S. needs) and then add about 1/3 more to make sure we have the best we can have? It would still be about 1/3 less cost than we now have.

 

Right now, there are limitations on selling healthcare across state lines. By removing those limitations, we would have a national market, same as with other forms of insurance.

If you look at the German system, the French system, the Netherlands system, and the Swiss system, they do not use that. For example, the German system uses a system of multiple non-profit health insurance providers that compete with one another. People rate them on their quality and can choose from which one they want. In The Netherlands, their system consists of multiple private-sector health insurance providers with an additional governmental component that makes it where the companies have an incentive to provide care for people who need it. Again though they compete with one another and people can choose from which they want.

I forget the exact details of the French and Swiss systems, but neither of them are single-payer either.

 

Canada and England are two major examples due to their single-payer systems. Norway had to partially privatize its system because waiting times became so bad.

 

Why would we copy Canada when their system is notorious for problems with waiting times, to the point that essentially a black market private-sector system was set up to circumvent it?

 

And they historically have argued that liberals want to live off other people's tax dollars, yet on the right, as a group, want their health coverage but don't want to pay anything toward helping others. Pretty hypocritical I think.

 

This has been debunked so many times I am tired of it.

If Canada's system is so bad, then why when they arranged with several providers in the States to handle overflow to cut down waiting times, hardly anyone signed up! The links are already in this thread somewhere. Look for it!

 

That is a very oversimplified understanding of the conservative position on healthcare.

 

Those stories are lies to scare us. I know and have known a number of Canadians and their families, and every one of them has told me there are no such waiting lines. But because of the prevalence of such stories, I tried to pre-empt objections of that kind by suggesting we pay 1/3 more to prevent such things. I guess you missed it.

 

Why is it that Canada decided to outlaw private care in their own country? Why is it that black market private care formed in the first place if there was no demand for it?