Because the amount of available health care would increase just the number of people availing themselves of it. Thus my share of the health care pie would be reduced or at least take longer to get. Also wouldn't I wind up somehow paying for the people who can't afford it now through higher taxes? I know the doctors aren't going to volunteer anything. um....dude...universal health care would ELIMINATE the need for health insurance.... You already pay for the people who can't afford insurance themselves. What would be the drastic change is there would be waiting lists for surgery. If you needed lets say cataract surgery it is not an emergency so you would be placed further down on the list. health care is pretty pro in Canada here, i get in rather quickly and get a good job done. yes its harder to find a family doctor but once you do your set. Ive had stellar service done on my hip back and arm in Montreal Canada. i also had a brain injury so i went there. i was shipped to new Brunswick and dealt with the president of CANN.(Canada association nuro nurses) they were great explained everything to me then i went from a plane from the saint john regional hospital to some hospital in Montreal near Mgill university i believe. memory is a little hazy.
yes the taxes in Canada are higher but if i break my arm i dont have to worry about paying 4000$ to get it fixed
(i heard the 4000$ guess from t.v please tell me if this is true around the l.a area message me if I'm wrong) You've got some good points here and the GOOD NEWS is that we do NOT need UHC to have an affordable, accessible system, which is all a reasonable man could want.
Given that UHC is ALWAYS rationed and bankrupt, whether abroad or in the semi-UHC programs of Medicare and Medicaid in the US, we can discount that foolish path (which most UHC countries are TURNING AWAY FROM).
The free market works:
We do NOT have a free market right now--the federal and state government鈥檚 horrendous attempts at managing care AND the stranglehold a few large insurers have on insurance are THE cause of the problems we have. When doctors say NO to the domination of third-party payers, things get better.
Read:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbe...
A doctor owned and run hospital that sees everyone gets care, no matter what happens to the bottom line.
http://www.simplecare.com/ a doctor-driven group where reasonable rates are charged.
Note you can go to a walk-in clinic at Wal-Mart or CVS or the like in many cities and get many of the most typical reasons for seeing a doc addressed for under $100.
The price of LASIK has DROPPED dramatically over a decade. Plastic surgery is CHEAP. Compare a major procedure like a tummy tuck with the bill an uninsured patient will get for a medically necessary appendectomy WITHOUT complications.
So, how to come up with a plan that actually WORKS?
To summarize the sensible plan again, which should be reviewed here (and it is the PDF, NOT the blurb): http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
It offers ALL Americans a catastrophic health care package for an AFFORDABLE price.
Key points:
ALL Americans are eligible (and yes, there would be the traditional breakdowns into categories by age, sex, medical condition so that accurate premiums could be offered).
It is a CHOICE, not mandated with scare tactics and punishment鈥攔ight now the UNINSURABLE are screwed again with things like 鈥淢ust have insurance or we鈥檒l fine you.鈥?How about making a legit plan available to all before dumping on the victim again?
Catastrophic health care package is ALL that ANYONE NEEDS. The actual purpose of insurance is to share risk so you avoid bankruptcy. This is NOT done at all these days. First, over half of all bankruptcies are for medical bills and most of those folks were insured. Thus the current system clearly does NOT work. Second, this stupid 鈥渋f you鈥檝e got a nice policy and a sniffle, stop by the doc鈥檚 and others will pay for it鈥?runs up medical costs for NO good reason at all. Resources are wasted every day. IF people had to pay for their tendency towards hypochondria or refusal to follow basic sensible provisions, they鈥檇 be more likely to change their behavior.
AFFORDABLE is key. Insurance is NOT now affordable and the UHC story helps shed light on why that is. This plan would use a sliding-scale for the premium AND the co-pays so that those who really are not making much money (be they students or folks just starting out in the work force or the retired or disabled) would not pay more than they can afford. There would be a REAL limit on out-of-pocket NECESSARY medical expenditures as well.
Other key plan points:
There would be one physical with follow-up visit per year as well as one ER visit IF NEEDED (how to prevent ER abuse is covered) for reasonable co-pays.
The point here:
Prevention is ALWAYS cheaper than waiting for a problem to develop. It is also the moral approach to medical care. By getting folks in annually we鈥檇 be able to save a lot of lives and improve peoples鈥?productivity. We could also review meds (or if they鈥檙e needed), keep people immunized appropriately, answer questions about nutrition and more, and have a baseline of info should the person be in an accident or fall ill. Again, with a reasonable co-pay, there is now NO good reason for folks not to see the doctor. The follow-up makes sense for anyone who HAS a medical issue. If someone came through with flying colors, he would not even need to use that follow-up. Not everyone needs the ER, but it would be sensible IF needed to not leave people SOL. This logical plan would address ALL the legitimate needs of probably 80% of the population.
Another key plan point:
Necessary medications are covered as well as NO caps on necessary medical treatments.
Right now, we have BS like the 鈥渄onut hole鈥?of Medicare. This would be eliminated as would all fertility treatments, ED med coverage, and anything else which is not NECESSARY. This does not prevent people from receiving treatment for such things鈥攍et them find an insurance plan (this plan doesn鈥檛 stop others from being offered) or pay for it themselves, but there is no justification to make the taxpayer help someone have kids or sex. There is a reasonable reason for people on insurance to help those with cancer, strokes, heart disease, diabetes, etc. as this is far beyond a quality of life issue and goes to the heart of life and death. This is the same rationale for ending caps on legitimate procedures, like bone marrow transplants, which are quite expensive. Too often now a plan lies and claims something is covered, but by shunting off $25-250K on the patient to pay, that鈥檚 NOT a covered item in a rational person鈥檚 book.
Funding IS addressed--check out the PDF and see it also resolves another abuse of the taxpayer. NOt sure it would be BAD...but I have health care an HMO, and for the first time this year am now having to pay a portion from my salary for it - its been free to me, my employer paid the entire amount and the HMO - until now. The pro and con about UHC is do we really need this? thats really the question, that the americans need to research further.....What would the problems be with this? One person stated that yes they have it in Canada - and they were taken care of well, but yes there are waiting lists or transfers - and WHO makes the decision as to WHAT type of ailment/illness gets taken care of first?
in the USA we already and have had for some time, FREEE CLINICS - no insurance was ever necessary, i have a good friend - can afford insurance but prefers the Free Clinic - has always gone there thru 3 children as well - so why the UHC? |
