Should the US have universal healthcare?

Sick of it wrote:

<quoted text>
Medicine should not be a business that is the whole problem.

Judged:

2

1

1

Sick of it wrote:

<quoted text>
Medicine should not be a business that is the whole problem.

Judged:

1

1

Paparounis wrote:

<quoted text>
..........
From this perspective, do you believe UHC is viable and affordable for the U.S.?

Judged:

1

Nat_ wrote:

<quoted text>
I've said before that UHC as in Canada wasn't viable for the US. At one time in the 60's when our plan was started it would have been viable for you also, but we've taken very different paths. Now your cost structure is so different than ours in that it is profit based and it's hard to remove those profits, as would be required in a UHC.

Judged:

2

1

1

Kahuna wrote:

<quoted text> Well Kumbaya! Then no profit for energy, food and housing next? Why would someone spend 12 to 15 years after high school (to make what a fire fighter makes after the same number of years invested, or what an air traffic controller makes) go into debt $100,000+, have no pension, COLA guarantee that provides more retirement income than most physician can amass by themselves, personal financial risk from torts, etc. if not for future financial gain? Those that choose medicine are among the most dedicated and brightest students and deserve high pay or watch them go into other endeavors and see the quality of medicine dumbed down to what you get in the government schools or from the DMV.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Doctors need to be rewarded Insurance companies should not be allowed to spend 37-57 cents of each premium dollar on healthcare. Doctors are as sick as the consumers of all of this. Get the point.

Judged:

1

1

1

Indy wrote:

<quoted text>
Well said but add in the different modes of insurance regulation employed by Canada and the U.S. Canadian provinces share the jurisdiction and responsibility with the Ministry of Finance. In the U.S., regulation of insurance is entirely an individual state's function and right.

Judged:

1

1

Alex wrote:

Well it is possible if you want 50% of your income to go to the government and don't expect it to be a very good universal healthcare system.

Judged:

3

2

2

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Well from the two stories I have read here about what people are suffering, I would say California is not doing a good job in Regulating. Would you? Or would you just choose to ignore everything that does not suit your point of view?

Judged:

4

4

4

Kahuna wrote:

<quoted text>WTF are you talking about?

Judged:

3

2

2

SharonC wrote:

<quoted text>
The German's have a payroll tax of 7% which is matched by the employer. I don't know where you got 50%. There well maybe 50% in taxes but only 7% is for healthcare.

Judged:

3

2

2

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Our society allows the insurance
companies to severely limit or deny
coverage for basic and preventative
treatments or procedures.
But the more exotic, expensive
treatments that often occur near the end
of life are held sacred, and insurance
companies have little power to limit or
deny coverage. This is fine if the society is willing orable to provide the required funding, but
our society can no longer afford it.
"By paying for the more costly items
first, by the time we get to the funding
limit, we have only saved 65% of the
possible life-days"
Such a priority distribution is totally
unconscionable. It is morally and
ethically repugnant, but that is how our
system works today.
…average life expectancy could increase
by something like 8 quality life years by
correcting this single problem.
Aetna 0.68
Well Point 0.74
American Medical Security 0.74
Humana 0.81
Mid Atlantic Medical 0.84
Cigna 0.38 – 0.57
Oxford 0.77
Pacificare 0.81
United Health Care 0.73
BC Network of Michigan 0.84
BCBS of Vermont 0.85
BCBS North Dakota 0.90
BCBS North Carolina 0.72
AFLAC 0.68
BCBS MA 0.83
BCBS Montana 0.85
BCBS of Idaho 0.90
Even ignoring Cigna,
the range of pay out ratios that we’ve
found ... is 90% to 68%...
The wastage is something like ...
$115 billion.
This is what you get spent on Healthcare by the Insurance Industry, due to a recent study
Go to the site buy the book, get educated on this topic properly please.

Judged:

4

3

2

Sick of it wrote:

<quoted text>
Medicine should not be a business that is the whole problem.

Judged:

2

2

2

Karl wrote:

The question states:
"Should the US have universal healthcare?"
It is not a question about universal health care provided by our pooling of money together in the form of taxes to make it cheaper overall than currently.
Nor does it ask if everyone should have health insurance. It totally bypasses the question of insurance. As well has HOW to get health care for all.
Maybe we, in our democracy (or democratic republic if you will) should decide (of the people) not to provide health care (by the people) for all (for the people).
ok.
Then can we at LEAST pass a law making it illegal for insurance companies to be FOR profit?
Making a fast (big) buck off of people being sick. Genius. Preventive medicine and working one on one to develop healthy diets gets thrown out the window from the get go.
Perhaps we can pass the law that says only NOT FOR PROFIT insurance companies can exist. Insurance companies operating for stock holders would be illegal.
Sounds good to me.
or maybe we should just stick with the ole
More sick people equals more profits for me.
And it's not even that. When the for profit insurance industry doesn't even fix people up that have insurance. Horror stories in every town in America (sorry, the US. sorry to be factual here).
This way...
without for profits,
with only not-for-profits,
the government, our supposedly institutionalized "of, by, and for the people" would not be involved with it.
"We" already pay enough money to provide health care to everybody. Increased costs if a gov't buracracy took over vs an insurance corporation buracracy would not be an issue.(two dirty, dirty words : government and corporations. very dirty)
So let's turn it over to non-profits only. only

Judged:

4

3

3

Kahuna wrote:

<quoted text>This is a total distortion of the facts. Ins. companies offer all kinds of screenings, preventives, discount Rxs and 'basics' as you wrongly asserted they deny. One must select from a cafeteria plan and pay for them to get the benefits that maximize your needs. I won't bore the 'regulars' here again with my medical education credentials but you could not carry them with both hands...

Judged:

3

2

2

Kahuna wrote:

<quoted text>This is a total distortion of the facts. Ins. companies offer all kinds of screenings, preventives, discount Rxs and 'basics' as you wrongly asserted they deny. One must select from a cafeteria plan and pay for them to get the benefits that maximize your needs. I won't bore the 'regulars' here again with my medical education credentials but you could not carry them with both hands...

Judged:

1

1

1

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
I seriously doubt your claims: Readers see for yourself:
http://www.jimhof.com

Judged:

1

Tove wrote:

Also, I would find it a bit creepy if the ones who decides what tests I'm having done when visting a doctor would make more money if I didn't have any tests or at least not too many tests.

Judged:

2

1

1

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
I seriously doubt your claims: Readers see for yourself:
http://www.jimhof.com