Thread: Universal Health Insurance

There are some 45 million Americans without health insurance. According to some figures I have seen, this fact accounts for some 18,000 deaths every year and many billions of dollars at the expense of the United States economy. Something needs to be done.
But how many Americans would agree to socialized health care?
I think that the solution lies in universal health INSURANCE, not universal health care.
Mitt Romney has worked a good plan in Massachusetts, and I think that it works. A law has been passed, making it illegal to not have health insurance. Simultaneously, arrangements have been made with the Insurance companies; these companies make low cost, basic health care policies available. Also, employers are mandated to pick up the tab and provide these policies. Because of the low cost, it is at minimal detriment to the employers, but it makes health insurance available to every worker.
Keeping the health care industry privatized but making it more accessible is the best way to approach this problem.
At least, the way I described Mitt Romney's plan is to the best of my understanding.
I am an Conservative as they come, as everyone knows, and even I am sold on this idea.
What are everyone's thoughts?

Some of these people are only without insurance temporarily. All of these people have access to health care by visiting any emergency room in the country.

If they are poor all of them could apply for medicaid. The only requirements are that they do not own more than $2000 in assets and they don't earn too much money.

If they are not poor then they should go buy insurance or get a job that offers insurance. Employers with more than a hundred employees must offer insurance.

Some of these people have chosen to spend their money on other things (even luxuries) when they could have bought insurance.

There are a few people who work hard, spend all their money on neccessitites, and do not have enough left over for insurance. These people really need to consider getting a new employer who will offer insurance.

so who is falling between the cracks?

Someone who has a job that pays too much to let them get welfare, does not pay enough to cover both nessessities and insurance, for some reason cannot get a job that will provide insurance, and cannot get their medical needs handled in an emergency room.

If I could figure out who these people were I would be more concerned.

Make it compulsory like car insurance? Bad idea! the healthy will end up subsidizing the sick unwillingly- it's socialized healthcare by a different name!

Just like you should be able to drive without car insurance, without wearing a seat belt, etc, you should be able to elect not to have health insurance. It's a choice and a risk you should be allowed to take. Mandatory health insurance is a scam.

Originally Posted by freckles

Just like you should be able to drive without car insurance, without wearing a seat belt, etc, you should be able to elect not to have health insurance. It's a choice and a risk you should be allowed to take. Mandatory health insurance is a scam.

When somone hits me with their car I want their insurance to pay for it and not mine.

When someone goes to the hospital I want them to pay for it and not me. The problem is that if we give them insurance then I pay for it and if we don't give them insurance then I pay for it. Somehow, everyone needs to be productive enough to buy their own insurance.

Originally Posted by commiekiller

Make it compulsory like car insurance? Bad idea! the healthy will end up subsidizing the sick unwillingly- it's socialized healthcare by a different name!

The healthy already end up subsidizing the sick unwillingly. Ever wonder why the most simple procedures cost your insurance so much? It's because the hospitals have to cover the extra overhead incurred by uninsured individuals who don't pay. Whether we like it or not, we are already subsidizing the uninsured. Universal Health Insurance will lower the costs to everyone who goes the hospital.

Originally Posted by freckles

Just like you should be able to drive without car insurance, without wearing a seat belt, etc, you should be able to elect not to have health insurance. It's a choice and a risk you should be allowed to take. Mandatory health insurance is a scam.

Is that a risk that the social contract legitimizes? Do we legally allow people to take the risk of using illegal drugs?
If it was a risk that only affected one person, that's one thing. But the uninsured rack up billions of costs to everyone, insured or not. By so doing, they infringe on the freedom of those who choose not to take this risk. The social contract does not legitimize this risk, and so it cannot be allowed.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Some of these people are only without insurance temporarily. All of these people have access to health care by visiting any emergency room in the country.

If they are poor all of them could apply for medicaid. The only requirements are that they do not own more than $2000 in assets and they don't earn too much money.

If they are not poor then they should go buy insurance or get a job that offers insurance. Employers with more than a hundred employees must offer insurance.

Some of these people have chosen to spend their money on other things (even luxuries) when they could have bought insurance.

There are a few people who work hard, spend all their money on neccessitites, and do not have enough left over for insurance. These people really need to consider getting a new employer who will offer insurance.

so who is falling between the cracks?

Someone who has a job that pays too much to let them get welfare, does not pay enough to cover both nessessities and insurance, for some reason cannot get a job that will provide insurance, and cannot get their medical needs handled in an emergency room.

If I could figure out who these people were I would be more concerned.

The current system with emergency rooms is creating a national crisis as it pertains to the further survival of emergency rooms. These doctors are never paid for the care they render to the uninsured, and so fewer med school students are interested in specializing in this field. The result is fewer doctors caring for more patients. Universal Health Insurance would encourage more doctors to specialize in this field, in part helping to alleviate the current problem we face.
Furthermore, there are some 45 million Americans without insurance. I agree with you on almost all points; it's not really fair to the employers to have to provide insurance to those who COULD pay for it and choose not to. But there are many, many hard working individuals who simply cannot afford insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid because they choose to work as hard as they do. I truly believe that, given the current costs of the uninsured on America in general, the investment we would be making in Universal Health Insurance would be an altogether beneficial one.

Originally Posted by The God Fearing

The current system with emergency rooms is creating a national crisis as it pertains to the further survival of emergency rooms. These doctors are never paid for the care they render to the uninsured, and so fewer med school students are interested in specializing in this field. The result is fewer doctors caring for more patients. Universal Health Insurance would encourage more doctors to specialize in this field, in part helping to alleviate the current problem we face.
Furthermore, there are some 45 million Americans without insurance. I agree with you on almost all points; it's not really fair to the employers to have to provide insurance to those who COULD pay for it and choose not to. But there are many, many hard working individuals who simply cannot afford insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid because they choose to work as hard as they do. I truly believe that, given the current costs of the uninsured on America in general, the investment we would be making in Universal Health Insurance would be an altogether beneficial one.

I agree that the free access to emergency room is a bill that is largely being passed on to other health care users. I do not think the doctors are eating the costs. I could be wrong. I agree that something needs to be done about it.

I highly doubt that national insurance would be preferrable. every program the government touches becomes more mired in red tape, more expensive, less efficient, less pleasant to work with, and more restrictive. Plus the big problem it becomes the only choice - a forced monopoly.

Presently the people who receive inadequate health coverage are the people who do not buy good coverage, like the poor for example who don't buy any. It is not inadequate because their emergencies are not cared for But because there preventative medicine and their routine medicine is not cared for.

If we switched to national health insurance the quality of care would go down for all of us as a whole and then the people with inadequate health coverage would be at 100% instead of some much much smaller number.

Better to fix the small problem without creating a much larger problem

Originally Posted by lakeman

I agree that the free access to emergency room is a bill that is largely being passed on to other health care users. I do not think the doctors are eating the costs. I could be wrong. I agree that something needs to be done about it.

I highly doubt that national insurance would be preferrable. every program the government touches becomes more mired in red tape, more expensive, less efficient, less pleasant to work with, and more restrictive. Plus the big problem it becomes the only choice - a forced monopoly.

Presently the people who receive inadequate health coverage are the people who do not buy good coverage, like the poor for example who don't buy any. It is not inadequate because their emergencies are not cared for But because there preventative medicine and their routine medicine is not cared for.

If we switched to national health insurance the quality of care would go down for all of us as a whole and then the people with inadequate health coverage would be at 100% instead of some much much smaller number.

Better to fix the small problem without creating a much larger problem

I do not believe that under this system health care quality would disintegrate to any degree. It would not remove the competition, or the need to provide quality care (malpractice suits aren't touched a bit by this. I don't like malpractice suits in general, but to some degree I suppose they are necessary).
I agree that government involvement has been historically detrimental in general, and that is why I think that the government should stay out of the care industry itself, and just worry about giving the hardworking poor access to it.
If there was a provision for employers to only be mandated to provide insurance to the hard working employees, would this be more suitable?
I realize that there are a lot of problems with the way I just stated that solution. What is a way that you could see it working?