Comments on: The Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care in the United States  http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/ Everything That's Wrong With You And Your Money Tue, 22 May 2012 16:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: guest http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-2/#comment-6061 guest Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:15:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-6061 Or in other words... they receive no funding from the gov't, but are overseen by the gov't.  This is the point: their ability to acquire funding is akin to that of private enterprise, even though the gov't is ultimately in control of how the use it. On the other hand, fire/police departments and public education is funded by federal/state/local money, while also being federally regulated. Two very different implementations of "public" services. Or in other words… they receive no funding from the gov’t, but are overseen by the gov’t.  This is the point: their ability to acquire funding is akin to that of private enterprise, even though the gov’t is ultimately in control of how the use it.

On the other hand, fire/police departments and public education is funded by federal/state/local money, while also being federally regulated.

Two very different implementations of “public” services.

]]> By: mark hudson http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-2/#comment-6033 mark hudson Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:05:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-6033 MommyFamilyNurse's anecdotes are apples-and-oranges.  The story about the overseas house-call is nice for simple illness, but speaks nothing to thecare available for more serious conditions.  Yet the latter was cited as the bogeyman  that can bankrupt you in America. The appeal to the example of universal compulsory education is a canard as well.  We all know that public education quality had been sliding downhill for decades,  yet costs continue to rise. Parents are opting out in droves. Finally, I'd like to see a study that tries to account for this scandalous factor: Many of  these "country X pays less per capita in health care..." claims are only possible because  either: A-country X's doctors are educated in America and use American medical technology, and/or B-significant numbers of country X's citizens with serious illnesses actually end up leaving the country to get treatment on their own dime.  In other words,  the existence of America in the global healthcare ecosystem benefits the whole world. MommyFamilyNurse’s anecdotes are apples-and-oranges. 
The story about the overseas house-call is nice for simple illness, but speaks nothing to thecare available for more serious conditions.  Yet the latter was cited as the bogeyman 
that can bankrupt you in America.
The appeal to the example of universal compulsory education is a canard as well.  We
all know that public education quality had been sliding downhill for decades, 
yet costs continue to rise. Parents are opting out in droves.

Finally, I’d like to see a study that tries to account for this scandalous factor: Many of 
these “country X pays less per capita in health care…” claims are only possible because 
either: A-country X’s doctors are educated in America and use American medical
technology, and/or B-significant numbers of country X’s citizens with serious illnesses
actually end up leaving the country to get treatment on their own dime.  In other words, 
the existence of America in the global healthcare ecosystem benefits the whole world.

]]> By: Anonymous http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-1/#comment-6008 Anonymous Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:42:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-6008 Don't kid yourself about delays.  Under HMO insurance coverage, your primary physician acts as a "gatekeeper."  I have waited months for referrals to specialists, and have been denied even the opportunity to see them.  With private companies such as Kaiser, they can be excellent or not, depending on how healthy you are and how lucky you are when you see a healthcare provider.  I personally know of many horror stories from Kaiser, but also know of some happy endings, too.  When I lived overseas, the physician came to see me (a house call!).  He gave medicine to me, and when I asked, "how much?" he waved his hand dismissing it.  It's actually not because it was literally free; the costs of healthcare in that country were incorporated into taxes.  OVERALL that country's citizens STILL PAY LESS for healthcare than we do, and their healthcare system is excellent. Here in America, a disease can bankrupt you and your family and destroy all.  Or you can be denied insurance because of your previously revealed condition.  Healthcare should be a right for all citizens, like education.  But remember even education was not a right for children in America not more than 100 years ago.  And people argued against that, too! Previously if you wanted your child to be educated, you had to pay for it through the nose!  Sound familiar?  Don’t kid yourself about delays.  Under HMO insurance coverage, your primary physician acts as a “gatekeeper.”  I have waited months for referrals to specialists, and have been denied even the opportunity to see them.  With private companies such as Kaiser, they can be excellent or not, depending on how healthy you are and how lucky you are when you see a healthcare provider.  I personally know of many horror stories from Kaiser, but also know of some happy endings, too. 

When I lived overseas, the physician came to see me (a house call!).  He gave medicine to me, and when I asked, “how much?” he waved his hand dismissing it.  It’s actually not because it was literally free; the costs of healthcare in that country were incorporated into taxes.  OVERALL that country’s citizens STILL PAY LESS for healthcare than we do, and their healthcare system is excellent.

Here in America, a disease can bankrupt you and your family and destroy all.  Or you can be denied insurance because of your previously revealed condition.  Healthcare should be a right for all citizens, like education.  But remember even education was not a right for children in America not more than 100 years ago.  And people argued against that, too! Previously if you wanted your child to be educated, you had to pay for it through the nose!  Sound familiar? 

]]> By: Anonymous http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-1/#comment-6009 Anonymous Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:42:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-6009 Don't kid yourself about delays.  Under HMO insurance coverage, your primary physician acts as a "gatekeeper."  I have waited months for referrals to specialists, and have been denied even the opportunity to see them.  With private companies such as Kaiser, they can be excellent or not, depending on how healthy you are and how lucky you are when you see a healthcare provider.  I personally know of many horror stories from Kaiser, but also know of some happy endings, too.  When I lived overseas, the physician came to see me (a house call!).  He gave medicine to me, and when I asked, "how much?" he waved his hand dismissing it.  It's actually not because it was literally free; the costs of healthcare in that country were incorporated into taxes.  OVERALL that country's citizens STILL PAY LESS for healthcare than we do, and their healthcare system is excellent. Here in America, a disease can bankrupt you and your family and destroy all.  Or you can be denied insurance because of your previously revealed condition.  Healthcare should be a right for all citizens, like education.  But remember even education was not a right for children in America not more than 100 years ago.  And people argued against that, too! Previously if you wanted your child to be educated, you had to pay for it through the nose!  Sound familiar?  Don’t kid yourself about delays.  Under HMO insurance coverage, your primary physician acts as a “gatekeeper.”  I have waited months for referrals to specialists, and have been denied even the opportunity to see them.  With private companies such as Kaiser, they can be excellent or not, depending on how healthy you are and how lucky you are when you see a healthcare provider.  I personally know of many horror stories from Kaiser, but also know of some happy endings, too. 

When I lived overseas, the physician came to see me (a house call!).  He gave medicine to me, and when I asked, “how much?” he waved his hand dismissing it.  It’s actually not because it was literally free; the costs of healthcare in that country were incorporated into taxes.  OVERALL that country’s citizens STILL PAY LESS for healthcare than we do, and their healthcare system is excellent.

Here in America, a disease can bankrupt you and your family and destroy all.  Or you can be denied insurance because of your previously revealed condition.  Healthcare should be a right for all citizens, like education.  But remember even education was not a right for children in America not more than 100 years ago.  And people argued against that, too! Previously if you wanted your child to be educated, you had to pay for it through the nose!  Sound familiar? 

]]> By: Guest http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-1/#comment-6007 Guest Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:34:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-6007 Great points, but I wish your information was cited because I would love to read more about where some of the statistics and such came from.   Great points, but I wish your information was cited because I would love to read more about where some of the statistics and such came from.  

]]> By: Whall http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-1/#comment-5953 Whall Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:02:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-5953 i think that pretty much my only real problem with universal health care is not the priciple so much as i know that the US gov or any large gov is unable to run any large scale program such as this successfully.   i think that pretty much my only real problem with universal health care is not the priciple so much as i know that the US gov or any large gov is unable to run any large scale program such as this successfully.  

]]> By: Paul http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-1/#comment-5950 Paul Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:42:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-5950 I just spent eight days in a hospital in Montreal - there were no out-of-pocket expenses for me for occupying the hospital room. Everything was covered by the Quebec provincial scheme: all procedures, tests, food, everything except for parking for when my wife came to pick me up. I just spent eight days in a hospital in Montreal – there were no out-of-pocket expenses for me for occupying the hospital room. Everything was covered by the Quebec provincial scheme: all procedures, tests, food, everything except for parking for when my wife came to pick me up.

]]> By: Mark http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-1/#comment-5753 Mark Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:28:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-5753 Learn the difference between single payer system and Universal Health care. Learn the difference between single payer system and Universal Health care.

]]> By: Northnomads http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-1/#comment-5746 Northnomads Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:23:00 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-5746 FYI - postal service and federal reserve are both private. Look it up. FYI – postal service and federal reserve are both private. Look it up.

]]> By: flowerlady http://weakonomics.com/2009/06/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states%c2%a0/comment-page-1/#comment-2930 flowerlady Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:49:35 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=2177#comment-2930 I just finished reading the book by T.R. Reid, a Wash Post reporter, called The Healing of America. It provided insight into other developed countries universal health care plans. It was fairly objective sharing many anecdotal opinions, statistics, reports by the WHO(world health organization) and interviews with doctors, nurses and the public. It was very readable, not dry, simplified a very complex problem and introduced one to buzz words that are commonly used in this debate. The premise of the book describes four basic systems that work in developed countries, comparing the pros and cons of each. It really is a convincing read...we need a program to cover everyone. It asks the question"is health care a basic right for everyone?" We in the US say one thing, a resounding "yes" and yet leave it to market forces to accomplish the deed. And it isn't. I have read many of the previous comments which echo many of the arguments put forth in this book. Almost all, if not all, countries have a payor system which is "not for profit". That amount alone (the profit component) can pay for those that are uninsured currently. Do you want your money in expensive premiums going to an insurance exployee's bonus or stockholder dividend, or do you want it to give some basic care to the millions(47) who are uninsured? Please try this book and at least have some very convincing arguments on why we need to trust our government...the majority of developed contries do. Now, I need to read a very convincing book on why we should not have univeral health care. Any thoughts? I just finished reading the book by T.R. Reid, a Wash Post reporter, called The Healing of America. It provided insight into other developed countries universal health care plans. It was fairly objective sharing many anecdotal opinions, statistics, reports by the WHO(world health organization) and interviews with doctors, nurses and the public. It was very readable, not dry, simplified a very complex problem and introduced one to buzz words that are commonly used in this debate. The premise of the book describes four basic systems that work in developed countries, comparing the pros and cons of each. It really is a convincing read…we need a program to cover everyone. It asks the question”is health care a basic right for everyone?” We in the US say one thing, a resounding “yes” and yet leave it to market forces to accomplish the deed. And it isn’t. I have read many of the previous comments which echo many of the arguments put forth in this book. Almost all, if not all, countries have a payor system which is “not for profit”. That amount alone (the profit component) can pay for those that are uninsured currently. Do you want your money in expensive premiums going to an insurance exployee’s bonus or stockholder dividend, or do you want it to give some basic care to the millions(47) who are uninsured? Please try this book and at least have some very convincing arguments on why we need to trust our government…the majority of developed contries do. Now, I need to read a very convincing book on why we should not have univeral health care. Any thoughts?

]]>