Which do you think would be best for Healthcare in the US?
Having to pay for health insurance to ensure treatment or having a system like the UK where you pay National Insurance weekly from your wages to pay towards it?
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
akindheart · 61-69, F
View 2 more replies »
RealMustangGuy · 61-69, MVIP
@akindheart: Thanks for your explanation. I sure wish it could be spread just among those that want it though.
Kerrigan · 41-45, F
@akindheart: It's not so hard to imagine. Instead of paying an insurance company for SOME coverage, use the SAME amount of money and contribute to single payer system for COMPLETE coverage. Since health insurance companies are exempt from collusion and anti-trust laws, the "free market" argument doesn't work.
Try this: add up ALL our health care costs (insurance + drug costs + deductibles), childcare costs, local/state/federal taxes. In many cases, we pay MORE than socialist countries for services - and get LESS in return.
Try this: add up ALL our health care costs (insurance + drug costs + deductibles), childcare costs, local/state/federal taxes. In many cases, we pay MORE than socialist countries for services - and get LESS in return.
akindheart · 61-69, F
@Kerrigan: I agree with you 100%. if it was based on income, we could get the same coverage and pay premiums commisurate on our income. makes sense to me. we have greed involved in our current process.
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
If we are to pay weekly from wages so that everyone will have healthcare then I want control over other peoples lifestyle as it effects their health and thus how much I have to pay to support their healthcare. For example if I am paying for your health care you are not smoking or eating a diet which will lead to type 2 diabetes.
patkaren1717 · 41-45, M
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
@patkaren1717: There is no reason for it not to happen, take for example many states in the US drug test for welfare recipients , the thought is if you have money to waste on illegal drugs then you don't need welfare, if you need welfare you can't afford to spend money on drugs. Because as you say it will never happen, neither will socialized medicine. We enable failure when we say that's ok we will pay.
Brianthesnail · 56-60, M
The main advantage of universal healthcare - for which the UK is no longer a good example - is the opportunity to focus on prevention.
Private hospitals have no incentive to prevent disease. In my experience they are usually very keen to send you for all kinds of expensive tests and procedures, charging it to the insurance company, who of course is much better at making itself money than any government, so the insurance premiums of all users get increased. Private healthcare works out most expensive precisely because you have to pay for other people's bad choices.
(But I do it anyway because it's nice to talk down to someone who has studied for so many years at university)
Private hospitals have no incentive to prevent disease. In my experience they are usually very keen to send you for all kinds of expensive tests and procedures, charging it to the insurance company, who of course is much better at making itself money than any government, so the insurance premiums of all users get increased. Private healthcare works out most expensive precisely because you have to pay for other people's bad choices.
(But I do it anyway because it's nice to talk down to someone who has studied for so many years at university)
firefall · 61-69, M
National Insurance in the British fashion is proven to be fantastically better at improving overall health results for the population at large; and costs less than half the amount of GDP as the current American system costs the Americans. But it's useless as a club to beat and terrorise your employees with; and not good at delivering ultra-elite service to the 1/10th of 1%.
seneca · 70-79, M
The thing I like as a UK citizen is that having paid National Insurance contributions from my wages each week it means that I can go to the doctors or hospital still get treatment without having to pay for it whether still working & when retired.
The treatment is there for all working, out of work or retired with no worry about whether i have paid my health insurance premiums n are they up to date.
The treatment is there for all working, out of work or retired with no worry about whether i have paid my health insurance premiums n are they up to date.
RealMustangGuy · 61-69, MVIP
I thinks it's clearly not a one size fits all, which is I guess why it's so difficult to come up with something. What is best for some would be worst for others.
Personally I don't want to be told I have to do anything, and I wouldn't even have health insurance if I wasn't forced to have it. What would work best for me is I just pay for any care that I might need. But I know that isn't what some others would want, thus the dilemma of coming up with something. No matter what they come up with, I think large numbers of people will be unhappy with it.
Personally I don't want to be told I have to do anything, and I wouldn't even have health insurance if I wasn't forced to have it. What would work best for me is I just pay for any care that I might need. But I know that isn't what some others would want, thus the dilemma of coming up with something. No matter what they come up with, I think large numbers of people will be unhappy with it.
RealMustangGuy · 61-69, MVIP
@seneca: But what I always did all my life until recently when our government forced me to buy health insurance (that I never use) was that I paid for all the medical stuff I wanted by just paying for it.
seneca · 70-79, M
Unless you were self employed it should surely have come out of any wages you were paid that is till gov changed it so you had to buy health insurance. Its all to the advantage of the private health insurance business these days of which probably a lot of politicians have a part or share in or own.
I think UK system is fairer but something US insurance companies would hate.
I think UK system is fairer but something US insurance companies would hate.
RealMustangGuy · 61-69, MVIP
@seneca: I don't see how the UK system is fair when you can't opt out of it. You have no choice right? Here in the U.S.A. freedom from the government is the most important thing to many of us, myself included, and being forced to do something by them just doesn't sit well with me.
And I am self employed and have been for almost my whole life.
And I am self employed and have been for almost my whole life.
Kerrigan · 41-45, F
first - the cost of healthcare, and the cost of healthcare INSURANCE are two separate things. It's like having a "automotive" policy that doesnt consider the price (or cost) of cars, but only the cost of how to insure it. Classic political manipulation.
I think there is a compromise that would be win-win. Expand medicare to become a "saftey net" of coverage for all. It would cover children from 0-18 and full time students until 26. It would be bare bones and require less than a 2-3% pre-tax increase in FICA.
The insurance market can then create premium plans that cover the things that medicare doesnt, optimizing it's coverage area and network.
I think this would significantly reduces cost and risk to the point that everyone wins.
Will this happen? ROFL!! I'm not that nieve.
I think there is a compromise that would be win-win. Expand medicare to become a "saftey net" of coverage for all. It would cover children from 0-18 and full time students until 26. It would be bare bones and require less than a 2-3% pre-tax increase in FICA.
The insurance market can then create premium plans that cover the things that medicare doesnt, optimizing it's coverage area and network.
I think this would significantly reduces cost and risk to the point that everyone wins.
Will this happen? ROFL!! I'm not that nieve.
FloorGenAdm · 51-55, M
Johnson212 · 61-69, M
Goralski · 51-55, M
Uk of course....Cause its working out so wonderfully for that poor baby
Goralski · 51-55, M
@RoboChloe: exactly
RoboChloe · 26-30, F
@Goralski: I'm a bit confused, in truth. your original statement, "Uk of course....Cause its working out so wonderfully for that poor baby", implies that it's the "UK system", implicitly social healthcare, that isn't working out for the "poor baby". But as I've attemted to explain, that's not the case, it is in fact the fault of the legal system associated with care disputes for children, which is a separate issue entirely from whether Social Healthcare is better than Private.
