If the USA cannot provide universal health coverage,

Post Reply New Topic

...then the Union should be dissolved.

The USA, a rogue among developed nations, has focused greatly on building up its military and force capabilities, but has increasingly ignored the mess occurring with regards to domestic matters.

In my opinion, such a country should not even exist.

My dad has told me that countries like Germany and Sweden can have universal health care, but the USA cannot because the USA is divided into givers and takers, whatever that means. I'm certain righties here can go into details.

I suppose were he to say the same again to me, I would ask him, Why then do we support the continued existence of such a country? Let's abolish the USA, then!

After all, dad didn't provide any solutions to the givers and takers question.

And do what, divide it up into a bunch of little countries?

I doubt we could afford to provide universal health care, like the UK does. We have a lot of other things to pay for as well. We do have Obamacare now. It's not the same and you do pay a monthly premium based on your income and number of people who will be covered, you have a co-pay and deductible, just like any other insurance. Call the Obamacare number.

One word of warning though. I called it since November and picked the first policy they told me about, United Healthcare. It used to be a good company and it was cheap. I liked it. However, United Healthcare didn't want to be in Obamacare and only just joined it and they suck at it. I tried for two months to get information on the policy, a welcome packet, so I would know if I wanted to buy it or not. Yes, I could look online but I didn't always have access to do so and I wanted to get something from them about it. They never sent it. I kept calling and finally I called and paid the premium at the end of January and told them to activate it Feb 1. They said they would and they sent me an information packet. A couple days later I got a bill from them. They applied my payment to January and billed me for Feb. They wouldn't change it, I couldn't get anybody to talk to, United Healthcare kept referring me back to Obamacare to fix a billing issue within United Healthcare. Obamacare said they couldn't do that so finally I said just cancel it. They did and the Obamacare girl found me a Blue Cross policy that was $3 more and covered more than the UH one. I've already got my BC/BS info in the mail and I'll be paying them in time for it to start in March. UH is supposed to be refunding my payment to my debit card. If they haven't done so by the end of next week, I'm calling back and starting the wade through the red tape.

The Obamacare girl told me that they have had a LOT of problems with United Healthcare. She doesn't recommend them and when it's the cheapest and the person jumps at it, she tells them that there are problems with that company and would they listen to what else they could get. Some people take their chances with it, most don't. I learned the hard way but I got out of it. If I've lost that $98 then it's gone and it's small to pay for getting away from them but I'm gonna do what I can to get my money back.

So, if you haven't already, call Obamacare. I do think you are on disability though, aren't you? If so, you should already be getting Medicaid or Medicare.

While it's not perfect, Obamacare goes a long way toward helping folks get insurance. The last time we had insurance it was BC/BS and through my husband's work about 6 years ago. We paid about $500 a month for our policy. This is the same policy, covering the same things, with a lower co-pay and deductible, but we pay $100.41 a month. Obamacare may have a lot of drawbacks, but it's gotten good insurance at an affordable cost for people who otherwise couldn't get it.

What does the USA pay for that the UK does not that is more important than universal health care?

(FWIW, currently the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than the British government does, and provides an inferior service. You can certainly afford it)

... then leave the USA and go someplace where the tax rate is higher and the expectations are lower.

Policing other countries. I don't think we should do it as much, but we do. I know that we can't afford it right now. Would it be great? Yes it would. It would also be great for the US to provide housing to everyone who can't afford it and food to everyone who can't afford it and public transportation everywhere, but they don't. They have some programs but they don't include everyone who needs it and they don't provide everything you need, even if you have no ability to work. I don't think they are bound to do it, but it would be nice if they could do it. Universal healthcare would be nice, but I wouldn't like to see doctors end up being paid a lot less. Yes, they make a lot of money but they went to college for 4 years, then medical school for 4 years, then residency and fellowship. They will be paying off loans for a long time, and they aren't really able to start practicing independently until they are close to 30. Thats a pretty late start for a career that you worked your whole life for. I don't have a problem with how much most docs get paid. They have earned it. I have a problem when no docs are willing to donate time to those who can't afford care, and no hospitals or pharmacy companies aren't willing to donate service and products to those who can't afford it.

Obamacare is a start. It helped a lot of people. As it is now in the US, those with no jobs or who are on disability are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. Children 18 and under in low income families are covered by Medicaid as well. That's totally free and you pay nothing at the doctor, hospital or drug store. In Alabama if your kids don't qualify for medicaid because of your income, they can be covered by AllKids, which is kids insurance based on your income and administrated by Blue Cross, and available through the Medicaid office. Those who are working at jobs that don't offer insurance or offer insurance that isn't affordable can now get insurance that they can afford through Obamacare. It really is low enough so that almost everybody can afford it. Some of it is even free for single people with low wage jobs. This plan can cover most people in the US. Under it, most can have healthcare.

Do you think that the government should pay for everybody's healthcare instead of simply insuring that it's available to all? It would be nice, but that's not the governments job. It would also be nice for them to provide everyone with housing and food and clothing and transportation. It would be nice if they gave everybody cable and internet and a computer if they can't afford it. Yeah, it would be nice. But it's not the governments job to give that kind of thing to everyone and pay for it. The government should pay for neccessary things for those who have no way of paying for it themselves, but people who can pay for their stuff, including insurance, should pay for it. Under Obamacare, it's not all that much. The last time we had insurance it was through my husbands company and it was Blue Cross. It cost us about $500 a month. His mother paid a lot of it because we couldn't and also pay our bills. (Maybe the government should pay our bills too? I'm for it!) When she stopped paying for it, we dropped it. The Obamacare I now have is $100.41 a month and it's basically the same policy as we had before. We can cut out some things that aren't neccessary and pay a Franklin a month for that. My younger son is eligible for free insurance and my best friend is paying $35. It's affordable for most. Only a small percent won't be able to pay for it, and won't be covered by Medicaid or Medicare. They need to find a program for those people, but they are in no way responsible for paying for it.

The government has three jobs. Print the money, pass the laws, declare war. Anything else is icing on the cake. I'm grateful for the social programs like Medicaid and public housing and food stamps, but the government is not obligated to provide them. I hope they don't go anywhere, we need them. But paying my doctor bill is not the governments job. It's good to have a net like the programs available, but don't give the government too much responsibility for your life, you won't like their decisions.

Last edited by OliveOilMom on 06 Feb 2015, 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

That, and Foreign Aid.

Maybe if America stopped sending money, aid, and troops to other countries, it could better afford free medical care and university education for all.

Then again, that would just attract 'refugees' looking for a free ride at taxpayers' expense, just like in the "more socially advanced" European countries that are now having to deal with a glut of unemployed, unskilled laborers filling up their council housing.

The USA spends proportionately less on foreign aid than 19 other countries. In raw terms, it is impressive, nearly twice the UK or Germany, but it is a smaller proportion of the US government's budget. If you wanted to give as much proportionately as Sweden or Luxembourg, you'd need to quintuple your donations. So I certainly don't buy that foreign aid is the reason you can't give your own citizens free healthcare.


Source?

I believe the US Declaration of Independence claims that the purpose of the US government is to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for the citizenry. I believe universal healthcare meets all three of those things.

I specifically chose this citation because it originated from a group which is neither Republican nor Democratic. I dates from a time before the infamous Koch brothers took over the Cato Institute. But, As we are discussing how other nations have enjoyed their socialized health care during the time that such care was implemented, I believe that it is still relevant.

One reason might be defense spending. Look at this chart of NATO countries and their defense spending. USA: 4.4% of GDP, the other NATO countries: meh. In a way the US is paying for a bunch of freeloaders in Europe, as a whole bunch of NATO member states are spending less than they agreed to.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence has very little influence over federal law except to remind its readers of the moral imperatives that existed when it was written, and suggest that such imperatives should probably be remembered today. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution for the United States of America delegates enumerated, but limited, authority to the Congress to make laws and spend money. These 30-35 powers (all other powers would be presumed and, therefore, unconstitutional) are all the authority that the Congress may enjoy http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/his ... ted-powers . Nothing else.

The only reference to the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that appears in the Constitution is the Fifth Amendment phrase "life, liberty, or property" which describes those liberties of which a person can't be deprived "without due process of law[.]" So, again, it is a reference of the moral imperative about which liberties can't be easily denied.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 06 Feb 2015, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

The US government has secured life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and none of that involves paying your doctor bill. It secures life by keeping other people from killing you. That's where the laws come in. It secures liberty by keeping us free from tyranny and thats where declaring war comes into it. Pursuit of happiness means that you are free to work and build your life, and they print money for that.

Do I really have to explain it any more, or do you get it?

They are not responsible for your medical bill unless they inflict the damage on you themselves and it was not warranted. They do pay for medical care for many who can't pay for it themselves, which they aren't required to do. They have no passed laws to offer affordable care to others who can't afford insurance otherwise, and don't qualify for the free care. Are you that much of an entitled whiner that you want them to pay for something that you can pay for yourself? They have provided you with insurance that you can pay for, and they didn't have to do that.

What else do you want them to give you that you can get for yourself? If you are one of those who can't get affordable Obamacare and don't qualify for the free care, then that needs to be addressed, but it's not required. It's a should, not a constitutional must. It's a voter issue, not a constitutional one.

We are so used to the government doing things that it isn't required to do that we now think that they are required to. Why should they pay for something for me that I can pay for myself? Why? Really, tell me why they should. Please. I'm very interested in your reasoning.

(David: thanks for your link. I read it with great interest. I feel some of the metrics selected by the author are inappropriate. I will give you another one when I have a little time!)

You are more likely to die of a preventable medical condition than from being murdered. People who are chronically ill and cannot afford medical care

Your requests for information sit dramatically at odds with your patronising tone.

I don't want the US government to pay for my healthcare, because my country of residence already pays for the healthcare of all citizens as a right.

I want the US government to pay for the healthcare of all residents because it is the most cost efficient way of ensuring everyone has access to healthcare.

You have three options:

1) Everyone for themselves - if you can't afford it, tough
2) Everyone gets it for free
3) If you can afford it, you have to pay; otherwise, it is provided for you free of charge.

1 is inhumane that I hope we all find intolerable. 3 might seem like an attractive option, but means testing is inefficient, particularly when taxation is already means tested. There are other inefficiencies like a lack of bulk discounts to consider. Furthermore, it seems completely unfair to exclude taxpayers - who are holding the system up - from the fruits of their labour. If you pay taxes, the government will pay for your healthcare; if you can't pay taxes, the government will provide free healthcare.

Again, compare the US system with the NHS. Despite the NHS being public sector, which tends to lend itself to inefficiency, it provides better healthcare to more people (in relative terms) than the US government's systems, and as a result, British people spend less privately than Americans.

The US was founded to be a safe and secure and free country for people to live and work in. That's what they have done, and pretty damn well too. I'm pissed about the handling of lots of other s**t, but they came through on that. The country wasn't founded to take care of us. It was founded to be a secure area for citizens to live in as they could. There were and are no guarantees to survival. There were and are no guarantees of comfort, and no guarantees of happiness, only that you can pursue it. Today it seems that people expect the government to ensure their survival from all accidents, illnesses and acts of God, to make sure we have comfort available to all of us and give it to us when we can't or won't buy it ourselves, and lastly and nowdays most importantly to make damn sure that we are all as happy and content as possible and above all not offended by anything, ever.

Thats not the governments job people, that's your parents job and it's your own job to do that for yourself once you are out of your parents house and responsible for yourself. Then you get to do it for your kids until they can.

While I was just now putting on my makeup I started thinking about the poster who said that government paid healthcare was important to his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I thought about it and there are some things that the government is really slacking in doing to secure my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Well, ok, not my life. Thats handled. But there are some issues with the last two and I'm going to tell you what they are. Liberty means you are free. Free to think and believe and worship as you want, free to be who you are, and free to come and go as you please, right? In this town there is no public transportation and it's not conducive to walking at all. I am not at liberty to go anywhere without public transportation, or ideally a car of my own because on a bus I might have groceries and they are hard to carry on a bus. Without a car, I can't drive 30 minutes to look for a job because there are none here. Without a car I'm stuck in this small repressive town where I don't feel free to be myself, ok I do but some people wouldn't and I'm just the type of person that most here wouldn't feel free to be. So, to secure my liberty the government needs to give me a car, and gas for it because I don't have a job in town. At least gas for a while, till I get a job. It's important.

For my pursuit of happiness I have several bones to pick. If I had been able to get my teeth capped I wouldn't be so insecure about my smile. Who cares that it's cosmetic, it would make me feel better about myself and then I'd probably have had a different life. Maybe finished college or something, who knows. I also hate my boobs and my butt. I have always wanted nice boobs and a booty that looks good but I don't have it and can't afford the implants for either. It would go a long way to make me happier, and that's the governments job and they aren't doing it. Now that I'm 50 and never had a chance to live my life with the pretty teeth and tits and ass I wanted, I also require a facelift so that I'll look 30, therfore effectively giving me back 20 years that the government stole from me by not making me look how I want to so I'd be more confident and happy!!

If I could have gone to a better college I might have finished. I think they should have sent me to an Ivy League school and even though I probably wasn't smart enough, I think they should have helped me through med and law school and given me both degrees because it's only fair, I'm sure I would have tried hard and thats what counts. Then they should have made people hire my clueless ass and made other people pay me to possibly have them thrown in jail or cut off the wrong arm. I'd be trying and it would be wrong to dash my hopes.

I have lots of other ideas of what they should do for me. Lots and lots. Right now my hooker friend is coming to give me a ride to the grocery store because I don't have a way, so I have to go. See? The government is making me consort with prostitutes because they are too cold and cheap to buy me the car that should rightfully be mine!!

Feel free to add your wants to the list. We will form a PAC and demand it. If they don't do it, I'm sure we can find some way to say they are discriminating and guilty of some ism, ist, or phobia against each and every one of us. I volunteer for being the first woman alive to stand up for the rights of bitchy women. If they don't like me, they are bitchist and THATS JUST WRONG!

Dividing the country is just going to create chaos and the states themselves have nothing to do with the defense spending. That's reserved for Capitol Hill.