Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why so much hate of Universal health care in the USA?

Page 2 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

25 Jun 2011, 2:45 pm

Doctors should charge based on your ability to pay.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 Jun 2011, 3:34 pm

I have no issue with universal healthcare....I just do not trust our government with it. I mean that obamacare shenanigans is not even legitimate universal healthcare. Its just requiring people to buy insurance unless they want to pay a fee.



cave_canem
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

25 Jun 2011, 8:29 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Isn't Canada's health care system run primarily by the Provinces?

I just wonder because in a similar way I think American health coverage should be run Regionally or by the States, but not Federally. However every time any social program is proposed here all candidates want the Federal Government to run it.


Info directly from the Canadian government's website:

Health Canada wrote:
Canada's national health insurance program, often referred to as "Medicare", is designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services, on a prepaid basis. Instead of having a single national plan, we have a national program that is composed of 13 interlocking provincial and territorial health insurance plans, all of which share certain common features and basic standards of coverage. Framed by the Canada Health Act, the principles governing our health care system are symbols of the underlying Canadian values of equity and solidarity.

Roles and responsibilities for Canada's health care system are shared between the federal and provincial-territorial governments. Under the Canada Health Act (CHA), our federal health insurance legislation, criteria and conditions are specified that must be satisfied by the provincial and territorial health care insurance plans in order for them to qualify for their full share of the federal cash contribution, available under the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the management, organization and delivery of health services for their residents.


http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/index-eng.php



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

25 Jun 2011, 8:52 pm

Okay that sounds reasonably decentralized. Giving some authority over this to local states or territories sounds good to me.

But whenever I hear the push for national health care in America it always sounds like it will be totally controlled by Washington D.C. and I think that freaks people out.



cave_canem
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

25 Jun 2011, 9:33 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Okay that sounds reasonably decentralized. Giving some authority over this to local states or territories sounds good to me.

But whenever I hear the push for national health care in America it always sounds like it will be totally controlled by Washington D.C. and I think that freaks people out.


I believe it would need to be legislated federally to set up the rules each state would need to follow (as it is in Canada) so the direction would need to come from Washington. The states won't do anything about this until they're forced to.

I think that the idea of universal health care (centralized, decentralized, whatever) freaks most Americans out because there seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around out there.



draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

26 Jun 2011, 10:13 am

cave_canem wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Okay that sounds reasonably decentralized. Giving some authority over this to local states or territories sounds good to me.

But whenever I hear the push for national health care in America it always sounds like it will be totally controlled by Washington D.C. and I think that freaks people out.


I believe it would need to be legislated federally to set up the rules each state would need to follow (as it is in Canada) so the direction would need to come from Washington. The states won't do anything about this until they're forced to.

I think that the idea of universal health care (centralized, decentralized, whatever) freaks most Americans out because there seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around out there.


My state was forced to dismantle it's healthcare program because of Obamacare... the funding they used for statewide coverage will be funneled into the federal program. Which SUCKS. They passed slot machine gambling in order to fund state healthcare and now that revenue goes to a general coffer. Just not fair...



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

26 Jun 2011, 12:37 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Doctors should charge based on your ability to pay.


I tend to agree, I mean its really the least f*cked up way to approach the issue......I mean it should not come down to a pay or die situation at least in my opinion.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,594

26 Jun 2011, 2:07 pm

draelynn wrote:
cave_canem wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Okay that sounds reasonably decentralized. Giving some authority over this to local states or territories sounds good to me.

But whenever I hear the push for national health care in America it always sounds like it will be totally controlled by Washington D.C. and I think that freaks people out.


I believe it would need to be legislated federally to set up the rules each state would need to follow (as it is in Canada) so the direction would need to come from Washington. The states won't do anything about this until they're forced to.

I think that the idea of universal health care (centralized, decentralized, whatever) freaks most Americans out because there seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around out there.


My state was forced to dismantle it's healthcare program because of Obamacare... the funding they used for statewide coverage will be funneled into the federal program. Which SUCKS. They passed slot machine gambling in order to fund state healthcare and now that revenue goes to a general coffer. Just not fair...


Do you have a source that states Pennsylvania was forced to dismantle it's healthcare program because of Obamacare?

The New York Times, as linked, with a statement from the Governor of Pennsylvania presents the rationale for shutting the program down:

Quote:
Ken Kewley woke up Tuesday without health insurance for the first time in nearly nine years.

So did most of the 41,467 other Pennsylvanians who had been covered by adultBasic, a state-subsidized insurance program for the working poor that Gov. Tom Corbett shut down on Monday in one of the largest disenrollments in recent memory.

Mr. Corbett, a Republican elected in November, has said the program he inherited is not sustainable with Pennsylvania facing a $4 billion budget shortfall. He blames his predecessor, Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat, for not keeping the plan solvent. His administration notified beneficiaries in late January that their coverage would expire Feb. 28.


The article goes on to state that a request was made to the Obama Administration to waiver the 6 month waiting period to get enrolled in the High Risk Pool established by the new Healthcare reform Act.

The waiver was denied, however if it wasn't for "Obamacare" these individuals would not have the ability to enroll in the now available High Risk Pool in six months; this is better for nothing for the time being, and if Obamacare stands the new expansion of medicaid to lower income adults will allow many the opportunity for coverage.

Maybe there was confusion among some that not getting the waiver approved for the 6 months waiting period for the high risk insurance pool, meant Obama was forcing the program to be shut down?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/health/policy/02pennsylvania.html

Other sources:

The First 100 Days: A Quick Look Back.

Quote:
Gov. Corbett marks 100 days in office on Wednesday, so we thought we’d take the time to spotlight one of the governor’s accomplishments each day leading up to the big hurrah. Starting with… health care. “The point is, I need health insurance. I have heart problems. I have stents. I have kidney stones,” explained Alex Deritis, Sr., one of the 40,000-plus working Pennsylvanians who lost their health care when Corbett killed the adultBasic insurance program in order to reward his backers in the insurance industry. Unburdened by the need to fund adultBasic thanks to Corbett, the four Blue Cross insurance companies are now sitting on a $6 billion surplus. And Mr. Deritis is canceling doctor appointments one by one. Way to go, Guv!


http://www.hypocrisywatchpa.com/?p=336
http://www.health-insurance.org/states-insurance

There are estimates that Pennsylvania may have to pay an additional 1.4% to cover the expanded medicaid Coverage in 2014, but states are not providing support to Obamacare, at this time.

Quote:
Under Kaiser's standard estimates, which used historic enrollment patterns that track more closely to the CBO's projections, Pennsylvania was projected to have 482,000 new enrollees at a cost of just over $1 billion from 2014 to 2019.

That's 1.4 percent more than Pennsylvania would spend on Medicaid if there were no expansion, the report said.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/08/v-print/110010/will-health-care-law-raise-states.html



draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

26 Jun 2011, 5:22 pm

Of course there is a budget 'shortfall' when you divert funds to other projects...

PA Budget Gimmicks
Tom Corbett funding healthcare

Our lovely governor doesn't seem to believe in state funded healthcare.

corbett sues to block health care reform
Tom Corbett on health care

sorry - I know so of those links don't meet you usual standards of reporting but quite honestly - our governor wuold much rather that we didn't know these things. they are all a matter of state record.

If he wasn't already embroiled in fighting Obamacare, would Corbett have dismantled PA adultBasic? I do not know. All I do know is that something really doesn't add up. It all added up just fine when it was instituted under Gov Ed Rendell. Now, it doesn't. Rendell isn't known for slacking on those kinds of details... like solvency of a statewide program.

All I know is that we are up a creek in this state. Doctors won't even take Medicaid anymore because they do not get paid. If you don't have private healthcare or cash - you are SOL.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,594

26 Jun 2011, 6:23 pm

draelynn wrote:
Of course there is a budget 'shortfall' when you divert funds to other projects...

PA Budget Gimmicks
Tom Corbett funding healthcare

Our lovely governor doesn't seem to believe in state funded healthcare.

corbett sues to block health care reform
Tom Corbett on health care

sorry - I know so of those links don't meet you usual standards of reporting but quite honestly - our governor wuold much rather that we didn't know these things. they are all a matter of state record.

If he wasn't already embroiled in fighting Obamacare, would Corbett have dismantled PA adultBasic? I do not know. All I do know is that something really doesn't add up. It all added up just fine when it was instituted under Gov Ed Rendell. Now, it doesn't. Rendell isn't known for slacking on those kinds of details... like solvency of a statewide program.

All I know is that we are up a creek in this state. Doctors won't even take Medicaid anymore because they do not get paid. If you don't have private healthcare or cash - you are SOL.


Your links were fine. I see now you meant that you think the Governor dismantled the program in place for healthcare because he didn't like "Obamacare". I see now where funds where diverted to business loans, I thought you meant the funds were diverted to pay for Obamacare, so I think I misunderstood you.

Obviously, he is joining the Republican Party line, on his policies against Obamacare; my understanding is that several other states dismantled their healthcare programs, because of budget difficulties.

Sounds like they are going to have to figure out a way to fund medicaid before Obamacare goes fully into effect.

When I first read your posts, I interpreted them as the Obama administration was forcing the state to shut down it's healthcare program. I was shocked, because I remember Obama offering up the option to Republicans for states to adopt their own plans instead of Obamacare in 2014 instead of 2017, but as I remember, Republicans wouldn't accept that Olive branch.

Thanks for the clarification.



draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

26 Jun 2011, 7:15 pm

aghogday wrote:
Your links were fine. I see now you meant that you think the Governor dismantled the program in place for healthcare because he didn't like "Obamacare". I see now where funds where diverted to business loans, I thought you meant the funds were diverted to pay for Obamacare, so I think I misunderstood you.

Obviously, he is joining the Republican Party line, on his policies against Obamacare; my understanding is that several other states dismantled their healthcare programs, because of budget difficulties.

Sounds like they are going to have to figure out a way to fund medicaid before Obamacare goes fully into effect.

When I first read your posts, I interpreted them as the Obama administration was forcing the state to shut down it's healthcare program. I was shocked, because I remember Obama offering up the option to Republicans for states to adopt their own plans instead of Obamacare in 2014 instead of 2017, but as I remember, Republicans wouldn't accept that Olive branch.

Thanks for the clarification.


I don't always frame my thoughts in the most conducive manner - especially those I only dabble in and am not personally embroiled in. Sorry for the confusion. And thanks for the chance to clarify. :)



ScientistOfSound
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,014
Location: In an evil testing facility

26 Jun 2011, 7:18 pm

Because republicans.
To be honest, I don't see giving everybody free healthcare as communism, I see it as having a heart. Nobody should have to die from illness and injury JUST because they're poor, thats just sick and wrong and immoral in my opinion. People can talk about money all they want, but when its money or human life, I'd choose human life.



Lene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,452
Location: East China Sea

26 Jun 2011, 7:24 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Doctors should charge based on your ability to pay.


I tend to agree, I mean its really the least f*cked up way to approach the issue......I mean it should not come down to a pay or die situation at least in my opinion.


I dunno, you already pay extra taxes if you earn more- is it fair to penalise higher-earners over healthcare too?

I would be in favour of free healthcare under a certain wage/unemployed, but I don't think it should be scaled completely.

I quite like the dual system in the UK; you get universal (and yes, flawed) healthcare for free and then you pay to buy private if you don't want to wait. It's not perfect by any means and some people do fall through the cracks, but not as many as if there was no support at all.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

26 Jun 2011, 7:45 pm

Lene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Doctors should charge based on your ability to pay.


I tend to agree, I mean its really the least f*cked up way to approach the issue......I mean it should not come down to a pay or die situation at least in my opinion.


I dunno, you already pay extra taxes if you earn more- is it fair to penalise higher-earners over healthcare too?

I would be in favour of free healthcare under a certain wage/unemployed, but I don't think it should be scaled completely.

I quite like the dual system in the UK; you get universal (and yes, flawed) healthcare for free and then you pay to buy private if you don't want to wait. It's not perfect by any means and some people do fall through the cracks, but not as many as if there was no support at all.


Well if taxes in the U.S where spent the way they should be there would be no reason why every citizen cannot have healthcare. Luckily for me my immunity is awesome so I don't get sick, I have never broken bones and tend to be more prone to sprains which are painful but possible to deal with, without medical attention. Oh and I do not trust the mental health approaches used in the medical world so the likely hood of me commiting myself to a psych ward is pretty low. If they force me the state would probably have to pay for it anyways.



Reindeer
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 372

27 Jun 2011, 11:10 am

Dark_Lord_2008 wrote:
The US is the only country in the western democratic world that does not have a universal health system because of the moronic fears of Socialism/Communism pushed by the militant Neo-Conservative right wing ranters that make up over 50% of the American population. It will cost too much money and the Communists/Socialists will destroy health system for everyone.

Europe, Australia, Canada and other places from the world have benefited from having both public and private health systems working together to deliver health care for everyone regardless of the bank account balances of people. Socio-economic status is just a silly class divide of who has the biggest/most wealth or assets. Overseas universal health care system has been a staggering success and crime rates in those countries are so much lower than the high crime rates in the USA.

The US is drowning in trillions of debt trying to win multiple wars against phantom enemies in foreign lands in pursuit of maintaining Imperialism. The Republicans support killing and maiming millions of innocent people in foreign land by the US military to the tune of trillions to tax payers every year but they do not care about helping the sick poor people of America.

In the US when your private user pay health insurance runs out you literally get thrown out of hospital onto the street like piece of garbage. The US calls itself the land of the free but is so over run by corruption in government and is the nation of hypocrisy.


Oh no I have to help another person to get healthy D:
/ragequit


_________________
AS: 132
NT: 36
AQ: 40


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

27 Jun 2011, 12:35 pm

The reason why we do not have universal health care in the United States is because the religious right which controls the Republican party has determined that universal health care is Communism and it is unbiblical. However socialized medicine has existed in Ancient Israel because a ten percent tax called a tithe was imposed and in exchange the Rabbis and Priests provided free health care.