New Universal Health Care Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
One of my biggest concerns with UHC is if it significantly decreases the earnings of physicians. In other countries with UHC their schooling is completely paid for so they don't have to worry about paying back massive loans. Now I will have to and it concerns me that this could reduce pay. Now if the government paid off all the loans, it would be a different story. But I'm not for the idea of forced servitude.

Members don't see this ad.
 
A more effective initiative would be a more public-health oriented approach that focused on educating the impoverished about nutritional options, sexual health, the dangers of drug use, etc.

P.S. I'm all for this, as well... in school.
 
Here's one I forgot to add to my list. It's a Malcolm Gladwell article that appeared in the New Yorker. Gladwell has written a couple of well know and very interesting books recently, you may have heard of them: The Tipping Point and Blink.

Anyhoo, here's the first bit:

The Moral Hazard Myth

The bad idea behind our failed health-care system.

1.
Tooth decay begins, typically, when debris becomes trapped between the teeth and along the ridges and in the grooves of the molars. The food rots. It becomes colonized with bacteria. The bacteria feeds off sugars in the mouth and forms an acid that begins to eat away at the enamel of the teeth. Slowly, the bacteria works its way through to the dentin, the inner structure, and from there the cavity begins to blossom three-dimensionally, spreading inward and sideways. When the decay reaches the pulp tissue, the blood vessels, and the nerves that serve the tooth, the pain starts—an insistent throbbing. The tooth turns brown. It begins to lose its hard structure, to the point where a dentist can reach into a cavity with a hand instrument and scoop out the decay. At the base of the tooth, the bacteria mineralizes into tartar, which begins to irritate the gums. They become puffy and bright red and start to recede, leaving more and more of the tooth's root exposed. When the infection works its way down to the bone, the structure holding the tooth in begins to collapse altogether.

Several years ago, two Harvard researchers, Susan Starr Sered and Rushika Fernandopulle, set out to interview people without health-care coverage for a book they were writing, "Uninsured in America." They talked to as many kinds of people as they could find, collecting stories of untreated depression and struggling single mothers and chronically injured laborers—and the most common complaint they heard was about teeth. Gina, a hairdresser in Idaho, whose husband worked as a freight manager at a chain store, had "a peculiar mannerism of keeping her mouth closed even when speaking." It turned out that she hadn't been able to afford dental care for three years, and one of her front teeth was rotting. Daniel, a construction worker, pulled out his bad teeth with pliers. Then, there was Loretta, who worked nights at a university research center in Mississippi, and was missing most of her teeth. "They'll break off after a while, and then you just grab a hold of them, and they work their way out," she explained to Sered and Fernandopulle. "It hurts so bad, because the tooth aches. Then it's a relief just to get it out of there. The hole closes up itself anyway. So it's so much better."

People without health insurance have bad teeth because, if you're paying for everything out of your own pocket, going to the dentist for a checkup seems like a luxury. It isn't, of course. The loss of teeth makes eating fresh fruits and vegetables difficult, and a diet heavy in soft, processed foods exacerbates more serious health problems, like diabetes. The pain of tooth decay leads many people to use alcohol as a salve. And those struggling to get ahead in the job market quickly find that the unsightliness of bad teeth, and the self-consciousness that results, can become a major barrier. If your teeth are bad, you're not going to get a job as a receptionist, say, or a cashier. You're going to be put in the back somewhere, far from the public eye. What Loretta, Gina, and Daniel understand, the two authors tell us, is that bad teeth have come to be seen as a marker of "poor parenting, low educational achievement and slow or faulty intellectual development." They are an outward marker of caste. "Almost every time we asked interviewees what their first priority would be if the president established universal health coverage tomorrow," Sered and Fernandopulle write, "the immediate answer was ‘my teeth.' "
 
Members don't see this ad :)
P.S. I'm all for this, as well... in school.

I agree. This is a huge problem in American society. Poor school health education because Dubya refuses to allow schools to... you know... tell the truth to their students has had devastating effects on almost a decade of students.

Though I disagree with your position on this, I have to say that I admire how well-read you are on this subject.
 
oh here we go again ^_^
 
I believe, however, that the biggest problem in American healthcare is the fact that people eat it up because they know they will not have to pay for it. It seems to me that perhaps insuring individuals with a middle-level deductible ($500-$1000) or a co-pay due at the time of service in a private system would serve a better purpose by (1) driving costs down because of a decreased consumption and (2) allow more individuals to afford insurance. If this was applied universally across all programs (yes, even medicaid, with perhaps a lower co-pay of ~$50), there wouldn't be such waste of healthcare dollars. Has no one on here ever been to the DMV? It seems ludicrous to suggest that the government should take responsibility for anything as important as health care.
 
It seems to me that perhaps insuring individuals with a middle-level deductible ($500-$1000) or a co-pay due at the time of service in a private system

And the people who make too little to afford a $1000 bill, but just enough to disqualify them from Medicare? There are a lot of people in that situation, ie students, single mothers, etc. (obviously not all students or single mothers fit that mold, just examples of situations that would put you in the category).
 
Well, that's your interpretation and opinion of the Constitution and it's stipulations. In my opinion, as well as the opinion of many Congressmen/women and Justices, the "general welfare" clause in the Preamble implies the welfare of the people is a federal issue, delegated to the federal government.

Like I said, however, this is just my opinion, which is no more valid or correct than your opinion, the only difference being that your are arrogant enough to not recognize yours is an opinion, not a fact.
That's simply your opinion.

Your post is giving me a headache.
 
That's simply your opinion.

Your post is giving me a headache.

Just trying to reinforce that your statements are opinions, as you don't seem to realise that fact. Would you prefer I underline or italicise the word, instead? Perhaps I should let the 'free market' decide. Is it cheaper to bold or underline a word? :D
 
I believe, however, that the biggest problem in American healthcare is the fact that people eat it up because they know they will not have to pay for it.

Nah, you don't really eat up health care until you can't afford not to.

figure1_1.gif


bcat85 said:
Has no one on here ever been to the DMV? It seems ludicrous to suggest that the government should take responsibility for anything as important as health care.

That horse left the barn a loooooooong time ago.

482361.gif
 
G'night, kids. Don't forget to put the leftover pot roast in the fridge and turn out the lights.
 
Just trying to reinforce that your statements are opinions, as you don't seem to realise that fact. Would you prefer I underline or italicise the word, instead? Perhaps I should let the 'free market' decide. Is it cheaper to bold or underline a word? :D
Can we move beyond the semantics and have a meaningful conversation?
 
Can we move beyond the semantics and have a meaningful conversation?

The fact that you feel your interpretation of the Constitution is the ONLY possible interpretation is an issue of semantics?

Wow, you must have gone to the Bill Clinton school of arguments. Do you need the definition of "is", too?
 
The fact that you feel your interpretation of the Constitution is the ONLY possible interpretation is an issue of semantics?

Wow, you must have gone to the Bill Clinton school of arguments. Do you need the definition of "is", too?
You know, you could have maybe given your interpretation too. Or you went to the Tangential School of Arguing.
 
The advocates of UHC seem to think that providing free primary care to everyone will in some way improve the health of the country. This is NOT true. The fat will get fatter, the smokers will continue to smoke. Regardless of whether you arm yourself with the thousands of dollars of pharmacological firepower, the fact is that you cannot change individuals behavior. We are not 40th in the world because we have a bad healthcare system, we are 40th in the world because we have one of the highest rates of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes in the developed world. This, mind you, is in no way a physician's fault. And thanks to EMTALA, everyone gets free urgent medical care anyway. You cannot legislate personal responsibility. People either develop it, or they don't.

Wow this thread has taken off quickly I have a bit of catching up to do but I think this is a good point. Personally I think that having some kind of incentive program for people who do not choose to participate in these toxic behaviors would help (Judgmental I know but bear with me a minute. Those who do not smoke, have an appropriate BMI and do not abuse alcohol receive more expensive care. While doctors are suppose always want to help and never be judgmental I think this is not always what is going to help the public. A little bit of though love might be beneficial to all. Like when we think about our transplant patients. While I am sure there are countless "good" people out their who need a liver transplant but because of making the choice of abusing alcohol are not eligible. We do not sit back and say well I am not giving this to you because you do not deserve it....the thought is their are others that deserve it more. If their was not another patient on the transplant list except for a alcoholic and a new liver was available it would be given to him....unfortunately because of the demand for livers this will never be the case. :( The demand for medical care is also very high and by not taking the resources we have and pouring them into those who will only abuse it I think we may be able to help out more people who will be able to appreciate it. ALSO: I am a believer in second chances so in my own eutopic universal health system the smoker who has quit for a certain period of time would become re-eligible for benefits.... :thumbup:
 
You know, you could have maybe given your interpretation too. Or you went to the Tangential School of Arguing.

Ok, I think you're either not reading the posts, or you are purposefully posting non-related things. Here's a quick breakdown for you:

1) I say all of our opinions are worthless without the votes to support them.
2) You say your opinion holds more worth, because only your opinion is supported by the Constitution.
3) I state that it is your opinion that the Constitution supports your opinion.
4) You reiterate that this thread is full of opinions, despite YOU being the only one claiming your opinion is fact.
5) You claim the difference between "fact" and "opinion" is semantics, despite the fact that this is not the definition of semantics.
6) You somehow relate my interpretation of the Constitution to your inability to grasp the concept of semantics.

We clear?
 
A cousin of mine lives in Canada and tore his ACL 11 months ago. He's literally limping around and his knee buckles when we walks because it's so unstable. They continue to push him aside for other "emergencies" as they put it. As far as the knee goes, a torn ACL is pretty bad so I'm not sure what these other people have. On top of it all, for the "free" healthcare, he pays 52% income tax and 14% or so in sales tax. That's insane. People should decide how they spend their own money - not be forced to give 60% away to a system that is so inefficient and wasteful it's disgusting. Anyway, it's such a disaster. Our government can't even run the DMV or Amtrak in an efficient manner so I sure as hell don't trust them with our healthcare. It's also not feasible with our current tax system. Taxes would have to skyrocket to cover that - so if you're complaining about gas being expensive, that's nothing compared to what you'd be paying in taxes with a socialized system.


<Just look for clarification and not passing Judgement> If your Cuz wanted to go and pay additional out of pocket expense would he be able to be seen more quickly....
 
Every social issue emphasizes the balance between individual rights and responsibilities. I think that it is very important to remember our individual responsibility to the poor- but also our right to be free from a government that infringes on our right to act freely. Christ told us, individually, as Christians, to care for the poor. He didn't tell us to force everyone in society to do so. As much as I may believe that people have the right to recieve health care proportionate to their need, I don't have the right to force my neighbor through the force of government to provide it. Instead, I have a responsibility to be charitable to the degree my conscience calls me.

The answer to greed is not to forcibly take from those we feel are greedy- Jesus Christ was not Robin Hood. If you want to evoke meaningful change, then call others to charity from the goodness of their own hearts-don't force them to contribute to a government system they disagree with, and which will only ultimately make them more callous toward the poor.
 
Top