Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care?

[rxliteguy]

pros: everyone gets health insurance
cons: higher taxes

for the pharmacist, is it good or bad?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Old Timer]

pros: everyone gets health insurance
cons: higher taxes

for the pharmacist, is it good or bad?

100% WRONG

Everyone gets health care. Nobody in the USA is turned away from an ER or denied treatment because they do not have insurance.

The question we need to answer is what is the best way to finance our health care system and manage it's resources to provide affordable quality care for all citizens of the country.
​

 

[rxliteguy]

100% WRONG​

Everyone gets health care. Nobody in the USA is turned away from an ER or denied treatment because they do not have insurance.​

The question we need to answer is what is the best way to finance our health care system and manage it's resources to provide affordable quality care for all citizens of the country.​

darnit, is that why I didn't get accepted into pharmacy school? The interviewer asked me what I would suggest to alleviate the high cost of health insurance. I told her universal health care.

 

[Epic]

darnit, is that why I didn't get accepted into pharmacy school? The interviewer asked me what I would suggest to alleviate the high cost of health insurance. I told her universal health care.

you can reduce healthcare cost by getting rid of drug reps...

 

[Old Timer]

darnit, is that why I didn't get accepted into pharmacy school? The interviewer asked me what I would suggest to alleviate the high cost of health insurance. I told her universal health care.

If that's why you didn't get in, you didn't want to go to that school anyway. What a stupid question.

Your question reflects the bias of the media. There is a coverage gap and not a care gap. The problem is the inefficient use of our health care resources. This is all you hear about....

 

[rxliteguy]

If that's why you didn't get in, you didn't want to go to that school anyway. What a stupid question.

Your question reflects the bias of the media. There is a coverage gap and not a care gap. The problem is the inefficient use of our health care resources. This is all you hear about....

is universal healthcare the same thing as socialized medicine?

 

[Old Timer]

is universal healthcare the same thing as socialized medicine?

NO, lets look at this way. All socialized medicine is Universal Health Care, not all Universal Health Care is Socialized Medicine.

Universal Health Care means all people have access to health care.

Socialized Medicine means the government pays for and controls the entire health care system.

 

[MountainPharmD]

you can reduce healthcare cost by getting rid of drug reps...

Then you would be unemployed....

 

[Epic]

Then you would be unemployed....

aint thought about that..

 

[WVUPharm2007]

100% WRONG

Everyone gets health care. Nobody in the USA is turned away from an ER or denied treatment because they do not have insurance.

​

WTF are you talking about? I've known of numerous people that were denied surgeries or treatments because they couldn't pay. Granted, emergent care is never refused....but there are several examples of people with chronic ailments not getting needed treatments...

 

[PharmDstudent]

aint thought about that..

You don't have to. There will always be representatives for companies. Drug reps just so happen to be eye candy for doctors at the same.

Wear that badge with pride! Someone's assuming you're youthful and attractive, because you wouldn't be wearing it otherwise.

 

[Epic]

You don't have to. There will always be representatives for companies. Drug reps just so happen to be eye candy for doctors at the same.

Wear that badge with pride! Someone's assuming you're youthful and attractive, because you wouldn't be wearing it otherwise.

drug reps unite!

 

[MountainPharmD]

drug reps unite!

Sounds like you have a new recruit. Better watch out......

 

[rxliteguy]

is it me or do drug reps look like news anchormen or anchorwomen? Is it because the drug companies try to pick people who look beautiful so people would tend to think the drugs are what's making them look beautiful?

 

[rxliteguy]

what are solutions to the rising cost of healthcare then?

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

Sounds like you have a new recruit. Better watch out......

Who're the other ones?

 

[CaliCPhT]

100% WRONG​

Everyone gets health care. Nobody in the USA is turned away from an ER or denied treatment because they do not have insurance.​

The question we need to answer is what is the best way to finance our health care system and manage it's resources to provide affordable quality care for all citizens of the country.​

I do agree with you, to a degree. No one is turned away from an ER or denied emergent treatment because they do not have insurance. But, these uninsured do overcrowd emergency rooms, often have expensive tests run and obviously can not pay. What happens next? This increases the cost of healthcare for all of us, and we insured/able to pay have to pay more to compensate for these uninsured not paying. Part of the reasons hospital treatment is so extremely expensive is because of this inefficiency in our health care system. Really, should it cost 25,000 for a 3 day hospital stay to have a baby? I think not. (I'm pretty sure that's what my bill was 3 years ago when my son was born, before insurance paid)

I think that Universal Health Care is a good idea, if and only if, it is instituted properly. I do NOT think that it should be left to the government to decide how to implement. I mean, has anyone experienced Medicare Part D? 'Nuff said.

 

[Epic]

OMG!!!! You people need to get a life....

 

[MountainPharmD]

OMG!!!! You people need to get a life....

WE need to get a life!?!?! Okay super poster you lead the way....

 

[Epic]

WE need to get a life!?!?! Okay super poster you lead the way....

That's the last thing you need...me leading the way..

 

[schwartz818]

What do you think universal healthcare will do to physician salaries?

 

[Amraam]

pros: everyone gets health insurance
cons: higher taxes

for the pharmacist, is it good or bad?

Well, the government should really only provide true 'public goods' - like the military and highways. Healthcare is a quasi-public good, it is rivalous and excludable, but you benefit when others are healthier. The free market will probably fail for a number of reasons so it is a complicated problem.

I really am against any government run program though. Every problem we have today, has its roots in the government, they will screw it up or spend way to much money to get anything done (Expect a 10% reduction in income). I mean just look at your local DMV and the nice long wait replacing a license, and anyone possibly would want bureacrats running the show???

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

pros: everyone gets health insurance
cons: higher taxes

for the pharmacist, is it good or bad?

IT IS BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. . . just look at the diasterous medicare part D.

 

[Avrelian]

I really am against any government run program though. Every problem we have today, has its roots in the government, they will screw it up or spend way to much money to get anything done (Expect a 10% reduction in income). I mean just look at your local DMV and the nice long wait replacing a license, and anyone possibly would want bureacrats running the show???

Where did you get a 10% reduction number, or it is your imagination? US government already spends on healthcare 2-3 times more than any of those 50+ or so countries with socialized healthcare where people live longer than in US. The main question is, why do Americans have to pay 3 times more for healthcare they do not have anyway?

 

[OUTexan]

Make insurance what it really is, insurance. You shouldn't have insurance pay for going to the doctor for a cough and sniffles. Insurance should only account for extreme accidents and long hospital stays. If insurance was viewed as insurance and not a service, it would lower premiums and also free up the doctor's office and pharmacies from dealing as much with these insurances.

 

[jawnly211]

you can not compare US health care to other countries

apples and oranges

US leads the entire galaxy in health problems.........it all boils down to the american lifestyle........bigger is better..........2 double-doubles for dinner........super size my fries...NOW!!!!!!.........im too lazy to walk, therefore i will use an electric cart to wheel around in...........drive-thrus.........tv and computer time is more important than family time.........

please, spareme when comparing US costs to other countries'

 

[schwartz818]

Where did you get a 10% reduction number, or it is your imagination? US government already spends on healthcare 2-3 times more than any of those 50+ or so countries with socialized healthcare where people live longer than in US. The main question is, why do Americans have to pay 3 times more for healthcare they do not have anyway?

US does spend way more than other countries, but it also gets way better results. US is way ahead of any other country in medical research. Most drugs used in the rest of the world are from the US. With socialized medicine this will all stop. US economy will be hurt because the lack of new developments in drugs. With socialized medicine or lower healthcare spending there will be no initiative for companies to develop new drugs or treatment. It is a step towards communism if you ask me. And also life expectancy is not medicines fault its the fault of the way Americans live.

 

[bananaface]

100% WRONG

Everyone gets health care. Nobody in the USA is turned away from an ER or denied treatment because they do not have insurance.

The question we need to answer is what is the best way to finance our health care system and manage it's resources to provide affordable quality care for all citizens of the country.
​

Emergency medicine is only a small portion of health care. Considering emergency access as universal healthcare is akin to saying that everyone has access to pharmaceuticals because grocery stores have OTC sections. Or, that people have access to dental care because they can brush their teeth. One shade of care does not constitute healthcare access when the needs of the patient are greater than the system is capable of providing.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I, for one, don't give a flying ****. Either system sucks. Either a select group of people get no care other than emergent medicine or everyone's care is theoretically taken down a notch to accommodate for the influx of new demand from the newly insured. The only thing that pisses me off are that the people that (albeit involuntarily) suffer in our economic system don't get any credit for it. Mother****ers are martyrs for everyone else. They don't get care so everyone else can get better care. They are poster children for what can go wrong with capitalism. Kinda like third world workers that work in sweatshops....they get paid **** so we can have a higher standard of living.

 

[bananaface]

While taxes would be higher under a UH system, it would be a reallocation of already spent funds from private companies to the government. The "it would cost me more" argument isn't really all it's made to be. As a country, we'd be expected to spend roughly the same amount of money that we do now. Of course, there isn't any reason to believe that the US gov't would provide fair reimbursement under a gov't run system. They don't do it now.

 

[mustang sally]

what are solutions to the rising cost of healthcare then?

Prevention? Good luck getting all Americans to practice that one though.

 

[Amraam]

While taxes would be higher under a UH system, it would be a reallocation of already spent funds from private companies to the government. The "it would cost me more" argument isn't really all it's made to be. As a country, we'd be expected to spend roughly the same amount of money that we do now. Of course, there isn't any reason to believe that the US gov't would provide fair reimbursement under a gov't run system. They don't do it now.

Ha that is a laugh. There is a moral hazard. You will spend a lot more because of the vary nature of national government. They are never allowed to fail and go out of busniess unlike a private company. When they hire the incompetent, make poor choices, mistakes, give political favor based on friendship, they will simply receive more money to fix the problems. Look at the US school system, they receive more and more money without results. I would hardy call this a success based on the billions upon billions that are spent.

 

[KUMoose]

This is an interesting read. I sent it to the pharmacoeconomist that teaches here, just to poke the bear.

Also, let's not bring the school system into this, those are separate issues, mostly because the federal government doesn't spend as much on education as they tell local school systems to spend. Unfunded mandates (like No Child Left Behind) takes a lot options off the table and as long as parents aren't held accountable for their children's success in the classroom, no system will work.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Yes.....I certainly dare you to find something less biased than a article put out by the CATO institute citing a study by the RAND corporation.

I'm too lazy to read the whole thing....can I get the Cliff's Notes version?

 

[KUMoose]

LOL syeash...

It basically says that you could cut 50% of the medical costs paid out in this country and not see an appreciable decrease in quality of life or health care. It's really only funny if you know the guy I sent it to in retrospect, good teacher but PhEcon is his holy crusade.

I agree with the general notion, we spend money in the US in sometimes foolish ways when it comes to health care. If we spent the money hospitals get for covering uninsured and divert that towards localized free clinics to do preventive care, that would provide a lot better service.

 

[pharmdog22f]

Since when can the government run anything?

Tax-exempt healthcare premiums is the way to go!

Corporate buisnesses and insurance companies have gotten their nose in healthcare and got us to where we are. Both good and bad. The last thing we need is Government getting into healthcare to make it worse. I wish all three would leave the healthcare decision making process.

People need to be responsible and purchase their own healthcare just like all other responsible americans. Now I believe it should be a law that everyone carry some sort of health insurance that they finance on their own or thru work I dont like the gov getting in ppls business but its for their own good.

Universal care would eliminate the point of what insurance is altogether. It is people pooling money to avert risk. Where is the risk spread out in universal healthcare. It will just be abused like Medical assistance and welfare. People will start to demand the most expensive treatments and with unlimited demand and limited funding and treatments the government will have no choice but to ration healthcare for everyone. "oh im sorry lil old lady but you only get one doctor visit per year", "oh you wanted lipitor for you cholesterol that is running in the 400's im sorry try some questran"
"oh you have cancer?...get in line"

Canada pays less on brand drugs but more on generic drugs according to pharmacy chain weekly. I enjoy telling this to everyone that thinks canada is so great bc they dont see the forest from the trees.

It will be nothing but the government destroying our hc system. What we need is government scholarships for people that go into non-dr fields like assistants/nurses to assist professionals and lighten the patient burden but thats another story.

Now they are talking about taking away drug company patents and giving cash rewards instead. at first this sounds good. But the goverment would dictate how much a company would get in a cash reward for certain breakthru drugs...alot less than they do now. I dont think big pharma should get silly rich but i do believe they should be compensated for their research. The problem would be that government would dictate what areas to research by giving bigger rewards for those areas. Plus I dont want 100 billion of my tax dollars going to some fund to pay drug companies rewards for new drugs especially if im not sick.

If you want a TRUE govenment funded healthcare system then lets not give our money to governement lets just have them give us 15,000 per year in tax right offs to fund our own healthcare insurance. This to me makes the most sense because it saves people money. They are careful about what they spend for insurance and the government funds it 100% by not taking our money in the first place. ALot of Republican candidates have proposed this like Rudy, Fred, etc. But the media wont let you hear this because they want you to think Hillary is coming to save the day by RAISING your taxes to pay for her 100 billion dollar healtcare spending spree. Plus we should have the health saving accounts for out of pocket expenses just like my flex spending at work that is tax free.

I played with numbers..Hillary and Edwards said it would cost 110 billion to fund their hc plan. That equals about 395 dollars per person per year for health coverage! Now if I took what I actually pay in healthcare per year just in premiums alone and multiply that by everyone in this country that is a legal citizin and accouted for I come up witha figure that would cost us more around 1.85 Trillion dollars and yes that is a T. Clearly this is not an area we should explore.

Medicare D is a disaster that should be eliminated

"Government is not the solution, government is the PROBLEM"- RR


Gov should stick to keeping our bridges/highways up, strong military, strong police/fireman, education system, upholding the constitution of this great country!

 

[pharmdog22f]

Why doesnt the media talk about tax exempt healthcare?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The government sucks at running things just as much as corporations do. What you fail to see is that the entire point off all this is that QUALITY and ACCESS is what should be the primary concern in our national healthcare. If we've learned anything about the last century of corporate-rule economics, PROFIT is the thing that controls which decisions are made in our economy.

I dunno....I guess if you trust insurance companies to make decisions, more power to you....I don't...

 

[evilolive]

Universal health care is a Socialist idea! We don't want our health care system looking like Cuba's.

 

[KUMoose]

Universal health care is a Socialist idea! We don't want our health care system looking like Cuba's.

How about Sweden's (also universal) and ranked numero uno in the world? Socialist != bad, it's just another method to provide a basic human need (as defined by the UN).


Stop blindly listening to the conservative right-sided radio.

 

[evilolive]

How about Sweden's (also universal) and ranked numero uno in the world? Socialist != bad, it's just another method to provide a basic human need (as defined by the UN).


Stop blindly listening to the conservative right-sided radio.

My post was not laden enough with sarcasm I did, however, hear the other day an ad about anti-evolution about how chimpanzees are primitive creatures that can't possibly be related to humans. It drew so much of its base on faulty arguments for intelligent design (not that I disagree with ID's premise as much as its political agenda) that the argument from a scientific background was laughable. Oh, what were we talking about again? Universal Healthcare. Monkeys should get health care too. Oh wait, they do.

 

[Amraam]

The government sucks at running things just as much as corporations do. What you fail to see is that the entire point off all this is that QUALITY and ACCESS is what should be the primary concern in our national healthcare. If we've learned anything about the last century of corporate-rule economics, PROFIT is the thing that controls which decisions are made in our economy.

I dunno....I guess if you trust insurance companies to make decisions, more power to you....I don't...

Well, tell that to FEMA and compare their response to Katrina to how a private corporation like Wal-Mart responded. There is quite a difference. But when a corporation does screw up you be sure to hear all about it (Enron) and how horrible they are. You will never hear the mundane news of doing well though because Bad News Sells.

 

[Amraam]

Why doesnt the media talk about tax exempt healthcare?

The Health Savings Accounts are a fine idea.

You have a savings account that caqn only be spent on health items to offset high deductables tax free.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Well, tell that to FEMA and compare their response to Katrina to how a private corporation like Wal-Mart responded. There is quite a difference. But when a corporation does screw up you be sure to hear all about it (Enron) and how horrible they are. You will never hear the mundane news of doing well though because Bad News Sells.

Clearly Walmart didn't solve the problem, either, being as though the problem still exist. Good job throwing out an extreme example, too.

I swear to God, I wish every liberal and conservative stopped caring so that people without an emotive bias can get **** done...

 

[Amraam]

Clearly Walmart didn't solve the problem, either, being as though the problem still exist. Good job throwing out an extreme example, too.

I swear to God, I wish every liberal and conservative stopped caring so that people without an emotive bias can get **** done...

I should have been more specific,

Wal-Mart at Forefront of Hurricane Relief


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501598.html
What Can Wal-Mart Teach FEMA About Disaster Response?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneRita/story?id=1171087&page=1


A good editorial,
[FONT=Garamond, Times]Private FEMA
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007238


Extreme example, or an example of a typical comparison of action of the feds?.

The fact of the matter is disasters make the shortfalls of the system so apparent. Shall we simply wait for a study 10 years later for information to see if it was a good idea when we KNOW of the warning signs? Dem and Reps are captains of the boat, but who pays if the ship sinks.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I should have been more specific,

Wal-Mart at Forefront of Hurricane Relief


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501598.html
What Can Wal-Mart Teach FEMA About Disaster Response?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneRita/story?id=1171087&page=1


A good editorial,
[FONT=Garamond, Times]Private FEMA
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007238


Extreme example, or an example of a typical comparison of action of the feds?.

The fact of the matter is disasters make the shortfalls of the system so apparent. Shall we simply wait for a study 10 years later for information to see if it was a good idea when we KNOW of the warning signs? Dem and Reps are captains of the boat, but who pays if the ship sinks.

Eh, good for you. Clearly FEMA was underestablished. But really, that's beside the point and has nothing to do with generalized healthcare. Using FEMA as the one example of all gov't run things that have ever existed is using a single extreme example and ignoring everything else. I can give examples of government being good at what it does, too. The post office, the military, police, fire depts, IRS, dept of forestry, coast guard, blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is that thinking that the world is so black and white...corporate rule good, govt rule bad....or the other way around....isn't a good way to think. We need to be flexible and open.

 

[Old Timer]

Eh, good for you. Clearly FEMA was underestablished. But really, that's beside the point and has nothing to do with generalized healthcare. Using FEMA as the one example of all gov't run things that have ever existed is using a single extreme example and ignoring everything else. I can give examples of government being good at what it does, too. The post office, the military, police, fire depts, IRS, dept of forestry, coast guard, blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is that thinking that the world is so black and white...corporate rule good, govt rule bad....or the other way around....isn't a good way to think. We need to be flexible and open.

This is an absolutely brilliant point. There are many things the government does well (as if there is this monolithic thing called government) and some things it does well. FEMA, for example, ran flawlessly during the Clinton administration since they stocked the agency with emergency management experts and not political cronies. It also does not mean they didn't put political cronies in other agencies, just that FEMA was well run during the Clinton years. Social Security is also an extremely well run organization. The checks arrive like clock work and the benefit statements are also well organized.

The next is to recognize the problem with our health care system and there really is only one problem. The consumer of the services in most cases is not the payer of the services. As long as you are divorced from the costs, you will always demand more for $10.00 copay.

Finally, universal coverage does not mean a single payer system like in many European countries. You can mandate coverage governmentally and set the minimum parameters of coverage like most states do with auto insurance as one model to attain universal coverage. Universal coverage is not socialist while a single payer system clearly is socialist.

Put your political thoughts aside for a second and if you were King or Queen how would you set up the ideal health care system? How would you pay for the system? How would you cover the poor?

Put your words where your mouth is and tell us how to do it....

 

[Amraam]

Eh, good for you. Clearly FEMA was underestablished. But really, that's beside the point and has nothing to do with generalized healthcare. Using FEMA as the one example of all gov't run things that have ever existed is using a single extreme example and ignoring everything else. I can give examples of government being good at what it does, too. The post office, the military, police, fire depts, IRS, dept of forestry, coast guard, blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is that thinking that the world is so black and white...corporate rule good, govt rule bad....or the other way around....isn't a good way to think. We need to be flexible and open.

Oh I am not saying corporate rule is nessesarily good, the point is corporations probably would do better than the government- what we kind of have now anyways.

Government does have many roles, but not as the central player in health care which is my point. The things the government must provide and does well are providing 'public goods'. Things that you cannot prevent others from using and your using does not exclude others from using- police, fire, military which are constitutional mandates anyway (Is health care considered a right that the government must provide anyway) However, because of the high barriers to entry in the medical field, there is a relative shortage of health care providers for health care to be a public good. i.e. why there are longer waits for treatment in other countries.


So to sum up the questions we should first ask,

Does the Federal government have power to do this?
Should it?
And the most important, who pays and why?

 

[Amraam]

This is an absolutely brilliant point. There are many things the government does well (as if there is this monolithic thing called government) and some things it does well. FEMA, for example, ran flawlessly during the Clinton administration since they stocked the agency with emergency management experts and not political cronies. It also does not mean they didn't put political cronies in other agencies, just that FEMA was well run during the Clinton years. Social Security is also an extremely well run organization. The checks arrive like clock work and the benefit statements are also well organized.

The next is to recognize the problem with our health care system and there really is only one problem. The consumer of the services in most cases is not the payer of the services. As long as you are divorced from the costs, you will always demand more for $10.00 copay.

Finally, universal coverage does not mean a single payer system like in many European countries. You can mandate coverage governmentally and set the minimum parameters of coverage like most states do with auto insurance as one model to attain universal coverage. Universal coverage is not socialist while a single payer system clearly is socialist.

Put your political thoughts aside for a second and if you were King or Queen how would you set up the ideal health care system? How would you pay for the system? How would you cover the poor?

Put your words where your mouth is and tell us how to do it....

First, Social Security is not exactly run well, unless becoming bankrupt is good! And if health care is an arm of the state it is very likely there will be political cronies appointed such as in FEMA.

I have some ideas I am working on and will post sometime.

 

[Old Timer]

First, Social Security is not exactly run well, unless becoming bankrupt is good! And if health care is an arm of the state it is very likely there will be political cronies appointed such as in FEMA.

I have some ideas I am working on and will post sometime.

Social Security being bankrupt (which it is not) has nothing to do with the efficiency with which it is run. It has to do with the will of Congress to solve the problem. What they will do is:

• Raise the Payroll tax (slightly)
• Increase the retirement age (slightly)
• Decrease benefits (slightly)

You'll get another 75 years out of the system and by then the baby boomers and their drain on the system will be over. It would help you if you didn't spout political talking points and brought some real information to the table.