Universal Healthcare

Started by CScull
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sorry. We studied utopias for a month in poly sci last semester, and I still can't get them off the brain.

And here we go derailing threads again. Derailing your own thread, to boot!
 
Dangit. Well at least it has something to do with what I was originally talking about.

Bah. I stink at threads.
 
That's Tennis. He's convinced that it snows eight months a year in WV, apparently.

I was in WV a few weeks ago, for white water rafting! It was fun.
 
We're making a mockery of my own thread I hope you know that...

White water rafting sounds awesome though, I really want to go kayaking...
 
I'm against it. I've talked to people from other countries who have it, and they hate it, and frankly, I'm not really into socialism at all. I think that something needs to be done about this country's healthcare system? But not this.

Although, keep in mind, it's now the "Health Insurance Reform". *nod* Very important, that.

How about you?
 
I'm against it. I've talked to people from other countries who have it, and they hate it, and frankly, I'm not really into socialism at all. I think that something needs to be done about this country's healthcare system? But not this.

Although, keep in mind, it's now the "Health Insurance Reform". *nod* Very important, that.

How about you?

The people you've spoken to...have they had *both* systems? I mean, do they know both sides of the story?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I talked to a few people in Canada, so that's a no. Um, this guy from Sweden? He was in my college class last semester. He lived in Sweden for twenty-five years, moved here, and says our health care system is a lot better. So that's a yes.

Not that I've looked into it that much, but from what I've heard, Germany has got a pretty cool idea, with multipayer universal health care.
 
I talked to a few people in Canada, so that's a no. Um, this guy from Sweden? He was in my college class last semester. He lived in Sweden for twenty-five years, moved here, and says our health care system is a lot better. So that's a yes.

Not that I've looked into it that much, but from what I've heard, Germany has got a pretty cool idea, with multipayer universal health care.

I wonder how someone would feel if they came from a U.H. country, then moved here, but was poor. I mean, it's one thing to come here from U.H. as a salaried employee with good benefits. You have the best insurance and the most convenient care. But to come here from U.H. and be forced to go to the ER for the flu or something would suck.
 
Yes, it would. I'm not saying that our health care system right now is great, because it's not. It definitely needs to be fixed. I'm just unhappy with the way that they're doing it.
 
My experiences

*Princes are converted to US dollars.

Canada

I was in a small town. No waiting list to see a GP. But, you have to wait very long to get an MRI. You have to wait about 1-2 weeks for X-rays or blood work. No medical bills. Free.

Personal experiences:

I always could see a GP without waiting. But, I had to wait for two weeks for an appointment to see an opthalmologist.



Japan

I was in Tokyo, Japan. No waiting list to see a GP. No waiting list to see a specialist. You can see a specialist without a GP's referral. No wait for scans, blood work, or MRI. Japan builds these medical machines and export them. Pay 30% of total medical expenses but the price is regulated by the country.

Personal experiences:

Had an floaters in my eye. Next day, I went to a top eye surgery institution where the doctors are top schools graduate and completed residency at Harvard, University of Tokyo, Cambridge etc.. I waited for only 2 hours without appointment. I paid 13$ for the total expenses (for check up)

I had a 6 days of diarrhea. I went to see a specialist who specialize in Gastroenterology in a big hospital. Without appointment, I had to wait 1 hour. I got X-ray and blood work. He also recommended endoscopy test because I told him I am going to the U.S. lol. He said I can do it that day and it costs $35. I said no. I paid $19 in total for doctor visit, blood work, and X-ray.

Doctors make $200,000 here regardless of specialty.


United States of America

So far, I only hear horrible experiences about health care from international students and Americans. I have to verify that by myself.

The hospitals in the U.S. is amazing. They are build big. Not like the hospitals in Canada or in Japan.
 
Nope. I mean, I would love to see everyone get health care--I grew up in a ghetto, pinching pennies--but should the people who were a) ambitious enough to work their way up and/or b) lucky enough to be in a position in society where health care is not a major concern, be punished?

I dunno what the solution is. *sigh*
 
Nope. I mean, I would love to see everyone get health care--I grew up in a ghetto, pinching pennies--but should the people who were a) ambitious enough to work their way up and/or b) lucky enough to be in a position in society where health care is not a major concern, be punished?

I dunno what the solution is. *sigh*

Yeah I get that. I mean, money buys things...that's the point of it. No reason it shouldn't buy better healthcare, right?

I hope we can figure out a way to get an efficient and cost effective minimum level of care that everyone has access to and that doesn't tax the upper levels of society too heavily. Although, as this is a society, of course everyone will need to chip in a reasonable and proportional amount. Just like other social services that can help you if times get tough.

But I certainly don't think the upper levels should be disproportionally taxed, which seems to be the way everything is heading. Why can't everything be a flat %?
 
Yeah I get that. I mean, money buys things...that's the point of it. No reason it shouldn't buy better healthcare, right?

I hope we can figure out a way to get an efficient and cost effective minimum level of care that everyone has access to and that doesn't tax the upper levels of society too heavily. Although, as this is a society, of course everyone will need to chip in a reasonable and proportional amount. Just like other social services that can help you if times get tough.

But I certainly don't think the upper levels should be disproportionally taxed, which seems to be the way everything is heading. Why can't everything be a flat %?

What is the income tax % in the U.S.?
 
Yeah I get that. I mean, money buys things...that's the point of it. No reason it shouldn't buy better healthcare, right?

I hope we can figure out a way to get an efficient and cost effective minimum level of care that everyone has access to and that doesn't tax the upper levels of society too heavily. Although, as this is a society, of course everyone will need to chip in a reasonable and proportional amount. Just like other social services that can help you if times get tough.

But I certainly don't think the upper levels should be disproportionally taxed, which seems to be the way everything is heading. Why can't everything be a flat %?

The problem with flat tax (yeah, I know, it was rhetorical, whatever I feel like reasoning through it) would be that you'd have to settle on a rate that even the poorest of poor could afford, and that wouldn't bring in enough money to fund all the administrative costs we've got going now. Right?

A lot of people here on SDN are talking about a solution based on the supply/demand theory, claiming that if we admit more people into medical schools, the supply will go up and therefore the cost will go down. It sounds kind of ridiculous to me--I mean, it's not the doctor that takes the majority of your medical bill. Any thoughts on that? Anyone?
 
The problem with flat tax (yeah, I know, it was rhetorical, whatever I feel like reasoning through it) would be that you'd have to settle on a rate that even the poorest of poor could afford, and that wouldn't bring in enough money to fund all the administrative costs we've got going now. Right?

A lot of people here on SDN are talking about a solution based on the supply/demand theory, claiming that if we admit more people into medical schools, the supply will go up and therefore the cost will go down. It sounds kind of ridiculous to me--I mean, it's not the doctor that takes the majority of your medical bill. Any thoughts on that? Anyone?

I'd prefer to see a minimum income required to pay into it, perhaps. Which would kinda be like the income tax.

It seems very difficult to speculate on the affect of the actual price that docs will charge/receive for services after a huge overhaul. I mean, this isn't something we've seen happen. Currently, docs don't set the prices.

The AMA has been fighting for 100 years to keep the number of docs regulated to ensure the salaries of practicing physicians. I think that increasing the number of GPs would help the situation, but flooding the field with all kinds of docs seems a bit drastic and bad for the profession. However, maybe that's my future bank account talking...
 
The problem with flat tax (yeah, I know, it was rhetorical, whatever I feel like reasoning through it) would be that you'd have to settle on a rate that even the poorest of poor could afford, and that wouldn't bring in enough money to fund all the administrative costs we've got going now. Right?

A lot of people here on SDN are talking about a solution based on the supply/demand theory, claiming that if we admit more people into medical schools, the supply will go up and therefore the cost will go down. It sounds kind of ridiculous to me--I mean, it's not the doctor that takes the majority of your medical bill. Any thoughts on that? Anyone?

Chocolate Bear's idea is correct on the flat tax. Most likely deductions would result in persons below a certain income paying no or negligible taxes.

You are correct that doctors salaries aren't fueling the healthcare cost inflation. However, the unfortunate problem for us is that doctors are the visible face of healthcare. The lay person never sees the insurance exec's BMW, but they see their doctor's. This makes physicians an easy target.

As far as increasing the physicians supply, I don't think it will be a huge success in addressing the shortage (note I do think it will have some success). Reason being the shortage is largely geographical. Graduate 20% more MDs and a huge amount of them will want to live in boston, NYC, Socal, the bay area ect. So IMO it will further saturate some markets (bringing down pay and hurting the job market), while missing its mark on improving access to care in underserved areas.

But I certainly don't think the upper levels should be disproportionally taxed, which seems to be the way everything is heading. Why can't everything be a flat %?

I'm a big fan of the flat tax. But what really gets me with the current administartions plan is the subsidizing of tax cuts for one group while upping taxes on another. If they need money that bad they should raise everyone's, or at minimum keep them where they are.
 
The problem with flat tax (yeah, I know, it was rhetorical, whatever I feel like reasoning through it) would be that you'd have to settle on a rate that even the poorest of poor could afford, and that wouldn't bring in enough money to fund all the administrative costs we've got going now. Right?

A lot of people here on SDN are talking about a solution based on the supply/demand theory, claiming that if we admit more people into medical schools, the supply will go up and therefore the cost will go down. It sounds kind of ridiculous to me--I mean, it's not the doctor that takes the majority of your medical bill. Any thoughts on that? Anyone?

I think a lot of it is that doctors don't want to have to teach, because they make so much less than if they'd specialized elsewhere. Less teachers, less seats in medical school, less doctors. That's one of Obama's main points, he wants to up their salaries, as well as primary care physicians (or "preventative medicine" as he calls it), and lower specialty salaries.

I agree with lowering insane plastic surgeon's salaries and all that, but I think it would be a tad unfair, that for all their extra schooling specialists will only make marginally more than primary care physicians.
 
What do you guys think about the Medical Review Board Obama's suggesting?

Honestly I can't see it functioning, with all of the cases that come into the hospital in a day how can one group of people get through all that? And then how will they work around private practice doctors?

I do think the electronic charts are a great idea though... as long as they're not only on the internet.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What do you guys think about the Medical Review Board Obama's suggesting?

Honestly I can't see it functioning, with all of the cases that come into the hospital in a day how can one group of people get through all that? And then how will they work around private practice doctors?

I do think the electronic charts are a great idea though... as long as they're not only on the internet.

Out local hospital runs everything online--you make appointments, get test results, etc., etc., online. It's convenient, but kind of scary, yeah.

I think the worst part of the Medical Review Board is the administration cost. I mean, how much of every tax dollar goes toward bureaucracy? 85%? If they're trying to make things cheaper for Americans, they're going in the wrong direction.
 
Out local hospital runs everything online--you make appointments, get test results, etc., etc., online. It's convenient, but kind of scary, yeah.

I think the worst part of the Medical Review Board is the administration cost. I mean, how much of every tax dollar goes toward bureaucracy? 85%? If they're trying to make things cheaper for Americans, they're going in the wrong direction.

And what if the diagnosis is wrong, or the patient has a reaction to the medication, or something? The doctors have to go back and waste more of the board's time... and the patient's. And isn't it the doctor's job to determine the best procedure for the patient? It sounds kind of crazy to create a board to decide to do what the doctor was already planning to do.
 
I didn't watch the video, but I can verify that nearly every good idea turns out to be a real-world catastrophe. Triple the likelihood of this if the government is involved. 😉
They cannot run the DMV, what makes them think they can run our hospitals?
 
They cannot run the DMV, what makes them think they can run our hospitals?

😀

I mean, everyone loves to complain about lines at the DMV, but I've never been convinced that any of the complainers could do things any better.

What are the major flaws, in your opinion? Why? What would you change? How? Would said changes save money or just wait times? How do you know what it takes to run something like that? How do you know it's not set up optimally, currently?

Just curious.
 
Um the title of the thread doesn't really match the video in the OP. Oh well.

Video:

How has the stimulus affected me? Well one of the stimulus projects is to pave a portion of the interstate that I commute on and it REALLY needed it. The ruts in the road were so bad that I'm sure they contributed to accidents. Now it's so smooth. I've never felt road so smooth. I love it, despite the delays it sometimes causes in traffic.

I agree with the video that the stimulus shouldn't be used on developing remote areas or cultural enrichment projects. Would I have vetoed it if I were president had it come to my desk if I felt the bill also did critical things? Not sure. It mostly highlights how bills need to be less bundled with riders and such, though it was intentional in this case.

What would I have spent stimulus money on? Primarily I would have built many nuclear reactors to get off of foreign oil, but Obama is a-scared of nuclear energy. The reactors would require many jobs to build and give us high paying jobs in the long term, not to mention other benefits which are both economic and environmental. Of course I would also include development of other alternative energy sources, which are being pursued, just not to the extent I would like. A second important project would have been to wire the healthcare industry to help minimize healthcare errors, be able to more effectively monitor epidemiologic data, and other benefits. That was also included but not to the extent I would have liked.

Universal healthcare? Yeah I support it if we do something like the French, which has government insurance for all basic things but allows supplemental. We'd save on administrative overhead and be able to bring healthcare spending to heel. Hopefully they do that via painless cost-saving before pursuing rationing, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Um the title of the thread doesn't really match the video in the OP. Oh well.

Video:

How has the stimulus affected me? Well one of the stimulus projects is to pave a portion of the interstate that I commute on and it REALLY needed it. The ruts in the road were so bad that I'm sure they contributed to accidents. Now it's so smooth. I've never felt road so smooth. I love it, despite the delays it sometimes causes in traffic.

I agree with the video that the stimulus shouldn't be used on developing remote areas or cultural enrichment projects. Would I have vetoed it if I were president had it come to my desk if I felt the bill also did critical things? Not sure. It mostly highlights how bills need to be less bundled with riders and such, though it was intentional in this case.

What would I have spent stimulus money on? Primarily I would have built many nuclear reactors to get off of foreign oil, but Obama is a-scared of nuclear energy. The reactors would require many jobs to build and give us high paying jobs in the long term, not to mention other benefits which are both economic and environmental. Of course I would also include development of other alternative energy sources, which are being pursued, just not to the extent I would like. A second important project would have been to wire the healthcare industry to help minimize healthcare errors, be able to more effectively monitor epidemiologic data, and other benefits. That was also included but not to the extent I would have liked.

Universal healthcare? Yeah I support it if we do something like the French, which has government insurance for all basic things but allows supplemental. We'd save on administrative overhead and be able to bring healthcare spending to heel. Hopefully they do that via painless cost-saving before pursuing rationing, but I'm not holding my breath.

Hehe, opsie. I must have linked the wrong vid. My bad, here's the right one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw&feature=channel

I'll change it on the original post too, so other people don't get confused either.

Thanks for pointing that out!!
 
Less trolling, more orgy-porgy please!

Heh, dirty, but funny, I'll give you that.

Is it really trolling if it's your own thread? And I resent the term "troll", but I'm okay if you call me Spamy McSpam-Spam.
 
Someone please inform me if I seem naive, but the reason I think Universal Healthcare is bad is because, wouldn't there be a lack a competition? Doesn't competition = lower costs and higher quality? I realize that health care isn't as black and white as a material "product", but still.
 
Someone please inform me if I seem naive, but the reason I think Universal Healthcare is bad is because, wouldn't there be a lack a competition? Doesn't competition = lower costs and higher quality? I realize that health care isn't as black and white as a material "product", but still.

The idea is that the goverment could force lower costs.
 
Someone please inform me if I seem naive, but the reason I think Universal Healthcare is bad is because, wouldn't there be a lack a competition? Doesn't competition = lower costs and higher quality? I realize that health care isn't as black and white as a material "product", but still.

We really have no competition *now*. Which is why I think a few less drastic changes than going to UHC could very much help the problem.
 
Someone please inform me if I seem naive, but the reason I think Universal Healthcare is bad is because, wouldn't there be a lack a competition? Doesn't competition = lower costs and higher quality? I realize that health care isn't as black and white as a material "product", but still.

When it's another company sure... but the government is also going to use taxes to support their program so low income people can afford it, so it's much cheaper than private, so cheap it'll be impossible to compete with. Then everyone flocks to the cheaper insurance and the government has to raise taxes, because they can't raise prices as that would make it harder for people to afford... private care is pretty much extinct because they've all been put out of business...

and there we go down the socialist drain.

But this is very worst-case scenario... if they keep the rates high enough to allow for some healthy competition, it'll be fine. It's just kinda scary that they'll have that much control, the economy is s'posed to be in the hands of the people, not politicians.
 
Last edited:
"Universal healthcare" and "socialized healthcare" are too different things and can be mutually exclusive.

The idea that universal healthcare is gonna decrease competition doesn't really make sense because all universal healthcare means is that everybody (or close to everybody) in the US has healthcare....it does NOT mean there will only be one government plan that will cover everyone in the nation.

Also, the idea that the public plan will be automatically cheaper because of subsidies given to the poor is not how healthcare reform is being set up. The public plan will increase competition but it will not take all of the private plan's customers. The CBO estimates that 10 million people will take up the public plan initially. The most important point here is that the subsidies for people who can't afford healthcare do not only apply to the public plan. People will get those subsidies no matter which plan they choose, any of the numberous private or the public plan. So, the public plan does not equal socialized healthcare.
 
I'm against it. I've talked to people from other countries who have it, and they hate it, and frankly, I'm not really into socialism at all. I think that something needs to be done about this country's healthcare system? But not this.

Although, keep in mind, it's now the "Health Insurance Reform". *nod* Very important, that.

How about you?

Universal healthcare doesn't have to be socialist.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

A link I think everyone interested in the subject will find interesting.
 
Last edited:
Someone please inform me if I seem naive, but the reason I think Universal Healthcare is bad is because, wouldn't there be a lack a competition? Doesn't competition = lower costs and higher quality? I realize that health care isn't as black and white as a material "product", but still.

Not necessarily. Countries that have universal health-care supported by taxes probably, but in countries like Germany and Switzerland where almost everyone is insured by a private insurance companies, they do compete.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Not necessarily. Countries that have universal health-care supported by taxes probably, but in countries like Germany and Switzerland where almost everyone is insured by a private insurance companies, they do compete.
I'm sorry, I meant socialized healthcare not universal.
 
Not necessarily. Countries that have universal health-care supported by taxes probably, but in countries like Germany and Switzerland where almost everyone is insured by a private insurance companies, they do compete.

That's what I'd like to see happen here. I just think it would be very difficult to reach Obama's goal of insuring everyone who wants it this way.
 
Ok. In my opinion, Americans are really unique. Out of these wealthy countries in the world, United States is the only country without universal health care.

Developed countries

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
On the flipside, the US also offers the most advanced health care in the world.

I would argue that we can offer most of that healthcare to much less wealthy folks in this country as well. In the United States, people WITHOUT private health insurance (even homeless folks) are still able to obtain same-day or next-day MRI's for certain illnesses. How many other countries could do the same?
 
On the flipside, the US also offers the most advanced health care in the world.

I would argue that we can offer most of that healthcare to much less wealthy folks in this country as well. In the United States, people WITHOUT private health insurance (even homeless folks) are still able to obtain same-day or next-day MRI's for certain illnesses. How many other countries could do the same?

In Japan, it is possible. People get MRI almost the next or within three days from the stories I've heard.

You now pay $40 for an MRI. Some GPs even now have an MRI in their office.

If you watch the video, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/share.html?s=frol02n71dq101

The video says "Japanese has twice MRIs machines per capita comparing to the U.S."

And yes, we have universal health care.

But, the most advanced health care is available in Japan. It's not covered under the insurance plan.

I am not saying U.S. should adapt the universal health care thingy or whatever. Because Americans are different. They are people who have obesity and various other problems. (For example, too much fast food in the U.S., people eat stuff without controlling themselves. etc...)
 
Last edited: