Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!internal1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.cancer.support, alt.support.diabetes, fidonet.diabetes,
misc.health.diabetes, talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Single Payer Universal Health Care
Date: 25 May 2004 16:41:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 68
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.182.177.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 23:41:40 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cancer.support:812
alt.support.diabetes:314477 fidonet.diabetes:347 misc.health.diabetes:290793
talk.politics.medicine:99321
mike gray wrote in message news:...
> Proconsul wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices, i.e.,
> > TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with availability of
> > service will go way down as care is rationed to lower costs......that's the
> > way it's worked everywhere else in the world where it's been tried.
>
> No argument there.
>
> > Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior to any other system
> > so far devised by anyone.....and we need to focus on what we KNOW
> > works.....a free market with competition and no government interference is
> > the key to lower costs and higher quality care - that's the way it's always
> > worked whenever it's been tried.....
>
> But the current system leaves out a substantial (1/6) portion of the
> population. The universal care argument is that at least basic health
> services should be a right, not a perq of the fortunate.
When you start counting up the uninsured you get some pretty
interesting numbers.
Some self-select to be uninsured even in the absence of financial
constraints. 8% of people earnming more than 75K per year are
uninsured (7 million total)
Some do not avail themselves of government programs that would provide
them with health care insurance - SCHIPS is under enrolled by 5 to 7
million kids.
Some do not avail themselves of employer provided health care
insurance for various reasons. This could be as much as 7 or 8
million.
Some are illegal aliens and whether or not we should pay for their
health care is an intersting question that is political, not medical.
This is estimated to be in the 3 million range.
That is 24 million of the 42 million uninsured.
That leaves less than half with a bonafide gap. And this gap grows
every year as the state Medicaid systems, in an effort to balnace
their budgets, constrain the eligibility criteria. 14 million with
household incomes under 25K are uninsured. That is 150% of the
poverty line for a family of 4. Now - who's fault is that?
> It is not just the indigent that lack coverage, btw. We self employed
> folks have been priced out of the coverage market (in part by
> legislation requiring coverage of benefits that we'd be happy to
> forego), yet we still have to pay for the elderly (double!), the
> government workers, and (through the pricing mechanism) the corporate
> employees.
Like I said - give the right incentives and you'd be surprised. The
fact that you are self-employed, though, is no defense for not buying
into an insurance scheme.
> I have no problem with the free market restricting Ferraris to the
> fortunate few. I'm not so sure that healthcare falls into the same category.
You want me to buy your health care insurance for you? No, I don't
think so. I would support incentives for you to pyurchase insurance,
I would support a group buying pool arrangement for self employeds,
and I would support minimalist coverage (catastrophic inpatient, for
example).
js
|