10
Aug
Universal Health Care: Good Idea or Bad Idea?
Author: DavidJones // Category: Ethics, Politics
Is universal health care a good idea or a bad idea? Why?
I’m not going to touch this issue yet. I want to hear your opinions. And please give real reasons. Answers like “It’s a bad idea because our President is stupid” will not get approved or posted.
Let the fun begin…
Tags: Barack Obama, Canadian Health Care, Democrats, President, Republicans, Universal Health Care
August 10th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
It probably depends on the extent to which universal health care is made into policy. If the policy involves creating a government-run program that can voluntarily be entered into by even the poorest Americans, and has no intention of limiting the ability of insurance companies to compete, then I think it’s a good idea.
Not a day goes by that uninsured Americans don’t go to the emergency room for things like the flu when, if they had some kind of insurance, they would otherwise be going to their family physician. When these people go to the emergency room, those costs are passed on to hospitals and local governments who are forced to find a way to pay for the treatment. That’s an unsustainable system.
I don’t think anyone who is happy with their own personal health care policy should have to change policies if they don’t want to. If certain employers decide they don’t want to provide coverage to their employees because the government plan will save them money, then employers who choose to provide better care to their employees will be more competitive in hiring workers as most people would rather work for an employer that provides better coverage. Those employers who choose not to provide health care will save money by having their employees use the government plan.
August 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I personally think universal healthcare is a bad idea. It clearly takes away the freedom from the patient to chose the type of care they want to recieve and puts it in the governments hands. If per say my grandparents got sick they would probably be refused care because they have less time to contribute enough to society. Same on the other end of life with babies. Universal healthcare would cover all abortions and make doctors who think it is wrong to perform abortions perform them against their will. In my opinion there is no need to fix something for the 20 or so million without healthcare. The vast majority of those people do not want it anyhow. If we want to provide healthcare for them then do it but do not change a system for the few. If anyone wants healthcare to be universal they should speak with those who already have it in their countries. Socialized medicine or universal healthcare is just another step to taking away Americans freedom.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:20 am
First of all, let’s call it what it is – mandatory insurance. Even people that aren’t covered today are entitled to health care, it’s just out of their own pocket. This is just another way for the government to get involved in a business that they have no reason to be involved in so that the president can be mentioned in the same sentence as Roosevelt (New Deal) and Johson (Great Society). Do we really need to spend $1 trillion in the middle of a recession???
August 11th, 2009 at 9:09 am
@ Josh & Joe,
I believe all of those fears are legitimate. However, would you be willing to support a program that allows people who want to choose/keep their own plan to do so, doesn’t force any doctors to perform abortions against their will, doesn’t refuse care to the elderly, and allows the 47 million people currently without insurance to receive care without requiring those currently with insurance to fit the bill?
August 11th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Can any of you name one insttitution, agency, company or business that the government has taken control of and been successful? Changes are necessary, but the changes being suggested are not the answer. Another question I have is “what’s the rush?” I for one feel that this policy is being rammed down our throats. To quote the man at Stenny Hoyer’s town hall meeting, “we’re being forced to make a decision on health care in a matter of weeks when it took the president 6 months to pick out a dog.”
August 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
@ Larry
If the government was completely taking over the health industry (i.e. rationing drugs, employing doctors, etc.) as is the case in the UK, then I think your question would be pertinent. I also wouldn’t support such a program. I think a better question is: Can you name one institution, agency, company or business that the government runs in competition with private businesses and has been successful? One answer I’d give you would be the post office. Sure, the post office has problems. But, for the most part, people are relatively happy with the fact that they can put a letter in their mailbox, and it can arrive 1,000 miles away in about 2-3 business days. While the government unquestionably has enormous problems, it also does a pretty good job on roads, schools, regulating clean water and electricity, the national weather service, the FCC, and the FDA. These are really only a few.
With the regard to the speed at which this program seems to be progressing (or regressing depending on how you view it), I wouldn’t actually consider this a rush at all. People have been trying to push through massive health care reform since the 1930s. This particular bill may seem like it’s moving fast, but that’s only because the longer it takes, the easier it is to kill. That’s not necessarily a legitimate reason to push it through, but that’s probably why it seems to be going so fast.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Tyrone –
I wouldn’t be in favor of any government program. I am a firm believer that the private sector and non-profits can do a much better job solving these problems if we let them. For example, why doesn’t the National Association of Free Will Baptists create a health insurance fund available to all members? The more people look to the government to solve issues, the more groups that should exist to serve become marginalized.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I have a problem with the system for several reasons. I could write a book on this, so I will keep them very short and not fully defend them.
- I don’t think that our government needs to become any more socialist than it already is. The US gov’t is not built to be socialistic, if we continue in this direction the gov’t will fall apart. If we are going to be socialistic then we need to change how the gov’t works to support it.
- This looks like a stepping stone to gov’t control of another private sector: what do you think will happen when private hospitals won’t give Obama a discount for his healthcare system? We will be looking at phase 2, the take over of private healthcare (and more socialism that we are not ready for)
- If we lose the private sector then we also lose religious hospitals which are the top hospitals in most areas, hospitals with Christian chaplains and Christian ideals about life will no longer exist in America
- I have lived in a country with universal healthcare, and it was a joke. The doctors were not good, the lines were long, and lots of people died unneccesarily. Bribery was rampant, life was not important, and therefore cleanliness was not important either.
I think this is a bad idea, even though I know something has to change because my church pays $17,000 per year for my insurance!
August 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@ Joe,
That’s fair. I understand that many people believe the private sector is better equipped to solve society’s ills than the federal government. In most cases, I completely agree.
The problem with the private sector completely handling health care lies in the private sector’s natural desire to make a profit. Because of this legitimate desire, 47 million people can’t be covered in a way that would be profitable for insurance companies. Furthermore, denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and refusing to pay for treatment because of loopholes, tend to be rather profitable for the private sector.
I would be against the idea of the government forcing everyone to own a car, or forcing everyone to buy a TV. But the health of our citizens, in my opinion, is in the interest of our government. But that’s just my opinion.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Tyrone –
I understand that the private sector is about making a profit, but that’s consumer driven capitalism. Under Obama’s proposal, big pharma has agreed to not cap prices for drugs and will provide $80 billion over 10 years to help fund the program. Pharmaceuticals are about making money and they obviously feel that without the caps on drug prices they will be able to charge whatever they want and make multiples of their $80 billion investment over 10 years.
In the end, private corporations will figure out a way to make money off the plan. That won’t change.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@ Joe
But if pharmaceutical companies are still able to make such profits, why are there so many accusations of socialism? It seems that this plan is trying to provide coverage to almost 50 million Americans, and still allowing private companies to make significant profits (i.e. consumer-driven capitalism). If that’s the case, I don’t really see why there is so much outrage?
August 12th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
The accusations of socialism come because you’ll have a government plan competing directly with private insurance for ridiculously low premiums that private insurance can’t compete with. In addition, legislators will have the power to make decisions regarding care that doctor’s currently make. Add on that the government will require everyone (except illegal aliens) to have coverage whether you want it or can afford it and you have a quasi-socialist health care system.
The pharmaceutical companies will make their money off the government because there will still be a disconnect between the price of a service and what it costs the consumer.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Some pharmaceutical companies can make profits but they will be the ones that the government chooses, thus not a completely capitalistic system. It is unrealistic to think that the government could enter into a market setting their arbitrary prices with no need to make a profit (because it would be tax payer funded)and expect the private companies to stay in business. Look how well it worked when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac(gov’t programs) issued ridiculous mortgage rates for homes-set by gov’t officials, it created chaos.
At best, the President is naive to think he can do this without completely killing the present system. At worst, he knows this will kill health care industry and seeks a single payer, fully gov’t run health care system which he has admitted to in interviews several years ago.
There definitely needs to be health care reform but it starts with reforming crazy, needless lawsuits which drive up prices by causing doctors to run unnecessary test and have miles of insurance. They should also let insurance companies insure in different states which would boost competition and lower prices. Our health care system is not perfect, but is the best in the world. The government will not do it better.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Paul, I agree with you. Very well said. The community organizer-in-chief has said as early as two or three years ago that he is in favor of a single-payer government health care system. We haven’t even begun to talk about doctor-patient confidentiality. Do you really want some government buearacrat knowing all of your private medical affairs? Look, I don’t have a problem with giving a government agency a letter and trusting them to get it to where I want it to go, but I do NOT want them anywhere near my healthcare.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am
If we want to provide insurance for the 47 million which in reality is only 20 million or so I think we should do that. There are things that should be fixed About healthcare and the companies that take advantage of insurance companies, but it is not the insurance companies that are causing the problems. I would support anything that did not force me or any other American to live by the will of government officials.
August 13th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I resent the idea that most people w/o insurance don’t want it. My entire FWBBC life was lived w/o insurance. And I wanted it. Bad. “You can’t live without it,” folks would say. Well, no. I really couldn’t live with it. Because to pay the premiums would have left me w/o rent, gas, or grocery money. Thank God and taxpayers for Tenncare. My wife and I were ineligible, but our kids were covered. (and during that time my wife had to have her gallbladder removed, paid for by Christians.)
I also resent the idea that we somehow have a greater sense of freedom with private insurance. I worked for one company for six years and they changed insurance companies on us three times. Different coverage, copays, Rx benefits, and doctors. No choice except to take it or leave it. Another company I worked at for three years did the same thing twice.
Anyway, whether it’s the government or a corporation, someone you have never met is deciding your fate based on the bottom line.
Having said all that, I still believe the answer to the question is to REFORM the current system rather than REPLACE it.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Mark, here is an idea. You mentioned that your wife’s gall bladder surgery was paid for by Christians. What better way for the church to “look after the affairs of others” (Phil. 2:4) and help each other than to really help those in the body who are physically hurting in a more tangible way? How feasible would it be for a church to set up a Health Savings Account (HSA) for members to use as they need it? I know of a FWB church close to where I live that doesn’t even come close to filling up there 300+ seat sanctuary, and barely uses there 17000, but they have around $100k in the bank in a “building fund” drawing interest. They could rename that account and use it to help with the health care costs of their aging members and emergency needs. Just a thought, but now would be an outstanding time for churches and non-profit groups to join health care option.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Sorry, I meant to say 17,000 sq. ft. family life center.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I am against any government ran health care program. Here are my reasons:
1. The government option would drive out private companies. If you currently pay 50 a month for insurance, but with the gov’t option the price would be cut to 20 who would not go to the gov’t plan? As more people switch, private companies have to raise rates to pay expenses. Bye bye private insurance, hello complete government control.
2. One word, Tenncare! The gov’t ran option sounds great until people begin abusing the system, which is what happened in TN. The result? A nearly bankrupt state that was not brought back from bankruptcy until Tenncare was cut.
A gov’t option would have as many people abusing it as it would legitimate people who need it. The gov’t simply can not pay for it without raising taxes.
3. The quality of care would be diminished. Say what you will about the health care system, but you would be hard pressed to find a system in another nation that is better than ours. Is it ridiculous that a hospital charges 5 dollars for a bandaid? Sure it is! We need cost control, not government control.
4. Most people who need free health insurance already get it. If someone goes to the hospital that can not afford their bill what happens? Either they file bankruptcy and never pay it, or the hospital writes it off as charity. Also, with the advent of the first assists and Minute Clinics most people can afford a trip to the “Dr.”
5. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all woefully underfunded to the point of bankruptcy. Do we really think that this new plan would be any different?? It would either be woefully underfunded from the beginning or it would cause taxes to have to be raised at a staggering rate.
6. What public industry has the gov’t ran that has succeeded? One person said The Post Office. Granted it is fantastic the level of service you can get fro ma Post Office. I can mail a letter from here to Alaska for what .46 cents? However the Post Office has not turned a profit for YEARS. In fact there are many POs that are going to be shut down due to lack of income. However compare that to UPS and FedEx. Both companies make money each year, and the level of service from each is great (at least in my experience).
7. This reason is ironic to me. The health care legislation is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, but NO ONE in Congress will switch to it. In fact they put a clause in there stating that they will never have to switch to it. Makes ya go hmm…doesn’t it?
8. This reason is somewhat humorous to me. It took Obama what 6, 8 weeks to pick the family dog, but the health care bill was drafted in 4 weeks. Took more time to select a pet than it did to write a bill that will effect EVERYONE in America! Give me a break!!
These are my reasons for refusing ANY gov’t run option.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Brad, you listed all of my reasons as well. I would make one correction that it took Obama more like 6 months to pick a dog for the family. We also need to make sure that while we are all focused on health care that we don’t let them slide cap and trade (tax) through the back door.