Why are Americans against universal healthcare?

Post Reply New Topic

That is true. Usually if an insurance company balks at paying for the procedure, the onus is on the patient to pay for it, or it doesn't get done. And again, I emphasize that "health insurance" as most Americans know it is not true "insurance", but subsidized medical care. If it was truly insurance where only the catastrophic things were covered and insurance companies were not forking out 80% of the cost of a doctor's visit every time, it wouldn't be as much of an issue paying out.

One thing people need to realize is that insurance is a high-stakes gambling game. You're essentially betting money on people hoping that by the time the chips are cashed, you have more than what you started with. Otherwise, if left to be an unprofitable venture, insurance companies will fold.

Example: if you pay $300/month for insurance for 10 years, that works out to $36,000. If you never use it and suddenly you have a procedure that costs $25,000, the insurance company is $11,000 to the good, so the odds are favorable that the insurance company will ok the procedure because they've still made money off of you to that point. Instead, if in that time you go to the doctor 2 times a year (at $100/visit with an 80/20 copay) and say you had 2 trips to the ER in that time (say $1000 per visit that the insurance company had to cover), and had a monthly prescription that cost the insurance company $80/month. Now the money that the insurance company has forked out before that procedure is $13,200 (doctor's office $80x2x10 - $1600, ER 2x$1000 - $2000, prescription $80x120 - $9600), so the procedure would put the insurance company in the red by $2,200. If you are young enough where the insurance company will have good odds of returning to the black, they'll likely ok the procedure, but if there is a large chance they won't see the return on that money, they will probably deny it.

That is the problem we face because the cost of health care has risen so much that the profit margins for insurance companies is declining. I understand it from an economic standpoint, while I do loathe it from an ethical standpoint. And that's why I loathe the ACA because it's not truly geared as a "universal heath care" system - it's a government-backed/forced cash grab for the insurance companies and medical industry. It does nothing to normalize the cost of healthcare. It only increases the pool of available people to continue to feed the gluttonous medical/health insurance industry.

Quality and cost are issues. Huge problems with the system as it stands right now (have a disability or pre-existing condition? Lean over this barrel) but I don't think universal or single-payer is the wise way to go.

I don't know if this has been tried at all but I think our first priority should have been seeing if certain philanthropic groups wished to set up insurance not-for-profits whose premiums would be a combination of group sigmas, operating costs, and rather than pocketing prophet the company would buy loss-prevention insurance of it's own but other than that return unused funds pro-rata at the end of every year typically as a January or fiscal year demarcated credit on account.

Like usual it seems like we have a very unhealthy way going to the WILD extremes, like saying - either Rand or Marx - CHOOSE ONE! I don't want insurance coverage or attempts at universal coverage to be far more expensive for all involved because they're being grossly mismanaged by huge bureaucracies where gross mismanagement is what they do best. If we're really just looking at gross quantity of jobs and seeing how many hands we can place in the till in a Keynesian manner - perhaps we should look at healthcare, if we consider it a right, something we shouldn't allow to be inflated by either loads of lawsuits (ie. place a really low cap on punitive damages that a person can receive, like $100k and then redistribute anything in excess to a prevention fund) or people with no concept of how thing work on the ground trying to make all the policies with their ears full of lobbiests - ie. places like Washington DC. That means also, if we don't want it to be utterly overpriced and awful, we should look at it as a place distinctively not to overfill with government (ie. tax dollar and premium-payed) employees.

If the government really wants a hand in the insurance industry, maybe they could be letting the insurers do what they do best and perhaps supply the loss-prevention or coverage of wide-spread catastrophic issues to these insurers should anything happen that puts their books at risk?

because I like fast treatment without long waiting list

if you get cancer in a country with free healthcare good luck getting treatment in a timely manner, hell good luck even getting tested for the cancer in under 6 months

*weeks, you mean weeks. And America is worse by a lot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/1 ... tests.html

"I called 10 clinics in each state seeking cervical cancer screening. Not one of the Mississippi Health Clinic receptionists knew if her facility offered cervical cancer screening. They transferred me to the family planning sections of their clinics, where eventually I was told that each one did offer Pap tests. However, at all of the clinics, the first available appointments were at least three months away - one clinic explained that it was because their doctor only came on Tuesdays and the first and last Friday of each month."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 26797.html

The upper time limit for treatment when facing even suspicion of cancer in Denmark is 14 days.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a waiting list for cancer treatment in Denmark.

In the UK you dont even necessarilly need to wait at all, you can walk into a hospital to see someone and they will see you completely free of charge after a few hours. However the government is trying to introduce new American style solutions to bring down waiting room numbers. Most people are rightly up in arms about it.

The idea everything in Europe will work in America or is the business of Europeans at all is hard to imagine for some people.

The point is that Americans seem to think that NOTHING from anywhere else will work in America.

Bizarrely, the only foreign institution which Americans seem to think is a remotely good idea is the Royal family, which are divisive at best even in the UK.

I think Russia will work in the USA, not Europe, not the UK, not South America.

I think the royal family is a bunch of BS. I respect Kings/Queens who back up what they say, not ones who make my country look weak.

It's terrifying to hear the rank and file repeating lines like that. Where is mycarthy when you need him to ship you off to a room with no doors.

Who is mycarthy?

I'll just move to Russia or Japan where the Emperor/President isn't a fool.

Ahahahaha, so after railing about Obama being a socialist dictator you choose a literal dictator who is currently financing and supporting oppressive regimes in neighboring countries. Because, what? He hates the gays? Here's another news flash, the Russian Federation's economy is pretty crap and the country has a massive problem with crime and Neo-Nazi groups.

EDIT: lmao at Japan as well. Protip: Japan is not like your magical schoolgirl princess animes.

I want Japan for traditional Japan. And bs, Japan is chalk full of nerdy weirdness that people there would expect me to be into that I'm not.

Plus, based on what you've said, Russia is pretty much the same as the USA then.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mfSUeN9IBA[/youtube]

His channel is very useful. If anyone plans on going to Japan, watch his videos thoroughly.

I think we should just do away with insurance entirely and just get these types of things publicly covered. Insurance is a scam, but one you can't afford to live without, best to cut out the middle party sapping money and just distribute the safety net for these things.