I've got an issue with universal healthcare

[Mythsaje]

It's primarily about those people who'd like to use it to stick their big fat judgemental noses in other peoples' lives.

"Let's make sure to charge smokers and obese people more, since the system will have to pay more to provide full coverage for them."

Okay, while we're at it, let's simply draw up a chart detailing how much coverage anyone with pre-existing conditions of any kind will have to pay in addition to the minimum payment all "perfect" health-conscious people will have to pay to get universal coverage. Might as well add a little more for anyone with a potentially hazardous hobby like riding motorcycles, skiing, or mountain climbing, or, for that matter, anyone with a teenage boy in the house since we all know that teenage boys think they're immortal.

This is the kind of crap that just straight pisses me off. I don't want conservatives in my business, picking my pockets to try to justify THEIR ideological obsessions, and I don't want liberals doing it either.

I believe that everyone deserves decent healthcare, but I'm going to have a hell of a time supporting any plan that is used to justify screwing over people who have already been screwed over by those that sell addictive products, or people who have deep-seated emotional issues that make it hard for them to maintain a healthy weight, or biological or health conditions that do the same.

As long as the state continues to tax the shit out of cigarettes, some of THAT money can go toward making up the difference for smokers. Hell, just legalize cannabis, tax the SHIT out of IT, and let it help defray the costs for those who make unhealthy lifestyle choices in general. I've never met a pot-smoker who wouldn't go along with that plan.

My dad commented the other day that he thought that cigarettes would be banned in his lifetime and my response was something along the lines that MORE prohibition would be the absolute stupidest thing we can do.

Our primary goal has to be to prevent young people from ever starting in the first place. Period.

This particular addiction is gruesomely insidious. It's hard enough to quit, but not starting again seems to be the most difficult thing of all. The cravings, as near as I can tell, never go away. I really don't like the idea of the government preying on people who are already vulnerable just for the sake of the self-righteous. I noticed a post a couple of weeks ago on a universal healthcare thread and have been quietly simmering about it ever since.

What we need is equal access to decent healthcare for everyone, no exceptions. We all realize that some people will cost more than others and that's just something we're going to have to learn to accept. Making life harder for a few people because we don't approve of their choices is NOT an option, in my opinion. This obsession with cost and money is a CONSERVATIVE one and I really don't like seeing liberals playing that card. I don't care if it's perceived as a person's CHOICE or not. To set it up with that sort of precedent would be exceedingly stupid and we'd all learn to regret it sooner or later because someone, someday, would come up with a way to use it to screw us.

Again, in my opinion.

That is all.

Flame on.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Such people simply DO NOT want universal healthcare....

... They want a republican version, like roads - pay-for-use.

[Mythsaje]

2. Yeah, I get that feeling myself.

Thanks for chiming in.

[wordpix]

3. Canada's system is fair: charge high sales taxes on everything & a quarterly

premium based on salary.

You may not like high sales taxes but if you're poor, you don't buy much; still, you pay into the system with every gal. of gas and every stitch of clothing.

The richies will still be buying like madmen and paying probably more into the system than they do now.

My friends in CAnada, who aren't rich, don't complain about the high sales taxes. They say, "This is how we get affordable health care." And may I add, affordable college. (Quebec students pay less than $2000 for a year's worth of college tuition in Quebec, while other Can. citizens who are non-Que. residents pay about $5000).

The wealthy prefer we all go to the bank and put ourselves in debt to the hilt, though. Then they can prey on us.

[napi21]

50. How much is a "high sales tax"? I knew Canadians are rumored to

pay high taxes, but I don't think I've ever heard just what "HIGH" means?

[Vincardog]

66. I heard some Canadians say they paid 35% to 40% in taxes. Sounds like the US to me.

[napi21]

82. OK, I looked it up. Check out the rates.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html

Federal tax rates for 2007 are:
15.5% on the first $37,178 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $37,179 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,178 and $74,357), +
26% on the next $46,530 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $74,357 and $120,887), +
29% of taxable income over $120,887.
The chart below reproduces the first calculation that has to be made on Page 1 of Schedule 1 of the tax package to calculate net federal tax. Page 1 is also used to calculate federal non-refundable tax credits.

Sales taxes
See also: Sales taxes in Canada
The federal government levies a multi-stage sales tax of 6% on goods and services (7% prior to 1 July 2006), that is called the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and, in some provinces, the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). The GST/HST is similar to a value-added tax. The Conservative Party of Canada's 2006 election platform proposed to eventually reduce the GST to 5% (after an initial reduction to 6%).

All provincial governments except Alberta levy sales taxes as well. The provincial sales taxes of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador are harmonized with the GST. That is, a rate of 14% HST (15% prior to 1 July 2006) is charged instead of separate PST and GST. Both Quebec and Prince Edward Island apply provincial sales tax to the sum of price and GST. The territories of Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories do not charge provincial sales tax because they are territories.


Provincial and federal sales tax rates at the retail level on goods and some services are as follows:

Alberta:......................0 + 6% = 6%
British Columbia:..........7% + 6% = 13%
Manitoba:....................7% + 6% = 13%
Ontario:.......................8% + 6% = 14%
Prince Edward Island:..10% + 6% = 16.6% (PST applied to price + GST)
Quebec:..................... 7.5% + 6% = 13.95% (PST applied to price + GST)
Saskatchewan:............5% + 6% = 11%

It looks to me like the total taxes in Canada sure aren't much different than they are HERE!

[Vincardog]

100. You are only adding the Federal income tax on our side. What about STATE income and Sales tax?

What about federal state and local Gasoline tax?

[WI_DEM]

70. A sales tax is the most regressive tax possible. It does hit the poor the hardest

They do have to buy food and ocassionally clothing and other things.

[napi21]

74. That problem could easily be cured the same way lots of States do, by

exempting food, prescription drugs, rent, etc. In all fairness, for a national health care system to work, EVERYBODY has to pay something into it. I'm going to have to do some more checking to find out just how high the Canadian Sales tax is, and how much their equivelent of our income tax is.

[Evoman]

98. Yeah...but if your really poor (make under a certain amount), you get some of that money back.

I'm a (or was until last month) student, so I get a GST check every couple of months.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I agree with you. For many years (about 22), my former employer, IBM, paid all of my health

insurance and I always felt 'cheated'. I was a single person, who visited a doctor less than once every two years. I had no emergencies and no operations. I only met my deductible 3 times in that 22 year span. Yet I worked with people with lots of kids and they could meet their deductible with a couple of weeks each year. They took their children to the doctor for every fever, cough, or stomach ache. So, how could have my insurance cost the same?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Funny

I had health care insurance when I was single, and never used it--but I was glad I could pay in the premiums so that my co-workers and families would have affordible health care. I recall when one teacher, in her last year before retirement, fell down and broke a leg. In order for her to be able to get to the end of the year, each of us donated one or two sick days so she would be able to have paid leave until she recovered. I always figured what I put out back then would come back to me.

[NashVegas]

13. And If ...

That teacher had been a cigarette smoker who tripped over her Zippo, would everyone have still felt so generous? Enough to contribute to her sick days, without harping on the matter?

Cigarette smokers have grown increasingly fed up with being made pariahs for their habit, but the attacks over insurance payments expose the greatest amount of bullshit.

There is as much security of correctly predicting who will get a tumor in their lung next week as there is which 5-9 year old boy will run out into traffic, and we don't charge their parents higher rates than we would those of a 4 year old girl.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

53. You know,

I don't think she smoked. But I know teachers who were smokers contributed their sick days. And that wouldn't have been a problem to me if she had been a smoker.

As for lung cancer--the mother of one teacher, who never smoked in her life, died of the diseaase. So you never know who will get it.

[FormerDittoHead]

9. I'm thinking you've since woken up from your feeling "cheated"?

At any time you could have contracted cancer and racked up a million dollars in health care.

Under the present system, people with kids pay more into the system.

The fact is that under any universal system, the coverage rates will be like taxes. The more you make (or spend in the case of regressive sales taxes), the more you will pay into the system, regardless of your excellent health or lack of dependents.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Yes and no. Because of the possibility that I could get cancer or a heart

condition or something else, I have a separate policy for cancer and heart-related problems, plus long-term care. I'm almost 60 and take no prescription drugs. I also donate a part of my amassed sick days to my co-workers each year, holding about 4 weeks in reserve should I need them.
I still think single people get shafted if, as was the case then, they pay the same deductible as families.

[treestar]

63. It's a risk pool

You pay in and hopefully don't need the payout but if you do, it can be more than what you paid in.

Hopefully it does not happen, but you could get a disease that dwarfs the expenditures on those families.

That's the whole idea behind insurance.

[IronLionZion]

75. karma

give a little love and it all comes back to you. The whole point of insurance is that it will be there in case YOU need it. I consider myself very lucky to not have lots of expensive health problems. I don't mind paying into a pool where people who need it can get it.

Insurance is a socialist idea. Free market medicine requires us to pay cash for care without any insurance or HMO.

[SoCalDem]

92. Because that's how insurance works..especially group coverage

Those kids who got doctor's visits on "your dime" are going to be having social security deducted from their paychecks for YOUR social security :)and some of thouse young'uns may end up BEING the doctors who will treat you, or the nurses' aides who will change your diaper :)

[FormerDittoHead]

5. I get pissed off by this fascist attitude as well...

What about genetic diseases? Why should I pay for illnesses that the parents knew their kids would probably have?

We should just... (Dalak voice) STERILIZE!

These fascists, oops, I mean, folks, are just looking to save the system money. Actually, the only fucking thing they care about is THEIR money, because if they weren't going to be paying anything in, they wouldn't give a shit.

But the bottom line is that, if you take out the profit overhead of the corporations, and bulk purchase pharmacuticals, insuring everyone would be LESS than what WE'RE PAYING NOW....

We pay plenty for our PPO health insurance. The only reason I support universal is because I fully expect to end up paying LESS.

I like the England model of prevention. Spend money on prevention, education, rehab, etc. Take cigarettes, for example. WHY THE FUCK AREN'T we GIVING AWAY nicotine gum and patches? Think about it - WE SHOULD BE GIVING THEM THE FUCK AWAY...

[Bluzmann57]

6. Any health care plan should include wellness education

such as drug and alcohol rehab, quitting smoking programs, weight loss programs, etc. But I agree with you that everybody should get get good healthcare. Some have not noticed, but often, the lower income people are the ones who are obese, who have blood pressure and cholesterol problems, who smoke cigaretteas, who take drugs, and so on. Much of it is learned behavior, much of it is that lower income people just don't have the same educational opportunities that upper income people do. Get people educated about things which are bad for them, in a gentle non fear mongering manner, and perhaps that will help. And any Universal health plan should do just that.

[Mythsaje]

11. This is generally true

though I'm not so sure that only the poor "take drugs." The primary difference in this case seems to be the KIND of drugs they take.

[BlooInBloo]

17. It is most emphatically NOT only the poor that "take drugs".

[Mythsaje]

20. That is quite an assumption, isn't it? n/t

[Bluzmann57]

29. Ok ok. I fucked up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry. Someday maybe I'll grow up and be perfect like everybody else in here.

[Mythsaje]

37. Perfection isn't required...

The ability to learn from one's mistakes IS. :D

[Bluzmann57]

28. True

I did not mean to say that only the poor take drugs. Hell, look at Hilton, Lohan, and the rest of the rich Hollywood types. You are correct in saying that it may be the type of drugs. Either way, there should be a wellness type of program.

[IronLionZion]

83. as obvious as it seems, many people still need to be told to take care of themselves

I certainly did. It took a doctor to scare me into eating healthier food and doing cardio excercise. But my insurance paid for that visit. If you don't have insurance or don't want to pay the copay if you have insurance, then you don't hear that so you continue making bad choices until something bad happens. Then you go to the Emergency room and the taxpayers pay for your emergency treatment.

I read that taxpayers cover 45% of the $2.2 trillion US healthcare system right now. I want to make it as close to 100% as possible.

Yup, education is a factor. Also add in the cost of nutritious food, rehab, therapy, gym memberships, nicotine patches, etc.

[Warpy]

7. The nanny state needs to be dismantled

because in any free society, adults do NOT need busybodies passing laws over what they can and can not do with their own bodies.

However, there need to be sensible restrictions now and then, like prohibiting drunk driving, having smokers light up outside and making sure prostitutes get their health checks.

Generally speaking, though, the government should have absolutely no say in what a person chooses to do with his or her body and life that does not directly harm other people.

I'm sick of this government trying to restrict the lives of its citizens while allowing multinational corporations free rein.

[nashville_brook]

10. i agree with your nanny crit -- single payer is the only fair solution.

what the fuck is wrong with us that as SOON as we talk about doing something GOOD for people, there are those who look for ways to EXCLUDE people.

it's going to be particularly bad with healthcare, as it's so widely accepted that people who smoke or are overweight are also somehow *responsible* and *guilty* and therefore don't deserve treatment. we ALREADY have this attitude with money -- if you don't have any, you must somehow be immoral (i.e. not have a job).

[JDPriestly]

12. Universal health care means universal.

Everyone has access to the health care they need. With more preventive care and education, people will be more likely to make better choices. But you can't force people to stop smoking or drinking or eating. It would cost more to try to police people's habits than to pay for their medical care. Don't worry about this. It is just another authoritarian threat.

Many of us need to lose weight. But you can't lose weight unless you want to do it. Same for those who need to quit smoking. They have to make the choice to do it. No one can make that decision for another person.

[shimmergal]

14. Mythsaje, the cravings for nicotine

do go away, but it takes several to many years.

There should be _no_ differentiation of prices in a universal health care system based on age, prior health problems, etc. Perhaps a gradation by income. Not a high sales tax--not only is that regressive, but it would give a giant boost to the underground economy (which might not be an altogether bad development if it cut corporate power).

[LWolf]

16. What's to flame?

It's not universal if it is not equally available, and equally affordable, and of equal quality, for all.

I can't find anything in what you said to dispute.

[supernova]

18. What you are describing ISN'T Universal Health Care

the way I define it. I want everyone paying equally into the system. That's what would make it "univeral" for me.

Now, i don't have a problem with such "sin" taxes as POS taxes on alchohol and tobacco. I think that's legit. Because that way, each time you think about well, it is worth the $$$ for my health? But I certainly don't want people who are sicker paying more into the system right off the bat. That simply replaces one lopsided system with anthother, the only difference being who the sponsor is.

I have heart disease and (for now) I'm overwieght. I'd be one of those people expected to pay more, because (and erroneously) the healthy moralizers would presume that I'd use more resources.

[Mythsaje]

19. I'm not a huge fan of "sin" taxes, but I can live with them. n/t

[supernova]

27. Well, I'll agree they're not "nice"

but my feeling is, if people are going to voluntarily abuse themselves, the greater society might as well get some benefit out of it. And with sales taxes, the individual has the ability to control how much of that kind of "contribution" s/he is willing to make. OTOH, if you're an alcoholic who can't stop drinking, at some point you're going to make a significant voluntary contribution to your own rehab.

[Mythsaje]

30. Or you can look at it as taking advantage of peoples' weakness

to the state's financial advantage.

:shrug:

[supernova]

38. Or you could brew your own

and dispense with the buying entirely. :7

[Mythsaje]

39. A friend of mine used to brew beer...

Some of the best I've ever had.

[supernova]

45. I've looked at making brandies

and cordials for xmas presents. In fact, I might do that this year. Limoncello is pretty easy.

[FormerDittoHead]

26. What do you mean by "equally"? We don't all pay the same in taxes, do we?

I don't believe that we should all pay the same (absolute) amount, if that's what you mean by "equally".

Poor people (disabled, etc) won't be able to pay ANYTHING...

I know I'm playing with words, the but the bottom line is that there will be those who pay more than others, however, I think we agree that one's weight or genetic disposition shouldn't be a factor in how much we pay...

[endarkenment]

32. We do with the FICA tax.

Not that I agree with that approach, but FICA is regressive and we all pay the same rate.

[FormerDittoHead]

42. rate or amount - that's the question - what's "equally"?

The current system of insurance doesn't charge you more if you make $1 million or $10k. The amounts paid (for the same policy) are "equal".

I would agree that it should be an equal rate, not an equal amount.

[endarkenment]

49. Well FICA is the odd example

where the relatively well off all pay the same amount (ignoring medicare) due to the cap, and everyone pays the same rate up to the cap, resulting in the relatively well off paying at an effectively lower rate, while those who don't reach the cap pay at a higher effective rate but a lower total amount.

All of which is in my opinion a relatively minor accounting detail once the principal is established that we all pay in and we all receive the same basic services. It is getting over that hurdle that has been the problem for the last 40 years.

[FormerDittoHead]

72. I just believe that the principle should include the details...

For example, I don't believe there SHOULD be a cap on FICA. If at all, there should be a FLOOR - unless you make over a certain amount, etc, and then a flat rate it above that with no ceiling, and interest, rents, royalties, cap gains and dividends would be included - not just wages. If you did that, you'd not only guarantee SS, but you could probably lower the rates, while shifting the burden onto those who can simply afford it much easier.

You see, simply, as an accountant, I haven't seen a SINGLE THING done in the tax code in the past 20 years that didn't disproportionately benefit the wealthy and/or people making a lot of money (not necessarily the same thing) over the lower classes. I don't consider that an accident.

Seeing how the tax code's been manipulated, I think just having the idea of giving everyone health insurance/coverage isn't enough. For example, it was my understanding that Hillary's first plan wasn't to get rid of the health insurance companies, but rather regulate them to give health insurance to all. Not NEARLY what I want to see done....

That's why I'm so "pedantic" about this thing - I don't trust politicians to be free of the influence of the rich, and I don't trust most people to UNDERSTAND the details, because the devil IS in the DETAILS...

[endarkenment]

97. I agree with every damn thing you just said.

And I couldn't have said it better. Especially this part: "I haven't seen a SINGLE THING done in the tax code in the past 20 years that didn't disproportionately benefit the wealthy and/or people making a lot of money (not necessarily the same thing) over the lower classes. I don't consider that an accident."

The screwage has been continuous and blatant.

[Mythsaje]

35. The "genetic disposition" part is specifically the precedent that

really concerns me.

[wordpix]

36. again, if you study Canada's system, it's fair in this regard--sales tax + a premium based on income

EVERYONE must pay the sales tax on everything except food and the taxes are high so if you buy an item, you're paying into the system. On top of this, you pay a quarterly premium based on your income. My college-going friends who work part-time don't pay any premium but they do pay sales tax on whatever they buy (except food). They don't mind because they get good health care in return.

Provinces also obtain funds for college subsidies through these taxes so college in Canada is CHEAP compared to ours.

The US is falling by the wayside while Canada is likely to be the next superpower, with abundant natural resources, and educated citizens who aren't in debt due to health care expenses.

[supernova]

40. Don't be pedantic

I mean that we all have an equal stake in the system.

We already pay FICA right? That isn't an exact equal amount. I don't pay your exact contribution, you don't pay mine. It's proportional. I think UHC should be the same.

[FormerDittoHead]

43. I'm sorry, I was an accountant, and different people mean different things with the same word.

Under today's system, if we, you and I, get an insurance policy, and, if everything else was the same and the company was treating us fairly, we would be paying "EQUAL" AMOUNTS and we'd be paying EQUALLY regardless of our income, and for decades, most people considered that FAIR.

So, I'm not going to apologize for clearing things up.

Many people want to "tweak" the current system, and they'll throw around phrases like, "we should all pay the same amount, equally". Being an accountant, however, that could mean two completely different things.

BUT - I'm like you, however, we want to have a completely new, different system where *everyone* gets healthcare...

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. What you are describing is NOT universal health care

what you are describing is exactly what the Health Care industry will run in its adds to get people NOT to vote for their best interets

[Mythsaje]

23. Which is exactly why we need to address the point ourselves

before the debate ever starts in the public sector.

This sort of thing is NOT acceptable.

And, yeah, I've read posts here on DU that suggest such a plan.

[warren pease]

22. Universal health care = equality of access...

There are no such things as extra taxes on those with self-induced risk factors -- nor for pre-existing conditions for any type of chronic disease or other disabling factor whatsoever -- in any country whose citizens I've talked or corresponded with re this issue... and that's probably more than 100 people in all from Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, South America and so forth. Everybody in, nobody left out; that's the essence of true universal health care.

There are, however, taxes on specific products that tend to produce higher risk conditions or behaviors -- cigarettes, alcohol and even a state tax of fast food in a couple of countries -- with all taxes ticketed for the health care fund, not the general fund.


wp

[Mythsaje]

24. Which is how it should be...

Anyone who suggests otherwise is trying to sink the deal, IMO.

[warren pease]

44. Yeah, and how it is throughout much of the modern world...

The characteristics of a proper national health care system are these:


One state, one payer.

No exclusion or surcharges for pre-existing conditions.

Everybody in, nobody out.

No bills from the doctor.

No bills from the hospital.

No deductibles.

No co-pays.

No in network.

No out of network.

No corporate profits.

No threat of bankruptcy from medical bills.


If we're ever going to get to that point, I think we also need to understand the nature of health care and the part insurance plays in the equation which, in my opinion goes like this:

The relationship of health care to insurance is manufactured out of thin air by the US’ obsession with applying market-based, privatized solutions to nationalized, systemic problems.

Health care is what happens when patients and health care professionals – doctors, nurses, technicians, pathology lab staff, and so on -- interact to, in the best case, successfully diagnose, treat and eliminate a medical problem.

Insurance is the protection money you pay the middle-man to enable this transaction.

Why would anyone want to give some parasite a single damn penny who does absolutely nothing to provide health care -- in fact, tries like hell to avoid paying for it in a significant percentage of claims?

So that's the nature of health care and insurance IMO. One's a vital service that's everyone's right in a society allegedly dedicated to promoting "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The other is an artificial construct designed to line the pockets of execs and investors with billions of dollars extorted from the population under threat of asset seizure by a medical facility if an uninsured person has the lousy luck to come down with, say, acute appendicitis. Surgical costs, three days in ICU, another in the non-critical wing, and it's goodbye house, savings, cars and anything else that isn't frozen in cement.

And there are millions of people all over this country who swear that this is the world's greatest medical system. How many times can you shoot yourself in the foot and still be able to walk around?


wp

[NotGivingUp]

i don't see any freaking high taxes on cake, candy, cookies, soda pop, etc. n/t

[MissB]

25. I think plenty of people have pointed out that you're not describing

universal healthcare.

Anyway.

If you've seen Sicko, you'd know that England is paying doctors essentially bonuses if their patients lower their blood pressure or lose weight. Rather than being punitive to the patient, the plan is to get the doctor to encourage lifestyle changes in their patients that have real effect. Human nature is such that nagging people or making them feel guilty about themselves is not a good motivator for change. The doctors have to actually take time and follow up and encourage their patients.

[Canuckistanian]

31. Canada has NO SUCH restrictions

To incorporate such a plan is NOT a part of universal healthcare, and anyone who plans to implement it is doomed to failure.

We don't plan to do this nor are there any proposals to do so.

You can't legislate morality or free choice of a legal product.

Taxes, yes. Anti-smoking campaigns, yes. We even have subsidies for buying nicotine cessation products.

Healthcare access should NEVER be used as a stick to correct bad behavior.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Canuckistanian]

41. And what's your opinion, GB?

Nanny state or responsible government? Tyranny or user fees?

[TahitiNut]

34. How can "progressives" advocate a sin tax? A regressive sales tax?

Unfuckingbelievable! :puke:

[bobbolink]

47. Absolutely!

It's only poor folk who have "choices".

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

46. You're absolutely right. I don't need no stinkin' health care.

My life isn't worth a tinker's damn, right?

[Bjornsdotter]

48. You are not describing universal health care

...you are calling something else universal health care.

You are mixing apples and oranges, saying that since they are both fruit they are the same.

Cheers

[Warren DeMontague]

51. As I've said before, trying to single out various unhealthy lifestyle "sins" in such a case would be

a never ending game. Everyone does something stupid that could conceivably impact their health care costs at some point. Some people smoke. Some people drink. Some people have sex with a lot of partners. Some people eat a lot of French Fries. Some people ride motorcycles in the rain, like Billy Joel. And so on.

IMHO, we have to accept that the responsibility of a SPHC system includes the fact that sometimes we may end up paying for other people's so-called "misbehavior". That doesn't mean we shouldn't educate people about healthy choices, that doesn't mean we can't practice preventative medicine- but universal coverage would mean that many of the folks who don't get seen until they end up in the ER would have a decent shot at addressing their problems earlier on. That would SAVE us all money.

And I'm okay with 'sin' taxes, too. Hell, if we would legalize and regulate marijuana we could tax that, even though it's not a terribly dangerous substance for most people- and combined with the savings from the idiotic war on drugs, we could finance a lot of coverage for other things.

[SmokingJacket]

52. I wish I could feel sorry for smokers.

But come on. People know they're taking a risk from their FIRST cigarette. They smoked that first cigarette to look cool, health be damned. I knew that when I was ten.

No pity, sorrrrry.

[Mythsaje]

56. NOW they do...

When you were TEN? What was that, ten years ago?

[SmokingJacket]

90. Okay, I'll amend that.

I feel sorry for people with extremely low IQs who never realized that smoking was stupid when they started.

"Hm... I'll set this thing on fire and BREATHE it! Yeah, I'll spend a hell of a lot of money to breathe smoke! What a great idea!"

I'll save my pity for people who deserve it.

[mudesi]

54. Universal health care is FREE for ALL. What do you mean "charge"?

Universal health care, like in Canada, is funded by the government through taxes. There are no charges for anyone.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

55. Thats not true universal health care, but whatever

maybe you should look into real universal health care a little bit more, eh?

[Mythsaje]

58. Yes, it's obviously ME who doesn't have a clue...

and not those who actually PROPOSE trying to set the system up that way.

Thanks for helping me out. I'll get right on that.

[LSK]

69. and who would that be????

:shrug:

[Mythsaje]

84. A hit and run poster on another thread...

It seems to me it was a familiar name, and no newbie, but I can't remember who it was.

I just wanted to address this issue and get it out in the open where we could talk about it. I think it's a deal-killer for a lot of people and something I'd never want to see implemented.

[truedelphi]

57. My problem with punishing obesity is that several illnesses force

People into obesity

1)Parasites that live in your system and demand the nutrients that you consume can cause you to overeat - as you are perpetually malnourished and therefore have a larger appetite. In the USA, doctors assume that a person could not possibly have parasites. In fact, many med students see only the following paragraph in terms of parasitic contamination:

Unless a person has travelled overseas and been in contact with foreigners, the chances of being contaminated with parasites are slim.

The problem of course is that in many American cities, many of the restaurant workers are recent third world inhabitants - so I would think that just from this fact alone, the possibility that any one American being infected is rather large.


2) Polycystitis - a disease that affects only women and usually goes undiagnosed - causes both infertility and obesity.

Ironically the very doctor that refuses to properly diagnose you will tell you that you need to exercise and to eat less. Wrong. If you have polycystitis, you need to be treated for the disease first and foremost.

3) Disruption of the endocrine system by pollutants or by stress. In more affluent, citified areas people seem to be less obese. When you are rich, you are likely to be less stressed. When you are not breathing air contaminated with various cropland pesticides, you are less likely to be obese.

4) There are probably other genetic factors such as low thyroid etc that cause some people to have a difficult time controlling their appetite and that make it harder for their bodies to shed pounds.

[Mythsaje]

59. And that's not even addressing psychological issues

that affect people's ability to maintain a healthy weight.

[truedelphi]

60. Very good point.

[eridani]

91. And about 1/3 of the population has "Syndrome X"

--a predisposition to type II diabetes and weight gain in adulthood. It's a helpful survival trait in populations that are at serious risk of periodic starvation, but a disadvantage in societies where there is enough to eat. The analogy would be the relationship of malaria resistance to sickle cell anemia.

[truedelphi]

99. I just read in a magazine that focuses on diabetes

That normal range doses of insulin itself cause people to put on weight.

I willlook into this Syndrom X thing as well.

[Bridget Burke]

61. You are NOT describing Universal Health Care....

Haven't most of the countries with civilized health care systems been slower about banning smoking than the USA?

[CrispyQ]

62. You hit the nail on the head with this line:

"We all realize that some people will cost more than others and that's just something we're going to have to learn to accept."

I'm so sick of the fear so many people have that someone might get more than they get, or someone might get something they don't deserve. They sound like spoiled little children. "Whaaa, Johnny got more than me."

Recently, another DUer had an excellent post & made the comment that in America of past, there was no limit to how high one could go, but there was a limit as to how low you could fall. That America is disappearing before our eyes. My husband & I consider ourselves fortunate to have lived during the some of the best years of this country.

[NanceGreggs]

64. If I could chime in here?

I'm an American living in Canada, and am part of the universal health care system here.

Healthcare here is administered on a province by province basis. I am covered by OHIP, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. The plans are the same across the country, and if I am travelling in B.C. and need a doctor or a hospital visit, I am still covered by OHIP - just as a B.C.er would be covered by their plan here.

I do not pay any "premiums". There are no restrictions on anything, such as pre-existing conditions, etc. You cannot be turned down for ANY REASON.

The thing I find truly laughable about those who don't want certain people covered at their expense (smokers, obese, etc.) is that they are paying for these people anyway if they are paying into an insurance company for their coverage.

I work in Federal Court, and we share a courtyard with a MAJOR multi-national insurance company. The courtyard is filled at any time of day with employees who work there. As employees, the have healthcare coverage with thier employer company as part of their benefits. Many of them are SMOKERS, many of them are OBESE - and that's just the 'adverse behaviour' that a lot of people complain about that can be SEEN at first glance. So if your coverage is with this insurance company - or any other - you are paying to cover these people as well as yourself.

A few years ago, some people started campaigning here to exclude smokers from the healthcare system, saying they were a "drain" on the system, because they were more likely to run up medical bills over the years.

And then an accountant got the published numbers and did some crunching - he found out that the taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products ALONE generated enough money to cover every man, woman and child in the country - three times over.

Excluding anyone, for any reason, is NOT universal healthcare.

[stirlingsliver]

65. What Do You Think "Managed" Health Care Is?

Just what do you think "mamanged" health care is?

Those who manage get to decide how the resources for health care are allocated.

What you describe as "people who'd like to stick their big fat judgemental noses in other peoples' lives" is really what managed health care is.

And here's a scary thought: suppose you have a Rethuglikan Congress and a Rethuglikan President passing laws that determine how a Universal Health Care system will be managed.

[RedEarth]

67. Why don't you go to this site to truly find out what Universial/Single-payer healthcare

really is............it is not what you describe....it's not even close.

http://www.pnhp.org/

[LSK]

68. Your OPINION is based on GOP TALKING POINTS

Please get some facts. Or at least see Sicko!!!

Sheesh!! Talk about a red herring!!!!!!!!

[Mythsaje]

78. Didn't you bother to read the post?

I wanted to start a discussion about those who would LIKE to institute that sort of thing. And I have.

[ismnotwasm]

71. Any part of Universal Health Care

Should provide NON PUNITIVE preventive care and education. People shouldn't be 'punished' for "bad" habits or the wrong combination of genes. I believe prevention and education is the key in a lot of health care. Easy access to health screening, nutrition education, Health education, affordable medication, (and while we're at it, can we provide decent food in our public schools?)Smoking cessation and weight loss programs would be included, but not shoved down peoples throats.

People don't like to be sick. They don't do it on purpose. I work in transplant. A number of liver transplants are from Hepatitis C, which often leads to liver cancer. Sometimes that is a "self inflicted" disease from poor life style choices at one point in their lives. Sometimes people have no idea where they got it from. Either way, we transplant people who have to jump through a lot of hoops just to get listed. Then they wait, and livers, unlike kidneys, there is no substitute, no dialysis. Your liver goes, you die. Sometimes you wait so long your get too sick to transplant. Universal health care won't change this, won't decrease the need for donors, my point is I don't point my finger at some patient and say "you shot dope 20 years ago, you don't 'deserve' a liver"


Nurses have a system already in place to implement changes in our health care system. (It's called the nursing process, and I've never respected it in all my years of nursing as much I do now) We have ways to reach the population, successful models that would work if properly funded. Punitive/reward systems will not work the way an open, accessible community health care system would.

[LanternWaste]

73. Does Canada pick the pockets of its citizens?

Does Canada pick the pockets of its citizens? :shrug:


Your OP does beg the question-- Who is both saying, "Let's make sure to charge smokers and obese people more..." and in favor of nationalized health?

[Mythsaje]

79. Oh, I don't remember who it was...

Some DUer jumped into a thread about universal healthcare and put that in.

I started this thread because I wanted to get a feel for how most people feel about that sort of thing. It sounds as though we're all pretty much on the same page.

[davsand]

76. Sounds to me like you don't want or need a Mommy any more.

I'm with you on this one, Mythsaje. I see access to health care as a RIGHT not a commodity and I also see a pretty creepy trend shaping up where there are folks who pay lip service to the idea of Universal Health Care while they already are trying to exclude specific groups.

I try to see it as a case of people wanting to be "Mommies" to us all, but sometimes I get a really creepy feeling that maybe it isn't all about caring but more about judgment. In some cases I think it even extends into a darker motive of trying to undermine the entire discussion of Universal Health Care.

I think that, in part, the subject of universal health care has been the domain of the progressives for a long time. It has only really been in the last couple decades or so that the debate extended out to the rest of the nation on any serious level. This phenom we are seeing of demonizing specific groups (who engage in "risky behaviors") really began right about the same time as the insurance industry began to take the discussion seriously.

Anyhow, don't give up on it, and don't let the bastards grind you down. Single Payer is right around the corner and it is gonna take folks like us to make sure it really IS UNIVERSAL health care.

Regards!


Laura

[Mythsaje]

80. Glad to see someone gets where I'm coming from...

And I'm not sure you're wrong about their motivations either. That's one thing I think would scuttle the idea faster than you can say "Sicko."

[intaglio]

77. For those who are interested

Costs in the UK

Between us my partner and I have an income of about $30,000
Direct taxes are about $8,000
Indirect taxes (fuel, "sales tax" - actually VAT, Car tax, local taxes) about $5,000.
Cost of medications - between us we need 2 types of antidepressants, thyroxine, 2 types of medication for diabetes, contraception about $172 per annum and I repeat one hundred and seventy two dollars per year
Cost of health insurance, hospital visits, co-pays, excesses ZERO.

You do the math

[Mythsaje]

81. Precisely what we need here. n/t

[porphyrian]

85. I'd rather pay for all of the obese peoples' health care than a war started for a lie. - n/t

[Vinca]

86. Has the OP somehow gotten universal healthcare mixed up with

a story on the news today that some businesses want to deduct money from the wages of the obese and smokers to offset insurance costs? True universal healthcare means everyone is covered and treated the same, no questions asked. You show up at the healthcare provider, you show a card, you get treated. It's not rocket science.

[Mythsaje]

87. No, I haven't...

I'm starting a conversation about it because it popped up on a universal healthcare thread a few days back.

[Vinca]

88. Sorry - I didn't see that thread and I've never heard anyone

talking about what you described in your post other than Republicans trying to scare people about "socialized medicine."

[Mythsaje]

89. Yeah, it was a DUer...

Shocked me too.

It's been annoying me under the skin for the past week, so I finally had to post something about it. I can't believe anyone would propose such a thing...not to mention how difficult it would be to implement.

[pitohui]

93. wtf does that have to do with universal health care?

er, UNIVERSAL health care is just that, UNIVERSAL

it's the current system that discriminates against smokers, women who dare to live beyond age 40, chubby or fat people, skinny people, and men who dare to live beyond age 50...

i am a slim non smoker, so what, once i turned 40, forget it for being able to get health insurance under this system

one day you'll be older too yet not old enough for medicare

then the idea of UNIVERSAL health care won't look so bad to you, compared to the alternative -- having to sell your home or rob your family's future or else make the choice of suicide

[Mythsaje]

94. That's what I want to know

Which a critical reading would have determined. I want to know what kind of person thinks they should inject something like that into the discussion. If it's universal, it's universal.

[LeftishBrit]

95. I agree with much of what you say; BUT it's not a problem specific to government-provided healthcare

There is a thread somewhere on DU about private employers deducting money from the salaries of those who are obese or fail to meet blood pressure or cholesterol 'targets' - apparently because they might cost the company more in health insurance.

It is not my impression that countries with socialized medicine are more restrictive about lifestyle choices. Whatever one thinks of bans on smoking in public places, they are to protect people from 'passive smoking'; not to force smokers to give up (though they *happen* to make life more inconvenient for smokers). There was no national health service when America passed 'Prohibition'. The 'War on Drugs' is not linked to health care costs, and the countries that are more liberal on drugs tend also to have universal health care (e.g. the Netherlands).

In fact, it's not at all clear that people with unhealthy lifestyles do cost a health service in the long run than those with healthy lifestyles. People with healthy lifestyles are more likely to end up doing the one thing that incurs the most health costs of all: getting very old!

So I think that the idea that universal health care will lead governments to punish you for 'bad' lifestyles is a bit of a false bogeyman. I think it's actually more likely to happen in places *without* universal health care, where private companies can have more power over people, or where needy people may depend on private charities, which in some cases are more likely to want people to show that they are 'deserving'.

[Pushed To The Left]

96. I agree. Universal healthcare for everybody with no exceptions! n/t