Does anyone at DU *not* support some form of Universal Health Care?

[supernova]

I'm interested to see if anyone at DU doesn't support UHC.

If not, why not? What is your reasoning. I'd really like to know so that we can discuss it rationally.

[Raster]

1. I support universal health care.

:kick:for discussion.

[MercutioATC]

2. Not single-payer, but yes...I support universal health care.

Expand FEHBP (the same program that all federal government employees have) to cover everybody. People would be allowed to keep their current insurance if they choose.

[Oregone]

9. Why should anyone need to "choose"

If there is a single, best insurance option, what value is there in letting people "choose" amongst inferior, expensive options that do not provide adequate coverage? That seems irresponsible to allow.

[MercutioATC]

15. Because I might want extra eye coverage and less dental...

I don't take many prescription medication, so I might opt for a plan with a lower office visit copay and higher prescription copays.

I might not need extensive psychiatric benefits, but I might want chiropractic services covered.


No single payer plan is going to give everybody everything. I value my ability to choose the best plan for me.

[Oregone]

16. That would assume a single-payer plan covers eye/dental

The plan I have (Canada/BC MSP) actually does not cover eye-care and dental (or drug, unless you go over a certain 1% to 3% income deductible).

What it covers is all necessary medical procedures performed by a doctor and all doctor visits (of any doctor you choose). All "supplemental" insurance is private and extra. It is simple, streamlined, and not lacking at all in covering the basics.

This single-payer plan gives you the minimum needed to maximize everyone's basic health and keep people from dying and going bankrupt. There is no copay and there is no deductible. The premiums are $108 a month. No questions asked

The advantage is that traditional self-rationing services that rely on copay/deductible can be picked up at low rates ($100 a month for a whole family), and it also removes the societal burden for covering these expensive extras (that are not necessary for a life in many cases). Because copays and deductibles are somewhat contradictory to the entire philosophy of single-payer, it removes this component from the equation to create a more coherent system.

So, what I am saying, if there existed a single-payer medical plan that covered all necessary medical services ($100 a month, no deductible, no copay, all procedures pre-approved), why would anyone need to "choose" another private plan the are known to be more expensive, deny claims, contribute to bankruptcy and death, and limit health care options? They wouldn't.

For the extra, yes, its completely reasonable they can buy up to get their supplemental protection, but this can work along-side a single-payer plan (as it does in Canada). In fact, its more than reasonable it does because it separates necessary services from optional ones, and makes sure the society is only sharing the risk for that which the people need.

[lame54]

3. That and the metric system

[mmonk]

I do not support mandated private insurance for all.

[HopeHoops]

4. The problem with health care is the term "FOR PROFIT"

Well, actually it gets worse. Himark BC/BS is technically a non-profit - but they have a $4 BILLION surplus! WTF is up with THAT?

Hospitals compete with each other for services, so even when there is an adequate supply of testing equipment in the region, they will buy their own anyway and then establish quotas for how many tests need to be ordered to cover the monthly cost. WTF is up with THAT?

The insurance companies own the health care industry and make all of the decisions that should be between a doctor and a patient. We need a clean system where insurance companies spell out what they cover and how much and the DOCTOR has the final say on whether it is warranted or not.

[supernova]

7. Hospital advertising chaps my butt too

I won't name names, but here we have an absolutely world class cardiac teaching hospital. They do really great work and ground breaking research, not to mention keeping yours truly on her feet all these years.

Another hospital down the road that started out as a community hospital, nice enough, and apparently really the place to go for birthing and delivery around here, has now decided that *they* are the cardiac place here. All because they decided they want to compete with the big teaching and research hospital. It irritates me because they really aren't. Their outcomes don't match the original. But I bet they get lots of patients, thanks to slick marketing.

There are enough patients to go around, not every hospital needs to be great, or rather have the appearance of being great, at every discipline.

[WI_DEM]

5. I want a public option but I also want people to keep there health insurance if they are happy with

it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. All 535 of them

But I totally agree with you. ;-) I think that it's the best (only?) way to motivate private insurance coveries to improve their coverage/lower premiums (or wither and die- leaving a fully single-payer system to take over where they failed, either outcome would be totally fine with me)

[LeftishBrit]

6. I strongly support it - and, even when one has it, remaining vigilant against all attempts to

undermine it - whether by cost-cutting RW governments, cost-cutting insurance companies, profit-seeking pharma companies, or whoever.

[Oregone]

8. The term "Universal" has been somewhat stolen

And applied to mandated private insurance which is faulty and unaffordable. Why would anyone on DU support that concept?

Single-payer is the answer

[dmallind]

10. One of my biggies and I'm not the left-est person here to say the least, NT

[Cleita]

11. I don't support giving private insurance companies and HMOs taxpayer's money.

Any public option should be administered by the government, perhaps the Medicare office with no money going to private insurers.

[superduperfarleft]

12. We already have universal health care.

It's access to that care that is the problem. Just like we already have Universal Ferrari Ownership, except you have to be able to pay for it. Remember, there's a big difference between CARE and INSURANCE. It sounds petty, but it's important.

I'm for full single-payer, exactly like Canada's, except maintained by the federal government instead of the states/provinces (although, I'm open to the idea of state control). This public option BS would be a complete disaster.

[backscatter712]

13. Only the freeper trolls are against universal health care.

I'm for single-payer, but at the same time, I can recognize the political realities, which is why I'm currently pushing for a strong, Medicare-like public option.

But yes, for me, the ultimate goal is full-fledged universal health care in the United States.

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. Depends on what you call Universal Health Care,

and how you get from where we are to their, but mostly yes. Right now I'm for the Public option to move us closer to Universal Health Care.

[rug]

18. Everyone should be covered. No one should be denied.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

19. I worry about locking in a system that could hurt a lot of people

The mandate part, the coercion part, of the plans
now under discussion is not good.

I don't like people being obliged to pay for
a system that is certainly overpriced for almost all of us,
and may provide very poor service for many subgroups of
less fortunate people.

And just what are they going to do to cut Medicare spending?
It could get pretty unpleasant. I would like to hear more
intelligent discussion of this. The politicians haven't offered
much so far.