[JerryLove]

I like that. "On a progressive scale" is their share. The problem is that it doesn't meet your more equitable claim. You are trying to argue a fault on my thoughts by saying that those with insurance pays for the very minimum of services for the uninsured. Then you claim that under your plan everyone will pay their fair share ...but on a progressive scale. The problem is that a progressive scale simply means that the rich pays for the poor's share or at least part of it. Can you at least agree that if this did come about, the poor would end up paying little to none through tax breaks?

Someone with no income would pay none. Just like they don't pay for any of the roads, police, firemen, millitary or any other piece of the government.

That said: you are switching topics. On a non-progressive scale people with zero income pay zero dollars, and people with more money pay more. The difference between progressive and non-progressive is that the percentage, not the total amount, changes.

Finally: those people don't pay now. So how have I worstened the situation? What about the people who could pay but are not currently? I've made the situation better by charging them.

Not really. The thing is that children in the US don't really have their own money or income at least for the most part. They rely on someone else. In short, they don't pay in any taxes for any services because they are not earning money.

Same is true of jobless people... and then there are people who have their own money, but it's clearly not enough to afford healthcare.

So you would provide, at taxpayer expense, coverage for those who cannot afford coverage? But those are the people you used as an example above as to why universal healthcare would be bad.

Who'se left? People who can afford it but choose not to.

Well now that is really something. Your insurance, after you have had cancer and is presumably at risk for cancer again, is on par with the national average.

Group coverage with 32,000 other people at my ompany... my history is irrellevent to costs. I cannot afford self-insurance (which would be much higher than $6k) because I've had cancer. In short, if I don't work for a large company that chooses to provide health coverage, I can't have any even if I want to.

This average is higher than it would be under universal healthcare. My insurance, a healthy person under 30 with no past health problems, is well below the national average and the cost of insurance under universal healthcare. It does seem like a very important statistic, but for different reasons for different people.

I truely doubt that your figure is accurate. I don't think you are lying, but i do think you don't understand the actual costs.

Yes, the costs for the government are the same but the person who does it is paying for double healthcare. The rich would likely pay 3-5 times as much as their own healthcare costs because they have to pay for the poor and again for private coverage. The middle class would also pay more. I guess unless you wanted to pay for double coverage, then you would stick with the universal healthcare. So no you couldn't practically choose private coverage and private coverage would simply not exist except possibly for the rich.

Government healthcare already exists for the elderly. It's called Medicare. There are plenty of private medicare insurers. Your assumption as to what would happen, in actual fact, did not happen. It's simply, and demonstrably, wrong.

As to real costs: The average person would pay less. Here's the math:

300,000,000 US citizens multiplied by the liberal $4,000 per-person costs of UHC = $1,200,000,000

Assuming that the entire burden was born by the existing 240,000,000 Americans already paying for healthcare (IOW we just baught it for those currently uninsured at no costs to them), that comes to $5,000 per person... or $1000 per person less than we are paying now.

Of course, $4,000 per person in costs is higher than any country with UHC, and some of those extra 40,000,000 people will be adding income... so the real savings is even higher.

That's great but it doesn't really get to the point does it? You wouldn't fit very will under decisions custom made for your area but would fit better under a blanket for everyone in the US. On the other hand, 95% of the other people in your are would fit better under decisions customized for the area and only 5% would fit better under the blanket decision?

Ahh. So it's OK to opress the minority if it favors the majority?

So let's take that to it's extreme. All decisions should be made by the individual and paid for by the individual... I guess you are an anarchist afterall.

(By the way is it medium or median?)

I suspect you wanted "medium" which is conversational as opposed to "median" which is a statistical word meaning "exact middle".

State would help my feelings, but I still find it hard to add to the welfare system. I am already paying for the 30% poor in Louisiana. The reason that I don't like it is because I see the abuses within the system and I can't imagine how an addition to the welfare system would not be abused without an extensive overhaul of the entire system. And no matter how you describe it, I am still seeing universal healthcare as welfare.

Perhaps how you define welfare would help.

I'm curious what you think of a certain other health-related project. In the 1960s and 1970s, the rich nations, with tax moeny mostly from their middle and upper-class citizens, paid for universal, specific healthcare for everyone in the world. To be more accurate, they (the WHO) paid all the costs of treating one specific illness for everyone worldwide. Do you think this was good or "welfare".

Ignoring the moral argument, I still have to wonder how you cannot see the self-interest advantage of, for example, paying for immunizations and treatments of people with communicable diseases. There was an article in the news today about a woman who got a cold and didn't go to a doctor because she could not afford it. When she finally got looked at, she discovered t was TB. In addition to being far more expensive to fix this late in the game (and you and I will be paying for it), she could easily have passed it on to others.

Then, of course, is mental illness... The mentally ill often have victims: whether it's your local college shooting, or just abused children becoming another generation of the disabled. But providing treatment would be, what, enabling?

[tlj009]

Someone with no income would pay none. Just like they don't pay for any of the roads, police, firemen, millitary or any other piece of the government.

That said: you are switching topics. On a non-progressive scale people with zero income pay zero dollars, and people with more money pay more. The difference between progressive and non-progressive is that the percentage, not the total amount, changes.

The total amount for the individual does change. No matter how you want to deny it, you do know as well as I do that the poor would pay nothing and the cost would be carried by the middle class and the rich.

Same is true of jobless people... and then there are people who have their own money, but it's clearly not enough to afford healthcare.

The thing about jobless adults is that in many cases, they can still take care of themselves.

So you would provide, at taxpayer expense, coverage for those who cannot afford coverage? But those are the people you used as an example above as to why universal healthcare would be bad.

Who'se left? People who can afford it but choose not to.

Or those that would abuse the system. Maybe the mother that is currently teaching her child to act retarded so that she can get more money from the state. Maybe the person who refuses to get a job that pays over a certain amount so that he can still draw disability. There are a lot of people that abuse the system. At least with children, it is hard to fake being under 18.

Group coverage with 32,000 other people at my ompany... my history is irrellevent to costs. I cannot afford self-insurance (which would be much higher than $6k) because I've had cancer. In short, if I don't work for a large company that chooses to provide health coverage, I can't have any even if I want to.

I have worked for some large companies, but never has my history been irrellevent to costs. Does every single person in the company pay $6,000 for their insurance or is it just the average?

I truely doubt that your figure is accurate. I don't think you are lying, but i do think you don't understand the actual costs.

Well I know that my employer pays $100 per month and I know that I pay $27 per paycheck or $54 per month. That comes out to be $1,848.

Government healthcare already exists for the elderly. It's called Medicare. There are plenty of private medicare insurers. Your assumption as to what would happen, in actual fact, did not happen. It's simply, and demonstrably, wrong.

I know of many who could get Medicare but don't because it would cut into their pension. Or because they would have to pay more for it then it is worth. Apparently Medicare can be very expensive depending on how well off you are. So these people have been paying in for years and get nothing out of it. And just to be clear, Medicare is an insurance program. There are still plenty of private insurers (not private medicare insurers) because medicare does not cover everyone.

As to real costs: The average person would pay less. Here's the math:

300,000,000 US citizens multiplied by the liberal $4,000 per-person costs of UHC = $1,200,000,000

Assuming that the entire burden was born by the existing 240,000,000 Americans already paying for healthcare (IOW we just baught it for those currently uninsured at no costs to them), that comes to $5,000 per person... or $1000 per person less than we are paying now.

Of course, $4,000 per person in costs is higher than any country with UHC, and some of those extra 40,000,000 people will be adding income... so the real savings is even higher.

I have no doubt at all that the average costs would be lower. My whole point was that it still would not be good for everyone. Some of the population would pay more while some would pay less. And I think that those who would pay more would be a significant portion of the population, say 25-30%.

Ahh. So it's OK to opress the minority if it favors the majority?

I don't know if I would identify it as oppression but the majority is suppose to rule in elections. Even under your universal healthcare, you want to oppress the minority that is currently paying very little for healthcare, to allow the majority who either can't afford it or pay a high price to have healthcare or to have cheaper healthcare. You are taking money from one group to pay for another. Calling it oppression would pretty much call most everything that happens oppression.

I suspect you wanted "medium" which is conversational as opposed to "median" which is a statistical word meaning "exact middle".

I know what the words mean. And the statistical definition is not the only one. But yes I believe that it is medium.

Perhaps how you define welfare would help.

I'm curious what you think of a certain other health-related project. In the 1960s and 1970s, the rich nations, with tax moeny mostly from their middle and upper-class citizens, paid for universal, specific healthcare for everyone in the world. To be more accurate, they (the WHO) paid all the costs of treating one specific illness for everyone worldwide. Do you think this was good or "welfare".

It was welfare. I never said that welfare was bad. My claim was that welfare has been abused in the US. I see no reason to try to fool ourselves into thinking that universal healthcare is not a form of welfare.

Ignoring the moral argument, I still have to wonder how you cannot see the self-interest advantage of, for example, paying for immunizations and treatments of people with communicable diseases. There was an article in the news today about a woman who got a cold and didn't go to a doctor because she could not afford it. When she finally got looked at, she discovered t was TB. In addition to being far more expensive to fix this late in the game (and you and I will be paying for it), she could easily have passed it on to others.

I do understand the benefits. What I am trying to point out is some of the downside. It is not all good. There is some problem areas. It will not benefit the entire population in the short term. It may not even benefit the entire population in the long term. And unless it is a closely regulated system, I have my doubts that welfare benefits a society in the extreme long term.

Then, of course, is mental illness... The mentally ill often have victims: whether it's your local college shooting, or just abused children becoming another generation of the disabled. But providing treatment would be, what, enabling?

And yet you have those who do get treatment but "go off their medication".

[JerryLove]

The total amount for the individual does change. No matter how you want to deny it, you do know as well as I do that the poor would pay nothing and the cost would be carried by the middle class and the rich.

The poor do pay nothing. The burden is paid by the middle class and the rich.

That would be the case. That is the case. Here's the difference:

The burden is carried by some of the middle-class and rich. The burden would be carried by all of the middle class and the rich. Also, the burden on any individual would be lower.

Or those that would abuse the system. Maybe the mother that is currently teaching her child to act retarded so that she can get more money from the state. Maybe the person who refuses to get a job that pays over a certain amount so that he can still draw disability. There are a lot of people that abuse the system. At least with children, it is hard to fake being under 18.

Or young healthy people who don't pay into the medical system... only then they get sick and need care and can't afford it and I suddenly have to pay for it.

Hey. I've got an idea. Let's stop that abuse by making universal healthcare.

I have worked for some large companies, but never has my history been irrellevent to costs. Does every single person in the company pay $6,000 for their insurance or is it just the average?

There are discounts for a few specific behaviors (non-smoking for example). The deviation between the highest discount and no discount at all amounts to a few hundred a year.

So, essentially, everyone with individual coverage pays $6000 per year (though some of that is paid by the company).

Well I know that my employer pays $100 per month and I know that I pay $27 per paycheck or $54 per month. That comes out to be $1,848.

Is the coverage available to everyone at that rate? Do you have a deductable, co-pay, or maximum coverage amount?

I know of many who could get Medicare but don't because it would cut into their pension. Or because they would have to pay more for it then it is worth. Apparently Medicare can be very expensive depending on how well off you are. So these people have been paying in for years and get nothing out of it. And just to be clear, Medicare is an insurance program. There are still plenty of private insurers (not private medicare insurers) because medicare does not cover everyone.

There are lots of poblems with medicare and I was not holding it up as a standard to aspire to. I was pointing out that, despite being a governmental insurance, there's plenty of private competition.

I have no doubt at all that the average costs would be lower. My whole point was that it still would not be good for everyone. Some of the population would pay more while some would pay less. And I think that those who would pay more would be a significant portion of the population, say 25-30%.

The costs to each individual would be lower because of savings that are inferred by the fact that every country with social healthcare has lower costs than us.

It was welfare. I never said that welfare was bad. My claim was that welfare has been abused in the US. I see no reason to try to fool ourselves into thinking that universal healthcare is not a form of welfare.

So if welfare isn't neccessairily bad, I'm not sure what your point in saying that is.

And yet you have those who do get treatment but "go off their medication".

If I were calling something perfect, that would prove I was wrong.

[tlj009]

The poor do pay nothing. The burden is paid by the middle class and the rich.

That would be the case. That is the case. Here's the difference:

The burden is carried by some of the middle-class and rich. The burden would be carried by all of the middle class and the rich. Also, the burden on any individual would be lower.

What you fail to aknowledge is that the burden would be different with universal healthcare than it is now. Also, I suspect that the number of middle-class and rich that doesn't currently have insurance is a very small percentage.

Or young healthy people who don't pay into the medical system... only then they get sick and need care and can't afford it and I suddenly have to pay for it.

Hey. I've got an idea. Let's stop that abuse by making universal healthcare.

You currently pay a surprisingly small amount to take care of people in these emergency situations. The number of young healthy people that get sick I suspect is a very low number. And you are paying for the minimum care for these people. Under universal healthcare, you will be paying for really good care for these people and everyone else too. These young healthy people do not set out to abuse the healthcare system and they tend to get poor treatment when they don't have money. You pointed out earlier in this thread how many people do not get healthcare or get poor healthcare because they don't have insurance. On the other hand, many, many people do currently set out to abuse the welfare system. And they do it very effectively.

Is the coverage available to everyone at that rate? Do you have a deductable, co-pay, or maximum coverage amount?

No it is not available to everyone at this rate. The insurance agency did about a 2 hour interview with each person and determined what their rate would be. I am currently working for a small business. As the youngest person here with no health problems, my insurance is less except possibly for one lady. For whatever reason, women tend to get a lower cost. But then again I don't know everyone's situation. And yes I do have a deductable for some things, which I haven't used, and a co-pay of $50 for a doctor's visit, which I have used twice. Do you not have a deductable or a co-pay?

There are lots of poblems with medicare and I was not holding it up as a standard to aspire to. I was pointing out that, despite being a governmental insurance, there's plenty of private competition.

And I pointed out that medicare does not cover everyone. The "private competition" does not exist for those medicare does cover. "Private competition" only exists for those A) not covered B) for those who would pay an extremely high premium. Under universal healthcare everyone would be covered and according to you, everyone would pay less then they currently are. That would eliminate the two main factors that allow "private competition" with medicare today. In short, I don't believe that medicare is a good example.

The costs to each individual would be lower because of savings that are inferred by the fact that every country with social healthcare has lower costs than us.

You left out the word "average". You can not infer that each individual would have a lower cost because every other country with social healthcare has a lower [average] cost than us.

So if welfare isn't neccessairily bad, I'm not sure what your point in saying that is.

It appears to me that people pushing universal healthcare is trying to make it something that it is not. It is not just another healthcare system that will lower your costs of healthcare. It is an expansion of our current welfare system to cover everyone. It may also as a side effect lower you costs of healthcare. But we need to examine the success of the existing welfare system before will add such a huge expansion. The current system is in need of an overhaul after which it may be ripe to not only provide the current services better, but also provide this additional service.

If I were calling something perfect, that would prove I was wrong.

But it does kind of negate your point. The mentally ill often has victims with or without health insurance.

[JerryLove]

What you fail to aknowledge is that the burden would be different with universal healthcare than it is now. Also, I suspect that the number of middle-class and rich that doesn't currently have insurance is a very small percentage.

Of course. People currenlty getting their healtcare off the backs of others may (unless they are poor) pay more than they are now. Everyone else would pay less.

You currently pay a surprisingly small amount to take care of people in these emergency situations.

So you keep asserting. Got a statistic?

The number of young healthy people that get sick I suspect is a very low number. And you are paying for the minimum care for these people. Under universal healthcare, you will be paying for really good care for these people and everyone else too. These young healthy people do not set out to abuse the healthcare system and they tend to get poor treatment when they don't have money. You pointed out earlier in this thread how many people do not get healthcare or get poor healthcare because they don't have insurance. On the other hand, many, many people do currently set out to abuse the welfare system. And they do it very effectively.

And yet social healthcare is both less expensive and more effective than the US system. Why is that?

No it is not available to everyone at this rate. The insurance agency did about a 2 hour interview with each person and determined what their rate would be. I am currently working for a small business. As the youngest person here with no health problems, my insurance is less except possibly for one lady.

Then you are essentially on individual insurance. If I worked with you, I could not afford to be insured. One look at the fact that I've had cancer in the last decade and my payments would be well in the tens-of-thousands per year.

I've never drunk (about three glasses over the course of my life). I've never smokekd. I do work out regularly (except for that half-year in the hospital) and I've always maintained a healthy weight (except for being very underweight in the hospital)... I'm uninsurable without group healthcare (the one that forces everyone to pay the same).

For whatever reason, women tend to get a lower cost. But then again I don't know everyone's situation. And yes I do have a deductable for some things, which I haven't used, and a co-pay of $50 for a doctor's visit, which I have used twice. Do you not have a deductable or a co-pay?

I have a $1250 deductable and no co-pay. It's factored into my costs (IOW, my premiums are about $4,750). Interestingly, they refused to cover my tetnus shot... perhaps they thought I was abusing the system.

And I pointed out that medicare does not cover everyone. The "private competition" does not exist for those medicare does cover. "Private competition" only exists for those A) not covered B) for those who would pay an extremely high premium.

How are you coming to this belief?

Here's one example of a private medicare insurance company. It's one of the largest healthcare providers in the nation: http://www.humana-medicare.com/index.asp

You left out the word "average". You can not infer that each individual would have a lower cost because every other country with social healthcare has a lower [average] cost than us.

The average individual paying for healthcare now would see lower rates.

It appears to me that people pushing universal healthcare is trying to make it something that it is not. It is not just another healthcare system that will lower your costs of healthcare. It is an expansion of our current welfare system to cover everyone. It may also as a side effect lower you costs of healthcare. But we need to examine the success of the existing welfare system before will add such a huge expansion. The current system is in need of an overhaul after which it may be ripe to not only provide the current services better, but also provide this additional service.

There's no reason that it cannot be added as an entirely independant system, like Social Security is.

But it does kind of negate your point. The mentally ill often has victims with or without health insurance.

Because not all mentally ill people are helped by medical covereage, offering medical coverage to the mentally ill is useless? How so?

[tlj009]

Of course. People currenlty getting their healtcare off the backs of others may (unless they are poor) pay more than they are now. Everyone else would pay less.

You are ignoring what we have been talking about. The statement "Everyone else would pay less" is untrue. I am a case of someone who would pay more. I would possibly pay more if you averaged the cost through my whole lifetime. But at least for the next 10 years, barring some unforeseen illness, I would pay less. I doubt that I am the only person in this category. If universal healthcare is to be presented to people to vote on it, then it should stand on its own merits. It can be explained as cheaper over the course of your life or cheaper for the average person, but I don't believe it can be explained as cheaper to everyone except those taking advantage of the system.

So you keep asserting. Got a statistic?

Nope, I have my explanation directly following that statment.

And yet social healthcare is both less expensive and more effective than the US system. Why is that?

Less expensive for the average person and more effective because it covers everyone. That is the claim of universal healthcare. The claim that I am making is that A) less expensive for the average person ages 18-death is not less expensive for everyone and B) more effective because it covers everyone does not mean more effective for those who are under the current system.

The fact is that universal healthcare services to more people than the current system does. All things being equal that would cost more money. All things are not equal. Universal healthcare would regulate the pay to doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, etc. This regulation would likely lower the profits/income to the entire medical field. Universal healthcare would also lower the quality of care by specifying exactly what medicine and procedures it would pay for. There would be less administrative costs. These are some of the factors that would lower the cost and are also some of the factors of concern. Not only that but part of the population would almost have to pay more than they are now. Whether it is the rich that pays 3-5 times their share so that they can get private coverage or the young and healthy who pays 2-3 times their share to get the same basic coverage as everyone else.

Then you are essentially on individual insurance. If I worked with you, I could not afford to be insured. One look at the fact that I've had cancer in the last decade and my payments would be well in the tens-of-thousands per year.

I've never drunk (about three glasses over the course of my life). I've never smokekd. I do work out regularly (except for that half-year in the hospital) and I've always maintained a healthy weight (except for being very underweight in the hospital)... I'm uninsurable without group healthcare (the one that forces everyone to pay the same).

Just bad luck. And bad luck cases are some of the reason that we have welfare systems. So that society can help out these people. But that is what it is and it shouldn't be billed as anything else.

How are you coming to this belief?

Here's one example of a private medicare insurance company. It's one of the largest healthcare providers in the nation: http://www.humana-medicare.com/index.asp

Because there is no competition with free. People who qualify get medicare for free. They tend to be retired and no longer paying into the system. These are also the people that don't have a large amount of money themselves. For these people there is no competition because that are in older and private insurance would be too expensive also there is the benefit of getting coverage for free rather than paying for it. The private insurances exist for others who would have to pay the high premiums for medicare. It is about money for the most part. Universal healthcare would cover everyone and everyone would pay in whether they want to or not. The poor would get free healthcare. The middleclass and rich would pay in and if they wanted better coverage would have to basically pay double. Even with vouchers they would only get back part and would pay a certain amount through taxes and then pay again for private healthcare. Most middle class would not do that and probably only a percentage of the rich would.

Because not all mentally ill people are helped by medical covereage, offering medical coverage to the mentally ill is useless? How so?

No, but neither does it prevent them from having victims. Again it is a claim that requires extensive research.

[JerryLove]

You are ignoring what we have been talking about. The statement "Everyone else would pay less" is untrue. I am a case of someone who would pay more. I would possibly pay more if you averaged the cost through my whole lifetime. But at least for the next 10 years, barring some unforeseen illness, I would pay less.

Why? What would happen if you came down with cancer tomorrow?

You wouldn't be covered? Then you are part of the "uninsured". Your coverage would skyrocket? Well that's not really insurance is it?

Less expensive for the average person and more effective because it covers everyone. That is the claim of universal healthcare. The claim that I am making is that A) less expensive for the average person ages 18-death is not less expensive for everyone and

You are actually discussing a different comparison... group vs individual coverage.

If we go with individual coverage, which is not the bulk of the insured in America, then for everyone paying $2,000 per year there's someone paying $10,000 per year. What you do is price anyone who is potentially unhealthy out of coverage. It's actually far worse than the bulk of what's going on now.

If you can, try this: Find out what your insurance premium would be under your current insurance of you were 55 and 2 years in remission on Lymphoma.

You'll find you cannot afford it at all. Is that what you are expousing? A system where people are actually unable to get insuranc even with a decent income?

B) more effective because it covers everyone does not mean more effective for those who are under the current system.

You are the only one offering that up as the sole, or even intended, criteria for "better". It's a straw man.

The fact is that universal healthcare services to more people than the current system does. All things being equal that would cost more money. All things are not equal. Universal healthcare would regulate the pay to doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, etc. This regulation would likely lower the profits/income to the entire medical field.

All insurance does this already. Your fallacy this time is one of false assumption.

Universal healthcare would also lower the quality of care by specifying exactly what medicine and procedures it would pay for.

So go find the statistic that supports you.

1) Nothing in socialized health insurance prevents you from paying for medication.
2) Nothing in the current system says that a medication will be covered by priate insurance (my tetnis shot was not).
3) There are more than 20 countries with universal healthcare who have higher-quality of healthcare. US healthcare is such that people routinely leave the country for procedures.

Not only that but part of the population would almost have to pay more than they are now. Whether it is the rich that pays 3-5 times their share so that they can get private coverage or the young and healthy who pays 2-3 times their share to get the same basic coverage as everyone else.

The uninsured would pay more. If your premiums are based on what you collect, you are essentially uninsured.

Just bad luck. And bad luck cases are some of the reason that we have welfare systems. So that society can help out these people. But that is what it is and it shouldn't be billed as anything else.

*shrug* That doesn't seem to offer much case against my assertion that we should offer universal healthcare.

Because there is no competition with free.

So you are asserting 1) there are no companies trying to lure medicare recipiants from their current provider (the definition of competition).

2) There is no one elidgeible for Medicare who is paying for any other coverage (coverage competing with medicare)?

Those are both completely and demonstrably false. Many companies are actively competeing for people covered under medicare (just as they would compete under my system) and many people elidgeable for medicare carry non-Medicare insurance.

Universal healthcare would cover everyone and everyone would pay in whether they want to or not. The poor would get free healthcare. The middleclass and rich would pay in and if they wanted better coverage would have to basically pay double.

Now who is talking in absolutes? From the $6000 this middle-class guy is currently paying, I would pay less. I would also be covered even if I leave this job to, for example, start a company of my own.

Even with vouchers they would only get back part and would pay a certain amount through taxes and then pay again for private healthcare. Most middle class would not do that and probably only a percentage of the rich would.

I'd voutcher back the full cost of insurance (presuably somewhere between $3500 and $4500). That would be 100% (more or less) for the median income... more for sub-average and less for super-average.

Yes. The rich would be helping the poor.

No, but neither does it prevent them from having victims. Again it is a claim that requires extensive research.

No. It requires a single example to say that medical coverage for the mentally ill would protect people. I never said it would protect all people.

What actually require research are your claims about rising costs.

[Jared]

While I do disagree with the entire premise of socializing anything or mandating that an individual get any sort of coverage, I will play along with the original spirit of this thread and answer the originally proposed question. I fear that if I say what I really want to say, I will take the thread in another off-topic tangent.

Why not mandate high-deductible insurance policies and health savings accounts from the federal level, federally subsidize the insurance and the contributions to the HSAs of the unemployed, and continue to make employer-based HSA contributions tax deductible? I'm sure some lawmaker has proposed this at some point. This approach, while I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the redistibution of wealth for any cause, eliminates many (but not all) of the perverse incentives for healthcare consumers and providers.

Would-be low deductible insurance dollars don't go to paying for things like fraud, paperwork, and insurance company salaries. Healthy people WITH low-deductible health insurance policies who are capable of paying their own medical expenses make the health care system more expensive for everyone. Instead of paying for non-emergencies out of pocket, they rely on low-deductible insurance to cover the costs. Imagine if your car insurance covered oil changes and fuel- there would be no concept of conservation or incentive to shop for the most competitive prices.

Furthermore, HSAs promote competition; you are asking for prices instead of asking, "Will insurance cover this?" Competition means consumer choice, and consumer choice means consumer power. And in the event that you break your neck or get cancer, high deductible insurance kicks in to cover the costs, albeit money that was stolen from those who don't want to pay into the system.

[Jared]

Also, Jerry, I'd be interested to hear how your view of socialized, interventionist governmental policies reflect your Daoist philosophy. And no, that's not sarcasm. I'm sure you've thought that through.

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

3) There are more than 20 countries with universal healthcare who have higher-quality of healthcare. US healthcare is such that people routinely leave the country for procedures.

I was just wondering if you could site a source for that statistic? That could be very useful in discussions with other people.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

I was just wondering if you could site a source for that statistic? That could be very useful in discussions with other people.

I did. More than once. It's in this thread.

[Jared]

Those statistics are severely flawed. They take into account life expectancy, which is no measure of a country's medical care system. And they ignore the facts that the homicide rate, the car crash rate, and the obesity rate are much higher in the US.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jared

Those statistics are severely flawed. They take into account life expectancy, which is no measure of a country's medical care system. And they ignore the facts that the homicide rate, the car crash rate, and the obesity rate are much higher in the US.

Life expectancy was only one of the measures I put up.