UMD Libertarians

What do they know?
the only thing that can possibly counter this is several copy/posts from huffingtonpost, NYT, and dailykos
or Reuters…

"US doctors support universal health care - survey"
Mittcare != universal health care, didn’t you watch the debates where he talked about how its soooo different from universal health care?
Most doctors would likely oppose it, as it has the potential to affect their income negatively in the future.
AMA

[post #3]
As stupid as it sounds, you cannot take a doctor’s point of view on universal healthcare. It almost surely means they’ll make less money. And if they do, they’ll get greedy and bump up insurance costs for those with private insurers in which case universal healthcare benefits get you almost nothing.
That’s coming from someone with two physician parents as well, and they both agree that a physician’s POV isn’t reliable.

you want to nationalize an industry and you think views of the people in that industry are unimportant

Obama’s UHC plan nationalizes the medical system now….? Do they pay you by the lie?

His introduction of a competing Federal INSURANCE plan is not "nationalization" of the medical profession.

No. I do not want universal healthcare, but I am in favor of Obama’s healthcare plan. If people could be bothered to read about it, they’d see it isn’t free in the least nor are you required to be a part of it.

So your question is null, because having free healthcare across the board has far reaching effects that in the end make that loss in profit merely relative to prior times and not absolute.

If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less.

Does Obama’s plan involve vouchers? It seems like it does. Lets assume people are comfortable paying $200 per month per person. If the government hands us $200 per month for health care vouchers, we might be happy paying an additional $100 per month.

In effect, you pay a lot more in taxes + $100 per month and they now get $300+ per month.

Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan.

Employers shouldn’t be forced to take on the burden of health care. That is bullshit. It should be the sole decision of the company whether to provide health care or not. Health care is a benefit for employees that can be considered part of their pay.

So Obama’s plan to finance the program is to steal money from businesses. That will certainly keep jobs in the country and prevent outsourcing.

Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans

So who pays for the kids? Are the parent’s responsible for that? If we are going along with this social plan, shouldn’t the government just take responsibility for everyone under 18? Can you really trust the parents of children who aren’t covered already?

Assuming a "nationalized health care system" as stated in your article is akin to one administrative body doling out health care insurance, there is no conflict between your post and the threadstarter’s.

"The doctors’ discontent with the plan, and their support for a single-payer system – whereby payments to healthcare providers would all be made by one administrative body like Britain’s National Health Service, rather than individual insurers – could send a strong signal to other states considering similar reform measures."

I doubt Obama is saying all employers are required to provide healthcare to all of their employees. After hearing him speak during the primaries, that isn’t what he means. He’s talking about having benefits that cover more than just a skinned knee.

I can’t comment on the children plan since I am not familiar enough with it and would need to hear it from his own mouth.

Keep in mind that presidential policies aren’t all going to be instated exactly as they want them. I doubt that people with private insurance will pay less even though I know it’s due to market competition.

No … there’s no "conflict" per se. But, the article I posted is probably more representative than the one of the original post.

Right, but you implied a contradiction And yes, I agree it’s a better representation.

It’s amusing that doctors are supporting a program that could further lower their salaries to levels seen in Canada or Britain instead of fighting in favor of free market private insurance.

I got those quotes from his website. His plans are slightly different now than when he was debating Hillary.

I am not opposed to national health care either. Obama’s plan is much better than other candidates who have proposed such a plan.

I just like to nitpick at a few of the flaws.
- Prices will go up somehow. I don’t mind the prices going up, personally. I disagree that they wont. The only way they can go down is if we go with a much more social plan.
- Children (under 18 or 21) should be covered automatically. It shouldnt be the responsiblity of a lazy parent.
- Employers shouldnt be given the burden to cover the costs.
- It should be limited to legal residents.
Obama’s universal health care plan is indicative of his economic idiocy.

He does not have a universal healthcare plan. You really don’t read up on the issues before you spout off, do you?

He just shoots from the hip and on occasion nicks the edge of the barn.

just like the 500 scientists that always sign global-warming-is-false petitions
I don’t think obama knows what his plan even is

no matter it will never get passed anyway

Yes he does. It’s no different than England’s NHS.

Just because he’s rebadging it as "national health insurance," that doesn’t mean it isn’t the same shit.

Doesn’t England’s NHS basically have the government covering everyone? Obama still has a role for private insurers.

As far as I know, there are private insurers in England, and there are non-NHS clinics. Think of NHS as being akin to an state-run EPO (or PPO, depending on what needs to be done). This description of the system came from a girl that I know that lives out there. She was telling me that there are more NHS clinics in the more impoverished areas, and in the more well-to-do neighborhoods, there are clinics that NHS will not pay for.
Obviously the citizens of the USA don’t deserve a decent health care service.
As I understand it Obama’s plan is to create a state run health insurance option that anyone can take advantage of if they want. It will not get rid of private insurance at all. In addition to that it sets standards for minimum coverage and is supposed to reduce prices of the private minimum coverage plans in order to allow people the choice of private or public insurance at the same cost. For those who need assistance it will provide it and still allow them the choice of public or private insurance carriers to use it with. It also does not make coverage mandatory like the one in MA. and others that have been proposed.

If I am wrong about anything here someone please correct me.

what it sounds like is a an enhanced medicare for everyone who wants to take part

which means higher taxes, and less doctors who will take part in the system

so will create a class system of doctors, most doctors hate our current medicare and will not want a part of it, i know plenty who are pulling out of it now and going private only

Good job obama!! socialism at its best

this is why government sponsored based programs never work in in a capital based society
The problem is EFFICIENCY.

I’m agreeing with some of you who say that the US government is simply too incompetent to make it work properly.

Bear in mind that right NOW, the US spends more taxpayer money than ANY other country in the world on healthcare.

The US spends the greatest proportion of the total budget on healthcare, out of ANY country in the world.

Countries in Europe spend around $2000 per person and they provide universal, full coverage for everyone. Yet the US currently spends $4000 and doesn’t cover everyone.

Hell, just look at the budge for the country. I’ll use the UK as an example because I know the figures off the top of my head. We (the UK) spend 17% of our total budget on full universal health care - medications, prescriptions, GP visits, surgery, dentists, cancer treatments etc etc etc.

The US spends 24% of the total budget on Medicare and Medicaid alone.

Wha you guys should really be bitching about is inefficiency. It’s not the system which inherently flawed.. it SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much money being wasted and gobbled up by private companies.

Yup, we do have private options. Just like the US you can have private insurance or you get private isurance as a perk that comes with your job.

Although I’d point out that you always have a choice to go NHS, no matter where you’re from or how much money you have.

You could be a millionaire and still go to a free clinic. I’m not sure what your last sentence of "clinics the NHS will not pay for" means, that’s all.

you filled out your free-market madlib with "healthcare" and "doctors" congrats

Basically he means some clinics aren’t NHS-run and therefore don’t give free service. They’re for people with private insurance or people paying for their own care.

I was particularly proud of that one.

If the system doesn’t end up being good for people they can turn to private insurance as they have the CHOICE and it will be the same price for minimum coverage as the public offering. If the public one turns out to be so horrible and useless people will drop it in favor of private options.

The government will need to provide quality service or risk losing out to private industry. What was all that about socialism? This sounds more like free market stuff right here.
Good thing Obama doesn’t want universal health care, he wants an affordable government insurance plan, which you don’t even need to accept.

But I guess actually reading his proposals is a lot harder than rehashing O’Reilly and Limbaugh talking points.

Ah right.. in that case, that is correct.

…that are willing to put their careers on the line and make their voice heard. Voicing opposition like this is akin to the dog biting the hand that’s feeding it.

but in essence will just raise Taxes to cover for more medicare for people who are not working

bottomline: have a healthy economy, and everything else fixes itself, we don’t need the govt fixing medical for us they just ended up doing more damage in the long run

Even with a healthy economy there are poor people who cannot afford health insurance and in some cases necessities.

Jesus, it is not universal. It still costs money, and although it is basic, it’s still insurance. You are not born with healthcare insurance like under a universal system, you must enroll as a beneficiary under your parents until you’re 18 or until they let you take over (just as it is in private insurance). So please, read the issues before you assume it’s just some clever wording.

poor people just need to get off their lazy asses and work and not expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter

Nothing is being handed to them, it is an INSURANCE PLAN that they pay for, not free health care. It will be affordable so that the poor are able to purchase basic coverage.

Are you really this dense?

yes it off the taxpayers back

I agree! In fact, children of poor people just need to get off their lazy asses and work and not expect things like childhood vaccinations to be handed to them on a silver platter.

please tell israel to get off its lazy ass and stop expecting U.S. aid on a silver platter, thx

If that were true, why put the government in the middle? Doesn’t that just create another opaque layer that filters out money which would otherwise go more directly from patient to healthcare?

Poor kids can already get vaccines without this utopian UHC bullshit.

First off, the money doesn’t necessarily go to health care, it would first go to an insurance company trying every trick in the book to keep from paying for someone’s needs.

Secondly, you do realize that in all likelihood you’ll be saving money when this goes into effect, right? After all, you can still use whatever health insurance provider you have now, with the added benefit of lower prices now that they’ll be competing with the government. No one will be forcing you to use the government’s insurance plan (good thing too, they obviously will put RFID chips into everyone’s vaccinations).

Which candidate is for that again?

There are laws for that. The government can write laws, and punish insurance companies that break laws.

1) why should the government be involved in a capitalist venture with risk of loss?
2) why is a liberal like you touting marketplace competition?
3) don’t insurance companies already compete with one another for your business?

No one is "forcing" me to put my kids in government schools, but since they’re taxing me out the ass for it, I might as well send them there, right? The government screwels don’t exactly create marketplace competition, since they automatically have a head-start, since everyone is forced to pay for them.

I’m not sure where the RFID chip thing is coming from. Look under your bed again, and see if the bogeyman is there.

For what? I’m not sure what you’re asking.

All that babble, and you never really answered the question.

Where does the money come to make it cheaper?

i agree always said to stop giving money to Israel

Is this what you are saying?

I can get state run health care for my family little to nothing + tax increase
vs
Kaiser Permanente for $800/mo + tax increase

Bye Kaiser.

The part where the funding comes from taxpayer dollars and increased business taxes.

I am not against social programs. I just wanted to point out that this is one. I am not against opposed to national healthcare (and the increased taxes that go along with it) if done properly.

It isn’t that simple.

Our doctors get paid more, i believe.
Our doctors get sued more.
We spend more on medicine that the world ends up using.

But, yes, our government is inefficient and has shown too many flaws with just about every social plan it has implemented.

Poor people and children of poor people get free healthcare already, i believe.

In my opinion, the biggest flaw with today’s system is the costs and difficulty to get insured for people who have pre-existing conditions.

One of the biggest strains on our healthcare system in california is illegal aliens and people not paying their bills because they were too irresponsible to get insured.

i agree

Sure they can. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen all the time. Many cases involving insurance companies breaking the law don’t make big news stories - or rather didn’t until the Michael Moore movie came out and it became an issue in the election.

1) Necessity
2) Not a liberal. Nice try though.
3) Yep, and the free market has shown there’s no problem with the system. So what’s one more competitor?

Laughing at you for being a conspiracy theorist, is all.

I just asked which candidate is for the "utopian UHC bullshit". Hilary isn’t running anymore, in case you missed her concession speech.

Sure I did. You asked why should the government be involved in health care and I said why. Not too hard to understand.

This is the worst response on this topic of discussion. It requires no thinking on your part and makes no point. It does expose that you know nothing of being poor or you just find yourself to be above those who are less well off.

You didn’t read what I wrote then.

Nicely done.

Medicare is the most efficient health care provider in the country. Putting a for profit middle man (privet pay and group plan insurance) between Americans and quality health care=less care at greater cost

there is nothing to think about

define poor?

poor people who abuse the fuck out of our ER’s as it is

when I use to work as an EMT we use to get 911 calls for sore throats because people thought they can see a doctor faster and guess who these people who called 911 were? yep that right low life poor people who were on welfare and medicaid

your hard earned taxpayer’s dollars at work!

I can tell you hundreds of stories as a NYC EMT of how our system is abused by people living on welfare and so called poor people…and most of our ER is filled with people overdosing on drugs and drunks

I work in an ER now and the vast majority of our patients have no insurance. They are either unemployed do to this economy, they have no insurance because their jobs don’t carry it or they have been cut back to part time with out benefits. I will not argue that we get our fair share of dead beats, (drunks, druggies etc.), but I see, more and more, that it is just circumstances that have put them in that situation. I suspect, through my own observations, that those are the people who make up the vast majority of the so called ER ‘dead beats’. For you to paint them all with the same brush is stereotypical, shows your utter lack of education on this issue, and exposes you for the morally bankrupt pig that you are.

Save 1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years.

Also save $200 billion per year, potentially from eliminating the paperwork

That is but one anecdote. The exception to the norm that I experience where that nagging cough some guy ignored for 2 months because of lack of insurance and the fact he could not afford to go to the doctor became a $20,000 pneumonia admission.
you people realize that the united states subsidizes foreign UHC programs right?

If we go UHC, either we bankrupt foreign nations’ programs or we all bankrupt our medical industry.

Possibly.

Hospital doctors in the UK aren’t paid *that* well for the work they do.. they get about £45k a year average. The thing is though, most people don’t do it for the money - they do it for the patients. Demand for med school places is still ridiculously high and the standards are still high.

GPs get about £120k a year

Surgeons - again, it varies a lot up to a couple hundred thousand

It really comes down to your motivation. I know hardcore conservatives would say that you can only be motivated by money but I’m in med school (going into 5th year) and I’d say most of my classmates are doing it for the patients.

Definitely true - although personally I think it would be a good idea for the government to give doctors more protection from petty lawsuits.

Quite possibly, although isn’t that money paid for by private companies rather than taxpayers? I can appreciate how it increases the cost of medicines though.

They should look at other countries who have implemented large programs with great success. I believe the key is in the implementation, rather than the actual theory. The totally free market idea sounds great in principle but human greed will ensure it can never happen. Totally socialised sounds good too because the cost can be diluted by everyone, but of course there are obvious problems with that if it is implemented badly (i.e. Medicare and Medicaid costing HUGE amounts for comparitively little return.)

It sounds like it *should* be efficient but why does it work out so expensive to cover only a small % of the population? As I said above, IMPLEMENTATION is the key.. if you implement it badly it will be an absolute diaster!

Sorry. I was trying to be brief because I was typing from my phone. Here was what I was trying to say:

Per capita, there are more NHS clinics in impoverished neighborhoods than there are in wealthy neighborhoods. However, some of the more wealthy neighborhoods have private clinics that will not accept patients only covered by NHS.

Yup

Personally I quite like the system and my view is that if you need routine shit done - eye checkups, prescription glasses, GP appointments, common problems (cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes etc etc), ER visits, emergency care, normal prescriptionn drugs (painkillers, statins, beta blockers, antibiotics etc) etc… the NHS is *BRILLIANT.* There are lots of perks too. Many pharmacies will home deliver your prescription for you, nurses will come out to your house etc.

If you need a complex treatment or a long hospital stay it isn’t as good, but it’s still there to provide some help. Other people can go private.

I’ve had a lot of experience with the NHS and only been disappointed a few times. A year ago i had some surgery to remove a pilonidal sinus (disgusting.. don’t google it) and things were brilliant. I saw my GP with the problem, got a referrral to a hospital of my choice, met the surgeon (I could have changed if I didn’t like him), discussed the operation. I was on his table 3 weeks later. Woke up on a ward, food was nice. I stayed overnight and left the next day with a huge bag of painkillers (for free.) I then had a nurse come out to my house every day for 2 weeks to change the dressings. After that I booked a nurse appointment at my local GP surgery every day 10am for a month until I could manage to do it myself. The whole thing was brilliant.

But on the other hand there’s my uncle with chronic asthma from asbestos exposure. He’s been on waiting list and waiting list but they can’t afford to go private. My parents eventually gave them some money to go privately, have the proper tests and an operation. He’s much better now and can play with his kids again.

If I was to break my leg in a car accident, I’d do it in the UK because I’d get great care for free.

If I had to get cancer and have a month-long hospital stay and a few years of chemo, I’d do it in the USA (provided I had the insurance of course! [I would!])

This changes nothing. It’s still akin to England’s NHS, sans a few technicalities. Are you mentally retarded?

More like inherently biased.

Related posts:

1. McBama’s Healthcare Policies As someone who works in the health insurance industry, i was pretty interested to hear the plans for healthcare from...
2. i want America’s economy to collapse then i want our government to collapse. yea i gotta start getting high againi can see you've thought this through...
3. Obama’s tax plan at it’s core is about "Neighborliness" "If I am sitting pretty, and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can...
4. Are you in favor of a National ID card? Then again, we're Americans so our opinion doesn't matter. I personally don't care, just another 'drivers license'. I support it,...
5. How many civilians did the Georgian goverment kill? I keep hearing how evil Russia is but im curious as to how many civilians died when Georgia attacked? Honestly,...