Do you support universal health care?

[Bono]

Those statistics are very misleading. The fact is the great research and innovation rate in the US indirectly subsidizes socialist spending in other countries.

That said, if you're going to have universal health care, use the Swiss model instead of that horrible Canadian one.

[KEmperor]

No.  I support freedom.

[MasterJedi]

While I voted no I could support it for just children.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The best argument for creating a universal health care system is that we already have one in place.

Hospitals are unable to turn away emergency patients for lack of ability to pay.  Lack of standard care often turns simple problems into emergencies -- or leads to not-so-sick people clogging the emergency room.

The cost of this, of course, is already billed into the astronomical costs of a hospital stay, which is already billed into the astronomical costs of private insurance.

Preventative care is cheaper anyway, and will lead to a drop in overall medical costs.  Spreading healthcare out via federal taxes is the easiest and most fair way of doing things.  I used to be opposed to universal healthcare, and now, I can't believe we don't actually have a "real" system in place.

[Serenity Now]

Absolutely, of course I have it in my own country.

[Jake]

Find a system that works, and yes.

[Everett]

Considering all the money that we are currently spending anyhow, I wouldn't be opposed to implementing different programmes to see if anything works. Personally, I feel that programmes managed by the states would probably be more effective than those managed by the federal government, but at least try something different. It would most likely be a more efficient usage of money than the current situation.

[David S]

The history of government funded healthcare in the US is a story of exploding costs. In 1967, the first full year for Medicare, the combined cost of Medicare and Medicaid was 4.6 billion. By 2005 the cost had risen to $517 billion, over 100 times as much as it was in 1967.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/hist16z1.xls
And that does not include the amount paid by the states.

But has all of that expenditure solved our healthcare problems? No it hasn't. Today we still hear complaints of 40 million people without healthcare and the cost of healthcare is so high that people can barely afford it. Even huge companies like GM are struggling under the weight of it.
And according to the treasury department's December financial report Medicare and Medicaid are underfunded by about $20 trillion over the next 75 years. David Walker the governments top accountant has stated publicly that our federal debt problems could bankrupt the country if something isn't done about it, and medicare/medicaid account for a big chunk of that debt.

Right now Medicare and Medicaid cover about 1/3 of the population so if you want to cover everyone the cost will triple. Hello bankruptcy!

[MaC]

No, emphatically.

1.considering that at-risk information is unequal, it gives means for both the insurance companies and the government to assume 'high risk' by default, so putting insurance in the hands of the government won't change this.

I have no idea what that means.

2.insurance companies should be able to make profits.  Profits are not evil, contrary to the majority of this board's opinion.

I don't think profits are evil, but they should be subject to taxes so that government can have the resources to provide the public with services that private industry won't build.

3.any Bill that grants this will need to be re-written and amended five years (or ballpark near future) down the road to lower quality and increase taxes.

That makes no sense.

4.If medicare were eliminated, more people could afford insurance with the income that's taken from them in taxes.

OMG, do you honestly believe that?

5.nothing in the United States Constitution authorizes such, although if a state wanted to implement such a policy, that'd be fine.

I'm all for states being labratories of democracy, but the federal government has to change with the times. There is a remarkable similarity between "strict constructionist's" view of the Consitution and Fundamentalists taking every word of the Bible as literal truth. A society that has laws set in stone can't advance any further.

It appears you don't know much about the health industry.  I'll claim I don't know a hell of a lot either, but let me clarify.

1.people that eat McDonalds 8 times a week, sleep around with many anonymous partners, ect are at a higher health risk than those who do not.  Asymmetrical information means that the consumer knows they have high-risk or low risk and the doctor has no way of finding that out.  This is part of why insurance costs so much-because insurance companies assume that people by nature are high risk.  Making health insurance government run, the government would still assume this.  No way around this skyrocketing cost until most individuals start healthier behaviors

2.private industry, if allowed to run without government interference will provide all services necessary provided that the demand is high enough.  You're kinda vague there-what do you mean exactly?

3.It makes perfect sense, in this is how most government programs work.  Medicare/Medicaid was promised to afford the people it was supposed to help medical care at a fraction of what it cost today (even going beyond inflation).  In turn it helps less people than originally proposed.  Many today who are needing it still can't get access although the system.

4OMG, argument from intimidation.  The least you could do in all academic honesty would be to refute my point then offer a new one.

5.The Living Constitution is bunk for the following reasons.  Anyone who interprets it can read into the Constitution whatever they want.   If that's the case, why bother writing a Constitution in the first place?  The 'it's a vessel meant to sail with the times' argument presupposes the standards of society are always progressing and never decaying.  I don't believe in strict constructionism, but I do approve of reasonably interpreting text.  One such example would be that I believe internet usage fits into first amendment rights.   The fact that health care is never mentioned as text gives reason to why I don't think it should be a national policy.  However Amendment X leads be to believe that states can set their own policies of health care. (and given the track record states with single payer insurance have, I wouldn't approve of it)

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The Constitution is an outdated document for a past time.

[WalterMitty]

Single payer seems to be the way to go.

[Emsworth]

I'm all for states being labratories of democracy, but the federal government has to change with the times. There is a remarkable similarity between "strict constructionist's" view of the Consitution and Fundamentalists taking every word of the Bible as literal truth. A society that has laws set in stone can't advance any further.

That's precisely why an amendment process exists.

[A18]

A constitution is written precisely so that a government does not so readily fluctuate with 'the times,' or more precisely, the passions (often irrational) of the present political majority. The objection is not to a particular method of interpreting a constitution, but to the very nature of a constitution itself.

[angus]

Intersting results.  The most striking aspect is the 16-to-1 favorable vote among Democrats, which may explain why the candidates are clamoring for bragging rights to the best proposal for universal health care.  Also striking is that the vote is so far 23-to-18 in favor overall, which is probably why we're hearing more and more about it, even from Republican candidates as well.  In fact, among the Republicans herein, it's a pretty significant minority (33%) voting in favor.

For disclosure purposes, I'll say that I voted No/other, but then I rant about this often enough that it's easy to guess how I might have voted.

The "others" are voting so far 11-to-4 against, which means that, collectively, "others" are even more opposed to socialized medical care than Republicans.  That is telling as well.  I think it may not bode well for Republicans.  Clearly, moralists and collectivists have long been open to the idea of socialized medicine, but then moralists are already fairly beholden to the Democrat Party, with the exception of those who identify with either the Green or Socialist parties.  Traditionalists, often poor farmers and laborers in the Midwest and Southern states, seem to be warming up to the idea as well, and this may help explain why some GOP candidates are starting to make noises about universal health care.  Individualists, however, probably make up the bulk of the "others", some of whom are presumably Libertarians.  Still, most individualists identify with the GOP more so than with either the Democrats or Libertarians, but the spectre of Republican candidates flying this idea up the flagpole as a way to appeal to populist types in the hinterlands may risk losing some of the individualist/libertarian types within the party over such issues as these.  Just a thought.

[David S]

The Constitution is an outdated document for a past time.

Wow!!!
Straha without smiley faces I don't know if you're joking or not but it sounds like not. Let's start with a list of the things you give up if you relegate the constitution to the scrap heap of the past:
1) The right to vote
2) The right to speak freely in this forum or any forum.
3) The right to practice the religion of your choice or no religion if you prefer.
4) The right to own guns.
5) Protection from warrant-less searches conducted by local bureaucrats who just might not like you and only want to harass you.
6) The right to own property without fear of government confiscating it without compensation.
7) Protection from being thrown in jail without charges and kept there indefinitely.
8 ) Protection from being charged over and over with a crime until some jury decides to convict you.
9) The right to a trial by an impartial jury, and the right to legal counsel. The right to subpoena witnesses on your behalf.
10) Protection from cruel and unusual punishment, i.e being quartered and drawn for jay walking.
11) Our entire representative form of government.

Now are you sure you want to just throw it away?


BTW if you want to amend the constitution there is a legal means to do so and in fact it has been amended 17 times since the bill of rights was added.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'm perfectly serious. We need to toss it out and replace it with a document which keeps most of what's in it currently but clears it up(so we don't have things like the supreme court after the ACW forcing unrestricted capitalism on the country until the 30s).

1 Meh. I'd reserve the right to vote for the more educated and or people who have some money. This is to keep out the bumpkin/peasant types.
2 I'd clarify free speech as to prevent government attempts at things like FCC censorship/mandating filters in libraries.
3 I'd strenghen the first amendment to state that the US is a secular nation and not a christian nation.
4 Keep that
5 to 10- I'd keep it.
11 Yawn. I'd keep democracy but do some changes to it.

I'm not talking about replacing it with stalinism. Simply clearing it up.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

However, it would still result in HUGE increases in government spending and tax increases.

Then how come government's in country's that have some form of "universal" health care spend less money (as a %) than the U.S does? Hey, even Canada (which has an incredibly inefficient system) spends less!

[David S]

I'm perfectly serious. We need to toss it out and replace it with a document which keeps most of what's in it currently but clears it up(so we don't have things like the supreme court after the ACW forcing unrestricted capitalism on the country until the 30s).

1 Meh. I'd reserve the right to vote for the more educated and or people who have some money. This is to keep out the bumpkin/peasant types.
2 I'd clarify free speech as to prevent government attempts at things like FCC censorship/mandating filters in libraries.
3 I'd strenghen the first amendment to state that the US is a secular nation and not a christian nation.
4 Keep that
5 to 10- I'd keep it.
11 Yawn. I'd keep democracy but do some changes to it.

I'm not talking about replacing it with stalinism. Simply clearing it up.

"Clearing it up" sounds considerably less extreme than tossing it out.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Given how I'd clarify the language of the constitution abotu 90% of the current wording would be removed at minimum.

[MaC]

A constitution is written precisely so that a government does not so readily fluctuate with 'the times,' or more precisely, the passions (often irrational) of the present political majority. The objection is not to a particular method of interpreting a constitution, but to the very nature of a constitution itself.

Sounds like a quotation from someone, but, from whom?

[Bono]

However, it would still result in HUGE increases in government spending and tax increases.

Then how come government's in country's that have some form of "universal" health care spend less money (as a %) than the U.S does? Hey, even Canada (which has an incredibly inefficient system) spends less!

Because the high spending in health care in the US indirectly subsidizes socialist spending elsewhere.

[Cubby]

It appears you don't know much about the health industry.  I'll claim I don't know a hell of a lot either, but let me clarify.

1.people that eat McDonalds 8 times a week, sleep around with many anonymous partners, ect are at a higher health risk than those who do not.  Asymmetrical information means that the consumer knows they have high-risk or low risk and the doctor has no way of finding that out.  This is part of why insurance costs so much-because insurance companies assume that people by nature are high risk.  Making health insurance government run, the government would still assume this.  No way around this skyrocketing cost until most individuals start healthier behaviors

Yes that makes sense, I agree.

2.private industry, if allowed to run without government interference will provide all services necessary provided that the demand is high enough.  You're kinda vague there-what do you mean exactly?[/b]

There are other reasons for providing services besides a financial incentive for companies. I know this is vague, but I can't think of examples at the moment. Roads are one thing. Why would a company build roads and highways that anyone can use? Unless you use tolls, which are difficult to justify and very unpopular.

It makes perfect sense, in this is how most government programs work.  Medicare/Medicaid was promised to afford the people it was supposed to help medical care at a fraction of what it cost today (even going beyond inflation).  In turn it helps less people than originally proposed.  Many today who are needing it still can't get access although the system.

Thats because drugs are so damn expensive, which wasn't an issue in 1967 when there were far fewer senior citizens.

4OMG, argument from intimidation.  The least you could do in all academic honesty would be to refute my point then offer a new one.

Like OMG, whatever! Eliminating Medicare is a terrible idea. The people who need medical care and drugs wouldn't have enough money even from all the taxes they'd keep, your idea would only help young healthy people, who could then go spend the Medicare money on crap like Blu Ray Discs and talking ear clips and flat screen TV's, you know, things that I hate. Having money put into medicare keeps it from being wasted by the young and makes sure it goes to a more worthy cause.

5.The Living Constitution is bunk for the following reasons.  Anyone who interprets it can read into the Constitution whatever they want.   If that's the case, why bother writing a Constitution in the first place?  The 'it's a vessel meant to sail with the times' argument presupposes the standards of society are always progressing and never decaying.

The standards of society are always progressing. Each generation brings more civil rights to different demographic groups. Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't make it a bad thing.

[Bono]

4OMG, argument from intimidation.  The least you could do in all academic honesty would be to refute my point then offer a new one.

Like OMG, whatever! Eliminating Medicare is a terrible idea. The people who need medical care and drugs wouldn't have enough money even from all the taxes they'd keep, your idea would only help young healthy people, who could then go spend the Medicare money on crap like Blu Ray Discs and talking ear clips and flat screen TV's, you know, things that I hate. Having money put into medicare keeps it from being wasted by the young and makes sure it goes to a more worthy cause.

Do you know the amount of distortions that creates?
Either way, why is health care a more worthy spending? You found the magical ability to make interpersonal utility comparisons now?

[Cubby]

Do you know the amount of distortions that creates?

No, because I don't know what you mean by distortions

Either way, why is health care a more worthy spending? You found the magical ability to make interpersonal utility comparisons now?

My point is that Americans waste their money on crap, and that it would be better if we saved more, like Asians and Europeans do. Making sure grandma gets her medicine is far more important than buying a new cell phone.