Should the U.S. have universal healthcare for children?

[w8tlftr]

ABSOLUTELY!!!

It's shocking to think that such a well-developed first world nation is unable to provide this for their entire population, ...let alone their children. There are many less developed nations that have access to universal health care. This is a national embarrrasment and a national shame on the part of the USA.

No. Universal health care means shitty care for everyone.

And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support.

[gcb]

We have universal health care here in Oz. The healthcare isn't shitty but the waiting lists are long if you need a procedure. Howard (Prime Minister) is trying to push private healthcare but a lot of people don't bother since they figure they are covered by medicare. Really they are trying to dismantle the public system bit by bit they're just trying to disguise it, since I think they would rather not fund it. You US cheapskates have got no chance of UTC.

[24KT]

No. Universal health care means shitty care for everyone.

And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support.

{ROTFLMAO}  Stop drinking the kool-aid w8tlftr. Your country could provide fabulous universal health care to ALL of it's citizens and legal landed residents, for just a smally teeny tiny puny little fraction of what you're currently wasting in Iraq. What's the bill up to these days? 

[Hedgehog]

Yes, but how we do it in a cost effective way is a real challenge. As someone else pointed out Emergency Room costs are exhorbitant and they're not a particularly effective means of patient care.

In a perfect world universal healthcare for children would be a wonderful concept, in our world it's not.

The challenge as effin is pointing out, is how to make it cost-effective.

It's obviously more cost effective for a society to treat all kids with the best possible care as early as possible.

The challenge is to find a way to do it without a big bureacracy, making sure it will be cost-effective.

Big challenge.

-Hedge

[w8tlftr]

{ROTFLMAO}  Stop drinking the kool-aid w8tlftr. Your country could provide fabulous universal health care to ALL of it's citizens and legal landed residents, for just a smally teeny tiny puny little fraction of what you're currently wasting in Iraq. What's the bill up to these days? 

I'll put down my glass after you put down your pitcher of Socialist-Aid. 

Ever been to a military hospital? That's just a glipse of what Universal Health Care would be like in America. No fucking thanks. Besides enough of my tax dollars are wasted on dumb ass career politicians (socialist liberals AND pseudo-conservatives) and lazy fuckers that won't learn to fish.

You love nanny states so enjoy your socialist utopia in Canada and leave the United States to Americans.

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

Ever been to a military hospital? That's just a glipse of what Universal Health Care would be like in America.

If military hospitals are poor, it is because the neoconservative desire for privatization underfunds them to make them look poor. Then fools like you will assume that it is because government programs don't work.  As Jag pointed out, UHC would cost a fraction of the war we are paying for (paying TO the owners of the military-industrial complex, i.e., Bush/Cheney and friends).

And your other post:
"And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support."


Why should we stand by and let kids suffer because their parents couldn't afford good care for whatever reason (including being middle class without healthcare).  Also, let's stop the anti-abortion crusaders who are happy to have more kids suffering in this world.

[egj13]

If military hospitals are poor, it is because the neoconservative desire for privatization underfunds them to make them look poor. Then fools like you will assume that it is because government programs don't work.  As Jag pointed out, UHC would cost a fraction of the war we are paying for (paying TO the owners of the military-industrial complex, i.e., Bush/Cheney and friends).

And your other post:
"And don't blame the government for making kids suffer. Blame the parents for having kids they can't support."


Why should we stand by and let kids suffer because their parents couldn't afford good care for whatever reason (including being middle class without healthcare).  Also, let's stop the anti-abortion crusaders who are happy to have more kids suffering in this world.

The fact that military health system is flawed has nothing to do with money. They have plenty, the problem is since it is free it gets flooded with non-issues making no room for real issues.

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

The fact that military health system is flawed has nothing to do with money. They have plenty, the problem is since it is free it gets flooded with non-issues making no room for real issues.

What are these "non issues" that doctors give all their attention to?  What's up with vets wasting their days going to the VA with all these non issues, don't they have anything better to do?  It must be the vets undermining the system!  Of course they would stop that nonsense if they were treated by the private sector.  Private sector doctors would tell them to "go away, we have more important cases to treat."  Hmmm, if only doctors who worked for the VA could learn that skill.

[egj13]

What are these "non issues" that doctors give all their attention to?  What's up with vets wasting their days going to the VA with all these non issues, don't they have anything better to do?  It must be the vets undermining the system!  Of course they would stop that nonsense if they were treated by the private sector.  Private sector doctors would tell them to "go away, we have more important cases to treat."  Hmmm, if only doctors who worked for the VA could learn that skill.

Maybe you didn't know, but VA hospitals and Military hospitals aren't affiliated. if UHC is so great how come canadians have the same problem getting appointments? because of people going in for every headache and runny nose.

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

Maybe you didn't know, but VA hospitals and Military hospitals aren't affiliated. if UHC is so great how come canadians have the same problem getting appointments? because of people going in for every headache and runny nose.

I lived in New Zealand for a year and they have a great UHC system.  Easy to get appointments, doctors who took time to talk to you, cheap prescriptions.  I don't know where you get the idea that the Canadian healthcare system is overrun by people with headcolds, but I would guess that its not from living in Canada.

[240 is Back]

from a bigger picture standpoint of nat'l mgmt-

If you ran a nation, would you WANT a group of 100 million people (lowest third of America) living to be 90?

Would you want this group of uneducated, non-contributing, babymaking consumers to live to be 90?

Can you think about the impact on the social security system of a group of people (who don't contribute BTW), living to 90 instead of 65 (on average)?

I can assure you the nation's planners have thought this through, even if you find it morally offensive.  To nationalize health care would mean the lowest third of our nation lives longer, which would tax our society's resources longer as they live for 35 or 40 years on the nation's dime.

[Camel Jockey]

I can assure you the nation's planners have thought this through, even if you find it morally offensive.  To nationalize health care would mean the lowest third of our nation lives longer, which would tax our society's resources longer as they live for 35 or 40 years on the nation's dime.

I was thinking something similar.. The same unproductive population that already eats welfare, public housing and benefits from rent control will have a new meal ticket in the form of healthcare.

[Decker]

Medicare and Medicaid = federal safety net. 

What other costs will increase?  How are we going to pay for some new federally mandated program?  I don't know precisely which costs will increase, but the money will come from either taxes or employers passing along the increased costs to consumers.  We, the taxpayers, will pay for it one way or the other.   

And I think there is available "preventive" care available for poor kids.  They don't need much preventive care anyway:  annual physical, teeth cleaned twice a year, and shots.  That's about it.  Pretty much everything else is treatment, which you get with the help of Medicaid, state programs, local clinics, and state and county hospitals. 

This thread concerns UHC for children.  Medicare applies only to senior citizens and Medicaid offers lower insurance rates to those kids under the poverty line and is funded jointly State/Federal.  

That's not good enough.  9 million children have no health insurance coverage at all.  To get Medicaid, a child's family must be poor enough to satisfy eligibility requirements for lower costs.

[egj13]

I lived in New Zealand for a year and they have a great UHC system.  Easy to get appointments, doctors who took time to talk to you, cheap prescriptions.  I don't know where you get the idea that the Canadian healthcare system is overrun by people with headcolds, but I would guess that its not from living in Canada.

It is from growing up on the other side of the river from canada and working/going to school/playing sports/seeing canadians in my hospitals growing up.

[Decker]

from a bigger picture standpoint of nat'l mgmt-

If you ran a nation, would you WANT a group of 100 million people (lowest third of America) living to be 90?

Would you want this group of uneducated, non-contributing, babymaking consumers to live to be 90?

Can you think about the impact on the social security system of a group of people (who don't contribute BTW), living to 90 instead of 65 (on average)?

I can assure you the nation's planners have thought this through, even if you find it morally offensive.  To nationalize health care would mean the lowest third of our nation lives longer, which would tax our society's resources longer as they live for 35 or 40 years on the nation's dime.

Of all the elitest nonsense I've read, this really tops it off.  I imagine you are making your sweeping generalizations based on income...or wealth...or is it net worth....maybe education level...how about IQ? 

What is the dividing line for rabble?

100,000 "uneducated, non-contributing babymaking consumers"...what country are you referring to?

Ask the Social Security Actuaries how to gauge life expectancy in light of all relevant facts.  They are damn near Nostradamus in some of their predictions regarding mortality.

Who are the planners of our nation?

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

from a bigger picture standpoint of nat'l mgmt-

If you ran a nation, would you WANT a group of 100 million people (lowest third of America) living to be 90?

Would you want this group of uneducated, non-contributing, babymaking consumers to live to be 90?

Can you think about the impact on the social security system of a group of people (who don't contribute BTW), living to 90 instead of 65 (on average)?

I can assure you the nation's planners have thought this through, even if you find it morally offensive.  To nationalize health care would mean the lowest third of our nation lives longer, which would tax our society's resources longer as they live for 35 or 40 years on the nation's dime.

I'm glad you point out the "morally offensive" part.  I see your years of aligning with conservative values has stayed with you.  It sounds like you would prefer that people suffer and die at age 50 if it saves you a couple bucks. How American of you.

If you really want to look at the bigger picture, remember that prevention is cheaper than intervention.  So if money is spent on helping people prevent illness, there won't need to be as much spent on emergency medical procedures.  

Also (from your humanistic conservative roots) comes your assumption that people without healthcare are non-contributing.  Not having healthcare doesn't mean that people aren't working.  Ask any WalMart employee.  There's the future of privatization.  People want to work, be paid fairly, and have affordable food, housing, and healthcare.  These are all liberal/humanistic values.  

The social security system is also a liberal program.  Its the conservatives who want to take the social security money and cash in early, leaving everyone else penniless.  A government protected social security system is crucial for humane treatment of the elderly, and to keep healthcare costs manageable.

Finally, in the bigger picture, what's the war costing?  Its a lot more expensive to kill people than to help them.

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

I was thinking something similar.. The same unproductive population that already eats welfare, public housing and benefits from rent control will have a new meal ticket in the form of healthcare.

Typical conservative prejudice of people who are not paid well.  You assume people without healthcare are lazy (any particular racial groups you're thinking of).  The economic reality is that millions of people work full time and cannot afford healthcare.  Small businesses can't afford to pay for their employees' healthcare and large corporations that pay low wages (WalMart) don't want to pay for healthcare (more money for the stockholders).

[Decker]

I'm glad you point out the "morally offensive" part.  I see your years of aligning with conservative values has stayed with you.  It sounds like you would prefer that people suffer and die at age 50 if it saves you a couple bucks. How American of you.

If you really want to look at the bigger picture, remember that prevention is cheaper than intervention.  So if money is spent on helping people prevent illness, there won't need to be as much spent on emergency medical procedures.  

Also (from your humanistic conservative roots) comes your assumption that people without healthcare are non-contributing.  Not having healthcare doesn't mean that people aren't working.  Ask any WalMart employee.  There's the future of privatization.  People want to work, be paid fairly, and have affordable food, housing, and healthcare.  These are all liberal/humanistic values.  

The social security system is also a liberal program.  Its the conservatives who want to take the social security money and cash in early, leaving everyone else penniless.  A government protected social security system is crucial for humane treatment of the elderly, and to keep healthcare costs manageable.

Finally, in the bigger picture, what's the war costing?  Its a lot more expensive to kill people than to help them.

Well said.  The Federal Safety Net is one of the costs of civilization.

[Decker]

Typical conservative prejudice of people who are not paid well.  You assume people without healthcare are lazy (any particular racial groups you're thinking of).  The economic reality is that millions of people work full time and cannot afford healthcare.  Small businesses can't afford to pay for their employees' healthcare and large corporations that pay low wages (WalMart) don't want to pay for healthcare (more money for the stockholders).

B/c of corporate america--financing its private jets, million dollar pro golf events, executive pay, golden parachutes, advertising etc.--health insurance is available but out of the financial grasp of small to mid sized employers. 

[egj13]

B/c of corporate america--financing its private jets, million dollar pro golf events, executive pay, golden parachutes, advertising etc.--health insurance is available but out of the financial grasp of small to mid sized employers. 

I don't understand why democrats want to hold back someone to give handouts to others. Not all is fair in life and if you are willing to work hard enough you can get whatever you want. Your party wants to hand things to everyone

[Dos Equis]

This thread concerns UHC for children.  Medicare applies only to senior citizens and Medicaid offers lower insurance rates to those kids under the poverty line and is funded jointly State/Federal.  

That's not good enough.  9 million children have no health insurance coverage at all.  To get Medicaid, a child's family must be poor enough to satisfy eligibility requirements for lower costs.

I'd still define that, along with the other things I've mentioned, as a safety net.  I think the uninsured numbers that are routinely tossed around are misleading.  I think there is a very small segment of society that cannot get medical treatment when they need it. 

There is a legitimate issue over the quality of care, but we often grossly exaggerate the complete lack of care available to poor people. 

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

if you are willing to work hard enough you can get whatever you want.

Good example of someone buying into the American Dream (as George Carlin points out, you have to be dreaming to believe it).  By this logic, people who work in low paying jobs aren't working hard enough.  Newsflash- hard work does not necessarily result in a house in the suburbs.  

[Dos Equis]

Good example of someone buying into the American Dream (as George Carlin points out, you have to be dreaming to believe it).  By this logic, people who work in low paying jobs aren't working hard enough.  Newsflash- hard work does not necessarily result in a house in the suburbs.  

I disagree.  Hard work, good decision making, living below your means, etc. can definitely result in the "American Dream." 

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

There is a legitimate issue over the quality of care, but we often grossly exaggerate the complete lack of care available to poor people. 

How many million Americans are you okay with not having healthcare?

Here's the latest stat:

"The percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to 15.9 percent (46.6 million people).
     These findings are contained in the Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005 [PDF] report."

Link:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html

[Decker]

I don't understand why democrats want to hold back someone to give handouts to others. Not all is fair in life and if you are willing to work hard enough you can get whatever you want. Your party wants to hand things to everyone

Some people view healthcare as a right.

How do you quantify fairness?

Everyone grab as much with both hands and those on the short end of the stick...well you had your shot? 

Your Horatio Alger story is facile.  People work hard all the time but the world needs ditch diggers too.  Unfortuately those (necessary) ditch diggers cannot afford basic healtcare.

Why is the cost of insurance so high?

Last year the top 6 health insurers netted 10 billion in profits. 

How does "my party" want to hand "everything" to "everyone?"