Attacks mount on 'preexisting conditions'

Honnête et Sérieux · Apr 1, 2009

I don't think many would deny people the right to purchase private health plans, or to pursue care that the average Joe or Jane can't afford. I know I wouldn't---if you can afford it and you want it, you should have it. All that we proponents of UHC want is for every man, woman and child to have basic health services.

And the uninsured are not denied the right to purchase private health insurance, either. Maybe they can't afford it, but you can't guarantee that I would be able to continue to afford private insurance if we went to a UHC system. Seems to be a logical conundrum in the effort to promote UHC.

if you can afford it and you want it, you should have it.

Interesting; when someone implies this about anyone else who is currently uninsured, they are labeled uncompassionate, uncaring, uncharitable, and all other negative stereotypical labels. It would seem the other side of the coin would be, "if I want it, but can't afford it, then I don't get it." How is this logical in the UHC debate? Would it be fair to say that I am being denied my right to private health insurance if the cost shift toward UHC creates the circumstances where I can't afford private health insurance? Of course not...that's why the "rights" issue to UHC is irrelevant. We all have the right to obtain or refuse insurance. We don't all have the same capabilities, but we have the same rights. And just as I wouldn't consider it a denial of rights if I couldn't afford private insurance, I don't consider it a denial of rights if we don't insure everyone who hasn't positioned themselves to get insurance.

And yes---we know that what constitutes "basic" services is VERY debatable. In fact, we all will be debating this for the next umpteen years because no nation can afford to pay for every health service people want. Someone will have to draw up a list of services in order of highest to lowest priority, and then determine which will---and which will not---be paid for by the public.

This is an interesting and appreciated observation...and it has been misapplied in much of this discussion by the various participants. I think it's good that you are pointing out this dilemma, but when it comes to criticism of the current system vs. discussions about UHC system, it is clearly debated outside what is "basic care." It rather skews the debate.

My own state, Oregon, was a pioneer in this arena years ago; there was a list of over 700 medical services/procedures/surgeries etc. in order of greatest benefit to the most people, and the line was drawn at number 568. In other words, if you wanted a surgery listed at number 569, you were out of luck. Rationing? Yes. But we already ration health care as it is, only we do it in the least ethical and most immoral fashion possible---we ration it by a person's value in the eyes of our society, e.g., their income and social standing.

Keep in mind, you just acknowledged in your post that if someone could afford private insurance, they shouldn't be denied it. Kinds of makes the "ethical" and "immoral" comment ring hollow. So can we or can we not buy more health insurance for ourselves than for others if we can afford it?

This is unacceptable, to me and millions of others. Universal health care WILL happen at some point because the current system is unsustainable; it just won't happen until the entire system comes crashing down around us because there is still a large minority of Americans who either fear change too much to risk trying something else, or see nothing wrong with the way things are done now. And they are backed by a very powerful ally in the insurance industry.

Obviously the UHC systems are unsustainable...there isn't a socialized system in the world that is becoming MORE universalized...well, except we think ours should. And bringing the "fear" card into the dicussion is lame; it shows a failure to acknowledge the thoughtful contribution that others bring to the discussion who might not agree.

There is nothing fearful about recognizing that the US gov't is the last organization we should be giving the keys to our healthcare system and MORE of our money. It's common sense.