Do You Want Universal Healthcare?

[DanFNP]

I know this topic has been discussed before on this site..but, I was curious for an updated response. How many of you would be willing to pay more taxes for universal healthcare? I find it egregious that the US has put a cost on maintaining/saving ones life! I traveled to Europe and the thought of them having to bring their checkbook to the hospital aroused literal laughs. It's the same notion that we'd have to whip out our debit card to firefighters before they turned the hoses on our burning homes. It's sad. I think the overall costs of UH would be beneficial...in fact, the raised taxes would still probably be lower than our rising premiums every 2 weeks! Thoughts?

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

I don't agree with UHC (not hate or even dislike) - for many reasons already articulated.

Our family saves "hate" for uniquely hateful things.

I have heard people use it lightly - so I understand you didn't mean it like we took it.

steph

[clairebearrn]

Jolie said she had an, "uwillingness to participate in a system that is ultimately destructive by failing to promote independence." which is true. But as individuals who live in this country why is it so wrong to help those who have no means to attain independence. I am now an RN BSN thanks to many people who help donate for my scholarship. Those that don't agree with UH are accepting the society we live in-one that fails and are only creating a bigger gap between the poor and the rish. I don't mean to be mean if anyone takes it this way. But I previously shared my personal story to maybe shed light on ways we poor people live like. We rarely had money to pay rent and had to go to churches to get free food and used clothes. I never went to the dentist since I was 4. I needed glasses to read and couldn't afford them. I wish others could just feel for those less fortunate- maybe that way society can change. :)

[Jolie, BSN]

Jolie said she had an, "uwillingness to participate in a system that is ultimately destructive by failing to promote independence." which is true. But as individuals who live in this country why is it so wrong to help those who have no means to attain independence. I am now an RN BSN thanks to many people who help donate for my scholarship. Those that don't agree with UH are accepting the society we live in-one that fails and are only creating a bigger gap between the poor and the rish. I don't mean to be mean if anyone takes it this way. But I previously shared my personal story to maybe shed light on ways we poor people live like. We rarely had money to pay rent and had to go to churches to get free food and used clothes. I never went to the dentist since I was 4. I needed glasses to read and couldn't afford them. I wish others could just feel for those less fortunate- maybe that way society can change. :)

It is not wrong to help those who need assistance in bettering their lives. I firmly believe in doing so. But I just as firmly believe that providing (fill in the blank: food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.) indefinitely, and without acountability on the part of the recipient is counterproductive, and often leads to continued dependence.

I won't bore the other posters with the long version of the beliefs that I have described on other threads, but you seem to be new to our discussion, so I'll try to summarize my thoughts. I believe that as a civilized society, we have a moral obligation to provide for those who are truly incapable of doing so for themselves such as the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill, and those who have experienced unforseen changes in their circumstances due to job loss, injury, abandonment, abuse, etc. But with the exception of the elderly, disabled and mentally ill, I believe that such assistance must meet some criteria in order to be effective: The assistance must be temporary, must be tied to satisfactory progress towards a goal (such as job training), and must involve some financial commitment on the part of the recipient (such as a partial tuition payment or agreement to work 10 hours per week). Assistance under these circumstances allows one to progress into the workforce where additional job skills and experience will enable them to move up the ladder to higher paying positions and independence, and will not entice the recipient to become stagnant and live off assistance forever.

One of my biggest objections to UHC is that it is "universal". There are many of us who neither need nor want it. Why should our fellow taxpayers pay to fund healthcare that we can financially provide for ourselves? I would be far less likely to object to the concept if it were limited to those in need, for a temporary period of time until they obtained the means to provide their own.

You also describe relying on charitable organizations to help meet your needs growing up. That is where I have volunteered to help people in need, and I have seen first-hand how community volunteer organizations can provide some aspects of healthcare and other social services so much more efficiently and inexpensively that government entities. The more I pay in taxes, though, the less I am able to contribute funds to these organizations, forcing people to rely more on government. It is a vicious cycle that will continue as long as government continues to reach into our pocketbooks.

[missjennmb]

I guess I just see a big difference between "universal health care" and "health care for the poor". It would be something that EVERYONE used, and thus it would not be "the rich paying for the poor" any more than we do now. It would not be something that said to the poor "here is your free healthcare, now you don't have to work". There are programs that do that, and I believe that they are VERY broken, but healthcare does not fall into that category in my eyes.

NO I don't want to support people so they can sit on their butt and live off welfare, have 15 kids or whathave you, and call it a "good life". But unless they are physically living in the hospital and eating nothing but hospital food, I don't see how this would be contributing to the desire of people to not work? Most of the unrightly unemployed people don't even need healthcare to begin with. The people "living off the government" are for the most part young/middle aged and completely capable of working, but don't. Those that we "scorn" for taking advantage of the system would not, IMO, see the benefit of UHC enough to feel as though its "one more reason not to work".

[clairebearrn]

jolie you stated, "assistance under these circumstances allows one to progress into the workforce where additional job skills and experience will enable them to move up the ladder to higher paying positions and independence, and will not entice the recipient to become stagnant and live off assistance forever." [color=sandybrown]i completely agree with that because that is what i did. my mom would always tell me about some people at the welfare offices who drove nice cars with rims and had so much kids and would only buy chips and junk food with their food stamps. that made me mad because my mom was never given welfare or food stamps, only medical, even though she worked 7 days a week making 20 dollars a day. how unfair!!!! i agree helping the people who truly need it, but they should also be given the ways to getting ahead. but sometimes their isnt ways of getting ahead in these communities. there is no schools and no hope for children so the government should make more schools, more vocational programs, etc, like you said. it should both be some help with basic needs and also the means of obtaining a higher paying job.

we do have moral obligation to help those less fortunate. we all should all have the means to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness."

clara

ps. thanks for the long summary :)

[love-d-OR]

Do I want Universal Healthcare? Oh you are soooo kind, you want to give me 'free' insurance. Insurance for all you say, I see. How thoughtful of you. But wait, uhm, how do you suppose you will pay for it? (silence). What?!!! You want to increase my taxes!! What you say? uh, its nothing significant? Nah thanks but uhm 'll pay and control how much I want to spend on my health insurance.

DON'T MESS WITH MY MONEY!!!

[madwife2002, BSN, RN]

After reading a few responses about people upset about Universal healthcare and paying more money for people to sit on their buts and not work.

It is already happening today your taxes already go towards paying for people who have no insurance in the form of access/medicare this money already comes out of your taxes-so what is the difference?

The difference will be to the working folk who pay their taxes they will no longer have to be worrying if they can afford to pay for their healthcare nor will they worry about loosing their house or what they have work for.

Remember there will not be a massive influx of uninsured people suddenly accessing free heath care because they do it already!!!!!! It will make no difference.

When you are really sick you go to the hospital it matters not if you can afford it or not, you deal with it later. But with free health care and I use the term free loosly, you wont have the financial worries you have now.

By the way of all the people who have never been sick in their lives and who have never accessed health care you will one day or somebody close to you will and believe me you do not want the worry of finances to impeed your recovery

[madwife2002, BSN, RN]

PS and remember those who do work and pay taxes but choose not to have insurance for one reason or another at this moment in time, will have to start paying.

There will be no pre existing clauses, you will have more freedom to change jobs you wont be tied down to a job because some member of your family has an illness and you need coverage.

[Mijourney]

I'll throw my two cents in. I would like to see a system whereby basic health care, prevention if you will, is a right. Anything beyond that should fall on the individual. By having to pay for health care above basic services, my hope is that John and Jane Q Public will do what is needed to take better care of their bodies and children to avoid as much extra costs as possible. I know it's not that simple. But, that's the gist of my thinking today. Tomorrow it may change.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

Actually I think we should cover our basic health care needs and only have insurance for catastrophic situations.

Insurance for basic stuff is how we got into the situation we are in today.

steph

[leslie :-D]

Actually I think we should cover our basic health care needs and only have insurance for catastrophic situations.

Insurance for basic stuff is how we got into the situation we are in today.

steph

unfortunately, there are millions of americans who suffer chronic conditions that warrant ongoing medical care.

and, millions of these americans are low income and just cannot afford ongoing medical care.

we're also trying to prevent disease, mainly through hmo's educational programs, and prevent it from reaching catastrophic levels.

paying for 'basic healthcare' is not a realistic goal for too many.

and in an ideal world, basic healthcare would be the norm.

but in our country, it is the catastrophic events that many of us are paying for, resulting in much more (unnecessary) expenditures.

there's an awful lot that we middle class, insured americans take for granted.

leslie

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

I'm not insured and I've only been "middle-class" for the past few years.

And one of the reasons "basic health care" got so expensive is because insurance companies would cover it and so the price got ratcheted up.

Of course, there is probably no going back to the day when you paid your doc with a chicken dinner.

steph