Vent thread "universal" health care

No system of healthcare provision entitles the needer of healthcare services everything in the Universe . There are limits to what either UHC or privately insured healthcare can provided .

Great thread! I believe it's Great Britian's PM who said (regarding their healthcare system) "We cover everybody, but we cannot cover everything."

I can't afford to pay for their 'free' health care

Great thread! I believe it's Great Britian's PM who said (regarding their healthcare system) "We cover everybody, but we cannot cover everything."

Couldn't find out who the PM responsible for this Quote is , but it is a good description of the NHS .

Apart from the covering everyone , it is applicable to privately insured healthcare in the USA , which already rations care ( through preapproval or simply denial of coverage )which does not cover everything .

I can't afford to pay for their 'free' health care

Do you say this of all things you insure ? , eg. I can't afford to pay for their " free " car repair .

Premiums are paid to insurers , the risk is spread through the pool of insured and claims are paid from the income generated by the premiums .

I can't afford to pay for their 'free' health care

You're paying a lot more here in the U.S.

Couldn't find out who the PM responsible for this Quote is , but it is a good description of the NHS .

Apart from the covering everyone , it is applicable to privately insured healthcare in the USA , which already rations care ( through preapproval or simply denial of coverage )which does not cover everything .

That was my mistake; it was John Reid, a British health minister (from a discussion he had with TR Reid, who wrote "The Healing of America). :)

Do you say this of all things you insure ? , eg. I can't afford to pay for their " free " car repair .

Premiums are paid to insurers , the risk is spread through the pool of insured and claims are paid from the income generated by the premiums .

Invalid analogy. Everyone who drives carries car insurance; although I think there are still some states that do not require it, presumably a driver can still be personally sued if he harms someone and doesn't have it. This is not the same thing as somebody literally getting FREE healthcare, because they are not paying in to the system. To my knowledge, the government does not subsidize car insurance.

The car insurance example is also not a valid justification for requiring everyone to purchase health insurance - you don't have to drive a car, thus you can avoid the requirement to purchase insurance. A health insurance mandate however is based upon the fact that you are simply alive.

Invalid analogy. Everyone who drives carries car insurance; although I think there are still some states that do not require it, presumably a driver can still be personally sued if he harms someone and doesn't have it. This is not the same thing as somebody literally getting FREE healthcare, because they are not paying in to the system. To my knowledge, the government does not subsidize car insurance.

The car insurance example is also not a valid justification for requiring everyone to purchase health insurance - you don't have to drive a car, thus you can avoid the requirement to purchase insurance. A health insurance mandate however is based upon the fact that you are simply alive.

You seem to be unclear as to how a universal healthcare system works. People are not, as you wrote, "literally getting FREE healthcare." The individual mandate requires that everyone pays into the system so that health insurance companies, who traditionally avoid covering people who are actually ill, have a larger pool of people from whom they draw premiums. This prevents insurance companies from cherry-picking only healthy candidates, and squeezing much larger premiums from those with chronic and/or expensive conditions, such as diabetes and cancer. Insurance companies can afford to provide basic coverage for everyone, and if a person wishes to purchase coverage above the basic package, insurance companies offer an assortment of premium packages to suit the consumer. People who fall below certain income guidelines will receive subsidies to help cover their premium, so that job loss or other circumstances don't result in loss of insurance coverage.

You seem to be unclear as to how a universal healthcare system works. People are not, as you wrote, "literally getting FREE healthcare." The individual mandate requires that everyone pays into the system so that health insurance companies, who traditionally avoid covering people who are actually ill, have a larger pool of people from whom they draw premiums.

Wrong. The individual mandate does not "require that everyone pays into the system".

The individual mandate is a requirement that all individuals who can afford health-care insurance purchase some minimally comprehensive policy. For the purposes of the law, "individuals who can afford health-care insurance" is defined as people for whom the minimum policy will not cost more than 8 percent of their monthly income, and who make more than the poverty line. So if coverage would cost more than 8 percent of your monthly income, or you're making very little, you're not on the hook to buy insurance (and, because of other provisions in the law, you're getting subsidies that make insurance virtually costless anyway).

Source

(Note: this is sourced from an article that is generally supportive of Obamacare.)

So yes, the same people who are receiving literal free health care will STILL be receiving literal free healthcare under Obamacare, and in fact, this law encourages even MORE of this behavior. It will increase healthcare costs, decrease accessibility and quality of service, and do little more than grow another permanent federal bureaucracy.

I am crystal clear in my understanding of how a socialized healthcare system works, and I want nothing to do with it.