Why be against universal healthcare?

[jazzymom]

There are over 20 free clinics in the Commonwealth of Virginia and these are those clinics that are part of the Association of Free Clinics network.
The free clinic in my city is not government operated. It's a non-profit that runs on donations. There are, in fact, 53 in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Find a Free Clinic : Virginia Association of Free Clinics

This is the clinic in my community. I work with volunteers who have worked themselves in the clinic, which attracted me to it. In my job, I have to know what resources are available within our community as I may have a client in need of such resource.

Community Free Clinic of Newport News



No clinic claims that they can address every need. They provide preventive health care and sometimes, mental and dental health services. They work through networks to provide referrals when patients need additional services and steer patients towards lower cost options.

The clinic established in the east end of Newport News (I live in Newport News) was established because it was known that people without health care were using the emergency room for primary care. The intent of the clinic was to provide a very nice facility for those that need services.

Stigma's not really an issue for a community that is predominately system-supported. These people, literally LOOK and ASK for free services. Many don't have transportation. The free clinic was strategically placed where people could easily access services, without leaving their neighborhood. It was built brand new or I should say, heavily gutted and rennovated (donated services by a predominant company in our area) and started with part time hours. As they increased their staff, it was increased to full time hours.

Yes, I'm sure that people have to wait at times for service, but, it doesn't negate the fact that they can obtain good health care right in their own neighborhood and have the ability to establish a relationship with a doctor, as they would in a private practice. This was the entire purpose of the clinic.

This clinic also has on-site pharmacy and provides free medication.

It is amazing what can be accomplished through donated time and funding.

Northern Virginia (Fairfax and Arlington county) according to your post has 2 free clinics.

Arlington Free Clinic | Providing high-quality medical care to low-income, uninsured Arlington County adults
The clinic in Arlington only sees residents of Arlington.

https://www.missionlifecenter.org/hopeclinic
The clinic in Fairfax is the other clinic and is a Christian clinic with a mission to share G-ds love and as a non Christian that is problematic.

While giving care on the one hand and having a mission of conversion on the other hand is problematic.

So for poor folks who live in the highly populated Northern Virginia area there are 2 clinics.

This is unacceptable.

 

[BSM1]

It is amazing what can be accomplished through donated time and funding.

[/QUOTE]


This is a good point. This allows the doctors in these clinics to be autonomous in their treatment; they would answer to no one. But, unfortunately, doctors and health professionals cannot pay their bills by overly volunteering. This is the problem with universal health care. It would have to be administered by a governmental entity. That would give the government control over not only the procurement of funds for the care, but the government would also have control of who gets treatment and how much treatment is allowed. I totally agree that people should help each other, but government control of your personal life and fortune is fraught with hidden dangers.

 

[MoonWater]

I find it funny that you people are coming up with arguments against universal healthcare that directly contradict what actual people from countries with actual universal healthcare have already told you about the way it actually works. Are you guys just refusing to listen? Or what about the examples I gave from my own life about how private insurance has actually limited my available options whereas universal care would have given me greater freedom?

universal care has nothing to do with controlling who gets treatment and everything to do with making sure everyone gets treatment. With private insurance there are already limits on how much treatment is covered. With universal care those limits would be removed. You guys are seeing problems in universal care that in truth only exist in our current private system and, as has been told to you by people from countries with universal care, are problems that would be solved BY universal care, not created by them.

Why do you guys continue to spout arguments that directly contradict what people with real experience with universal care have been telling you? It's like refusing to believe a glass of water is safe to drink despite the fact it's been thoroughly tested and proven to be not only safe but better for you than the muddy glass of water you are currently drinking.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The argument against universal health care seems to be mostly about a resistance to government control. The worry is that because of a centralized institution governing all aspects of this specific arena - health care - that many freedoms would be curtailed in the hope that everybody is granted access.

The parameters behind it are that IF we as a country are limited in our resources, and IF we already are deep in debt from current management individually and collectively, and IF it means quality care for people who can afford it is diminished, then the concern is that what is already being stretched thin will break.

I personally advocate for efficiency. I also advocate for freedom of choice in health care - meaning I'd like to use chiropractic medicine even though it isn't always in network in our insurance, so I must pay out of pocket. I'd prefer it, for example, if single-payer = government control =/= outlawing chiropractic medicine....again, for example.

Understand that it certainly sounds like the Chicken Little Syndrome, but stranger things have happened. You know, like government deciding who can get married and who can't.

People who are against universal health care aren't stupid, y'all. They're just as concerned about tyranny as others who don't want theocratic policies invading other aspects of our collective lives.

I have a question for everybody: let's say that I were to show that my expertise in Movement Analysis is used in physical therapy, conflict resolution, dance therapy, injury rehabilitation, and overall physical health and performance. And what if it stood up to peer review outside my direct field. Can Mrs. Smith come take my class or purchase private movement therapy sessions with me and write it off as part of her health care plan? And do I get reimbursed through the government for providing those services?

This might help bridging some of the worries and concerns that private citizens, taxpayers, business owners, and health care providers might have, and can be answered by those who can understand how our system might transition.

 

[esmith]

Well, maybe if a universal health care system structured exactly like the German model was implemented it might be acceptable. However, I can not see a system like this being adopted in the US because of certain special interest.

A fairly brief but informative description is offered here:
Health Insurance in Germany

 

[Alceste]

There are over 20 free clinics in the Commonwealth of Virginia and these are those clinics that are part of the Association of Free Clinics network.
The free clinic in my city is not government operated. It's a non-profit that runs on donations. There are, in fact, 53 in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Find a Free Clinic : Virginia Association of Free Clinics

This is the clinic in my community. I work with volunteers who have worked themselves in the clinic, which attracted me to it. In my job, I have to know what resources are available within our community as I may have a client in need of such resource.

Community Free Clinic of Newport News

No clinic claims that they can address every need. They provide preventive health care and sometimes, mental and dental health services. They work through networks to provide referrals when patients need additional services and steer patients towards lower cost options.

The clinic established in the east end of Newport News (I live in Newport News) was established because it was known that people without health care were using the emergency room for primary care. The intent of the clinic was to provide a very nice facility for those that need services.

Stigma's not really an issue for a community that is predominately system-supported. These people, literally LOOK and ASK for free services. Many don't have transportation. The free clinic was strategically placed where people could easily access services, without leaving their neighborhood. It was built brand new or I should say, heavily gutted and rennovated (donated services by a predominant company in our area) and started with part time hours. As they increased their staff, it was increased to full time hours.

Yes, I'm sure that people have to wait at times for service, but, it doesn't negate the fact that they can obtain good health care right in their own neighborhood and have the ability to establish a relationship with a doctor, as they would in a private practice. This was the entire purpose of the clinic.

This clinic also has on-site pharmacy and provides free medication.

It is amazing what can be accomplished through donated time and funding.

I think it's great that the public is stepping in to try to address such a serious social problem and lack of leadership from your government.

I still think our way is much better. We cover everybody through taxes and don't have to pay extra on top of that through insurance premiums and charitable donations to know everybody, everywhere, is getting the medically necessary health care they need.

We are still charitable, of course, we just don't have to rely on charitable donations for health care. It is an extremely insecure funding model, best not used for matters of universal social need.

 

[Alceste]

This is a good point. This allows the doctors in these clinics to be autonomous in their treatment; they would answer to no one. But, unfortunately, doctors and health professionals cannot pay their bills by overly volunteering. This is the problem with universal health care. It would have to be administered by a governmental entity. That would give the government control over not only the procurement of funds for the care, but the government would also have control of who gets treatment and how much treatment is allowed. I totally agree that people should help each other, but government control of your personal life and fortune is fraught with hidden dangers.

That is completely false. The government has nothing to do with my health care except to pay for it when the bill comes due. Once they phoned me to clarify a name change when I got married. That's it. Other than that I deal only with doctors, and we decide together what is medically necessary.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wow. According to the wild imagination of some conservatives, a public water fountain implies there are federal agents literally standing over your shoulder while you drink, saying "Alright, you've had enough. Next!"

Let's get rid of public libraries, I'm tired of Uncle Sam getting in between me and my books.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That is completely false. The government has nothing to do with my health care except to pay for it when the bill comes due. Once they phoned me to clarify a name change when I got married. That's it. Other than that I deal only with doctors, and we decide together what is medically necessary.

No Alceste trust us, we are Americans. We know everything. You think you know what health care is like in Canada, but trust us, you don't.

 

[esmith]

Wow. According to the wild imagination of some conservatives, a public water fountain implies there are federal agents literally standing over your shoulder while you drink, saying "Alright, you've had enough. Next!"

Let's get rid of public libraries, I'm tired of Uncle Sam getting in between me and my books.

Guess my wild imagination has gone wild it even has conjured up government telling me what size soft drink I can or can not buy, that restaurants can not add salt to prepared food, that there should be additional taxes on "sin food", that I can't smoke in the privacy of my own home, if I don't recycle my trash properly I can be fined, be fined for having a muddy vehicle, illegal to collect rain that falls on my own property, that I can't buy raw milk, have trash in my car, children's lunches inspected, and I'm sure that there are many more examples of my "wild imagination".

 

[Alceste]

No Alceste trust us, we are Americans. We know everything. You think you know what health care is like in Canada, but trust us, you don't.

Oh, right, what was I thinking. I forgot to phone the government to find out what I can and can't type about health care. They funded the infrastructure I'm using to connect to the internet, so they get the final say in what I use it for, right?

 

[Falvlun]

My neighbor was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and was given less than two years to live. He barely lived another year but during that year he received two eye surgeries.

You do realize that occurred under the current system, right? The profit driven system that you are fighting to maintain?


(And besides, does this mean that we should starve people on death row since they are just going to die anyway? Should we deny kids their dream vacation because they have a terminal illness? I'm not sure about the ethics of depriving people of a quality of life simply because they don't have much of it left.)

 

[Koldo]

The argument against universal health care seems to be mostly about a resistance to government control. The worry is that because of a centralized institution governing all aspects of this specific arena - health care - that many freedoms would be curtailed in the hope that everybody is granted access.

The parameters behind it are that IF we as a country are limited in our resources, and IF we already are deep in debt from current management individually and collectively, and IF it means quality care for people who can afford it is diminished, then the concern is that what is already being stretched thin will break.

I personally advocate for efficiency. I also advocate for freedom of choice in health care - meaning I'd like to use chiropractic medicine even though it isn't always in network in our insurance, so I must pay out of pocket. I'd prefer it, for example, if single-payer = government control =/= outlawing chiropractic medicine....again, for example.

Understand that it certainly sounds like the Chicken Little Syndrome, but stranger things have happened. You know, like government deciding who can get married and who can't.

People who are against universal health care aren't stupid, y'all. They're just as concerned about tyranny as others who don't want theocratic policies invading other aspects of our collective lives.

I have a question for everybody: let's say that I were to show that my expertise in Movement Analysis is used in physical therapy, conflict resolution, dance therapy, injury rehabilitation, and overall physical health and performance. And what if it stood up to peer review outside my direct field. Can Mrs. Smith come take my class or purchase private movement therapy sessions with me and write it off as part of her health care plan? And do I get reimbursed through the government for providing those services?

This might help bridging some of the worries and concerns that private citizens, taxpayers, business owners, and health care providers might have, and can be answered by those who can understand how our system might transition.

In a broader question: What is the coverage of obamacare?

And, by the way, does 'obamacare' ( the word ) have a offensive tone to it?

 

[Alceste]

In a broader question: What is the coverage of obamacare?

And, by the way, does 'obamacare' ( the word ) have a offensive tone to it?

Obamacare expands the limited public health care services the us provides, like medicare for the poor, including more people. It also regulates some of the most outrageous but common vulture policies by insurance companies, like dropping customers who get sick.

It mandates that any family that chooses not to buy private insurance will pay a very small public health care tax on their income tax instead, with the proceeds going toward the publicly funded health system.

It's not a universal health care bill, and I don't think Obamacare is insulting any more because even democrats are calling it that.

 

[Koldo]

Obamacare expands the limited public health care services the us provides, like medicare for the poor, including more people. It also regulates some of the most outrageous but common vulture policies by insurance companies, like dropping customers who get sick.

It mandates that any family that chooses not to buy private insurance will pay a very small public health care tax on their income tax instead, with the proceeds going toward the publicly funded health system.

This much was explained to me by Falvlun already.
I meant to ask what kinds of procedures and health professionals would be covered by it.

Psychologist? Dentist? Physiotherapist? Cardiovascular surgery? Transplants? Gastric bypass surgery? Plastic surgery?

It's not a universal health care bill, and I don't think Obamacare is insulting any more because even democrats are calling it that.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Valjean]

The argument against universal health care seems to be mostly about a resistance to government control. The worry is that because of a centralized institution governing all aspects of this specific arena - health care - that many freedoms would be curtailed in the hope that everybody is granted access.

I agree. Those opposing universal coverage generally don't understand what's involved. They equate universal coverage with Britain's or the US' VA system, when, in fact, no-one here seems to be advocating a true socialized system.

What is on the table are either private providers with government payment, Like Canada ot Taiwan, or private, non-profit insurance coverage, again with private providers, like France or Japan.

The parameters behind it are that IF we as a country are limited in our resources, and IF we already are deep in debt from current management individually and collectively, and IF it means quality care for people who can afford it is diminished, then the concern is that what is already being stretched thin will break.

And anyone with any real knowledge of how the rest of the developed world organizes things should realize that a Bismark or NHI system would cut their healthcare costs -- including taxes -- at least in half, while both increasing access and "freedom."

"Obamacare," by the way, is neither of these systems. It does cap profits/overhead at 20%, but otherwise thrown the public to the for-profit insurance wolves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

After thinking about this thread for awhile I think you may have a point. If we get sick we should be entitled to free health care. But I think you are overlooking a bigger problem. Some of us may never get sick or injured, but all of us need to eat. How about universal food? And we all need shelter and comfort. How about universal housing? And we all could use a respite from work. How about universal vacations? Just tell me how much and where to drop my donations to these worthy causes.

We have food stamps as well as various housing programs, and in any other industrialized nation they do get paid vacations as a part of these things called workers rights. They also get paid sick days from work so the worker can rest and not spread their germs.

So I get drafted but your generation does not.

I could not get insurance and have had to pay my way all my life.

Now you want to tax me so you can get free health care?

Am I wrong for feeling screwed here?

Being a chronocentrist doesn't mean your generation is superior in anyway. My generation is chronically unemployed and underemployed, struggling to eat, struggling to go to college, struggling to make any real money at all, struggling for insurance, and struggling for many things that prior generations haven't struggled with. If it seems my generation is squeezing the system, it's because all that there is for us are table scraps, if even that much. My generation also tends to lack that big word called "experience" which means we really have a hard time finding work just because we are told from the very start we need not apply. My generation is trying, but conditions are so unfavorable that we have Ph.D. holders who are under/unemployed and on welfare. My generation as well as the prior generation also have many military vets on welfare. Your generation simply did not have to struggle with the unfavorable market conditions that mine has known before the recession, even while we were still in high school and jobs where very difficult even then to come by. Actually my junior or senior year in high school there was an article in the Wall Street Journal saying that if regular working adults had as hard of a time finding work as teens then, then our economy would officially be under a recession. And then the employment woes stayed around for the next generation of teens and moved up for everyone under 26 facing dire employment outlooks, and then the recession happened. And people wonder why there are so many young people complaining about the system not working.

Should anyone be forced to pay for something they have absolutely no say in?

It's called the social contract, and it is collectively for the greater good of society. I pay taxes for a school even though I have no children, but I would never be so greedy as to ever even think about not wanting to pay taxes for the education of the children of others. I pay taxes for various welfare programs, but because people need help I do not mind, and I do receive some assistance myself. But really why would you mind taxes going towards something that is in general a very good thing? Of course there will be the person who eats Big Macs everday being covered for heart procedures, and the care of a heavy smoker being covered, but the people who are in general good health, have accidents, get sick, and have other conditions entirely outside of their control would be covered. Why is there any reason to say that people should not be entitled to good health? It is, afterall, very strongly tied into the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

While this is a fine sentiment, where does it end? Who decides what constitutes the "quality" of life? How much tax is enough? Why should I produce when I can be guaranteed a "quality of life" from the production of others? Can one man's utopia exist without creating another's socialist hell?

Perhaps you should start with some of the Enlightened Era philosophers. Thomas Jefferson, for example, pretty much plagiarized John Locke in the preamble of the Declaration.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So because I think the man who was going to die should not have received the eye surgeries I want to push grandma off the cliff or do not support make a wish foundations? I contribute every year to that.

My issue is rebuilding people who have worn out their bodies or spending vast amounts of money on unhealthy people who don't listen to the doctor and take their advice.

Does this have to be an all or nothing deal?

Health procedures are expensive. Yes we should have compassion but there should be limits or we all will go broke.

The rich do not have enough money to pay for all of this if you take every penny they have!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The same, preventive health care that's offered in the typical family practice. The extent of care is contingent of course upon which companies and professionals are willing to donate their time. Meaning, one may need to be referred elsewhere for an x-ray or for lab services. But, many of us are referred out of our family practice for these services, too.

Yes, there are some Americans that are going to attach a stigma to a free clinic, but, why wouldn't you take advantage of a free service if you needed it?

You can stigmatize and downplay the efforts of non-profit work if you want to, but, I I see it making a considerable difference in my community, daily and it's a solution that I prefer over Obamacare and Universal Health Care. Neither are grass-roots. Neither focus on indiviudals and their personal obstacles in the way that non-profit networks can. There are many organizations with specific missions to meet. Career development, support for drug/alcohol abuse, food, clothing, househood goods....

I'm not stigmatizing anything. I'm just recognizing that a stigma exists.

And I'm certainly not downplaying the good work of people who donate their time at free clinics. What I'm saying is that the way a service is offered changes how people approach it. There's a difference between accepting charity and accepting something that one feels entitled to. I admire both doctors who volunteer their time in free clinics and volunteer firefighters, but I would never feel a reluctance to call a volunteer fire department when I needed it out of some notion that I should call a group of "regular" paid firefighters if I can afford it.

But maybe we should back up. I'm not really clear where your position is coming from:

- do you think that providing universal health care wouldn't affect the rate at which people seek preventative health care?

- do you think that we shouldn't do more to reach out to people who don't seek out free preventative care already?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So because I think the man who was going to die should not have received the eye surgeries I want to push grandma off the cliff or do not support make a wish foundations? I contribute every year to that.

My issue is rebuilding people who have worn out their bodies or spending vast amounts of money on unhealthy people who don't listen to the doctor and take their advice.

Does this have to be an all or nothing deal?

Health procedures are expensive. Yes we should have compassion but there should be limits or we all will go broke.

The rich do not have enough money to pay for all of this if you take every penny they have!

I asked you a question before: how often do you think this sort of thing happens? Do you think it's reflective of the overall effect of universal health care?