I'm currently in, shall we say a heated debate with a co-worker from another office over the notion for a universal healthcare system.

My argument has been that even though the healthcare system has been somewhat mismanaged in the UK, it's worked successfully in Canada, France, Sweden, Italy and various over Westerm countries so why not in the US?

Her argument has been that it decreases the quality of the care provided. I have to disagree on this, having been a recipient of healthcare in both Britain and France and walked out of hospitals in both countries with no medical fees whatsoever, but having to pay $500 on just one visit to the dentist here and received no better treatment than in all the years I did in the UK.

What is your stance on this? Can a unified healthcare system work in the US?

Are people willing to part with an extra 1% of their income so that when they themselves are sick they don't have unpayable medical fees or co-pays to cough up while they're off work sick.

Oct 2, 2008 -- 11:40PM, Christina wrote:

People are so afraid that universal means socialist that they forget about the people who are stuck in the middle, like me, working, but unable to get healthcare. 

Let's look at the definition of Socialism

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

also

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

That sounds like a fair and just methodology, or is it that people are afraid that it will go to the extreme stage of Communism.

Socialism is a system where each person looks out for each other, regardless of their class, colour, religion or sex. It's a distribution of the wealth.

It's what you might deem to be very much a "United We Stand" front.

With a Universal Healthcare System in place, those that earn more contribute more to the system, it's calculated on a percentage of your earnings.

To me, speaking as an outsider (ie. I'm a Brit although having lived here for 4.5 years) there appears to be an attitude here in the U.S. of "United we stand, but screw you Jack, I'm alright"

I"m with you Tim.

Those who think we aren't paying for the uninsured right now are fooling themselves. These are the people who use the emergency room rather than a regular care. (If they can't fork over the money up front a regular doctor's office can turn them away -- the ER usually can't turn them away -- they might make them wait longer through triage procedures -- but they eventually get the care they can't pay for.) Those unpaid (or underpaid) medical bills get passed on to all the other users of the hospital. (Kind of like the cost of shoplifting is born by those of us who pay for medical care.)

Plus, right now, I find that most employers charge me roughly 3% of my salary for insurance (I make under $50k/year -- this number would go down if I made more) So an extra 1% in my taxes would be a money maker for me. The thing my employers have been doing that I like is that they don't have two payment plans -- single and single "plus as many people as you can get in your family" == most now have at least three if not four payment tiers -- single, single +1, single +2, single +3 and at some point the plus includes everyone.)

Employers didn't used to pay for health insurance and we didn't used to have Social Security (think pre-WWII.) Employers started offering health insurance to their employees as a way to get people to want to work for them.

The Healthcare Savings Accounts (HSA) (the ones that are like IRAs) are a great concept -- but they're only good on paper. The last two employers that I've had that offer that type of plan have insurance plans that have $2000 deductibles and $2000 is the most you can put into the account per year. So, while you don't have to pay your deductible out of the HSA -- if you pay it out of pocket it comes out of your taxable income rather than your pre-tax income. And, if you go through your entire $2000 deductible in a given year (and as a cancer patient -- I tell you it isn't that hard -- if you have kids, it can be even easier) at the end of the year -- you have no carry forward money for the future. (And if you have an HSA -- you can't have the use-it or lose-it type of account.)

I think they should make HSAs be like IRAs -- you can have an IRA and a 401k. So you could have an HSA plus get your insurance through your employer and have a Healthcare Spending Plan (the use-it or lose=it type.)

Dec 3, 2008 -- 10:55PM, Svitlana wrote:

I have some questions.

What does exactly universal healthcare mean?

A lot of people seem to favor it only because they want or need free medical care.On other hand a lot of others dislike it for sole reason that it will be run by government.I am sure that not many people know what universal healthcare is really about, and even less,if any at all, have an idea on how it can be introduced in such polarized and individualistic society as this country.

What about countries with successful socialized medicine is there an alternative? Do they still have private hospitals or health insurance for those who chose to not participate in government healthcare?

Frankly concept of switching to universal healthcare in the US makes me feel uneasy because I grew up in country with socialized medicine.In Ukraine government still runs most hospitals an it is BAD.What else would you expect from a bunch of politicians who try to provide care for as many people as possible with the least expense to a budget. And of course people in charge of healthcare budget rarely become patients of public hospitals. Doctors do not get paid much and often you will not be able to see good specialist without a bribe.It is also required to bring your own medical supplies(like gloves,syringes,medications etc.) to a doctors visit.So it is not as free as it seems.

I think quality of healthcare in the United States is superb. And I would much rather be in debt here than go home to Ukraine for a free surgery or child birth. But it is just my opinion.  

The way the system works is that you pay a percentage of your income tax that goes directly towards the healthcare department.

Thus if you become sick and require either treatment by a doctor or if you're hospitalised, you pay just for the medication that is prescribed to you.

Many people feel that it's a free-for-all, but it's not.  You're still paying for it, but it's paid via your taxes as opposed to paying an insurance premium which only covers so much of the costs and then once you receive treatment from the clinic or hospital they send you another bill for what is not covered by the insurance.

Yes it is socialism, but in the true sense of socialism where each person looks after each other from the rich to the poor.

Just think of how better off the families who have children in the Ronald McDonald House would be if they weren't confronted by costly medical fees and have to rely on charity to keep receiving the medical treatment their children are requiring.

Also you can think of it more as a form of HSA (Healthcare Savings Account), you're constantly paying in via your taxes and the treatment is there for you when you need it.

Yes there are still private hospitals available in such a system for those that wish to receive treatment quicker or have the need for their own private room rather than being on a ward with everyone else.

Have a look on the WHO (World Health Organisation) table of countries that provide the best healthcare in the world, see where the US is listed and then have a look at the ones above the US and look at how many of them have socialised healthcare