Universal Care for all facets of life

You'd get further by sticking to essentials like food instead of social frivolities.

 

We'd get farther by stopping the government from taking any more of our freedoms away and stick to what the government was created for instead of sticking their nose into my private life.

I certainly don't want universal healthcare. There is not one person in the US that could not have healthcare when they needed it, either through insurance, medicare, or public assistance.

That goes for food too.

And I will do my own laundry and lawn. The government couldn't do it to suit me. :laugh:

 

Not as frivolous as lawn cutting, but relative to food and health care they absolutely are. And no, I would support no such measures, just like I wouldn't support universal public health care.

 

AMEN, Sue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know several people who tell me they can't afford health insurance, while their kids watch a 52" TV, with every brand new movie in the last 10 years, they have Nintendo and Sony game stations, and hand video games. The problem is fiscal irresponsibility.

 

It's inefficient, just as the current system is.

 

The current system in the US? What, if I may ask, is so inefficient about it?

We have very good health care in our family.

 

Inefficiency doesn't mean that you don't get good health care, it means that you don't get as good health care as you otherwise could for your money. A few examples...

1. Billing paperwork. The costs of dealing with the various HMOs is ridiculous. Standardized forms and billing practices need to be put in place to reduce operating costs.

2. The emphasis on treating diseases instead of preventing them, particularly in the case of those without insurance, since the only way they can get care is when their condition is serious enough to be an emergency.

3. A lack of incentive to innovate. The current system pays doctors based upon appointments and tests, not results. This is a global problem.

4. For-profit insurance companies. Having your medical care guaranteed by someone with an incentive not to pay shouldn't be replaced by government coverage, but rather by non-profit cost-sharing groups of people under similar risk.

 

If you have to get individual coverage (i.e. your employer doesn't provide a group plan, or you are self-employed), you can get stuck with exclusions and pre-existing conditions so that you actually can't get the coverage you really need. Therefore, you go without treatment.

Back when I had an individual policy, my wife and I both had PERMANENT exclusions on certain conditions. We aren't just talking about the 12 month waiting period.

 

Non-profit companies still have the same dilemma. In order to remain financially viable, they have to try to cut costs (i.e. deny coverage). My past individual policy was through a non-profit company.

 

I'm suggesting that they would put their labor and expertise to a better use if they were paid differently, yes.

Here and here.

 

Not exclusively, but in some cases, yes. This recent study demonstrates it to be a model worth looking into.

 

Most of them. This particular issue is one driven from within the medical community.