Critics of universal coverage argue that it is unaffordable, that it will result in costs we can’t afford. Yet there is no correlation between universal coverage and high health care costs.
If universal coverage will result in higher costs, why do the countries with universal coverage spend at most two-thirds what we do?
Every developed country (except the US and South Africa) has universal coverage – every single one. This includes New Zealand, Korea, Singapore, Luxembourg, Cuba, Denmark, and Portugal.
And their health care costs are lower than ours – much lower.
When someone tells you universal coverage will cost too much, ask them why every other developed country has universal coverage and spends a lot less than we do.
Are you serious?
Where is all of the money going now?
It’s going to hospitals, doctors, all other health care providers (home health, SNF, DME, rehab, etc.). Health care providers continue to make handsome incomes. And that doesn’t include the insurance industry and big pharma, not to mention the cost of the vast bureaucracy – as in HIPAA, the waste of billions of dollars for virtually nothing.
The industry and its $$$$ system will not be changed with universal health care, simply more money will be funneled into the pit – at the health care consumers’ cost.
Fix Medicare first and expand it. Get serious about fraud and abuse. Take the lobby money and election contributions away from elected officials and get all of the lawyers out of health care.
…ken
And, sincere thanks for a providing this forum.
Joe,
Does everyone know that there is a difference between Universal Healthcare and Universal Coverage? I am not sure…and I believe your position has been for Universal Coverage correct?
The comments you made are very interesting.
“If universal coverage will result in higher costs, why do the countries with universal coverage spend at most two-thirds what we do?”
I don’t want Universal Healthcare, but I am for Universal Coverage. Yet, I think the law of consequeces just might be in play here. Once the government gets more involved they will never give up their control.
For everyone that wants all of this government control, you all are going to regret this after it is in place.
What in God’s name is “universal healthcare?” Do we even know? Does such a thing even exist on planet Earth? Does that mean, say, compulsory annual MRIs for everyone?
Of course we’re talking about universal coverage. Sheesh!
I think we get into trouble when we start any discussion about how to pay for health care. I think the more important place to start is with “what is it supposed to do?” If we had a goal in this country to have healthy and functional people, do you not think we could build a rational health care system we could afford? You can’t build a ship unless you know it is supposed to float.
And, ditto re: thanks for the forum.
Rick,
I simply refer you to Ken’s comments above, read that and tell me everybody is clear on the distinction between the two terms.
My understanding is that universal coverage means that all are required to have health insurance – mandated coverage.
Universal health care, on the other hand, is government-funded health care.
I believe that some of the countries mentioned in the post have universal health care. My comment would be that one of the main reasons that less is spent in such systems is that there are various forms of rationing such as global budgets that put a lid on spending.
Can you guess which of these respondents work for insurance carriers and who work for health care providers? Its all about the dollars who is going to get more and screw the rest. Does Aetna, United & Humana as well as the others really need to make that much profit. Karma its funny how it works!
We already have Universal Healthcare; just walk into any emergency room, with or without insurance coverage. The arguement is about who is going to pay. Government takeover of healthcare is not the answer (governement takeover of anything is usually not the answer). Canada and UK (and others) have resorted to rationing to control costs. Others have proposed that government dictate what foods are allowable to eat lest we become obese, again as a way to control costs. How about a free market solution, increasing the supply of doctors, hospitals and clinics, getting government out of the way? Yes, call me a supply-sider, but it works every time it is tried. A little capitalism goes a long way.
It’s a great idea, Gary, but I wonder what would happen when reimbursement was completely divorced from cost and real competition entered the provider market. The problem with just adding more providers in the current market is that they’re guaranteed to make back their costs and more providers seems to mean more utilization and that’s about it.
“Government takeover of healthcare is not the answer (government takeover of anything is usually not the answer).”
Remember that before placing an emergency call to your district firefighters…