S/O Why universal health care frightens me

[TeacherZee]

 

Is every adult in Sweden required to be signed up under some healthcare plan, or can they completely opt out?

 

Well everyone pays taxes. Whether they choose to use the health system or not is entirely up to them. You aren't "signed up" to anything. If you show up at a non-privately owned clinic with an ax in your head they will treat you. If you show up at a non-privately owned clinic with high blood pressure that needs constant monitoring they will check it and ask you if you live in the catchment area. If you do they will give you the prescription you need and tell you to come back to see the doctor in x-amount of days. If you don't live in the catchment area they will give you the prescription you need tell you to contact the doctor in your catchment area in x-amount of days. That doctor will then see you at regular intervals. If you decide you want treatment for your high blood pressure.

 

If you don't want to go to the doctor when you are sick as long as what you have doesn't fall under certain communicable health regulations you are entierly free to never see your doctor. You do however still have to pay taxes.

[Blessedchaos]

But the educational equivalent to this healthcare system is to either enroll in a public school/program or enroll in a private school/program --home school/program wouldn't be an option ;)

 

The rights in question are parental rights over how to direct their children's healthcare. If they don't WANT their children part of a system --for any number of reasons-- they should have that right to abstain completely. In the US, one is innocent until proven guilty. A parent should be allowed to act freely as an innocent party wrt their own children instead of being "forced" to make any other types of decisions that they may have issues with. That doesn't have to be monetary issues --there are some families like classicmom [and myself] that have philosophical issues w/ gvt programs in general. The Amish come to mind, but i haven't researched their healthcare system much to say how they would be affected by this.

 

I don't see it that way. Your tax dollars go into the public education system whether you use it or not. Likewise, in a mandated child health program, you pay for your child's insurance, but you don't have to go to the clinic. If you want to treat your child at home, nothing is preventing you from doing so.

 

Also, I don't agree that parental rights should be so absolute. There are limits, and there should be for the protection of the children. A parent should be allowed to act freely on behalf of their children as long as their child isn't being harmed and they are obeying the law. I can't voluntarily abstain from educating my child, from providing food, clothing, and shelter. Why then, should I be allowed to abstain from ensuring that a health care policy for that child is in place should that child need it? That child's life could depend upon it.

 

No one knows when a life threating accident or illness can hit a formerly healthy person. A parent choosing to abstain completely from medical care for their child is really taking a gamble, one that could result in the death or disability of another person. If the child faces a life threatening situation, he or she is dependent upon the actions of his parents in order to have a chance at survival. Left untreated, there are many common illnesses which become severe; treatable diseases can become terminal left untreated. I honestly don't know what legal repercussions are in place currently in a situation like this (I would only guess that at best the parent would be charged with neglect if not murder, but I don't know for sure), but I personally cannot support the rights of the parents to deny their children medical care which results in death or life-long disability just because they want to. To me, that just isn't right.

 

Parents can direct their children's health care just as freely with a health insurance policy in place as without. Even if they choose never to use it, at least it is in place should some day they need it in order to save their child's life.

 

Obviously we feel very differently about this particular topic. That's ok:). I don't see any point in continuing to re-iterate the same things again and again, but I do look forward to seeing other thoughts on this topic. Thanks for the discussion;).

[Peek a Boo]

Well everyone pays taxes. Whether they choose to use the health system or not is entirely up to them. You aren't "signed up" to anything. If you show up at a non-privately owned clinic with an ax in your head they will treat you. If you show up at a non-privately owned clinic with high blood pressure that needs constant monitoring they will check it and ask you if you live in the catchment area. If you do they will give you the prescription you need and tell you to come back to see the doctor in x-amount of days. If you don't live in the catchment area they will give you the prescription you need tell you to contact the doctor in your catchment area in x-amount of days. That doctor will then see you at regular intervals. If you decide you want treatment for your high blood pressure.

 

If you don't want to go to the doctor when you are sick as long as what you have doesn't fall under certain communicable health regulations you are entierly free to never see your doctor. You do however still have to pay taxes.

 

so you don't have to sign up because you are automatically paying for it anyway. gotcha.

 

Over here, our taxes are NOT tied up in a healthcare system, and [some of us] still don't like how high they are ;)

 

eta --except for medicaid, and paired w/ other issues that have been mentioned, many aren't happy about that either.....

[Peek a Boo]

I don't see it that way. Your tax dollars go into the public education system whether you use it or not. Likewise, in a mandated child health program, you pay for your child's insurance, but you don't have to go to the clinic. If you want to treat your child at home, nothing is preventing you from doing so.

 

...and there's been talk of tax breaks for THAT too --another Well Run Gvt Program At Work ;)

 

Also, I don't agree that parental rights should be so absolute. There are limits, and there should be for the protection of the children. A parent should be allowed to act freely on behalf of their children as long as their child isn't being harmed and they are obeying the law. I can't voluntarily abstain from educating my child, from providing food, clothing, and shelter. Why then, should I be allowed to abstain from ensuring that a health care policy for that child is in place should that child need it? That child's life could depend upon it.

 

But abstaining from an official health care plan doesn't HARM the child like a lack of those other items will.

 

this is where our definitions of "basic human rights" come in --a person can survive w/o a health care policy. They can't survive w/o food, water, and shelter. Every time you use "that child's life could depend on it" you are by logical extension making the case for mandated VISITS --it's the exact same argument made by John Edwards and one that is way too subjective to put in a "basic human rights" category.

 

No one knows when a life threating accident or illness can hit a formerly healthy person. A parent choosing to abstain completely from medical care for their child is really taking a gamble, one that could result in the death or disability of another person. If the child faces a life threatening situation, he or she is dependent upon the actions of his parents in order to have a chance at survival. Left untreated, there are many common illnesses which become severe; treatable diseases can become terminal left untreated. I honestly don't know what legal repercussions are in place currently in a situation like this (I would only guess that at best the parent would be charged with neglect if not murder, but I don't know for sure), but I personally cannot support the rights of the parents to deny their children medical care which results in death or life-long disability just because they want to. To me, that just isn't right.

 

But you are assuming that just because one wants no part in a gvt program they are "taking a gamble" w/ their child's health. This also assumes that just because a parent opts out of traditional treatment via an official health care policy they are denying their child medical care. Many say the same thing about homeschooling --we know that isn't true.

 

Parents can direct their children's health care just as freely with a health insurance policy in place as without. Even if they choose never to use it, at least it is in place should some day they need it in order to save their child's life.

 

But again, if they choose to never use it, how was the child's health saved?? How would having them signed up benefit them if the parent never used it? If your argument is a valid one --that the child's health is paramount-- you need to mandate visits to guarantee that child's safety.

 

Here's my compromise that i shared a while back in another thread:

allow parents who aren't convicted of neglecting their children to abstain if they want. let them know they are free to bring their children [or themselves] in if they feel the need. Let them know that IF and WHEN they decide it is necessary, wages will be garnished and the children --or adults-- signed up immediately. Or, depending on the situation, the doc can decide to bill if they feel the client is a good credit risk. Or the client can pay upfront w/ the money they have saved up in a MSA w/ what they haven't sent to the gvt :D

 

Now, if the gvt program really proves to be THAT great and THAT well run, you'll likely end up w/ 99% of the people on it anyway. i just want to maintain that option of complete freedom for those that choose it. And hold the gvt a bit more accountable.

 

Obviously we feel very differently about this particular topic. That's ok:). I don't see any point in continuing to re-iterate the same things again and again, but I do look forward to seeing other thoughts on this topic. Thanks for the discussion;).

 

 

I know it feels like we're reiterating the same thing, but i really do think that each time we are simply finding different, more clear ways to express what we're trying to say --maybe just in tiny details, but those are important too. Sometimes that takes a long time. And yeah, that usually ends up w/ some of the same stuff being repeated somewhere in the discussion. But if you [or anyone else] thinks of something else to clarify or address, that's fine too :)

[collinsmom1]

I am scared by it as well! I am self employeed and insure my son and myself. It is not my favorite way to spend my money, but we are covered!

 

I have also lived in Canada and was denyed coverage, only after the fact to find out that I should have been covered! I was forced to pay out of pocket.... I have other stories that I won't get into here.

 

I am a firm believer that in most cases we make choices, some are cosllty some are not. No sitution is black and white, many thing contribute to ones circumstances. As an American there is a way of life that has made this country great and that is independance, which by design forces us to face life head on and the greatest life has to offer tends to come from the greatest challenages. I don't want someone else deciding for me, and that is what is happening. We are so easily controlled.

[Perry]

nm

Edited April 9, 2011 by Perry

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am not afraid of single payer universal healthcare at all. I am afraid of private health insurance companies who only think of their bottom line and not me:glare:

 

We have had single payer universal healthcare for 60 some years for our elders and it works just fine. It saved my parents lives who prior to medicare went without health insurance for 3 years and then for another couple of years decided which pills not to take or which healthcare to forgo:(.

[kalanamak]

t After Hillary Clinton began talking about universal health care and especially when she made a statement to the effect that there were too many specialists and not enough GP's, their residents in this field (in St. Louis) dropped to zero. .

 

I've talked to a few neurosurgeons in my time, and malpractice and being sued over every bad outcome is the chorus I heard from them. One older man, who retired young, said, "I quit when everyone in the office had been sued 3 times. Were we all three such terrible surgeons we should lose lawsuits over and over? Getting sued is terrible."

 

Patient has critical problem in sensitive part of brain. Progression and death if no surgery. Has surgery and ends up aphasic, and looks piteous. Jury awards.

 

It is a stressful field, and I recall problems getting spots filled pre-Clinton. I remember the 3 year stretch when my residency program went from 3 foreign grads and 40 USian grads to the opposite. I was in the 50/50 year. Perhaps the St. Louis neurosurgical programs weren't willing to take foreign grads. The "specialty" programs were lagging behind primary care in this trend, but I remember more and more of the surgical services being manned by African grads, and that was 1993.

 

Plus, St. Louis is looked at a little as a pit for non-midwesterners (bad weather, big cockroaches, potholes), and not so great for midwesterners willing to be urban( KC, back then, had plenty of medical stuff going on and less potholes, and in general seems less "rust-belty")). The med school in St Louis was so distressed about enrollment, they sent many people in my med school class a paid survey about "why you didn't even apply here". It included things such as "you heard our dorms were old" or "you heard our winters are rough". (I sent back the equivalent of a LOL (and their check) and simply wrote: I heard your program is for egg-head scientists, and I'm not one. I didn't think you'd take me, so I didn't apply.) No one got such a letter from any other school or program. We got the impression St. Louis was not doing well with the changing medical face, and that was during Bush the Elder.

[Perry]

nm

Edited April 9, 2011 by Perry

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

then I want a say so in how they live. No smoking' date=' no recreational drugs, regular health screenings, including mammograms for women and colonoscopys for anyone 40 and older (pucker up and say 'cheese'). I'll insist on all the relevant vaccinations for all children- I don't care if the parents object. It cost less to treat the disease or cancer when caught early. I would insist on exercise, mandatory diets for those who are overweight, etc. etc. etc.

 

If government is running healthcare, you will see similar manifestos. Once government has you under their thumb in this regard you will lose priceless freedom to make your own choices because you won't be paying for it. I am VERY wary of government run healthcare. Honestly, can anyone show one, just one program, that government has run well? Public education, hmmm? NO. Social security, let's me think for a sec..? NO I could go on an on.

 

I, too, have heard the horror stories from both sides of the fence for universal healthcare. Are there problems with both? Yes, absolutely. Which one allows us to maintain our freedom in choice regarding our own health and our own healthcare? As always, I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle, not on either extreme.

 

As always, just my musings.[/quote']

 

What is your basis for this idea of loss of freedom when we have has universal healthcare for seniors for 60 years and they are quite free to get or not get screenings and medical care????

 

As for having a say in how others live, I think that is over the top IMHO. Most of us as humans prone to illness and injury will end up needing health care at some point in our lives:(

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Not only am I afraid of the care they might NOT give, but if gov is paying the bills, then they can start deciding what care you MUST accept. This opens a whole can of worms and here are just some examples of where it could go:

 

1. If gov is paying for your prenatal care, they could force you to get tested for abnormalities and as a result terminate any pregnancy they feel would be an undue burden on the system. If you would refuse, I am sure you would then be on your own for all costs incurred by that pegnancy/child and of course go bankrupt in the process.

 

2. If they decide obesity, smoking and diabetes are adding to costs, they could force people to take drugs and treatments for those things. Not that it isn't good to control these things, but imagine not having a choice of HOW you will go about it.

 

3. The vacccine debate is relavant here. I would say that under a universal system, there would be no choice whatsoever. They could demand that you and your children get every vaccine THEY feel is necessary WHEN they feel it is necessary or again- you're out of the system entirely. There is no end to the vaccines they could come up with as being mandatory.

 

These are just a few situations I can see off the top of my head. No more holistic or alternative choices as well. I feel the idea is very scary. things are not good as they are, but choice and free will must always be a part of health care or it soon becomes nightmarishly Orwellian with control over seemingly every breath yoou take from birth to death. With gov paid and controlled care, you can be assured there will be no choice or freedom. there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

Again this is unfounded. Medicare has been a success and has not caused a loss of our freedoms.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

There are millions of people dependent on county/state/government health care now, and they often die because they are unable to get care in a timely manner. The care they get is often substandard to what those with insurance receive. Minorities are far likelier to have poor healthcare than whites. Rich people get better care than poor.

 

There are always specific examples for and against ANY particular viewpoint. You need to look at what provides the biggest good for the biggest group of people. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

Michelle T

 

Yes but if universal healthcare is the only gig in town, then I don't think there will be a lack of providers or a lack of good care. There will always be healthcare providers who truly want to help others. I know since I did it for over 20 years and I was not alone.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Agree on many points here:

Yes... naturally the US would develop its own style of UHC. I don't believe any two countries who have UHC run it in precisely the same way. Any system, in order to be successful, would have to address the needs of its particular citzenry.

 

Yes... although I'm quite passionate about UHC (former american here, so I've seen both sides), I do believe there are more urgent needs to address in the US at the moment. The economic crisis is just one.

 

But... I still think it's worthwhile to keep a plan for UHC for America on the political radar. It would be a shame if momentum for it were quashed entirely.

 

I agree our economy is an urgent need but I contend that one of the big reasons our economy is hurting is our lack of universal healthcare. IMO employers are hindered from hiring due to employer sponsored healthcare. Employers are more likely to not hire people over 40 due to increased health care premiums. People are less likely to start businesses due to lack of access to affordable health care. I believe our current healthcare system hurts people, businesses, and local and state governments.

 

As for paying for universal healthcare, we already are paying mega bucks for our current mess of a healthcare system. I think universal healthcare will save money:D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Old thread:blushing: But still timely:D

[Peela]

Lol, dragged out of the dungeons, eh.

 

The whole issue seems so ridiculous to those of us who live in countries where we have had compassionate, humane 'universal health care" for decades.

[july19]

Don't know if you saw my thread from yesterday, but here:

 

http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262107

 

My husband is sick and we cannot afford these new limits on our healthcare. We pay enough that we shouldn't have this happen to us. It isn't fair. As I type this, I can hear him crying in the bathroom. This morning, he had a nosebleed that was so bad that it took 25 minutes to stop. It's his fifth nosebleed in 3 days.

 

I spoke with reps from 4 different insurance companies yesterday afternoon, trying to shop around for new healthcare for him. We were denied because of the dang "pre-existing condition" crap.

 

I was for universal care before this happened, and I most certainly am for it now. My husband would still be actively seeking healthcare if we had it in this country. Sometimes the US seems so....backwards.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Don't know if you saw my thread from yesterday, but here:

 

http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262107

 

My husband is sick and we cannot afford these new limits on our healthcare. We pay enough that we shouldn't have this happen to us. It isn't fair. As I type this, I can hear him crying in the bathroom. This morning, he had a nosebleed that was so bad that it took 25 minutes to stop. It's his fifth nosebleed in 3 days.

 

I spoke with reps from 4 different insurance companies yesterday afternoon, trying to shop around for new healthcare for him. We were denied because of the dang "pre-existing condition" crap.

 

I was for universal care before this happened, and I most certainly am for it now. My husband would still be actively seeking healthcare if we had it in this country. Sometimes the US seems so....backwards.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[mcconnellboys]

I'm sure we'll be a single payer system soon enough....

[JessieC]

I haven't read through all of the replies, but just want to reply that as the mother of a child with a chronic illness, it is much more frightening to me to NOT have universal healthcare. If she goes a minute in her life without insurance, she will never be able to obtain affordable health insurance again. We are the richest country in the world, and we are better than this.

[Carol in Cal.]

We already have universal health care. It's limited to a specific age bracket, but Medicare is universal health care. Just sayin'...

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

We already have universal health care. It's limited to a specific age bracket, but Medicare is universal health care. Just sayin'...

 

:iagree: I hope to see Medicare for all:D

[Audrey]

Lol, dragged out of the dungeons, eh.

 

The whole issue seems so ridiculous to those of us who live in countries where we have had compassionate, humane 'universal health care" for decades.

 

 

Absolutely.

 

I would never even dream of going back again.

[leeannpal]

I haven't read through all of the replies, but just want to reply that as the mother of a child with a chronic illness, it is much more frightening to me to NOT have universal healthcare. If she goes a minute in her life without insurance, she will never be able to obtain affordable health insurance again. We are the richest country in the world, and we are better than this.

 

My husband and daughter have chronic health care issues, and agree with every word you've said! FWIW, I have lived in 2 countries with universal health care, and I can honestly say that none of the people I knew seemed the worse for wear.

[Peek a Boo]

The whole issue seems so ridiculous to those of us who live in countries where we have had compassionate, humane 'universal health care" for decades.

 

well, sure... and the rest of us sit here scratching our heads wondering "then if it's so darn great, structure a voluntary UHC for those who want their money going to it."

 

I'm not quite seeing how it's humane/compassionate to forcibly take money from people, but then again, I understand that a Really Big gilded cage w/ great furnishings can be quite desirable for some. I just have a problem forcing everyone to participate. If we're such a rich nation, then what's stopping the wealthier supporters of this from setting up a voluntary system??:confused:

[Peek a Boo]

What is your basis for this idea of loss of freedom when we have has universal healthcare for seniors for 60 years and they are quite free to get or not get screenings and medical care????

 

As for having a say in how others live, I think that is over the top IMHO. Most of us as humans prone to illness and injury will end up needing health care at some point in our lives:(

 

loss of freedom= when we are forced to give up our money for policies we don't support. The loss of freedom isn't from the seniors, but from those funding it.

 

Some of us prefer to seek our own healthcare rather than force everyone else to pay for it. Not everything that "works efficiently" is necessarily right and moral.

and ok, since i got suckered into a resurrected thread, i'll go back and see what I said before, lol.....

[Guest CarolineUK]

Lol, dragged out of the dungeons, eh.

 

The whole issue seems so ridiculous to those of us who live in countries where we have had compassionate, humane 'universal health care" for decades.

 

:iagree:

 

Definitely.