NationStates Jolt Archive

Universal Health Care has been a plank in the Democratic party platform since 1948 when Truman put it in there. Now admittedly, we haven't made a lot of progress on the issue, Medicare/Medicaid notwithstanding, and we've had veto-proof and filibuster-proof majorities in the past, so we've really got no excuse.

But with health-care costs going through the roof and the fact that companies like Toyota would rather pay higher taxes in Canada than pay higher health care costs in Alabama, universal health care is becoming a hotter issue than ever.

And support is coming from some unlikely sources. (http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2005/07/25/news_localstate/news_local_state.6.txt)BOISE -- The speaker of the state House of Representatives is mulling a proposal that could require businesses to provide employees with insurance, or reimburse Idaho for publicly funded health care costs.

Medicaid costs have grown tenfold since 1990, and now account for about 14 percent of state spending.

To try to reverse the trend, Rep. Bruce Newcomb, R-Burley, is proposing that employers buy health insurance for their workers, or pay the state to offset Medicaid costs.

Newcomb's target: Wal-Mart stores.

He cites a 2002 Georgia study that he said shows employees at the world's largest retailer disproportionately benefit from publicly funded health care, compared to workers at other businesses.

"Rather than taxpayers subsidizing the wealthiest family in the world, maybe the wealthiest family in the world ought to reimburse Medicaid," Newcomb told the Idaho Statesman.

I'm reminded of the saying "Only Nixon could go to China."

Newcomb went on to make the point that Wal-Mart wasn't solely responsible, just that they're taking most of the heat because they're the biggest and easiest target. He's asking for permission (by which I assume he means state money) to conduct a study similar to the oft-cited Georgia study from 2002 which found that one out of every four Georgia Wal-Mart employees was enrolled in the state's children's health care program.

The Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry is, predictably, opposed to any such measure.

So here's the question--and I'd like to stay away from the "should we" or the benefits vs. downsides sorts of arguments (though I have no real hope that we will)--Is universal health care in the US inevitable? Will we eventually wind up with a program similar to ones in Canada or France or most of the rest of the industrialized world?

I don't think that America will ever have universal healthcare, and I certinly don't think that corporations should be forced to foot the bill.

I don't think that America will ever have universal healthcare, and I certinly don't think that corporations should be forced to foot the bill.

But, they don't use those massive profits for *anything*. Anything reasonable, that is.

I don't think that America will ever have universal healthcare, and I certinly don't think that corporations should be forced to foot the bill.
It may surprise you and some others around here to discover that I agree with the second half of your comment. I happen to think that a universal system is inevitable, but there's no way to prove that position.

But while I do think that we'll eventually have a universal system, I don't think that corporations ought to foot the entire bill for it. They ought to pay for some of it, in my opinion, and perhaps even the lion's share of it since in the long run we'll be saving them money by taking health care out of their expenses, but to require corporations to fund the whole thing is foolish, as foolish as a state that depends on a single industry or single tax base instead of spreading it around.

If you have ever experienced military health care or VA health care, you won't want "Universal" healthcare. Don't get me wrong, some of the military doctors were good, and some VA doctors are good, but there are a hell of a lot of them who are just plain incompetent.

Oh, and you can't bring a law suit against them if they screw you up so guess where some bad doctors go to get away from malpractice suits.

If you have ever experienced military health care or VA health care, you won't want "Universal" healthcare. Don't get me wrong, some of the military doctors were good, and some VA doctors are good, but there are a hell of a lot of them who are just plain incompetent.

Oh, and you can't bring a law suit against them if they screw you up so guess where some bad doctors go to get away from malpractice suits.

Why do doctors in universal healthcare systems have to be "bad" by default? Nobody's saying these doctors wouldn't be paid enough (the doctors you speak of are "bad" because their pay is quite low).

I'm astonished that any civelised counrty can not have universal healthcare.

You should be covered for all eventualities by the government, after all in a war they will call on you to defend them so in peace they should keep you healthy.

Yes, it does level all the heathcare to a mediocre middle ground but who of us ever get to use for the top notch stuff anyway.

The vast majority of healthcare is surely simple stuff (sports injuries, etc) and geriatric stuff. We wont all need a triple bypass.

I don't have to concern myself over how I pay for anything in the UK (except dentistry and that's a real pain :p ) and I feel that's how it should be.

Why do doctors in universal healthcare systems have to be "bad" by default? Nobody's saying these doctors wouldn't be paid enough (the doctors you speak of are "bad" because their pay is quite low).

Actually, their pay isn't quite low. Military doctors that officers and paid well with bonuses and free education plus a retirement system and no malpractice insurance. Same for the civilian contract doctors working in military hospitals.

I spent 26 years with military healthcare and 12 with VA healthcare and neither is very good. That's why I use non-VA doctors for anything not related to my VA disabilities.

Actually, their pay isn't quite low. Military doctors that are officers are paid well with bonuses and free education plus a retirement system and no malpractice insurance. Same for the civilian contract doctors working in military hospitals.

I spent 26 years with military healthcare and 12 with VA healthcare and neither is very good. That's why I use non-VA doctors for anything not related to my VA disabilities.

Whoa, then they're just dickheads.

I don't think that America will ever have universal healthcare, and I certinly don't think that corporations should be forced to foot the bill.
They should be forced to foot the bill when they blatantly attempt to take advantage of the system, cutting wages and benefits so that their employees are forced to take advantage of the system.

Whoa, then they're just dickheads.

No, quite a few are just plain incompetent.

They should be forced to foot the bill when they blatantly attempt to take advantage of the system, cutting wages and benefits so that their employees are forced to take advantage of the system.

My thoughts exactly.

No, quite a few are just plain incompetent.

I'm thinking good standards would be in place for a universal healthcare system, so things like this would be avoided.

No, quite a few are just plain incompetent.
I've never dealt with VA doctors, but I've had some dental work done by an ex-military dentist--Navy guy--and he's one of the best I've ever had. Is it possible that the problem is that there are greater incentives to leave the military if you're competent or better than average and that's what causes the problems in the VA? A universal system, since it wouldn't be competing with the private sector, might not have the same problem.

They should be forced to foot the bill when they blatantly attempt to take advantage of the system, cutting wages and benefits so that their employees are forced to take advantage of the system.

Woah! I had no idea that problem existed, having always had universal healthcare it hadn't even occurred to me that that was even a possibility.

Woah! I had no idea that problem existed, having always had universal healthcare it hadn't even occurred to me that that was even a possibility.

Is this sarcasm? My detector's still in the shop, so...

Woah! I had no idea that problem existed, having always had universal healthcare it hadn't even occurred to me that that was even a possibility.
That's what Wal-Mart is doing...

Health Insurance companies suck. They make a bigger profit margin now than at any other time in history. Shareholders are happy but their product has declined in quality, universally, so competition in the industry is not going to resolve the problem.

The pro large government conspiracy people managed to sabotage the Health Industry from forty years ago enough that now it is unsalvageable and they will get their way. Universal Health Coverage is only a decade or two away now.

Health Insurance companies suck. They make a bigger profit margin now than at any other time in history. Shareholders are happy but their product has declined in quality, universally, so competition in the industry is not going to resolve the problem.

The pro large government conspiracy people managed to sabotage the Health Industry from forty years ago enough that now it is unsalvageable and they will get their way. Universal Health Coverage is only a decade or two away now.

Actually competition in the industry would work. Unfortunately, their lobby was able to bribe enough support for HMO's and that is what did in the competition. Had the government kept their nose out of it instead of creating a share the pot welfare bonanza for them, there would still be some degree of competition.

I guess I should have said why I think that universal health care is inevitable in this country. First off, too many giant corporations are feeling the pinch. GM has been the most vocal about it, and a large part of the United Airlines pension issue had to do with health care costs. Factor in the Toyota example I mentioned in the original post, and you'll see that some major employers--especially those still beholden to unions--are already pushing for this in some form.

The opponents are the big, non-unionized employers (Wal-Mart again) and the people in the for-profit health care industry, especially insurance companies.

According to some polls I've seen recently, doctors are pretty divided, with a number of them favoring a universal system simply because they wouldn't have to fight with insurance companies or uninsured patients for payment anymore. They might make less per patient in a government system, but they'd get paid for every patient, instead of the 80% which is about the industry average.

But as the global economy becomes ever more competitive, US industries won't be able to keep up if they're still subsidizing individual health care. That basically leaves the government as the only other source, because individuals generally can't cover the cost themselves, and as more and more individual states move toward charging big employers for their rising health care costs, those employers will look to the government for some relief. That's why I think it's inevitable.

I'm thinking good standards would be in place for a universal healthcare system, so things like this would be avoided.

"Good standards" are also in place in the military and VA healthcare system but...

Is this sarcasm? My detector's still in the shop, so...

Nope, just my ignorance. I've always had a universal healthcare system at my disposal so I wasn't even aware that there was any sort of incentive for companies to do that in systems without one.