mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Two things in life are inevitable—birth and death—and they both fall in the domain of the health care system. Although health care is one of the most basic services a government can provide, it’s also one of the most ominous and convoluted. Every industrialized nation offers its citizens some form of free health care, but the balance between public and private funding differs from country to country and from administration to administration.
At one extreme is the United Kingdom, in which universal health care is funded directly from taxes and there are no insurance companies. At the other extreme is the United States, with its dazzling array of public and private services designed to both protect the poorest Americans and let the free market determine the best possible care. But at both ends—and everywhere in between—the systems are messy. To better understand our system and our options, we’re fielding your questions about health care around the world.
Are there really no health insurance companies in the United Kingdom?
Pretty much. A few of the wealthiest citizens have private insurance for private hospitals, but for the most part, the Brits use the National Health Service (NHS)—the largest employer in Britain, with more than 1 million workers. The brainchild of the Labour government after World War II, the NHS was created to provide “cradle to grave” service for all members of the realm. Because it was funded entirely by taxes, there were no hospital fees, no hassles with insurance companies, minimal administrative costs, and little paperwork. Patients simply paid taxes, went to a doctor, and received free health care. Sounds simple, doesn’t it?
Not entirely. Soon after the establishment of the NHS, citizens began complaining that customer service was shoddy. The system required specialists to spend half their days working for the NHS, and the rest for private practice. But no matter how hard physicians worked for the government, their salaries stayed the same. Why would an orthopedic surgeon perform 20 hip replacements a week, when he could perform three for the same money? Specialists dragged their feet, which created long waiting lists for treatment. If a patient couldn’t wait for a procedure from an NHS surgeon, he could go down the street to the same doctor’s private practice and receive treatment right away—for a price. In that way, health care costs for some citizens actually increased.
Things began to change in 1990, when Margaret Thatcher’s administration experimented with letting hospitals compete with one another for government funding. In theory, this should have cut costs and promoted self-regulation, but in practice, each hospital had a fairly strong monopoly in its local area. These days, the NHS relies on general practitioners to act as gatekeepers for the whole system. They’re the first doctors patients see, and their services are free. They perform routine checkups and recommend specialists. If a patient needs to go to a hospital, the general practitioner helps decide whether it should be a free NHS hospital or a private one. Ultimately, general practitioners help control costs by guiding money towards NHS specialists, hospitals, diagnostic tests, and medications. However, long waits and poor care are still concerns. It’s not a perfect system, but everyone gets to use it.
Is the United Kingdom the only nation with universal health care?
Not at all. Most industrialized nations, such as Japan, France, Sweden, and Australia, have universal health care. And in Canada, the government has been doling out free medical services to its citizens since 1962. Its system, called Medicare (not to be confused with America’s Medicare, which is totally different), is based on the five principals of the Canada Health Act: It’s universal, comprehensive, accessible to all citizens regardless of income, portable inside and outside of the country, and publicly administered. Also, to make the distribution of goods more efficient, the system is managed individually by province.
Unlike the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, the Canada Health Act doesn’t permit citizens to seek out private doctors to cover services provided by the government. If you want a hip replacement in Canada, there’s no running down the street to a private surgeon—you’ve got to get in line. This prevents physicians from concentrating more on private practice than on public medicine, which has helped keep the system cost-effective and egalitarian.
Of course, this system has its problems, too. To fund Medicare solely with taxes, the federal government matches whatever each province spends on its own system. Unfortunately, that has resulted in wealthier provinces receiving more money from the federal government, because they spent more on health care. Despite efforts to even out funding, large disparities in the quality of services have emerged throughout the country. As a result, many poor, rural communities are still in bad shape.
It sounds like both the United Kingdom and Canada rely solely on taxes to fund health care. Are there other ways to finance the system?
Yes. Some countries, such as Germany and Japan, insist that all citizens own health insurance, the same way that most U.S. states require all drivers to purchase auto insurance.
Germany’s health care system began in 1883, when Chancellor Otto von Bismarck set up insurance structures for workers called “sickness funds.” Today, German law mandates that all citizens belong to them, unless their income is above a certain level. (Currently, that’s about $5,500 US per month.) Sickness funds work like private insurance in the United States, with employers and employees splitting the cost of membership. Germans can choose from more than 1,000 different funds, which offer medical, dental, and drug coverage. Retirees pay with their pensions, while the government supports the poor and unemployed.
While 90 percent of Germans belong to sickness funds, the remaining 10 percent opt for private insurance, which tends to have higher fees. Although people with private insurance go to the same doctors and hospitals as people with sickness funds, private insurance usually means better care. To some, the German system has two tiers—one for the rich and one for the poor. The differences aren’t huge, but people with private insurance have beds reserved for them in hospitals and don’t have to wait as long to see a doctor. But unlike Canada and the United Kingdom, the waiting lists for treatment in Germany are short. On the downside, the quality of diagnostic testing and palliative care (treating the symptoms associated with serious illness) lag behind the rest of Europe, even though Germany spends more on health care than any other country on the continent. According to a 2000 study by the World Health Organization (WHO), in terms of distribution of goods and services across the population, Germany has one of the most fair and equitable systems of any industrialized nation.
How does the U.S. health care system hold up in comparison to other countries?
In terms of fair and equitable distribution of goods and services, the same 2000 WHO study ranked the United States close to the bottom of the list. But that’s because America not only has some of the worst health care on the planet, but also some of the best. The problem is that we don’t have a system of health care so much as a mix of independent, overlapping, bureaucratic monstrosities. The United States is the only industrialized nation, except for South Africa, that doesn’t guarantee health care to all its citizens. Currently, about 47 million Americans (15 percent of the population) have no health insurance, and about 20 million Americans can’t afford the health services they need, even with insurance.
But the United States also has some of the finest doctors, most advanced technology, and best medical facilities in the world. Our diagnostic screening is excellent, and it’s helped America become a world leader at fighting certain diseases, such as breast cancer. Of course, we also spend far more money on health care than any other country. (America spends more than $6,000 per capita on health care—about twice as much as most European nations.) This is partially due to ungainly administrative costs, but it’s also because of the abundance of expensive, high-quality services.
Most people in the United States have private health insurance, which simply means they pay an insurance company a monthly premium in exchange for health services. However, U.S. insurance companies aren’t obligated to cover everyone who’s willing to pay. They can deny coverage if they feel the patient would be too costly. From the insurer’s perspective, covering someone who costs $100,000 per year in medical expenses isn’t worth the $10,000 premium. In other words, some of the country’s sickest people are often also the ones getting pushed out of the system.
Most Americans can’t afford private health insurance unless they go through their employers, who shop around for the best insurance deal they can find. The bigger the company and the more employees, the more clout they have when haggling with insurance companies. While employers pay most of the premiums and employees pay the rest, the major benefit of this arrangement is that the entire premium is tax-deductible. The major drawback is that small businesses and the self-employed don’t have much pull with insurance companies, which can force them to forego health care altogether.
To rein in expenses, many businesses require their employees to join health maintenance organizations, or HMOs. Like traditional insurance companies, HMOs limit the patient’s choice of doctors and hospitals to a restricted “network,” but they also review doctors’ decisions and can refuse payment for services they deem unnecessary. In addition, HMOs tend to insist that doctors prescribe generic medications instead of name-brand ones. These measures save money, but many doctors feel second-guessed by HMOs, believing they promote the cheapest medicine rather than the best.
Is there public insurance in the United States?
Yes. Federal and state governments fund health insurance for the elderly, the military, the poor, the disabled, veterans, and some children. Many different agencies play a role in this, but the two biggest are Medicare, which covers adults 65 and older, and Medicaid, which covers the 55 million poorest Americans. Unfortunately, the bulk of uninsured Americans are people who either aren’t old enough for Medicare or aren’t poor enough for Medicaid.
Medicare started in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson issued the first Medicare card to former President Harry Truman. Medicare automatically covers hospital stays for seniors, and if they’re willing to pay extra premiums, it subsidizes outpatient services and prescription drugs. Right now, Medicare costs the federal government nearly $400 billion per year, and that number may escalate rapidly in a decade or so, as Baby Boomers turn 65.
Medicaid is designed to help the poor, but it’s run at the state level, so regulations and services change from state to state. And that’s part of the problem; you may qualify for Medicaid in one state but not another. The rules keep changing. Most states have a difficult time balancing Medicaid into their budgets, so they tend to cut benefits or add copayments, depending on the fiscal year. This doesn’t make life simpler for our nation’s poorest Americans.
What are the plans being considered for cleaning up the health care system?
They basically come in three varieties: expanding existing programs to fill in the cracks, using competition to improve efficiency, or creating a new comprehensive plan. The beauty behind expanding the current program is that it won’t scrap a system that works well for at least two-thirds of Americans. Most of us already have access to the best medicine in the world, so why not just try to reach out to the rest? Advocates propose raising the salary caps on Medicaid to cover the working poor and lowering the age requirement for Medicare to 55. This would plug up most of the holes, but unfortunately, it would do nothing to increase efficiency. Some studies estimate that 20 percent of our health care costs go to administrative fees.
To make the American health care system more efficient, some people have proposed ways to encourage competition. One alternative is to create tax-free savings accounts to be used specifically for health reasons, which will help lower- and middle-class Americans finance their medical needs. Once people have the means to make choices, health care providers will compete with each other for their business, which will lead to lower prices. Others advocate letting people buy prescription drugs from Europe and Canada. If American drug manufacturers have to compete with foreign companies, it might stop the escalating cost of prescription drugs. On the other hand, it might also lower the incentive for investing money into research for developing new, better drugs.
The biggest problem with trying to create a free market for health care is that it doesn’t guarantee medical coverage for everyone, which some people view as a fundamental human 
right, like freedom of speech. These people believe that we need a comprehensive new plan, akin to the health care system of Canada or Germany. In the long term, administrative costs would drop because our system would be simpler, and the government could allocate resources to the people who need them the most. It would be costly, but, then again, so is our current system. In the short term, however, overhauling the system and replacing it with a new one would be massively expensive. And, as we know from other countries, universal health care programs have problems of their own.
Editor’s Note: This article came from the “No Politics Allowed” series that appears in mental_floss magazine, in which we attempt to answer your questions about some of the most complex issues facing Americans today. Learn more about the magazine here.
Comments (38)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
Well written!
posted by TC on 8-4-2009 at 10:57 am
hmmmm…interesting.
posted by the creature on 8-4-2009 at 11:07 am
A page like this is a godsend, even for a economics graduate student like me! Thank you very much!
posted by patrick on 8-4-2009 at 11:22 am
Thanks for the nice writeup. It’s nice to see it without all the political spin thrown into the mix.
posted by Blake on 8-4-2009 at 11:32 am
very well done
posted by scott on 8-4-2009 at 11:34 am
Excellent article! You guys planning on following it up with a non-partisan breakdown of the health care bill before Congress? That would be so helpful!
posted by dmm on 8-4-2009 at 11:40 am
Another problem with overhauling a system as mixed up as ours is passing the laws in each state. Nationwhide, ok, but getting regulations to stick state-per-state as mentioned with the Medicare/Medicaid would be such a huge hassle. It would be at least a decade long black hole of funding, time, and reclassifications. Most politicians are all about the quick fixes, something they can make seem better while they’re in their current term. If something takes too long or won’t get solved during their time in office regardless of the branch they serve in, the quick fix gets to go to the front burner until the pot has boiled over or burned out. In this case, another quick fix is established to fix the fix that isn’t fixing anymore, in addition to fixing the current problem. It’s like mowing a lawn. You are going to keep cutting your grass week after week to the height you want for a little gas here, and a new blade there. Though, if you want to never mow again, you’ll rip it up and lay down the astroturf. The initial cost would be astronomical (pun slightly intended) and it would get worse before it got better by ripping up the current lawn and laying down the turf, but you would never pay for another lawn mowing item again. (sorry, i don’t think anyone would ever want to rip up their lawn for astroturf unless you’re a Brady, but it was the best analogy i could think of)
posted by Steven on 8-4-2009 at 11:44 am
This is an interesting and eye-opening article. Thank you. On a side note, I live in Michigan, about half an hour from the Ambassador Bridge – one of our links to Canada – we see Canadians on a daily basis coming to America for medical care. They would rather go through customs delays than have to wait years for their medical problems to be treated and/or even diagnosed. I wonder what they will do when they no longer have the option of coming here to be treated. Oh yeah, we’ll all be waiting in line then, too.
posted by Karen on 8-4-2009 at 11:47 am
One quick correction, again politics free: be cautious with the 47 million number. A good chunk of those make over $75k/year. One could argue whether their choice impacts the common good or not. Of those who can’t afford it, it is misleading to say that they’re all Americans. That number takes into account immigrants, including illegal immigrants (who represent perhaps 9 million of that number). I’m not saying we shouldn’t provide coverage, but I am saying be careful throwing that number around.
posted by Zach on 8-4-2009 at 12:07 pm
Excellent article — thank you! (Clarified a lot of issues nicely for me.) It’s so refreshing to finally read an explanation on healthcare systems that’s truly objective and politics-free.
posted by Shirley on 8-4-2009 at 12:23 pm
I agree, nice to see and consider the issues without spin – not many places to go for that anymore.
I heard on the radio a week or so ago someone describe the Canadian healthcare system thusly: all Canadians have coverage, but not everyone has treatment – meaning the wait for essetnial diagnostics and services was very long, in some cases life-threateningly long.
My family and I are a blend of our system in the US – I am covered by my employer (though it’s still expensive with deductible and co-pay), my wife has no insurance because she stays at home and we can’t afford private health insurance (and she’s been turned down), and we are just poor enough to have our kids covered by Medicare with a reasonable premium payment.
I like the idea of free for everyone, but have not idea how to make it work.
posted by Dustin Fritsche on 8-4-2009 at 12:56 pm
I mean, no idea how to make it work.
posted by Dustin Fritsche on 8-4-2009 at 12:57 pm
Thank you so much for this article. I think that everyone who is as confused as I am about this whole “health care scare” should read this. Politics free!
I would have liked to see something about the “single payer” option that I’ve been hearing about. Advocates for it seem to think it would be cheaper, but I am not sure exactly what single-payer means for individuals or for the country as a whole.
posted by Erica on 8-4-2009 at 1:03 pm
very well written article – perhaps the best I’ve read recently. For what it’s worth, a correction on the UK: since 1997, the UK Gov has been keen on encouraging “choice and contestability” in healthcare provision to reduce waiting lists and increase efficiency. Mostly, this has involved outsourcing basic diagnostic tests (eg MRIs) and elective surgeries to Private companies – policy aim was for c10% of spending to be outsourced originally, but this has been diluted. A lot of this reform has big implications for the US – the UK has demonstrated that grouping similar simple healthcare “products” together can generate efficiencies (eg 25% lower costs per operation with some initial contracts) but can leave the higher-risk and more complex (ie expensive) patients with the government, as happens with Medicare now. Having experienced both US and UK systems (and worked for UK and US providers), the only real viable solution I see is to mandate coverage via subsidies and promote primary care as a gatekeeper and costsaver. There doesnt really seem to be an appetite for universal care as American’s do not view healthcare as an inalienable right.
posted by nick on 8-4-2009 at 1:41 pm
I rather enjoyed the article… as I do the magazine and website. I must point out, as cynical as it sounds, that the most overlooked aspect of the difference in these figures in America is the sheer laziness (if not dishonesty) of an overwhelming majority of those not covered by current system. As \Zack\ pointed out, the 47 mil number is inclusive of not only Americans, but immigrants, etc. – and the number that is representative of Americans is largely those who will not (not CANnot) bother to try and afford health care, because they have been taught that they need not be responsible for themselves. Everyone knows/thinks this… but no one will SAY it.
posted by Vince on 8-4-2009 at 1:58 pm
Well written and definitely not as extremely prejudiced as most articles are today.
I’m one of the uninsured . . . by choice. So no matter which way it goes, public option or multi choice insurance, my costs/taxes for health care will go up.
I do hate that everyone points to that 47 million uninsured as a “problem” when I know I am one of those and hope fervently every day that Congress will fail to pass a national health care plan. But they use me as a statistic for why it is so imperative they get this done.
You know the old saying “don’t do me any favors”.
posted by The J on 8-4-2009 at 2:00 pm
All politics aside, from a purely logical standpoint, it seems fair to say that there will be a lot of problems in “socializing” health care, but not as an argument against doing it.
“Fear is not an option.”
-from the greatest movie ever, True Lies
posted by Joel on 8-4-2009 at 2:13 pm
I work in ins and it is amazing how many people do not fully understand the implications of a nationwide ins. some of them think that they will be getting better care and that services that are not currently covered or not considered medically neccessary will be covered with govenmemt health care. Now i am all for having everyone ins, but i like my private ins and do not want to give it up.
posted by Jennifer on 8-4-2009 at 2:32 pm
One quick correction, again politics free: be cautious with the 47 million number. A good chunk of those make over $75k/year. One could argue whether their choice impacts the common good or not….
posted by Zach
It seems Zach listens to the same talk radio show I caught one day.
I’d like to toss out something to think about; while 75K/year seems like a lot of money (especially where I live), although I don’t have hard evidence in front of me, I suspect many of those people are from one of four major cities (NYC, SF, LA, and Chicago) where $75K doesn’t go as far. I won’t go so far as to suggest that 75K in one of these cities is at the poverty level, but I could easily imagine that they can’t afford health care there due to such a high cost of living.
posted by That Jeff on 8-4-2009 at 2:54 pm
Fantastic article!
I think some people are having trouble understanding that the government is working on a “public option” so no one who already has private heath care has to give it up. We’ll see how it actually works, but I think it’s a good compromise. :-)
posted by Megan on 8-4-2009 at 3:11 pm
“free” healthcare…
there’s the biggest scam of the all…
posted by ee the c on 8-4-2009 at 3:28 pm
Good article.
We can’t afford to not overhaul our healthcare system. And I don’t think the Canadian system is as bad as “they” claim. Personally, I’d rather wait in line, knowing that I’m not going to loose my house over healthcare bills. And then maybe I’d actually use the clinic for PREVENTATIVE checkups.
posted by Bob on 8-4-2009 at 3:33 pm
Well, I have 2 personal stories to relate:
1. My cousin was born with a heart defect, which has required numerous surgeries over the years. Her parents’ insurance covers about 80% of the costs. My question is, what will she do when she’s dropped by her parents insurance and can’t get insurance herself.
2. I’m an active foster parent, and I get to watch drug addicted/alcholic deadbeat parents see a doctor from anything from a cold to a stubbed toe. For free. So, the state pays/and paid a lot of money to send them to rehab many times, pays for their food and rent, and they see a doctor whenever they please. For free.
These things either disappoint me or worry me.
posted by holly on 8-4-2009 at 4:52 pm
I agree with Bob, even though he used the improper spelling for “lose” :)
It is not that I don’t think that I don’t need health insurance, it is just that I can’t afford to part with $150 each month, when I can barely cover rent, utlities, and food bills each month and still contribute to my savings.
posted by the creature on 8-4-2009 at 5:48 pm
There are two (slight) misstatements about Canada. First, in some provinces a patient can opt for private treatment. The doctors supplying that treatment cannot be reimbursed through Medicare, however. This is a contentious issue that has resulted in court cases in Quebec and controversy in BC. Second, the federal government no longer pays 50% of the cost of Medicare. That ended under Jean Chretien. The resulting problems for the provinces trying to fund a greater amount of health care caused a huge upswell of anger at the federal government. So, a partial “top-up” of federal funds is now being handed out by the feds. Critics complain that it is not enough and also that it is not permanent.
About some criticisms of the Canadaian system I hear on American TV: I don’t know of anyone who has had a long wait for any procedure. A few years ago I read that this was a concern but both the federal and provincial governments have tried to rectify the situation. If anyone actually died because they did not receive treatment for, say, cancer, that would be a national scandal and heads would roll. I also hear the claim that many Canadians lack a personal physician. It is true that many rural and isolated areas do not have enough doctors, but doctors and hospital access are available. Some Canadians simply don’t bother to name a specific doctor as their personal physician. My doctor died some years ago. Since then, if I have a problem, I go to one of the local clinics and see whoever is available. My wife, on the other hand, has a specific doctor that she goes to.
Finally, for all its faults, the Canadian system is well-loved by most Canadians. If Ottawa ever tried to rescind it, we would storm Parliament and hang every MP we could lay hands on.
posted by CCBC on 8-4-2009 at 5:49 pm
Loved the article, wonderfully well written, but I’d like to make a clarification: It’s not only the few and the wealthiest of citizens who use private insurance in the UK. According to NHS figures, in 2003, the number of patients with private medical insurance was around 7.5 million, or 12.7 percent of the population.
The number of people accessing private insurance tripled since the 1980s; even now, though the percentages have remained static, Britons seem to feel they have a choice between private and public, especially since public perception of public care tends to be low. Stories of long waits in hospitals, inefficient emergency care, and other problems with the system tend to scare people.
posted by Linda on 8-4-2009 at 6:01 pm
Again, I just wanted to say — awesome article, clearly and concisely written, without bias and full of information.
posted by Linda on 8-4-2009 at 6:06 pm
What a well-written and informative article! Kudos!
posted by Leigh on 8-4-2009 at 6:36 pm
Holly- that is worrisome. It makes me a bit ill actually.
posted by ac on 8-4-2009 at 7:29 pm
Great article! More information in this one article than the media has explained in the last few months.
posted by T.J. on 8-4-2009 at 7:29 pm
I quite enjoyed this article…it was refreshing to see something informative without political spin on such a hot topic.
The one thing that worries me about universal healthcare is the quality of service. I’ve been in customer service for years, and I know that when dealing with bureaucracies service levels tend to plummet. No competition means no “need” to be nice to people; after all, if people only have 1 place they can go for a certain item, what incentive is there in providing good customer service since there’s no competition? Just think of all the jokes and horror stories of dealing with the DMV for examples of this. Therefore, I’d be curious to see what happens in a more universal system when it comes to service levels. Any non-Americans here care to share their bedside manner experiences?
posted by Krie on 8-4-2009 at 8:59 pm
@Krie: In Canada I don’t deal with a bureaucracy, I deal with whatever doctor I choose. The doctor bills Medicare. I can change doctors and get a second or third opinion. Each time the doctor sends in the paperwork. I don’t bother with it. Sometimes I get a form from Medicare saying, “We got this bill from Doctor X. Is it legit? If so, don’t respond.” I think there is far less paperwork than if I were dealing with a for-profit insurance company.
posted by CCBC on 8-5-2009 at 5:24 am
Holly, you highlight the main issue rather nicely.
the friend’s child with the birth defect isn’t so much interested in affordable insurance as having others help with the expected extensive costs over their life. This is what is being worked out. Who is expected to pay and what are they expected to pay for?
since most of the true horror stories, like that one, are catastrophic situations I wonder why we don’t just develop a catastrophic plan to cover everyone.
My issue is the one Bob brings to light. He wants help paying for his house in case he gets sick.
That is called financial planning. How many of the 75 million can’t really afford it, and of those that say they can’t afford it, how many have big screens, new cars and, yes, even houses?
Why would I expect other people to pay for my house?
Extensive, unpreventable health issues like the heart defect, maybe, but so I can keep a home while others paying for it don’t even have one?
Not a chance.
posted by Jimmie on 8-5-2009 at 3:24 pm
Just an aside: I know several people in the UK who have private health insurance, usually obtained through their work, who are by no means the wealthiest people in the country. Not sure what the numbers are or when this change came about, but private health insurance is definitely out there and active.
posted by Carrie on 8-6-2009 at 10:46 am
Jimmie,
I have a good mortgage. I don’t need help paying that mortgage. I also have $19,500 in medical bills I am currently paying off. The reason I can pay it off is that I have 2 used cars that get great mileage, a small house, no boats, no snowmobiles, no cable, no satellite, no big screen TVs, no wireless internet. I’m paying these bills off with my life savings. My wife and I are educated, hard working people, and the last thing we need is your help. What we need is reasonably priced, non-profit medicare for all. You can keep paying the insurance companies their profits, if you want.
posted by Bob on 8-7-2009 at 6:33 pm
Bob,
You never came across as a deadbeat and my point is not that you have no financial stability.
But ANY time you take more money out of a government system than you put in you are taking money from others and what you use your money for then can and should be questioned.
I addressed you, not necessarily on a personal level but for what your comments represented: You stated you wanted to keep your house. But many people who would be giving you their money under your plan do not even have a house. How is this equitable?
Benefiting Bob (or metaphorically, the Bobs of the world who need more than they give out to maintain things that others don’t have) is not the definition of equity.
They already have that plan, it’s called WELFARE. So it’s not the poor or destitute we are addressing here, they have WELFARE already. We are looking to give WELFARE to the middle class.
I would rather see a company profit than the government gain more power through a new WELFARE for the middle class. But you can keep taking from others so you can keep your personal possessions if you want.
posted by Jimmie on 8-10-2009 at 11:01 am
Jimmie,
Welfare doesn’t pay for health care; it is not a health insurance plan. Over 50% of bankruptcies of hard-working people (who are not people on welfare) are because they THOUGHT they had a good health insurance policy – but the for-profit companies refused their claims. Things like bone-marrow transplants and cochlear implants have been labeled as “experimental” and people have been labeled as have pre-existing conditions that will then invalidate their policies in the eyes of the for-profit company. This is not health insurance – this is a bait and switch scheme, where people pay in for years into a program and then get dumped when they need it. This is not welfare; this is not happening to people on welfare; people on welfare have Medicaid and thankfully, are covered by a government-run, private-health giver provided service that, like Medicare, only has a 1-3% overhead because it is non-profit. Our story and the 50 million other Americans without health care has nothing to do with welfare recipients – you are using a class-based argument that doesn’t fit the facts.
Do you really think Stephen Hemsley should be making $102,000 per hour as CEO of UnitedHealth Care? Should the premiums that folks who have private for-profit insurance policies pay that kind of compensation to the administrators of their policies? If you think so, then fine – stay with your for-profit insurance. My wife and I, and everyone we know, believe health care is a right, not a privilege. Even FOR folks on welfare because, you know, they are human beings.
Every western nation supplies non-profit Medicare-type programs for their citizens. Honestly, I haven’t seen the piles of corpses lining the streets in Canada or, for that matter, floating off the coasts of England, France, or Cuba.
So, stay with your for-profit policy (a policy you CAN lose) – we chose to cover ALL our citizens because it is the patriotic American thing to do – and the right thing to do.
posted by Bob on 8-10-2009 at 10:42 pm
“we chose to cover ALL our citizens because it is the patriotic American thing to do – and the right thing to do” and, oh yeah, we get the benefit of other’s work.”
It is our right to pay our bills from their labor. Without other’s money, can you imagine, we would go bankrupt!
All of us that benefit agree so it must be so.
posted by Jimmie on 8-11-2009 at 8:14 am