Health Care

Discuss Health Care in general.

In U.S., it sucks that you have to pay for your medical charges.

Here, in Canada, we have free health care =] However (I don't think my facts are 100% straight, here), unlike in the U.S., hospitals have the right to turn you away. This is probably the case if you're injured from a gun incident.

Also, in the U.S., there are cases where hospitals turn away patients, even though their policies are not the same as Canada's. For example, a mentally-ill woman went to a hospital, but she was turned away and the hospital paid for the cab to take her elsewhere. This also happens a lot with homeless people.

Anyways, back in Canada, some argue that there should be privatized clinics/hospitals. This means that they will no longer be free. The plus side of this is that there will be less or no waiting time compared to a public hospital. I'm sort of against this. I believe that health care should be free to everybody. If the privatization of clinics/hospitals is ever fully implemented, I think that they should receive no financial help from the government.

Back to the U.S., I think the government should spend much less of their efforts and money on the army, weapons, war, etc. and more on health care. For a rich, developed country, I'm kind of outraged that people are denied of free health care.

Eh, my counter point is short but sweet. Healthcare in the U.S. is not free, but because of that fact we have the best doctors in the world here. So IMO, its worth it.

That's quite biased =/
Canada is also a developed country with top-notch doctors. I don't think the difference therein lies with the doctors but the government's financial decisions.

Top Notch doctors huh? The top doctors go to America because thats where they can make the most money. Also the smartest people will become doctors in America because then the opportunity costs of school will give you a positive net present value on your money. If your intelligent and could become a great doctor in Canada but make little money, why would you pay for all that school to become a doctor? Why not go be a lawyer? Why do you think med schools in america are almost impossible to get into? Because they only take the best of the best.

and P.S.
You say my post is biased and yet you start your arguement by saying "healthcare in the U.S. sucks"

I would like to say that what impresses me most about health care is the extent to which more is going to change around in medicine and healthcare in the next 15 years than changed in the last hundred. I think, for example, the hospital as we know it is dead. I think that drugs become infinitely more important in the next 10 years than they've been previously. All kinds of diseases are going to be transferred from the surgeon to the pharmacist. What I'm most concerned about is what kind of health-care system is the most flexible, the most willing to deal with these changes, the quickest to adapt to them, the most innovative. To me, it's an open and shut case that single-payer systems are extremely inflexible. That is a great cost. The Canadian system has been very slow even to catch up with the change in the last 20 years. And if they were to move in that country towards piecemeal social engineering they would in some way compromise the system's flexibility at a time when, to me, the most important thing in the next 15 years is going to be flexibility.

We're about to figure out the human genome. Everything hinges on the speed at which we are able to adapt and bring to market that sort of knowledge base. I'm just concerned about messing with such an extraordinarily dynamic system at a time when dynamism is, to me, the paramount. I mean, this is the crux of our disagreement. You're impressed with what the medical system is now capable of providing. I am, on the contrary, impressed by what the medical system has not yet provided. And that's why I favor a system that is, for all its faults, incredibly dynamic; and you favor a system that, for all its faults, is incredibly good at delivering the status quo.

The health care system in the USA is basically as follows: If you can pay for your procedure that is wonderful, but if you can't afford it then you need to go die." And at the same time people here are always complaining about our civil liberties being constantly eroded by the government. What about our right to life as stated by the constitution?

Indeed, you have to remember that healthcare in america was created for the sole purpose of insuring that doctors would be fully rembersed for their work and allowed low-income families the ability to afford the procedures.

Now, that HMO's Medicaid were created to 'lower' the cost of regular insurance, time lines for procedures, cost of medicine and such also varied. So now you have a choice between "Expensive" while not exactly better and the cookie cutter #2 At McDonalds that, doesn't give you the extra fries unless you pay .50c more.

So, in a way, medical procedures will stay high in america as long as the people are willing to pay for it. This is the problem. It always has been, to get your teeth pulled cost 1,000U.S. without insurance. How is that fair? Then we tell those unfortunate to get the insurance they need that it is to bad and turn them away.

America(short of a rant) is going down the drain by splitting the check amongst folks who are to high to care and those who are to low to be organized or understand any of those big words.

The government health care plan is a public option to hopefully lower these other insurance agencies prices. I.E. cheaper giving more benefits and the 'Expensive' plans lowering or adding more benefits to accurately gauge their networth.

Man I live in Canada if I had to pay for all of what im getting id paralyzed and/or dead I a year or so.

The universal health care system they're drafting now will not allow people of age 15 or below and people age of 65 (somewhere around there) or above won't receive it. Seeing as how they're trying to ban health insurance, they won't even have an alternative plan to help themselves. So in order to cut costs, are you really willing to sacrifice other's so you can have "free" (which isn't really free) healthcare? Does this seriously sound better than the system we have now? Not only that, your going to be paying taxes out your ass to pay for this healthcare.



WTF? The constitution does not say the government has to look out for our well being. It's talking about people being able to pursue their own agenda without the government interfering, which is exactly the opposite if we enact universal healthcare. Also, it's your own failing if you weren't able to get ahead in a capitalistic society. Why should the other people who have worked hard all their lives to barely get by on their own, pay for others as well by paying buttloads of taxes?



You are. You're paying taxes.

That's because there already is a health care system for children and adolescents. Old people got Medicare



That's not true at all. Actually it's the opposite. Each individual will pay less per household in taxes.



The constitution is a good base but it isn't the end all document to dictate every single government operation or program. Just because something we do isn't IN the constitution does not make it unconstitutional.



The fallacy of conservative thinking. The reason is of course, to maintain a healthy and working society. Individuals can not pay taxes if they can not work. Not to mention they can't work if they can't work (If they are sick or injured without care). It's to the benefit of our economy and to the tax payer (because his taxes can actually go to something important..instead of say uninsured visits by others to the ER). Bear in mind that the US is not, and never has been a Capitalist nation. We are what's called a mixed-economy, incorporating elements of capitalism, socialism, and other economic doctrines. It's not humane to have somebody with a disability, or a pre-existing condition, or poor beyond their means "earn" their right to have a surgery or the like. Most other developed nation don't have this problem, we are far far behind with our quality of life and in ethics. The reason we don't have UHC in this country now is because of the lies spread by corporations and politicians that support them. There are millions of dollars invested into obscuring true facts. The gullibility of the right-wing base just amplify their message without even bothering to look up facts or consider alternatives to their viewpoints.




He's not paying NEARLY as high a tax rate for UHC as we are for our privatized corporate scheme system. My wife is Canadian and we get any treatment needed when we travel home. While staying in the States however we are screwed up the fucking ass paying for insanely high health costs with benefits that are not near the ones in Canada.

Why do you defend corporate insurance companies and their monstrous profits? They make them at the expense of other people's health, happiness and lives. Do you not want Americans to be as healthy and happy as they possibly can be so they can work to obtain their dreams?

Healthcare sucks in USA... hahaha :) i live in south africa, healthcare is a six month wait to have a lifesaving operation and spending the remainder of your life in debt... Not trying to be nasty bastard, cause I have heard that compared to Europe, USA spends far too little on healthcare.

Well I was raised with standard in my country being that we all pay an amount of tax money that goes to our country's health care system, and personally I don't have a problem with it. We don't have to pay taxes until we're broke because everyone pitches in, which makes my country's health care system one of the most prominent ones in Europe. It has it's pros and cons, and I don't have the need to see it being changed.

But this system wasn't implemented in America so I can understand why some wouldn't be to happy pitching in for the system, after all I would be sceptical to. But from what I've experienced being used to that system, I've never had to worry about doctors bills and such ever in my life.

What's the healthcare plan for children and adolescents?



Income tax isn't the only tax we pay. We've been told they're going to increase value added tax (VAT). That's how they're going to pay for it, and the amount of increase sounds ridiculous (which was 25% when I last heard).



The constitution did restrict government involvement in the lives of Americans. If they take away our right to pay for our own health insurance, it would be considered unconstitutional. We also shouldn't have to pay for other people to get medical care as everyone has their own problems especially with the economic conditions as it is. Why not just have those who are in favor of universal health care provide funds for those in trouble instead of dragging everyone along with them? Forcing other's in trouble to pay for another who's in trouble isn't right.



How is it a benefit to economy when the other's have to suffer by paying for another's disability? I'm sure this sounds extremely selfish, but if you look at it objectively, it's just common sense that all this is doing is to bring everyone to an equal level of poverty, which in turn means the economy suffers even further.



No it's not. But it doesn't mean we have to put everyone else into poverty and let everyone suffer as well.



Give me examples.



When did this turn into right-wing, left-wing classification? For all you know I could be left, or neither. You also need to realize that there are people who are leftist who oppose UHC. Your conspiracy theory convinces me that you're the one under the influence of propaganda.



Maybe so, but it's still not a free system and point still stands.



I'm supposed to be jealous of the benefit that you can be denied medical care without any explaination?



I'm not defending corporate insurance companies. I'm arguing for those that won't be eligible for UHC, and for everyone who will have to pay higher taxes on goods. An increase on VAT can potentially mean people will spend more on UHC than a normal health insurance. I'm also arguing for doctors who have spent shitloads on a college degree and won't be paid jack shit under a new health care system.

As for wanting a healthier nation, statics says that America is top 15 on the worlds healthiest nations. That's pretty good for how shitty you made our system sound like. I'm not saying there couldn't be anymore improvements. I just think UHC is the wrong way to go about it.

Both systems have their flaws. Neither system is better than the other in a void. I believe we all can agree on that fact.

The problem is, society isn't a void, it's convoluted with all sorts of details and red tape.

UHC is a noble ideal but, the problem is you are taking from one group to pay for the misfortune or bad decisions of another. I have spoken with a lot of Canadians from Ontario, B.C. and Nova Scotia and they all agree that people abuse the system because they see no direct cost. A major flaw with the system is that unless you ration in some form or another. The costs will rise beyond anybody's capability to pay enough taxes to fund the system. The reason being is there is no incentive for people to take care of themselves if there will be a safety net waiting for them. A person may not get screenings because of the safety net. Then you run into problems such as medication. You have expensive drugs like the ones for H.I.V./A.I.D.S. here is a list of the medications and the cost. England has actually banned life saving drugs due to costs as well. The rationing body in England has also banned kidney treatments as well.

(H.I.V.) Link
Cancer drug Link

Kidney Treatment Link

Another problem UHC poses is Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. Which means healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Not to mention like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. The current system of disability is for the lack of a better phrase "Fucked up Royally". People with Diabetes can get disability even if it's not a crippling case but, ZiggyOtaku and I personally know someone who has had two bouts of cancer (having her thyroid removed) and requires medication to regulate her body, not to mention the plethora of other problems he has and yet she is denied coverage. The people who actually need the coverage are not getting it.

The problems with the current system are the rising costs that exceed the rise of income per year. People with existing conditions are denied future coverage if they lose their insurance afterward. An example would be I get cancer but, I have insurance for the treatment from my place of employment. Lets say I change jobs or lose that job and lose the coverage my employer gave me. I would not be able to get coverage afterward as I have a "pre-existing condition". This could cause me to lose my home and other possessions as I could not afford the treatment in order to remain a productive member of society.

This is a problem of affordability, so if we can find a way to reduce cost then we can continue with this system. People will have to learn to get preventive screenings, take better care of themselves. Also curb the trend in medicine to just throw pills at the problem until it "goes away". Which in reality just covers the symptoms rather than treats it.

Now, I have an idea that I think would help the UHC system find a solid plan and strategy to maximize care while minimizing costs. Allow the citizens of each state to vote whether of not they want a system like that. Massachusetts has a system which mandated that everybody obtain health insurance coverage. Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and partially subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. There are problems with this system but, the demand for a working system will cause each state to become creative. If a state claims it'll "Tax the rich" as a way to pass legislation, the rich will move out of state (like they did in New York when it raised income tax). This is a way to iron out a model before throwing everybody into the mix. This will also create incentive for the companies to reduce the overall cost as they know if they don't come up with a solution that the UHC will be passed eventually which will affect their profits in a undesirable way. Pit the two systems against one another to find a solution that works best for all.

CHIP and SCHIP http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CHIPRA/



Utterly absurd. The health care bill will be paid for through fed money already being spent, subsidies and preventative practice/preventive medicine. You are quoting misinformation.



Ok let's stop here. The government is not going to "force" you to do anything. It's not going to mandate it, and the fine system will probably not be in the final draft (if it is there will probably be a bracket making it's cheaper or comparable to the expense of opting-in). Lastly it's called a public option for a reason. It's an option. You do not have to sign up for government health care if you don't want to.

If you want to argue government involvement you might as well take away municipal services as well since most are provided by or administered the government.



Do you pay taxes? I'm guessing so. You already pay for other people's disabilities. A lot. And a lot more than other countries with a stabilized UHC system in place. Huge subsidizes are being paid for uninsured visits. By allowing people who don't have insurance access to it, they help pick up their OWN slack by purchasing into the pool, which is something you, I and most other people are for. It's been shown that UHC reduces tax percentage paid, in many cases by up to 3 times less than a private system such as ours.



Lmao - that's not going to happen. I'm not sure how this ideology works. I mean I understand your argument, but having more people insured, have more people without insurance be able to buy insurance, and having healthier citizens will NOT put us into poverty, if anything it will (as demonstrated in countries with UHC) reduce poverty levels.



Here's a chart of the countries with established UHC
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg

Here are the countries:

Afghanistan*, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq*, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

*Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding

Singapore is unlisted, but I can confirm from a friend living there that they have universal health care. Out of those countries the top ten for quality of life are:

1 Ireland 8.333
2 Switzerland 8.068
3 Norway 8.051
4 Luxembourg 8.015
5 Sweden 7.937
6 Australia 7.925
7 Iceland 7.911
8 Italy 7.810
9 Denmark 7.797
10 Spain 7.727

We pay more than every country there in the percentage of GDP, and we are no healthier for it.

Here is a list of human development, economy, and health:

#1 Norway 0.971 (â–¬)
#2 Australia 0.970 (â–¬)
#3 Iceland 0.969 (â–¬)
#4 Canada 0.966 (â–¬)
#5 Ireland 0.965 (â–¬)
#6 Netherlands 0.964 (â–² 1)
#7 Sweden 0.963 (â–¼ 1)
#8 France 0.961 (â–² 3)
#9 Switzerland 0.960 (â–¬)
#10 Japan 0.960 (â–¬)

Again, the US isn't in the top 10, and every country there has UHC. And they all pay less in their GDP than we do:
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5504Z320090601
Why? Because individuals are covered and pay a minimal amount ensuring that the pool always has money. This also lowers the tax burden on everyone. More people have access to health and therefore can continue working and paying taxes. These countries have less bankruptcy due to health causes and this is a huge effect on economy and debt.

Here are some facts

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm




I don't know what you are. You could be liberal (doubt it) you could be conservative, libertarian, independent or whatever. The argument you bring to the table is misconstrued with false information and reeks of the conservative right-wing lies being perpetuated as of late with the health care debate going on. The only thing those people have to to gain is their profits. They spread lies and false information for a reason. They gain from the system. There are very very few people on the left that oppose UHC, and many of the ones that do oppose one style, but only in favor of another. There is no conspiracy here my friend, but if you think there is, it is only because your information is wrong.



Of course it's not free. My wife's family pays roughly $100 (CA) per quarter (three months) for their Canadian UHC coverage. It comes out of their income through a program that they sign up for. All expenses covered (well maybe a few small things excluded like hospital dinners or the like). My father-in-law just had open back surgery to remove a hemorrhaged disc in his spine. It cost him NOTHING. There wasn't a single transaction made, not a penny, not a dime. He received first class world quality care. My wife and I pay a hell of a lot more through private insurance. And if we needed surgery the costs covered would probably exceed enough to put us into bankruptcy. Luckily duel-citizenship affords us the luxury of traveling to Canada for care, but few are so lucky.



What? I didn't say that. Not sure what you're referencing.



Again more lies. I'm probably not accusing you of lying directly, as I'm almost certain you've heard this elsewhere and are just repeating it here, so that just makes it false information, but the origin of the lie stands. This is just not true, and it won't happen. The doctors will not be paid by the government, nor will they receive reduced pay. If there is any reduction of income among the doctoral profession it will likely come gradually over time, and probably be due to rising supply in the industry. The difference is likely to be negligible and the profession in high demand. Put simply being a doctor will always pay well. The doctors employed currently by privatized hospitals won't be seeing any difference in income.



It's not bad if you're not one of the 40+ million without insurance. ;)

UHC is not the be-all, end-all solution to health problems. Even countries with UHC have problems needing to be worked out, but they're still a hell of a lot better off with it. UHC will not solve all our problems but it is absolutely the best possible thing we can do right now. Personally I am an advocate for a single-payer system. I'd rather see the insurance industry abolished and a government program in place to provide all payments. IMO that would be the best way to achieve UHC and higher quality of life. It sickens me to my stomach that we allow something such as health to be a profit system for the market.. a way for other people to become rich at the expense of our countrymen's lives and health. As a born and raised American I am personally ashamed of it.


----




There is a lot of money being wasted by the system. Any other rationing being made will come from subsidizes to insurance companies, not other people, not other services. Doctors need to be paid well, and they will continue to be.



Totally not true. The American dream is (or used to be?) about getting ahead. Achieving success. The incentive has always been personal motivation. The incentive has only just recently become (in our life times) about trying to survive. We can not survive if we are ailed or injured, unable to work, unable to earn money to afford the ridiculous costs of private insurance. It is ridiculous that anyone thinks people need to be motivated to in order to provide themselves with health. It has never worked. We need to take care of our poor and enable them. Not bribe them with the ability to go to a hospital.





I'd like to see some evidence for this being true, if it is. Most countries with preventative medicine make treatments available and the people are aware of it. It will always reduce irresponsible visits to have a cheaper and more effective treatment earlier for those without insurance than it will to keep them uninsured. The uninsured, if anything at all, would probably be more likely to never go to the hospital at all, unless the conditions have finally forced them in, by that time we are spending a lot more money for things like surgery, or other life saving procedures than by taking care of the problem up front. Not everyone will be responsible but we can assume that a certain portion with coverage will utilize that coverage when symptoms arise.


One of the bills being drafted has a proposed opt-out system that will allow states to choose if they want to participate in the UHC program. This, in my opinion might be very very likely to pass. If it does we will see which states receive any benefits or increase in affordability and health quality. If states choose to opt-out and lose over the course of a few years comparatively their elected officials will either be replaced by the people, or the parties elected will change their platform. I'm for the idea!

Subsidizes is another word for government funded albeit partially. That money comes from taxes. Though you have a point on preventative medicine we don't know how much it'll reduce the cost.



Every bill floating around congress makes a mandate of acquiring health coverage otherwise paying a fine. They would not drop the only method they have for making people get coverage. So it is reasonable to assume it'll be in the final draft.




I see no talk of actually reducing costs. People who are unable to work can't buy into the pool anyways, nor can the majority of the people who are unable to purchase the insurance currently. Which means that people will have to have their coverage subsidized or out right paid for by tax revenue. To include these people into the system you will raise taxes.

"A common myth is that universal government healthcare would be free or cost less than private healthcare. This belief violates several economic principles. First, the money to pay for health professionals, medicines, and facilities has to come from somewhere. If consumers don’t pay for these services directly, they will pay indirectly through higher taxes. Second, as the perceived price decreases, demand will increase. In other words, when people believe that they won’t have to pay for their healthcare, they will use more health services."





There are lies and misinformation on both sides of the debate.





Universal Health Care consolidates too much fiscal power into the hands of the Federal Government. I do not want a politician or some bureaucrat deciding whether or not I get a surgery. Without the incentive mechanism of the free market you get a large burden on the system, lack of innovation to said system,etc. Reducing cost should be the priority, not universal coverage. If we can reduce the cost so that the people who need it most can pay for it then we would all be better off.



What is the incentive for a person to eat healthy if they don't have to see a direct cost such as paying for their medication for diabetes or any medical procedure? UHC reduces incentive to take care of yourself outside the basics. IT causes people to rely on the system rather than themselves. Many Canadians I have spoke with from B.C. to Ontario to Nova Scotia have told me uniformly that the system is abused. People don't take care of themselves as well as they should because they know they won't see any direct cost.

Yes but we are talking taking subsidizes from insurance companies directly. This may or may not involve tax funds as it relates to the corporations (I'm not certain) but it will not be taxes from yours or my wallet. Excuse me.. what I mean to say is that it won't be increased taxes. We already pay roughly (I'm sorry..average per house) 3,000 per year in taxes towarduninsured visits. UHC will lower that cost greatly by providing more money to work with. Isn't that what you want? I want that. I want to pay less in taxes towards health costs. I want those people without coverage to be provided a low (low enough for even the very poor) to pay at least *some* of their own costs. I think we can all agree on that.



That is exactly the situation that is happening right now Fiery. Uninsured visitations ARE included in our tax system and they are a huge strain on government spending and debt. Insurance always seeks to make a profit and insurance from the government is no different principal but will be regulated to support rather than gain. It will not be free but it will be structured to make a return and to pay for it's own expenses like any other insurance. The difference here is that it will be low enough to continue existing as a non-profit organization. Not a corporation. This automatically reduces costs, and provides competition for the private market to lower theirs.




I would like to know who said this. Firstly UHC would not be "free" even countries with UHC do pay for it. The difference is that it's affordable. The money to pay for it will come from coverage as it always does. The difference is that instead of reducing pay to doctors (I'm definitely not for that) the obscene pays of private insurance companies will have to be curbed. I am definitely for that. The argument is sort of a strawman if anything. Demand will definitely increase! And I think that's a wonderful thing. The more job openings for doctors and the more hospitals that can be built because of an increased demand would be great indeed! More health jobs, more professionals, and more hospitals to supply and meet the demand. Sounds great to me.






absolutely.




I don't either. This is rarely an issue with UHC elsewhere. Generally most all conditions and requirements are covered. I don't want private insurance telling me what can or can't be covered however, and a mandate that they be required to cover all conditions is great. I do not fear government interference when it comes to medicine and health.




It's hearsay really. I know many Canadians perfectly happy and content with their system. My wife and family are among them. The argument can go either way but if you look at the numbers it's something ridiculous like..96% of all Canadians are satisfied with it (if I can find the source for that I'll come back and provide it). It doesn't matter if UHC reduces the incentive to take care of yourself. The people without coverage is growing daily and the fact is, none of them are going out and suddenly buying private insurance! When dealing with the populous the intensive factor doesn't work on large groups of people when it comes to affording a hospital visit. That's not what this country is about; poor and middle class families struggling to pay the rich.

Holy fuck, I just lost the reply that took me over half an hour to type because Fakku logged me out...

EDIT: But seems Penguin's got this.

Same goals, different methods and ideologies. I don't trust the government enough to hand over the future of my personal well being. Nor do I like the gun against my head telling me I have to spend money on an insurance policy I don't want/need nor can I afford. I'm already supporting myself and a college student. All the UHC does is increase coverage but, doesn't do a thing to lower costs as I said earlier it acts opposite of economic theory.




No matter how you slice it, I'm paying for it in the end. Either in taxes, indirect costs, etc. You are ignoring whole fields of economic theory to support your claim that it'll reduce costs by increasing expenses (people relying on the system who can't pay for it to begin with). Which will require subsidies on the governments behalf to pay for the insurance policies of those who couldn't afford it to begin with. So you have another cost of trying to insurance the uninsured. While at the same time maintaining the current level of care with the same amount of services. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Economics doesn't support your claim.






Any economist will say that, unless they fell asleep during that section of the class. It was a quote from Examiner.com, while he may be a conservative the economics of his statement hold true. The bold text is textbook economics.




The government is rather involved with UHC in other countries. The examples earlier from England are examples of the government interfering with the health care of it's people.




The problem with people not taking care of themselves means they become a bigger burden on the system. If we add the uninsured who will have to be subsidized by the Federal Government to afford the mandated insurance. That will increase the cost as well. Then we add in every uninsured for pre-existing conditions. That'll require subsidies which further adds to the cost. It makes the healthy pay for the unhealthy. A person taking care of themselves is better for the system than making somebody take care of them.

In closing, I want costs to come down but, making it universal won't help nor will the status quo. We must examine every penny of health care costs and then figure out the who, when, why and how's of each penny.