I've deliberatley been ignoring US politics

[Dinner]

A solid plurality of Americans actually support the actual health care reform bill, 49%, while 40% oppose it. The reasons for the opposition are many and varied with around 10% of the 40% objecting because it doesn't go far enough and they want either a medicare like public option or full on NHS single payer. The other 30% are the old Bush 30%; that is the 30% of the population who continued to support George W. Bush's policies right up to the very end. In other words, the drooling idiots.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's definitely in my long term interests to have free at point of use healthcare as I get older. And for any kids I might have... and for any young person here it's also in their interests to maintain the system for the same reason.

The system is going to collapse under the weight of the baby boomers. You're giving up current income (and therefore future wealth) to maintain a system that most likely won't be there when you finally get old enough to need it.

If by being better prepared you mean more willing to drop old people the I guess you have a point.

America has had socialized Medicare for the elderly since the 60's, you idiot. It's the single biggest fiscal drain in the entire U.S. federal budget.

[dannubis]

And that has to do what with what you said in your post? Really get your head out of your ass. Moron.

[Drake Tungsten]

It has everything to do with what I said in my post, you ******. Medicare was already a looming fiscal debacle for the United States, but there existed relatively painless cuts in the program that could be used to shore up its fiscal sustainability. Those cuts have just been used to fund a new healthcare entitlement, however, which has made America's fiscal outlook far worse than it was a week ago.

[Riesstiu IV]

My solution:

1. Kill all baby boomers to reduce healthcare costs and the unemployment rate.

2. Give UHC to those who deserve it, working people aged 18 to 50.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's an inspired solution.

[MikeH]

The system is going to collapse under the weight of the baby boomers. You're giving up current income (and therefore future wealth) to maintain a system that most likely won't be there when you finally get old enough to need it.

I have asthma so it's useful to me all my life.

[Jon Miller]

My brother, who is very healthy, has had issues due to lack of health care. His (soon to be ex-) wife had a seizure, and that cost them a lot of money (they have been permanently in debt/etc). He had an accident while doing bike riding and now has a plate in his hand (and couldn't work for that summer). His hand is a bit messed up permanently, it might be less so if it had been treated better (it was a struggle to get it treated).

Young people need health care too. Old people are already getting healthcare from medicaid/etc.

JM

[MikeH]

It shocks me when I hear people in the US with good jobs (equivalent to mine, web design or something) umming and ahing about going to the doctor because of limits to the number of free visits they get or excesses or whatever. You don't have to think about going to the doctor, you just go when you need to. Anything else is a totally **** system.

[Zevico]

Afaik, the strength of the public health care argument is as follows:
1) Preventative health is the highest priority. That is, ensuring that a person has the opportunity to be diagnosed with a disease (or warning signs that may lead to it) is more cost-effective than investing in the treatment of the disease. In this way a person can adopt healthier ways of living. For example, in Australia, doctors run private practices, charge patients, but the patients receive a rebate that usually covers the entire doctor's fee (up to a set amount). This is called "bulk billing." The same principle applies to visits to an optometrist to get one's eyes checked, or check ups at the dentist. Frankly, the logic is that if people leave something to the last minute, end up getting diagnosed with something big, and lose substantial working hours as a result (not to mention time spent by their families caring for them), the average worker's overall contribution to the economy will increase the highest (relative to paying for e.g. paying for the most specialised treatments) if the check ups are paid up regularly.

Another aspect of preventative health is not related to the public health care debate at all--it relates to changing dietary habits among the public. This means cutting down on all those sugary cereals, salty foods and etc via education directed towards parents.

The importance of each aspect of the health system, other than preventative health, follows in decreasing priority as treatments become more specialised and expensive (and usually for patients with the worst prospects). All that having been said, I don't have a specialised knowledge of this subject--perhaps I am wrong about this.

[Drake Tungsten]

You don't have to think about going to the doctor, you just go when you need to.

Flawed incentives in action.

Young people need health care too.

Yes, but they don't need the comprehensive prepaid medical plans that they're going to buy in America. The vast majority of young Americans would be better off with insurance for catastrophic medical events only, paying for routine medical expenses out of pocket.

[Kidlicious]

I'm sure, to you, incentives are more important than going to the doctor.

[Drake Tungsten]

Incentives are extremely important.

[Kidlicious]

More important than your health?

[Drake Tungsten]

For society, yes.