WebMD Community Talk Show

Read the Constitution.
The Federal government's authority begins and ends there. Healthcare is WAY outside its realm of authority.

NO!!

I basically agree with edwhug. At the present time I am paying for myself and for those who don't have insurance as well! And I don't believe that we can possibly say " You don't have insurance? Sorry, we're not going to treat you!" We are, however, still faced with the dilemma that we don't know how to reduce the overall cost of medical care without compromising quality. Talk is cheap and there is lots of it around! I do have a small suggestion that perhaps this forum can comment on. Since there is some resistance to charging people with poor living habits (overeating, smoking, for example) a surcharge for doing so, we instead extend a reduction in cost to those who follow a healthy lifestyle. Some plans may already do this.

No. The federal government should not require anyone to have healthcare. The federal government needs to stay out individuals personnel decisions on where and how they spend their income.

Given that hospitals cannot, by law, refuse treatment to the uninsured, I don't see how individuals can be allowed to opt out of coverage. Those who do still get treatment, subsidized by you and me.
When you get treated in the emergency room and don't pay (way too many don't), the hospital doesn't just eat those losses. They recoup them by increasing the cost of the hospital's services accross the board and pass the increases along to Medicare, Medicaid, other public assistance programsand medical insurance companies, who in turn pass them along to tax payers and policy holders. If you have medical insurance, you get a double whammy!
Triple whammy actually, because the uninsured often forgo even inexpensive preventative treatments and management of chronic health problems until they have serious, expensive -to-treat ilnesses. An example would be early diagnosis and treatment of diabetes to prevent amputations and kidney failure, both extremely costly complications.
For those who truly cannot afford insurance, increasing the risk pool would help drop the cost of a policy to an affordable range, and for those who truly can't afford it, I'd much rather be subsidizing policy payments that enable them to receive less costly preventative care and management of chronic diseases. And avoidance of the more costly medical care can contribute to helping put rising medical costs under control by reducing unreimbursed emergency care.
I fully support mandatory healthcare coverage, with fines for those who don't comply the same way I support mandatory auto insurance. The uninsured harm us all.

It seems to me that whenever there is something would help people who are less fortunate, there is a huge outcry not to help the less fortunate. Worse, the outcry can come from people in the same financial situation and from those who have more.

(Does everyone know that there are companies whose profits are in the billions but receive government subsidies? Does anyone say something about that?)

Healthcare and Education, including college and advanced degrees should be free. Housing shouldn't be more than a third of one's income.

There was a time that I paid for health insurance and medication out of pocket. I was paying at least $1500 American dollars a month--That was almost 20 years ago--I can't imagine what it is now.

If there is to be any control of escaling healthcare costs it makes sense that everyone should have health insurance coverage. One of the main reasons that medical costs are high is cost shifting, passing the costs of the uninsured that are unable to pay onto those with insurance.

The Affordable Health Care Act is a great start and I strongly support it.

The provisions that go into effect on August 1st will also lower costs. These provisions require all preventative treatments like pap tests, PSA tests, vaccinations,contraceptives, etc. to be covered without co-pays.

The state established healthcare exchanges will lower costs for those without coverage.

For the system to work for the benefit of all we must all have coverage and there are also tax credits to help offset the costs for low income uninsured individuals.

Congratulations to all of you who have health insurance and have been blessed to have companies who offer it and may even pay for part, if not all of it.

That is not the case with thousands of companies and millions of people who dont have insurance.

If the government wants to mandate, why not start with making each company offer health insurance at a reasonable rate? Without using the excuse that a company is too small. Clump those companies into one group under a particular health provider, that should make the insurance the companies offer very reasonable.

I think it is wrong, and against the Constitution to make all citizens purchase something from the private sector. The government makes all taxpayers pay for national defense, federal worker salaries, infastructure, etc, via taxes, but they are grossly overstepping their bounds. I think that everyone deserves affordable health care, but making us all purchase insurance isn't the answer. If anything, the government should be doing more to regulate the insurance industry to make it more affordable for everyone down through minimum wage workers, and also work to make it more difficult for insurers to drop people when they have a health issue, get rid of pre-existing condition exclusions, and regulate what must be covered on every basic policy. I really believe that most people would carry health insurance if they could afford it comfortably, but the problem is that they can't. Either their employers don't offer benefits, or the premiums that they would have to pay, even for employer offered coverage would make it impossible for them to pay for basic needs such as food, electricity, shelter, etc. I am fortunate enough to have coverage, and a decent job, but until my DH re-entered the work force, I struggled to pay the deductibles and co-pays for our coverage. I had dental and vision, but we had to pay out of pocket, and then submit for reimbursement. I often didn't have that much money sitting around to go to the dentist or eye doctor, but kept the coverage in case of a catastrophic emergency. Insurance prices keep going up, but covering less, so no wonder so many Americans are struggling.

No. The government should not. It is unconstitutional.

I know not all doctors are rich, my doc works hard and serves the poor and wealthy with the same care. He has huge insurances to pay (Just to be a doctor) and a staff and a builiding to care for. I think you may be a little on the judgemental side about doctors. They work hard and have HIGH costs in expenses to pay. Also if you think it is bad to be uninsured, I know the pain I've been there, look up the death rates in Europe for Breast Cancer where there is Universial coverage. Sorry you feel so cheated - but all those in favor of this "Mandatory" Health Care coverage are going to cheat me out of life.

I will be cut off because I cost too much. And ya I have looked up the effectiveness of Universal health care coverage the results are always disaters.

Yup I agree, it also an attack on the Health on the Nation

"look up the death rates in Europe for Breast Cancer where there is Universial coverage"

That makes no sense whatsoever. Not only do breast cancer figures vary wildly depending on the country but not all european countries have universal coverage - and some have excellent health systems.

To the original question:

Reluctantly, yes, I believe there should be universal health care in these United States. Whether or not it is unconstitutional, the fiscal well-being of every citizen is at stake.

I say that because while there would still be enough corruption and greed to fill the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, it would put a clamp on the current outrageous profit motive.

It would be far, FAR, better if there was NO health insurance and every employee had a mandatory payroll deduction. 10%? That money to be deposited in the bank of choice having withdrawals ONLY allowed for medical bills. Individuals would shop for the provider of their choice, at the best price they could find.

Pay their bills when receiving service with no further paperwork or hassle.

But, with the powerful insurance lobbies, that has no chance of happening.

To cross-pollinate, I started a thread on this on another site:

https://www.inspire.com/groups/talk-psoriasis/discussion/firestarter/

If interested, my handle there is Hawkeye249

Apology in advance because I copy/pasted some of my posts in another thread on this site to that one.

I agree...but lets be honest, the government hasnt abided by the constitution for a long long time now.

No, I don't think the government should have that right. They don't really care about our health anyway, just the money they'll get out of it.