Elephant-Donkey

The Face Off ended in a tie.

Tyler Cole vs MorgMcA

Face Offs: 5
Wins: 3
Losses: 0
Ties: 2
No City, XX
All Face Offs

Votes

Face Offs: 25
Wins: 13
Losses: 10
Ties: 2
Seattle, WA
All Face Offs

Votes

Universal Health Care(UHC) is realistic in America.

Tyler Cole said 04/27, 11:02 PM
Let me start by touching base with the reasons many Americans don't want UHC.

1) |UHC Would be too expensive for everyone to afford with taxes.| The average cost of health insurance per person per year is 7600 dollars. For a couple that is 15200 dollars a year. The average income of an American Citizen is 45000 dollars. That means that 30% of your income a year goes to health insurance. To say that taxes would raise by 30% (Not to 30%) is completley unrealistic in any scenario.

2) |The financial burden on America would be too great.| First off, by switching to a single health care provider run by the government (UHC) it would save almost 300 billion dollars a year on paper work and overhead alone. Not to mention cutting out the middle man in insurance companies. Hundreds of billions would be saved, hence it wouldn't financially burden America.

3) |Itrusion of privacy by government| To say that the government will overview the 100 million + procedures that go on each year. And that they will before hand tell you what you can and can not have or do in a hospital (by do i mean surgery) is completley unrealistic. There will be very minimal intrusion of privacy from governme

MorgMcA said 04/29, 01:00 AM
The current health care crisis is not created by the lack of government intervention, but rather too much of it
Before WWII the Health Care (HC) system was one where people had a direct say in their insurance. When the economy boomed again during the war, employers were seeking to attract the best talent and to do that they increased wages. The government was the principal buyer of many of these industries and in order to increase efficiency, issued a wage cap. in order to allow business to compete in the labor market however they artificially jacked up the price of insurance and suggested that business attract talent thru benefits
Rather than place my HC in the hands of a highly bureaucratic agency, I'd rather they simply took away the artificial price increase. that would save us money, increase the fluidity of money, thus economic growth and more money taxed in the end
You cannot tell me that government isn't going to be highly invovled in my choice to get a frivolous CATscan
If government were to subsidize HC that would create a HC shortage as so many people would go to get HC that we would have to effectively "ration" HC, not enough time for everyone, not enough supplies

Tyler Cole said 04/29, 08:30 PM
Regardless of the price, insurance companies will still be looking for a way out of paying. They get MORE money, and yet still look for ways to weasle out of paying. Now just imagine if people where paying less money. That would not only be devastating to health insurance companies, But the effect of them trying to not pay you will increase dramaticly. Overall if the artifical price increase where to cease, and the insurance companies made less money. Care would go down dramatically. More people would have insurance, but it would increase the amount of inderinsured people. We may get more people into the system by decreasing the prices, but more people will go bankrupt. People will still be paying thousands upon thousands for what they are not insured by or the insurance company says no to this or that. Health care would drop so drastically we migth as well not have it. If everyone was to pay 15% of thier pay to taxes for UHC, that would be about 1.5 trillion dollars a year for health care. Undere UHC everone would be treated and no one would go bankrupt after having cancer or some chronic dieseace. Imagine having cancer, and just becuase you had to go through that also go bankrupt

MorgMcA said 04/29, 09:51 PM
I think you misunderstand, the price hike didn't increase the amount of profit for the insurance companies, it simply made it cost more. eliminating the hike wouldn't affect the bottom line of insurers, in fact it may allow them to make more money as it would take a little time for the market to adjust to the new cost and demand.
everyone's bottom line would stay the same except the government who instated the hike in the first place. thus care would remain the same, just more affordable, and most importantly individuals would be in charge of their health care, not some bundled package from DC.
On the other hand if we subsidized or socialized health care, then the quality of care would decrease as doctors would be paid a standard rate and effectively paid less. there would be less incentive for people to take costly training to become qualified in the medical field. fewer doctors means less attention paid per person and worse care.
People will still have to pay out of pocket for what the government won't pay for.
A 15% tax hike could put many uninsured people out of their homes, making them more suseptible to disease, and in effect harm the very people it is supposed to help

Tyler Cole said 04/29, 10:37 PM
Let me run some numbers by you, these are all real numbers. Just not sure if it applies but about 78% sure it does. The average american household income is 45000 a year. The average cost of health insurance per person per year is 7500 dollars. That means a couple would be paying 30% of thier pay a year on health insurance. If they paid only 15% and everyone was included. That means all the pay goes to one person. 15% of 200 million people with average of 45000 dollars income is 1.26 trillion dollars a year towards uhc. Even if you lower that to 150 million people with jobs paying 20% (Still not 30%) that is 1.35 trillion dollars a year to go to health care and paying of doctors. There is 800000 doctors in america as of 07. The average pay of a doctor per year is 95000 dollars. That means 800000 x 95000. that is 760 billion dollars a year towards pay. Give or take 100 billion. Putting HC under a single payer system would save 300 billion dollars a year on overhead and paperwork. That means there is about 800 billion to 1 trillion dollars a year for medical supplies and equipment. That is more than enough for the whole of america. And everyone is fully covered.

MorgMcA said 05/04, 05:10 PM
Those are great numbers, and if it weren't for the bureaucratic mess the government can make of business' i might believe it, but let's just take them at face value.
The problem that the Dem's are trying to fix isn't the high cost of health care for the middle class, it is the lack of health care for the poor man. so those numbers you just quoted look great for the middle class, however let's look at the poor man's perspective.
the poor man makes drastically less than 45k a year, i personally know many who make less than half of that. these people live paycheck to paycheck and have none left over for savings, over half of their paycheck goes to rent alone. These people have a home to pay for and children to feed, this 15% hike would take away alot of money that they need to pay for such thing. for example i know someone who rents a home for 1.1k a month has children to feed and makes around 20k. he pays 13.2k a year on rent alone. leaving 6.8k for food, clothing, utilities, gas, vechicle repairs and so forth. raise taxes 15% and that will leave him with 4.7k and that isnt going to feed him and his family for a year. this plan hurts most the very people it is supposed to help most