Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Apples to apples, or apples to oranges?

Another question got me thinking. There are some people that believe that UHC is the way to go, but they detest the treatment our vets are getting in our veteran hospitals. I am wondering, does everyone realize that this is the health care we will get under UHC? Are you willing to set your standards so low that you lose your choice of Dr. and treatments? Obviously, this isn't an issue for those who don't have insurance, as I am sure they will be happy with anything they don't have to pay out of pocket for.

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 9:02 AM on Mar. 30, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (33)
  • Medicare is also a form of UHC. It is so limitted that people can't even stay in nursing homes and are sent home to die (I am a nursing home Social Worker). It is 100 times easier to get coverage for someone that has private insurance than it is for me to beg Medicare, Nursing Home Medicaid and other government insurances for more coverage for my residents. Medicaid KNOWS their clients can't afford anything different, at least a private insurance is concerned about customer service.

    I do not want the government having access to my health information. I do not want them deciding what medicines I should be on, what treatments I should have and what doctors I can see. I do not want them deciding if I should live or die. UHC works in other countries but it will not (and already does not) work in America. We're too diverse, our individual state governments are too different and our deficit is already outrageous.
    NovemberLove

    Answer by NovemberLove at 12:19 PM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • We would be absolutely stupid to consider UHC. Itll be terrible for our doctors, patients and tax payers. We do not have a suitable economy to even consider this.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:08 AM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • Do you ladies not realize that people without insurance get the best of care? All they have to do is show up at a hospital emergency room? They come to the ER with post-nasal drips, colds, rashes, scrapes and minor burns, all things that could be cared for at less cost at a doctor's office, but they don't need to worry because they never pay anyway. The hospital CAN'T refuse to treat them by law.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:11 AM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • I think there needs to be some sort of health care reform, to be sure.


    However, I don't support UHC, I think it's a terrible road for our country to do down. The sheer number of our population tells me that this won't work for us and that it will help bankrupt us faster than any of his other ideas.  JMO.

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 9:14 AM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • UHC is a disaster waiting to happen.

    Even Daniel Hannon (a member of European Parliament) tried to warn America against universal health care. I'm sorry, but when you have other countries who currently practice socialized health care saying that it's a bad idea, well that should tell you something.
    sw33t_blond3

    Answer by sw33t_blond3 at 9:21 AM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • I agree op.That is true anon.They cannot be refused.That is why I do not understand people thinking any are.My family has been without insurance before and never not even once were any of us refused care at a hospital.One of the problems is usually those patients are offered a payment plan to pay their bill but alot choose to just walk out and never pay a dime.
    I have had payments plans that were as low as 20 dollars a week.Unfortunately,I think we now have too many Americans that just do not want to pay period.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:23 AM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • UHC is for people who don't have any kind of insurance. When you have your private insurance ,YOU CAN KEEP THAT. We can't compare how UHC works in other countries and how we think it would work in U.S. it SEEMS TO WORKS JUST FINE IN Massachusetts.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:40 AM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • I'm sorry, no offense to you anon :40, but I don't want to pay for my health care AND yours. Thanks but no thanks.
    sw33t_blond3

    Answer by sw33t_blond3 at 9:42 AM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • Obviously, this isn't an issue for those who don't have insurance, as I am sure they will be happy with anything they don't have to pay out of pocket for


     ASSume much.  I have no health insurance and I'm not in favor of UHC.   

    PestPatti

    Answer by PestPatti at 9:42 AM on Mar. 30, 2009

  • U.S. it SEEMS TO WORKS JUST FINE IN Massachusetts.


    The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.


     In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls. As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.


     I guess its not as glowing in Massachusetts as some believe.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:52 AM on Mar. 30, 2009