UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE., just because everyone else does it... |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE., just because everyone else does it... |
Aug 23 2009, 07:14 PM
Post
#1
|
|
in the reverb chamber. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 |
so, why the f*ck don't we have universal healthcare?
|
|
|
Aug 27 2009, 07:16 PM
Post
#2
|
|
the name's mario Group: Official Member Posts: 1,270 Joined: Jun 2008 Member No: 656,520 |
so what is obama's proposition?, i see this crazy shit on the new about the town hall meetings but i don't really now what he is proposing
|
|
|
Aug 28 2009, 08:53 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,574 Joined: Aug 2007 Member No: 555,438 |
so what is obama's proposition?, i see this crazy shit on the new about the town hall meetings but i don't really now what he is proposing He is proposing a government run health care system. It's another 1000+ page bill that barely anyone has read, and is being forced down the throats of congress. Many people are comparing it to Canada's gov't run health care system as they are our neighbors. |
|
|
Aug 28 2009, 03:28 PM
Post
#4
|
|
in the reverb chamber. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 |
He is proposing a government run health care system. It's another 1000+ page bill that barely anyone has read, and is being forced down the throats of congress. Many people are comparing it to Canada's gov't run health care system as they are our neighbors. that's a really misleading and non-descriptive presentation of the obama proposal; the plan is for a public option, designed to compete with the private industry. there is no overhaul of the system in this bill, it merely proposes a government controlled insurance option. the option in question will not even receive, after a start-up, unusual government subsidies. it is simply a public option for insurance, one of which you will purchase (if you choose to use it), much like a private plan. in fact, it will operate almost exactly like a private insurance, it will simply be more efficient (due to decreased administration), and have more affordable/accessible plans (i.e. coverage for persons will pre-existing conditions). the proposal will be paid for by a surtax applied to higher wage earning families--for example, those families making $350,000-500,000 a year will received a 1% surtax. the highest tier earners, those making a million dollars or more a year, will receive a 5.4% surtax. |
|
|
Aug 29 2009, 03:54 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,089 Joined: Dec 2003 Member No: 29 |
|
|
|
Aug 29 2009, 11:29 PM
Post
#6
|
|
in the reverb chamber. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 |
Just like how the post office is more efficient than UPS and FedEx right? 1. in the sense that the public option will get more work done, for less money, it's more efficient; that's what efficiency is. the private industry may be able to provide services @ a marginally faster pace, but, still, @ a great price. 2. the public option will actually run more smoothly than insurance; i mean, have you ever actually dealt with a private insurance agency? for one, the public option will have normalized plans, so all the plans will cover the same procedures, without questions concerning previous conditions, age, current health, etc. etc. private industry, on the other hand, pays much money to deny care to its costumers, this results in a lot of wasted dollars and much bureaucracy. much of that bureaucracy will be eliminated in the private option. 3. you can't argue that the public option will take the private industry out of competition while @ the same time arguing that the public option will provide poor quality care; such an argument is contradictory. notice that, despite the fact that many people us the usps, private industries compete within the same exact market. 4. i've never had a serious problem with the usps. nonetheless, as goes consumer approval, government run programs like medicare and medicaid have higher ratings, in comparison to private insurance providers, considering quality of service. |
|
|
Aug 31 2009, 08:45 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,574 Joined: Aug 2007 Member No: 555,438 |
that's a really misleading and non-descriptive presentation of the obama proposal; the plan is for a public option, designed to compete with the private industry. there is no overhaul of the system in this bill, it merely proposes a government controlled insurance option. the option in question will not even receive, after a start-up, unusual government subsidies. it is simply a public option for insurance, one of which you will purchase (if you choose to use it), much like a private plan. in fact, it will operate almost exactly like a private insurance, it will simply be more efficient (due to decreased administration), and have more affordable/accessible plans (i.e. coverage for persons will pre-existing conditions). the proposal will be paid for by a surtax applied to higher wage earning families--for example, those families making $350,000-500,000 a year will received a 1% surtax. the highest tier earners, those making a million dollars or more a year, will receive a 5.4% surtax. Government options have obvious and unfair competitive advantages over privately own businesses that cause them to go out of business. More jobs will be lost than created. A government option will suffocate private insurance companies. It's laughable to see you suggest that they're more efficient due to decreased administration. Gov't is notorious for having to much administrative staff. I don't support taking from people who work hard for their salary and giving it to those who don't deserve it. 1. in the sense that the public option will get more work done, for less money, it's more efficient; that's what efficiency is. the private industry may be able to provide services @ a marginally faster pace, but, still, @ a great price. LOL The people who want universal healthcare are typically jobless deadbeats or liberal elites who won't even use the system they are advocating (kinda like the hypocrites who tout public education, and then send their kids to elite private schools). Look who's convincing you! If you made 65,000$ a year, a simple procedure could cut that in half without private insurance. So what if you pay a little more insurance premiums. No one complains for the services like fire insurance and home insurance that they pay for that hardly works. Paying a little bit in private insurance does not even compare to a $30,000 procedure you'd have to pay for. I don't think I could have said this better myself. Haha. |
|
|
Sep 1 2009, 04:41 PM
Post
#8
|
|
in the reverb chamber. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 |
Government options have obvious and unfair competitive advantages over privately own businesses that cause them to go out of business. More jobs will be lost than created. A government option will suffocate private insurance companies. It's laughable to see you suggest that they're more efficient due to decreased administration. Gov't is notorious for having to much administrative staff. you can't have your cake and eat it too. either the government option is awesome, and the private industry won't be able to compete. or it sucks, and the private industry will be able to compete. you can't have the government option suck balls and then put the private industry out of business. secondly, the government option will have NO UNUSUAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AFTER INITIAL START-UP! IT WILL OPERATE ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE A PRIVATE INSURANCE FIRM. read the f*cking thread, educate yourself. lastly, WE HAVE THE MOST f*ckING EXPENSIVE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT RUN SYSTEMS ARE CHEAPER (I.E. MORE EFFICIENT) AND MOST HAVE EQUITABLE OR GREATER QUALITY RATINGS (ACCORDING TO THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION) THAN THE U.S.A. I don't support taking from people who work hard for their salary and giving it to those who don't deserve it. wait, sort of like significantly paying people less than the value of a product that THEY produce? not to mention, SOME PEOPLE CAN'T f*ckING AFFORD INSURANCE YOU f*ckING DICK HEAD! THE SHIT IS EXPENSIVE! THAT'S THE f*ckING PROBLEM! even worse, SOME PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN f*ckING GET IT EVEN IF THEY f*ckING WANTED TO BECAUSE THEY WERE f*ckING BORN WITH CANCER OR ARE DECLARED TO HAVE A "PRE-EXISTING CONDITION!" are you f*cking telling me that people who are born with ailments don't "deserve" healthcare? death panels much? |
|
|
Sep 10 2009, 04:07 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,089 Joined: Dec 2003 Member No: 29 |
you can't have your cake and eat it too. either the government option is awesome, and the private industry won't be able to compete. or it sucks, and the private industry will be able to compete. you can't have the government option suck balls and then put the private industry out of business. You completely ignored my point about the government granted monopoly that allows USPS's shitty service to continue. QUOTE secondly, the government option will have NO UNUSUAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AFTER INITIAL START-UP! IT WILL OPERATE ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE A PRIVATE INSURANCE FIRM. read the f*cking thread, educate yourself. So why is the government option necessary in the first place if it's just going to be like a private insurance firm? Either you're not telling the whole story, or you're lying. QUOTE are you f*cking telling me that people who are born with ailments don't "deserve" healthcare? death panels much? No one is entitled to health care. to be as perfectly clear as i can be: MANY SYSTEMS OUT-PERFORM AMERICA'S and WE PAY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE FOR HEALTH CARE. And to be perfectly clear, I have stated several times that I am not opposed to healthcare reform. Just not the kind of healthcare reform you want. |
|
|
Sep 15 2009, 09:45 AM
Post
#10
|
|
(′ ・ω・`) Group: Official Designer Posts: 6,179 Joined: Dec 2004 Member No: 72,477 |
|
|
|
Sep 15 2009, 10:21 AM
Post
#11
|
|
Tick tock, Bill Group: Administrator Posts: 8,764 Joined: Dec 2005 Member No: 333,948 |
then that sucks. what if youre too poor? Or chronically ill and uninsurable.I think that no matter what side you may be on, regarding Universal VS Private, Universal + Private, most people would agree that the health care system in general is in dire need of a makeover. Preventative care is absolutely essential, and something that is severely lacking in the current overall health care system. |
|
|