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?
|
|
|
Nov 30 2009, 04:45 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,089 Joined: Dec 2003 Member No: 29 |
No you don't, you merely parrot off the same things over and over again. And when people don't buy your bullshit, you repeat it in capital letters. The only bad jokes are the incoherent rants that you call your argument.
QUOTE what you continuously refuse is the fact that socialized medicine outperforms private medicine all over the world & even in america. CONSUMER SERVICE SATISFACTION IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID THAN IN COMPARISON TO PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. And what you continuously ignore is the fact that they're unsustainable. If I had the ability to borrow basically unlimited amounts of money/print money out of thin air/forcibly take money from the most productive members of society, I bet I could beat medicare/medicaid in customer satisfaction. The country would implode, but at least we'd have universal healthcare before that happen s, and that's all the matters, right? QUOTE p.s. what does the size of population have to do with anything? Try the same scheme in China. How's their healthcare system compared to the US? QUOTE p.p.s. we need to put more money into systems that are not adequately funded; it's no different than paying the highest prices in the world for mediocre healthcare. I love how you keep talking shit about our quality of care when people from countries which supposedly have world class healthcare systems come to the US for treatment. I think most people agree that the quality of US healthcare is world class; the problem is availability of that care. Allowing the free market to work means lower prices, more efficiency and greater availability. QUOTE p.p.p.s. what inefficiencies & higher costs do government regulations contribute? how are these related to the inefficiencies and high costs of our private industries? Barriers to competition artificially lower the supply of things like doctors and drugs. Lower supply leads to higher prices. QUOTE p.p.p.p.s. how many people have the tobacco industry killed? how long have they been trying to hide the fact that their product kills? how have they designed it to addict people? and it's all legal! & cost efficient! wow, capitalism is so cool! because efficiency & profit are more important THAN f*ckING ANYTHING?!?!?! right. Because someone choosing to smoke tobacco out of their own free will is just as wrong as the government putting a bullet in their brain, right? Unbelievable. QUOTE p.p.p.p.p.s. explain EXACTLY how deregulation would fix healthcare in america. See above. Removing artificial barriers for competition leads to greater availability and lower prices. |
|
|
Nov 30 2009, 08:35 PM
Post
#3
|
|
in the reverb chamber. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 |
And what you continuously ignore is the fact that they're unsustainable. If I had the ability to borrow basically unlimited amounts of money/print money out of thin air/forcibly take money from the most productive members of society, I bet I could beat medicare/medicaid in customer satisfaction. IT STILL OUTPERFORMS PRIVATE INDUSTRY! so, if we want good healthcare, tax people as much as we need in order to have it. i haven't ignored the fact that it costs money, i have continuously addressed that: tax people! you, on the other hand, completely ignore the fact that it works better than private insurance; people like it more than private insurance. what we need is healthcare that works, &, ultimately, the cost of socialized medicine is LOWER than that of PRIVATE medicine. so, your entire problem is with taxation? notice how i'm arguing for the best healthcare for everyone, & you're arguing against taxation? notice how this isn't a thread about the moral quality of taxation? The country would implode, but at least we'd have universal healthcare before that happen s, and that's all the matters, right? like france and germany imploded? talk about alarmist bullshit. you sound like f*cking glen beck. go read a book you moron. Try the same scheme in China. How's their healthcare system compared to the US? i have no f*cking clue, i'm not an expert on chinese healthcare. are you? how about you stop ignoring my question and answer it: what EXACTLY does population have to do with it? why does universal healthcare work so well in germany and france? why would a similar system not work here in the states? give me some details, please. Barriers to competition artificially lower the supply of things like doctors and drugs. Lower supply leads to higher prices. exactly what barriers to competition exist that are contributing to such high costs? explain exactly what would happen if we removed said barriers & exactly how that would work. |
|
|
Dec 1 2009, 05:58 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,089 Joined: Dec 2003 Member No: 29 |
IT STILL OUTPERFORMS PRIVATE INDUSTRY! so, if we want good healthcare, tax people as much as we need in order to have it. i haven't ignored the fact that it costs money, i have continuously addressed that: tax people! you, on the other hand, completely ignore the fact that it works better than private insurance; people like it more than private insurance. what we need is healthcare that works, &, ultimately, the cost of socialized medicine is LOWER than that of PRIVATE medicine. so, your entire problem is with taxation? notice how i'm arguing for the best healthcare for everyone, & you're arguing against taxation? 1) Raise taxes, and people will leave/hide their income, leaving your shitty system horribly underfunded. 2) Giving medicare more funding does not solve the problem of higher costs. You don't stop a leaky bucket by pouring more water into it. I don't understand how you can complain that Americans spend too much on healthcare, and then follow this up by saying that we need to raise taxes so that we can spend even more than we already do. Which is it, do we spend too much, or are we not spending enough? 3) The reason medicare can lower their costs is because they are subsidized by the private industry. I worked in the billing department of a dialysis laboratory. Medical tests charged to medicare cost pennies on the dollar. The lab made up this difference by overcharging private insurance. Eliminating the private insurers means there will be no one left to subsidize medicare payments, and you'll see costs RISE. QUOTE notice how this isn't a thread about the moral quality of taxation? Read your first post again. You want to fund your scheme by forcibly taking money from the most productive members of society. I am simply commenting that this is not only wrong, but counterproductive to your goal. QUOTE like france and germany imploded? talk about alarmist bullshit. you sound like f*cking glen beck. go read a book you moron. You sound like Michael Moore. French system is going bankrupt. Germany is the #2 creditor nation in the world. Guess where the United States is. They can afford to do things like that. We cannot. I don't know why you simply cannot understand that what works (or appears to work) for one country might not work for another. It's not as if the only variable involved is the type of healthcare system each country is using. QUOTE i have no f*cking clue, i'm not an expert on chinese healthcare. are you? how about you stop ignoring my question and answer it: what EXACTLY does population have to do with it? why does universal healthcare work so well in germany and france? why would a similar system not work here in the states? give me some details, please. Yet you seem oh so eager to share statistics about France and Germany. Might it be possible that you're only selectively choosing statistics (such as the horribly biased WHO rankings) that support your argument? Nah, couldn't be! I'd figure you'd have enough common sense to figure this out, but since you seem to be denser than lead, I guess I'll spell it out for you: Universal Healthcare is MUCH easier to implement in a smaller population than a large one. It's a lot easier to cover 30 Million people than extending coverage to 300 million, let alone 1.3 Billion. QUOTE exactly what barriers to competition exist that are contributing to such high costs? explain exactly what would happen if we removed said barriers & exactly how that would work. Remove government enforced licensing for medical practice and replace it with voluntary licensing. The supply of healthcare professionals now increases, eliminating employee shortages which lead to high costs. Get rid of the FDA, so that more cures and treatments can come to the market, allow the import of foreign/generic drugs, etc. Decrease regulations for the insurance industry. Allow insurance to compete across state lines (seriously, what is the reason for banning this in the first place? The only people it helps are the insurance companies). |
|
|