Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

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.

Debate.

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE., just because everyone else does it...
Rating 4 V
kryogenix
post Sep 10 2009, 04:07 PM
Post #51


Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Dec 2003
Member No: 29



QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 1 2009, 05:41 PM) *
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.

QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 4 2009, 04:08 AM) *
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.
 
Uronacid
post Sep 14 2009, 03:39 PM
Post #52


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(IamLegend @ Sep 4 2009, 11:45 PM) *
I'm aware of this and I agree.
Of course it doesn't bother me that people do things for money. I understand that concept, but when it comes to my health and well being, I think I have every right to be concerned about who I'm putting my trust in. When you're putting someone's life on the line, if you're going into the medical field you shouldn't just be in it for the money. Do you honestly think the best doctors are the ones who got in it for the money or the ones who actually have the passion for it? Sometimes the doctors don't know anymore than the person they're supposed to help. Point and case ( This happened to a relative of mine):

*Doctor prescribes pills
*Paitent doesn't feel good taking the pills but the doctor insists that it's just a side effect, no harm will be done*
*Patient refuses, goes to another doctor
*A year later, major recall on the pills, because they cause heart attack, blood clots, stroke, and even death

So tell me who knew more in this situation? The patient or the intelligent doctor who has a degree? But you don't think I should be concerned when this happens all too often?


I disagree with this. Again, this comes back to the point Holly was trying to make by saying that doctors are people too. In the same way that there are corrupt police, there are corrupt doctors too. You can't avoid human nature. You're concerned with something that cannot be changed by private or public health care. You need to shop around. Take it upon yourself to weed out the good doctors from the bad ones.
 
NoSex
post Sep 14 2009, 10:25 PM
Post #53


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 14 2009, 03:39 PM) *
You're concerned with something that cannot be changed by private or public health care.


that's where you're wrong:
government regulation can give incentives towards preventative medicine, progressive medicine, and positive health. in a public system, we can pay a doctor more the less he sees his patients, not the other way around. we can pay a doctor for encouraging his patients to quit smoking, or to get a breast exam, etc. etc.

lastly, not everyone thinks that everyone is an evil corrupt bastard. i believe that society can help to make nicer more compassionate people; i think capitalism has done the exact opposite.
 
Uronacid
post Sep 15 2009, 09:17 AM
Post #54


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 14 2009, 11:25 PM) *
that's where you're wrong:
government regulation can give incentives towards preventative medicine, progressive medicine, and positive health. in a public system, we can pay a doctor more the less he sees his patients, not the other way around. we can pay a doctor for encouraging his patients to quit smoking, or to get a breast exam, etc. etc.

lastly, not everyone thinks that everyone is an evil corrupt bastard. i believe that society can help to make nicer more compassionate people; i think capitalism has done the exact opposite.


Insurance companies encourage patients to have preventative procedures done by lowering their insurance rates. I like that system because it places the responsibility upon the individual who is seeking better health and lower insurance rates. Taking care of yourself is the best answer to preventative medicine.

You're living a lie Nate. There will always be evil spirited/mean people who take advantage of others. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that the majority of doctors are bad doctors either. I'm keeping an open mind and stating that it's possible that corrupt doctors do exist just as there are corrupt journalists, police, and politicians. I don't believe than any government will change that.
 
datass
post Sep 15 2009, 09:45 AM
Post #55


(′ ・ω・`)
*******

Group: Official Designer
Posts: 6,179
Joined: Dec 2004
Member No: 72,477



QUOTE(kryogenix @ Sep 11 2009, 05:07 AM) *
No one is entitled to health care.

then that sucks. what if youre too poor?
 
superstitious
post Sep 15 2009, 10:21 AM
Post #56


Tick tock, Bill
*******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 8,764
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 333,948



QUOTE(doughnut @ Sep 15 2009, 09:45 AM) *
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.
 
mipadi
post Sep 15 2009, 10:27 AM
Post #57


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(superstitious @ Sep 15 2009, 11:21 AM) *
Preventative care is absolutely essential, and something that is severely lacking in the current overall health care system.


Do you think that encouraging preventative care is feasible with our current system? Right now, the health care industry in general makes money when people are sick, not when they're healthy. I think there is some merit in the idea that a government-run system could push for preventative care and thus save money in the long run. While industry is interested in making money, people are interested in saving money; and insofar as the government acts on behalf of the people (theoretically), it, too, is interested in saving, rather than spending, money.

And to be honest, the "uninsurable" is probably the group that worries me the most. I don't think anyone should be denied insurance or health care because they have a chronic disease.
 
superstitious
post Sep 15 2009, 10:59 AM
Post #58


Tick tock, Bill
*******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 8,764
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 333,948



QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 15 2009, 10:27 AM) *
Do you think that encouraging preventative care is feasible with our current system? Right now, the health care industry in general makes money when people are sick, not when they're healthy. I think there is some merit in the idea that a government-run system could push for preventative care and thus save money in the long run. While industry is interested in making money, people are interested in saving money; and insofar as the government acts on behalf of the people (theoretically), it, too, is interested in saving, rather than spending, money.

And to be honest, the "uninsurable" is probably the group that worries me the most. I don't think anyone should be denied insurance or health care because they have a chronic disease.
Feasible? I do. Preventative care is already encouraged, especially in Primary Care and Internal Medicine physician offices. Of course, a major shift from now (bandaid) care to preventative care in the general sense would be/will be a very long and challenging process. An entire shifting of thought and responsibility would occur, much of it on the patient level. I don’t mean to generalize, but it appears that many people want to have their cake and eat it too. Meaning, people want their McDonalds and fries, smoke a cigarette and drink margaritas and sit on the couch watching TV only to later complain about their health costs being too high. Health takes effort.

The industry also loses a lot of money on sick patients, especially hospitals.

The private clinics might fear losing money with a potential government run system, but here’s the thing. They’re already being low-balled by Medicare and particularly, Medicaid. They’re also being heavily scrutinized by private health care insurances who will often make them run through hoops to get reimbursement. Most of the time a physician makes a lot of money is when the patient is paying most of the FFS (fee for service) costs. Those instances are pretty limited to cosmetic and high risk surgeries though.

I’ll write more later (silly work).
 
NoSex
post Sep 15 2009, 12:32 PM
Post #59


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 15 2009, 09:17 AM) *
Insurance companies encourage patients to have preventative procedures done by lowering their insurance rates. I like that system because it places the responsibility upon the individual who is seeking better health and lower insurance rates. Taking care of yourself is the best answer to preventative medicine.


there are more aggressive, wider campaigns that a government run system could institute.

QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 15 2009, 09:17 AM) *
You're living a lie Nate. There will always be evil spirited/mean people who take advantage of others.


when the f*ck did i ever say that there will never be a mean or evil person again? i just said that i don't think everyone is like that, and, further, that i think our capitalist society MAKES people like that. what do you think happens when you promote competition as like... THE BEST THING EVER LOLZ! capitalism doesn't necessarily promote compassion and humanity...
 
SuckDickNSaveLiv...
post Sep 15 2009, 09:15 PM
Post #60


Drank wit your boy
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,711
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 649,997



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 14 2009, 04:39 PM) *
I disagree with this. Again, this comes back to the point Holly was trying to make by saying that doctors are people too. In the same way that there are corrupt police, there are corrupt doctors too. You can't avoid human nature. You're concerned with something that cannot be changed by private or public health care. You need to shop around. Take it upon yourself to weed out the good doctors from the bad ones.

It's true that you can't avoid human nature, and there will always be good and bad doctors; however, why would I need to shop around for a good doctor if I wasn't concerned? If I need to shop around, that obviously means I am concerned about who I put my trust in.

Also, about the insurance, lets just say they do lower rates. You go for a daily checkup, and the doctor discovers that you have some disease that's curable. You go back to your insurance, and they tell you they don't cover this particular disease or the treatment required. Or what about a person who can't get accepted by insurance companies because they already have a preexisting condition. Do you honestly think that insurance in the answer?

 
Uronacid
post Sep 16 2009, 08:44 AM
Post #61


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 15 2009, 01:32 PM) *
there are more aggressive, wider campaigns that a government run system could institute.
when the f*ck did i ever say that there will never be a mean or evil person again? i just said that i don't think everyone is like that, and, further, that i think our capitalist society MAKES people like that. what do you think happens when you promote competition as like... THE BEST THING EVER LOLZ! capitalism doesn't necessarily promote compassion and humanity...


In a public health care system our gov't will become a single point of failure. Nate, I do not trust our gov't. They've failed us numerous times in the past. I just don't understand how you hold onto the idea that big brother is going to make everything better. I believer our government just wants to take away more of our freedom. Control will always be pushed upon us through a facade of compassion and humanity. Why do you place trust in our gov't?

QUOTE(IamLegend @ Sep 15 2009, 10:15 PM) *
It's true that you can't avoid human nature, and there will always be good and bad doctors; however, why would I need to shop around for a good doctor if I wasn't concerned? If I need to shop around, that obviously means I am concerned about who I put my trust in.

Also, about the insurance, lets just say they do lower rates. You go for a daily checkup, and the doctor discovers that you have some disease that's curable. You go back to your insurance, and they tell you they don't cover this particular disease or the treatment required. Or what about a person who can't get accepted by insurance companies because they already have a preexisting condition. Do you honestly think that insurance in the answer?


You should be concerned about who you put your trust in.

What if a man dropped a penny of the empire state building and it landed on a dogs foot. That dog got angry and contracted rabies for some reason. All the sudden you magically warped to that exact location and the dog bit you. Then your insurance carrier dropped you. Yes I do think that private insurance is a better answer than public insurance, however there is still major room for improvement.
 
NoSex
post Sep 16 2009, 08:29 PM
Post #62


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 16 2009, 08:44 AM) *
In a public health care system our gov't will become a single point of failure. Nate, I do not trust our gov't. They've failed us numerous times in the past.


MEDICARE & MEDICADE have higher customer ratings than private insurance; their costs have have increased @ slower rates, their coverage is greater, & their record on providing care is better. they are the best performing health services in america, & they are SOCIALIZED & RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.
 
brooklyneast05
post Sep 17 2009, 11:32 AM
Post #63


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



^ but what i don't get it is what good does higher customer rating do if things like medicare are going broke and aren't sustainable.


i don't think everything the government does sucks and they are incapable of providing decent service like some people in this thread. but i guess i still don't really get how we pay for all this. maybe i'm just missing something somewhere. but if medicare and medicaid are gonna go broke then i don't understand the differences between this program and those that would make this not go broke.
 
mipadi
post Sep 17 2009, 08:10 PM
Post #64


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 16 2009, 09:44 AM) *
In a public health care system our gov't will become a single point of failure. Nate, I do not trust our gov't. They've failed us numerous times in the past. I just don't understand how you hold onto the idea that big brother is going to make everything better. I believer our government just wants to take away more of our freedom. Control will always be pushed upon us through a facade of compassion and humanity. Why do you place trust in our gov't?


Couldn't the same be said about corporations? Why should we trust a corporation to provide fair, adequate health care? You agree that the health care system needs to be overhauled, but how can we trust the corporations to make those necessary changes when the current system makes them obscenely profitable?
 
NoSex
post Sep 18 2009, 02:07 AM
Post #65


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Sep 17 2009, 11:32 AM) *
^ but what i don't get it is what good does higher customer rating do if things like medicare are going broke and aren't sustainable.


the bush administration lowered taxes like bat nuts crazy, & spent money like bat nuts crazy. for example, if we hadn't gone to war with iraq we wouldn't have to worry about a bankrupt medicare. this is what needs to be done: refinancing through taxation. tax the rich & pay for medicine. otherwise, we lose more money in the high costs of private insurance & the current healthcare system.


QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 17 2009, 08:10 PM) *
Couldn't the same be said about corporations? Why should we trust a corporation to provide fair, adequate health care? You agree that the health care system needs to be overhauled, but how can we trust the corporations to make those necessary changes when the current system makes them obscenely profitable?


absolutely, & even further... i think a very strong argument can be made (& has been made) that private industry is just inherently flawed due to the nature of profit. &, that the evidence has mounted against private medicine. &, even further, that the public systems operating in america have been more successful than private insurance.

and lastly, we can understand why a private insurer may cheat us in healthcare... but it's much more difficult to understand why the government would design a healthcare system to hurt us.
 
Uronacid
post Sep 19 2009, 08:59 AM
Post #66


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 16 2009, 09:29 PM) *
MEDICARE & MEDICADE have higher customer ratings than private insurance; their costs have have increased @ slower rates, their coverage is greater, & their record on providing care is better. they are the best performing health services in america, & they are SOCIALIZED & RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.


The are RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT and they are going BANKRUPT.
 
mipadi
post Sep 19 2009, 11:06 AM
Post #67


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 18 2009, 03:07 AM) *
the bush administration lowered taxes like bat nuts crazy, & spent money like bat nuts crazy. for example, if we hadn't gone to war with iraq we wouldn't have to worry about a bankrupt medicare. this is what needs to be done: refinancing through taxation. tax the rich & pay for medicine. otherwise, we lose more money in the high costs of private insurance & the current healthcare system.


As Britain's Tony Benn once said, "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people."

QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 19 2009, 09:59 AM) *
The are RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT and they are going BANKRUPT.


QUOTE
Based on the actuarial projections of the Medicare Trust Fund, which is tasked with annually reporting to Congress on how the bottom line looks, the point where Medicare will pay out more than it takes in -- even by a penny -- won’t occur until somewhere between 2014 to 2028. But that presumes no changes in how Medicare income or spending. Either could be adjusted well before that point. Both have been adjusted at various times in the past well before the point of insolvency. Put another way, the Department of Defense budget is raised every year, usually in lieu of asking it to cut its budget substantially, but when’s the last time someone said the DOD was bankrupt?

[...]

But why is Medicare’s current financing structure insufficient in perpetuity? [...] The reasons why are pretty obvious. None of them have to do with the bugbear of government incompetency.

The major reason is that health care costs have gone up for all payers, public and private, and dramatically so. Since 1970, health care costs have gone up for Medicare by 8.5% annually – but for private insurance, it’s 9.7%. Unlike private insurance, Medicare doesn’t have the option of pricing its product out of reach of new beneficiaries, dropping coverage on existing beneficiaries, or finding reasons not to accept new beneficiaries who look like they might have future health problems. Medicare has a lot of trouble controlling health care costs, and that’s largely driven by geographic variance in payments to doctors and physicians and the perverse incentives of fee-for-service payment, which incentivizes more care instead of better care. Guess what? Private insurance has the exact same problems. (Hey pot, it’s the kettle – you’re black!)

Medicare is also growing pretty quickly thanks to the baby boomers -- about 587,000 per year. The number of people with employer-based insurance has been on a slow but steady decline.

Luckily, we’ve known about this future problem for a while, and we were, er, lucky enough to have champions of the free market and conservative principles in Congress and the White House when we set about tackling the problem over the past decade. One solution was the institution of Medicare Advantage plans, where beneficiaries could opt-out of traditional Medicare and enroll in an HMO. As mentioned on this blog many times, the problem is the Medicare Advantage plans cost 14% more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare for no demonstrably better outcomes – and now we have about 11 million Americans enrolled in them. That waste adds up. As stated in the Kaiser report, “strictly from the perspective of program financing it is undisputed that Medicare Advantage payments have added to the cost of Medicare borne by the government.”

Much, much worse has been the prescription drug programs. It was supposed to use private drug plans in competition to drive down costs, until all kinds of pharma-friendly provisions were added in by the likes of Rep. Billy Tauzin – the same Billy Tauzin who went on to become president of PhRMA. Again, from the Kaiser report, “Two-thirds of the $72 billion increase in Medicare expenditures from 2005 to 2006 resulted from the implementation of Part D.”

And yet, Medicare’s financing is solvable. If the annual rate of growth was a mere 1% above the growth in GDP instead of our current pace of +2.5%, we’d cut our spending in half by 2038. You can imagine how good our Medicare Trust report would look then. As it just so happens, we have a plan on the table to accomplish exactly that – and benefit those in the private insurance system as well. It’s called health care reform, and we need it to pass this year.


Source
 
colddesert
post Sep 20 2009, 02:38 AM
Post #68


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Jul 2009
Member No: 735,972



Universal Healthcare = death, slow and steady, with axes.


I say Hakuna Matata... thats how we should handle it. Hakuna Matata.
 
brooklyneast05
post Sep 20 2009, 10:31 AM
Post #69


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



QUOTE(colddesert @ Sep 20 2009, 02:38 AM) *
Universal Healthcare = death, slow and steady, with axes.
I say Hakuna Matata... thats how we should handle it. Hakuna Matata.


what are you talking about? we should handle it by saying hakuna matata and pretending we have no worries and no problems? you must have not read anything at all in this thread so far...
 
datass
post Sep 20 2009, 10:37 AM
Post #70


(′ ・ω・`)
*******

Group: Official Designer
Posts: 6,179
Joined: Dec 2004
Member No: 72,477



QUOTE(colddesert @ Sep 20 2009, 03:38 PM) *
Universal Healthcare = death, slow and steady, with axes.
I say Hakuna Matata... thats how we should handle it. Hakuna Matata.

hahahahaha that's so ridiculous. are you a naturalist (or whatever they are) who believe that when they get sick, nature has its way to cure you. or kill you, cuz that's survival of the fittest? and so you don't take your medicine?
 
colddesert
post Sep 23 2009, 03:21 PM
Post #71


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Jul 2009
Member No: 735,972



QUOTE(doughnut @ Sep 20 2009, 09:37 AM) *
hahahahaha that's so ridiculous. are you a naturalist (or whatever they are) who believe that when they get sick, nature has its way to cure you. or kill you, cuz that's survival of the fittest? and so you don't take your medicine?

Isn't that called a scientologist?
 
iRapediCarly
post Sep 23 2009, 06:37 PM
Post #72


Senior Member
*****

Group: Official Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Sep 2009
Member No: 745,302



no its called stupid
 
colddesert
post Sep 24 2009, 01:01 AM
Post #73


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Jul 2009
Member No: 735,972



^ Well, that also.
 
NoSex
post Sep 27 2009, 02:00 AM
Post #74


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



i love how the opposition here has more or less ignored all pertinent points. way to suck, losers.
 
kryogenix
post Oct 1 2009, 06:36 AM
Post #75


Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Dec 2003
Member No: 29



says the guy who's been ignoring my posts in this thread
 

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: