Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Forums _ Debate _ UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.
Posted by: NoSex Aug 23 2009, 07:14 PM
so, why the f*ck don't we have universal healthcare?
Posted by: kryogenix Aug 23 2009, 07:29 PM
Because you touch yourself at night.
/thread
Posted by: KaraYankit Aug 23 2009, 07:56 PM
I don't think everyone should have it...
it wouldn't really be free..we'll just pay for it through taxes. and you know what universal health care means.... Mexicans in the U.S. get it too...The ones that aren't legal..and you'll be paying for it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay for health care for an illegal immigrant. and no offense to Mexicans because I know many hardworking Mexicans that came here illegally, but are now legal
....and it's not just Mexicans and other people that come here illegally, it's the smokers and the alcoholics and the other people that do harmful things to their bodies. You'll be paying for their "free" health care.
Call me mean, call me heartless..I don't think I'm being to mean, am I? I think the cons outweigh the pros..
also...How many doctor-to-be's will there actually be once there's universal health care? There wont be many. I bet they'll get paid less. And there are only so many Doctors to begin with. There's no way we could have universal health care without jeopardizing so much else. There will probably be longer waits..(and I don't mean just a few hours) and Patients will probably be treated poorly.
I don't think it's a good idea...and if Obama decides to do it he should at least make it so not everyone has it..only the people that really truly need it..but that would also cause problems because people will start to lie and say this and that and blah blah blah..that's just too much to deal with. It would be extremely difficult to get it because they'll have to sort out the dishonest people from the people that truly truly need it.
Posted by: NoSex Aug 24 2009, 12:21 PM
1. we already pay for illegal immigrants, if we didn't we wouldn't have emergency clinics.
2. generally, a universal care service would only be available to citizens. so, no, illegal immigrants would not receive it. for example, the current bill being proposed has a provision which explicitly excludes illegal citizens from receiving coverage under the public program.
3. over a ten year plan, we would need to raise taxes only of those persons making $280,000 or more a year. & of joint incomes ranging between $350,000-500,000 only a 1% surtax will be applied. those making over one million dollars a year will be taxed the maxim surtax, 5%.
4. if we don't control the cost of healthcare now, we will be paying more for it later: over the last decade, healthcare premiums have doubled &, even further, the growth of healthcare costs have risen above the growth of GDP.
5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right.
6. doctors will be paid less, but as doctors are already handsomely compensated for their work, they will still maintain a position of tremendous comfort. best of all, they will finally be able to do their job, without having to wait for approval from an insurance industry. doctors go to school to help people, not to make money --- or at least, that's the way it should be.
7. in america, we wait longer for services than people in germany and in france (both of which have universal healthcare).
8. the world health organization has ranked the quality of america's healthcare as 37. this means that the WHO has identified that there are 36 systems currently operating @ a higher quality than our own system. a vast majority of those systems have a fully integrated single-payer system, including france, norway, germany, and italy.
Posted by: coconutter Aug 24 2009, 08:34 PM
less town hall meetings more healthcare reform plx
Posted by: colddesert Aug 24 2009, 10:05 PM
^ Regardless of the debate, there is nothing wrong with the town hall meetings, in my opinion. Why shouldn't we listen to the people's thoughts on the bill? I don't think we should pass such a monumental bill as universal health care without hearing what people think. I mean, Congress didn't even read the bill fully, did they????
Posted by: NoSex Aug 24 2009, 11:57 PM
QUOTE(colddesert @ Aug 24 2009, 10:05 PM) 
there is nothing wrong with the town hall meetings, in my opinion.
apparently you haven't actually seen one of these town hall meetings; they're just a bunch of ignorant and ill-mannered drones barking @ people who are trying to formulate a legitimate dialogue on the matter. they aren't expanding discussion, they are squashing it. to put it more succinctly, there is nothing productive about hissing and booing.
Posted by: KaraYankit Aug 25 2009, 12:00 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Aug 24 2009, 01:21 PM)
1. we already pay for illegal immigrants, if we didn't we wouldn't have emergency clinics.
2. generally, a universal care service would only be available to citizens. so, no, illegal immigrants would not receive it. for example, the current bill being proposed has a provision which explicitly excludes illegal citizens from receiving coverage under the public program.
3. over a ten year plan, we would need to raise taxes only of those persons making $280,000 or more a year. & of joint incomes ranging between $350,000-500,000 only a 1% surtax will be applied. those making over one million dollars a year will be taxed the maxim surtax, 5%.
4. if we don't control the cost of healthcare now, we will be paying more for it later: over the last decade, healthcare premiums have doubled &, even further, the growth of healthcare costs have risen above the growth of GDP.
5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right.
6. doctors will be paid less, but as doctors are already handsomely compensated for their work, they will still maintain a position of tremendous comfort. best of all, they will finally be able to do their job, without having to wait for approval from an insurance industry. doctors go to school to help people, not to make money --- or at least, that's the way it should be.
7. in america, we wait longer for services than people in germany and in france (both of which have universal healthcare).
8. the world health organization has ranked the quality of america's healthcare as 37. this means that the WHO has identified that there are 36 systems currently operating @ a higher quality than our own system. a vast majority of those systems have a fully integrated single-payer system, including france, norway, germany, and italy.
2. generally, a universal care service would only be available to citizens. so, no, illegal immigrants would not receive it. for example, the current bill being proposed has a provision which explicitly excludes illegal citizens from receiving coverage under the public program.
3. over a ten year plan, we would need to raise taxes only of those persons making $280,000 or more a year. & of joint incomes ranging between $350,000-500,000 only a 1% surtax will be applied. those making over one million dollars a year will be taxed the maxim surtax, 5%.
4. if we don't control the cost of healthcare now, we will be paying more for it later: over the last decade, healthcare premiums have doubled &, even further, the growth of healthcare costs have risen above the growth of GDP.
5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right.
6. doctors will be paid less, but as doctors are already handsomely compensated for their work, they will still maintain a position of tremendous comfort. best of all, they will finally be able to do their job, without having to wait for approval from an insurance industry. doctors go to school to help people, not to make money --- or at least, that's the way it should be.
7. in america, we wait longer for services than people in germany and in france (both of which have universal healthcare).
8. the world health organization has ranked the quality of america's healthcare as 37. this means that the WHO has identified that there are 36 systems currently operating @ a higher quality than our own system. a vast majority of those systems have a fully integrated single-payer system, including france, norway, germany, and italy.
Obama wants to make all illegal immigrants legal...did I mention that?
and I don't wait long for services.
The only problem I have ever had is finding a doctor that will take my insurance that wasn't 30 miles away, but I lived in a small town, now I don't. now that's not a problem.
I just don't go to waterman hospital...because after that merge they just aren't that great anymore. XD
"5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right."
DECENT health care, yes...not free. I don't think it should be free, because NOTHING it technically free, we'll still have to pay for it. and you really think the upper class people will get the get a tax raise? REALLY? I think they JUST NOW started having to pay as much as the middle and lower class people..and they're COMPLAINING...at least in my town they are, they have their protests and what not. The middle and lower class families will get stuck with the tax increase because that's just how it is.
Posted by: kryogenix Aug 25 2009, 02:14 AM
QUOTE(coconutter @ Aug 24 2009, 09:34 PM)
less town hall meetings more healthcare reform plx
Remember guys, dissenting opinions are healthy for a functioning democracy unless you disagree with me.
Posted by: penpen15 Aug 25 2009, 03:58 AM
QUOTE(KaraYankit @ Aug 25 2009, 01:00 AM)
Obama wants to make all illegal immigrants legal...did I mention that?
and I don't wait long for services.
The only problem I have ever had is finding a doctor that will take my insurance that wasn't 30 miles away, but I lived in a small town, now I don't. now that's not a problem.
I just don't go to waterman hospital...because after that merge they just aren't that great anymore. XD
"5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right."
DECENT health care, yes...not free. I don't think it should be free, because NOTHING it technically free, we'll still have to pay for it. and you really think the upper class people will get the get a tax raise? REALLY? I think they JUST NOW started having to pay as much as the middle and lower class people..and they're COMPLAINING...at least in my town they are, they have their protests and what not. The middle and lower class families will get stuck with the tax increase because that's just how it is.
and I don't wait long for services.
The only problem I have ever had is finding a doctor that will take my insurance that wasn't 30 miles away, but I lived in a small town, now I don't. now that's not a problem.
I just don't go to waterman hospital...because after that merge they just aren't that great anymore. XD
"5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right."
DECENT health care, yes...not free. I don't think it should be free, because NOTHING it technically free, we'll still have to pay for it. and you really think the upper class people will get the get a tax raise? REALLY? I think they JUST NOW started having to pay as much as the middle and lower class people..and they're COMPLAINING...at least in my town they are, they have their protests and what not. The middle and lower class families will get stuck with the tax increase because that's just how it is.
Obama wants to give illegal immigrants OPPORTUNITES to become legal, by taking the test and yadda yadda to gain citizenship. It's not like he's walking around with citizenship papers tossing them at any immigrant that comes his way. This way we'll have legal people who can contribute to society, and taxes, and their communities, which will end up helping America rather then what's going on now with all the illegals hurting her.
Where are you getting your services when you don't have to wait long? When I sliced my thumb on a carving knife and went to the hospital, it took 6 hours for the doctor to finally put 3 stitches in, and the bill came out to a total of 617 dollars.
You say that healthcare shouldn't be free, well why not? Out of anything in the world Healthcare should be the only thing that's free. If your own government does not care enough about it's citizens to protect their health then just how messed up is that?
The reason Middle Class America has been taxed for so long is because of Bush in term cut taxes from the rich. He cut back on the taxes that the rich have to pay, while the ones who are broke as hell had to pay more taxes. And also, please please please dont ever think that "that's just how it is" People can change things, if you don't believe it then look at slavery, i bet back when that was still around slaves thought that that was just the way it was and when women couldn't vote we thought that was just the way it was. If you aren't don't care to get angry enough to fix it, then it's always going to stay the same.
Posted by: kryogenix Aug 25 2009, 08:26 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Aug 24 2009, 01:21 PM)
1. we already pay for illegal immigrants, if we didn't we wouldn't have emergency clinics.
2. generally, a universal care service would only be available to citizens. so, no, illegal immigrants would not receive it. for example, the current bill being proposed has a provision which explicitly excludes illegal citizens from receiving coverage under the public program.
2. generally, a universal care service would only be available to citizens. so, no, illegal immigrants would not receive it. for example, the current bill being proposed has a provision which explicitly excludes illegal citizens from receiving coverage under the public program.
...In theory. In practice? http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/08/23/will-obama-let-health-care-for-illegals-kill-his-bill.aspx.
QUOTE
3. over a ten year plan, we would need to raise taxes only of those persons making $280,000 or more a year. & of joint incomes ranging between $350,000-500,000 only a 1% surtax will be applied. those making over one million dollars a year will be taxed the maxim surtax, 5%.
ahahahahaha tax increases. why not avoiding spending in the first place?
QUOTE
4. if we don't control the cost of healthcare now, we will be paying more for it later: over the last decade, healthcare premiums have doubled &, even further, the growth of healthcare costs have risen above the growth of GDP.
Agreed. But what's the reason for this?
Government involvement. And you want to give them more control?
QUOTE
5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right.
You are definitely being heartless. You're going to advertise universal healthcare, then deny people because it has to be rationed.
QUOTE
6. doctors will be paid less, but as doctors are already handsomely compensated for their work, they will still maintain a position of tremendous comfort. best of all, they will finally be able to do their job, without having to wait for approval from an insurance industry. doctors go to school to help people, not to make money --- or at least, that's the way it should be.
Who are you to decide what people's wages should be?
QUOTE
7. in america, we wait longer for services than people in germany and in france (both of which have universal healthcare).
What's the population of Germany and France vs the population of the United States?
What about beloved Canada with their healthcare system, which has a lower population than California? Why do Canadians come to the US to avoid lines for services?
Also, France's healthcare system is going bankrupt. The last thing we need in this economy is yet another unsustainable government program. We still have Social Security on our plate.
QUOTE
8. the world health organization has ranked the quality of america's healthcare as 37. this means that the WHO has identified that there are 36 systems currently operating @ a higher quality than our own system. a vast majority of those systems have a fully integrated single-payer system, including france, norway, germany, and italy.
And I believe if we allowed the free market to work, the US could have the best and most free healthcare system.
Posted by: doughnut Aug 25 2009, 08:36 AM
man, i forgot what the heath care system is like here, but we have to take these illegal immigrants from china and let them give birth to their babies etc. that's just annoying.
Posted by: Uronacid Aug 27 2009, 12:37 PM
One of the biggest reasons I worry about Public Health care is the success record of our government right now:
- Social Security is turning to shit.
- USPS is going bankrupt due to the gov't meddling in its business affairs.
- Medicare is going down the tubes.
- Cash for Clunkers, while it saved many people lots of money, was a total nightmare in terms of money management.
Even the liberal media is pushing stories that criticize a public health care system. that scares the hell out of me: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8227482 The news rarely speaks bad about what Obama's pushing for.
Posted by: hermes Aug 27 2009, 07:16 PM
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
Posted by: Uronacid Aug 28 2009, 08:53 AM
QUOTE(hermes @ Aug 27 2009, 08:16 PM)
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.
Posted by: NoSex Aug 28 2009, 03:28 PM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Aug 28 2009, 08:53 AM)
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.
Posted by: kryogenix Aug 29 2009, 03:54 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Aug 28 2009, 04:28 PM)
in fact, it will operate almost exactly like a private insurance, it will simply be more efficient (due to decreased administration)
how can you say that with a straight face?
Just like how the post office is more efficient than UPS and FedEx right?
Posted by: synkiro Aug 29 2009, 10:51 AM
i don't want to pay a 1% surtax ;| -whines-
Posted by: NoSex Aug 29 2009, 11:29 PM
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Aug 29 2009, 03:54 AM)
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.
Posted by: kryogenix Aug 30 2009, 03:25 PM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Aug 30 2009, 12:29 AM)
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.
By what type of sorcery will this be achieved?
QUOTE
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.
Why can they do this? Because it's subsidized by taxpayers. There is no motivation to be efficient because they know they can just dig deeper into the pockets of taxpayers/create more debt/inflate our currency to pay for their scheme.
And I call bullshit on the last part. The government will deny care too, adding more bureaucracy when deciding how to ration care.
QUOTE
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.
Sure I can. Look at what happened with mail delivery. USPS has shitty service, yet USPS has a monopoly on first class mail.
The government will regulate and regulate and regulate to put everyone else out of business. In fact, government regulation is part of the reason why healthcare is so expensive in the first place.
QUOTE
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.
Don't take my word for it, ask our President what he thinks about USPS.
Medicaid and medicare are broke. Even Obama admits that medicare and medicaid will bankrupt this country. Except for some reason, he thinks that the solution to problematic government run insurance programs is adding more problematic government run insurance programs.
Posted by: coffeeandacasio Aug 31 2009, 01:04 AM
At has nothing to do with immigrants, taxes, etc.
Look at it this way.
The people who don't want universal healthcare are typically rich or heard from a congress person all the negatives.
Look who's convincing you!
Someone who will be able to afford healthcare no matter what.
If you made 65,000$ a year, a simple procedure could cut that in half without universal healthcare.
So what if you pay a little more taxes. No one complains for the services like free fire and police that they pay for that hardly works.
Paying a little bit in taxes does not even compare to a $30,000 procedure you'd have to pay for.
Posted by: kryogenix Aug 31 2009, 05:17 AM
QUOTE(coffeeandacasio @ Aug 31 2009, 02:04 AM)
At has nothing to do with immigrants, taxes, etc.
Look at it this way.
The people who don't want universal healthcare are typically rich or heard from a congress person all the negatives.
Look who's convincing you!
Someone who will be able to afford healthcare no matter what.
If you made 65,000$ a year, a simple procedure could cut that in half without universal healthcare.
So what if you pay a little more taxes. No one complains for the services like free fire and police that they pay for that hardly works.
Paying a little bit in taxes does not even compare to a $30,000 procedure you'd have to pay for.
Look at it this way.
The people who don't want universal healthcare are typically rich or heard from a congress person all the negatives.
Look who's convincing you!
Someone who will be able to afford healthcare no matter what.
If you made 65,000$ a year, a simple procedure could cut that in half without universal healthcare.
So what if you pay a little more taxes. No one complains for the services like free fire and police that they pay for that hardly works.
Paying a little bit in taxes does not even compare to a $30,000 procedure you'd have to pay for.
The people who want universal healthcare are typically jobless deadbeats or liberal elites who won't even use the system they are advocating (kinda like the hypocrites who tout public education, and then send their kids to elite private schools).
Look who's convincing you!
If you made 65,000$ 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.
Posted by: Uronacid Aug 31 2009, 08:45 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Aug 28 2009, 04:28 PM)
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 $350,000-500,000 a year will received a 1% surtax. the highest tier earners, those making a million dollars or more a year, will receive a 5.4% surtax.
Government options have obvious and unfair competitive advantages over privately own businesses that cause them to go out of business. More jobs will be lost than created. A government option will suffocate private insurance companies.
It's laughable to see you suggest that they're more efficient due to decreased administration. Gov't is notorious for having to much administrative staff.
I don't support taking from people who work hard for their salary and giving it to those who don't deserve it.
QUOTE(NoSex @ Aug 30 2009, 12:29 AM)
1. in the sense that the public option will get more work done, for less money, it's more efficient; that's what efficiency is. the private industry may be able to provide services @ a marginally faster pace, but, still, @ a great price.
LOL
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Aug 31 2009, 06:17 AM)
The people who want universal healthcare are typically jobless deadbeats or liberal elites who won't even use the system they are advocating (kinda like the hypocrites who tout public education, and then send their kids to elite private schools).
Look who's convincing you!
If you made 65,000$ 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 $30,000 procedure you'd have to pay for.
Look who's convincing you!
If you made 65,000$ 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.
Posted by: NoSex Sep 1 2009, 04:41 PM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Aug 31 2009, 08:45 AM)
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.
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.
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Aug 31 2009, 08:45 AM)
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?
Posted by: NoSex Sep 1 2009, 04:47 PM
p.s. the issue is finding a healthcare system that is best for everyone, and best for the country. that's the primary concern. not whether or not we have to raise taxes. personally, i have enough dedication to this country to want to see my taxes raised for a good cause. we are a society, a unit, a civilization that is designed to function together towards progress. it's good that we have a public school system, so that everyone has the opportunity to be educated. it's good that we have roads so that transportation can be made possible. it's good that we have a military so that our country can be defended. IF YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THE SOCIETY YOU LOSE ALL OF THIS. so the question is this: is the moral precedent so great that you would not collect taxes in order to give everyone a free public education? would you not collect taxes to build roads? would you not collect taxes to defend your homeland? would you not collect taxes to make your country healthier & happier?
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 2 2009, 08:20 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 1 2009, 05:47 PM)
p.s. the issue is finding a healthcare system that is best for everyone, and best for the country. that's the primary concern. not whether or not we have to raise taxes. personally, i have enough dedication to this country to want to see my taxes raised for a good cause. we are a society, a unit, a civilization that is designed to function together towards progress. it's good that we have a public school system, so that everyone has the opportunity to be educated. it's good that we have roads so that transportation can be made possible. it's good that we have a military so that our country can be defended. IF YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THE SOCIETY YOU LOSE ALL OF THIS. so the question is this: is the moral precedent so great that you would not collect taxes in order to give everyone a free public education? would you not collect taxes to build roads? would you not collect taxes to defend your homeland? would you not collect taxes to make your country healthier & happier?
Our public school system is FUBAR. I think we spend a bit too much considering the children who attend public school in other countries have better grades than we do. We could lower taxes here and still have the same "quality education".
Roads are necessary. Don't mind paying for it.
Military is necessary. Don't mind paying for it.
Anyway, you can also argue that putting health care in the government's hands is bad for society. The addition of a public option will destroy competition in the health system via the public options unfair competitive advantages. Investors will not invest their money in things that don't lead to a profit. If competition is removed then the strive for better health practices and technology through research will be slowed down due to a lack of private investors. After all, it is through health insurance that these industries get paid.
Yes, we pay more for our health care than other countries, but our health practices is also far more advanced than in other countries. People travel from all over the world to receive medical treatment in America for that very reason. In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system.
Posted by: drinksmokefuck Sep 2 2009, 06:38 PM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 2 2009, 09:20 PM)
In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system.
You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another.
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 3 2009, 07:29 AM
QUOTE(drinksmokef*ck @ Sep 2 2009, 07:38 PM)
You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another.
Most people in America can afford it. Health insurers do try to out preform one another. That's the whole purpose of the competitive market. Businesses switch health insurers all the time to lower their rate.
Also, I want to make it very clear that I don't think our health care system is perfect. I definitely be leave that there are certain areas where the consumer is being taken advantage of. Mal-practice insurance for doctors is ridiculously high. People are robbed by price of prescriptions. These are major contributing factors to the price of insurance.
Posted by: mipadi Sep 3 2009, 09:26 AM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 08:29 AM)
Most people in America can afford it.
Insurance doesn't do any good if you can't afford the actual health procedures. Just because you're insured, doesn't mean that your health insurance company will actually pay anything. There're a lot of cases of people being suddenly dropped from insurance because they file for cancer treatment or another expensive procedure. There are also a lot of cases in which people are denied a claim and have to pay for a procedure on their own, even though they have insurance. And insurance companies don't usually cover potentially life-saving operations that they determine to be "experimental".
In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it.
Hm. Did I just suggest that "health rationing" already takes place in America?
Posted by: superstitious Sep 3 2009, 09:39 AM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 07:29 AM)
Most people in America can afford it.
As someone who works in the health care industry, I strongly disagree. There are other industries that have affordable health care, like education based employers but for the most part, health benefit premiums are continuing to climb. That doesn't even take into consideration that points that Michael has brought up, regarding the procedure related services which could range anywhere from E&M (evaluation and management) visits to specialty visits.
There's also that nasty little "pre-condition/pre-cert" snag. Meaning, if you've been diagnosed with a chronic illness and you lose your job (and any benefits associated with that job), you're screwed. Sure you can attempt a non break in health insurance coverage to try to avoid being denied private insurance for pre-condition reasons, but you'd have to take out COBRA, which is absurdly expensive.
Posted by: mipadi Sep 3 2009, 09:49 AM
QUOTE(superstitious @ Sep 3 2009, 10:39 AM)
There's also that nasty little "pre-condition/pre-cert" snag. Meaning, if you've been diagnosed with a chronic illness and you lose your job (and any benefits associated with that job), you're screwed. Sure you can attempt a non break in health insurance coverage to try to avoid being denied private insurance for pre-condition reasons, but you'd have to take out COBRA, which is absurdly expensive.
This brings up another point I wanted to make: Not only can insurance outside of employers' benefits be expensive, but there's no guarantee you'll even get it. A friend of mine graduated from college in '06, and didn't get a job that offered health insurance right away, so she had to purchase insurance on her own. She's a pretty healthy individual, but she has a chronic intestinal disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crohn%27s_disease, I believe) that requires constant treatment. Needless to stay, no insurance provider would pick her up as a customer, even though she was otherwise healthy -- at least not at a fair, affordable rate.
So even if you can afford health insurance, you can't always get it.
Posted by: superstitious Sep 3 2009, 10:01 AM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 3 2009, 09:49 AM)
This brings up another point I wanted to make: Not only can insurance outside of employers' benefits be expensive, but there's no guarantee you'll even get it. A friend of mine graduated from college in '06, and didn't get a job that offered health insurance right away, so she had to purchase insurance on her own. She's a pretty healthy individual, but she has a chronic intestinal disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crohn%27s_disease, I believe) that requires constant treatment. Needless to stay, no insurance provider would pick her up as a customer, even though she was otherwise healthy -- at least not at a fair, affordable rate.
So even if you can afford health insurance, you can't always get it.
So even if you can afford health insurance, you can't always get it.
I see situations like that far too often, especially with diabetes mellitus related diagnoses and there are ton of sub diagnoses to go along with DM (including retinopathy, polyneuropathy, vascular disease and so on). Better hope you can control your disease with diet and supplements because affording insulin without insurance is next to impossible for the average income earner.
Also, Crohn's management is tricky. I don't envy your friend's situation, at all.
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 3 2009, 01:11 PM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 3 2009, 10:26 AM)
In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it.
I don't understand why you might think government won't operate in a similar fashion? Currently the Gov't offers Medicare (which is going bankrupt). Also, many doctor's don't even accept medicare gov't doesn't pay as much and the paperwork is a bitch. In many cases, it just doesn't cover their operating costs.
Again, I don't think our system is perfect. I might believe it's among the best, but that doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement. To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic. There are people out there that clearly need help, but giving control over to the gov't is not the way to solve this. I've seen a few different ideas thrown around. A few things that would reduce the bill:
- Tort Reform to lower malpractice insurance
- Group Insurance Plans to lower insurance premiums
- Insurance Accounts that allow you to choose a carrier and stay with you from job to job
- Make all medical expenses tax deductible
- The list goes on...
There are plenty of ways to reduce the cost of Health Insurance without handing it over to the gov't.
Posted by: mipadi Sep 3 2009, 01:24 PM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 02:11 PM)
I don't understand what makes you think government won't operate in a similar fashion?
Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible.
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 02:11 PM)
To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic.
And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons.
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 3 2009, 01:48 PM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 3 2009, 02:24 PM)
Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible.
The gov't doesn't have an endless supply of income either. The gov't will have the right to deny claims as well.
QUOTE
And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons.
And you never know when the govt's going to do it either. I'm not saying change shouldn't happen. There definitely needs to be change, however handing control over to the gov't is NOT the solution. Handing health care over to the gov't is a temporary fix that will result in big financial problems.
Posted by: mipadi Sep 3 2009, 02:02 PM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 02:48 PM)
And you never know when the govt's going to do it either. I'm not saying change shouldn't happen. There definitely needs to be change, however handing control over to the gov't is NOT the solution. Handing health care over to the gov't is a temporary fix that will result in big financial problems.
So how do you suggest we make health care affordable for all Americans?
Anyway, aside from the feasibility and pros/cons of an entirely private, entirely public, or hybrid ("public option") plan, I think there was a really good point brought up by Nate that's hardly been discussed (I suspect mostly because it's not as easy to debate as the economics of various insurance plans), and that's the social morals of health care. Don't we, as a society, have a moral obligation to take care of our sick? Don't we have a moral obligation to help one another? That is the whole point of society. You can go back to the origins of the social contract theory for this idea. I believe it was Hobbes (among others) who suggested that humans derived great benefit from joining in society, rather than staying in the "jungle", but as a result, man has to give up certain privileges (such as the unchecked accumulation of wealth -- i.e., the freedom from taxation) in order to reap the benefits of society. There's no doubt that joining society gives man great benefits, but those benefits are not without cost, and part of that cost is putting the needs of others above your own. I feel that the capitalist ideal, which is essentially "every man for himself", runs completely counter to the notions of society.
Posted by: superstitious Sep 3 2009, 02:38 PM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 3 2009, 02:02 PM)
So how do you suggest we make health care affordable for all Americans?
Here's one idea - stop the gratuitous spending by means of "overuse".
QUOTE
Overuse. Overuse occurs when a service is provided even though its risk of harm
exceeds its likely benefit—that is, when it is not warranted on medical grounds. A
more expansive definition would include cases in which the added costs of a more
expensive service did not exceed the added benefits it was expected to provide. A
number of studies have found, on the basis of after-the-fact reviews by independent
panels of doctors, that a sizable share of certain surgeries were performed despite
their being clinically inappropriate or of equivocal value; those findings held true
under various types of insurance plans.2
exceeds its likely benefit—that is, when it is not warranted on medical grounds. A
more expansive definition would include cases in which the added costs of a more
expensive service did not exceed the added benefits it was expected to provide. A
number of studies have found, on the basis of after-the-fact reviews by independent
panels of doctors, that a sizable share of certain surgeries were performed despite
their being clinically inappropriate or of equivocal value; those findings held true
under various types of insurance plans.2
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/95xx/doc9567/07-17-HealthCare_Testimony.pdf
This isn't new news. Most of the noise regarding universal health care is just that, noise. The major part of the problem has occurred within the medical industry itself and no universal system, no big brother stepping in is going to solve the problem. The only thing it might do is drive people further into debt because physicians and facilities will continue to perform unnecessary tests, prescribe unnecessary medications and perform unnecessary procedures and the government will not reimbursement the patient for said services. They will deny these benefits for the lack of prior authorization, not medically appropriate and other such reasons.
You want to fix the problem, give the industry an enema. Flush out the crap and get back to practicing medicine. The best way to solve a problem, to diagnose a patient is through good history in-taking and preventative medicine. This takes time and too often people are in a rush to find the miracle cure that they end up fixing problems with bandaids instead of solving the problem through long term treatment.
For example - patient presents with strong family history of diabetes and heart disease. Patient is overweight, smokes and drinks heavily. Patient leads sedentary life.
Patient goes home, goes on about his life.
10 years later.
Patient presents with uncontrolled diabetes and is morbidly obese. Recommend diet and insulin training. Will write script for insulin. Consider gastric bypass.
Almost all of that last part could have been avoided. That patient is now considered high risk (interpreted as "expensive") to any health care entity.
I'm not at all accusing physicians of being alone in fault. It's the public too. We want to complain about health care costs when many individuals don't take the necessary steps in their own lives to prevent costly health care expenses later in life.
(I was typing this before I saw your more recent response, Michael so I'll wait for the social aspect of this for the time being)
Posted by: mipadi Sep 3 2009, 03:06 PM
Well, I think you (Rebecca) bring up a couple of more good points that are important to consider:
- There is a tendency to require unnecessary tests and treatments, and part of this is due to the horrendous malpractice issue in this country. Doctors often order unnecessary tests as a sort of "cover your ass" move to prevent malpractice suits. The thing that the general public needs to realize is that medicine is as much an art as it is a science, and doctors aren't right 100% of the time. Yeah, no one wants to die after going in for surgery...but unless a doctor is grossly negligent, I think we have to accept that mistakes will occasionally happen. Unnecessary treatments also result in our situation with antibiotics, in which antibiotics were so over-prescribed that many conventional antibiotics are now useless, resulting in the need for newer and more expensive medicines (although I'm sure pharmaceutical companies love that).
- We really should consider long-term treatment solutions, rather than "quick fixes". Americans often demand medicine to fix what could be solved by long-term lifestyle changes. Diabetes is a good example. Another is heartburn. There are tons of heartburn drugs on the market, when the solution to heartburn is pretty simple for most people: don't eat spicy food. But people want to be able to swallow a pill and eat as much chile as they can. Mental illness is another area in which we look to quick solutions. Depressed? Take Prozac. Anxious? Take Xanax. I'm not saying that medicine is never necessary for mental illness, but it is over-prescribed, in my opinion. A short anecdote: for about four months, I was treated for depression and anxiety. Both my therapist and I were reluctant to prescribe drugs, so we did it the "old-fashioned way": by talking. It probably cost a good deal more than drugs (and therapy sessions weren't covered under my old insurance plan), but in the long run, I think it's worked out better. It did take a lot more work on both our parts than just popping a pill, though.
Hell, Brooke Shields is even advertising a pill to make your eyelashes longer now, for God's sake.
Partly this solution could be improved with controls on pharmaceutical companies' advertising. I don't think drug companies should be pushing their drugs on TV. Doctors, not the general public, should decide what drugs are necessary.
Posted by: drinksmokefuck Sep 3 2009, 05:08 PM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 4 2009, 03:02 AM)
I believe it was Hobbes (among others) who suggested that humans derived great benefit from joining in society, rather than staying in the "jungle", but as a result, man has to give up certain privileges (such as the unchecked accumulation of wealth -- i.e., the freedom from taxation) in order to reap the benefits of society. There's no doubt that joining society gives man great benefits, but those benefits are not without cost, and part of that cost is putting the needs of others above your own. I feel that the capitalist ideal, which is essentially "every man for himself", runs completely counter to the notions of society.
Correct, this "jungle" was something he called a state of nature, and since no rational man wanted to live in it, he said f*ck it, lets make some laws. But, the whole moral obligation was more Locke. Which brings me to my question. Do you think its worth it? Are you willing to risk the jobs of doctors, further research into medical science, and technological advances so a few million more people can get health insurance?
Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?
Posted by: IamLegend Sep 3 2009, 09:10 PM
QUOTE(drinksmokef*ck @ Sep 3 2009, 05:08 PM)
Correct, this "jungle" was something he called a state of nature, and since no rational man wanted to live in it, he said f*ck it, lets make some laws. But, the whole moral obligation was more Locke. Which brings me to my question. Do you think its worth it? Are you willing to risk the jobs of doctors, further research into medical science, and technological advances so a few million more people can get health insurance?
Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?
Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?
See this is the thing that worries me about today's doctors. If they really wanted to make advances in medical science, wouldn't they do it for the people and not for the money? A lot of times doctors misdiagnose people because they just don't care. I recently read an article where they use race to determine a diagnosis which in return leads to a misdiagnosis.
Posted by: Insurmountable Sep 3 2009, 10:29 PM
QUOTE(IamLegend @ Sep 3 2009, 10:10 PM)
See this is the thing that worries me about today's doctors. If they really wanted to make advances in medical science, wouldn't they do it for the people and not for the money?
If money wasn't involved than many of the intelligent individuals who are doctors today would spend their time in college investing in another career. Doctors spend years in college and in return make decent living. Just because a doctor does a job that keeps you alive doesn't take away the fact that he's doing a job. It shouldn't bother you that people do things for money. That intelligent doctor who saves your life one day may have become something else if it wasn't worth his time. I'm not suggesting that all doctors are perfect or that there aren't doctors with a passion for helping people. I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.
Posted by: NoSex Sep 4 2009, 03:08 AM
QUOTE(Insurmountable @ Sep 3 2009, 10:29 PM)
I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.
under a universal systems, doctors are still likely to be significant high income earners. it's just the the difference between one awesome sports car, or two. i think it's fair to say that one awesome sports car constitutes a "decent check."
also, as another point, there is no good reason to believe that medical research will necessarily be hindered by universal medicine:
1. a private industry will still exist.
2. a social program can create incentives towards research.
canada has pioneered many procedures and experimental medicines under a universal system.
lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.
"'It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,' said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference'."
we rank 24th in life expectancy & we have the 2nd highest health expenditure (as a % of g.d.p). [http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html]
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.
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 4 2009, 09:18 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 4 2009, 04:08 AM)
under a universal systems, doctors are still likely to be significant high income earners. it's just the the difference between one awesome sports car, or two. i think it's fair to say that one awesome sports car constitutes a "decent check."
also, as another point, there is no good reason to believe that medical research will necessarily be hindered by universal medicine:
1. a private industry will still exist.
2. a social program can create incentives towards research.
canada has pioneered many procedures and experimental medicines under a universal system.
lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.
"'It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,' said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference'."
we rank 24th in life expectancy & we have the 2nd highest health expenditure (as a % of g.d.p). [http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html]
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.
also, as another point, there is no good reason to believe that medical research will necessarily be hindered by universal medicine:
1. a private industry will still exist.
2. a social program can create incentives towards research.
canada has pioneered many procedures and experimental medicines under a universal system.
lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.
"'It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,' said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference'."
we rank 24th in life expectancy & we have the 2nd highest health expenditure (as a % of g.d.p). [http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html]
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.
First, doctors deserve an awesome check. It's that awesome check that attracts the brightest people in the world to peruse a medical career in America. I want those people working in America.
Second, people tote the life expectancy rate around like it has some direct correlation to health care and it doesn't. There are many factors that have nothing to do with health care and bring down the life expectancy rate in America. Such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco, and even abortion (in other countries the parents of mental challenged children often opt to have an abortion rather than give their babies a life).
Third, I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to how much money we spend on our health care system, however there are many ways to lower the cost of health care without placing health care into gov't hands. I think that Reb makes a good point when she refers to doctors being forced to preform test after test just to cover their asses. They spend more time avoiding law suites then helping patients.
Posted by: superstitious Sep 4 2009, 10:33 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 4 2009, 03:08 AM)
lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.
It isn't uniformly ignored. I've merely pointed out that the problem of health care isn't exclusive to private insurance companies. It's the industry as a whole.
Rankings and statistics are good and by no means am I saying that your points are not valid. I have a strong opinion that before any type of decision can be made regarding universal health care, a thorough analysis of the day to day practices and costs per patient, per diagnosis needs to be performed. I know for a fact that this already being implemented and that many private insurance entities are being scrutinized right now for that very reason.
I also do not believe that the future of health care should consist of any one particular insurance group - be it public or private. I think that options are good and that competition between insurance types is healthy. I'm down with both, not one or the other.
Also, the "cya" excuse isn't 100% valid. Part of the excessiveness is due to many physicians not wanting to take the time necessary to counsel patients in long term and preventative care. Also, many patients are not innocent either. The quick fix is attractive to both physicians and patients.
QUOTE
MANY SYSTEMS OUT-PERFORM AMERICA'S and WE PAY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE FOR HEALTH CARE.
HEALTH, in general, is better in other countries as well. You can't totally blame "America's" system for the lack of positivity in system ranking/performance. The idea that further bureaucratic decision making is going to completely solve the issue of health care is a little misguided. I mean this with no disrespect. Change needs to occur from the patient and physician level in conjunction with any change in overall health care policies.
Posted by: brooklyneast05 Sep 4 2009, 11:59 AM
i thought of you this morning rebecca when i was reading this david brooks column in the paper. i don't know it just reminded me of stuff you've said in this thread about getting down to the real problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Posted by: IamLegend Sep 4 2009, 10:45 PM
QUOTE(Insurmountable @ Sep 3 2009, 10:29 PM)
If money wasn't involved than many of the intelligent individuals who are doctors today would spend their time in college investing in another career. Doctors spend years in college and in return make decent living.
I'm aware of this and I agree.
QUOTE
Just because a doctor does a job that keeps you alive doesn't take away the fact that he's doing a job. It shouldn't bother you that people do things for money. That intelligent doctor who saves your life one day may have become something else if it wasn't worth his time. I'm not suggesting that all doctors are perfect or that there aren't doctors with a passion for helping people. I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.
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?
Posted by: brooklyneast05 Sep 5 2009, 01:23 PM
another good article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care
long as hell, but i think pretty much everybody in the debate can agree with at least some parts of this. worth the read.
Posted by: mipadi Sep 9 2009, 11:57 AM
QUOTE(drinksmokef*ck @ Sep 3 2009, 06:08 PM)
Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?
This sentiment is what I think is a bit ridiculous about this debate. A person can argue that a single-payer system (or at least a public option) would be bad for the United States, and no one asks questions like, "Hey, is your decision based on facts, or are you just trying to protect your cronies in the health care industry?" Or someone can argue that it'll cost too much money, and no one asks, "Are you just arguing against universal health care because you get health insurance from your employer, and don't care about anyone but yourself and your own family?" But if a person (e.g., me) argues about both the moral implications of not helping those less fortunate, or the pragmatic implications of not doing so, it immediately raises questions like this.
In other words, why are people so suspicious of those who are trying to help others? I think that has been the greatest success of America's capitalist machine: it's actually managed to convince lower- and middle-class individuals that the "captains of industry" are trying to look out for them, and that they should be suspicious of anyone trying to help the poor. Poor people all over the world get screwed over by the rich; the difference is that in places like central America, poor people know they're being screwed, and actively try to fight the oppression as best they can; in America, poor people are convinced that they're not being screwed over by the rich. Our corporate-owned media has clearly done its job of placating the masses and diffusing blame.
So no, my motivation comes from a desire to level the playing field. Would I be happy if we got universal health care in America? Yes, very. Would I be happy knowing that I helped others? Yes, very -- who isn't happy when they can make others' lives better? But is my whole motivation born out of a desire to assuage my own guilt by helping others (as you seem to suggest)? No -- I'd rather just fix the system than sit around smugly content that I was doing a little bit to help.
Posted by: synkiro Sep 9 2009, 02:14 PM
i currently don't have health insurance, but i don't believe in someone else paying for it either. i'd rather do without and get billed a quarter million if i ever find myself in intensive care (this actually happened to a friend of mine). that's just how i believe it should work; if you want something, PAY for it.
my friends who currently get free health coverage whether through their parents or for having low income annoy the f*ck out of me. why should they be able to get free/cheap lasik or braces while at the same time are able to satisfy their materialistic and superficial needs, with iphones, ps3s, 360s, computers up the wazoo. it reminds me of all these people living in the projects who pull bmws and range rovers out their asses. it's bullshit. if you can't afford it, i'd rather you look like it. i guess i am heartless ;o
Posted by: irishcarbombs Sep 9 2009, 08:13 PM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 9 2009, 09:57 AM)
This sentiment is what I think is a bit ridiculous about this debate. A person can argue that a single-payer system (or at least a public option) would be bad for the United States, and no one asks questions like, "Hey, is your decision based on facts, or are you just trying to protect your cronies in the health care industry?" Or someone can argue that it'll cost too much money, and no one asks, "Are you just arguing against universal health care because you get health insurance from your employer, and don't care about anyone but yourself and your own family?" But if a person (e.g., me) argues about both the moral implications of not helping those less fortunate, or the pragmatic implications of not doing so, it immediately raises questions like this.
In other words, why are people so suspicious of those who are trying to help others? I think that has been the greatest success of America's capitalist machine: it's actually managed to convince lower- and middle-class individuals that the "captains of industry" are trying to look out for them, and that they should be suspicious of anyone trying to help the poor. Poor people all over the world get screwed over by the rich; the difference is that in places like central America, poor people know they're being screwed, and actively try to fight the oppression as best they can; in America, poor people are convinced that they're not being screwed over by the rich. Our corporate-owned media has clearly done its job of placating the masses and diffusing blame.
So no, my motivation comes from a desire to level the playing field. Would I be happy if we got universal health care in America? Yes, very. Would I be happy knowing that I helped others? Yes, very -- who isn't happy when they can make others' lives better? But is my whole motivation born out of a desire to assuage my own guilt by helping others (as you seem to suggest)? No -- I'd rather just fix the system than sit around smugly content that I was doing a little bit to help.
In other words, why are people so suspicious of those who are trying to help others? I think that has been the greatest success of America's capitalist machine: it's actually managed to convince lower- and middle-class individuals that the "captains of industry" are trying to look out for them, and that they should be suspicious of anyone trying to help the poor. Poor people all over the world get screwed over by the rich; the difference is that in places like central America, poor people know they're being screwed, and actively try to fight the oppression as best they can; in America, poor people are convinced that they're not being screwed over by the rich. Our corporate-owned media has clearly done its job of placating the masses and diffusing blame.
So no, my motivation comes from a desire to level the playing field. Would I be happy if we got universal health care in America? Yes, very. Would I be happy knowing that I helped others? Yes, very -- who isn't happy when they can make others' lives better? But is my whole motivation born out of a desire to assuage my own guilt by helping others (as you seem to suggest)? No -- I'd rather just fix the system than sit around smugly content that I was doing a little bit to help.
I'm so sorry.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen09/news/story?id=4457611
I didnt know you had so many fans.
Posted by: kryogenix Sep 10 2009, 04:07 PM
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.
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 14 2009, 03:39 PM
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?
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.
Posted by: NoSex Sep 14 2009, 10:25 PM
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.
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 15 2009, 09:17 AM
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.
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.
Posted by: doughnut Sep 15 2009, 09:45 AM
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Sep 11 2009, 05:07 AM)
No one is entitled to health care.
then that sucks. what if youre too poor?
Posted by: superstitious Sep 15 2009, 10:21 AM
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.
Posted by: mipadi Sep 15 2009, 10:27 AM
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.
Posted by: superstitious Sep 15 2009, 10:59 AM
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. 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.
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).
Posted by: NoSex Sep 15 2009, 12:32 PM
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...
Posted by: IamLegend Sep 15 2009, 09:15 PM
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?
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 16 2009, 08:44 AM
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...
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?
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.
Posted by: NoSex Sep 16 2009, 08:29 PM
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.
Posted by: 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.
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.
Posted by: mipadi Sep 17 2009, 08:10 PM
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?
Posted by: NoSex Sep 18 2009, 02:07 AM
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.
Posted by: Uronacid Sep 19 2009, 08:59 AM
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.
Posted by: mipadi Sep 19 2009, 11:06 AM
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.
[...]
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.
http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/is_medicare_bankrupt
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: brooklyneast05 Sep 20 2009, 10:31 AM
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.
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...
Posted by: doughnut Sep 20 2009, 10:37 AM
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.
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?
Posted by: colddesert Sep 23 2009, 03:21 PM
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?
Posted by: buckwild-kingdom Sep 23 2009, 06:37 PM
no its called stupid
Posted by: colddesert Sep 24 2009, 01:01 AM
^ Well, that also.
Posted by: NoSex Sep 27 2009, 02:00 AM
i love how the opposition here has more or less ignored all pertinent points. way to suck, losers.
Posted by: kryogenix Oct 1 2009, 06:36 AM
says the guy who's been ignoring my posts in this thread
Posted by: NoSex Oct 3 2009, 10:21 AM
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Sep 10 2009, 04:07 PM)
You completely ignored my point about the government granted monopoly that allows USPS's shitty service to continue.
begging the question. confirmation bias.
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Sep 10 2009, 04:07 PM)
So why is the government option necessary in the first place if it's just going to be like a private insurance firm?
suppressed evidence. selective observation.
there are several descriptions in this thread about how the government option would be different & if you were actually informed (i.e. read the news or something), you would already know the answer to this question. you can't blame us for your ignorance, you actually have to have some sincere interest in this debate...
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Sep 10 2009, 04:07 PM)
Either you're not telling the whole story, or you're lying.
false dilemma. you're neglecting several options, most important being that you're just an ignorant fool.
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Sep 10 2009, 04:07 PM)
No one is entitled to health care.
begging the question.
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Sep 10 2009, 04:07 PM)
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.
my comparison was important because of the fact that all the CHEAPER, OUT-PERFORMING systems that i was referring to, they're all systems of socialized medicine. many are actually universal, single payer systems (which also permit private competition, ex. canada).
I'M IGNORING YOUR POINTS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T ADDRESSING MINE OR BECAUSE THEY ARE OBVIOUS EXAMPLES OF LOGICAL FALLACIES.
Posted by: kryogenix Nov 28 2009, 06:06 AM
LOGICAL FALLACY LOGICAL FALLACY
I'm not going to be intimidated because your posts read like a robot
Make an argument other than "LOL UR JUST 2 DUM 2 UNDERSTAND"
Posted by: NoSex Nov 29 2009, 04:37 AM
i have no idea what you want from me.
you say the quality will be poor, i show you that other countries have high performing, high quality socialized medicine. i show you, even further, that america's highest performing medicine is actually socialized medicine (i.e. medicare and medicaid).
you say that government can't do anything right, i show you that sometimes it can.
you say that we shouldn't trust government, i ask why we should trust corporations.
you say that you want reform, but don't describe what sort of reform that may be.
you just suck ass @ debating. it's sickening trying to discuss an issue with you; you're so obviously uninterested in what the opposition has to say.
Posted by: kryogenix Nov 29 2009, 01:22 PM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Nov 29 2009, 04:37 AM)
i have no idea what you want from me.
how about engaging my arguments rather than cherry picking and regurgitating talking points from liberal blogs?
QUOTE
you say the quality will be poor, i show you that other countries have high performing, high quality socialized medicine.
You ignored my point about the fact that many of those countries have a population smaller than California.
QUOTE
i show you, even further, that america's highest performing medicine is actually socialized medicine (i.e. medicare and medicaid).
If systems that are going bankrupt within the next decade is the best socialized medicine can do, then we need LESS of it.
QUOTE
you say that government can't do anything right, i show you that sometimes it can.
Putting words in my mouth much? I say that government involvement introduces inefficiencies and higher costs. You ignore this.
QUOTE
you say that we shouldn't trust government, i ask why we should trust corporations.
Wanna keep a running tally of the evils governments have introduced to the world vs the evils corporations have? How often have corporations committed genocide? It's not even close.
If I think a healthcare insurance company is being unfair and no longer wish to pay for it, I can simply choose to stop buying their insurance. If I don't want to pay for a government service, and quit paying my taxes, my ass gets hauled off to prison.
QUOTE
you say that you want reform, but don't describe what sort of reform that may be.
Again, you ignoring me. Sure I have. LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTHCARE. Allow the free market to regulate prices.
QUOTE
you just suck ass @ debating. it's sickening trying to discuss an issue with you; you're so obviously uninterested in what the opposition has to say.
Says the guy who's been ignoring me this entire time.
Posted by: NoSex Nov 29 2009, 08:49 PM
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Nov 29 2009, 12:22 PM)
Says the guy who's been ignoring me this entire time.
shut the f*ck up. i have pages and pages worth of posts in this thread that account for nearly all of your arguments & advance my own in much more detail & in much more accuracy than any of your arguments. your posts can only be found right here & in the first page, & half of those posts are bad jokes.
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.
p.s. what does the size of population have to do with anything?
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.
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?
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.
p.p.p.p.p.s. explain EXACTLY how deregulation would fix healthcare in america.
Posted by: kryogenix Nov 30 2009, 04:45 AM
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.
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.
Posted by: NoSex Nov 30 2009, 08:35 PM
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Nov 30 2009, 03:45 AM)
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?
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Nov 30 2009, 03:45 AM)
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.
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Nov 30 2009, 03:45 AM)
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.
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Nov 30 2009, 03:45 AM)
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.
Posted by: kryogenix Dec 1 2009, 05:58 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Nov 30 2009, 08:35 PM)
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).
Posted by: Tomates Dec 2 2009, 05:45 PM
im going to put my own 2 cents in here.
My mother was talking to her friends cousin who is from Toronto. Canada has universal health care. The one thing he said was
"Americans don't really realize that if they get universal health care then they're going to have to wait longer for the most simplest medical needs. Like if you break something, surguries, dentist, therapies , transplants you're going to have to wait possibly weeks or months even though it should take maybe minutes or days. They're more concerned on how much they don't have to spend."
Which is true because you have to get that accepted by the government. I mean if i had to get a transplant i wouldn't want to wait months, i shouldn't have to and there have been people who have had to wait that long.
Posted by: karmakiller Dec 2 2009, 07:17 PM
QUOTE(Tomates @ Dec 2 2009, 04:45 PM)
Which is true because you have to get that accepted by the government. I mean if i had to get a transplant i wouldn't want to wait months, i shouldn't have to and there have been people who have had to wait that long.
The government can't control the availability of donated organs/tissue (I'm assuming that's what you mean by transplant). Besides, a lot of that is done on a case by case basis.
Posted by: serotonin Dec 2 2009, 07:29 PM
QUOTE(karmakiller @ Dec 2 2009, 06:17 PM)
The government can't control the availability of donated organs/tissue (I'm assuming that's what you mean by transplant). Besides, a lot of that is done on a case by case basis.
It could if we imported more Indians and committed more legalized hate crimes. Jesus Christ, Dee. Why didn't you think of that? We could kill mexicans and a-rabs and take their organs. No more illegals, more organs, more living Americans, win win situation.
Posted by: Tomates Dec 2 2009, 07:55 PM
QUOTE(karmakiller @ Dec 2 2009, 07:17 PM)
The government can't control the availability of donated organs/tissue (I'm assuming that's what you mean by transplant). Besides, a lot of that is done on a case by case basis.
That wasn't what i was meaning. At least in Canada the government has to approve for the transplant.
Posted by: karmakiller Dec 2 2009, 08:34 PM
You must forgive me, Steven, I'm from the north.
What other transplants are there besides organ and tissue transplants? State laws regulate organ donation, but it isn't up to the government to decide who does and who doesn't get transplants, so I don't know what the waiting time for getting a transplant has to do with universal healthcare. If it were an issue of paying for the transplants, then of course. There are both medical and non-medical financial issues that need to be dealt with. I'm just not sure what you're trying to get at when you bring up the waiting time.
Posted by: Tomates Dec 2 2009, 09:29 PM
QUOTE(karmakiller @ Dec 2 2009, 08:34 PM)
You must forgive me, Steven, I'm from the north.
What other transplants are there besides organ and tissue transplants? State laws regulate organ donation, but it isn't up to the government to decide who does and who doesn't get transplants, so I don't know what the waiting time for getting a transplant has to do with universal healthcare. If it were an issue of paying for the transplants, then of course. There are both medical and non-medical financial issues that need to be dealt with. I'm just not sure what you're trying to get at when you bring up the waiting time.
What other transplants are there besides organ and tissue transplants? State laws regulate organ donation, but it isn't up to the government to decide who does and who doesn't get transplants, so I don't know what the waiting time for getting a transplant has to do with universal healthcare. If it were an issue of paying for the transplants, then of course. There are both medical and non-medical financial issues that need to be dealt with. I'm just not sure what you're trying to get at when you bring up the waiting time.
Pretty much overall you have wait longer to get anything medical. That's just how it goes with universal health care. That's what i've been told.
Posted by: Kontroll Dec 10 2009, 09:21 AM
QUOTE(NoSex @ Aug 23 2009, 08:14 PM)
so, why the f*ck don't we have universal healthcare?
Because it would be one of a million things we as tax payers already pay for and don't need.
The government protects, not provides. That is the communities, and churches responsibility.
Posted by: paozuu Dec 11 2009, 02:10 AM
QUOTE(Tomates @ Dec 2 2009, 06:45 PM)
im going to put my own 2 cents in here.
My mother was talking to her friends cousin who is from Toronto. Canada has universal health care. The one thing he said was
"Americans don't really realize that if they get universal health care then they're going to have to wait longer for the most simplest medical needs. Like if you break something, surguries, dentist, therapies , transplants you're going to have to wait possibly weeks or months even though it should take maybe minutes or days. They're more concerned on how much they don't have to spend."
Which is true because you have to get that accepted by the government. I mean if i had to get a transplant i wouldn't want to wait months, i shouldn't have to and there have been people who have had to wait that long.
My mother was talking to her friends cousin who is from Toronto. Canada has universal health care. The one thing he said was
"Americans don't really realize that if they get universal health care then they're going to have to wait longer for the most simplest medical needs. Like if you break something, surguries, dentist, therapies , transplants you're going to have to wait possibly weeks or months even though it should take maybe minutes or days. They're more concerned on how much they don't have to spend."
Which is true because you have to get that accepted by the government. I mean if i had to get a transplant i wouldn't want to wait months, i shouldn't have to and there have been people who have had to wait that long.
This is true, we will have to wait longer. We had a discussion like this today in my American History class, don't know why but we talked about it. It was a debate, and neither of the side was stronger than the other. There was some strong points about the pros and cons, but in the end it balanced each other out for the voters to decide. For me, I am biased right now, I agree with both sides. My parents are fully against universal healthcare, because they are old, and everyone wants to be treated first.
Not only will we have to wait, but it will be easier for those who want to work in the medical field. They need medical workers now, but atleast they are challenged and are working hard. Once we have the universal healthcare the clinics and hospitals will need more workers. More chance of making those who want to work in that field easier, when it shouldn't be easy.
If we do have universal healthcare, that's great for those who are having a hard time to get insurance. Some people that I know who have jobs and are working very hard that are legal, do not have insurance because the companies do not approve them. The company says they are not able to afford insurance. I believe that is absurd because those who need them the most are rejected because of financial issues. Then again, it's the economy to blame.
Posted by: Cum Mar 22 2010, 09:14 PM
so guyz... about that healthcare being passed.
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 23 2010, 12:25 AM
QUOTE(Kontroll @ Dec 10 2009, 06:21 AM)
The government protects, not provides. That is the communities, and churches responsibility.
LMFAO, WUT?!?!
Posted by: Tomates Mar 23 2010, 05:18 PM
QUOTE(Cum @ Mar 22 2010, 10:14 PM)
so guyz... about that healthcare being passed.
Im not happy about it. Nor are my parents. Also just to add a little story.
My dad had a patient from Windsor tell him about their healthcare. Might as well share since we're in this doom.
Her daughter had a bad knee and had to get it replaced. So in May they talked to a doctor, the doctor said "You can get the replacement in August" to then they thought it was great, a new knee in three months. The doctor then said "oh no....not this August...next August".
That is all.
Posted by: doughnut Mar 24 2010, 05:06 AM
^what has that got to do with anything?
the delay of the passing of this bill is probably why the USA's HDI is still behind many european countries.
health care is a merit good, high demand and low supply. it's stupid that most of the USA's health care is in the private sector, since it doesn't help to protect the people with lower incomes.
Posted by: kryogenix Mar 25 2010, 09:55 AM
QUOTE(doughnut @ Mar 24 2010, 06:06 AM)
^what has that got to do with anything?
the delay of the passing of this bill is probably why the USA's HDI is still behind many european countries.
the delay of the passing of this bill is probably why the USA's HDI is still behind many european countries.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Why is Germany, which healthcare proponents often cite in arguments, lower than the United States in HDI?
HDI is a load of crap.
QUOTE
health care is a merit good, high demand and low supply. it's stupid that most of the USA's health care is in the private sector, since it doesn't help to protect the people with lower incomes.
The fact that healthcare is a good is the reason why it MUST be left to the private sector.
Making healthcare a right means you force healthcare providers to give it away/provide services for free. Why discriminate against the healthcare industry then? Why not make food a right? Free food at the supermarkets for all. Do you think that would work?
Posted by: doughnut Mar 25 2010, 10:22 AM
healthcare should be in the public sector because everybody deserves to be treated. in the private sector it gets manipulated and people in the health industry will care more for what they earn that much many people they save.
Posted by: kryogenix Mar 25 2010, 03:35 PM
QUOTE(doughnut @ Mar 25 2010, 11:22 AM)
healthcare should be in the public sector because everybody deserves to be treated. in the private sector it gets manipulated and people in the health industry will care more for what they earn that much many people they save.
Let's try it this way:
QUOTE(doughnut @ Mar 25 2010, 11:22 AM)
________ should be in the public sector because everybody deserves to be ________. in the private sector it gets manipulated and people in the ________ industry will care more for what they earn that much many people they save.
There are so many things you can fill the blanks with. Why stop at healthcare? Why not take food out of the private sector and make it public? Clothing? If everyone deserves healthcare, surely everyone deserves to eat and get clothed too, right? Isn't it unfair that some people get to buy $200 jeans while some people can't afford clothing? Isn't unfair that some people can eat gourmet foods while others can barely afford their meals? How about houses? Maybe the government should buy everyone a house. After all, everyone deserves a roof above their head.
Is that the society you're advocating for?
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 25 2010, 06:44 PM
cmon, she lives in China
Posted by: doughnut Mar 26 2010, 01:10 AM
QUOTE(aflyingcumshot @ Mar 26 2010, 07:44 AM)
cmon, she lives in China
correction. hong kong. which adopts british's health care system. and if you had to know, it is one of the healthiest place in the world, with the life expectancy 2nd highest in the world. usa is the only developed industrialized country that does not have a universal health care system, well, not since march 23. usa is seriously lagging behind compared to other wealthy and developed countries.
the difference between health care, food and clothing is that health care is a necessity. with obesity being one of the most important health issues in the usa, lack of food isn't quite the immediate problem. it may be unfair for some people who can't afford expensive clothes but that certainly isn't a major problem.
do you really think that it is ethical to refuse a person medical needs just because they are uninsured?
Posted by: kryogenix Mar 26 2010, 06:08 AM
Yes, I do.
If someone's house burns down, they can't demand that other people pay to rebuild it when they don't have fire insurance. If someone crashes their car and they aren't insured, they can't force people to buy them a new one.
Why is health insurance any different? Do you think it's ethical to take people's money at gunpoint?
Posted by: Uso Mar 26 2010, 11:34 AM
My mum has a friend, who is a doctor that lives in Canada
Hence: who has universal healthcare
and he quote, " No one really has no idea how bad of an idea it is"
That's all I can say
Plus that means more people per doctor, with less pay for them and there aren't enough employed doctors to care for everyone in the U.S
Posted by: brooklyneast05 Mar 26 2010, 01:18 PM
QUOTE(doughnut @ Mar 26 2010, 01:10 AM)
the difference between health care, food and clothing is that health care is a necessity. with obesity being one of the most important health issues in the usa, lack of food isn't quite the immediate problem. it may be unfair for some people who can't afford expensive clothes but that certainly isn't a major problem.
man i duno i was rooting for you but this really killed your argument. food isn't a necessity because some people in the US are fat? that's like the worst reason i've ever heard. i'm not fat. most people i know aren't fat. food is about 3567896545678 of a more immediate problem to my daily survival than health care insurance is.
most people in the US have food (not all), but likewise most people in the US have health insurance too.
i been reading about health care all morning, idk what i think still.
who regulates the rates? i don't know if i'm missing something. we have to buy insurance, but we can't regulate their rates so they can just keep bumping them up non stop? how is that different than what insurance companies have already been doing?
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 26 2010, 09:00 PM
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Mar 26 2010, 03:08 AM)
Why is health insurance any different?
Well, the value of life =/= materialistic things
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 26 2010, 09:01 PM
QUOTE(doughnut @ Mar 25 2010, 10:10 PM)
correction. hong kong.
...which is innn CHINAAAA
QUOTE(Uso @ Mar 26 2010, 08:34 AM)
there aren't enough employed doctors to care for everyone in the U.S
great, more facts with no backup, you can't just throw random things you think is right
Posted by: Tomates Mar 26 2010, 09:32 PM
QUOTE(doughnut @ Mar 24 2010, 06:06 AM)
^what has that got to do with anything?
the delay of the passing of this bill is probably why the USA's HDI is still behind many european countries.
health care is a merit good, high demand and low supply. it's stupid that most of the USA's health care is in the private sector, since it doesn't help to protect the people with lower incomes.
the delay of the passing of this bill is probably why the USA's HDI is still behind many european countries.
health care is a merit good, high demand and low supply. it's stupid that most of the USA's health care is in the private sector, since it doesn't help to protect the people with lower incomes.
It has to do with something because its talking about health care and this topic is about health care.
Also did you guys hear it got sent back?
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 26 2010, 09:48 PM
QUOTE(Tomates @ Mar 26 2010, 06:32 PM)
It has to do with something because its talking about health care and this topic is about health care.
Also did you guys hear it got sent back?
Also did you guys hear it got sent back?
Yeah, it really got sent back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8583350.stm
QUOTE
Barack Obama signs landmark US healthcare bill into law
Posted by: doughnut Mar 26 2010, 10:49 PM
QUOTE(aflyingcumshot @ Mar 27 2010, 10:01 AM)
...which is innn CHINAAAA
yes its regionally part of china and your point being is?
QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Mar 27 2010, 02:18 AM)
man i duno i was rooting for you but this really killed your argument. food isn't a necessity because some people in the US are fat? that's like the worst reason i've ever heard. i'm not fat. most people i know aren't fat. food is about 3567896545678 of a more immediate problem to my daily survival than health care insurance is.
my point was that i think there isn't an immediate problem of lack of food in the usa, as opposed to the lack of healthcare for the public. last time i checked close to 15% of the population do not have proper health care insurance. correct me if i'm wrong?
i've read up more on the new health care reform, and im starting to see both sides to it. in the economic side, i can see that the reform can cause great deals of problems to insurance companies. it will likely unemployment in the insurance industry. insurance price will likely increase too. taxes will also increase, obviously, and im thinking that may be the main reason why some people are opposed to this reform?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/25/health.care.law.basics/index.html
1. Health insurance companies can't discriminate against you because you have a pre-existing condition.
well i have mixed feelings about this one. i mean, if you were poor, had a pre-existing condition, then you were basically f*cked. however i guess the downside would be for the insurance companies, again, since having to cover high risk people must be damaging to their budget.
strange thing i still dont understand is how can the usa be the only one industrialized country that still hasn't adopted a universal health care system?
Posted by: Tomates Mar 26 2010, 10:52 PM
QUOTE(aflyingcumshot @ Mar 26 2010, 10:48 PM)
Yeah, it really got sent back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8583350.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8583350.stm
well...it did before. Of course i'm saying this like...2-3 days later.
Posted by: kryogenix Mar 27 2010, 07:45 AM
QUOTE(aflyingcumshot @ Mar 26 2010, 10:00 PM)
Well, the value of life =/= materialistic things
So again I ask, what about the basic necessities of life then? Should the government give everyone free food? Clothing? Housing?
Keep in mind, the government's push to allow everyone to be a homeowner is a big part of why the economy collapsed.
While it's nice to want to give everyone healthcare, the government is not some magical man in a hot air balloon that can conjure wonderful things that it bestows upon the people of the land. The money to provide those things has to come from someone, and if the government needs money to provide things, it has to take it, usually from the most productive people in the country. Furthermore, even the wealthiest governments have trouble meeting the demands of their citizens. We are $12 trillion in debt, there is no hope for us to be able to provide everyone with healthcare.
That doesn't mean I don't give a shit about people's health. Personally, I'd like to see the government foster an environment were healthcare becomes so cheap that everyone can afford basic care. When costs go down, everyone wins.
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 28 2010, 03:51 AM
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Mar 27 2010, 04:45 AM)
So again I ask, what about the basic necessities of life then? Should the government give everyone free food? Clothing? Housing?
Those are attainable things by the common person. Liver cancer isn't cured by going to your local 7/11
Posted by: kryogenix Mar 29 2010, 06:15 AM
Housing is attainable by the common person?
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 30 2010, 05:49 AM
Yeah, homeless shelters and up
Posted by: kryogenix Mar 30 2010, 09:09 PM
Band-aids and Tylenol then.
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 30 2010, 09:20 PM
Those don't help with Torn ACLs. You can keep denying it James, but we both know the physiological health > everything else
Posted by: kryogenix Mar 30 2010, 09:52 PM
And that's exactly why I want government out of healthcare.
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 30 2010, 10:15 PM
Then healthcare goes to only for those who can afford it. What happens when all surgeries become 100k+ to perform?
Posted by: kryogenix Mar 30 2010, 11:18 PM
What happens when all surgeries become 100k+ to perform? OK, we'll try it your way. Everyone gets free healthcare. 60 million surgeries are performed every year, so multiply $100k * 60 million = $6 trillion. To put this in perspective, the GDP of the United States is about $14 Trillion.
That means about 40 cents from every dollar earned in this country would have to be taxed to pay for everyone's surgery alone. Of course, the GDP wouldn't stay that high because so much of everyone's money would be going towards healthcare rather than buying other shit. Also, if taxes had to be raised to pay for that, people would leave this country, and we'd sink pretty fast.
We can't afford any of this shit. Stop the wars, stop the welfare, stop the government.
Posted by: aflyingcumshot Mar 31 2010, 05:09 AM
OR if there weren't free healthcare, no one would be treated except for a few, and millions of people would die. So I guess we can agree on that being not a good option either way. But your whole pull-yourselfs-up-by-your-bootstraps ideology seems just a little too extreme for the non-privilege
oh im also in favor of money too so vote plz but your gonna have to come to CA
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/03/24/marijuana-legalization-officially-qualifies-for-california-ballot/?utm_source=feedblitz
Posted by: kryogenix Apr 2 2010, 12:34 PM
it's not a pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps ideology as much as it is a let's not f*ck up our entire country by forcing us to pay for something we can't possibly hope to afford in a million years ideology.
also, you say a privileged few get surgery in a private system. yet, in countries with public healthcare, only a privileged few get treatment and the rest are left to die on waiting lists. supply is still limited; you can't fool the free market.
if the outcome is the same, i'd pick the choice where the country doesn't go bankrupt (or in our case, more bankrupt)
Posted by: Tomates Apr 7 2010, 11:31 AM
QUOTE(doughnut @ Mar 26 2010, 02:10 AM)
correction. hong kong.
Isn't Hong Kong part of China though? Or at leat it has been since 1997.
QUOTE
Until 1997, and the Hong Kong handover, Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom, ruled by a governor. Today, Hong Kong is a part of China, although this comes with a biblical size of caveats
Posted by: brooklyneast05 Apr 7 2010, 11:46 AM
i think you're taking her way too literal.
Posted by: kryogenix Apr 7 2010, 11:52 AM
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, so while they are technically part of China, they have a great of autonomy from mainland China. If I was from Hong Kong, I'd want the distinction to be made between me and mainland Chinese. Taiwan is also part of China, but pretty much every Taiwanese person identifies as Taiwanese rather than just plain Chinese.
Hong Kong also is ranked #1 in the world for the freest economy, which contributes to their economic success.
Posted by: Tomates Apr 7 2010, 11:52 AM
QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Apr 7 2010, 12:46 PM)
i think you're taking her way too literal.
I was just saying. Besides i don't think i was the only one saying that she lived in China.
Posted by: doughnut Apr 7 2010, 12:17 PM
QUOTE(Tomates @ Apr 8 2010, 12:52 AM)
I was just saying. Besides i don't think i was the only one saying that she lived in China.
and this matters because? you sound whiny when you say you're not the only one. dont be hating because we're the 2nd healthiest place in the world with a very well developed healthcare system.
QUOTE
According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[20][21] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [20] while a 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found a much higher figure of more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.[22][23]
quoted from wikipedia.
Posted by: mipadi Apr 7 2010, 01:31 PM
QUOTE(doughnut @ Apr 7 2010, 01:17 PM)
quoted from wikipedia.
So? Rich Americans aren't dying.
Posted by: Tomates Apr 7 2010, 03:40 PM
QUOTE(doughnut @ Apr 7 2010, 01:17 PM)
and this matters because? you sound whiny when you say you're not the only one. dont be hating because we're the 2nd healthiest place in the world with a very well developed healthcare system.
K. You're sounding more whinier. And besides, i put a question mark making clear that i was unsure. I dont think that was me being whiny whatsoever. I'm not haiting because you're the "second healthiest place in the world with a very well developed healthcare system" honestly i dont give much of hoot.
I'm just saying this healthcare is going to cause a lot of trouble for Americans. Maybe not for you guys, but for us since its such a huge change.
Posted by: doughnut Apr 9 2010, 02:24 AM
http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/
http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/worldhealthcare.jpghttp://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/worldhealthcare.jpg
Posted by: Reidar Apr 9 2010, 08:01 PM
The argument that food isn't as much a necessity because there are so many fatties and we could all use smaller portions anyways is really nonsensical. There are millions of homeless people in the United States. If you want to cite the juxtaposition between the supposed American standard of living versus the reality of the health care system then you cannot ignore the exact same dichotomy between the first part of that versus the reality of how many people go hungry here each day.
I'm for public health care but against calling it a right. A right isn't the defining delineation between what is and isn't necessary - there are lots of fundamental, basic services that aren't rights. Designating something a right, to me, should be reserved for innate paradigms that are transcendent in the philosophical sense. The corollary is also true; a right isn't always a necessity. I can certainly live a healthy, functional life without the right of free speech and expression.