- Status
My kids use CHiP and I can schedule them into their pediatricians office a day prior to the visit. Weird. Sounds like your state sucks more than the federal government does.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was thinking that too. Where are you Dei?
GasBandit
Staff member
I'll see your france, and raise you the british NHS, canadian health care, both their wait times and lower cancer survival rates, and for good measure I'll throw in Greece with their entitlement economy bringing them crashing to their knees.
)
K
Kitty Sinatra
Because your economy is holding up so well.
K
Kitty Sinatra
That capitalist pig mecca is failure, too?
Funny, i tohught it was all the lying about their debts that made their economy crash...
---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------
About the same time that lets say 2 kids of a dead king going to war over who get which part stopped being a revolution?!
IMO a revolution should be more of a popular uprising, not just a part of the government deciding to form their own state... (to put it broadly)
A
Andromache
Because your economy is holding up so well.[/QUOTE]
i lol'd hard. im really going to have to get a dishwasher safekeyboard
GasBandit
Staff member
That's because, God love him, Moss is wrong.
As always, I am happy to oblige.
Because your economy is holding up so well.[/QUOTE]
The problems in our economy have spawned from our attempts to emulate interventionist/statist "paradises" such as Greece.
Well, right now if, with my health, I tried to get health insurance, it would cost 2/3 of what I make. That's assuming I don't get denied for pre-existing conditions. So reforming that would be a welcome change. Essentially, for me, it's a choice of seeing the doctor or paying my bills.
As for increasing taxes - yes, about 2% on people making $200,000+ a year or couples making more than $250,000+ a year. That means they'll be paying $4000+ more per year - which isn't too heavy a burden when you're making that kind of money. Why them? Because they're a very small portion of the population with a very large percentage of the personal wealth. They can best afford it.
As for increasing taxes - yes, about 2% on people making $200,000+ a year or couples making more than $250,000+ a year. That means they'll be paying $4000+ more per year - which isn't too heavy a burden when you're making that kind of money. Why them? Because they're a very small portion of the population with a very large percentage of the personal wealth. They can best afford it.
That's because, God love him, Moss is wrong. [/QUOTE]
LOL. Ok, That made me chuckle.
As always, I am happy to oblige. [/QUOTE]
Hey, that's not the World Health Organization ranking system.
And companies speculating on what they knew was junk had nothing to do with it at all...
---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------
I thonk i prefer this: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html
And companies speculating on what they knew was junk had nothing to do with it at all...
---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------
I thonk i prefer this: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html[/QUOTE]
Doh! Thanks.
I totally agree that costs need to be dealt with and I do understand your analysis of where the money should come from, but it leaves the nagging question still of why should those who earn more be forced to subsidize my and yours insurance? I know you say "they can best afford it" but I'm wondering if thats your "why" or if it's more than that (it's ok if thats it, I'm really just curious).
The same reason they subsidize roads, schools, armies, police force, fire departments, and government bailouts of major banks.
It was 11 last time, actually.[/QUOTE]
I know.... see what I did there?
Because that's the way TAXES WORK. They take a percentage. The more there is to take from, the more is taken. Why them? Because THEY HAVE THE MONEY. So instead of continually cutting their tax rate - which they can already well afford - they are getting a tax that will benefit many, at little personal cost to them.
As for the "who pays for it" debate, I have some disjointed thoughts on the matter.
Gasbandit says that "healthcare is not a right". And you're right....it's not a right spelled out anywhere in the founding documents of this country. But also, as mentioned, the state of medicine at the time was basically leeches and herbs.
The fundamental question then is "should healthcare be a right?" I think it should be. Even though it's not an enumerated right in our constitution, it seems to me that it is a fundamental human right.
It's unconscionable that people should die of infections, be denied treatment options that may save their lives (or worse yet, be dropped after being diagnosed with a life-threatening condition) or any of the other insurance-company related medical horror stories we ofttimes hear about in the news--and all the while, insurance companies are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. When i was young and poor, I didn't carry insurance at all, because I simply couldn't afford to do it and also live outside of my parents' home.
It just seems to me to be fundamentally bad to have a system that says that someone cannot have access to a life-saving treatment so that someone else can drive a Mercedes. In a for-profit capitalist-based system, that's exactly what we have.
I've heard people throw labels at health care reform: That it's fascist. That it'll be inefficient. They've compared government run healthcare to the postal service. But John Stewart (of the Daily Show) made a pretty good freaking point: For 44 cents, the postal service sends someone to your house to pick up some crap that you wrote, take it to a plane and fly it to your Aunt Mabel in Wyoming (paraphrase). I don't think many people are asking to do away with for-profit healthcare. For those who can afford it, it can be pretty freaking amazing. Our life expectancy in this country is well above the world average.
But what about those people who can't afford it? I make pretty good money, and so luckily, when Callistarya got her cervical cancer diagnosis, I could pull $1500 out of my ass to cover deductibles and up front expenses. I'll be paying another $1000 in the next few months. But I make nearly 100 grand a year, and between the two of us, she and I already pay about $650/month in insurance premiums.
Ten years ago, this situation would have completely broken me. As it does so many people. And I don't think it's right.
So, if healthcare should be a right, someone has to pay for it. The way things work in this country, the wealthy SHOULD pay more in taxes, because they make more money. Our entire tax system is based on that. We have what's known as a "progressive tax" system. I'm in the 28% tax bracket. I pay thousands a year in taxes. Poorer people often get money back every year, over and above any money they put into the system (after child credits, etc). I already shoulder a burden that the government has said I should shoulder--the burden of helping out those less fortunate than me. And you know what? I don't begrudge that. I've been there. I've been so poor that a $600 income tax refund was all that stood between me and eviction. And if that means I shoulder part of the burden of someone's liver transplant, because they can't afford $300,000 to have it, well, fucking a. That just makes my day knowing that I could pay a little bit more in taxes, and one more person would get to live that otherwise wouldn't.
Does that mean I endorse this particular healthcare overhaul? Fuck if i know. It's complicated, and i have no idea if it'll have the intended consequences. But I do applaud the effort.
Gasbandit says that "healthcare is not a right". And you're right....it's not a right spelled out anywhere in the founding documents of this country. But also, as mentioned, the state of medicine at the time was basically leeches and herbs.
The fundamental question then is "should healthcare be a right?" I think it should be. Even though it's not an enumerated right in our constitution, it seems to me that it is a fundamental human right.
It's unconscionable that people should die of infections, be denied treatment options that may save their lives (or worse yet, be dropped after being diagnosed with a life-threatening condition) or any of the other insurance-company related medical horror stories we ofttimes hear about in the news--and all the while, insurance companies are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. When i was young and poor, I didn't carry insurance at all, because I simply couldn't afford to do it and also live outside of my parents' home.
It just seems to me to be fundamentally bad to have a system that says that someone cannot have access to a life-saving treatment so that someone else can drive a Mercedes. In a for-profit capitalist-based system, that's exactly what we have.
I've heard people throw labels at health care reform: That it's fascist. That it'll be inefficient. They've compared government run healthcare to the postal service. But John Stewart (of the Daily Show) made a pretty good freaking point: For 44 cents, the postal service sends someone to your house to pick up some crap that you wrote, take it to a plane and fly it to your Aunt Mabel in Wyoming (paraphrase). I don't think many people are asking to do away with for-profit healthcare. For those who can afford it, it can be pretty freaking amazing. Our life expectancy in this country is well above the world average.
But what about those people who can't afford it? I make pretty good money, and so luckily, when Callistarya got her cervical cancer diagnosis, I could pull $1500 out of my ass to cover deductibles and up front expenses. I'll be paying another $1000 in the next few months. But I make nearly 100 grand a year, and between the two of us, she and I already pay about $650/month in insurance premiums.
Ten years ago, this situation would have completely broken me. As it does so many people. And I don't think it's right.
So, if healthcare should be a right, someone has to pay for it. The way things work in this country, the wealthy SHOULD pay more in taxes, because they make more money. Our entire tax system is based on that. We have what's known as a "progressive tax" system. I'm in the 28% tax bracket. I pay thousands a year in taxes. Poorer people often get money back every year, over and above any money they put into the system (after child credits, etc). I already shoulder a burden that the government has said I should shoulder--the burden of helping out those less fortunate than me. And you know what? I don't begrudge that. I've been there. I've been so poor that a $600 income tax refund was all that stood between me and eviction. And if that means I shoulder part of the burden of someone's liver transplant, because they can't afford $300,000 to have it, well, fucking a. That just makes my day knowing that I could pay a little bit more in taxes, and one more person would get to live that otherwise wouldn't.
Does that mean I endorse this particular healthcare overhaul? Fuck if i know. It's complicated, and i have no idea if it'll have the intended consequences. But I do applaud the effort.
Honestly, if you guys have seen for decades how sticking purely to your square capitalist ways is ruining the country, maybe mixing and matching a bit is the right way to go? Like Europe has been doing for ages without any sacrifice whatsoever to personal freedoms? You're not gonna turn communist commies for providing health care to those who need it, guys. It's like you're... capitalist zealots.
And zealotry, like all extremes, is not healthy.
And zealotry, like all extremes, is not healthy.
GasBandit
Staff member
Except that's not the way our taxes work. The bottom 50% don't even pay income tax at all. Our taxes are "progressive," in that it's not the same percentage applied to all people, it's the more you make, the higher percentage you have to pay. And one of the reasons businesses have been extremely slow on hiring for the last year (and will continue to do so in the future) is because they're scared of the extra expenses from this "health care" bill's passage, including monumental tax increases.
Well, considering you're asking CDS, an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool hypersocialist, sticking it to all the evil people with 6 digit incomes is a worthy outcome unto itself..
There are certainly things that can be improved in our system, but unfortunately democrats were not willing to entertain any notions that didn't involve government power grabs. In fact, they plugged their ears and shouted "WELL IF THIS IS SO BAD WHY DON'T I HEAR YOU OFFERING ALTERNATIVES? HUH? CAN'T HEAR YOU OFFERING ALTERNATIVES!" while alternative ideas were offered. The problem is the high cost of health care, and the bill that has passed will only exacerbate that problem.
As is brought up every single time the WHO's lists are shown (though usually with regards to infant mortality rates,) different nations have different definitions that they use for their reporting. Additionally, that chart doesn't show any details about things like common cancers. Whereas, the studies referenced in the link I posted show specific data about them: That the mortality rate from breast cancer is 88% higher in Britain, and the prostate cancer mortality rate is 604% higher. Canada's rates look better by comparison, as their mortality rates are only 9% and 184% higher than the US, respectively, but you know that's because so many of their patients cross to the US to get treatment.
Just because people can't be bothered to read, I guess, I'll repost the 10 things here:
1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. (More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding.")
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
10: The American health care system is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
For details, see here.
This is not to say our system cannot be improved, or doesn't have problems. Costs are high. They could be lower. We had a whole thread about this. But what was in the bill that was just passed does not address the underlying problems - it only tries to crowbar in more people to the same broken system.
GasBandit
Staff member
You have no idea what you're talking about. We've never been pure capitalist, and we haven't even been predominantly capitalist for a long time. Our problems are arising because that needle keeps moving farther and father to the left. Then, every time we want to move it back to the right some, people like you howl about how we're leaving the poor to rot in the gutters.
Furthermore, your comment about personal freedoms is laughable. The freedom to pick what you want to watch on TV doesn't mean you are free. Furthermore remember - 85% of americans HAD health coverage before this debate even started, and 75% of those rated themselves satisfied or higher with it. There were better and cheaper ways to get the others taken care of, and frankly, nobody who NEEDED medical care in this country has been turned away at the emergency room because they couldn't pay. That's a common falsehood perpetuated by those who wished to see us turn all the more statist.
A
Andromache
Originally posted by GB, but unquoted for formatting
1: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. (More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either \"fundamental change\" or \"complete rebuilding.\")
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9: Americanswho can afford to pay for treatment have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
10: The American health care system is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
For details, see here.
This is not to say our system cannot be improved, or doesn't have problems. Costs are high. They could be lower. We had a whole thread about this. But what was in the bill that was just passed does not address the underlying problems - it only tries to crowbar in more people to the same broken system.
______
Sized additions mine, for clarification.
1: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. (More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either \"fundamental change\" or \"complete rebuilding.\")
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9: Americanswho can afford to pay for treatment have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
10: The American health care system is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
For details, see here.
This is not to say our system cannot be improved, or doesn't have problems. Costs are high. They could be lower. We had a whole thread about this. But what was in the bill that was just passed does not address the underlying problems - it only tries to crowbar in more people to the same broken system.
______
Sized additions mine, for clarification.
Well, yeah. Because Gas is in the can afford treatment category, it's the one that matters. For everyone.
He has a fantastically one sided view of things.
GasBandit
Staff member
You're misrepresenting the study, and misrepresenting reality. People were not dropping dead in the streets, despite leftist alarmism. And in the other countries, the so called universal health care that is supposed to be so wonderful actively denied treatment to these patients. Welcome to reality.
A
Andromache
People who can't afford the health care don't have those benefits. 32 million.
also: you just can't 'show up at the emergency room' for chemo.
You can't show up for a breast lump, either.
If you have a tumor that's so bad that an ER doctor is willing to operate on it, you're already fucked.
Stating that "anyone can show up to the ER and not get turned away" as an example of awesome healthcare is kind of ludicrous. The best healthcare is preventative and early-detection healthcare, hopefully nipping any problem in the bud before it becomes an emergency.
You can't show up for a breast lump, either.
If you have a tumor that's so bad that an ER doctor is willing to operate on it, you're already fucked.
Stating that "anyone can show up to the ER and not get turned away" as an example of awesome healthcare is kind of ludicrous. The best healthcare is preventative and early-detection healthcare, hopefully nipping any problem in the bud before it becomes an emergency.
People that can't afford healthcare are inherently denied benefits other than emergency room care, which then puts them into crippling debt and ruins their lives and drives up costs for everyone else.
- Status