Export thread
New healthcare bill isn't dreaded socialism
#1
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_ ... e_overhaul
It is literally designed to fuck over everyone except for the insurance companies. The Republicans took out anything that might be remotely beneficial to anyone except for corporate interests and the new "compromised" bill pretty much guarantees that every single poor person will go bankrupt from health care expenses.
Look at this quote from the article:
I have no will to live.
Death to America.
-- Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:12 pm --
No, seriously, it's as if they said, "Boy, a bunch of people don't have insurance. I wonder why that is? Well, no time for that now. I know how to fix this, we'll MAKE them get insurance! Good work, everyone."
It is literally designed to fuck over everyone except for the insurance companies. The Republicans took out anything that might be remotely beneficial to anyone except for corporate interests and the new "compromised" bill pretty much guarantees that every single poor person will go bankrupt from health care expenses.
Look at this quote from the article:
Let me repeat.Individuals would have a mandate to buy affordable insurance, but companies would not have a requirement to offer it.
Your government hates you.Individuals would have a mandate to buy affordable insurance, but companies would not have a requirement to offer it.
I have no will to live.
Death to America.
-- Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:12 pm --
No, seriously, it's as if they said, "Boy, a bunch of people don't have insurance. I wonder why that is? Well, no time for that now. I know how to fix this, we'll MAKE them get insurance! Good work, everyone."
#3
Krisken
Krisken
You used to be funny. What happened?The Messiah said:Death to America.
#4
Garbledina
Garbledina
I laugh at the catch-22 nature of this, but honestly that's ridiculously full of shit. If that's a realistic interpretation of the bill, then wow. Just fucking wow. 
#5
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
aaaaugh this is so disgusting, it's just forcing everyone to buy private insurance, it is literally forcing you to support the current failing system. the thing about not charging more for pre-existing care just means that they will charge EVERYONE more all the time to make up the loss, and there will be no reason to improve care or lower prices aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuugh this is absolutely the worst possible fucking thing they could've done fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
"Hey, citizens, sorry about fucking you over on this health care thing, I'm going to feel really terrible about it while I'm rolling around in my piles of money from the insurance lobbies." - The US Government
I wish I could say there was any hope whatsoever of Obama not signing this thing when it hits his desk, but he's going to sign any piece of paper that says "Reform" at the top that crosses his fucking desk aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaugh i want to die
"Hey, citizens, sorry about fucking you over on this health care thing, I'm going to feel really terrible about it while I'm rolling around in my piles of money from the insurance lobbies." - The US Government
I wish I could say there was any hope whatsoever of Obama not signing this thing when it hits his desk, but he's going to sign any piece of paper that says "Reform" at the top that crosses his fucking desk aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaugh i want to die
#6
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Hahahaha I can't claim credit for this, my brother wrote this, but the laughter distracted from the tears for a brief moment:
"So it's like our current system..."
"right"
"...but now we can force everyone to pay into it..."
"yup"
"so we used the spectre of socialism and the idea of the free market to actually utterly remove even the remotest aspects of choice or buyer power from the system, thus defeating capitalism and the free market entirely and instituting a bizarre, perverse kind of reverse-socialism"
"you've got it"
"oh my god i need to jack off"
#7
ElJuski
ElJuski
Your avatar is an awesome gauge of your reaction to reading the reform bill
#8
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
I really should change my sig to reflect thisElJuski said:Your avatar is an awesome gauge of your reaction to reading the reform bill
#9
tegid
tegid
-Hey! We have like, 45 million people without a medical insurance! We need to reform healthcare!
-Healthcare is bad and innefficient! It costs us a lot of money!
-But we can make it more efficient if we reform it!
-Healthcare is bad and innefficient! It costs us a lot of money!
-Look... Insurance companies won't lose any money. In fact, they will earn even more, allright?
-Woo! Healthcare reform for the win!
-Healthcare is bad and innefficient! It costs us a lot of money!
-But we can make it more efficient if we reform it!
-Healthcare is bad and innefficient! It costs us a lot of money!
-Look... Insurance companies won't lose any money. In fact, they will earn even more, allright?
-Woo! Healthcare reform for the win!
#10
Enresshou
Enresshou
Reading the entire fucking article is normally a good thing before you scream the sky's falling.
FTFA said:In the Senate, officials stressed that no agreement has been reached on a bipartisan measure, and said there is no guarantee of one. They also warned that numerous key issues remain to be settled, including several options to pay for the legislation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss matters under private negotiations.
They said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a nonprofit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry, rather than giving the federal government a role in the marketplace. The White House and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs.
One of the senators involved in the talks, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, confirmed that co-ops are the preferred approach. "The co-op is certainly one of the prominent options that is on the table," Snowe told reporters after the group met Monday. "It's safe to say that'll probably remain in the final document."
Officials also said a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers. Instead, these businesses would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies designed to help lower-income employees obtain insurance on their own.
#11
tegid
tegid
'a nonprofit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry'
That would probably be better than what you have right now... But I can't help thinking there will still be people left out. If I read it right, everyone will still have to pay for their own insurance, right?
That would probably be better than what you have right now... But I can't help thinking there will still be people left out. If I read it right, everyone will still have to pay for their own insurance, right?
#12
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Hey I did read the whole article. This is the solution the bipartisan committee came to, and they're going to try to push it through by the end of next week, i.e. the end of this legislative session before the Senate goes on vacation.
Even if it doesn't pass the Senate (I'm wondering how likely this is, considering how easy it would be to turn a "no" vote on this proposal or a similarly horrible proposal into "Voted against spreading health care to more Americans"), the fact that the committee even considered this is horrifying.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:19 am --
Even if it doesn't pass the Senate (I'm wondering how likely this is, considering how easy it would be to turn a "no" vote on this proposal or a similarly horrible proposal into "Voted against spreading health care to more Americans"), the fact that the committee even considered this is horrifying.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:19 am --
Yes. Under this proposal, you would have to buy private insurance or get a tax penalty.tegid said:If I read it right, everyone will still have to pay for their own insurance, right?
#13
tegid
tegid
Well fuck. And what about the current system? Will it disappear? Maybe that's for the better since it would allow to build a new one from scratch without the supposedly terrible flaws the current one has? (inefficiency, etc)
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:28 am --
(Just trying to look at it positively. Of course this isn't good at all)
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:28 am --
(Just trying to look at it positively. Of course this isn't good at all)
#14
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Well, see, this proposal is basically the same as the current system, except you have to buy into it.tegid said:Well fuck. And what about the current system? Will it disappear? Maybe that's for the better since it would allow to build a new one from scratch without the supposedly terrible flaws the current one has? (inefficiency, etc)
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:28 am --
(Just trying to look at it positively. Of course this isn't good at all)
#15
tegid
tegid
If only you, as a society, didn't have this psychosis against anything that sounds like 'socialism' to you (even if it isn't)...
#16
TDK1987
TDK1987
I really don't understand America's stance on this, why is it so controversial to set up something like the UK's NHS? I've got free health care and i'm not a member of the socialist party 
aranoid:
aranoid:
#17
@Li3n
@Li3n
Shut your mouth you lying commie...
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:46 am --
BTW, as i understand it the UK's system is one of the worst examples of a "socialist" one, and there are better ones to copy... which is why they're all bringing up the UK one when talking against a "socialist" system.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:46 am --
BTW, as i understand it the UK's system is one of the worst examples of a "socialist" one, and there are better ones to copy... which is why they're all bringing up the UK one when talking against a "socialist" system.
#18
Steven Soderburgin
The mail, though! The free market is best for that!
It will ALWAYS work toward the best interests of the peo-*completely disregards that the housing market and banking industry and much of our current financial crisis is the result of unregulated businesses running wild and doing whatever they wanted*
Steven Soderburgin
Well, see, we believe that the free market will be best for everyone and everything. Well, everything except the police. Also, the fire department. Oh, and schools and roads, too.TDK1987 said:I really don't understand America's stance on this, why is it so controversial to set up something like the UK's NHS? I've got free health care and i'm not a member of the socialist party
The mail, though! The free market is best for that!
It will ALWAYS work toward the best interests of the peo-*completely disregards that the housing market and banking industry and much of our current financial crisis is the result of unregulated businesses running wild and doing whatever they wanted*
#19
tegid
tegid
Hey, your roads should be free market!! You fucking commies... Also, who needs a police force? In a true capitalist world everything works out in the end
Seriously now... Copy Spain!
Seriously now... Copy Spain!
#20
Kovac
You guys really need to put a Government in place that doesn't hate you.
Time for a revolution perhaps?
Kovac
You guys really need to put a Government in place that doesn't hate you.
Time for a revolution perhaps?
#21
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
*writes something snarky... thinks about it... erases it*
What?
What?
#22
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz
I have this enormous sense of wellbeing right now. I think it comes from having healthcare that's free to all at the point of use. Good isn't it North Ranger?
#23
Covar
Covar
unfortunately our government doesn't hate us. thats part of the problem. the country is run by retards trying to do what's "best" for us.Kovac said:
You guys really need to put a Government in place that doesn't hate you.
Time for a revolution perhaps?
#24
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
As I posted in the fears thread, I'm legitimately terrified of having a disease.
#25
Singularity.EXE
Singularity.EXE
It just boggles my mind how a majority of the American people's want shit like this, or marijuana legalization, or a dozen other reforms and the government won't budge on it? Hello? Isn't this supposed to be a "people's choice" style of government? Or did I misunderstand something?
#26
Armadillo
The current system is far from ideal, and some level of reform (tort reform, not using insurance for EVERY LITTLE THING) needs to happen, but the answer is not to replace a flawed system with an even more flawed system that affords fewer freedoms to the citizenry.
Here's something that's bothered me since the beginning of this debate: the unemployment rate in the U.S. is approaching 10%, and we're discussing a proposal that would put hundreds of thousands of people who work for health insurance companies out of work within a few years? Is that really a wise path to go down? Also, if we've determined that health care is a basic human right that shouldn't be trusted to those worthless profiteers in the private sector, couldn't it then be argued that food, clothing, and shelter are also basic human rights that shouldn't be trusted to worthless profiteers like Cargill, Kraft, GAP, or Edina Realty? Should they be forced out of business in favor of single-payer food, clothing, and housing distribution overseen by the feds?
Armadillo
Single-payer health care isn't a very popular idea in the States, actually. The fear is that once a system like that comes into place, then people will no longer have control over what doctor they go to, what type of insurance they want to have, or what kind of treatment they'll receive if they get sick. From everything I've read about this, those fears are pretty well-founded.Singularity.EXE said:It just boggles my mind how a majority of the American people's want poop like this, or marijuana legalization, or a dozen other reforms and the government won't budge on it? Hello? Isn't this supposed to be a "people's choice" style of government? Or did I misunderstand something?
The current system is far from ideal, and some level of reform (tort reform, not using insurance for EVERY LITTLE THING) needs to happen, but the answer is not to replace a flawed system with an even more flawed system that affords fewer freedoms to the citizenry.
Here's something that's bothered me since the beginning of this debate: the unemployment rate in the U.S. is approaching 10%, and we're discussing a proposal that would put hundreds of thousands of people who work for health insurance companies out of work within a few years? Is that really a wise path to go down? Also, if we've determined that health care is a basic human right that shouldn't be trusted to those worthless profiteers in the private sector, couldn't it then be argued that food, clothing, and shelter are also basic human rights that shouldn't be trusted to worthless profiteers like Cargill, Kraft, GAP, or Edina Realty? Should they be forced out of business in favor of single-payer food, clothing, and housing distribution overseen by the feds?
#27
MindDetective
MindDetective
And not everyone wants the same thing.Singularity.EXE said:It just boggles my mind how a majority of the American people's want poop like this, or marijuana legalization, or a dozen other reforms and the government won't budge on it? Hello? Isn't this supposed to be a "people's choice" style of government? Or did I misunderstand something?
#28
Covar
Covar
Just realized. 10% of Americans are Unemployed. 15% of Americans are without health insurance. Of course the Unemployment figure is only based on the workforce (those who are seeking or have a job). Still its interesting.
#29
Jay
Jay
*you notice a Canadian sitting comfortable in a chair in the corner, partially hidden in the shadows eating popcorn*
#30
Armadillo
Armadillo
To kind of riff on this point: what's the breakdown of those 45 million people? How many are eligible for insurance, but don't get it by their own choice? How many of those 45 million are illegal immigrants? In other words, WHY are they uninsured? That's pretty important to know before using that fact to justify blowing up the entire system, I'd say.Covar said:Just realized. 10% of Americans are Unemployed. 15% of Americans are without health insurance. Of course the Unemployment figure is only based on the workforce (those who are seeking or have a job). Still its interesting.
#31
Covar
Covar
I know at least one. I've been elibible for Tricare for a while now, but was holding off due to it being a large part of my then incredibly small income (hurray for being a student). Now It wouldn't be so bad, but I want to wait, because if a single payer system is coming I don't want to get ass raped with essentially two insurance bills.Armadillo said:To kind of riff on this point: what's the breakdown of those 45 million people? How many are eligible for insurance, but don't get it by their own choice? How many of those 45 million are illegal immigrants? In other words, WHY are they uninsured? That's pretty important to know before using that fact to justify blowing up the entire system, I'd say.Covar said:Just realized. 10% of Americans are Unemployed. 15% of Americans are without health insurance. Of course the Unemployment figure is only based on the workforce (those who are seeking or have a job). Still its interesting.
#32
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Yeah, they're pretty well-founded until you actually look at countries which use single payer systems and see that this is not the case at all. I'm not prepared or particularly inclined to get into an argument about single-payer systems, mind you, but those fears are pretty much ridiculous.Armadillo said:Single-payer health care isn't a very popular idea in the States, actually. The fear is that once a system like that comes into place, then people will no longer have control over what doctor they go to, what type of insurance they want to have, or what kind of treatment they'll receive if they get sick. From everything I've read about this, those fears are pretty well-founded.
What do you mean by "using insurance for EVERY LITTLE THING?" Like, preventative care?The current system is far from ideal, and some level of reform (tort reform, not using insurance for EVERY LITTLE THING) needs to happen, but the answer is not to replace a flawed system with an even more flawed system that affords fewer freedoms to the citizenry.
I don't know, and while the argument can be made that those things should be basic human rights, none of those things represent the single greatest source of debt in the country by a wide margin, nor are we extremely far behind the rest of the developed world in terms of how much we pay for things like food, clothing, and housing.Here's something that's bothered me since the beginning of this debate: the unemployment rate in the U.S. is approaching 10%, and we're discussing a proposal that would put hundreds of thousands of people who work for health insurance companies out of work within a few years? Is that really a wise path to go down? Also, if we've determined that health care is a basic human right that shouldn't be trusted to those worthless profiteers in the private sector, couldn't it then be argued that food, clothing, and shelter are also basic human rights that shouldn't be trusted to worthless profiteers like Cargill, Kraft, GAP, or Edina Realty? Should they be forced out of business in favor of single-payer food, clothing, and housing distribution overseen by the feds?
#33
blotsfan
blotsfan
Government-run health care is theft. Lets say a doctor charges $1000 for surgery. The government decides it only wants to pay 300 dollars for it. Doctor is fucked. In fact, the government already runs some health care, and thats exactly what it does. The fact that that isn't the norm is why all the good foreign doctors come to America.
However, this "mandatory buy" plan is also idiotic. We should leave stuff the way it is.
However, this "mandatory buy" plan is also idiotic. We should leave stuff the way it is.
#34
@Li3n
@Li3n
That's only cause communism collapsed during the early 90's...Kissinger said:Yeah, they're pretty well-founded until you actually look at countries which use single payer systems and see that this is not the case at all.
Who exactly tells him teh surgery is worth 1000$?!Government-run health care is theft. Lets say a doctor charges $1000 for surgery. The government decides it only wants to pay 300 dollars for it. Doctor is fucked.
#35
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz
Maybe the doctor shouldn't be charging $1000 for it if people aren't willing to pay it? For such strong proponents of supply and demand that seems a bit of a flawblotsfan said:Government-run health care is theft. Lets say a doctor charges $1000 for surgery. The government decides it only wants to pay 300 dollars for it. Doctor is fucked. In fact, the government already runs some health care, and thats exactly what it does. The fact that that isn't the norm is why all the good foreign doctors come to America.
However, this "mandatory buy" plan is also idiotic. We should leave stuff the way it is.
#36
MindDetective
MindDetective
No, we can do better. Not single-payer but not what we have. I like the idea of unionizing the patients. Larger groups of insured bring down the costs.blotsfan said:Government-run health care is theft. Lets say a doctor charges $1000 for surgery. The government decides it only wants to pay 300 dollars for it. Doctor is smurfed. In fact, the government already runs some health care, and thats exactly what it does. The fact that that isn't the norm is why all the good foreign doctors come to America.
However, this "mandatory buy" plan is also idiotic. We should leave stuff the way it is.
#37
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
If you don't at all know what you're talking about, you should at least try to obfuscate that at least a little bit.blotsfan said:Government-run health care is theft. Lets say a doctor charges $1000 for surgery. The government decides it only wants to pay 300 dollars for it. Doctor is fucked. In fact, the government already runs some health care, and thats exactly what it does. The fact that that isn't the norm is why all the good foreign doctors come to America.
However, this "mandatory buy" plan is also idiotic. We should leave stuff the way it is.
#38
@Li3n
@Li3n
Actually the idea would be that even if the number of people buying the surgery gets cut in half, or even to 1/3 he'd still make more money... hurray supply and demand. If you have money that is.Maybe the doctor shouldn't be charging $1000 for it if people aren't willing to pay it? For such strong proponents of supply and demand that seems a bit of a flaw
#39
Denbrought
Denbrought
Other than the current percentage of uninsured people, you have to count that a lot of people have insurances that are anything but that--they only cover the bare minimum, and are full of fail-safes and trapdoors all around (at least from what I've been reading for two years in Times and other assorted places).
With the % of your budget you spend on healthcare you should be able to put in place a system that would put most countries' to shame... Ah well, lobbyists be damned.
With the % of your budget you spend on healthcare you should be able to put in place a system that would put most countries' to shame... Ah well, lobbyists be damned.
#40
tegid
Of course, if I get it right single-payer means no private medical companies... And I don't get where the hell do you get that idea from. I mean, half the time I go to public healthcare, but I have an insurance too!
Man, I was charging 3 € per blank cd and the customers suddenly realized they didn't want to pay more than 50 cents. Fucking thieves! :angry:
I understand it's not the same case, but if the doctor wants to work for the government, he'll get those 300$. Otherwise, who's stopping him from having a private clinic and charging the 1000$ if he wants? Anyhow, I don't see how the doctor is fucked.
(Fun fact: In Spain many good doctors work in both the public and private sectors)
(I'm sorry I'm always speaking about my country's case, but I think it IS a good example.)
(Sorry for the Looong Post. I'm done for now).
tegid
Yeah, I mean, the people who don't have universal healthcare (i.e. UStatians) must know a lot more about it than the ones who do (i.e. a fucking lot of other countries), so you are probably right in your fear (phobia would be more like it).Armadillo said:Single-payer health care isn't a very popular idea in the States, actually. The fear is that once a system like that comes into place, then people will no longer have control over what doctor they go to, what type of insurance they want to have, or what kind of treatment they'll receive if they get sick. From everything I've read about this, those fears are pretty well-founded.Singularity.EXE said:It just boggles my mind how a majority of the American people's want poop like this, or marijuana legalization, or a dozen other reforms and the government won't budge on it? Hello? Isn't this supposed to be a "people's choice" style of government? Or did I misunderstand something?
Of course, if I get it right single-payer means no private medical companies... And I don't get where the hell do you get that idea from. I mean, half the time I go to public healthcare, but I have an insurance too!
Well, no one's saying you should go communist...@Li3n said:That's only cause communism collapsed during the early 90's...Kissinger said:Yeah, they're pretty well-founded until you actually look at countries which use single payer systems and see that this is not the case at all.
Who exactly tells him teh surgery is worth 1000$?![/quote:3n47e8dt][quote:3n47e8dt]
Government-run health care is theft. Lets say a doctor charges $1000 for surgery. The government decides it only wants to pay 300 dollars for it. Doctor is fucked.
Man, I was charging 3 € per blank cd and the customers suddenly realized they didn't want to pay more than 50 cents. Fucking thieves! :angry:
I understand it's not the same case, but if the doctor wants to work for the government, he'll get those 300$. Otherwise, who's stopping him from having a private clinic and charging the 1000$ if he wants? Anyhow, I don't see how the doctor is fucked.
(Fun fact: In Spain many good doctors work in both the public and private sectors)
Here in Spain we have government-run healthcare, private insurance companies, and what I guess you could call unionized patients, which are pretty much affordable insurances.MindDetective said:No, we can do better. Not single-payer but not what we have. I like the idea of unionizing the patients. Larger groups of insured bring down the costs.blotsfan said:Government-run health care is theft. Lets say a doctor charges $1000 for surgery. The government decides it only wants to pay 300 dollars for it. Doctor is smurfed. In fact, the government already runs some health care, and thats exactly what it does. The fact that that isn't the norm is why all the good foreign doctors come to America.
However, this "mandatory buy" plan is also idiotic. We should leave stuff the way it is.
(I'm sorry I'm always speaking about my country's case, but I think it IS a good example.)
Listen to DenDenbrought said:Other than the current percentage of uninsured people, you have to count that a lot of people have insurances that are anything but that--they only cover the bare minimum, and are full of fail-safes and trapdoors all around (at least from what I've been reading for two years in Times and other assorted places).
With the % of your budget you spend on healthcare you should be able to put in place a system that would put most countries' to shame... Ah well, lobbyists be damned.
(Sorry for the Looong Post. I'm done for now).
#41
MindDetective
MindDetective
Not exactly what I mean. I do like the idea of co-ops for providing insurance but unionized groups would be beneficial for buying insurance in bulk the way that companies do.tegid said:I guess you could call unionized patients, which are pretty much affordable insurances
#42
Covar
Covar
So how is a public option a good thing if you would still want to have private insurance on top of that?
Also how come with all this talk about Health care reform no one wants to talk about Medicare and Medicaid in the new system?
Also how come with all this talk about Health care reform no one wants to talk about Medicare and Medicaid in the new system?
#43
Espy
Espy
From what I heard on an discussion of the various bills the other day on NPR, the other big option is that the government would require (see: force) businesses to insure their workers.
Which has to be the worst idea I have ever heard.
That being said, we do need reform. We need massive reform. I'm not sure forcing other people to pay to insure you is the best way to go but I could see a form of gov. run healthcare (and having had government healthcare myself I can safely say: HAVE FUN WITH THAT) that competed with private. Competition is always good and if it helped those who really needed it (I'm not talking about the dumbass who spend a few hundred every month on video games and movies then whine about not being able to afford healthcare). If we could manage to deal with lawsuit abuse I think people would be quite shocked at how that impacts prices for medical procedures.
Regarding the "50 Million" without insurance, that number was made popular by the bastion of truth, Michael Moore. He's not entirely wrong, but according to studies done around the time of his movie the actual number was 47 million and 10 million of that were illegal immigrants, bringing the number down to about 37 million. Part of the shadiness of that number is that a good portion were people who were in between jobs and were estimated to have insurance again within about 4 months upon getting a new job. Still, even 30 or 20 million is to many and something should be done.
Which has to be the worst idea I have ever heard.
That being said, we do need reform. We need massive reform. I'm not sure forcing other people to pay to insure you is the best way to go but I could see a form of gov. run healthcare (and having had government healthcare myself I can safely say: HAVE FUN WITH THAT) that competed with private. Competition is always good and if it helped those who really needed it (I'm not talking about the dumbass who spend a few hundred every month on video games and movies then whine about not being able to afford healthcare). If we could manage to deal with lawsuit abuse I think people would be quite shocked at how that impacts prices for medical procedures.
Regarding the "50 Million" without insurance, that number was made popular by the bastion of truth, Michael Moore. He's not entirely wrong, but according to studies done around the time of his movie the actual number was 47 million and 10 million of that were illegal immigrants, bringing the number down to about 37 million. Part of the shadiness of that number is that a good portion were people who were in between jobs and were estimated to have insurance again within about 4 months upon getting a new job. Still, even 30 or 20 million is to many and something should be done.
#44
tegid
2-An insurance that covers all the things public healthcare does would be really expensive.
3-Of course, you have a bit more freedom in choosing doctors if you go private.
4-An insurance is like a 'premium' service. It's more than what is just necessary. If you are not happy with the public one you always have the choice to pay for something different.
I have a pretty low-end insurance that my mom gets for free. If it were my choice I don't know if I'd have it.
Also, I just realised I'd probably be dead if it weren't for public healthcare.
tegid
1-It guarantees healthcare for everyone.Covar said:So how is a public option a good thing if you would still want to have private insurance on top of that?
2-An insurance that covers all the things public healthcare does would be really expensive.
3-Of course, you have a bit more freedom in choosing doctors if you go private.
4-An insurance is like a 'premium' service. It's more than what is just necessary. If you are not happy with the public one you always have the choice to pay for something different.
I have a pretty low-end insurance that my mom gets for free. If it were my choice I don't know if I'd have it.
Also, I just realised I'd probably be dead if it weren't for public healthcare.
#45
Krisken
Krisken
Do they include illegal immigrants in the Census?
#46
Denbrought
Denbrought
Private insurances often can provide a different kind of attention than public healthcare does. For example, it may be easier to get an individual room for a mother that is about to deliver or just delivered. You also may get shorter waiting times to see an specialist, etc. etc. It's a diverse market, if you can pay for the higher echelons, where no person goes unattended no matter what their resources are. This is not about playing extremes (capitalist -- commie) but about the happy middle grounds.Covar said:So how is a public option a good thing if you would still want to have private insurance on top of that?
#47
Espy
Espy
I know what you are slyly getting at, so let's just cut to the chase:Krisken said:Do they include illegal immigrants in the Census?
However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.
A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.
#48
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I'm too lazy to quote it, but to the person that said (blotsfan) that we should just keep everything the way it is, holy fucking lol
#49
Krisken
Still, 37 Million. 13.4 percent of Americans is a crazy number to have be uninsured in a nation that's supposed to be the most powerful on earth. We can put $560 billion into military spending in 2007, but insuring citizens costs too much. Our priorities are a little messed up here.
Krisken
Ha ha, you've known me long enough to know I'm not sly! Thanks for the compliment though!Espy said:I know what you are slyly getting at, so let's just cut to the chase:Krisken said:Do they include illegal immigrants in the Census?
However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.
A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.
Still, 37 Million. 13.4 percent of Americans is a crazy number to have be uninsured in a nation that's supposed to be the most powerful on earth. We can put $560 billion into military spending in 2007, but insuring citizens costs too much. Our priorities are a little messed up here.
#50
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Counting illegal immigrants among the uninsured is important, though, because they still contribute to massive health care costs along with uninsured citizens by not going to preventative care (because it is too expensive) and then going to the emergency room (more expensive) and being unable to pay (so the hospital has to shoulder the cost).
#51
Denbrought
Denbrought
Big chance that this "not a citizen" category is for people like me on F1, J1, etc. resident and non-resident visas :3 And we pay our darn taxes.Espy said:I know what you are slyly getting at, so let's just cut to the chase:Krisken said:Do they include illegal immigrants in the Census?
However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.
A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.
#52
Espy
@ Kiss: Of course the illegals in the system matter. They do effect things. My point was simply that when dems screach about 50 million AMERICANS uninsured it's a number being manipulated to insure political victory. Which is fine, thats what politicians do, but it never hurts to actually try and cut through some of the rhetoric does it?
Espy
If you re-read my original post you know I agree with this. You sly dog. Sly-ster. Sly-a-riffic. :tongue:Krisken said:Ha ha, you've known me long enough to know I'm not sly! Thanks for the compliment though!Espy said:I know what you are slyly getting at, so let's just cut to the chase:Krisken said:Do they include illegal immigrants in the Census?
However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.
A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.
Still, 37 Million. 13.4 percent of Americans is a crazy number to have be uninsured in a nation that's supposed to be the most powerful on earth. We can put $560 billion into military spending in 2007, but insuring citizens costs too much. Our priorities are a little messed up here.
@ Kiss: Of course the illegals in the system matter. They do effect things. My point was simply that when dems screach about 50 million AMERICANS uninsured it's a number being manipulated to insure political victory. Which is fine, thats what politicians do, but it never hurts to actually try and cut through some of the rhetoric does it?
#53
tegid
(Also, the numbers you spend on military never fail to impress me. I mean, with that you could like, feed and get into school milions of children. Whole countries. If not that much, you could AT LEAST cover healthcare for you own people!
)
tegid
You also need to take into account what Den said. An insurance that covers visiting the doctor for a commong cold but doesn't cover seriously life-threatening illnesses or whatever that needs an expensive treatment (i.e. cancer, a lot of operations, whatev.) is like having almost nothing.Kissinger said:Counting illegal immigrants among the uninsured is important, though, because they still contribute to massive health care costs along with uninsured citizens by not going to preventative care (because it is too expensive) and then going to the emergency room (more expensive) and being unable to pay (so the hospital has to shoulder the cost).
(Also, the numbers you spend on military never fail to impress me. I mean, with that you could like, feed and get into school milions of children. Whole countries. If not that much, you could AT LEAST cover healthcare for you own people!
)
#54
Steven Soderburgin
I was specifically addressing the illegal immigrant comments.
Steven Soderburgin
Oh, yeah, I absolutely agree with this. It's ridiculous that people pay for insurance for years and years, develop cancer, and the insurance company can go "Welp, we're not covering that, have fun dying, sucker."tegid said:You also need to take into account what Den said. An insurance that covers visiting the doctor for a commong cold but doesn't cover seriously life-threatening illnesses or whatever that needs an expensive treatment (i.e. cancer, a lot of operations, whatev.) is like having almost nothing.
(Also, the numbers you spend on military never fail to impress me. I mean, with that you could like, feed and get into school milions of children. Whole countries. If not that much, you could AT LEAST cover healthcare for you own people!
I was specifically addressing the illegal immigrant comments.
#55
blotsfan
blotsfan
The doctor who is providing the service. You know, the guy charging for the service. Some doctors don't accept government-insured people, but some types of doctors don't have a choice. While as of now, hospitals usually pay them a salary to make up for some of the government theft, if there was national health care, the doctors would be screwed.@Li3n said:Who exactly tells him teh surgery is worth 1000$?!
Except all private health insurance companies are willing to pay for it. Only the government feels the need to screw doctors.Mr_Chaz said:[Maybe the doctor shouldn't be charging $1000 for it if people aren't willing to pay it? For such strong proponents of supply and demand that seems a bit of a flaw
Have you ever actually made a rebuttal to anything other than just calling the person stupid?Charlie Dont Surf said:I'm too lazy to quote it, but to the person that said (blotsfan) that we should just keep everything the way it is, holy smurfing lol
#56
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
do you have any source for this bullshit conjecture or are you just making shit up based on something you heard from someone once?blotsfan said:The doctor who is providing the service. You know, the guy charging for the service. Some doctors don't accept government-insured people, but some types of doctors don't have a choice. While as of now, hospitals usually pay them a salary to make up for some of the government theft, if there was national health care, the doctors would be screwed.@Li3n said:Who exactly tells him teh surgery is worth 1000$?!
#57
Denbrought
Quick google, compare Spain's or any other socialist country's % spending ~_~
[Source NY Times]
Denbrought
The problem isn't a lack of funding, it's the inefficient system that doesn't react to being thrown money at.tegid said:(Also, the numbers you spend on military never fail to impress me. I mean, with that you could like, feed and get into school milions of children. Whole countries. If not that much, you could AT LEAST cover healthcare for you own people!
Quick google, compare Spain's or any other socialist country's % spending ~_~
[Source NY Times]
#58
tegid
tegid
God, and that's percentages! I don't want to think what the absolute numbers are!
#59
blotsfan
blotsfan
Google "medicare underpays doctors" you can pick any of thousands.
#60
JCM
JCM
#61
blotsfan
blotsfan
#62
Denbrought
Denbrought
Medicare isn't what nationalized healthcare is supposed to be, I wouldn't use it as a detracting point ~_~blotsfan said:Google "medicare underpays doctors" you can pick any of thousands.
#63
Krisken
Krisken
I can google "Obama not U.S. citizen" and get thousands of hits. That doesn't prove anything.blotsfan said:Google "medicare underpays doctors" you can pick any of thousands.
#64
tegid
tegid
Your current system being shit doesn't mean any public system is shit. That's why you need a reform! You've got examples all over the world, but you keep saying that public healthcare isn't worth anything and insurances are wonderful. Well americans, have fun dying! We'll be happily alive in our 'socialist' countries 
rly:
rly:
#65
blotsfan
blotsfan
It still shows that the government is incompetent when it comes to handling healthcare. Why should it have more responsibility?Denbrought said:Medicare isn't what nationalized healthcare is supposed to be, I wouldn't use it as a detracting point ~_~blotsfan said:Google "medicare underpays doctors" you can pick any of thousands.
#66
Singularity.EXE
Is the healthcare supplied to our Armed Forces provided by a private company or is it government run?
Singularity.EXE
So I kinda got this from the Daily Show, but what the hell.blotsfan said:It still shows that the government is incompetent when it comes to handling healthcare. Why should it have more responsibility?Denbrought said:Medicare isn't what nationalized healthcare is supposed to be, I wouldn't use it as a detracting point ~_~blotsfan said:Google "medicare underpays doctors" you can pick any of thousands.
Is the healthcare supplied to our Armed Forces provided by a private company or is it government run?
#67
blotsfan
blotsfan
I dunno, I live right by the Canadian border, and a ton of Canadian doctors and patients come over here for our system, so I don't think following other countries is a good idea either.
#68
Steven Soderburgin
Doctors come over because they can make a RIDICULOUS amount of money being a specialist, like a dermatologist or a plastic surgeon. Patients would be insane to come over for anything but elective or cosmetic surgery, and if they're doing that, they can afford the insane costs anyway.
Steven Soderburgin
Can you at least provide a source for this?blotsfan said:I dunno, I live right by the Canadian border, and a ton of Canadian doctors and patients come over here for our system, so I don't think following other countries is a good idea either.
Doctors come over because they can make a RIDICULOUS amount of money being a specialist, like a dermatologist or a plastic surgeon. Patients would be insane to come over for anything but elective or cosmetic surgery, and if they're doing that, they can afford the insane costs anyway.
#69
@Li3n
This isn't some random good you can live without, but what should be necessary surgery/treatment... the price should be determined by actual costs to perform it + enough money so the doctor won't starve (note the exaggeration, your country's not Africa).
Sure, if the government is going for under that they're assholes and it shouldn't be allowed, but if they're not... tough cookies.
@Li3n
Who is much more justified in stealing from you then the government is stealing from him?!blotsfan said:The doctor who is providing the service. You know, the guy charging for the service.@Li3n said:Who exactly tells him teh surgery is worth 1000$?!
This isn't some random good you can live without, but what should be necessary surgery/treatment... the price should be determined by actual costs to perform it + enough money so the doctor won't starve (note the exaggeration, your country's not Africa).
Sure, if the government is going for under that they're assholes and it shouldn't be allowed, but if they're not... tough cookies.
#70
bigcountry23
bigcountry23
I don't see anything... Did I just fail a spot check?SeriousJay said:*you notice a Canadian sitting comfortable in a chair in the corner, partially hidden in the shadows eating popcorn*
#71
blotsfan
blotsfan
Or maybe if they have a deadly disease and need treatment within the next 6 months.Kissinger said:Can you at least provide a source for this?blotsfan said:I dunno, I live right by the Canadian border, and a ton of Canadian doctors and patients come over here for our system, so I don't think following other countries is a good idea either.
Doctors come over because they can make a RIDICULOUS amount of money being a specialist, like a dermatologist or a plastic surgeon. Patients would be insane to come over for anything but elective or cosmetic surgery, and if they're doing that, they can afford the insane costs anyway.
#72
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
So you're just going to spout Rush Limbaugh talking points instead of actually responding to the points raised or providing credible sources for your bullshit. Gotcha.blotsfan said:Or maybe if they have a deadly disease and need treatment within the next 6 months.Kissinger said:Can you at least provide a source for this?blotsfan said:I dunno, I live right by the Canadian border, and a ton of Canadian doctors and patients come over here for our system, so I don't think following other countries is a good idea either.
Doctors come over because they can make a RIDICULOUS amount of money being a specialist, like a dermatologist or a plastic surgeon. Patients would be insane to come over for anything but elective or cosmetic surgery, and if they're doing that, they can afford the insane costs anyway.
#73
T
The Messiah
The free market system will always be superior to government controlled alternatives. As we have seen in the past, the market moves up and down, is certainly susceptible to crashes and corrections, but will always correct itself if left alone and allowed to flourish (with strict oversight, of course). As soon as you add corrupt politicians (is there any other kind?) and lobbyists to the mix, things go south, as they have done here in Amerika. Government that governs least, governs best.
This country was founded on the principles of self reliabilty and responsibility, and this is what politicians fail to understand, sink or swim, you are on your own, if you can't succeed, if you can't make it happen under your own power and abilities in the world, that is your own problem. You can't legislate people into being successful, it has to be a personal and individual choice, just like the constitution states. Remember that, the constitution?
T
The Messiah
HAHAHAHAH! You sir, are absolutely clueless. The housing/banking/financial crises of the last few years is 100% caused by government meddling. Regulation is one thing, legislation such as the the Community Reinvestment Act is what fucked everything up.Kissinger said:TDK1987 said:It will ALWAYS work toward the best interests of the peo-*completely disregards that the housing market and banking industry and much of our current financial crisis is the result of unregulated businesses running wild and doing whatever they wanted*
The free market system will always be superior to government controlled alternatives. As we have seen in the past, the market moves up and down, is certainly susceptible to crashes and corrections, but will always correct itself if left alone and allowed to flourish (with strict oversight, of course). As soon as you add corrupt politicians (is there any other kind?) and lobbyists to the mix, things go south, as they have done here in Amerika. Government that governs least, governs best.
This country was founded on the principles of self reliabilty and responsibility, and this is what politicians fail to understand, sink or swim, you are on your own, if you can't succeed, if you can't make it happen under your own power and abilities in the world, that is your own problem. You can't legislate people into being successful, it has to be a personal and individual choice, just like the constitution states. Remember that, the constitution?
#74
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
In conclusion, Ron Paul '08?The Messiah said:HAHAHAHAH! You sir, are absolutely clueless. The housing/banking/financial crises of the last few years is 100% caused by government meddling. Regulation is one thing, legislation such as the the Community Reinvestment Act is what fucked everything up.
The free market system will always be superior to government controlled alternatives. As we have seen in the past, the market moves up and down, is certainly susceptible to crashes and corrections, but will always correct itself if left alone and allowed to flourish (with strict oversight, of course). As soon as you add corrupt politicians (is there any other kind?) and lobbyists to the mix, things go south, as they have done here in Amerika. Government that governs least, governs best.
This country was founded on the principles of self reliabilty and responsibility, and this is what politicians fail to understand, sink or swim, you are on your own, if you can't succeed, if you can't make it happen under your own power and abilities in the world, that is your own problem. You can't legislate people into being successful, it has to be a personal and individual choice, just like the constitution states. Remember that, the constitution?
#75
Covar
Covar
Tricare is run by the DoD's Military Health System. Like most military programs nowadays its also contracted out.Singularity.EXE said:So I kinda got this from the Daily Show, but what the *.blotsfan said:It still shows that the government is incompetent when it comes to handling healthcare. Why should it have more responsibility?Denbrought said:Medicare isn't what nationalized healthcare is supposed to be, I wouldn't use it as a detracting point ~_~blotsfan said:Google "medicare underpays doctors" you can pick any of thousands.
Is the healthcare supplied to our Armed Forces provided by a private company or is it government run?
Wiki said:The ultimate responsible organization for administration of TRICARE is the U.S. Department of Defense Military Health System, which organized the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA). The TRICARE Management Activity contracts with several large health insurance corporations to provide claims processing, customer service and other administrative functions to the TRICARE program. Currently, there are three regional Managed Care Support Contractors (MCSCs), a Medicare/TRICARE Dual Eligible Fiscal Intermediary Contractor (TDEFIC), and a TRICARE Pharmacy contractor, who administers both Mail Order Pharmacy (TMOP) and Retail Pharmacy (TRRx) programs. In addition several administrative contractors provide quality management, auditing, and statistical services. TMA also oversees the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP), run by United Concordia, and TRICARE Retiree Dental Program (TRDP), run by Delta Dental.
#76
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin '12Kissinger said:In conclusion, Ron Paul '08?
#77
Papillon
1) The US has a larger population, so there are more people with the disease, and
2) They can probably make more money in the US.
Obviously, by its very nature, this is a rare situation.
Papillon
Sometimes Canadians also go to the US if they have a very rare disease. If there's only one or two specialists in a disease on the entire they're much more likely to be in the US because:Kissinger said:Can you at least provide a source for this?blotsfan said:I dunno, I live right by the Canadian border, and a ton of Canadian doctors and patients come over here for our system, so I don't think following other countries is a good idea either.
Doctors come over because they can make a RIDICULOUS amount of money being a specialist, like a dermatologist or a plastic surgeon. Patients would be insane to come over for anything but elective or cosmetic surgery, and if they're doing that, they can afford the insane costs anyway.
1) The US has a larger population, so there are more people with the disease, and
2) They can probably make more money in the US.
Obviously, by its very nature, this is a rare situation.
#78
ElJuski
ElJuski
Messiah, do you really have to annoy me by hiding under your stupid alt? So tempted to just switch it.
#79
bigcountry23
bigcountry23
Do it! do it! I love it when they pull the mask off and you get the "I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you kids and your dog" line... :clap:ElJuski said:Messiah, do you really have to annoy me by hiding under your stupid alt? So tempted to just switch it.
#80
Bowielee
Bowielee
Well, I can certainly speak to the billing side of privatized medical care at the moment.
I usually don't pull out my credentials, but I've been working in medical billing and collections for over 7 years. I worked at resolving claims, collecting patient bills and have basically seen all this stuff in real time. Hospitals are mandated to not turn away anyone considered "emergent" upon admission. We did not, in fact, turn ANY patients away from either our emergency or clinical areas (though, as I understand it, that was in the process of changing for chronic non-payers seeking non-emergency services).
That's why I'm of 2 minds on this.
As a citizen myself, I would love to be able to walk into a hospital and get treated regardless of my insurance status and not have to worry about bills. I have a direct personal stake in this as about 10 years ago I had to file bankruptcy on a medical bill because I was in between jobs and had my gall bladder removed and ended up owing 18k for the surgery. I had no insurance, I made too much money for any relief from the hospital, but not nearly enough to pay off the debt until I was in my 60s. So, I FULLY understand what it means to be kind of screwed by the medical system.
Now, let me turn to the business aspect of the hospital.
Quite frankly, the above quote about Medicare underpaying doctors and hospitals is 100% true. I beleive the return for medicare claims was 33 cents on the dollar. Though, as also stated above, Medicare is not a good example of how a federally run insurance should work.
Fun Fact: Medicare doesn't believe that seeing and hearing are "medically necessary" so will not cover any eye care (unless you're diabetic) or hearing aides. What they pay hospitals IS attrocious.
A hospital needs money to function. Without it, no new advances are made, people are seen with outdated equipment and mistakes are made because of it.
I do know that hospitals are suffering because they aren't recouping money from either insurance companies, or from patients.
I do know that as a national trend, people with medical debt is increasing while their ability to pay is decreasing. with health care the way it is now, there is no way that this can continue without hitting some sort of critical mass.
The long and the short of it is that people ARE avioding getting needed medical care because they'd literally die than sink their families into debt.
In the end, it's the insurance companies that are the biggest threat. The denial rate of claims is skyrocketing as premiums and deductibles increase. If there's any regulation needed, that's where it needs to start.
I usually don't pull out my credentials, but I've been working in medical billing and collections for over 7 years. I worked at resolving claims, collecting patient bills and have basically seen all this stuff in real time. Hospitals are mandated to not turn away anyone considered "emergent" upon admission. We did not, in fact, turn ANY patients away from either our emergency or clinical areas (though, as I understand it, that was in the process of changing for chronic non-payers seeking non-emergency services).
That's why I'm of 2 minds on this.
As a citizen myself, I would love to be able to walk into a hospital and get treated regardless of my insurance status and not have to worry about bills. I have a direct personal stake in this as about 10 years ago I had to file bankruptcy on a medical bill because I was in between jobs and had my gall bladder removed and ended up owing 18k for the surgery. I had no insurance, I made too much money for any relief from the hospital, but not nearly enough to pay off the debt until I was in my 60s. So, I FULLY understand what it means to be kind of screwed by the medical system.
Now, let me turn to the business aspect of the hospital.
Quite frankly, the above quote about Medicare underpaying doctors and hospitals is 100% true. I beleive the return for medicare claims was 33 cents on the dollar. Though, as also stated above, Medicare is not a good example of how a federally run insurance should work.
Fun Fact: Medicare doesn't believe that seeing and hearing are "medically necessary" so will not cover any eye care (unless you're diabetic) or hearing aides. What they pay hospitals IS attrocious.
A hospital needs money to function. Without it, no new advances are made, people are seen with outdated equipment and mistakes are made because of it.
I do know that hospitals are suffering because they aren't recouping money from either insurance companies, or from patients.
I do know that as a national trend, people with medical debt is increasing while their ability to pay is decreasing. with health care the way it is now, there is no way that this can continue without hitting some sort of critical mass.
The long and the short of it is that people ARE avioding getting needed medical care because they'd literally die than sink their families into debt.
In the end, it's the insurance companies that are the biggest threat. The denial rate of claims is skyrocketing as premiums and deductibles increase. If there's any regulation needed, that's where it needs to start.
#81
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Your personal politics are not important here.
The founding fathers of this great nation intended YOU to be responsible for YOU. Think about that for a second. How many thousands and thousands of people immigrated to Amerika in order to make a new life for themselves, based solely on their ability to succeed? Personal responsibility is what this country is all about.
Basically, it boils down to this; If you can't make it on your own, then you are fucked. Harsh as it may seem, that is what the founding fathers intended. Not a nation of beggars and whiners.
Also, for the last time, I am not an alt. I share a router with my brother, who lives in the same house, hence the identical IP address. Since we use the same router, we have the same IP. Understand?
Also, it's worth mentioning that he isn't nearly as rabid as I am about these types of political rants and prefers to distance himself from me and my overbearing and abrasive personality, which is why he made me start my own account, rather than post under his name? Got it? I AM NOT AN ALT.
The founding fathers of this great nation intended YOU to be responsible for YOU. Think about that for a second. How many thousands and thousands of people immigrated to Amerika in order to make a new life for themselves, based solely on their ability to succeed? Personal responsibility is what this country is all about.
Basically, it boils down to this; If you can't make it on your own, then you are fucked. Harsh as it may seem, that is what the founding fathers intended. Not a nation of beggars and whiners.
Also, for the last time, I am not an alt. I share a router with my brother, who lives in the same house, hence the identical IP address. Since we use the same router, we have the same IP. Understand?
Also, it's worth mentioning that he isn't nearly as rabid as I am about these types of political rants and prefers to distance himself from me and my overbearing and abrasive personality, which is why he made me start my own account, rather than post under his name? Got it? I AM NOT AN ALT.
#82
ElJuski
ElJuski
Whatever you say, poncho. You should smudge off some of that froth from the screen. I also hope that your idealistic, unpragmatic approach to politics doesn't pound you in the ass someday.
#83
Bowielee
Bowielee
Yeah, screw that old lady who got robbed, she should have been packing heat. Sorry, buddy, but the Jimmy Crockett days are over and a system without rules and regulations will collapse upon itself.The Messiah said:Your personal politics are not important here.
The founding fathers of this great nation intended YOU to be responsible for YOU. Think about that for a second. How many thousands and thousands of people immigrated to Amerika in order to make a new life for themselves, based solely on their ability to succeed? Personal responsibility is what this country is all about.
Basically, it boils down to this; If you can't make it on your own, then you are smurfed. Harsh as it may seem, that is what the founding fathers intended. Not a nation of beggars and whiners.
Also, for the last time, I am not an alt. I share a router with my brother, who lives in the same house, hence the identical IP address. Since we use the same router, we have the same IP. Understand?
Also, it's worth mentioning that he isn't nearly as rabid as I am about these types of political rants and prefers to distance himself from me and my overbearing and abrasive personality, which is why he made me start my own account, rather than post under his name? Got it? I AM NOT AN ALT.
#85
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Ahhh yes, because that is exactly what I said. My ''political leanings'' and there should be no rules. We should just be like the old west, guns blazing. That is EXACTLY what I said. Yep. You must be an expert at that game ''Jump to Conclusions.''
#86
Cajungal
Cajungal
It bothers me that a lot of the same people with those kinds of political ideas are the same ones who like to call this country a "Christian Nation." I'm not assuming you're one of those people, Messiah, just venting I suppose.
#87
Bowielee
The whole dogged determination thing is old hat nowadays anyways. You used to be able to make it in this country with a dream and determination, but with corporate lobbyists and mega corporations, small businesses are dying off. You can work your ass off and still be none the better for it.
Bowielee
That's the essence of the republican rally. Less government, less regulation= more profit for those who are already rich by screwing over those who arent.The Messiah said:Ahhh yes, because that is exactly what I said. My ''political leanings'' and there should be no rules. We should just be like the old west, guns blazing. That is EXACTLY what I said. Yep. You must be an expert at that game ''Jump to Conclusions.''
The whole dogged determination thing is old hat nowadays anyways. You used to be able to make it in this country with a dream and determination, but with corporate lobbyists and mega corporations, small businesses are dying off. You can work your ass off and still be none the better for it.
#88
Papillon
Papillon
What I'd be interested to see is the effect of malpractice lawsuits on the cost of health care in the US. From what I hear, the US court system tends to give a lot of money for pain & suffering and punitive damages, whereas in Canada (from what I hear), the court will give very little for pain & suffering and rarely award punitive damages.
I think the cost of health care in the US is the highest anywhere in the world -- when I've gotten travel insurance, there was one plan for anywhere in the world except the US, and a different plan which included the US. The plan which included the US cost almost twice as much as the one that didn't
I think the cost of health care in the US is the highest anywhere in the world -- when I've gotten travel insurance, there was one plan for anywhere in the world except the US, and a different plan which included the US. The plan which included the US cost almost twice as much as the one that didn't
#89
Espy
Espy
It's significant from what I have heard. However getting the politicians who are so in bed with trial lawyers to do anything about it is a joke. It's much easier to just shove the costs on to the taxpayer.Papillon said:What I'd be interested to see is the effect of malpractice lawsuits on the cost of health care in the US.
#90
T
The Messiah
We are a secular nation, with clear delineations of church and state. It's largely coincidence, oppression, famine and a variety of other factors that caused the mass influx of Christian immigrants into Amerika over the years.
And I would like to point out that my views, and the views and ideals clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not political in nature. Self responsibility is literally an underutilized and rarely discussed facet of Darwinism, ie survival of the fittest. This the very core of the belief that the founding fathers had that the new world would attract the strong and the bold, an exceptional caste of peoples who would build a great land of self reliant, hard working, salt of the earth type folks. These beliefs are as far from political as they can possibly be and they were initially very successful in their implementation. I doubt they would even recognize the country we live in today as the one they fought, lived and died for.
T
The Messiah
I would call it a nation that was founded on the ideals of freedom. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc etc.Cajungal said:It bothers me that a lot of the same people with those kinds of political ideas are the same ones who like to call this country a "Christian Nation." I'm not assuming you're one of those people, Messiah, just venting I suppose.
We are a secular nation, with clear delineations of church and state. It's largely coincidence, oppression, famine and a variety of other factors that caused the mass influx of Christian immigrants into Amerika over the years.
And I would like to point out that my views, and the views and ideals clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not political in nature. Self responsibility is literally an underutilized and rarely discussed facet of Darwinism, ie survival of the fittest. This the very core of the belief that the founding fathers had that the new world would attract the strong and the bold, an exceptional caste of peoples who would build a great land of self reliant, hard working, salt of the earth type folks. These beliefs are as far from political as they can possibly be and they were initially very successful in their implementation. I doubt they would even recognize the country we live in today as the one they fought, lived and died for.
#91
Bowielee
Bowielee
The problem is that those "hard working, salt of the earth" types of folks are the ones who are getting screwed over by the healthcare industry.The Messiah said:I would call it a nation that was founded on the ideals of freedom. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc etc.Cajungal said:It bothers me that a lot of the same people with those kinds of political ideas are the same ones who like to call this country a "Christian Nation." I'm not assuming you're one of those people, Messiah, just venting I suppose.
We are a secular nation, with clear delineations of church and state. It's largely coincidence, oppression, famine and a variety of other factors that caused the mass influx of Christian immigrants into Amerika over the years.
And I would like to point out that my views, and the views and ideals clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not political in nature. Self responsibility is literally an underutilized and rarely discussed facet of Darwinism, ie survival of the fittest. This the very core of the belief that the founding fathers had that the new world would attract the strong and the bold, an exceptional caste of peoples who would build a great land of self reliant, hard working, salt of the earth type folks. These beliefs are as far from political as they can possibly be and they were initially very successful in their implementation. I doubt they would even recognize the country we live in today as the one they fought, lived and died for.
#92
Espy
Espy
It is interesting isn't it? Technically, from a biblical perspective the church should take care of those people not the government. It is one of the reasons why I'm more open to something from the government, since the church hasn't stepped up to it's God given duty. Does that make sense?Cajungal said:It bothers me that a lot of the same people with those kinds of political ideas are the same ones who like to call this country a "Christian Nation." I'm not assuming you're one of those people, Messiah, just venting I suppose.
#93
T
The Messiah
And Republicans, like all politicians, are corrupt, useless and generally held in contempt by true fiscal conservatives.
T
The Messiah
FTFYBowielee said:That's the essence of the republican rally. Less government, less regulation= more profit for those who are already rich by screwing over those who arent.The Messiah said:Ahhh yes, because that is exactly what I said. My ''political leanings'' and there should be no rules. We should just be like the old west, guns blazing. That is EXACTLY what I said. Yep. You must be an expert at that game ''Jump to Conclusions.''
The whole dogged determination thing is old hat nowadays anyways. You used to be able to make it in this country with a dream and determination, but with corporate lobbyists and mega corporations, small businesses are dying off. You can work your a** off and still be none the better for it, so you shouldn't work hard and try to be successful or start your own business or try to compete against corporations because you will fail, just give up and wait for your welfare check.
And Republicans, like all politicians, are corrupt, useless and generally held in contempt by true fiscal conservatives.
#94
Denbrought
Denbrought
Sorry, most countries don't run on darwinian principles any more but humanitarian ones. It isn't about the survival of the fittest but the survival of the whole now.
Also, the founding fathers would probably go WHAT THE FUCK FLYING STEEL BIRDS.
Also, the founding fathers would probably go WHAT THE FUCK FLYING STEEL BIRDS.
#95
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Libertarians?The Messiah said:true fiscal conservatives.
#96
Bowielee
And Republicans, like all politicians, are corrupt, useless and generally held in contempt by true fiscal conservatives.[/quote:1wo3kzt8]
Now who's jumping to conclusions?
Yes, there are only 2 options available, own your own business, or collect welfare. :eyeroll:
Bowielee
FTFYThe Messiah said:That's the essence of the republican rally. Less government, less regulation= more profit for those who are already rich by screwing over those who arent.Bowielee said:[quote="The Messiah":1wo3kzt8]Ahhh yes, because that is exactly what I said. My ''political leanings'' and there should be no rules. We should just be like the old west, guns blazing. That is EXACTLY what I said. Yep. You must be an expert at that game ''Jump to Conclusions.''
The whole dogged determination thing is old hat nowadays anyways. You used to be able to make it in this country with a dream and determination, but with corporate lobbyists and mega corporations, small businesses are dying off. You can work your a** off and still be none the better for it, so you shouldn't work hard and try to be successful or start your own business or try to compete against corporations because you will fail, just give up and wait for your welfare check.
And Republicans, like all politicians, are corrupt, useless and generally held in contempt by true fiscal conservatives.[/quote:1wo3kzt8]
Now who's jumping to conclusions?
Yes, there are only 2 options available, own your own business, or collect welfare. :eyeroll:
#97
Eriol
Now imagine that with Cancer. Nice wait time, eh? Hope it doesn't metastasize in that time!
I'm not against public providing services, and I'd agree the US system is FUBAR, but do NOT even try and put forth the idea that Canada's system is GOOD. It might be "not as bad" as the US system, but by no stretch of the imagination is it a model you should emulate. Dying on waiting lists is NOT a solution. Or other fuck-ups that happen routinely up here (that actually KILLED my former family doctor. Got taken to the wrong hospital TWICE. And that was in the early 90s when it was better than now).
Eriol
They come to avoid dying on waiting lists. My Mom went to a private MRI clinic for her knees (this wasn't a life-or-death situation, just a "living in pain ALL THE TIME" situation) and paid the money, because otherwise she would have been waiting 6+ months for an MRI. And then after that "private" part, it was months after that to see the specialist. And THEN she was booked for surgery (again, months later).Kissinger said:Patients would be insane to come over for anything but elective or cosmetic surgery, and if they're doing that, they can afford the insane costs anyway.blotsfan said:I dunno, I live right by the Canadian border, and a ton of Canadian doctors and patients come over here for our system, so I don't think following other countries is a good idea either.
Now imagine that with Cancer. Nice wait time, eh? Hope it doesn't metastasize in that time!
I'm not against public providing services, and I'd agree the US system is FUBAR, but do NOT even try and put forth the idea that Canada's system is GOOD. It might be "not as bad" as the US system, but by no stretch of the imagination is it a model you should emulate. Dying on waiting lists is NOT a solution. Or other fuck-ups that happen routinely up here (that actually KILLED my former family doctor. Got taken to the wrong hospital TWICE. And that was in the early 90s when it was better than now).
#98
Covar
/me goes off and re-watches Bill and Ted
Covar
...Denbrought said:Sorry, most countries don't run on darwinian principles any more but humanitarian ones. It isn't about the survival of the fittest but the survival of the whole now.
Also, the founding fathers would probably go WHAT THE smurf FLYING STEEL BIRDS.
/me goes off and re-watches Bill and Ted
#99
Cajungal
Cajungal
I guess so. I'll be the first to admit that I know so little about this kind of thing. I think our system now is terribly flawed, but all I ever freakin do is admire the problem. I wouldn't know where to start when it comes to fixing it. That's why I just sit and listen in threads like this. It's embarrassing. For so many, the answer seems so simple. I just read the news, listen to politicians, then grab my head and say "I don't know I don't know!"Espy said:It is interesting isn't it? Technically, from a biblical perspective the church should take care of those people not the government. It is one of the reasons why I'm more open to something from the government, since the church hasn't stepped up to it's God given duty. Does that make sense?Cajungal said:It bothers me that a lot of the same people with those kinds of political ideas are the same ones who like to call this country a "Christian Nation." I'm not assuming you're one of those people, Messiah, just venting I suppose.
#100
T
The Messiah
What good will it do a starving child if I am unable to feed myself? None. I have only added another starving person to the world. You can't help everyone that needs it, you can only work to ensure your own success. Darwinism. Self reliance. Responsibilty. These are not ''political machinations,'' to be adopted by warring political factions. This is what we call ''logic.''
T
The Messiah
That is why we fail. It's admirable to want to help everyone. I have a particular weakness for stray dogs. I mean, the poor doggy cannot care for himself due to generations of domestication. But I eventually broke myself of bringing home strays (although I occassionally succumb, which is why I have the two shiteaters that I have now). I had to draw a line on my own weakness, you see. Because, although it's heart wrenching to watch the suffering of others, you can't help them by handicapping your own ability to succeed.Denbrought said:Sorry, most countries don't run on darwinian principles any more but humanitarian ones. It isn't about the survival of the fittest but the survival of the whole now.
What good will it do a starving child if I am unable to feed myself? None. I have only added another starving person to the world. You can't help everyone that needs it, you can only work to ensure your own success. Darwinism. Self reliance. Responsibilty. These are not ''political machinations,'' to be adopted by warring political factions. This is what we call ''logic.''
Sorcery!Denbrought said:Also, the founding fathers would probably go WHAT THE smurf FLYING STEEL BIRDS.
#101
Iaculus
Iaculus
Oh, dude, you fail at evolution. 'Survival of the fittest' means 'survival of those best suited to their current environment'. No more, no less.The Messiah said:I would call it a nation that was founded on the ideals of freedom. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc etc.Cajungal said:It bothers me that a lot of the same people with those kinds of political ideas are the same ones who like to call this country a "Christian Nation." I'm not assuming you're one of those people, Messiah, just venting I suppose.
We are a secular nation, with clear delineations of church and state. It's largely coincidence, oppression, famine and a variety of other factors that caused the mass influx of Christian immigrants into Amerika over the years.
And I would like to point out that my views, and the views and ideals clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not political in nature. Self responsibility is literally an underutilized and rarely discussed facet of Darwinism, ie survival of the fittest. This the very core of the belief that the founding fathers had that the new world would attract the strong and the bold, an exceptional caste of peoples who would build a great land of self reliant, hard working, salt of the earth type folks. These beliefs are as far from political as they can possibly be and they were initially very successful in their implementation. I doubt they would even recognize the country we live in today as the one they fought, lived and died for.
#102
Bowielee
Bowielee
The problem is that you seem to think that I'm talking about welfare cases and people who don't want to work. I'm talking about honest hard working people who can't make it in a system that's inherently stacked against them.The Messiah said:That is why we fail. It's admirable to want to help everyone. I have a particular weakness for stray dogs. I mean, the poor doggy cannot care for himself due to generations of domestication. But I eventually broke myself of bringing home strays (although I occassionally succumb, which is why I have the two shiteaters that I have now). I had to draw a line on my own weakness, you see. Because, although it's heart wrenching to watch the suffering of others, you can't help them by handicapping your own ability to succeed.Denbrought said:Sorry, most countries don't run on darwinian principles any more but humanitarian ones. It isn't about the survival of the fittest but the survival of the whole now.
What good will it do a starving child if I am unable to feed myself? None. I have only added another starving person to the world. You can't help everyone that needs it, you can only work to ensure your own success. Darwinism. Self reliance. Responsibilty. These are not ''political machinations,'' to be adopted by warring political factions. This is what we call ''logic.''
Sorcery!Denbrought said:Also, the founding fathers would probably go WHAT THE smurf FLYING STEEL BIRDS.
#103
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Ed ZacharyIaculus said:Oh, dude, you fail at evolution. 'Survival of the fittest' means 'survival of those best suited to their current environment'. No more, no less.
#104
drawn_inward
I don't want to see my taxes fly through the roof to get everyone "free" health care. I've seen the taxes in Canada when I visited. No thanks.
If the cost is the problem, go find out why hospitals get to charge whatever the fuck the want b/c an insurance company is picking up the bill.
I broke my leg when I was 16, and I was charged for tylenol at $3 a pill, $12 for the pen that was used in my room, etc. I couldn't believe it. I know hospitals are businesses, but there is some kind of ridiculous circle jerk amongst the insurance companies and hospital administers.
But, if you ever think that our government or any government is going to do something that will benefit the people without screwing them at the same time then you're naive. See signature. What other government program that you know of is run with efficiency and isn't bloated with pork? Public education? Postal service?
drawn_inward
TDK1987 said:I really don't understand America's stance on this, why is it so controversial to set up something like the UK's NHS? I've got free health care and i'm not a member of the socialist party
I don't want to see my taxes fly through the roof to get everyone "free" health care. I've seen the taxes in Canada when I visited. No thanks.
If the cost is the problem, go find out why hospitals get to charge whatever the fuck the want b/c an insurance company is picking up the bill.
I broke my leg when I was 16, and I was charged for tylenol at $3 a pill, $12 for the pen that was used in my room, etc. I couldn't believe it. I know hospitals are businesses, but there is some kind of ridiculous circle jerk amongst the insurance companies and hospital administers.
But, if you ever think that our government or any government is going to do something that will benefit the people without screwing them at the same time then you're naive. See signature. What other government program that you know of is run with efficiency and isn't bloated with pork? Public education? Postal service?
#105
Denbrought
Denbrought
A few posts ago you called somebody out in being apathetic (the FTFY post). Now you're the one being a defeatist. People like to live walking towards ideals, and today's collective ego has chosen to not let someone die puking blood on the sidewalk because they couldn't afford their treatment, even though it was available to them. This isn't about hungry people next to empty stores (yadda yadda starving african children) but the ones we have resources to help and the proximity to not be easy to ignore them.The Messiah said:That is why we fail. It's admirable to want to help everyone. I have a particular weakness for stray dogs. I mean, the poor doggy cannot care for himself due to generations of domestication. But I eventually broke myself of bringing home strays (although I occassionally succumb, which is why I have the two shiteaters that I have now). I had to draw a line on my own weakness, you see. Because, although it's heart wrenching to watch the suffering of others, you can't help them by handicapping your own ability to succeed.Denbrought said:Sorry, most countries don't run on darwinian principles any more but humanitarian ones. It isn't about the survival of the fittest but the survival of the whole now.
What good will it do a starving child if I am unable to feed myself? None. I have only added another starving person to the world. You can't help everyone that needs it, you can only work to ensure your own success. Darwinism. Self reliance. Responsibilty. These are not ''political machinations,'' to be adopted by warring political factions. This is what we call ''logic.''
#106
T
The Messiah
See, every time a stupid, corrupt and morally bankrupt politician (all of them) makes a stupid, corrupt and morally bankrupt decision (all of them) on legislation, rule of law or even which prostitute to spend taxpayer money on, we look a little less like the America that the founders intended. Because we have moved so far away from self reliance and the expectation of resposibility on a personal level that the government tells us when to look and when to leap, what we can and cannot do in our jobs, in our business and even in our personal lives.
Like I said, the Amerika we inhabit today bears little resemblance to what the founders intended.
The government which governs least, governs best. The more involved the feds get, the larger the federal government grows and the more difficult it becomes to succeed through our own efforts. The message here is that the states need to take back the rights that were always intended to be state's rights and the federal government needs to be largely dismantled, until it vaguely resembles what was set forth in the constitution of the United States of America.
I have gotten so far from the intent of this thread... The way to fix the health care problem is to kick out all the illegal immigrants (enforce existing laws), force people to pay their doctor bills (the cause of inflation of medical service costs) and move to a more efficient method of treatment and record keeping (sharing medical info between providers via the web, just like Obama wants, can't believe I am agreeing with him but it's a good idea). I also like the idea of medical savings accounts that start at birth and rollover to your heirs at death. Might work, might not, but it deserves consideration at the very least.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:16 pm --
T
The Messiah
Stacked against them due to endless political machinations. Go ahead and read everything that I have said in this thread so far (notice I didn't say ''re-read'') and then come back and pick up the rest of this post.Bowielee said:I'm talking about honest hard working people who can't make it in a system that's inherently stacked against them.
See, every time a stupid, corrupt and morally bankrupt politician (all of them) makes a stupid, corrupt and morally bankrupt decision (all of them) on legislation, rule of law or even which prostitute to spend taxpayer money on, we look a little less like the America that the founders intended. Because we have moved so far away from self reliance and the expectation of resposibility on a personal level that the government tells us when to look and when to leap, what we can and cannot do in our jobs, in our business and even in our personal lives.
Like I said, the Amerika we inhabit today bears little resemblance to what the founders intended.
The government which governs least, governs best. The more involved the feds get, the larger the federal government grows and the more difficult it becomes to succeed through our own efforts. The message here is that the states need to take back the rights that were always intended to be state's rights and the federal government needs to be largely dismantled, until it vaguely resembles what was set forth in the constitution of the United States of America.
I have gotten so far from the intent of this thread... The way to fix the health care problem is to kick out all the illegal immigrants (enforce existing laws), force people to pay their doctor bills (the cause of inflation of medical service costs) and move to a more efficient method of treatment and record keeping (sharing medical info between providers via the web, just like Obama wants, can't believe I am agreeing with him but it's a good idea). I also like the idea of medical savings accounts that start at birth and rollover to your heirs at death. Might work, might not, but it deserves consideration at the very least.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:16 pm --
Nobody is advocating withholding treatment from the poor. Making a way for that treatment to get paid for, that is the crux of the discussion. I paid off my student loans at $50 a month. That is just one option out of millions that don't call for socialization of medicine, which is just a way for politicians to increase their power.Denbrought said:A few posts ago you called somebody out in being apathetic (the FTFY post). Now you're the one being a defeatist. People like to live walking towards ideals, and today's collective ego has chosen to not let someone die puking blood on the sidewalk because they couldn't afford their treatment, even though it was available to them. This isn't about hungry people next to empty stores (yadda yadda starving african children) but the ones we have resources to help and the proximity to not be easy to ignore them.
#107
crono1224
crono1224
It is funny when people say government can't run healthcare yet you let them run your police force, fire department and army.
Also that comment about doctor only getting paid like 300$, that shit already happens with insurance companies I have had plenty of surgeries and hospitals stays paid by insurance, when you look at the bill the original amount is like 100+thousand, the insurance only pays at MOST 50% of that, more likely 20-30%. But if you went in without insurance you sure as hell aren't getting this amazing discounted prices.
Also survival of the fittest doesn't really apply anymore when you put laws into place, else I just say we bust in your house rob you and live well off your means.
Also that comment about doctor only getting paid like 300$, that shit already happens with insurance companies I have had plenty of surgeries and hospitals stays paid by insurance, when you look at the bill the original amount is like 100+thousand, the insurance only pays at MOST 50% of that, more likely 20-30%. But if you went in without insurance you sure as hell aren't getting this amazing discounted prices.
Also survival of the fittest doesn't really apply anymore when you put laws into place, else I just say we bust in your house rob you and live well off your means.
#108
Mr_Chaz
This isn't some random good you can live without, but what should be necessary surgery/treatment... the price should be determined by actual costs to perform it + enough money so the doctor won't starve (note the exaggeration, your country's not Africa).
Sure, if the government is going for under that they're assholes and it shouldn't be allowed, but if they're not... tough cookies.[/quote:1wnff05p]
Exactly this, the price should not be decided by the doctor, but by the cost of the treatment. You seriously don't mind charging someone $1000 for a treatment that costs $300? You don't think that's unfair on people who don't have a massive amount of money?
You hear stories of people paying $24 000 for an emergency removal of an appendix and overnight stay. 24 hours of treatment costs $24 000? That's a year's income for a lot of people! And it's not like you have a massive amount of choice when it's an emergency treatment.
Mr_Chaz
Who is much more justified in stealing from you then the government is stealing from him?!@Li3n said:The doctor who is providing the service. You know, the guy charging for the service.blotsfan said:[quote="@Li3n":1wnff05p]Who exactly tells him teh surgery is worth 1000$?!
This isn't some random good you can live without, but what should be necessary surgery/treatment... the price should be determined by actual costs to perform it + enough money so the doctor won't starve (note the exaggeration, your country's not Africa).
Sure, if the government is going for under that they're assholes and it shouldn't be allowed, but if they're not... tough cookies.[/quote:1wnff05p]
Exactly this, the price should not be decided by the doctor, but by the cost of the treatment. You seriously don't mind charging someone $1000 for a treatment that costs $300? You don't think that's unfair on people who don't have a massive amount of money?
You hear stories of people paying $24 000 for an emergency removal of an appendix and overnight stay. 24 hours of treatment costs $24 000? That's a year's income for a lot of people! And it's not like you have a massive amount of choice when it's an emergency treatment.
#109
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Fittest referring to being smart, competent, capable, hard working etc etc. Your definition seems to mean ''I can kill you, so you have to give me your women.'' This isn't Mad Max... Yet.crono1224 said:Also survival of the fittest doesn't really apply anymore when you put laws into place, else I just say we bust in your house rob you and live well off your means.
#110
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
You actually are, essentially. With spewing your Libertarian catchphrases (how many fucking times have you posted "The government which governs least, governs best" at this point?) and saying in so many words that poor people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you're advocating withholding treatment from the poor. Because if you want the poor to just pay their medical bills, which is your overly simplistic and ignorant argument for how to fix the health care crisis, they would have to stop being poor, which is nearly impossible. If they can't stop being poor, then the only way to drive costs down and maintain the ridiculous and horrible free market for-profit health care industry you are jizzing over is to deny them care. If they can't pay, they don't get treatment. Otherwise costs will keep going up and up and up.The Messiah said:Nobody is advocating withholding treatment from the poor.
#111
T
The Messiah
Considering I live in abject poverty, can't afford to move out of my parents back yard where I live in my pull behind camper, am considering selling my pickup and getting a motorcycle (despite my abject terror of motorcycles) so I can stop paying auto insurance, haven't collected a paycheck in months and have no prospects of any gainful future employment, my first response is to say ''FUCK THE POOR!''
You got me, man. You win. I'm just a Libertarian/Republican/mindless political pundit that regurgitates everything Rush Limbaugh says because I have no original thoughts in my head. Your right, the poor can't pay their bills, even if they break it down to $10 a month for 800 months. There are no alternatives, the government should pay for everything because that will boost the economy and lower taxes and we will be an economic powerhouse filled with healthy people from around the world. You win. Game over, man. Game over.
T
The Messiah
Yep, you got me. That is exactly what I said. Exactly. Stop being poor you piece of shit!Kissinger said:You actually are, essentially. With spewing your Libertarian catchphrases (how many smurfing times have you posted "The government which governs least, governs best" at this point?) and saying in so many words that poor people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you're advocating withholding treatment from the poor. Because if you want the poor to just pay their medical bills, which is your overly simplistic and ignorant argument for how to fix the health care crisis, they would have to stop being poor, which is nearly impossible. If they can't stop being poor, then the only way to drive costs down and maintain the ridiculous and horrible free market for-profit health care industry you are jizzing over is to deny them care. If they can't pay, they don't get treatment. Otherwise costs will keep going up and up and up.The Messiah said:Nobody is advocating withholding treatment from the poor.
Considering I live in abject poverty, can't afford to move out of my parents back yard where I live in my pull behind camper, am considering selling my pickup and getting a motorcycle (despite my abject terror of motorcycles) so I can stop paying auto insurance, haven't collected a paycheck in months and have no prospects of any gainful future employment, my first response is to say ''FUCK THE POOR!''
You got me, man. You win. I'm just a Libertarian/Republican/mindless political pundit that regurgitates everything Rush Limbaugh says because I have no original thoughts in my head. Your right, the poor can't pay their bills, even if they break it down to $10 a month for 800 months. There are no alternatives, the government should pay for everything because that will boost the economy and lower taxes and we will be an economic powerhouse filled with healthy people from around the world. You win. Game over, man. Game over.
#112
Steven Soderburgin
EDIT: Seriously, how would you even have them enforce this? Do a credit check before you get emergency room service if you don't have insurance? if you don't pass, sorry about that gunshot, man, that seriously sucks.
Steven Soderburgin
I didn't say the government should pay for everything, but you DID actually say that the solution to the health care crisis is to force poor people to just pay their bills, which are insanely high and (as stated before) the leading cause of bankruptcy and debt in the country. You said that right here:The Messiah said:Yep, you got me. That is exactly what I said. Exactly. Stop being poor you piece of shit!
Considering I live in abject poverty, can't afford to move out of my parents back yard where I live in my pull behind camper, am considering selling my pickup and getting a motorcycle (despite my abject terror of motorcycles) so I can stop paying auto insurance, haven't collected a paycheck in months and have no prospects of any gainful future employment, my first response is to say ''FUCK THE POOR!''
You got me, man. You win. I'm just a Libertarian/Republican/mindless political pundit that regurgitates everything Rush Limbaugh says because I have no original thoughts in my head. Your right, the poor can't pay their bills, even if they break it down to $10 a month for 800 months. There are no alternatives, the government should pay for everything because that will boost the economy and lower taxes and we will be an economic powerhouse filled with healthy people from around the world. You win. Game over, man. Game over.
This is so extremely short sighted and ignorant to the realities of the situation that I cannot believe that you, as someone who claims to live in "abject poverty" (yet still has the money to afford a computer and internet?) would support anything like this.The way to fix the health care problem is to ... force people to pay their doctor bills (the cause of inflation of medical service costs)
EDIT: Seriously, how would you even have them enforce this? Do a credit check before you get emergency room service if you don't have insurance? if you don't pass, sorry about that gunshot, man, that seriously sucks.
#113
Chazwozel
I think this whole republican push for privatized insurance is a big conspiracy so they don't have to share their good doctors and treatments with lowlife, scum sucking people that make under 30k a year. I mean seriously you guys, those poor people aren't really people are they? We should allocate them to vet clinics and zoos! :tumbleweed: What?
Chazwozel
Kissinger said:I didn't say the government should pay for everything, but you DID actually say that the solution to the health care crisis is to force poor people to just pay their bills, which are insanely high and (as stated before) the leading cause of bankruptcy and debt in the country. You said that right here:The Messiah said:Yep, you got me. That is exactly what I said. Exactly. Stop being poor you piece of poop!
Considering I live in abject poverty, can't afford to move out of my parents back yard where I live in my pull behind camper, am considering selling my pickup and getting a motorcycle (despite my abject terror of motorcycles) so I can stop paying auto insurance, haven't collected a paycheck in months and have no prospects of any gainful future employment, my first response is to say ''smurf THE POOR!''
You got me, man. You win. I'm just a Libertarian/Republican/mindless political pundit that regurgitates everything Rush Limbaugh says because I have no original thoughts in my head. Your right, the poor can't pay their bills, even if they break it down to $10 a month for 800 months. There are no alternatives, the government should pay for everything because that will boost the economy and lower taxes and we will be an economic powerhouse filled with healthy people from around the world. You win. Game over, man. Game over.
This is so extremely short sighted and ignorant to the realities of the situation that I cannot believe that you, as someone who claims to live in "abject poverty" (yet still has the money to afford a computer and internet?) would support anything like this.The way to fix the health care problem is to ... force people to pay their doctor bills (the cause of inflation of medical service costs)
EDIT: Seriously, the only way to enforce this is to do a credit check before you get emergency room service if you don't have insurance, and if you don't pass, sorry about that gunshot, man, that seriously sucks.
I think this whole republican push for privatized insurance is a big conspiracy so they don't have to share their good doctors and treatments with lowlife, scum sucking people that make under 30k a year. I mean seriously you guys, those poor people aren't really people are they? We should allocate them to vet clinics and zoos! :tumbleweed: What?
#114
Denbrought
Denbrought
I doubt many loaners would even fleetingly consider giving such a credit if we were to go turn america into the vision you're expressing here, thus again fucking with the ones who can't pay.The Messiah said:(...) even if they break it down to $10 a month for 800 months.
#115
Chazwozel
70 year loans for all! THAT'S THE SOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!
Chazwozel
Denbrought said:I doubt many loaners would even fleetingly consider giving such a credit if we were to go turn america into the vision you're expressing here, thus again smurfing with the ones who can't pay.The Messiah said:(...) even if they break it down to $10 a month for 800 months.
70 year loans for all! THAT'S THE SOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!
#116
T
The Messiah
1) You have to pay your bills, medical or otherwise. Get over it. Installment plan, savings accounts, whatever. This will bring down the crazy ass prices that are only inflated because so few people actually PAY their bill.
2) We have to make healthcare more efficient and get prices down so people CAN pay their bill (Just like Buttcrack Obama keeps saying)
3) My personal financial situation has nothing to do with the financial situation of this great nation, but yes, I do have 3 computers (1.7ghz DELL, 1ghz DELL and a 1.5ghz (I think) Athlon whitebox I built real cheap that my brother uses). My shit is ancient and were all bought used to begin with, although heavily modified by yours truly with whatever junk I could find to replace shitty DELL onboard video/audio etc etc. My family has an internet connection. They also have cable television, DVRs, electricity, running hot and cold water and a functioning structure in which they dwell.
That is more personal information than I have ever revealed to anyone, but my point is that I am not wealthy, nor am I Republican or libertarian. Although I might be Libertarian, since I'm not sure what that means. I am not a political creature, I only seek logic in all things.
For example, I am not wild about abortion. I am also not wild about creating a victim class of women who have to resort to back alley coat hanger horror story abortions because the practice is forbidden. Therefore I feel abortion should be legal.
Same with prostitution. By criminalizing the activity, we create a victim class of women who have nowhere to turn in times of desperation.
See how that works? Individual opinions for individual scenarios. I think therefore I am... not a sheep, following a political affiliation mindlessly while jumping off a bridge because someone else did it first.
T
The Messiah
Look, man, i don't wanna make this a personal attack, but you seem to be picking apart the thread and keeping only the parts you want.The Messiah wrote:
Yep, you got me. That is exactly what I said. Exactly. Stop being poor you piece of shit!
Considering I live in abject poverty, can't afford to move out of my parents back yard where I live in my pull behind camper, am considering selling my pickup and getting a motorcycle (despite my abject terror of motorcycles) so I can stop paying auto insurance, haven't collected a paycheck in months and have no prospects of any gainful future employment, my first response is to say ''FUCK THE POOR!''
You got me, man. You win. I'm just a Libertarian/Republican/mindless political pundit that regurgitates everything Rush Limbaugh says because I have no original thoughts in my head. Your right, the poor can't pay their bills, even if they break it down to $10 a month for 800 months. There are no alternatives, the government should pay for everything because that will boost the economy and lower taxes and we will be an economic powerhouse filled with healthy people from around the world. You win. Game over, man. Game over.
I didn't say the government should pay for everything, but you DID actually say that the solution to the health care crisis is to force poor people to just pay their bills, which are insanely high and (as stated before) the leading cause of bankruptcy and debt in the country. You said that right here:
Quote:
The way to fix the health care problem is to ... force people to pay their doctor bills (the cause of inflation of medical service costs)
This is so extremely short sighted and ignorant to the realities of the situation that I cannot believe that you, as someone who claims to live in "abject poverty" (yet still has the money to afford a computer and internet?) would support anything like this.
1) You have to pay your bills, medical or otherwise. Get over it. Installment plan, savings accounts, whatever. This will bring down the crazy ass prices that are only inflated because so few people actually PAY their bill.
2) We have to make healthcare more efficient and get prices down so people CAN pay their bill (Just like Buttcrack Obama keeps saying)
3) My personal financial situation has nothing to do with the financial situation of this great nation, but yes, I do have 3 computers (1.7ghz DELL, 1ghz DELL and a 1.5ghz (I think) Athlon whitebox I built real cheap that my brother uses). My shit is ancient and were all bought used to begin with, although heavily modified by yours truly with whatever junk I could find to replace shitty DELL onboard video/audio etc etc. My family has an internet connection. They also have cable television, DVRs, electricity, running hot and cold water and a functioning structure in which they dwell.
That is more personal information than I have ever revealed to anyone, but my point is that I am not wealthy, nor am I Republican or libertarian. Although I might be Libertarian, since I'm not sure what that means. I am not a political creature, I only seek logic in all things.
For example, I am not wild about abortion. I am also not wild about creating a victim class of women who have to resort to back alley coat hanger horror story abortions because the practice is forbidden. Therefore I feel abortion should be legal.
Same with prostitution. By criminalizing the activity, we create a victim class of women who have nowhere to turn in times of desperation.
See how that works? Individual opinions for individual scenarios. I think therefore I am... not a sheep, following a political affiliation mindlessly while jumping off a bridge because someone else did it first.
#117
Steven Soderburgin
As for everything else, I'm not really interested in your personal situation, but in order to base things on logic, you need to figure in all the variables, something you seem vehemently opposed to doing.
Steven Soderburgin
I figured that with the Libertarian rhetoric you were spewing (and that's exactly what it is. No matter your positions on anything else, your reverence for the free market is exactly in step with the Libertarian party line, and I suspect you know that, because you use a lot of the same catch phrases) you wouldn't be worth arguing with, but I was appalled by that particular point I addressed.The Messiah said:Look, man, i don't wanna make this a personal attack, but you seem to be picking apart the thread and keeping only the parts you want.
Yes, I understand the point. But the reasons that so many hospital bills don't get paid is because people simply cannot afford them. It isn't like health care debt is the same as someone running up credit cards buying TVs and shit can't afford. It's from going to the emergency room to get needed care. People don't get preventative care because they can't afford it, they end up going to the emergency room which is more expensive, and they still can't afford it. So they go into debt. Prices go up, everyone pays more, the cycle continues. You can't just wave a magic wand and make everyone pay their bills.1) You have to pay your bills, medical or otherwise. Get over it. Installment plan, savings accounts, whatever. This will bring down the crazy ass prices that are only inflated because so few people actually PAY their bill.
I absolutely agree, though I was almost tempted to completely ignore anything you have to say because of your "Buttcrack Obama" comment. The question is how do we do that. Perhaps providing a public option would force the labyrinthine behemoth that is the health care industry to fix itself in order to compete.2) We have to make healthcare more efficient and get prices down so people CAN pay their bill (Just like Buttcrack Obama keeps saying)
As for everything else, I'm not really interested in your personal situation, but in order to base things on logic, you need to figure in all the variables, something you seem vehemently opposed to doing.
#118
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
What catch phrases? You should be responsible? You should work hard to succeed? I think they call that being American. Is that a political party? The Americans? If so, I'm in. Stop trying to hide behind silly labels and stick to debating the subject at hand.
I repeat: YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR BILLS. That is how you ''fix'' healthcare, by paying the tab. Installment plan, savings account, insurance, the list goes on. I am not saying I have a magic solution as to HOW the bill gets paid, I am just saying taht it HAS to be paid, every time. Similar to shoplifting, those who don't pay make it more costly for those who do. See how simple that is? Now, just give it a rest with the political bullshit already, you are boring me to tears.
I repeat: YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR BILLS. That is how you ''fix'' healthcare, by paying the tab. Installment plan, savings account, insurance, the list goes on. I am not saying I have a magic solution as to HOW the bill gets paid, I am just saying taht it HAS to be paid, every time. Similar to shoplifting, those who don't pay make it more costly for those who do. See how simple that is? Now, just give it a rest with the political bullshit already, you are boring me to tears.
#119
Iaculus
If you mean 'your face looks like your ass', then screw you for the cheap ad hominem.
If you mean 'exactly', then I think you misunderstand. There is nothing inherently virtuous about survival of the fittest - it just means that people's success rate is being tailored according to the situation present. If corruption is rewarded, you'll get corrupt people. If having a rich mum and dad is rewarded, then you'll get an aristocracy (formal or otherwise). See what I mean?
Iaculus
Wait, what definition are we going for here?The Messiah said:Ed ZacharyIaculus said:Oh, dude, you fail at evolution. 'Survival of the fittest' means 'survival of those best suited to their current environment'. No more, no less.
If you mean 'your face looks like your ass', then screw you for the cheap ad hominem.
If you mean 'exactly', then I think you misunderstand. There is nothing inherently virtuous about survival of the fittest - it just means that people's success rate is being tailored according to the situation present. If corruption is rewarded, you'll get corrupt people. If having a rich mum and dad is rewarded, then you'll get an aristocracy (formal or otherwise). See what I mean?
#120
Espy
Espy
You know, calling The President "Buttcrack" isn't going to get your points heard any better. A little civility goes a long way. :heythere:
#121
Steven Soderburgin
Fuck it. You have no idea how the real world works for real people. You are like a child. God damn.
EDIT: Sorry, Espy, I get that whole "civility" thing, but there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with this guy.
Steven Soderburgin
Oh my god, you are a joke and you don't know what you're talking about, fuck.The Messiah said:What catch phrases? You should be responsible? You should work hard to succeed? I think they call that being American. Is that a political party? The Americans? If so, I'm in.
You are telling me to start "debating." Amazing. Amazing.Stop trying to hide behind silly labels and stick to debating the subject at hand.
I understand all this. Yes, I get it. I agree that if people paid their bills, health care costs will go down. BUT IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS THAT. There are REASONS that the bills don't get paid. There are REASONS that health care is the biggest cause of bankruptcy. I have explained all of this. In order to fix health care, you have to fix THOSE issues. YOU DUMB FUCK.I repeat: YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR BILLS. That is how you ''fix'' healthcare, by paying the tab. Installment plan, savings account, insurance, the list goes on. I am not saying I have a magic solution as to HOW the bill gets paid, I am just saying taht it HAS to be paid, every time. Similar to shoplifting, those who don't pay make it more costly for those who do. See how simple that is? Now, just give it a rest with the political bullshit already, you are boring me to tears.
Fuck it. You have no idea how the real world works for real people. You are like a child. God damn.
EDIT: Sorry, Espy, I get that whole "civility" thing, but there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with this guy.
#122
blotsfan
blotsfan
Yeah, because if you can do one thing, you can do everything. Hey! That plumber is able to fix a toilet! He should be able to to fix wiring problems too! :eyeroll:crono1224 said:It is funny when people say government can't run healthcare yet you let them run your police force, fire department and army.
#123
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Survival of the fittest. Fit meaning competence, intelligence, wisdom, strength, determination etc etc. Meaning you survive through your own abilities, succeed through your own hard work. You know, all that founding fathers bullshit that I keep spouting.
#124
Espy
Espy
Oh, go right ahead, I'm just making sure he knows that he's not going to win the argument by being disrespectful of Obama. If he or anyone else wants people to just tune you out... well go nuts. :uhhuh:Kissinger said:EDIT: Sorry, Espy, I get that whole "civility" thing, but there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with this guy.
#125
T
The Messiah
smurf it. You have no idea how the real world works for real people. You are like a child. God damn.
EDIT: Sorry, Espy, I get that whole "civility" thing, but there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with this guy.[/quote:vyra4k2g]
You are truly eloquent, sir. I concede to your mastery of the spoken word and the art of logical debate. Truly, I was beaten 'ere I even began.
T
The Messiah
I understand all this. Yes, I get it. I agree that if people paid their bills, health care costs will go down. BUT IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS THAT. There are REASONS that the bills don't get paid. There are REASONS that health care is the biggest cause of bankruptcy. I have explained all of this. In order to fix health care, you have to fix THOSE issues. YOU DUMB smurf.Kissinger said:Oh my god, you are a joke and you don't know what you're talking about, smurf.The Messiah said:What catch phrases? You should be responsible? You should work hard to succeed? I think they call that being American. Is that a political party? The Americans? If so, I'm in.You are telling me to start "debating." Amazing. Amazing.Stop trying to hide behind silly labels and stick to debating the subject at hand.
[quote:vyra4k2g]I repeat: YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR BILLS. That is how you ''fix'' healthcare, by paying the tab. Installment plan, savings account, insurance, the list goes on. I am not saying I have a magic solution as to HOW the bill gets paid, I am just saying taht it HAS to be paid, every time. Similar to shoplifting, those who don't pay make it more costly for those who do. See how simple that is? Now, just give it a rest with the political bullshit already, you are boring me to tears.
smurf it. You have no idea how the real world works for real people. You are like a child. God damn.
EDIT: Sorry, Espy, I get that whole "civility" thing, but there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with this guy.[/quote:vyra4k2g]
You are truly eloquent, sir. I concede to your mastery of the spoken word and the art of logical debate. Truly, I was beaten 'ere I even began.
#126
Fun Size
Fun Size
Nothing to add to the debate, but I thought this was funny, so there:
#127
Iaculus
This Wikipedia article gives a (surprisingly) balanced, clear explanation.
Iaculus
Check your definitions, man. It's a commonly-misinterpreted term.The Messiah said:Survival of the fittest. Fit meaning competence, intelligence, wisdom, strength, determination etc etc. Meaning you survive through your own abilities, succeed through your own hard work. You know, all that founding fathers bullshit that I keep spouting.
This Wikipedia article gives a (surprisingly) balanced, clear explanation.
#128
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Fun Size said:Nothing to add to the debate, but I thought this was funny, so there:
#129
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Wikipedia? really?
Ok, even wikipedia indicates that there are multiple definitions, definitions that are used and discarded with the passage of time.
Ok, even wikipedia indicates that there are multiple definitions, definitions that are used and discarded with the passage of time.
It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. However, natural selection is not just survival of the fittest. Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success, that is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural selection).
If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations.
In other words, natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success". This statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply confirmed.)
Critics of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[13] However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also simplistic to suggest that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, as good social behaviour - cooperating with others and treating them well - improves evolutionary fitness
It has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to "social Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire economics, war and racism[16]. However these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[15][17]
Using the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution is an example of the appeal to consequences fallacy: use of the concept of survival of the fittest as a justification for violence in human society has no effect on the truth of 'the theory of evolution by natural selection' in the natural biological world.
In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle – has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.
#130
ElJuski
ElJuski
You spend way too much time being angry and misguided on the internet. There's a world out there, go get um' tiger!
#131
Norris
Reform is needed because the current system, which IS the free market at work, isn't working so hot. The health care industry is one of the few that doesn't actually work on the principles of supply and demand as most do because it is in many cases a literal life or death situation. When you are having a heart attack, or suffering from cancer, or your arm is broken, et al, you don't have time to price shop. You go to the nearest (or best for your condition) hospital and you take the treatment before you even THINK about how you're gonna pay. The suggestion you made, the $10 for 800 months idea (which was hyperbole, I know) comes out to 66.6 years worth of payments.
If this were a debate to create Universal Home Ownership or Universal Car Ownership or Universal Big Screen Television Ownership, I'd be right there with you saying that if people want something bigger and better they need to lift themselves up or save up or whatever. But this is life and death versus dollars and cents. And I always gotta go with the human life on this one.
Norris
Indeed they do. However, as others have pointed out, these bills end up so ridiculously high that the person having them will either end up homeless and hungry to pay them off on time or laboring under medical debt for the rest of their natural life and possibly a generation or two after that. People don't get the preventative care they should (regular check-ups and the like) because they can't afford it. When it becomes a life or death crisis? They still can't afford it afford it but they seem oddly attached to living at that point so they go buck wild and get their life saved or their broken bone reset or that infection taken care of.The Messiah said:YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR BILLS.
Reform is needed because the current system, which IS the free market at work, isn't working so hot. The health care industry is one of the few that doesn't actually work on the principles of supply and demand as most do because it is in many cases a literal life or death situation. When you are having a heart attack, or suffering from cancer, or your arm is broken, et al, you don't have time to price shop. You go to the nearest (or best for your condition) hospital and you take the treatment before you even THINK about how you're gonna pay. The suggestion you made, the $10 for 800 months idea (which was hyperbole, I know) comes out to 66.6 years worth of payments.
If this were a debate to create Universal Home Ownership or Universal Car Ownership or Universal Big Screen Television Ownership, I'd be right there with you saying that if people want something bigger and better they need to lift themselves up or save up or whatever. But this is life and death versus dollars and cents. And I always gotta go with the human life on this one.
#132
Bowielee
Bowielee
Another thing to keep in mind. Medial bills aren't like credit card det, or defaulting on loans or mortgages.
When you get sick, you have NO OTHER OPTION than to see a doctor and they can charge you whatever the hell they want.
When I filed bankruptcy on my medical bills, it wasn't because I was irresponsible, or wanted to avoid paying it. I did absolutely NOTHING wrong that led to me having that debt.
You should not have to refinance your home so that you can stay alive. Messiah keeps going on about the founding fathers, but they also said that every American is entitled to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happines.
The current health care crisis is actually killing hard working americans who refuse to plunge their families into debt over something they can't control.
When you get sick, you have NO OTHER OPTION than to see a doctor and they can charge you whatever the hell they want.
When I filed bankruptcy on my medical bills, it wasn't because I was irresponsible, or wanted to avoid paying it. I did absolutely NOTHING wrong that led to me having that debt.
You should not have to refinance your home so that you can stay alive. Messiah keeps going on about the founding fathers, but they also said that every American is entitled to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happines.
The current health care crisis is actually killing hard working americans who refuse to plunge their families into debt over something they can't control.
#133
Norris
Norris
See? That's the point my 19 year old mind was trying to make. Just better.
And before any accusations of living off mommy and daddy are leveled, my father used to work in the insurance industry (currently...retired, I guess) and we currently have no health insurance. This doesn't stop us from getting regular dental check-ups and still paying them off.
And before any accusations of living off mommy and daddy are leveled, my father used to work in the insurance industry (currently...retired, I guess) and we currently have no health insurance. This doesn't stop us from getting regular dental check-ups and still paying them off.
#134
Chazwozel
I generally ignore anyone who rants political issues using the founding fathers as the basis of the argument. Why the fuck do some people cling to the ideals of a bunch of slave-owning, rich, dead guys from the 18th century to solve 21st century problems? Those slave owning, rich, dead guys even had enough foresight that future issues are out of their league so they made their constitution amendable for posterity.
Chazwozel
Bowielee said:Another thing to keep in mind. Medial bills aren't like credit card det, or defaulting on loans or mortgages.
When you get sick, you have NO OTHER OPTION than to see a doctor and they can charge you whatever the * they want.
When I filed bankruptcy on my medical bills, it wasn't because I was irresponsible, or wanted to avoid paying it. I did absolutely NOTHING wrong that led to me having that debt.
You should not have to refinance your home so that you can stay alive. Messiah keeps going on about the founding fathers, but they also said that every American is entitled to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happines.
The current health care crisis is actually killing hard working americans who refuse to plunge their families into debt over something they can't control.
I generally ignore anyone who rants political issues using the founding fathers as the basis of the argument. Why the fuck do some people cling to the ideals of a bunch of slave-owning, rich, dead guys from the 18th century to solve 21st century problems? Those slave owning, rich, dead guys even had enough foresight that future issues are out of their league so they made their constitution amendable for posterity.
#135
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Rather than repeat myself ad nauseum, I would invite you to just, you know, READ the thread. So you can see that what you are saying now, the issues you are bringing up, have already been addressed.
Ask yourself this question. Why are medical bills high? Then ask yourself this question. How do we reduce the cost of medical treatment? Only then will you begin to have any chance of ever truly understanding the real cause of the problem with healthcare in America. When you understand the cause, you might be able to formulate some ideas as to a solution for the CAUSE, not the SYMPTOMS.
Your logic basically says ''bills are high, therefore I need help paying them.'' Instead, you should be saying ''bills are high, therefore we must find away to reduce those bills.''
Now, go forth and study amongst yourselves and don't come back in this thread until you have some kind of clue. Seriously.
Ask yourself this question. Why are medical bills high? Then ask yourself this question. How do we reduce the cost of medical treatment? Only then will you begin to have any chance of ever truly understanding the real cause of the problem with healthcare in America. When you understand the cause, you might be able to formulate some ideas as to a solution for the CAUSE, not the SYMPTOMS.
Your logic basically says ''bills are high, therefore I need help paying them.'' Instead, you should be saying ''bills are high, therefore we must find away to reduce those bills.''
Now, go forth and study amongst yourselves and don't come back in this thread until you have some kind of clue. Seriously.
#136
Chibibar
Chibibar
The Messiah - I understand where you are coming from. Sure to solve a lot of medical bills is paying your debt.
But how did this debt come into play?
Here are some sample (some are related to each other)
low-income and even mid income self employed cannot afford medical insurance. Why? their entire income either pay utility bills, mortgage, car payment, food and probably clothing (cost varies per family) these are basic needs to really work in the "real world". you need running water to keep yourself clean, cook your food, and wash your clothes. Why? to keep your job, you can't be smelly and work (well you can but won't get very far) gotta eat to have energy to work and need transportation to get TO work (assuming some place don't have public transportation like McKinney we don't have DART so I need a car) a roof over your head so you don't get cold at night... given. Most of them just don't have much left to afford insurance on their own. (these are working people who are trying)
Why?
Premiums are high..... so in order to get insurance to keep it low and thus allow people to pay their bill, then we need lower premiums. A decent insurance (using mine as an example) from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) is around 350$ a month. that is a lot. my work pays for it (part of the benefits) but some private corporation they usually pay half and you pay the other half (which is 175$) that is a lot for some people. so no insurance for low income and mid self employed.
So..... people get sick. It happens to the best of us and even the fittest. sometimes we can tough it out and sometimes you have to go see a doctor. Currently hospital prices ARE high for emergency room. So lets say a person got shot at 2am, well only emergency room is open. you go and get treated. Doctors can't turn away people cause of their oath. Of course you (the general you) don't have insurance and gotten care and live now with a debt.
you don't make that much to begin with but have like a 20,000$ debt (easy) how you pay that off? even 10$ a month that is 166 years. A person don't live THAT long which mean the hospital will eat that debt (the person will die before debt is paid off) this is the problem. even if people DID pay their bill but not PAY OFF their bill before dying.... someone has to eat the cost... that is the problem.
These problem above compound upon each other. A single "solution" won't fix it. you have to fix the whole system...... I just don't have the solution to that.
But how did this debt come into play?
Here are some sample (some are related to each other)
low-income and even mid income self employed cannot afford medical insurance. Why? their entire income either pay utility bills, mortgage, car payment, food and probably clothing (cost varies per family) these are basic needs to really work in the "real world". you need running water to keep yourself clean, cook your food, and wash your clothes. Why? to keep your job, you can't be smelly and work (well you can but won't get very far) gotta eat to have energy to work and need transportation to get TO work (assuming some place don't have public transportation like McKinney we don't have DART so I need a car) a roof over your head so you don't get cold at night... given. Most of them just don't have much left to afford insurance on their own. (these are working people who are trying)
Why?
Premiums are high..... so in order to get insurance to keep it low and thus allow people to pay their bill, then we need lower premiums. A decent insurance (using mine as an example) from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) is around 350$ a month. that is a lot. my work pays for it (part of the benefits) but some private corporation they usually pay half and you pay the other half (which is 175$) that is a lot for some people. so no insurance for low income and mid self employed.
So..... people get sick. It happens to the best of us and even the fittest. sometimes we can tough it out and sometimes you have to go see a doctor. Currently hospital prices ARE high for emergency room. So lets say a person got shot at 2am, well only emergency room is open. you go and get treated. Doctors can't turn away people cause of their oath. Of course you (the general you) don't have insurance and gotten care and live now with a debt.
you don't make that much to begin with but have like a 20,000$ debt (easy) how you pay that off? even 10$ a month that is 166 years. A person don't live THAT long which mean the hospital will eat that debt (the person will die before debt is paid off) this is the problem. even if people DID pay their bill but not PAY OFF their bill before dying.... someone has to eat the cost... that is the problem.
These problem above compound upon each other. A single "solution" won't fix it. you have to fix the whole system...... I just don't have the solution to that.
#137
Chummer
Chummer
What makes me sad is that we are supposed to be the best country in the world with all this high morals etc yet we have no problem letting our poor die in the streets.
What I find even more crazy is we pay THREE TIMES the amount in healthcare that other countries do yet we die sooner, have more baby deaths, and our just plain in worse health.
It obvious the system we have doesnt work when all it does is make us poor and kill us off sooner than the other "civilized" nations.
Oh and another thing, I always find it funny how we are supposed to be this "God Chosen" nation and the Christians will lead the way etc, yet we value a system thats basicly "Atleast I got mine". Good Christian values there. Looks like many-a-people need to go back and read trhe New Testement cause Jesus was all about "giving until it hurts, then give some more." The best thing you can do is serve your fellow man.
What I find even more crazy is we pay THREE TIMES the amount in healthcare that other countries do yet we die sooner, have more baby deaths, and our just plain in worse health.
It obvious the system we have doesnt work when all it does is make us poor and kill us off sooner than the other "civilized" nations.
Oh and another thing, I always find it funny how we are supposed to be this "God Chosen" nation and the Christians will lead the way etc, yet we value a system thats basicly "Atleast I got mine". Good Christian values there. Looks like many-a-people need to go back and read trhe New Testement cause Jesus was all about "giving until it hurts, then give some more." The best thing you can do is serve your fellow man.
#138
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Slavery was common throughout the world at the time, not just America. Wealth doesn't preclude wisdom. I don't have a response for the thing about them being dead. I guess that makes them a bunch of useless dipshits. Stupid people, giving up their lives for us so we could insult them hundreds of years later and belittle all that they accomplished and sacrificed for future generations. Don't worry, we will amend the fuck out of that constitution thing. When we get done with that rag you won't even recognize it.Chazwozel said:Those slave owning, rich, dead guys even had enough foresight that future issues are out of their league so they made their constitution amendable for posterity.
#139
Chazwozel
Actually slavery among the industrialized nations was all but abolish. No, it really wasn't the common thing to do anymore (unless you count colonialism as a form of slavery, to which it's really not).
Wealth doesn't preclude wisdom. So why do people so desperately cling to foundations set forth by Washington and Jefferson? They weren't exactly Socrates and Aristotle. They cling to them because rich people make the rules and run the world, just like today. It's not in rich America's best interest to have universal health care. They have the money and the means to make it so. That's my take in a nutshell.
Chazwozel
The Messiah said:Slavery was common throughout the world at the time, not just America. Wealth doesn't preclude wisdom. I don't have a response for the thing about them being dead. I guess that makes them a bunch of useless dipshits. Stupid people, giving up their lives for us so we could insult them hundreds of years later and belittle all that they accomplished and sacrificed for future generations. Don't worry, we will amend the smurf out of that constitution thing. When we get done with that rag you won't even recognize it.Chazwozel said:Those slave owning, rich, dead guys even had enough foresight that future issues are out of their league so they made their constitution amendable for posterity.
Actually slavery among the industrialized nations was all but abolish. No, it really wasn't the common thing to do anymore (unless you count colonialism as a form of slavery, to which it's really not).
Wealth doesn't preclude wisdom. So why do people so desperately cling to foundations set forth by Washington and Jefferson? They weren't exactly Socrates and Aristotle. They cling to them because rich people make the rules and run the world, just like today. It's not in rich America's best interest to have universal health care. They have the money and the means to make it so. That's my take in a nutshell.
#140
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Treat the cause, not the symptoms. Instead of asking for help to pay the high prices, wouldn't it be wiser to work towards bringing the prices down?Chibibar said:The Messiah - I understand where you are coming from. Sure to solve a lot of medical bills is paying your debt.
But how did this debt come into play?
Here are some sample (some are related to each other)
low-income and even mid income self employed cannot afford medical insurance. Why? their entire income either pay utility bills, mortgage, car payment, food and probably clothing (cost varies per family) these are basic needs to really work in the "real world". you need running water to keep yourself clean, cook your food, and wash your clothes. Why? to keep your job, you can't be smelly and work (well you can but won't get very far) gotta eat to have energy to work and need transportation to get TO work (assuming some place don't have public transportation like McKinney we don't have DART so I need a car) a roof over your head so you don't get cold at night... given. Most of them just don't have much left to afford insurance on their own. (these are working people who are trying)
Why?
Premiums are high..... so in order to get insurance to keep it low and thus allow people to pay their bill, then we need lower premiums. A decent insurance (using mine as an example) from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) is around 350$ a month. that is a lot. my work pays for it (part of the benefits) but some private corporation they usually pay half and you pay the other half (which is 175$) that is a lot for some people. so no insurance for low income and mid self employed.
So..... people get sick. It happens to the best of us and even the fittest. sometimes we can tough it out and sometimes you have to go see a doctor. Currently hospital prices ARE high for emergency room. So lets say a person got shot at 2am, well only emergency room is open. you go and get treated. Doctors can't turn away people cause of their oath. Of course you (the general you) don't have insurance and gotten care and live now with a debt.
you don't make that much to begin with but have like a 20,000$ debt (easy) how you pay that off? even 10$ a month that is 166 years. A person don't live THAT long which mean the hospital will eat that debt (the person will die before debt is paid off) this is the problem. even if people DID pay their bill but not PAY OFF their bill before dying.... someone has to eat the cost... that is the problem.
These problem above compound upon each other. A single "solution" won't fix it. you have to fix the whole system...... I just don't have the solution to that.
#141
Iaculus
Oh, and did you actually read that quoted section, Messiah? I don't think it says what you think it says.
Iaculus
Actually, I'd place Jefferson around or above Aristotle - though, to be fair, I don't have a vast amount of respect for Aristotle. He had an opinion on a lot of things, sure, but that didn't make him right.Chazwozel said:The Messiah said:Slavery was common throughout the world at the time, not just America. Wealth doesn't preclude wisdom. I don't have a response for the thing about them being dead. I guess that makes them a bunch of useless dipshits. Stupid people, giving up their lives for us so we could insult them hundreds of years later and belittle all that they accomplished and sacrificed for future generations. Don't worry, we will amend the smurf out of that constitution thing. When we get done with that rag you won't even recognize it.Chazwozel said:Those slave owning, rich, dead guys even had enough foresight that future issues are out of their league so they made their constitution amendable for posterity.
Actually slavery among the industrialized nations was all but abolish. No, it really wasn't the common thing to do anymore (unless you count colonialism as a form of slavery, to which it's really not).
Wealth doesn't preclude wisdom. So why do people so desperately cling to foundations set forth by Washington and Jefferson? They weren't exactly Socrates and Aristotle. They cling to them because rich people make the rules and run the world, just like today. It's not in rich America's best interest to have universal health care. They have the money and the means to make it so. That's my take in a nutshell.
Oh, and did you actually read that quoted section, Messiah? I don't think it says what you think it says.
#142
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
What I meant by my quote was that a bunch of 18th century dead dudes couldn't possibly had the answers to our modern problems, so my question is: why does the right always cling and point to "what the founding father's intentions were" when it's all fruitless searching.
Issues like gun control and how this country's a land of free market are a result of following these ideals. America can't be a free market, capitalist nation if it intends to progress towards the future with other rising powers. It just can't.
Issues like gun control and how this country's a land of free market are a result of following these ideals. America can't be a free market, capitalist nation if it intends to progress towards the future with other rising powers. It just can't.
#143
T
The Messiah
Of course, all of this information pales beside your depiction of Jefferson and Washington being ''not Aristotle.'' Let's exclude Frankiln and Adams for a moment and just focus on Washington. Hmmm, one of the greatest strategists and military leaders to ever walk the Earth. The guy that almost single handedly lead a fledgling nation to victory over one of the greatest military powers of all time? THAT is the guy you don't think measures up to dead philosophers? I hesitate to point this out, but you are clearly, clearly lacking in any primary understanding of the nation's history. Back to class with you, young man and we may have to notify your parents of your inability to pay attention in class.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:03 pm --
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:04 pm --
T
The Messiah
Shoulda paid attention in history class. Slavery was abolished in other industrialized nations? Riiight. What industrialized nations are you referring to? The ones that didn't exist before the 1800s? Agriculture was the thing back then, mostly because the entire world was doing everything it could to feed itself. Industrialization was, at that point, a rudimentary and poorly implemented concept, consisting mostly of textile mills and the like. And where do you suppose we got all our slaves from? Oh, right. We bought them. From other countries. On the open market. Because everybody on Earth (including the legendary East India Trading Company) was involved in the buying, selling and transportation of slaves, indentured servants and the rest of the thinly disguised human cargo, at great profit.Chazwozel said:The Messiah said:Slavery was common throughout the world at the time, not just America. Wealth doesn't preclude wisdom. I don't have a response for the thing about them being dead. I guess that makes them a bunch of useless dipshits. Stupid people, giving up their lives for us so we could insult them hundreds of years later and belittle all that they accomplished and sacrificed for future generations. Don't worry, we will amend the smurf out of that constitution thing. When we get done with that rag you won't even recognize it.Chazwozel said:Those slave owning, rich, dead guys even had enough foresight that future issues are out of their league so they made their constitution amendable for posterity.
Actually slavery among the industrialized nations was all but abolish. No, it really wasn't the common thing to do anymore (unless you count colonialism as a form of slavery, to which it's really not).
Wealth doesn't preclude wisdom. So why do people so desperately cling to foundations set forth by Washington and Jefferson? They weren't exactly Socrates and Aristotle. They cling to them because rich people make the rules and run the world, just like today. It's not in rich America's best interest to have universal health care. They have the money and the means to make it so. That's my take in a nutshell.
Of course, all of this information pales beside your depiction of Jefferson and Washington being ''not Aristotle.'' Let's exclude Frankiln and Adams for a moment and just focus on Washington. Hmmm, one of the greatest strategists and military leaders to ever walk the Earth. The guy that almost single handedly lead a fledgling nation to victory over one of the greatest military powers of all time? THAT is the guy you don't think measures up to dead philosophers? I hesitate to point this out, but you are clearly, clearly lacking in any primary understanding of the nation's history. Back to class with you, young man and we may have to notify your parents of your inability to pay attention in class.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:03 pm --
It says exactly what I think it says. That the definition of natural selection, survival of the fittest and even the conceptual meaning of darwinism has been open to interpretation for quite some time. My interpretation means self reliance and personal responsibilty. Apparently, this is the same views that the right wing has as well. Funny how they never seem to support or abide by that mantra, as George W Bush increased the size of government tremendously while in office, as well as giving the federal government sweeping powers over the nation. I would have to call that guy more socialist than many socialists.Iaculus said:Oh, and did you actually read that quoted section, Messiah? I don't think it says what you think it says.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:04 pm --
Why do you talk?Issues like gun control and how this country's a land of free market are a result of following these ideals. America can't be a free market, capitalist nation if it intends to progress towards the future with other rising powers. It just can't.
#144
Chibibar
So.... let see if we can get back to the basic.
Why medical cost so high? unpaid medical services (debt) thus insurance is high, thus poor people can't afford premium..... so lets reverse this
How can we get medical payment low - paying debt thus insurance will be low thus poor people can afford it.
But..... how do we handle the CURRENT medical debt already in place? there is debt cause people can't pay it. That is our #1 problem so far.
Ok. now... if we can somehow scrap the whole system and start fresh what "should happen"
1. medical insurance for everyone? how? low premium and good service? That would be a good provider but at the same time being capitalist, there has to be competition. Sole medical plan could work too but then we are talking socialist.
2. Now we need to set policies to PREVENT or at least lessen the chance of medical doctor of being sue? (protection perhaps?) that is another reason for high medical bills (hospital charges)
3. Policy of prevent medical charges charging through the roof? I notice that when I had a minor attack (I stop breathing) I went to the emergency room cause well.. I stop breathing. I got the bill. EVERY SINGLE person saw me (including each nurse) put a charge on it. Even the doctor who didn't even touch me just ask me question, look at my chart charge 2000$ for it. luckily I had medical insurance so my cost was like 500$ That is something that may take YEARS to figure out and fix.
4. Government.......... well.. we can only change every 2,4,6 years (2 years for House rep election, 4 years president election, and 6 years for Senate election) so that will take a bit of time and people need to vote the right people into office of course this would be the right people would want to RUN for office. The two party system pretty much lock out anyone other party to actually win a presidency (generally a republican or democrat) How much government involvement? what are the laws? how is it passed? government regs and laws takes MONTHS if not YEARS to get around to fixing. At the same time, they are doing something else also...... so... overthrow the government? not anytime soon.
Ok.. lets talk about the flip side.
Why people are poor?
Lack of Job? - What is the job market. Right now..... pretty sucky. As many have stated we are around 10% of unemployment. Well, if you are unemployed, you don't make any money, no money = no medical insurance cause any money you DO get (unemployment check) would go into the basic = food, utility, house, and transportation. How do we fix that? I don't know. If you have the answer, America can use it.
Lack of education? - well... this is an age old battle that I'm pretty familiar with. It is sad that a GREAT teacher get paid so little compare to a GREAT sport player. Yea it is not fair. A sports player is just an entertainment value, while a great teacher can help shape and mold MANY people in the future.... where is the justice in that? so... back to the point. Education is getting paid less and less by the government taxes (I use Texas as an example) Majority of the School fund COMES from property taxes (at least in Dallas for sure not sure of other counties) Even community college, majority of the money comes from tuition and some from government (we are community college) so school can only pay what they can afford and hope they can compete. BUT even with community college, it cost money. There are program to help pay for education but a lot of red tapes to get help and fundings (it is not easy that is for sure)
Motivation for education - well........ again an old battle. Some parents in America thinks that their kids don't need skool (that is intentional) cause "they are gud enough" that can be a problem.... how we fix that? mandatory education?
Quality - I hate "no child left behind" law cause there is no money to help improve. All it does is shuffle "poor/difficult" student to other program. I talk with many teacher on this and most they agree. It is not a good solution. It is hard to get equipment, books, supplies or anything for school. Private school have better funding and thus can get quality teacher but you know how much private school cost.
There is a whole bunch of other system that participate to the problem as a whole, these are just some examples....... how are we going to fix this? it will not get fix in a year.... 10 years MAYBE consider how slow things work. (if we are lucky)
Chibibar
Right.. so change the system?The Messiah said:Treat the cause, not the symptoms. Instead of asking for help to pay the high prices, wouldn't it be wiser to work towards bringing the prices down?
So.... let see if we can get back to the basic.
Why medical cost so high? unpaid medical services (debt) thus insurance is high, thus poor people can't afford premium..... so lets reverse this
How can we get medical payment low - paying debt thus insurance will be low thus poor people can afford it.
But..... how do we handle the CURRENT medical debt already in place? there is debt cause people can't pay it. That is our #1 problem so far.
Ok. now... if we can somehow scrap the whole system and start fresh what "should happen"
1. medical insurance for everyone? how? low premium and good service? That would be a good provider but at the same time being capitalist, there has to be competition. Sole medical plan could work too but then we are talking socialist.
2. Now we need to set policies to PREVENT or at least lessen the chance of medical doctor of being sue? (protection perhaps?) that is another reason for high medical bills (hospital charges)
3. Policy of prevent medical charges charging through the roof? I notice that when I had a minor attack (I stop breathing) I went to the emergency room cause well.. I stop breathing. I got the bill. EVERY SINGLE person saw me (including each nurse) put a charge on it. Even the doctor who didn't even touch me just ask me question, look at my chart charge 2000$ for it. luckily I had medical insurance so my cost was like 500$ That is something that may take YEARS to figure out and fix.
4. Government.......... well.. we can only change every 2,4,6 years (2 years for House rep election, 4 years president election, and 6 years for Senate election) so that will take a bit of time and people need to vote the right people into office of course this would be the right people would want to RUN for office. The two party system pretty much lock out anyone other party to actually win a presidency (generally a republican or democrat) How much government involvement? what are the laws? how is it passed? government regs and laws takes MONTHS if not YEARS to get around to fixing. At the same time, they are doing something else also...... so... overthrow the government? not anytime soon.
Ok.. lets talk about the flip side.
Why people are poor?
Lack of Job? - What is the job market. Right now..... pretty sucky. As many have stated we are around 10% of unemployment. Well, if you are unemployed, you don't make any money, no money = no medical insurance
cause any money you DO get (unemployment check) would go into the basic = food, utility, house, and transportation. How do we fix that? I don't know. If you have the answer, America can use it.Lack of education? - well... this is an age old battle that I'm pretty familiar with. It is sad that a GREAT teacher get paid so little compare to a GREAT sport player. Yea it is not fair. A sports player is just an entertainment value, while a great teacher can help shape and mold MANY people in the future.... where is the justice in that? so... back to the point. Education is getting paid less and less by the government taxes (I use Texas as an example) Majority of the School fund COMES from property taxes (at least in Dallas for sure not sure of other counties) Even community college, majority of the money comes from tuition and some from government (we are community college) so school can only pay what they can afford and hope they can compete. BUT even with community college, it cost money. There are program to help pay for education but a lot of red tapes to get help and fundings (it is not easy that is for sure)
Motivation for education - well........ again an old battle. Some parents in America thinks that their kids don't need skool (that is intentional) cause "they are gud enough" that can be a problem.... how we fix that? mandatory education?
Quality - I hate "no child left behind" law cause there is no money to help improve. All it does is shuffle "poor/difficult" student to other program. I talk with many teacher on this and most they agree. It is not a good solution. It is hard to get equipment, books, supplies or anything for school. Private school have better funding and thus can get quality teacher but you know how much private school cost.
There is a whole bunch of other system that participate to the problem as a whole, these are just some examples....... how are we going to fix this? it will not get fix in a year.... 10 years MAYBE consider how slow things work. (if we are lucky)
#145
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Sooo... the Messiah can read the minds of dead late-18th century politicians and philosophers?
#146
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Nice try Gas Bandit Jr.
I minored in history in college, and the trade of slaves in Europe was abolished by the 16th century (England in the 12th!) I think Russia abolished it in the 17th.
Like I said, established industrialized nations had abolished slavery well before the U.S. had old Abe proclaiming his famous emancipation speech. Considering that the U.S. was an English colony, it wasn't really the norm for "civilized" Englishmen to own slaves.
I think you have English colonialism mixed up with slavery.
And of course there were pockets of slavery existing within Africa, India, and New Zealand.
I minored in history in college, and the trade of slaves in Europe was abolished by the 16th century (England in the 12th!) I think Russia abolished it in the 17th.
Like I said, established industrialized nations had abolished slavery well before the U.S. had old Abe proclaiming his famous emancipation speech. Considering that the U.S. was an English colony, it wasn't really the norm for "civilized" Englishmen to own slaves.
I think you have English colonialism mixed up with slavery.
And of course there were pockets of slavery existing within Africa, India, and New Zealand.
#147
Chibibar
there be indentured servants.... yea...
Chibibar
There be no slaves in ChinaChazwozel said:I minored in history in college, and the trade of slaves in Europe was abolished by the 16th century (England in the 12th!) I think Russia abolished it in the 17th.
Like I said, established industrialized nations had abolished slavery well before the U.S. had old Abe proclaiming his famous emancipation speech. Considering that the U.S. was an English colony, it wasn't really the norm for "civilized" Englishmen to own slaves.
I think you have English colonialism mixed up with slavery.
And of course there were pockets of slavery existing within Africa, India, and New Zealand.
there be indentured servants.... yea...
#148
Chazwozel
Me thinks Messah, is a freshman college student who just finished up poli sci 101
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:12 pm --
Well an indentured servant system varies from region to region. It can't be generalized.
Edit* East India Company never directly traded slaves. They did profit from the results of the slave trade.
Chazwozel
North_Ranger said:Sooo... the Messiah can read the minds of dead late-18th century politicians and philosophers?
Me thinks Messah, is a freshman college student who just finished up poli sci 101
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:12 pm --
Chibibar said:There be no slaves in ChinaChazwozel said:I minored in history in college, and the trade of slaves in Europe was abolished by the 16th century (England in the 12th!) I think Russia abolished it in the 17th.
Like I said, established industrialized nations had abolished slavery well before the U.S. had old Abe proclaiming his famous emancipation speech. Considering that the U.S. was an English colony, it wasn't really the norm for "civilized" Englishmen to own slaves.
I think you have English colonialism mixed up with slavery.
And of course there were pockets of slavery existing within Africa, India, and New Zealand.
Well an indentured servant system varies from region to region. It can't be generalized.
Edit* East India Company never directly traded slaves. They did profit from the results of the slave trade.
#149
Chibibar
Sweat shop in China is one of the major "tag line" (did I use that correctly?) but I guess the pure definition of slavery is work for free and someone owns you right?
these sweat shop you still pay people, just very very low wages.
Chibibar
Yea.. some people claim it is near slavery.Chazwozel said:Well an indentured servant system varies from region to region. It can't be generalized.
Sweat shop in China is one of the major "tag line" (did I use that correctly?) but I guess the pure definition of slavery is work for free and someone owns you right?
these sweat shop you still pay people, just very very low wages.
#150
crono1224
crono1224
The messiah tries so hard but is clear that most of what he spouts are solutions before the problem, yes if people paid their bills the bill itself wouldn't be so high, but its too late it already is high and well beyond certain people means. I don't even think he cares anymore about real world, all the problems that exist are because of liberal government, unchecked free market was somehow corrupted by liberals. And mister Washington and Jefferson can handle all these things cause back in the day is completely relevant to now.
Blots, I didn't say just cause they can run one thing they can run all, it's more people are like WAAA they failed our mail system the government is incomptent, but lets let thim guard our lives, and put out fires.
Blots, I didn't say just cause they can run one thing they can run all, it's more people are like WAAA they failed our mail system the government is incomptent, but lets let thim guard our lives, and put out fires.
#151
Chazwozel
I used to have the solutions to the worlds problems, similar to rants like Messiah preaches. But then I my high wore off, and I ran out of weed. Isn't freshman year of college grand? :smug:
How in the hell does Washington's military strategical knowledge of 18th warfare help us exactly? No, seriously, how would an old dead general have the foresight to tackle heath care reform issues. Take a lesson from ol' George. You know why he was able to bring down the greatest military power of all time? He enforced guerrilla tactic warfare instead of the traditional two armies meeting in a field and shooting till one says stop. He took radical, modern ideas and used them to his advantage instead of clinging to old traditions. Our problems are not going to be solved by reading Ben Franklin's diary or finding some hidden text from Tom Jefferson.
Chazwozel
crono1224 said:The messiah tries so hard but is clear that most of what he spouts are solutions before the problem, yes if people paid their bills the bill itself wouldn't be so high, but its too late it already is high and well beyond certain people means. I don't even think he cares anymore about real world, all the problems that exist are because of liberal government, unchecked free market was somehow corrupted by liberals. And mister Washington and Jefferson can handle all these things cause back in the day is completely relevant to now.
Blots, I didn't say just cause they can run one thing they can run all, it's more people are like WAAA they failed our mail system the government is incomptent, but lets let thim guard our lives, and put out fires.
I used to have the solutions to the worlds problems, similar to rants like Messiah preaches. But then I my high wore off, and I ran out of weed. Isn't freshman year of college grand? :smug:
I missed this gem.Of course, all of this information pales beside your depiction of Jefferson and Washington being ''not Aristotle.'' Let's exclude Frankiln and Adams for a moment and just focus on Washington. Hmmm, one of the greatest strategists and military leaders to ever walk the Earth. The guy that almost single handedly lead a fledgling nation to victory over one of the greatest military powers of all time? THAT is the guy you don't think measures up to dead philosophers? I hesitate to point this out, but you are clearly, clearly lacking in any primary understanding of the nation's history. Back to class with you, young man and we may have to notify your parents of your inability to pay attention in
How in the hell does Washington's military strategical knowledge of 18th warfare help us exactly? No, seriously, how would an old dead general have the foresight to tackle heath care reform issues. Take a lesson from ol' George. You know why he was able to bring down the greatest military power of all time? He enforced guerrilla tactic warfare instead of the traditional two armies meeting in a field and shooting till one says stop. He took radical, modern ideas and used them to his advantage instead of clinging to old traditions. Our problems are not going to be solved by reading Ben Franklin's diary or finding some hidden text from Tom Jefferson.
#152
crono1224
crono1224
But but, its the fault of the people not of the policy/philosophy.Chazwozel said:crono1224 said:The messiah tries so hard but is clear that most of what he spouts are solutions before the problem, yes if people paid their bills the bill itself wouldn't be so high, but its too late it already is high and well beyond certain people means. I don't even think he cares anymore about real world, all the problems that exist are because of liberal government, unchecked free market was somehow corrupted by liberals. And mister Washington and Jefferson can handle all these things cause back in the day is completely relevant to now.
Blots, I didn't say just cause they can run one thing they can run all, it's more people are like WAAA they failed our mail system the government is incomptent, but lets let thim guard our lives, and put out fires.
I used to have the solutions to the worlds problems, similar to rants like Messiah preaches. But then I my high wore off, and I ran out of weed. Isn't freshman year of college grand? :smug:
#153
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
first year college makes you super liberal as fuck, chaz, has it been so long since you were a freshman? 
He probably listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for a few hours. Or maybe read his dad's copy of the American Spectator
He probably listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for a few hours. Or maybe read his dad's copy of the American Spectator
#154
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
What if we find Jefferson's jetpack and blasters?Chazwozel said:Our problems are not going to be solved by reading Ben Franklin's diary or finding some hidden text from Tom Jefferson.
#155
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Unless we were Nicholas Cage in National Treasure 3.Chazwozel said:Our problems are not going to be solved by reading Ben Franklin's diary or finding some hidden text from Tom Jefferson.
#156
Cajungal
Cajungal
#157
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Oh man, you totally got me. You are so right. Yep. No slavery after the 17th century. Mmm-hmmm. Yeah, they had a law that said not to. Yep. Ok then. That just put an end to that slavery shit didn't it? I guess that's why we don't have slavery in the modern day either? Nope, no slaves then, no slaves now, you are correct. And Washington, yeah, he wasn't all that. Moreover, he can't travel through time to tell us how to fix things. Yes, so true. What was I thinking? Until we get time traveling anti-slavery Washington to help us we are fucked. And we damn sure don't want to even attempt to get anyone to try to actually pay for their own healthcare. Truly, that would be the height of foolishness. The debt is too high, it is just too late to make any attempt at all at this point. Why throw good money after bad?
Let me ask you this. You don't want to pay to fix the problem. You don't want to even consider any type of personal individual responsibility for the problem. You don't seem to think that doctors, nurses and radiologists need to earn a living.
WHO do you think is going to treat you when they know that they aren't going to get paid? What is YOUR solution to healthcare professionals walking off the job because of a collapsing infrastructure? What is your solution to hospitals that are closing their doors because they can no longer afford to treat patients? How will you deal with skyrocketing medical costs caused by so many people not paying their medical bills?
If I am so wrong, then how is it that YOU are so right? What EXACTLY is your plan to fix healthcare in the United States while simultaneously allowing a significant portion of the population to not to have to pay for that same healthcare?
I already know your answer. Go ahead and say it. Show everyone how predictable you really are.
Let me ask you this. You don't want to pay to fix the problem. You don't want to even consider any type of personal individual responsibility for the problem. You don't seem to think that doctors, nurses and radiologists need to earn a living.
WHO do you think is going to treat you when they know that they aren't going to get paid? What is YOUR solution to healthcare professionals walking off the job because of a collapsing infrastructure? What is your solution to hospitals that are closing their doors because they can no longer afford to treat patients? How will you deal with skyrocketing medical costs caused by so many people not paying their medical bills?
If I am so wrong, then how is it that YOU are so right? What EXACTLY is your plan to fix healthcare in the United States while simultaneously allowing a significant portion of the population to not to have to pay for that same healthcare?
I already know your answer. Go ahead and say it. Show everyone how predictable you really are.
#158
Cajungal
Cajungal
I'm curious to know what you think we should do in the meantime--before prices are lowered (what you said needs to happen, right? And I don't disagree), how should we deal with the people who, as you've pointed out, need to take responsibility for their bills? (edit--bills they accumulated due to an illness and that they are attempting to take care of but cannot)
#159
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Internet: Where the Economic Geniuses Gather.
#160
Iaculus
It's luuucraaatiiiveee...
Iaculus
Speaking of, anyone for a quick pyramid scheme?North_Ranger said:Internet: Where the Economic Geniuses Gather.
It's luuucraaatiiiveee...
#161
Cajungal
Cajungal
#162
Bowielee
If you think doctors and nurses don't get paid in countries that have universal health care, you really are nieve.
Bowielee
The Messiah said:Oh man, you totally got me. You are so right. Yep. No slavery after the 17th century. Mmm-hmmm. Yeah, they had a law that said not to. Yep. Ok then. That just put an end to that slavery poop didn't it? I guess that's why we don't have slavery in the modern day either? Nope, no slaves then, no slaves now, you are correct. And Washington, yeah, he wasn't all that. Moreover, he can't travel through time to tell us how to fix things. Yes, so true. What was I thinking? Until we get time traveling anti-slavery Washington to help us we are smurfed. And we damn sure don't want to even attempt to get anyone to try to actually pay for their own healthcare. Truly, that would be the height of foolishness. The debt is too high, it is just too late to make any attempt at all at this point. Why throw good money after bad?
Let me ask you this. You don't want to pay to fix the problem. You don't want to even consider any type of personal individual responsibility for the problem. You don't seem to think that doctors, nurses and radiologists need to earn a living.
WHO do you think is going to treat you when they know that they aren't going to get paid? What is YOUR solution to healthcare professionals walking off the job because of a collapsing infrastructure? What is your solution to hospitals that are closing their doors because they can no longer afford to treat patients? How will you deal with skyrocketing medical costs caused by so many people not paying their medical bills?
If I am so wrong, then how is it that YOU are so right? What EXACTLY is your plan to fix healthcare in the United States while simultaneously allowing a significant portion of the population to not to have to pay for that same healthcare?
I already know your answer. Go ahead and say it. Show everyone how predictable you really are.
If you think doctors and nurses don't get paid in countries that have universal health care, you really are nieve.
#163
T
The Messiah
Sure, there are people that are just completely unable to pay even $10 a month and that is to be expected. This is a very similar situation to taxes. Sometimes it is hard to pay, but almost everyone does. Those few who don't get harassed and sometimes even jailed, but for the most part, if you can't, then you can't. You pay what you can and eventually, you whittle it down to something reasonable. Nobody is asking for immediate payment of your open heart surgery bill, but you do need to throw them a few bucks on a regular basis, just to keep things going smoothly for all parties concerned.
Of course, this is overlooking some things, such as illegal aliens (a big problem), people who refuse to pay their bills, people who can afford to go to the doctor but don't until the problem reaches epic proportions and so on. As with any problem, there are multiple solutions that all need to be implemented simultaneously. Obviously, caring for the elderly needs to be addressed as well. The real world is not black and white, conservative and liberal, my way or the highway. The real world requires flexibility and logical solutions that not only make sense on paper, but that actually work in real life.
Cowering in the corner and saying ''NUH UH! NUH UH! NUH UH!'' isn't helping anyone and neither is letting retarded politicians decide for us. Politicians are only good at one thing; Lying in order to maintain their power and following their party blindly. Never, ever, ever trust politicians.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:21 pm --
So your solution to the problem is that I'm naive?
T
The Messiah
As Steven Tyler would say: Chip away at the stone. You can't stop paying your bills just because they are overwhelming. I have medical bills outstanding (because I'm a hypocrite) that I could have paid off a long time ago, I just haven't. But in the case of an auto accident I had about 15 years ago while uninsured, state law required me to pay it off, so I did. At $50 a month, which was all I could afford. I paid one bill but not the other. Why? Because I had to. It was the law.Cajungal said:I'm curious to know what you think we should do in the meantime--before prices are lowered (what you said needs to happen, right? And I don't disagree), how should we deal with the people who, as you've pointed out, need to take responsibility for their bills?
Sure, there are people that are just completely unable to pay even $10 a month and that is to be expected. This is a very similar situation to taxes. Sometimes it is hard to pay, but almost everyone does. Those few who don't get harassed and sometimes even jailed, but for the most part, if you can't, then you can't. You pay what you can and eventually, you whittle it down to something reasonable. Nobody is asking for immediate payment of your open heart surgery bill, but you do need to throw them a few bucks on a regular basis, just to keep things going smoothly for all parties concerned.
Of course, this is overlooking some things, such as illegal aliens (a big problem), people who refuse to pay their bills, people who can afford to go to the doctor but don't until the problem reaches epic proportions and so on. As with any problem, there are multiple solutions that all need to be implemented simultaneously. Obviously, caring for the elderly needs to be addressed as well. The real world is not black and white, conservative and liberal, my way or the highway. The real world requires flexibility and logical solutions that not only make sense on paper, but that actually work in real life.
Cowering in the corner and saying ''NUH UH! NUH UH! NUH UH!'' isn't helping anyone and neither is letting retarded politicians decide for us. Politicians are only good at one thing; Lying in order to maintain their power and following their party blindly. Never, ever, ever trust politicians.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:21 pm --
Yeah you got me. That is exactly what I said. Totally. Exactly.Bowielee said:The Messiah said:Oh man, you totally got me. You are so right. Yep. No slavery after the 17th century. Mmm-hmmm. Yeah, they had a law that said not to. Yep. Ok then. That just put an end to that slavery poop didn't it? I guess that's why we don't have slavery in the modern day either? Nope, no slaves then, no slaves now, you are correct. And Washington, yeah, he wasn't all that. Moreover, he can't travel through time to tell us how to fix things. Yes, so true. What was I thinking? Until we get time traveling anti-slavery Washington to help us we are smurfed. And we damn sure don't want to even attempt to get anyone to try to actually pay for their own healthcare. Truly, that would be the height of foolishness. The debt is too high, it is just too late to make any attempt at all at this point. Why throw good money after bad?
Let me ask you this. You don't want to pay to fix the problem. You don't want to even consider any type of personal individual responsibility for the problem. You don't seem to think that doctors, nurses and radiologists need to earn a living.
WHO do you think is going to treat you when they know that they aren't going to get paid? What is YOUR solution to healthcare professionals walking off the job because of a collapsing infrastructure? What is your solution to hospitals that are closing their doors because they can no longer afford to treat patients? How will you deal with skyrocketing medical costs caused by so many people not paying their medical bills?
If I am so wrong, then how is it that YOU are so right? What EXACTLY is your plan to fix healthcare in the United States while simultaneously allowing a significant portion of the population to not to have to pay for that same healthcare?
I already know your answer. Go ahead and say it. Show everyone how predictable you really are.
If you think doctors and nurses don't get paid in countries that have universal health care, you really are nieve.
So your solution to the problem is that I'm naive?
#164
Papillon
Papillon
The Messiah said:Oh man, you totally got me. You are so right. Yep. No slavery after the 17th century. Mmm-hmmm. Yeah, they had a law that said not to. Yep. Ok then. That just put an end to that slavery shit didn't it?[citation needed] I guess that's why we don't have slavery in the modern day either? Nope, no slaves then, no slaves now, you are correct. And Washington, yeah, he wasn't all that. Moreover, he can't travel through time to tell us how to fix things. Yes, so true. What was I thinking? Until we get time traveling anti-slavery Washington to help us we are fucked. And we damn sure don't want to even attempt to get anyone to try to actually pay for their own healthcare. Truly, that would be the height of foolishness. The debt is too high, it is just too late to make any attempt at all at this point. Why throw good money after bad?
Let me ask you this. You don't want to pay to fix the problem. You don't want to even consider any type of personal individual responsibility for the problem. You don't seem to think that doctors, nurses and radiologists need to earn a living.[citation needed]
WHO do you think is going to treat you when they know that they aren't going to get paid[citation needed]? What is YOUR solution to healthcare professionals walking off the job[citation needed] because of a collapsing infrastructure? What is your solution to hospitals that are closing their doors[citation needed] because they can no longer afford to treat patients? How will you deal with skyrocketing medical costs caused by so many people not paying their medical bills[citation needed]?
If I am so wrong, then how is it that YOU are so right? What EXACTLY is your plan to fix healthcare in the United States while simultaneously allowing a significant portion of the population to not to have to pay[citation needed] for that same healthcare?
I already know your answer. Go ahead and say it. Show everyone how predictable you really are.
#165
Chazwozel
b. I don't have a reform plan. No one does. If I fucking had one, I'd be a billionaire, you fucking moron.
Here's a nickels worth of advice. Finish up college, live on your own for a few years, and then get back to me about the problems conflicting the United States and how to solve them. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of you spouting half-baked ideas as fact and truth and not having the intelligence to take others' arguments and comprehend them. You have a vivid imagination, but the reality is there is never a right and wrong when it comes to these sorts of issues. Black and white thinking is the hallmark of talking to an ignoramus, which is why I'm hardly putting any effort towards convincing you of how dumb you really sound.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:31 pm --
Chazwozel
a. I would gladly put up with a 50% tax increase for national health care as long as other tax brackets for other individuals were also taxed. How's that for personal responsibility? And Second, junior, some of my closest colleagues and friends are doctors and nurses, they deserve every penny they get. My biggest pet peeve with you is that you seem to believe all these 'facts' you pull out of your ass.The Messiah said:Oh man, you totally got me. You are so right. Yep. No slavery after the 17th century. Mmm-hmmm. Yeah, they had a law that said not to. Yep. Ok then. That just put an end to that slavery poop didn't it? I guess that's why we don't have slavery in the modern day either? Nope, no slaves then, no slaves now, you are correct. And Washington, yeah, he wasn't all that. Moreover, he can't travel through time to tell us how to fix things. Yes, so true. What was I thinking? Until we get time traveling anti-slavery Washington to help us we are smurfed. And we damn sure don't want to even attempt to get anyone to try to actually pay for their own healthcare. Truly, that would be the height of foolishness. The debt is too high, it is just too late to make any attempt at all at this point. Why throw good money after bad?
Let me ask you this. You don't want to pay to fix the problem. You don't want to even consider any type of personal individual responsibility for the problem. You don't seem to think that doctors, nurses and radiologists need to earn a living.
WHO do you think is going to treat you when they know that they aren't going to get paid? What is YOUR solution to healthcare professionals walking off the job because of a collapsing infrastructure? What is your solution to hospitals that are closing their doors because they can no longer afford to treat patients? How will you deal with skyrocketing medical costs caused by so many people not paying their medical bills?
If I am so wrong, then how is it that YOU are so right? What EXACTLY is your plan to fix healthcare in the United States while simultaneously allowing a significant portion of the population to not to have to pay for that same healthcare?
I already know your answer. Go ahead and say it. Show everyone how predictable you really are.
b. I don't have a reform plan. No one does. If I fucking had one, I'd be a billionaire, you fucking moron.
Here's a nickels worth of advice. Finish up college, live on your own for a few years, and then get back to me about the problems conflicting the United States and how to solve them. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of you spouting half-baked ideas as fact and truth and not having the intelligence to take others' arguments and comprehend them. You have a vivid imagination, but the reality is there is never a right and wrong when it comes to these sorts of issues. Black and white thinking is the hallmark of talking to an ignoramus, which is why I'm hardly putting any effort towards convincing you of how dumb you really sound.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:31 pm --
Thanks, this is another thing that junior here needs to learn. If you're going to pull facts out of your ass, you need to reference them. We wouldn't want you getting booted out of college for plagiarizing your masterpiece political science term papers, would we?Papillon said:The Messiah said:Oh man, you totally got me. You are so right. Yep. No slavery after the 17th century. Mmm-hmmm. Yeah, they had a law that said not to. Yep. Ok then. That just put an end to that slavery poop didn't it?[citation needed] I guess that's why we don't have slavery in the modern day either? Nope, no slaves then, no slaves now, you are correct. And Washington, yeah, he wasn't all that. Moreover, he can't travel through time to tell us how to fix things. Yes, so true. What was I thinking? Until we get time traveling anti-slavery Washington to help us we are smurfed. And we damn sure don't want to even attempt to get anyone to try to actually pay for their own healthcare. Truly, that would be the height of foolishness. The debt is too high, it is just too late to make any attempt at all at this point. Why throw good money after bad?
Let me ask you this. You don't want to pay to fix the problem. You don't want to even consider any type of personal individual responsibility for the problem. You don't seem to think that doctors, nurses and radiologists need to earn a living.[citation needed]
WHO do you think is going to treat you when they know that they aren't going to get paid[citation needed]? What is YOUR solution to healthcare professionals walking off the job[citation needed] because of a collapsing infrastructure? What is your solution to hospitals that are closing their doors[citation needed] because they can no longer afford to treat patients? How will you deal with skyrocketing medical costs caused by so many people not paying their medical bills[citation needed]?
If I am so wrong, then how is it that YOU are so right? What EXACTLY is your plan to fix healthcare in the United States while simultaneously allowing a significant portion of the population to not to have to pay[citation needed] for that same healthcare?
I already know your answer. Go ahead and say it. Show everyone how predictable you really are.
#166
Espy
Espy
Here is CNN/Fortune mag (not exactly bastion's of far right crazy mind you) with an article on what you would LOSE under Obamacare:
By Shawn Tully, editor at large
July 24, 2009: 10:17 AM ET
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.
But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.
The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms.
#167
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
As your duly elected savior, I recommend Vaseline for the brutal ass raping [citation needed] I am about to lay on the Amerikan people.
#168
Espy
Espy
You really don't help.
#169
Cog
Cog
But what system is going to leave less people without medical care?
#170
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
i am helping to save the future generations of this nation from runaway prosperity and proper health care. As your duly elected savior, I feel I can do no less. To pay for all the new programs, please fill out the new improved income tax form included below.
------------------Revised Federal Income Tax Form 2009-2010------------------------
1. Enter the amount earned in the last fiscal year _______
2. Enter all other other assets you may have, such as savings or CDs_______
3. Add the amounts from line one and line two________
Send in the amount from line three, minus the cost of one stamp.
------------------Revised Federal Income Tax Form 2009-2010------------------------
1. Enter the amount earned in the last fiscal year _______
2. Enter all other other assets you may have, such as savings or CDs_______
3. Add the amounts from line one and line two________
Send in the amount from line three, minus the cost of one stamp.
#171
Espy
Remember, I'm not saying we don't need reform. Just that we might not need THIS version of reform. Why settle for McDonalds when you know a few miles down the road is a good burger joint?
Espy
Thats a poor question because it has as a premise that any system that covers more people is automatically better. Asking "which system will cover more people better" is I think a better question.Cog said:But what system is going to leave less people without medical care?
Remember, I'm not saying we don't need reform. Just that we might not need THIS version of reform. Why settle for McDonalds when you know a few miles down the road is a good burger joint?
#172
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Aren't you a little too.... calm... to post here? Try frothing at the mouth a little or something.Espy said:Thats a poor question because it has as a premise that any system that covers more people is automatically better. Asking "which system will cover more people better" is I think a better question.Cog said:But what system is going to leave less people without medical care?
Remember, I'm not saying we don't need reform. Just that we might not need THIS version of reform. Why settle for McDonalds when you know a few miles down the road is a good burger joint?
#173
filmfanatic
filmfanatic
Sometimes, a calm before the raging storm continues can be a good thing.
#174
Cog
Cog
That was the question I had in my mind but the language is my enemy sometimes. It seem to me that everytime someone presents a posible solution, many only see what it's wrong with it instead to see if this new solutions works better. Only better, it don't have to be perfect.Espy said:Thats a poor question because it has as a premise that any system that covers more people is automatically better. Asking "which system will cover more people better" is I think a better question.Cog said:But what system is going to leave less people without medical care?
Remember, I'm not saying we don't need reform. Just that we might not need THIS version of reform. Why settle for McDonalds when you know a few miles down the road is a good burger joint?
#175
Mr_Chaz
For me it would be that people can get healthcare when they need it, without jeopardising their financial stability. If that's through an insurance scheme that everyone can afford? Fine by me. Through taxes? That's fine too. Whatever works. They key is that everyone has the ability to pay without sacrificing other necessities.
I'll use the same example I used earlier. Someone earns $24 000 a year and has an emergency appendectomy. Their bills? 100% of their salary. Someone else earns $100 000, their bills? 24% of their salary. But notice the difference here Mr Messiah...Neither of them have any choice but to have the surgery, it's an emergency. This is not the same as what house to buy/rent, or what TV to buy, because in those cases there are a range of products, of different prices, that you can choose which one you want. Emergency medical treatment is not the same.
So, what can we do about it? You want to ask how we can get the bills down, and you suggest that if everyone pays, the bills will go down. I have 2 issues with that.
a) You still haven't addressed the fact that some people can't pay. How can the person in the example above pay 100% of his salary to pay his medical bills? Not going to happen. You suggest he pays a nominal amount to show his willingness, your example being $10 a months, or whatever he can afford, leaving him paying his bills for 200 years. Now obviously that's not possible, so the insurance company still don't get the bill paid, and hence the costs are still high.
b) If you're one of these capitalist insurance companies you love so much, and people somehow start to pay their bills, and your costs go down, do you lower your prices? Abuse that inelastic demand and keep your prices high, why not? So under your system prices still wouldn't go down, and so all the struggle people have gone through to pay off debts in order to reduce their costs...is for nothing! The insurance companies WILL NOT reduce prices just because debts are lower, why on Earth would they if they're already making money? All that would do would reduce their profits, as if! So people still can't afford their healthcare, aah the wonders of a true free market. Sucks to be poor.
So
My suggestion? You're gonna love this one. Universal government provided healthcare. As seen in most of Europe among others. Why? Because everyone gets healthcare. Those who can afford to pay, and subsidise it for others. But oh no, why should I be paying for that poor person to be treated? Well that poor person works. They make your clothes, they empty your bins, they feed you in your favourite restaurant, they keep your sewers working, they pay every single cent of their income back into the economy. As a business owner (since you're such a successful capitalist), would you not appreciate their spending on your products? Keeping you in business? Because they damn sure won't be spending that money on you if they couldn't afford healthcare. When you think of it this way is the small payment you make to subsidise them really such a bad thing?
Mr_Chaz
Cha ching! We have a winner. Everyone always finds the flaws in the plan, well guess what, it's never going to be perfect. Get over it, and instead find the best available solution. The question is, how do you define best?Cog said:Only better, it don't have to be perfect.
For me it would be that people can get healthcare when they need it, without jeopardising their financial stability. If that's through an insurance scheme that everyone can afford? Fine by me. Through taxes? That's fine too. Whatever works. They key is that everyone has the ability to pay without sacrificing other necessities.
I'll use the same example I used earlier. Someone earns $24 000 a year and has an emergency appendectomy. Their bills? 100% of their salary. Someone else earns $100 000, their bills? 24% of their salary. But notice the difference here Mr Messiah...Neither of them have any choice but to have the surgery, it's an emergency. This is not the same as what house to buy/rent, or what TV to buy, because in those cases there are a range of products, of different prices, that you can choose which one you want. Emergency medical treatment is not the same.
So, what can we do about it? You want to ask how we can get the bills down, and you suggest that if everyone pays, the bills will go down. I have 2 issues with that.
a) You still haven't addressed the fact that some people can't pay. How can the person in the example above pay 100% of his salary to pay his medical bills? Not going to happen. You suggest he pays a nominal amount to show his willingness, your example being $10 a months, or whatever he can afford, leaving him paying his bills for 200 years. Now obviously that's not possible, so the insurance company still don't get the bill paid, and hence the costs are still high.
b) If you're one of these capitalist insurance companies you love so much, and people somehow start to pay their bills, and your costs go down, do you lower your prices? Abuse that inelastic demand and keep your prices high, why not? So under your system prices still wouldn't go down, and so all the struggle people have gone through to pay off debts in order to reduce their costs...is for nothing! The insurance companies WILL NOT reduce prices just because debts are lower, why on Earth would they if they're already making money? All that would do would reduce their profits, as if! So people still can't afford their healthcare, aah the wonders of a true free market. Sucks to be poor.
So
My suggestion? You're gonna love this one. Universal government provided healthcare. As seen in most of Europe among others. Why? Because everyone gets healthcare. Those who can afford to pay, and subsidise it for others. But oh no, why should I be paying for that poor person to be treated? Well that poor person works. They make your clothes, they empty your bins, they feed you in your favourite restaurant, they keep your sewers working, they pay every single cent of their income back into the economy. As a business owner (since you're such a successful capitalist), would you not appreciate their spending on your products? Keeping you in business? Because they damn sure won't be spending that money on you if they couldn't afford healthcare. When you think of it this way is the small payment you make to subsidise them really such a bad thing?
#176
tegid
tegid
Like when they say: the Canadian system is NOT PERFECT (ok it's better than ours but if it isn't perfect don't wanna...)
You always seem to refer to the Canadians, which is natural since they are right by you, but there are A LOT more countries you can get your inspiration from. Also, the idea that public helthcare should mean private hc being forbidden comes off as quite absurd to me.
@Messiah:
Most of these points have already been adressed, but since you don't seem to get them, I'll quickly go over them.
0- Survival of the fittest my fuck. If someone isn't able to provide the basics to himself and their family, but they try, I'll gladly help them (or rather have an organized force that does). Man, I'm glad I don't live in a country where some historic characters are regarded as so admirable and perfect that whatever they said, whichever ideals they had, is the Word of God.
1- You can't compare not paying healthcare to shoplifting. You have the option not to steal, but do you have the option not to live? Much harder, isn't it?
2- Sooo you could get loans right? That way everyone would pay. Riiiight. Who's going to lend you the money if you are poor as fuck?
3- And this is new, you seem to think that if healthcare wasn't overpriced (which I'm sure it is in your country) it would be affordable for everyone. What you're not taking into account is that many treatments are inherently expensive. Particularly treatments that will be useful in life or death situations: the latest technology, new chemicals, or even some of these that are not that new or breakthrough but are rare. It also takes a certain volume of workforce (nurses, doctors), much bigger than what you need at a store or whatever, and also at a greater price per worker (a doctor shouldn't be paid the same as a cashier, right?)
Also, I don't know if it was you or someone else who said it, but to whomever said that public healthcare would mean a lot of unemployment 'cause many people in the private healthcare sector would lose their jobs:
WTF?! Do you think public healthcare would have fucking robots working? They would need doctors, nurses, accountants, whatever too!!
You always seem to refer to the Canadians, which is natural since they are right by you, but there are A LOT more countries you can get your inspiration from. Also, the idea that public helthcare should mean private hc being forbidden comes off as quite absurd to me.
@Messiah:
Most of these points have already been adressed, but since you don't seem to get them, I'll quickly go over them.
0- Survival of the fittest my fuck. If someone isn't able to provide the basics to himself and their family, but they try, I'll gladly help them (or rather have an organized force that does). Man, I'm glad I don't live in a country where some historic characters are regarded as so admirable and perfect that whatever they said, whichever ideals they had, is the Word of God.
1- You can't compare not paying healthcare to shoplifting. You have the option not to steal, but do you have the option not to live? Much harder, isn't it?
2- Sooo you could get loans right? That way everyone would pay. Riiiight. Who's going to lend you the money if you are poor as fuck?
3- And this is new, you seem to think that if healthcare wasn't overpriced (which I'm sure it is in your country) it would be affordable for everyone. What you're not taking into account is that many treatments are inherently expensive. Particularly treatments that will be useful in life or death situations: the latest technology, new chemicals, or even some of these that are not that new or breakthrough but are rare. It also takes a certain volume of workforce (nurses, doctors), much bigger than what you need at a store or whatever, and also at a greater price per worker (a doctor shouldn't be paid the same as a cashier, right?)
Also, I don't know if it was you or someone else who said it, but to whomever said that public healthcare would mean a lot of unemployment 'cause many people in the private healthcare sector would lose their jobs:
WTF?! Do you think public healthcare would have fucking robots working? They would need doctors, nurses, accountants, whatever too!!
#177
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz
Ah yes, the Constitution point, I forgot that one...
Messiah, do you honestly think the same rules and principles apply in the current world as applied 230 years ago? Everything that they said then is still relevant? You think that the world where intensive farming didn't exist, there wasn't a risk of overpopulation, there was no computing or modern medicine, chemistry, building, etc. is close enough to our world that the guiding principles can't be any different? That's slightly deluded don't you think? Hell, we live in a world where people bet on trades in the potential changes in value of a commodity. Where the economy has suffered because banks parcelled up and sold on debts, and you think the market is the same as it was when you were a frontier country with manifest destiny at the forefront of your minds?
Man, there's something wrong with your view of the USA.
Messiah, do you honestly think the same rules and principles apply in the current world as applied 230 years ago? Everything that they said then is still relevant? You think that the world where intensive farming didn't exist, there wasn't a risk of overpopulation, there was no computing or modern medicine, chemistry, building, etc. is close enough to our world that the guiding principles can't be any different? That's slightly deluded don't you think? Hell, we live in a world where people bet on trades in the potential changes in value of a commodity. Where the economy has suffered because banks parcelled up and sold on debts, and you think the market is the same as it was when you were a frontier country with manifest destiny at the forefront of your minds?
Man, there's something wrong with your view of the USA.
#178
WolfOfOdin
WolfOfOdin
My father was a police officer who was at one time, shot in the line of duty, it caused shrapnel to be lodged in his body that the surgeon was unable to remove.
Eventually, Dad quit the police force due to the stress and got a decent job as a carpenter. New health insurance with that job. Eventually, the shrapnel was dislodged and was moving into a bad spot in his body, he needed to be operated on or there was a good chance he'd loose a leg....his health insurance decided it was a pre-existing "natural condition" and wouldn't cover it. Thank god for his buddies on the force though, they raised the money to get it fixed.
Eventually, Dad quit the police force due to the stress and got a decent job as a carpenter. New health insurance with that job. Eventually, the shrapnel was dislodged and was moving into a bad spot in his body, he needed to be operated on or there was a good chance he'd loose a leg....his health insurance decided it was a pre-existing "natural condition" and wouldn't cover it. Thank god for his buddies on the force though, they raised the money to get it fixed.
#179
Bowielee
Bowielee
See, the problem with trying to get universal health care is the lobbyists for the insurance companies will grease the palms of the politicians who will call universal health care communist. And God (remember CAPITAL G) knows that we hate those pinko commies in this country. They try to doll it up in other circular logic, but that's what it basically plays to for the red state crowd. Commies are bad, commies have socialized medicine, therefore, socialized medicine is bad.
That is the direct link that they STILL make to argue against universal health care, that or your taxes will go up.
Guess what, they're going up anyway in most cases. I'd rather they be put towards healthcare than most other frankensteinish pet projects people on the hill have cooking.
Messiah can be all cavalier with his attitude because he hasn't had to talk to hundreds of people on a daily basis who are all saying the same thing. "I want to pay you, but my insurance is denying most of the bill and I owe 5-10 times more than my deductible."
After several years in health care billing, I can tell you right now that it HAS gotten worse, to the point where people have to decide whether to eat, pay rent, or pay their bills, and in a lot of cases, the eat and pay rent are an OR choice, not an AND choice. Insurance companies do use underhanded tactics to deny claims and circumvent the system. The basic problem is that Messiah is making the victims out to be the villains when they're actually, y'know, victims.
That is the direct link that they STILL make to argue against universal health care, that or your taxes will go up.
Guess what, they're going up anyway in most cases. I'd rather they be put towards healthcare than most other frankensteinish pet projects people on the hill have cooking.
Messiah can be all cavalier with his attitude because he hasn't had to talk to hundreds of people on a daily basis who are all saying the same thing. "I want to pay you, but my insurance is denying most of the bill and I owe 5-10 times more than my deductible."
After several years in health care billing, I can tell you right now that it HAS gotten worse, to the point where people have to decide whether to eat, pay rent, or pay their bills, and in a lot of cases, the eat and pay rent are an OR choice, not an AND choice. Insurance companies do use underhanded tactics to deny claims and circumvent the system. The basic problem is that Messiah is making the victims out to be the villains when they're actually, y'know, victims.
#180
Chazwozel
The problem with junior Messiah here. He's all talk and no experience.
My wife had to have her thyroid removed earlier this year. Thank God, I'm not poor and have good insurance. I can really feel for people in that kind of situation. Christ, I'm stuck paying back student loans at 200 bucks a month, let alone tacking on another bill a month with his proposed "pay it back plan".
You want people to get into debt worse than they are and banks to pucker up their assholes nice and tight? Force them to get loans to pay their medical bills. This isn't a fucking house or a car we're talking about, it's people's right to live and their right to healthcare. How does a bank sit down and begin to make that decision on a loan were someone is going to die if you deny it? That bank will know damn well that the loan is a risk that may or may not be payed back. Isn't this pretty much what caused the economic downturn in the first place? Bad lending practices on behalf of banks and consumers?
Chazwozel
You know what America needs to strive for? Start at the root of the problem. Pay people a living minimum wage. But I digress...Bowielee said:See, the problem with trying to get universal health care is the lobbyists for the insurance companies will grease the palms of the politicians who will call universal health care communist. And God (remember CAPITAL G) knows that we hate those pinko commies in this country. They try to doll it up in other circular logic, but that's what it basically plays to for the red state crowd. Commies are bad, commies have socialized medicine, therefore, socialized medicine is bad.
That is the direct link that they STILL make to argue against universal health care, that or your taxes will go up.
Guess what, they're going up anyway in most cases. I'd rather they be put towards healthcare than most other frankensteinish pet projects people on the hill have cooking.
Messiah can be all cavalier with his attitude because he hasn't had to talk to hundreds of people on a daily basis who are all saying the same thing. "I want to pay you, but my insurance is denying most of the bill and I owe 5-10 times more than my deductible."
After several years in health care billing, I can tell you right now that it HAS gotten worse, to the point where people have to decide whether to eat, pay rent, or pay their bills, and in a lot of cases, the eat and pay rent are an OR choice, not an AND choice. Insurance companies do use underhanded tactics to deny claims and circumvent the system. The basic problem is that Messiah is making the victims out to be the villains when they're actually, y'know, victims.
The problem with junior Messiah here. He's all talk and no experience.
My wife had to have her thyroid removed earlier this year. Thank God, I'm not poor and have good insurance. I can really feel for people in that kind of situation. Christ, I'm stuck paying back student loans at 200 bucks a month, let alone tacking on another bill a month with his proposed "pay it back plan".
You want people to get into debt worse than they are and banks to pucker up their assholes nice and tight? Force them to get loans to pay their medical bills. This isn't a fucking house or a car we're talking about, it's people's right to live and their right to healthcare. How does a bank sit down and begin to make that decision on a loan were someone is going to die if you deny it? That bank will know damn well that the loan is a risk that may or may not be payed back. Isn't this pretty much what caused the economic downturn in the first place? Bad lending practices on behalf of banks and consumers?
#181
tegid
tegid
I think regardless of all of this what needs to be said and repeated is that you already spend a lot on healthcare and with all that money, given a decent reform, you could have a really great system. Without paying more taxes!
#182
@Li3n
@Li3n
Ha, this thread should have ended after he didn't respond to my last post... (ok, when he 1st spelled Amerika with a k).
#183
WolfOfOdin
Messiah, do you understand the way a business works? The main goal of a business is to maximize profit and minimize cost, this is done in varying ways by the myriad industries in our country. In terms of medical insurance, profit is gained when a healthy individual continues to pay his or her premiums without incurring claims that would be seen as a loss to the company, leading said company to deny claims based on criteria such as 'pre-existing condition, expense outweighs potential gain in return premiums" ect.
Without government regulation, a health insurance company could become stringent to the point where they could deny damn near ANYTHING if it incurred the most minimal loss to them or on the flip side, grow complacent to where they cover almost anything, disregarding the fact that the customer may not be able to repay and leading to substantial losses and then possible job loss in order to recoup losses.
Now, if you have great insurance and a good policy, this works fine as the company knows they'll be getting their money out of you regardless, or if you can foot the bulk of the bill out of pocket. Complete deregulation of any business would be horrific, playing into the bubble/burst system our economy limps along with right now. This can be seen in banking as well, where right now lending policies are INSANELY strict due to the losses incurred due to complacent lending policies.
About healthcare though, the running joke right now is that the best way to provide healthcare to the masses is to adopt a Swiss military system, where every man and woman is automatically required to be inducted into the military at the age of majority, which would theoretically provide all the uninsured with healthcare and provide a sizable citizen levy in times of war and conflict.
WolfOfOdin
The Messiah said:Stacked against them due to endless political machinations. Go ahead and read everything that I have said in this thread so far (notice I didn't say ''re-read'') and then come back and pick up the rest of this post.Bowielee said:I'm talking about honest hard working people who can't make it in a system that's inherently stacked against them.
See, every time a stupid, corrupt and morally bankrupt politician (all of them) makes a stupid, corrupt and morally bankrupt decision (all of them) on legislation, rule of law or even which prostitute to spend taxpayer money on, we look a little less like the America that the founders intended. Because we have moved so far away from self reliance and the expectation of resposibility on a personal level that the government tells us when to look and when to leap, what we can and cannot do in our jobs, in our business and even in our personal lives.
Like I said, the Amerika we inhabit today bears little resemblance to what the founders intended.
The government which governs least, governs best. The more involved the feds get, the larger the federal government grows and the more difficult it becomes to succeed through our own efforts. The message here is that the states need to take back the rights that were always intended to be state's rights and the federal government needs to be largely dismantled, until it vaguely resembles what was set forth in the constitution of the United States of America.
I have gotten so far from the intent of this thread... The way to fix the health care problem is to kick out all the illegal immigrants (enforce existing laws), force people to pay their doctor bills (the cause of inflation of medical service costs) and move to a more efficient method of treatment and record keeping (sharing medical info between providers via the web, just like Obama wants, can't believe I am agreeing with him but it's a good idea). I also like the idea of medical savings accounts that start at birth and rollover to your heirs at death. Might work, might not, but it deserves consideration at the very least.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:16 pm --
Nobody is advocating withholding treatment from the poor. Making a way for that treatment to get paid for, that is the crux of the discussion. I paid off my student loans at $50 a month. That is just one option out of millions that don't call for socialization of medicine, which is just a way for politicians to increase their power.Denbrought said:A few posts ago you called somebody out in being apathetic (the FTFY post). Now you're the one being a defeatist. People like to live walking towards ideals, and today's collective ego has chosen to not let someone die puking blood on the sidewalk because they couldn't afford their treatment, even though it was available to them. This isn't about hungry people next to empty stores (yadda yadda starving african children) but the ones we have resources to help and the proximity to not be easy to ignore them.
Messiah, do you understand the way a business works? The main goal of a business is to maximize profit and minimize cost, this is done in varying ways by the myriad industries in our country. In terms of medical insurance, profit is gained when a healthy individual continues to pay his or her premiums without incurring claims that would be seen as a loss to the company, leading said company to deny claims based on criteria such as 'pre-existing condition, expense outweighs potential gain in return premiums" ect.
Without government regulation, a health insurance company could become stringent to the point where they could deny damn near ANYTHING if it incurred the most minimal loss to them or on the flip side, grow complacent to where they cover almost anything, disregarding the fact that the customer may not be able to repay and leading to substantial losses and then possible job loss in order to recoup losses.
Now, if you have great insurance and a good policy, this works fine as the company knows they'll be getting their money out of you regardless, or if you can foot the bulk of the bill out of pocket. Complete deregulation of any business would be horrific, playing into the bubble/burst system our economy limps along with right now. This can be seen in banking as well, where right now lending policies are INSANELY strict due to the losses incurred due to complacent lending policies.
About healthcare though, the running joke right now is that the best way to provide healthcare to the masses is to adopt a Swiss military system, where every man and woman is automatically required to be inducted into the military at the age of majority, which would theoretically provide all the uninsured with healthcare and provide a sizable citizen levy in times of war and conflict.
#184
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
what happened to my thread?
#185
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz
The Buttcrack Messiah happened. Sorry.Kissinger said:what happened to my thread?
#186
tegid
-- Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:32 pm --
Also, going back to the original topic, anyone care to summarize what this proposition is about?
tegid
How much was the total of your student loans?The Messiah said:Nobody is advocating withholding treatment from the poor. Making a way for that treatment to get paid for, that is the crux of the discussion. I paid off my student loans at $50 a month. That is just one option out of millions that don't call for socialization of medicine, which is just a way for politicians to increase their power.Denbrought said:A few posts ago you called somebody out in being apathetic (the FTFY post). Now you're the one being a defeatist. People like to live walking towards ideals, and today's collective ego has chosen to not let someone die puking blood on the sidewalk because they couldn't afford their treatment, even though it was available to them. This isn't about hungry people next to empty stores (yadda yadda starving african children) but the ones we have resources to help and the proximity to not be easy to ignore them.
-- Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:32 pm --
Also, going back to the original topic, anyone care to summarize what this proposition is about?
#187
filmfanatic
filmfanatic
Basically, a potential mandate for people that they MUST get health insurance, while businesses won't be REQUIRED to offer it.tegid said:Also, going back to the original topic, anyone care to summarize what this proposition is about?
#188
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
It's a proposal that would force everyone to buy private health insurace with no public option. It's essentially the same as our current system, except you HAVE to buy into it, or get a tax penalty.
#189
tegid
tegid
But it takes into account that some people can't pay them, I'm sure?
If not...
(I already had most of it right... The unclear point was the public alternative. Thanks for clearing that. It sucks hard, though :S )
If not...
(I already had most of it right... The unclear point was the public alternative. Thanks for clearing that. It sucks hard, though :S )
#190
Chibibar
Chibibar
I personally am guilty of "selective reading" but I am trying to understand where The Messiah is coming from (and failing big time)
You keep touting that people need to pay their bills. That is a given, but when they can't... those bills are being paid by someone (usually insurance company) which the insurance jack up their prices to cover their lose to people who ARE paying medical insurance.
Doctors and Nurses are being paid. The main people who are being screwed are insurance people.
Basic economic
business is created to make money. Sure there is a service, but the bottom line is making money.
Insurance business is hoping to make money than lose money. The idea is that you get 1000 people paying 200$ a month (number totally made up) that is 200k a month. Minus admin cost (salary, building rent, utilities and such for the company) the rest goes into investment to make profit FOR the company. Now generally a small number of insured people will get sick and need to see a doctor. The insurance will pay those out and the insurer will paid a deductible or co-pay (like me) but the money going out STILL less than money coming in (i.e. premium) if this number changes, then either 1. premium changes 2. people are denied insurance or turn away. The company don't want to lose money.
There are several type of insurance (auto, medical, legal, unpaid balance - I think)
When a non-insured person goes to the hospital, that person is stuck with the FULL amount of the bill. Usually I can tell you it is WAY higher than anyone of us can pay normally without insurance (I am assuming) but people need medical. UNLESS there is a law that will change the medical world to TURN people away if they can't pay (that would totally suck) The doctors and nurses are still getting paid, but someone else is footing the bill (or covers it) for now until the patient can afford it or default (which goes into collection) this means that the hospital has to make up the money somehow (it is a business after all) which mean increase hospital prices and care.
It is a vicious cycle. We are currently stuck in it. There is a HUGE medical debt already. Who is going to pay that? I guess one way is to have the government wipe the debt clean (but is that feasible?) and start over, but I don't see that happening. There is no ROI on that avenue. We need to change the current system to reduce this debt. One idea is to have insurance available to everyone (even with government help) this of course goes back to the basic idea that a lot of people pay and few sick (also poorer people can contribute to the system also instead of just taking from the system) it kinda even out. This will reduce the debt in the long run (less chance of people defaulting on their medical bills) and hopefully balance out.
I do believe this is what Obama had in mind. Of course the details keep changing via congress (it is like 400+ pages long a friend send me a link) It is a slow slow process cause we don't want the hospital getting screwed cause they are already have collection debt on people they already treated and still not paid.
I hope I am clear on this. I tend to type as I think so sometimes some of my thoughts might not come clear.
You keep touting that people need to pay their bills. That is a given, but when they can't... those bills are being paid by someone (usually insurance company) which the insurance jack up their prices to cover their lose to people who ARE paying medical insurance.
Doctors and Nurses are being paid. The main people who are being screwed are insurance people.
Basic economic
business is created to make money. Sure there is a service, but the bottom line is making money.
Insurance business is hoping to make money than lose money. The idea is that you get 1000 people paying 200$ a month (number totally made up) that is 200k a month. Minus admin cost (salary, building rent, utilities and such for the company) the rest goes into investment to make profit FOR the company. Now generally a small number of insured people will get sick and need to see a doctor. The insurance will pay those out and the insurer will paid a deductible or co-pay (like me) but the money going out STILL less than money coming in (i.e. premium) if this number changes, then either 1. premium changes 2. people are denied insurance or turn away. The company don't want to lose money.
There are several type of insurance (auto, medical, legal, unpaid balance - I think)
When a non-insured person goes to the hospital, that person is stuck with the FULL amount of the bill. Usually I can tell you it is WAY higher than anyone of us can pay normally without insurance (I am assuming) but people need medical. UNLESS there is a law that will change the medical world to TURN people away if they can't pay (that would totally suck) The doctors and nurses are still getting paid, but someone else is footing the bill (or covers it) for now until the patient can afford it or default (which goes into collection) this means that the hospital has to make up the money somehow (it is a business after all) which mean increase hospital prices and care.
It is a vicious cycle. We are currently stuck in it. There is a HUGE medical debt already. Who is going to pay that? I guess one way is to have the government wipe the debt clean (but is that feasible?) and start over, but I don't see that happening. There is no ROI on that avenue. We need to change the current system to reduce this debt. One idea is to have insurance available to everyone (even with government help) this of course goes back to the basic idea that a lot of people pay and few sick (also poorer people can contribute to the system also instead of just taking from the system) it kinda even out. This will reduce the debt in the long run (less chance of people defaulting on their medical bills) and hopefully balance out.
I do believe this is what Obama had in mind. Of course the details keep changing via congress (it is like 400+ pages long a friend send me a link) It is a slow slow process cause we don't want the hospital getting screwed cause they are already have collection debt on people they already treated and still not paid.
I hope I am clear on this. I tend to type as I think so sometimes some of my thoughts might not come clear.
#191
Covar
Covar
You realize Congress doesn't make either/or decisions when it comes to spending money right?Guess what, they're going up anyway in most cases. I'd rather they be put towards healthcare than most other frankensteinish pet projects people on the hill have cooking.
#192
Chibibar
Chibibar
no, but they do/can set policies on how the money is spent. The initial goof up on the first half of the bail money. Some of the banks are holding it in their reserves to ensure their bank don't fail instead of pumping into the economy. Some have been accuse allegedly of spending money on bonus, parties, buying new offices, and mergers. Congress is now trying to set up rules on the rest of the bail out money.Covar said:You realize Congress doesn't make either/or decisions when it comes to spending money right?Guess what, they're going up anyway in most cases. I'd rather they be put towards healthcare than most other frankensteinish pet projects people on the hill have cooking.
#193
Espy
But simply telling me I'm wrong because anything is better than what we have now just leaves me worrying about what kind of mindset rules our country, it's not a long term mindset, it's a immediate gratification mindset and it's far to common these days.
Espy
To be fair, I never said PERFECT. We will NEVER have perfect anything and a motto of "anything is better than we have now" is not a terribly healthy one (no pun intended) in my opinion. I for one am not willing to give up the freedoms in that CNN article that they discuss. To me the sacrifice would kill any potential good the bill could do. I'm willing to entertain someones ideas of why they are willing to sacrifice the the five freedoms discussed in the article and I am even, unlike some, willing to be swayed.Mr_Chaz said:Cha ching! We have a winner. Everyone always finds the flaws in the plan, well guess what, it's never going to be perfect. Get over it, and instead find the best available solution.Cog said:Only better, it don't have to be perfect.
But simply telling me I'm wrong because anything is better than what we have now just leaves me worrying about what kind of mindset rules our country, it's not a long term mindset, it's a immediate gratification mindset and it's far to common these days.
#194
JCM
JCM
#196
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'm basically out of the discussion. It's become pretty clear that Messiah's sole intent is to troll.
#197
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
It's become pretty clear that your idea of a rational argument is ''NUH UH! NUH UH! NUH UH!'' Since I will never be able to make you or anyone else see reason, what motivation do I have to participate? Especially when the best you can do is insult me on a personal level. Repeatedly.
#198
JCM
While no country is perfect, Canada has been ranked the number 1 in the human development index (healthcare/standard of living/education/life expectancy) 8 times, why not compare it to a country which has worse healthcare like Brazil, instead of a country with a better system?
JCM
Took you that long to figure out? I avoided entering as soon as someone tried to defend the American system by finding flaws in the Canadian one.I'm basically out of the discussion. It's become pretty clear that Messiah's sole intent is to troll.
While no country is perfect, Canada has been ranked the number 1 in the human development index (healthcare/standard of living/education/life expectancy) 8 times, why not compare it to a country which has worse healthcare like Brazil, instead of a country with a better system?
#199
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Messiah, do you think government should maintain our roads, schools, police forces, fire departments, and military? What makes healthcare different from those basic services? If no, tell us about the ideal world with privatized police forces please.
#200
Jay
People have expressed how "slow" the Canadian system (exaggerated bullshit) is but in the end, if it was life threatening he'd been operated on right away or at worse wait a little while to get it taken care of without dealing through multiple phone calls, sign papers, check with his insurance like a tard but to simply show up at a clinic, show him his card, they scan the card and he goes and see a doctor. Then comes back for his operation... all of this... at no immediate cost other than waiting a little bit.
There's a reason whenever I cross the border I go and get myself travel insurance to the US... the US health system is a joke and downright scary as a foreigner and I don't even think the Canadian system is all that great... just sufficient. When I see how things are at in France and Britain and that they have longer life longevity if I didn't have family or loved ones... I'd be living there.
Jay
This is a really nice gesture after a standard BULLSHIT call from the insurance company. This is the sort of stuff that literally baffles and enrages me to see, that people, especially people who put their life on the line, have to wade through a moat of shit to get what they deserve to have.My father was a police officer who was at one time, shot in the line of duty, it caused shrapnel to be lodged in his body that the surgeon was unable to remove.
Eventually, Dad quit the police force due to the stress and got a decent job as a carpenter. New health insurance with that job. Eventually, the shrapnel was dislodged and was moving into a bad spot in his body, he needed to be operated on or there was a good chance he'd loose a leg....his health insurance decided it was a pre-existing "natural condition" and wouldn't cover it. Thank god for his buddies on the force though, they raised the money to get it fixed.
People have expressed how "slow" the Canadian system (exaggerated bullshit) is but in the end, if it was life threatening he'd been operated on right away or at worse wait a little while to get it taken care of without dealing through multiple phone calls, sign papers, check with his insurance like a tard but to simply show up at a clinic, show him his card, they scan the card and he goes and see a doctor. Then comes back for his operation... all of this... at no immediate cost other than waiting a little bit.
There's a reason whenever I cross the border I go and get myself travel insurance to the US... the US health system is a joke and downright scary as a foreigner and I don't even think the Canadian system is all that great... just sufficient. When I see how things are at in France and Britain and that they have longer life longevity if I didn't have family or loved ones... I'd be living there.
#201
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Also:
#202
Chibibar
Chibibar
I have not insulted anyone yet on this thread. Have you not read my post and counter post?The Messiah said:It's become pretty clear that your idea of a rational argument is ''NUH UH! NUH UH! NUH UH!'' Since I will never be able to make you or anyone else see reason, what motivation do I have to participate? Especially when the best you can do is insult me on a personal level. Repeatedly.
#203
JCM
JCM
Err, you are talking to a novelty poster who posts "Death to america!" and the like. What do you expect?Chibibar said:I have not insulted anyone yet on this thread. Have you not read my post and counter post?The Messiah said:It's become pretty clear that your idea of a rational argument is ''NUH UH! NUH UH! NUH UH!'' Since I will never be able to make you or anyone else see reason, what motivation do I have to participate? Especially when the best you can do is insult me on a personal level. Repeatedly.
#204
Chibibar
I know my writing is no up to snuff. maybe there is too much accent in my post
Chibibar
to skim over my post?JCM said:Err, you are talking to a novelty poster who posts "Death to america!" and the like. What do you expect?Chibibar said:I have not insulted anyone yet on this thread. Have you not read my post and counter post?The Messiah said:It's become pretty clear that your idea of a rational argument is ''NUH UH! NUH UH! NUH UH!'' Since I will never be able to make you or anyone else see reason, what motivation do I have to participate? Especially when the best you can do is insult me on a personal level. Repeatedly.
I know my writing is no up to snuff. maybe there is too much accent in my post
#205
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
guys, I'm faced with the terrifying possibility that "the messiah" has ignored me
#206
The Messiah is alterrific. I would be interested to know if it's a character of the original poster or if the two are merging.
#207
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
He posted earlier that he's not an alt, but a poster's brother living in a van down by the river or somethingEdrondol said:The Messiah is alterrific. I would be interested to know if it's a character of the original poster or if the two are merging.
#208
ElJuski
ElJuski
its a camper get your facts straight!
#209
JCM
JCM
Amateurs, my alt has lasted 4 forums, has received pms from admirers and until today is active.
#210
I missed that and probably should have known it. Like yourself & Kissinger, there is much confusion due to identical IP address on the accounts.Charlie Dont Surf said:He posted earlier that he's not an alt, but a poster's brother living in a van down by the river or somethingEdrondol said:The Messiah is alterrific. I would be interested to know if it's a character of the original poster or if the two are merging.
#211
MindDetective
MindDetective
Careful. Correlation <> causation.Charlie Dont Surf said:Also:
#212
Espy
Oh and:
Espy
You stop bringing your "intelligence" into this debate. We will have none of that.MindDetective said:Careful. Correlation <> causation.
Oh and:
JCM said:Amateurs, my alt has lasted 4 forums, has received pms from admirers and until today is active.[citation needed]
#213
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Even without that, it's staggering how every other industrialized country has it.Espy said:You stop bringing your "intelligence" into this debate. We will have none of that.MindDetective said:Careful. Correlation <> causation.
#214
MindDetective
If all you're saying is, it is a shame we can't figure something out too, then I'm with you. I just think the ore you centralize (especially the more you centralize really large institutions) the more open you are to catastrophic failure. You put it in the hands of a few people to fuck it up. A good distributed system can take failures without collapsing (as with the internet or social networks or even "united states", which distributes governing to smaller areas). Japan and Luxembourg can centralize healthcare much easier than we can. Can we find a way to improve healthcare here? No question. Ii think the free market is not the way to go but neither is a single-payer, federal system. We need ideas outside of those boxes.
MindDetective
All of those other countries are just so tiny in comparison to the US, though. It just doesn't seem like as easy of a leap as to say, "let's do what they're doing!"Charlie Dont Surf said:Even without that, it's staggering how every other industrialized country has it.Espy said:You stop bringing your "intelligence" into this debate. We will have none of that.MindDetective said:Careful. Correlation <> causation.
If all you're saying is, it is a shame we can't figure something out too, then I'm with you. I just think the ore you centralize (especially the more you centralize really large institutions) the more open you are to catastrophic failure. You put it in the hands of a few people to fuck it up. A good distributed system can take failures without collapsing (as with the internet or social networks or even "united states", which distributes governing to smaller areas). Japan and Luxembourg can centralize healthcare much easier than we can. Can we find a way to improve healthcare here? No question. Ii think the free market is not the way to go but neither is a single-payer, federal system. We need ideas outside of those boxes.
#215
Chibibar
But China's government is opposite (or near it) from U.S.
Chibibar
Larger countries are harder to government while maintain freedom at the same time. My parents are raving how good China's healthcare system which is cheaper monthly premiums than the U.S. and have faster service.MindDetective said:All of those other countries are just so tiny in comparison to the US, though. It just doesn't seem like as easy of a leap as to say, "let's do what they're doing!"Charlie Dont Surf said:Even without that, it's staggering how every other industrialized country has it.Espy said:You stop bringing your "intelligence" into this debate. We will have none of that.MindDetective said:Careful. Correlation <> causation.
If all you're saying is, it is a shame we can't figure something out too, then I'm with you. I just think the ore you centralize (especially the more you centralize really large institutions) the more open you are to catastrophic failure. You put it in the hands of a few people to fuck it up. A good distributed system can take failures without collapsing (as with the internet or social networks or even "united states", which distributes governing to smaller areas). Japan and Luxembourg can centralize healthcare much easier than we can. Can we find a way to improve healthcare here? No question. Ii think the free market is not the way to go but neither is a single-payer, federal system. We need ideas outside of those boxes.
But China's government is opposite (or near it) from U.S.
#216
Espy
I would point out Charlie that according to the latest figures in the CIA Fact Book life expectancy the highest is Macau with 84 years and Japan, the highest on your charts is 82 years. The US is a wee bit over 78. That's not exactly a huge gap.
Espy
I could not agree more nor state my feelings more concisely.MindDetective said:All of those other countries are just so tiny in comparison to the US, though. It just doesn't seem like as easy of a leap as to say, "let's do what they're doing!"Charlie Dont Surf said:Even without that, it's staggering how every other industrialized country has it.Espy said:You stop bringing your "intelligence" into this debate. We will have none of that.MindDetective said:Careful. Correlation <> causation.
If all you're saying is, it is a shame we can't figure something out too, then I'm with you. I just think the ore you centralize (especially the more you centralize really large institutions) the more open you are to catastrophic failure. You put it in the hands of a few people to smurf it up. A good distributed system can take failures without collapsing (as with the internet or social networks or even "united states", which distributes governing to smaller areas). Japan and Luxembourg can centralize healthcare much easier than we can. Can we find a way to improve healthcare here? No question. Ii think the free market is not the way to go but neither is a single-payer, federal system. We need ideas outside of those boxes.
I would point out Charlie that according to the latest figures in the CIA Fact Book life expectancy the highest is Macau with 84 years and Japan, the highest on your charts is 82 years. The US is a wee bit over 78. That's not exactly a huge gap.
#217
MindDetective
MindDetective
You may have statistically significant differences but small effect sizes. What that means to the non-statisticians here is that the differences in life-expectancy are real but minute.Espy said:I could not agree more nor state my feelings more concisely.MindDetective said:All of those other countries are just so tiny in comparison to the US, though. It just doesn't seem like as easy of a leap as to say, "let's do what they're doing!"Charlie Dont Surf said:Even without that, it's staggering how every other industrialized country has it.Espy said:You stop bringing your "intelligence" into this debate. We will have none of that.
If all you're saying is, it is a shame we can't figure something out too, then I'm with you. I just think the ore you centralize (especially the more you centralize really large institutions) the more open you are to catastrophic failure. You put it in the hands of a few people to smurf it up. A good distributed system can take failures without collapsing (as with the internet or social networks or even "united states", which distributes governing to smaller areas). Japan and Luxembourg can centralize healthcare much easier than we can. Can we find a way to improve healthcare here? No question. Ii think the free market is not the way to go but neither is a single-payer, federal system. We need ideas outside of those boxes.
I would point out Charlie that according to the latest figures in the CIA Fact Book life expectancy the highest is Macau with 84 years and Japan, the highest on your charts is 82 years. The US is a wee bit over 78. That's not exactly a huge gap.
#218
crono1224
crono1224
A random but I suppose good question maybe how is life expectancy among our insured vs uninsured, which probably isn't even viable data since you can drift in and out of being insured.
#219
Papillon
Papillon
Or lose your insurance when you develop a fatal condition which prevents you from working.crono1224 said:A random but I suppose good question maybe how is life expectancy among our insured vs uninsured, which probably isn't even viable data since you can drift in and out of being insured.
#220
Tress
We should have an official "Reveal your alt" thread.
Tress
Until you provide proof, I call bullshit.JCM said:Amateurs, my alt has lasted 4 forums, has received pms from admirers and until today is active.
We should have an official "Reveal your alt" thread.
#221
WolfOfOdin
WolfOfOdin
Here's another point;
Most jobs include some form of healthcare in their benefits package, correct?
Now, this is a massive expenditure of money on the behalf of the companies, seen as a vital part in keeping their employees. Here's thing....think of the amounts of money that could be freed up if they no longer had to do this, since the government did. That money could then be used to either pay higher salaries to current employees, or be used to finance additional employees, creating more jobs.
Most jobs include some form of healthcare in their benefits package, correct?
Now, this is a massive expenditure of money on the behalf of the companies, seen as a vital part in keeping their employees. Here's thing....think of the amounts of money that could be freed up if they no longer had to do this, since the government did. That money could then be used to either pay higher salaries to current employees, or be used to finance additional employees, creating more jobs.
#222
ElJuski
ElJuski
We should, shouldn't we, Tress?Tress said:Until you provide proof, I call bullshit.JCM said:Amateurs, my alt has lasted 4 forums, has received pms from admirers and until today is active.
We should have an official "Reveal your alt" thread.
#223
Oh if only people knew.
ElJuski said:We should, shouldn't we, Tress?Tress said:Until you provide proof, I call bullshit.JCM said:Amateurs, my alt has lasted 4 forums, has received pms from admirers and until today is active.
We should have an official "Reveal your alt" thread.
Oh if only people knew.
#224
Espy
By the way, I'm not saying I'm an alt of Invader who is an alt of JCM who is an alt of Ed but... I might be.
Espy
I do know.Edrondol said:ElJuski said:We should, shouldn't we, Tress?Tress said:Until you provide proof, I call bullshit.JCM said:Amateurs, my alt has lasted 4 forums, has received pms from admirers and until today is active.
We should have an official "Reveal your alt" thread.
Oh if only people knew.
By the way, I'm not saying I'm an alt of Invader who is an alt of JCM who is an alt of Ed but... I might be.
#225
Philosopher B.
Philosopher B.
:aaahhh:
#226
Tress
I got tired of the "other me." So did others, so I think this is an improvement. I'll be happy to share if anyone would like. :tongue:
Tress
Edrondol said:ElJuski said:We should, shouldn't we, Tress?Tress said:Until you provide proof, I call bullshit.JCM said:Amateurs, my alt has lasted 4 forums, has received pms from admirers and until today is active.
We should have an official "Reveal your alt" thread.
Oh if only people knew.
I got tired of the "other me." So did others, so I think this is an improvement. I'll be happy to share if anyone would like. :tongue:
#227
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Not entirely sure where I fall in this discussion - I am woefully under-informed when it comes to health care, but here's an interesting article about the study of an alternate metric to life expectancy, "amenable mortality", the deaths before the age of 75 that were potentially preventable with timely and adequate care.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... lysis.aspx
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... lysis.aspx
#228
@Li3n
@Li3n
Ha... i knew it, Gas Bandit isn't real...JCM said:Amateurs, my alt has lasted 4 forums, has received pms from admirers and until today is active.
#229
tegid
-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:43 am --
tegid
Well fuck! You are oh so right that if you can't turn us all to thinking exactly like you it's not worth it? Also, you have been presented with new arguments that you have ignored, so if you don't want to discuss or you can't keep your argument just say so, but don't come with the 'I'm waiting for debate and facts' BS.The Messiah said:It's become pretty clear that your idea of a rational argument is ''NUH UH! NUH UH! NUH UH!'' Since I will never be able to make you or anyone else see reason, what motivation do I have to participate? Especially when the best you can do is insult me on a personal level. Repeatedly.
-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:43 am --
Who's saying it has to be centralized? It doesn't need to be managed by the federal government! Even in a country as small as Spain, with 45 million citizens, healthcare is decentralized up to a certain point.MindDetective said:All of those other countries are just so tiny in comparison to the US, though. It just doesn't seem like as easy of a leap as to say, "let's do what they're doing!"Charlie Dont Surf said:Even without that, it's staggering how every other industrialized country has it.Espy said:You stop bringing your "intelligence" into this debate. We will have none of that.MindDetective said:Careful. Correlation <> causation.
If all you're saying is, it is a shame we can't figure something out too, then I'm with you. I just think the ore you centralize (especially the more you centralize really large institutions) the more open you are to catastrophic failure. You put it in the hands of a few people to fuck it up. A good distributed system can take failures without collapsing (as with the internet or social networks or even "united states", which distributes governing to smaller areas). Japan and Luxembourg can centralize healthcare much easier than we can. Can we find a way to improve healthcare here? No question. Ii think the free market is not the way to go but neither is a single-payer, federal system. We need ideas outside of those boxes.
#231
tegid
tegid
Ah, all right! Just trolling! Don't mind me then :heythere:
#232
MindDetective
MindDetective
Everyone here who is talking or fearmongering about a single-payer system. In what way is it decentralized in Spain?tegid said:Who's saying it has to be centralized? It doesn't need to be managed by the federal government! Even in a country as small as Spain, with 45 million citizens, healthcare is decentralized up to a certain point.
#233
Chibibar
I mean look at Social Security. Medicare/Medicaid. Student loan and such. It is such a hassle and sometime hard to get into any of these systems.
Chibibar
I think it is the lack of faith of the U.S. Government to tackle something this large.MindDetective said:Everyone here who is talking or fearmongering about a single-payer system. In what way is it decentralized in Spain?tegid said:Who's saying it has to be centralized? It doesn't need to be managed by the federal government! Even in a country as small as Spain, with 45 million citizens, healthcare is decentralized up to a certain point.
I mean look at Social Security. Medicare/Medicaid. Student loan and such. It is such a hassle and sometime hard to get into any of these systems.
#234
Covar
Covar
don't forget the post office.Chibibar said:I think it is the lack of faith of the U.S. Government to tackle something this large.MindDetective said:Everyone here who is talking or fearmongering about a single-payer system. In what way is it decentralized in Spain?tegid said:Who's saying it has to be centralized? It doesn't need to be managed by the federal government! Even in a country as small as Spain, with 45 million citizens, healthcare is decentralized up to a certain point.
I mean look at Social Security. Medicare/Medicaid. Student loan and such. It is such a hassle and sometime hard to get into any of these systems.
#235
MindDetective
MindDetective
We shouldn't need to have faith in our government, really.
#236
WolfOfOdin
Also, don't knock the Post Office, my mom works for them
WolfOfOdin
Well, you have to understand that after FDR was out of office, the then suppressed Hooverites swiftly and viciously did away with anything that was efficient about the New Deal in the interest of scaling back the Federal Government's power. This wasn't an act of outright maliciousness, but more a reaction to the idea that the US had to act as a 'Bastion of Capitalism" to counteract the USSR.Covar said:don't forget the post office.Chibibar said:I think it is the lack of faith of the U.S. Government to tackle something this large.MindDetective said:Everyone here who is talking or fearmongering about a single-payer system. In what way is it decentralized in Spain?tegid said:Who's saying it has to be centralized? It doesn't need to be managed by the federal government! Even in a country as small as Spain, with 45 million citizens, healthcare is decentralized up to a certain point.
I mean look at Social Security. Medicare/Medicaid. Student loan and such. It is such a hassle and sometime hard to get into any of these systems.
Also, don't knock the Post Office, my mom works for them
#237
MindDetective
MindDetective
I'd like to think we could criticize government institutions without it being taken as a criticism of the employees within those institutions.WolfOfOdin said:Also, don't knock the Post Office, my mom works for them
#238
WolfOfOdin
WolfOfOdin
I only say that for your safety.
You know what happens when you anger a postal worker >_>
You know what happens when you anger a postal worker >_>
#239
MindDetective
MindDetective
#240
tegid
For starters, we have a somehow peculiar sistem of government here in which regions have some power and manage some things, but not as much as in a federal system. Some of these regions manage part of the money (I don't know how much, I think it's most of it) for healthcare, among other things, but they have to abide the laws coming from the capital, much like your states have to abide by federal laws, if I get it right (the difference is the 'central' gov regulates a lot more here and so the states have less freedom and attributions).
So, it's a mostly decentralized system with regulations coming from the capital. The single payer is still there, I guess, because the money the regions can use comes from the central government.
We do have insurances and private healthcare for whoever wants it, though, so I don't know it this is a single-payer system or what.
tegid
Weeell it's not like I know how it works all that well but...MindDetective said:Everyone here who is talking or fearmongering about a single-payer system. In what way is it decentralized in Spain?tegid said:Who's saying it has to be centralized? It doesn't need to be managed by the federal government! Even in a country as small as Spain, with 45 million citizens, healthcare is decentralized up to a certain point.
For starters, we have a somehow peculiar sistem of government here in which regions have some power and manage some things, but not as much as in a federal system. Some of these regions manage part of the money (I don't know how much, I think it's most of it) for healthcare, among other things, but they have to abide the laws coming from the capital, much like your states have to abide by federal laws, if I get it right (the difference is the 'central' gov regulates a lot more here and so the states have less freedom and attributions).
So, it's a mostly decentralized system with regulations coming from the capital. The single payer is still there, I guess, because the money the regions can use comes from the central government.
We do have insurances and private healthcare for whoever wants it, though, so I don't know it this is a single-payer system or what.
#241
Krisken
The biggest problem with allowing private insurance companies to be the sole offering of health insurance should be obvious to anyone. They put (excessive) profit ahead of human life.
Krisken
Yup, I've been avoiding this thread myself. I read it, giggle, and wander off.JCM said:Took you that long to figure out? I avoided entering as soon as someone tried to defend the American system by finding flaws in the Canadian one.I'm basically out of the discussion. It's become pretty clear that Messiah's sole intent is to troll.
While no country is perfect, Canada has been ranked the number 1 in the human development index (healthcare/standard of living/education/life expectancy) 8 times, why not compare it to a country which has worse healthcare like Brazil, instead of a country with a better system?
The biggest problem with allowing private insurance companies to be the sole offering of health insurance should be obvious to anyone. They put (excessive) profit ahead of human life.
#242
Tress
Tress
I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to why it's a good thing that the fire deptarment and police force are government controlled, but having a government health care OPTION is a bad thing.Krisken said:Yup, I've been avoiding this thread myself. I read it, giggle, and wander off.JCM said:Took you that long to figure out? I avoided entering as soon as someone tried to defend the American system by finding flaws in the Canadian one.I'm basically out of the discussion. It's become pretty clear that Messiah's sole intent is to troll.
While no country is perfect, Canada has been ranked the number 1 in the human development index (healthcare/standard of living/education/life expectancy) 8 times, why not compare it to a country which has worse healthcare like Brazil, instead of a country with a better system?
The biggest problem with allowing private insurance companies to be the sole offering of health insurance should be obvious to anyone. They put (excessive) profit ahead of human life.
#243
Chazwozel
It's hammer!
Chazwozel
I'm going to start my own vigilante group. And I'm gonna keep people in line with my rapmaster 2000.Tress said:I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to why it's a good thing that the fire deptarment and police force are government controlled, but having a government health care OPTION is a bad thing.Krisken said:Yup, I've been avoiding this thread myself. I read it, giggle, and wander off.JCM said:Took you that long to figure out? I avoided entering as soon as someone tried to defend the American system by finding flaws in the Canadian one.I'm basically out of the discussion. It's become pretty clear that Messiah's sole intent is to troll.
While no country is perfect, Canada has been ranked the number 1 in the human development index (healthcare/standard of living/education/life expectancy) 8 times, why not compare it to a country which has worse healthcare like Brazil, instead of a country with a better system?
The biggest problem with allowing private insurance companies to be the sole offering of health insurance should be obvious to anyone. They put (excessive) profit ahead of human life.
It's hammer!
#244
Espy
I don't think that's what you want to ask. I *think* you are trying to say "If the NATIONAL government, not LOCAL, can run something like THE ARMY well then why would healthcare run by them be bad?" which is, in my opinion a terrible question. Even if one organization can do something well (like the Government running the Armed Forces) it does not, in any way automatically mean that they can run a national form of healthcare well.
I think that's a terrible line of reasoning to try and use.
Lucky for you I have a better example for you to use.
The government DOES have a form of healthcare that it ALREADY CONTROLS. We could examine that for a comparison, even though it's not a perfect one, it's still better than our former argument.
So: Military Healthcare. I've had it. My wife has it. My experience with it is that it is not something that is horrible, but it's hardly anywhere near as functional (that's the key word here) as my current private care. It is "better" in the sense that it cost me nothing (well, actually, it cost me nothing but my taxes and yours, thanks!) and it covered pretty much everything, but even that is misleading. For example: Every year I have to get my allergy med prescriptions renewed, maybe get a new allergy test, etc. Now, under my current insurance I just make an appointment and go see the doctor of my choice. BAM. New prescriptions. Downside? They cost a little bit more than my military healthcare.
Under the military plan here is how I go about this: Start at the Tricare website, going over the doctors the GOVERNMENT says I can go see. Now, these aren't allergy docs. Nope. They are all GENERAL PRACTITIONERS. In order to go see the last (GOVERNMENT APPROVED) allergist I saw the year before I have to get a RECOMMENDATION by the GENERAL PRACTITIONERS under the military Ins. So, a few hours on the website, a few phone calls, etc. and I might an appointment to see the Gen. Pract. If not, repeat again the next day.
After that appointment I finally get my recommendation to go to my allergist.
I'm sure many of you will go "So what? Took you an extra month or so? Big deal!" and in one sense you are right. Big deal. All I did under the military insurance was:
1) Waste YOUR (taxpayer) dollars to go to a doctor who had nothing to do with what I needed nor was of my choosing.
2) Wasted my time. I have a family, I'm in grad school, I work full time and I teach. My time is valuable, I don't give a damn if anyone else disagrees, it is to me.
3) Paid for a SECOND doc visit to a doc that again, I was forced to choose, not because they were the best but because thats who the GOVERNMENT thought I should go see. They decided which allergy tests I could have and which ones were needed, NOT the doctor. So if I want the test I have to go home, get it approved and go BACK to the allergist to get the test. That's 3 visits, and 2 were wastes of both YOUR money and MY TIME. How wonderfully efficient yes?
My wife has waited 8 MONTHS to get a root canal. Getting it approved by the VA has been one of the most frustrating things she has ever done. Why? They don't want to pay. They have to eventually, but they are going to make is so frustrating that they hope you give up trying. 8. Months.
Now, would I take it over nothing? Of course. It's a benefit of having to see my wife go over seas. It's better than nothing, on that we can agree.
But to say that since the Federal Government can run the Post Office that it can provide you with well managed, fiscally non-wasteful healthcare? I beg to differ. They can do it, sure, but if my experience with their current system is worth anything it won't be well managed, it won't be easy and it won't be a fiscally viable.
Like I have said before: We need reform. I'm not arguing that. I'm just arguing that ramming this bill through just to have "something" so that everyone gets their little immediate gratification fix and the politicians can smile and say "vote for me! I got everyone healthcare" isn't a good enough reason for me to give it thumbs up. Does that make sense?
Espy
You are asking people to compare local city government run police departments to a nationalized form of healthcare?Tress said:I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to why it's a good thing that the fire deptarment and police force are government controlled, but having a government health care OPTION is a bad thing.
I don't think that's what you want to ask. I *think* you are trying to say "If the NATIONAL government, not LOCAL, can run something like THE ARMY well then why would healthcare run by them be bad?" which is, in my opinion a terrible question. Even if one organization can do something well (like the Government running the Armed Forces) it does not, in any way automatically mean that they can run a national form of healthcare well.
I think that's a terrible line of reasoning to try and use.
Lucky for you I have a better example for you to use.
The government DOES have a form of healthcare that it ALREADY CONTROLS. We could examine that for a comparison, even though it's not a perfect one, it's still better than our former argument.
So: Military Healthcare. I've had it. My wife has it. My experience with it is that it is not something that is horrible, but it's hardly anywhere near as functional (that's the key word here) as my current private care. It is "better" in the sense that it cost me nothing (well, actually, it cost me nothing but my taxes and yours, thanks!) and it covered pretty much everything, but even that is misleading. For example: Every year I have to get my allergy med prescriptions renewed, maybe get a new allergy test, etc. Now, under my current insurance I just make an appointment and go see the doctor of my choice. BAM. New prescriptions. Downside? They cost a little bit more than my military healthcare.
Under the military plan here is how I go about this: Start at the Tricare website, going over the doctors the GOVERNMENT says I can go see. Now, these aren't allergy docs. Nope. They are all GENERAL PRACTITIONERS. In order to go see the last (GOVERNMENT APPROVED) allergist I saw the year before I have to get a RECOMMENDATION by the GENERAL PRACTITIONERS under the military Ins. So, a few hours on the website, a few phone calls, etc. and I might an appointment to see the Gen. Pract. If not, repeat again the next day.
After that appointment I finally get my recommendation to go to my allergist.
I'm sure many of you will go "So what? Took you an extra month or so? Big deal!" and in one sense you are right. Big deal. All I did under the military insurance was:
1) Waste YOUR (taxpayer) dollars to go to a doctor who had nothing to do with what I needed nor was of my choosing.
2) Wasted my time. I have a family, I'm in grad school, I work full time and I teach. My time is valuable, I don't give a damn if anyone else disagrees, it is to me.
3) Paid for a SECOND doc visit to a doc that again, I was forced to choose, not because they were the best but because thats who the GOVERNMENT thought I should go see. They decided which allergy tests I could have and which ones were needed, NOT the doctor. So if I want the test I have to go home, get it approved and go BACK to the allergist to get the test. That's 3 visits, and 2 were wastes of both YOUR money and MY TIME. How wonderfully efficient yes?
My wife has waited 8 MONTHS to get a root canal. Getting it approved by the VA has been one of the most frustrating things she has ever done. Why? They don't want to pay. They have to eventually, but they are going to make is so frustrating that they hope you give up trying. 8. Months.
Now, would I take it over nothing? Of course. It's a benefit of having to see my wife go over seas. It's better than nothing, on that we can agree.
But to say that since the Federal Government can run the Post Office that it can provide you with well managed, fiscally non-wasteful healthcare? I beg to differ. They can do it, sure, but if my experience with their current system is worth anything it won't be well managed, it won't be easy and it won't be a fiscally viable.
Like I have said before: We need reform. I'm not arguing that. I'm just arguing that ramming this bill through just to have "something" so that everyone gets their little immediate gratification fix and the politicians can smile and say "vote for me! I got everyone healthcare" isn't a good enough reason for me to give it thumbs up. Does that make sense?
#245
Tress
Tress
Well, I was trying to attack the notion that the government shouldn't be involved in anything outside of national defense and interstate trade. I see that argument a lot from libertarians. Still, I think I should have gone the direction you described.
Oh, and speaking as someone who hasn't had health care in 4 years, and is essentially gambling with his health everytime he steps off a curb, I would love to have the option for shitty health care run by the government. I just wish a politician would propose a national health care plan that people could choose to use, while still being allowed to use private health care if they wanted.
OH WAIT.rly:
Oh, and speaking as someone who hasn't had health care in 4 years, and is essentially gambling with his health everytime he steps off a curb, I would love to have the option for shitty health care run by the government. I just wish a politician would propose a national health care plan that people could choose to use, while still being allowed to use private health care if they wanted.
OH WAIT.
rly:
#246
Terrik
Terrik
That's all well and good Tress, but personally, while having the option is nice, I still wouldn't want to opt for "shitty government health care" for the sake of having health care if it's going to end up costing more than we can handle. If taxpayers are gonna be expected to shell out a ton for a new system and if its going to put the U.S. further into debt, I'd rather it be a good system with good care, rather than running through a 1,000 page health care bill that no one has really bothered reading.
#247
tegid
tegid
You are already spending a lot in healthcare. I think you shouldn't spend much more, regardless of how good the new system is.
#248
Papillon
--------------------
[1] J. Antoniou et al. In-Hospital Cost of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Canada and the United States
[2] M.J. Eisenberg et al. Outcomes and Cost of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in the United States and Canada
Papillon
Keep in mind the cost of procedures in the US higher than elsewhere. For example, some procedures almost double the cost of the same procedures in Canada[1][2], for example.tegid said:You are already spending a lot in healthcare. I think you shouldn't spend much more, regardless of how good the new system is.
--------------------
[1] J. Antoniou et al. In-Hospital Cost of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Canada and the United States
[2] M.J. Eisenberg et al. Outcomes and Cost of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in the United States and Canada
#249
Tress
Tress
I always thought the argument was that untreated health problems end up costing taxpayers more than if we had a healthcare system run by the government would? I could be wrong, I don't have any hard data sitting next to me about this.Terrik said:That's all well and good Tress, but personally, while having the option is nice, I still wouldn't want to opt for "shitty government health care" for the sake of having health care if it's going to end up costing more than we can handle. If taxpayers are gonna be expected to shell out a ton for a new system and if its going to put the U.S. further into debt, I'd rather it be a good system with good care, rather than running through a 1,000 page health care bill that no one has really bothered reading.
#250
Denbrought
Also, I wanted to read [2] but I'm sure as hell not shelling out 30USD for it
Denbrought
Then I'd say that needs fixing too. If I recall correctly, you're supposed to be one of the most (if not the most) advanced country in medical procedure and medtech innovation. Maybe the prices are over-inflated? Someone care to enlighten me? Or is it just due to the enormous practitioner insurances because of general suing trigger-happiness?Papillon said:Keep in mind the cost of procedures in the US higher than elsewhere. For example, some procedures almost double the cost of the same procedures in Canada[1][2], for example.tegid said:You are already spending a lot in healthcare. I think you shouldn't spend much more, regardless of how good the new system is.
Also, I wanted to read [2] but I'm sure as hell not shelling out 30USD for it
#251
Chibibar
- Hospital eating the cost of non-payment bills so someone gotta eat the cost
- Lawsuit happy. There are insurance to protect hospital on this of course premiums are not cheap.... guess who pays?
Those are the main two I can think right off the top of my head. My friend who was a nurse (and a good) tell me stories.
Chibibar
Several factors (as we have stated on this thread)Denbrought said:Then I'd say that needs fixing too. If I recall correctly, you're supposed to be one of the most (if not the most) advanced country in medical procedure and medtech innovation. Maybe the prices are over-inflated? Someone care to enlighten me? Or is it just due to the enormous practitioner insurances because of general suing trigger-happiness?Papillon said:Keep in mind the cost of procedures in the US higher than elsewhere. For example, some procedures almost double the cost of the same procedures in Canada[1][2], for example.tegid said:You are already spending a lot in healthcare. I think you shouldn't spend much more, regardless of how good the new system is.
Also, I wanted to read [2] but I'm sure as hell not shelling out 30USD for it
- Hospital eating the cost of non-payment bills so someone gotta eat the cost
- Lawsuit happy. There are insurance to protect hospital on this of course premiums are not cheap.... guess who pays?
Those are the main two I can think right off the top of my head. My friend who was a nurse (and a good) tell me stories.
#252
Papillon
. I figured other people wouldn't be able to get the full text, but I was hoping it would at least link to a useful abstract.
Papillon
Oh, sorry. I'm at a university where we get a lot of this stuff for freeDenbrought said:Also, I wanted to read [2] but I'm sure as hell not shelling out 30USD for it
. I figured other people wouldn't be able to get the full text, but I was hoping it would at least link to a useful abstract.
#253
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
lolTress said:I just wish a politician would propose a national health care plan that people could choose to use, while still being allowed to use private health care if they wanted.
OH WAIT.
#254
M
MrHaha
M
MrHaha
Hey everyone, new here and gonna go out on a possibly unpopular limb buuuuuuuuuuuuut....
I agree with Messiah.
To be honest, the reason we're in such a pickle is that we've created such a dependence on the government in the first place. The best way to get rid of that? Eliminate welfare, social security and any federal funding, then turn them over to private contractors. This includes the military and the police force.
Now, as to why we're better off having a private military and police force: Simply, they'd be better paid, better outfitted and your taxes would be a hell of a lot less. We've already seen (sadly sometimes) how much better PMC troops have it in terms of supplies and support than those backed by the DoD.
The fact of the matter is that regulation by the government hurts any business or operation. We should put capitalism back into place in America, as cold as it may sound at times. Quite simply, the government shouldn't exist to provide help for people in any sense. I'd go so far as to say we don't even NEED a federal system, and it in and of itself is the reason we're so screwed up as a nation. We've become so dependent on looking to Washington for help that we can't even think of what would happen if we stood on our own two feet.
I agree with Messiah.
To be honest, the reason we're in such a pickle is that we've created such a dependence on the government in the first place. The best way to get rid of that? Eliminate welfare, social security and any federal funding, then turn them over to private contractors. This includes the military and the police force.
Now, as to why we're better off having a private military and police force: Simply, they'd be better paid, better outfitted and your taxes would be a hell of a lot less. We've already seen (sadly sometimes) how much better PMC troops have it in terms of supplies and support than those backed by the DoD.
The fact of the matter is that regulation by the government hurts any business or operation. We should put capitalism back into place in America, as cold as it may sound at times. Quite simply, the government shouldn't exist to provide help for people in any sense. I'd go so far as to say we don't even NEED a federal system, and it in and of itself is the reason we're so screwed up as a nation. We've become so dependent on looking to Washington for help that we can't even think of what would happen if we stood on our own two feet.
#255
Gurpel
Gurpel
great first post buddy.
#256
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Okay, so what happens when a person who cannot afford the prices of the private police force gets robbed, or is involved in a natural disaster and needs the help of the privatized national guard?
#257
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
HAH! That would never work, surely you are smoking the crack. Personal responsibility? Substituting the increasing power of government for (gasp) the private sector? Getting rid of welfare? Bwahahahah, you must think the founding fathers knew what they were talking about or something. And who cares about raising taxes? Taxes SHOULD be high, so we can all be reminded of ... how good we have it... Or something?
The point is, it doesn't matter if the American economy collapses and/or stagnates, as long as I can get the doctor to look at my stubbed toe for free.
And capitalism obviously doesn't work. Just look at the unprecedented level of prosperity in the United States since its inception and subsequent adoption of the free market system. You wouldn't want that to continue, would ya? People making money and spending it on what they decide is best? Only the government, lead by the guy that wins a popularity contest every 4 years, can be expected to manage your money responsibly.
The point is, it doesn't matter if the American economy collapses and/or stagnates, as long as I can get the doctor to look at my stubbed toe for free.
And capitalism obviously doesn't work. Just look at the unprecedented level of prosperity in the United States since its inception and subsequent adoption of the free market system. You wouldn't want that to continue, would ya? People making money and spending it on what they decide is best? Only the government, lead by the guy that wins a popularity contest every 4 years, can be expected to manage your money responsibly.
#258
M
MrHaha
M
MrHaha
Well, one of three things:
1) They enter into a contract of repayment at a monthly sum for the service provided. possibly garnished from their pay
2) They rely upon the community to help them in their our of need, in the benefit of reciprocation in case any other person is either robbed or looses their house.
3) They find another way to work off the debt, or deal with the situation without the police of guard's assistance.
1) They enter into a contract of repayment at a monthly sum for the service provided. possibly garnished from their pay
2) They rely upon the community to help them in their our of need, in the benefit of reciprocation in case any other person is either robbed or looses their house.
3) They find another way to work off the debt, or deal with the situation without the police of guard's assistance.
#259
Gurpel
Gurpel
The Messiah said:doop doop doop i am doing a mediocre job of trolling on an internet forum
okay you just advocated slavery, socialism AND vigilantist behavior under the guise of capitalism good job at being incoherent.Well, one of three things:
1) They enter into a contract of repayment at a monthly sum for the service provided. possibly garnished from their pay
2) They rely upon the community to help them in their our of need, in the benefit of reciprocation in case any other person is either robbed or looses their house.
3) They find another way to work off the debt, or deal with the situation without the police of guard's assistance.
#260
M
MrHaha
1). This is also known as a LOAN, you take it out for something you need vitally (should be that way) and cannot afford right now, with the promise that you will pay it back in a reasonable length of time.
2) This isn't socialism, this is an aspect of TRUE conservatism, as devised by Edmund Burke. The government shouldn't have to do and pay for something that people will naturally do on their own. Socialism advocates the nationalization of industries and actions because the government 'knows better' than a community.
M
MrHaha
Gurpel said:The Messiah said:doop doop doop i am doing a mediocre job of trolling on an internet forumokay you just advocated slavery, socialism AND vigilantist behavior under the guise of capitalism good job at being incoherent.Well, one of three things:
1) They enter into a contract of repayment at a monthly sum for the service provided. possibly garnished from their pay
2) They rely upon the community to help them in their our of need, in the benefit of reciprocation in case any other person is either robbed or looses their house.
3) They find another way to work off the debt, or deal with the situation without the police of guard's assistance.
1). This is also known as a LOAN, you take it out for something you need vitally (should be that way) and cannot afford right now, with the promise that you will pay it back in a reasonable length of time.
2) This isn't socialism, this is an aspect of TRUE conservatism, as devised by Edmund Burke. The government shouldn't have to do and pay for something that people will naturally do on their own. Socialism advocates the nationalization of industries and actions because the government 'knows better' than a community.
#261
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz
Curious how countries who have an even greater dependence on the government are not in as much of a pickle.MrHaha said:To be honest, the reason we're in such a pickle is that we've created such a dependence on the government in the first place.
#262
Krisken
Krisken
Well, to say nothing else of this thread, at least it is entertaining.
#263
GasBandit
GasBandit
Sure, you guys have all the fun while work keeps me busy. I'm late to the party, I know, but I just wanted to chime in with this gem...
and this one also -
Remember, we might have more expensive health care, but that's because we have the best quality of health care in the world. But hey, when we've starting shoving all our grey-hairs into hospices and pumping them full of painkillers to await death instead of actually treating their ailments, I suppose there'll be plenty of money then to continue to cover every frantic parent who runs to the emergency room every time her baby has a sniffle.
Also, of the so-called 45 million uninsured, it's been posited that 15 million are here illegally, 17 million can afford it (make 50+k a year) but decide not to, and who knows how many of the remainder reported not having it because they were between jobs at the moment.
This medical boondoggle is the same as the stimulus, the same as cap and trade.. it's not actually about trying to fix anything.. it's about increasing government's control.
The truth of the matter is more than 90% of americans who want it have health insuarance, and 70% are happy with it.
-- Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:43 pm --
and this one also -
Remember, we might have more expensive health care, but that's because we have the best quality of health care in the world. But hey, when we've starting shoving all our grey-hairs into hospices and pumping them full of painkillers to await death instead of actually treating their ailments, I suppose there'll be plenty of money then to continue to cover every frantic parent who runs to the emergency room every time her baby has a sniffle.
Also, of the so-called 45 million uninsured, it's been posited that 15 million are here illegally, 17 million can afford it (make 50+k a year) but decide not to, and who knows how many of the remainder reported not having it because they were between jobs at the moment.
This medical boondoggle is the same as the stimulus, the same as cap and trade.. it's not actually about trying to fix anything.. it's about increasing government's control.
The truth of the matter is more than 90% of americans who want it have health insuarance, and 70% are happy with it.
-- Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:43 pm --
That's because their countries, and therefor, their governments, are a fraction the size of ours. But then, most of them are dying more than us, too (see above).Mr_Chaz said:Curious how countries who have an even greater dependence on the government are not in as much of a pickle.MrHaha said:To be honest, the reason we're in such a pickle is that we've created such a dependence on the government in the first place.
#266
Papillon
Papillon
And the infant mortality rate in the US is 31% higher than in Canada. The average life expectancy is a little over 2 years longer in Canada than the US. In the papers I cited previously they found that for certain surgical procedures people there was no statistical difference in survival rates between US and Canada. Cherry picked statistics on the survival rates for certain kinds of cancer mean very little.GasBandit said:Sure, you guys have all the fun while work keeps me busy. I'm late to the party, I know, but I just wanted to chime in with this gem...
and this one also -
Remember, we might have more expensive health care, but that's because we have the best quality of health care in the world.
#267
Chummer
Chummer
"Best Healthcare in the World"... for those who can afford it.
The rest of you get shit on and can go die in the street. Sorrrr-rrrrrryyyyy. Welcome to America!
The rest of you get shit on and can go die in the street. Sorrrr-rrrrrryyyyy. Welcome to America!
#268
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
A 2007 study done by Baruch College economists June and David O"Neill sheds some light on why U.S. infant mortality rates are higher—more low weight births. In their study, U.S. infant mortality was 6.8 per 1,000 live births, and Canada's was 5.3. Low birth weight significantly increases an infant's chance of dying. Teen mothers are much more likely to bear low birth weight babies and teen motherhood is almost three times higher in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The authors calculate that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the U.S., its infant mortality rate would rise above the U.S. rate of 6.8 per 1,000 live births to 7.06. On the other hand, if the U.S. had Canada's distribution of low-weight births, its infant mortality rate would fall to 5.4. In other words, the American health care system is much better than Canada's at saving low birth weight babies —we just have more babies who are likely to die before their first birthdays.
from http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547Com ... ealth.html
But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations. The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."16 While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17 This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure.
Switzerland is far from the only nation to have peculiarities in its measure. Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation.18 The United Nations Statistics Division notes many other differences.19 Japan counts only births to Japanese nationals living in Japan, not abroad. Finland, France and Norway, by contrast, do count births to nationals living outside of the country. Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium. Finally, Canada counts births to Canadians living in the U.S., but not Americans living in Canada. In short, many nations count births that are in no way an indication of the efficacy of their own health care systems.
The United Nations Statistics Division explains another factor hampering consistent measurement across nations:
...some infant deaths are tabulated by date of registration and not by date of occurrence... Whenever the lag between the date of occurrence and date of registration is prolonged and therefore, a large proportion of the infant-death registrations are delayed, infant-death statistics for any given year may be seriously affected.20
The nations of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand fall into this category.
Registration problems hamper accurate collection of data on infant mortality in another way. Looking at data from 1984-1985, Eberstadt argued that, "Underregistration of infant deaths may also be indicated by the proportion of infant deaths reported for the first twenty-four hours after birth."21 Eberstadt found that in the U.S. and Canada more than a third of all infant death occurred during the first day, but in Sweden and France they accounted for less than one-fifth. Table 3 shows that the pattern still holds today.
Inconsistent measurement explains only part of the difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Were measurements to be standardized, according to Eberstadt, "America might move from the bottom third toward the middle, but it would be unlikely to advance into the top half."22 Another factor affecting infant mortality Eberstadt identifies is parental behavior.23 Pregnant women in other countries are more likely to either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own. In the U.S., pregnant women are far more likely to be living alone. Although the nature of the relationship is still unclear (it is possible that mothers living on their own are less likely to want to be pregnant), it likely leads to a higher rate of infant mortality in the U.S.
In summary, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful. Thus, just like life expectancy, infant mortality is not a reliable measure of the relative merits of health care systems.
Conclusion
Life expectancy and infant mortality are wholly inadequate comparative measures for health care systems. Life expectancy is influenced by a host of factors other than a health care system, while infant mortality is measured inconsistently across nations. Neither of these measures provides the United States with conclusive guidance on health care policy, let alone serve as reliable evidence that a system of universal health care "should be implemented in the United States."24
Life expectancy rates also depend on personal habits such as smoking, diet, and physical activity. Interestingly, U.S. smoking rates are lower (17 percent of adults) than for many developed countries with higher life expectancies. For instance, 30 percent of Japanese adults smoke daily. In France, 23 percent of adults smoke; Germany, 25 percent; Switzerland, 25 percent; Spain, 28 percent, and the U.K., 25 percent.
The fact that Americans tend to be a lot fatter than the citizens of other rich developed countries increases their risks of heart disease and diabetes. A recent international survey reported that 31 percent of Americans are obese (body mass index over 30), whereas only 23 percent of Britons, 21 percent of Australians and New Zealanders, 14 percent of Canadians, 13 percent of Germans, 9 percent of the French, and 3 percent of Japanese have body mass index measurements over 30.
Taking all these unhealthy proclivities into consideration, the American health care system is most likely not to blame for our lower life expectancies. Instead, American health care is rescuing enough of us from the consequences of our bad health habits to keep our ranking from being even lower.
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics."
from http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547Com ... ealth.html
But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations. The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."16 While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17 This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure.
Switzerland is far from the only nation to have peculiarities in its measure. Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation.18 The United Nations Statistics Division notes many other differences.19 Japan counts only births to Japanese nationals living in Japan, not abroad. Finland, France and Norway, by contrast, do count births to nationals living outside of the country. Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium. Finally, Canada counts births to Canadians living in the U.S., but not Americans living in Canada. In short, many nations count births that are in no way an indication of the efficacy of their own health care systems.
The United Nations Statistics Division explains another factor hampering consistent measurement across nations:
...some infant deaths are tabulated by date of registration and not by date of occurrence... Whenever the lag between the date of occurrence and date of registration is prolonged and therefore, a large proportion of the infant-death registrations are delayed, infant-death statistics for any given year may be seriously affected.20
The nations of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand fall into this category.
Registration problems hamper accurate collection of data on infant mortality in another way. Looking at data from 1984-1985, Eberstadt argued that, "Underregistration of infant deaths may also be indicated by the proportion of infant deaths reported for the first twenty-four hours after birth."21 Eberstadt found that in the U.S. and Canada more than a third of all infant death occurred during the first day, but in Sweden and France they accounted for less than one-fifth. Table 3 shows that the pattern still holds today.
Inconsistent measurement explains only part of the difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Were measurements to be standardized, according to Eberstadt, "America might move from the bottom third toward the middle, but it would be unlikely to advance into the top half."22 Another factor affecting infant mortality Eberstadt identifies is parental behavior.23 Pregnant women in other countries are more likely to either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own. In the U.S., pregnant women are far more likely to be living alone. Although the nature of the relationship is still unclear (it is possible that mothers living on their own are less likely to want to be pregnant), it likely leads to a higher rate of infant mortality in the U.S.
In summary, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful. Thus, just like life expectancy, infant mortality is not a reliable measure of the relative merits of health care systems.
Conclusion
Life expectancy and infant mortality are wholly inadequate comparative measures for health care systems. Life expectancy is influenced by a host of factors other than a health care system, while infant mortality is measured inconsistently across nations. Neither of these measures provides the United States with conclusive guidance on health care policy, let alone serve as reliable evidence that a system of universal health care "should be implemented in the United States."24
Life expectancy rates also depend on personal habits such as smoking, diet, and physical activity. Interestingly, U.S. smoking rates are lower (17 percent of adults) than for many developed countries with higher life expectancies. For instance, 30 percent of Japanese adults smoke daily. In France, 23 percent of adults smoke; Germany, 25 percent; Switzerland, 25 percent; Spain, 28 percent, and the U.K., 25 percent.
The fact that Americans tend to be a lot fatter than the citizens of other rich developed countries increases their risks of heart disease and diabetes. A recent international survey reported that 31 percent of Americans are obese (body mass index over 30), whereas only 23 percent of Britons, 21 percent of Australians and New Zealanders, 14 percent of Canadians, 13 percent of Germans, 9 percent of the French, and 3 percent of Japanese have body mass index measurements over 30.
Taking all these unhealthy proclivities into consideration, the American health care system is most likely not to blame for our lower life expectancies. Instead, American health care is rescuing enough of us from the consequences of our bad health habits to keep our ranking from being even lower.
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics."
#269
GasBandit
As for your infant mortality rate, you're the one now with misleading statistics. That's canada's 0.4% vs america's 0.6%. That's not quite as wide a gulf as the ~4% difference in survival rates for ALL malignancies between the US and canada, and forget europe. It's WAY down there.
But of course the elephant in the room no canadian healthcare proponent ever wants to bring up is that the only reason their economy can handle single payer healthcare is because they're actually a relatively small country crammed against the southern border of a very large map (90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US border), butting up against the world's most sucessful economic engine and sole remaining military superpower, leeching off it like crazy.
GasBandit
Certain kinds, being the most common kinds you mean? I'd like to see some linkage on the infant mortality rate claim there.Papillon said:And the infant mortality rate in the US is 31% higher than in Canada. The average life expectancy is a little over 2 years longer in Canada than the US. In the papers I cited previously they found that for certain surgical procedures people there was no statistical difference in survival rates between US and Canada. Cherry picked statistics on the survival rates for certain kinds of cancer mean very little.GasBandit said:Sure, you guys have all the fun while work keeps me busy. I'm late to the party, I know, but I just wanted to chime in with this gem...
and this one also -
Remember, we might have more expensive health care, but that's because we have the best quality of health care in the world.
As for your infant mortality rate, you're the one now with misleading statistics. That's canada's 0.4% vs america's 0.6%. That's not quite as wide a gulf as the ~4% difference in survival rates for ALL malignancies between the US and canada, and forget europe. It's WAY down there.
But of course the elephant in the room no canadian healthcare proponent ever wants to bring up is that the only reason their economy can handle single payer healthcare is because they're actually a relatively small country crammed against the southern border of a very large map (90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US border), butting up against the world's most sucessful economic engine and sole remaining military superpower, leeching off it like crazy.
Except that is entirely untrue. As shown, more than 90% of americans who want it have health insurance, and 70% of them report being happy with it, and there are already systems in place to help the indigent. This "crisis" is largely manufactured out of whole cloth, and carried by brain dead simps who are more than happy to play chicken little.Chummer said:The rest of you get shit on and can go die in the street. Sorrrr-rrrrrryyyyy. Welcome to America!
#270
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz
I don't have time for much Gas, but here's my first rebuttal...
Interesting. I wonder about that, seeing as the average waiting time is now 4.6 weeks, and the absolute maximum limit on waiting times, which all 10 Strategic Health Authorities have been able to keep up since 2007, is 18 weeks. No one will wait more than 18 weeks on the NHS for treatment. And if it's critical? It'll be much sooner. For example breast cancer? You'll start treatment the same week. Don't give me this waiting times bullshit Gas, it simply does not apply.Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]
#271
GasBandit
GasBandit
It speaks volumes that you think 18 weeks is an acceptable wait time. Most care in America is same or next week.Mr_Chaz said:I don't have time for much Gas, but here's my first rebuttal...
Interesting. I wonder about that, seeing as the average waiting time is now 4.6 weeks, and the absolute maximum limit on waiting times, which all 10 Strategic Health Authorities have been able to keep up since 2007, is 18 weeks. No one will wait more than 18 weeks on the NHS for treatment. And if it's critical? It'll be much sooner. For example breast cancer? You'll start treatment the same week. Don't give me this waiting times bullshit Gas, it simply does not apply.Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]
#272
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz
I do yes. It could be better, it could be further improved, the NHS has a lot of room for improvement, can't deny that, but if the alternative is to have healthcare that isn't universal then I'll turn you down thanks, I'd rather keep the wait.GasBandit said:It speaks volumes that you think 18 weeks is an acceptable wait time. Most care in America is same or next week.Mr_Chaz said:I don't have time for much Gas, but here's my first rebuttal...
Interesting. I wonder about that, seeing as the average waiting time is now 4.6 weeks, and the absolute maximum limit on waiting times, which all 10 Strategic Health Authorities have been able to keep up since 2007, is 18 weeks. No one will wait more than 18 weeks on the NHS for treatment. And if it's critical? It'll be much sooner. For example breast cancer? You'll start treatment the same week. Don't give me this waiting times bullshit Gas, it simply does not apply.Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]
#273
Chummer
When I see news stories about people going bankrupt adn losing everything or being denied their insurance claim due to some BS reason so they cant get the medication or treatment they need, wel that tells me there is a problem.
You dont see someone walking into the hospital in Canada and getting care and then months later stuck with a 200k bill he cant pay due to his insurance comp fucking him over and has to go bankrupt and move in with his child.
Its bullshit and its wrong.
Okay sure if you dont want to blame the system fine, but i can totalyl lay blame on the insurance companies and all the horrible stories thats spawned from them.
Shit like a girl dying because she couldnt get to the hospital that carried her insurance plan even though there was a hospital much closer but she was scared to go there due to the bills.
Peopel shouldnt be scared to go to the hospital.
Hell I had to go twice in the last few months and I put it off for as long as possible cause I didnt want to chance getting fucked.
Its sad.
Chummer
GasBandit said:Certain kinds, being the most common kinds you mean? I'd like to see some linkage on the infant mortality rate claim there.Papillon said:And the infant mortality rate in the US is 31% higher than in Canada. The average life expectancy is a little over 2 years longer in Canada than the US. In the papers I cited previously they found that for certain surgical procedures people there was no statistical difference in survival rates between US and Canada. Cherry picked statistics on the survival rates for certain kinds of cancer mean very little.GasBandit said:Sure, you guys have all the fun while work keeps me busy. I'm late to the party, I know, but I just wanted to chime in with this gem...
and this one also -
Remember, we might have more expensive health care, but that's because we have the best quality of health care in the world.
As for your infant mortality rate, you're the one now with misleading statistics. That's canada's 0.4% vs america's 0.6%. That's not quite as wide a gulf as the ~4% difference in survival rates for ALL malignancies between the US and canada, and forget europe. It's WAY down there.
But of course the elephant in the room no canadian healthcare proponent ever wants to bring up is that the only reason their economy can handle single payer healthcare is because they're actually a relatively small country crammed against the southern border of a very large map (90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US border), butting up against the world's most sucessful economic engine and sole remaining military superpower, leeching off it like crazy.
Except that is entirely untrue. As shown, more than 90% of americans who want it have health insurance, and 70% of them report being happy with it, and there are already systems in place to help the indigent. This "crisis" is largely manufactured out of whole cloth, and carried by brain dead simps who are more than happy to play chicken little.Chummer said:The rest of you get poop on and can go die in the street. Sorrrr-rrrrrryyyyy. Welcome to America!
When I see news stories about people going bankrupt adn losing everything or being denied their insurance claim due to some BS reason so they cant get the medication or treatment they need, wel that tells me there is a problem.
You dont see someone walking into the hospital in Canada and getting care and then months later stuck with a 200k bill he cant pay due to his insurance comp fucking him over and has to go bankrupt and move in with his child.
Its bullshit and its wrong.
Okay sure if you dont want to blame the system fine, but i can totalyl lay blame on the insurance companies and all the horrible stories thats spawned from them.
Shit like a girl dying because she couldnt get to the hospital that carried her insurance plan even though there was a hospital much closer but she was scared to go there due to the bills.
Peopel shouldnt be scared to go to the hospital.
Hell I had to go twice in the last few months and I put it off for as long as possible cause I didnt want to chance getting fucked.
Its sad.
#274
T
The Messiah
At some point, you will be forced to reconcile your figures with reality. Having met, worked with and even shared a dwelling with Canadians seeking US healthcare at their own expense, I am at a loss to explain their actions in light of the stunning revelation you just laid down.
For clarity: If Canadian healthcare is what you say, why do so many Canadians come here for health care? These aren't facts and figures pulled off of some ultra right wing conspiracy website, designed specifically to foil your position in the debate. These are REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost. Is there some massive flaw in their reasoning? Are they just retarded?
T
The Messiah
Hmmm, I guess the Canadians that come to the US for treatment are just stupid, then. Maybe they just don't realize how much better they had it back home? Or maybe they are so wealthy they can afford to throw their money away?Mr_Chaz said:I don't have time for much Gas, but here's my first rebuttal...
Interesting. I wonder about that, seeing as the average waiting time is now 4.6 weeks, and the absolute maximum limit on waiting times, which all 10 Strategic Health Authorities have been able to keep up since 2007, is 18 weeks. No one will wait more than 18 weeks on the NHS for treatment. And if it's critical? It'll be much sooner. For example breast cancer? You'll start treatment the same week. Don't give me this waiting times bullshit Gas, it simply does not apply.Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]
At some point, you will be forced to reconcile your figures with reality. Having met, worked with and even shared a dwelling with Canadians seeking US healthcare at their own expense, I am at a loss to explain their actions in light of the stunning revelation you just laid down.
For clarity: If Canadian healthcare is what you say, why do so many Canadians come here for health care? These aren't facts and figures pulled off of some ultra right wing conspiracy website, designed specifically to foil your position in the debate. These are REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost. Is there some massive flaw in their reasoning? Are they just retarded?
#275
M
MrHaha
M
MrHaha
Insurance companies screw people because they have to. Why? Due to all the regulations, rules and strictures the Government puts on them. I still believe that if we completely and utterly deregulated every industry, we'd be a lot better off.
#276
GasBandit
I just hope you don't need any painkillers for a back injury.
GasBandit
The NHS is an insolvent nightmare of terrible care quality and skyrocketing expense.Mr_Chaz said:I do yes. It could be better, it could be further improved, the NHS has a lot of room for improvement, can't deny that, but if the alternative is to have healthcare that isn't universal then I'll turn you down thanks, I'd rather keep the wait.GasBandit said:It speaks volumes that you think 18 weeks is an acceptable wait time. Most care in America is same or next week.
I just hope you don't need any painkillers for a back injury.
#277
T
The Messiah
T
The Messiah
Here is an article by the NY Times of all places, debunking the ''infant mortality rate'' issue. It goes on to address life expectancy, etc. Not that it will matter to those of you who are too busy spitting and seething with rage at the moment...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/busin ... nted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/busin ... nted=print
#278
Krisken
It's nice that the option is there for those who aren't wealthy enough to come to the United States.
Not trying to foil your position either. There's this mentality that we can't have both private and public healthcare options. I think our system would benefit from both, not just one.
Krisken
Because those are the people who can afford to cross the border and pay huge costs for healthcare? They're not foolish, they are wealthy enough to not need the healthcare provided by Canada.The Messiah said:For clarity: If Canadian healthcare is what you say, why do so many Canadians come here for health care? These aren't facts and figures pulled off of some ultra right wing conspiracy website, designed specifically to foil your position in the debate. These are REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost. Is there some massive flaw in their reasoning? Are they just retarded?
It's nice that the option is there for those who aren't wealthy enough to come to the United States.
Not trying to foil your position either. There's this mentality that we can't have both private and public healthcare options. I think our system would benefit from both, not just one.
#279
Covar
Covar
Papillon said:Cherry picked statistics on the survival rates for certain kinds of cancer mean very little.
Love it. thanks.Papillon in the exact same post said:they found that for certain surgical procedures people there was no statistical difference in survival rates between US and Canada.
#280
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
ah yes, the golden age of the 1860s-1920s, ain't nothin wrong ever happened to the economy then! that was the best idea ever, I wonder what stopped it.....MrHaha said:Insurance companies screw people because they have to. Why? Due to all the regulations, rules and strictures the Government puts on them. I still believe that if we completely and utterly deregulated every industry, we'd be a lot better off.
#281
Covar
I'm all for deregulation, but you can't be stupid about it. MrHaha is an anarchist, not a conservative. Also a privatized military and police force are about the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. A military cannot function without the loyalty tie to its country. I'm trying to think of a public works group (police, fire, ems) that is different. Healthcare however can and does operate properly in the private sector, as with almost anything YMMV.
Covar
Teddy Roosevelt beat the ever living shit out of those companies.Charlie Dont Surf said:ah yes, the golden age of the 1860s-1920s, ain't nothin wrong ever happened to the economy then! that was the best idea ever, I wonder what stopped it.....MrHaha said:Insurance companies screw people because they have to. Why? Due to all the regulations, rules and strictures the Government puts on them. I still believe that if we completely and utterly deregulated every industry, we'd be a lot better off.
I'm all for deregulation, but you can't be stupid about it. MrHaha is an anarchist, not a conservative. Also a privatized military and police force are about the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. A military cannot function without the loyalty tie to its country. I'm trying to think of a public works group (police, fire, ems) that is different. Healthcare however can and does operate properly in the private sector, as with almost anything YMMV.
#282
Espy
Espy
I can't speak to regulation, but I would bet a years pay that if they dealt with some real Tort Reform we would see some amazing changes to medical costs. My father was a doctor and I know what kind of insurance issues he had to deal with, you know why it cost so much to see him? That was a big part of it.
The problem is that it's never going to happen. The malpractice lawyers tend to be big political donors.
Here's a good little editorial in the Detroit News about it:
The problem is that it's never going to happen. The malpractice lawyers tend to be big political donors.
Here's a good little editorial in the Detroit News about it:
Tort reform are two words we haven't heard President Barack Obama speak seriously as he pledges to make his universal health care plan pay for itself through cost-cutting.
But we'll know the president and congressional Democrats are serious about reform when they're willing to take on one of their most reliable interest groups -- plaintiff's lawyers.
Obama has said he is worried about physicians practicing "defensive medicine" to protect themselves against malpractice claims, but he also has ruled out what he has called "artificial caps" on jury awards in malpractice cases.
Advertisement
The primary reason doctors order up all those tests Obama has questioned is to cover their backsides in case of a lawsuit. Real savings from the health care system will be difficult to achieve as long as doctors and hospitals are so vulnerable to the legal system.
In 2007, according to a survey by the consulting firm Towers Perrin, the American civil liability, or tort, system imposed $252 billion in costs on the U.S. economy. The cost of defending and paying medical malpractice claims accounted for about $30 billion of that total.
Consider that the estimated annual cost of ObamaCare is pegged at about $100 billion, and it's easy to see how to find some of the money to pay for it.
Between 1997 and 2007, the cost of dealing with medical torts nearly doubled -- from $15.5 billion to $30.4 billion.
What is unquantifiable is the degree to which the threat of liability affected the practice of medicine, making it more defensive and thus more expensive. Economic studies and various claims by physicians and attorneys differ.
In Britain, the loser in a civil suit must pay the costs of the winner, which cuts down on the filing of risky lawsuits, including malpractice. In France, malpractice claims are settled by a special panel, similar to Michigan's Workers Compensation Commission.
If Democrats are determined to give Americans a European-style health system with heavy government involvement, they should also make the American tort law system more like the European model.
So far in Congress, attempts to create "special courts" for malpractice claims in the context of health care reform have been met with furious opposition from the lawyers who fund the lawmakers' campaign accounts.
But Congress can't call what it is doing comprehensive health care reform without providing meaningful relief from the threat of unwarranted malpractice lawsuits.
#283
GasBandit
GasBandit
The reason medical insurance has gotten so ridiculous is that people have disassociated cost from medical care. They think their coverage is a medical payment plan in perpetuity, not insurance. They think that aside from a (low) deductible, they should never have to pay more than copay when they're paying monthly premiums, so they run to the doctor for every bump, bruise and sniffle and don't want to have to pay for it because they "already paid." The answer for this problem is to turn medical insurance back into INSURANCE. Very very high deductibles. Basically, you have insurance in case you get hit by a bus or develop cancer, but you pay out of pocket when you get the flu or break your leg.
Another reason, and I'm sorry to say this is something Obama is right about but he can't say it out loud because people don't want to hear it - we spend huge amounts of money prolonging the life of the elderly by only a few years. Nobody wants to say "your 100 year old gramma has lived long enough," but the pragmatic truth is that's where the money is all getting eaten up. So until we're ready to start embedding palmflowers in people's hands, we're going to have to accept that medical care costs money.
Another reason is people think for some bizarre reason they have a "right" to health care. Nobody is entitled to the time and treasure of another person. For you to have a right to health care, you are saying that the government can force (at de facto gunpoint) a doctor who has spent years and years of his life and put himself into super-debt to become what he is to spend more of his time and treasure to see you at a price he cannot set. That's about as antithetical to the american concept of liberty as you can get.
Another reason, and I'm sorry to say this is something Obama is right about but he can't say it out loud because people don't want to hear it - we spend huge amounts of money prolonging the life of the elderly by only a few years. Nobody wants to say "your 100 year old gramma has lived long enough," but the pragmatic truth is that's where the money is all getting eaten up. So until we're ready to start embedding palmflowers in people's hands, we're going to have to accept that medical care costs money.
Another reason is people think for some bizarre reason they have a "right" to health care. Nobody is entitled to the time and treasure of another person. For you to have a right to health care, you are saying that the government can force (at de facto gunpoint) a doctor who has spent years and years of his life and put himself into super-debt to become what he is to spend more of his time and treasure to see you at a price he cannot set. That's about as antithetical to the american concept of liberty as you can get.
#284
Mr_Chaz
I'll go with this one then:
The NHS has saved the lives of people that I know, and they haven't had to pay for the privilege. My family have got hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of treatment due to long term health problems. In the US insurance wouldn't have covered it, because it was a known problem, which would have left us with the choice of a debilitating bill or the death of a loved one. What a choice?!? But here, we were able to get treatment promptly. All the treatment we needed. All the drugs we needed. When it was needed.
So if we're at the level of your "REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost", then don't ever try to tell me that "the NHS is an insolvent nightmare of terrible care quality and skyrocketing expense", because you know what? It's not gonna fly.
Mr_Chaz
Fantastic, we're at the level of people we knowThe Messiah said:For clarity: If Canadian healthcare is what you say, why do so many Canadians come here for health care? These aren't facts and figures pulled off of some ultra right wing conspiracy website, designed specifically to foil your position in the debate. These are REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost. Is there some massive flaw in their reasoning? Are they just retarded?
I'll go with this one then:
The NHS has saved the lives of people that I know, and they haven't had to pay for the privilege. My family have got hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of treatment due to long term health problems. In the US insurance wouldn't have covered it, because it was a known problem, which would have left us with the choice of a debilitating bill or the death of a loved one. What a choice?!? But here, we were able to get treatment promptly. All the treatment we needed. All the drugs we needed. When it was needed.
So if we're at the level of your "REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost", then don't ever try to tell me that "the NHS is an insolvent nightmare of terrible care quality and skyrocketing expense", because you know what? It's not gonna fly.
#285
Bubble181
It may be a trivial and insignificant bit in your whole wall of text, but it still lowers the reliability of your source.
Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.
Bubble181
Incorrect. Belgium counts any and all which are born as Belgian citizens. Babies born to armed forces abroad are, generally, made a citizen of the nation of their parents, not of their birth; however, this is the choice of the parents.The Messiah said:Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium.
It may be a trivial and insignificant bit in your whole wall of text, but it still lowers the reliability of your source.
Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.
#286
Espy
Espy
See now, if there was some form of government healthcare that people could choose to pay 52% of their income into and then get I would be ok with it. Go for it, have fun, let those who want pay into it and get it and those who don't can pay for their own.Bubble181 said:Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.
#287
Bubble181
Our health care system is seperated from our other taxes; it comes to about 14% of our paycheck. 52% is the second-highest tax range, not including forementioned 14% (and social security comes after that. And the employer pays a seperate 33% employer's tax. Yes, we're slightly tax-happy, and americans and brits should stop whining about their high taxes :-P)
Anyway, the partially-privatized is the most dangerous form of health care. No-one can be forced to make this decision at 18; so it'd be possible to "opt in" pretty much whenever...which, of course, makesi t horribly impossible to work, since 80% or so of the costs are incurred after you've stopped working.
Heck, I'm all in favour of obligatory euthanasia at 80, but apparently that's not very politically correct :-P
Bubble181
Espy said:See now, if there was some form of government healthcare that people could choose to pay 52% of their income into and then get I would be ok with it. Go for it, have fun, let those who want pay into it and get it and those who don't can pay for their own.Bubble181 said:Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.
Our health care system is seperated from our other taxes; it comes to about 14% of our paycheck. 52% is the second-highest tax range, not including forementioned 14% (and social security comes after that. And the employer pays a seperate 33% employer's tax. Yes, we're slightly tax-happy, and americans and brits should stop whining about their high taxes :-P)
Anyway, the partially-privatized is the most dangerous form of health care. No-one can be forced to make this decision at 18; so it'd be possible to "opt in" pretty much whenever...which, of course, makesi t horribly impossible to work, since 80% or so of the costs are incurred after you've stopped working.
Heck, I'm all in favour of obligatory euthanasia at 80, but apparently that's not very politically correct :-P
#288
JCM
JCM
Ouch, problem is, soon we´d have other "we dont need" the government groups like the NRA wanting to make paying for policemen optional.Espy said:See now, if there was some form of government healthcare that people could choose to pay 52% of their income into and then get I would be ok with it. Go for it, have fun, let those who want pay into it and get it and those who don't can pay for their own.Bubble181 said:Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.
#289
Espy
Espy
Nah, there are things that the majority of people believe are necessary to having a functional society, few would think the police are one of them. Health care? It's not as cut and dried amongst the population.JCM said:Ouch, problem is, soon we´d have other "we dont need" the government groups like the NRA wanting to make paying for policemen optional.Espy said:See now, if there was some form of government healthcare that people could choose to pay 52% of their income into and then get I would be ok with it. Go for it, have fun, let those who want pay into it and get it and those who don't can pay for their own.Bubble181 said:Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.
#290
JCM
JCM
Either you underestimate the stupidity of people, or I have waaaay too little faith in humanity.
#291
Steve
Steve
I'm for univeral health care with a mandatory physical every year. If you opt out of the physical then you pay 30% more taxes. If you smoke, are overweight, have a drug or alcohol problem or engage in any behavior that increases your risk to put a strain on healthcare which otherwise could have been prevented then you should get taxed at a higher rate. No sense in punishes people like me who are in prime physical condition. In fact those of us that are in perfect health, the kind that makes doctors get wet, we should pay less taxes.
#292
Espy
Espy
Hey, I agree there are people who think that sort of thing, I'm just not worried about the amount of them making a difference.JCM said:Either you underestimate the stupidity of people, or I have waaaay too little faith in humanity.
#293
M
MrHaha
M
MrHaha
Heh, here;s a thought:
Why not take every NRA chapter and incorporate it into a large business, eventually giving them the job of the Police Force while slowly phasing out the old police force.
Adding to that, I don't think the military would be any less effective if it were privatized. Hell, it'd be more effective. Again, look at how much better a Blackwater PMC trooper is paid compared to a soldier in the army/ect.
The fact of the matter is this: If you help people too much, they become dependent and unable to do anything on their own. That needs to stop before our nation turns into a bunch of children doing what ever the government says. It sounds heartless and cold, but if you can't do for yourself and you aren't contributing to society, you should not expect any kind of help or care from people.
Why not take every NRA chapter and incorporate it into a large business, eventually giving them the job of the Police Force while slowly phasing out the old police force.
Adding to that, I don't think the military would be any less effective if it were privatized. Hell, it'd be more effective. Again, look at how much better a Blackwater PMC trooper is paid compared to a soldier in the army/ect.
The fact of the matter is this: If you help people too much, they become dependent and unable to do anything on their own. That needs to stop before our nation turns into a bunch of children doing what ever the government says. It sounds heartless and cold, but if you can't do for yourself and you aren't contributing to society, you should not expect any kind of help or care from people.
#294
The Lovely Boehner
EDIT: and I have listened to probably hundreds of hours of Rush Limbaugh
EDIT2: I also went to a John McCain campaign rally last summer
The Lovely Boehner
This is legitimately one of the worst ideas I've heard, and my old roommate/best friend is a staunch libertarian that I listened to on occasion.MrHaha said:Why not take every NRA chapter and incorporate it into a large business, eventually giving them the job of the Police Force while slowly phasing out the old police force.
EDIT: and I have listened to probably hundreds of hours of Rush Limbaugh
EDIT2: I also went to a John McCain campaign rally last summer
#295
Iaculus
Better-paid =/= better training, better discipline, and better standards of conduct.
Iaculus
Man, are you seriously holding up Blackwater as an ideal? Do some more background reading. Please.MrHaha said:Adding to that, I don't think the military would be any less effective if it were privatized. *, it'd be more effective. Again, look at how much better a Blackwater PMC trooper is paid compared to a soldier in the army/ect.
Better-paid =/= better training, better discipline, and better standards of conduct.
#296
Bubble181
A 100% privatized army would mean your country is, effectively, run by that company. Wonderful.
Steve: you're male. You'd be taxed more than a female ;-)
Bubble181
MrHaha said:Heh, here;s a thought:
Why not take every NRA chapter and incorporate it into a large business, eventually giving them the job of the Police Force while slowly phasing out the old police force.
Adding to that, I don't think the military would be any less effective if it were privatized. Hell, it'd be more effective. Again, look at how much better a Blackwater PMC trooper is paid compared to a soldier in the army/ect.
The fact of the matter is this: If you help people too much, they become dependent and unable to do anything on their own. That needs to stop before our nation turns into a bunch of children doing what ever the government says. It sounds heartless and cold, but if you can't do for yourself and you aren't contributing to society, you should not expect any kind of help or care from people.
A 100% privatized army would mean your country is, effectively, run by that company. Wonderful.
Steve: you're male. You'd be taxed more than a female ;-)
#297
Norris
And that's why I'm always leary of "tort reform" as applied to doctors. Because it always seems to come off as "let's prevent people from suing doctors because without doctors everybody would be worse off". Then again, most political discourse I read comes from IMDB, which is at least 50% trolls. So who knows. I don't.
EDIT: Yes, let's turn a bunch of untrained civilians into our police force. Nothing could go wrong. BTW, how would we decide jurisdictions for these private police forces? Who would administer the private corrections and court facilities this would require? Who would provide oversight to these private organizations to ensure they follow rules of evidence?
I also point out that the Iraqi government is kicking Blackwater out their country. Not U.S. Troops, just the mercenaries. I wonder why. :eyeroll:
Norris
Ok, I am ok to preface this by saying I am uneducated on the concept of tort reform. But every time I hear it "simplified", it translates to "protect doctors from losing big lawsuits". While I can sympathize with wanting to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, I have a slight personal reason to not see a cap put on damages that can be awarded to patients. See, my best friend in high school benefited from a lawsuit that paid out a big time amount (though she was unclear on just how much). Apparently, when she was born the doctor (who was older and a little bit older school, according to her parents at least) used some kind of tongs (likely with a better name) to pull her out. He squeezed too hard, and she ended up with birth defects because of it. One of her hands is largely useless (fully formed but the fingers don't really move) and one of her legs was shorter than the other (to the point of giving her a kind of limping walk, at least until she sacrificed a summer to get surgery to alleviate it). She qualifies as handicapped because of all this. Because a doctor fucked up before she was even out of her mother. And you bet her parents sued, and you bet they got a lot of money. As they should have.Espy said:I can't speak to regulation, but I would bet a years pay that if they dealt with some real Tort Reform we would see some amazing changes to medical costs. My father was a doctor and I know what kind of insurance issues he had to deal with, you know why it cost so much to see him? That was a big part of it.
The problem is that it's never going to happen. The malpractice lawyers tend to be big political donors.
Here's a good little editorial in the Detroit News about it:
And that's why I'm always leary of "tort reform" as applied to doctors. Because it always seems to come off as "let's prevent people from suing doctors because without doctors everybody would be worse off". Then again, most political discourse I read comes from IMDB, which is at least 50% trolls. So who knows. I don't.
EDIT: Yes, let's turn a bunch of untrained civilians into our police force. Nothing could go wrong. BTW, how would we decide jurisdictions for these private police forces? Who would administer the private corrections and court facilities this would require? Who would provide oversight to these private organizations to ensure they follow rules of evidence?
I also point out that the Iraqi government is kicking Blackwater out their country. Not U.S. Troops, just the mercenaries. I wonder why. :eyeroll:
#298
Bubble181
Now, as stated before, I live in one of those places where health care IS pretty universal. And where there's no such thing as punitive damages. Anyway, the son went to a specialized school, for free. He's in a specialized institute - for free. They've received help for the household on those days/times when he couldn't stay at school. They receive a special fee from the government to help in the life with a severely handicapped person (to make house adjustments for his wheelchair, etc). The doctor had the case reviewed and was sentenced to, IIRC, 2 years suspension of his license, and a fine of a couple thousand dollars.
Why should that doctor pay more; or shoudl they receive more? It makes no sense to me to give someone millions because they have a handicapped child; especially since others, who got a child with similar problems, don't get any help whatsoever. You chose to get a child; you accepted the chance there'd be something wrong with it. Why should the doctor be forced to pay for the rest of his life for one (perhaps minor) mistake? Have a medical board review it and decide upon how much it was he who was in the wrong, not a judge.
*shrug* That's just me and the majority i nBelgium, though.
Bubble181
Why? A friend of mine had a similar issue - her son was born, due to an error of the doctor, the son was without oxygen for a few minutes, heavy brain damage, lasting serious debilitating effects (wheelchair and about the intellectual capacities of a 5 year old - he's 19 now).Dorko said:She qualifies as handicapped because of all this. Because a doctor fucked up before she was even out of her mother. And you bet her parents sued, and you bet they got a lot of money. As they should have.
Now, as stated before, I live in one of those places where health care IS pretty universal. And where there's no such thing as punitive damages. Anyway, the son went to a specialized school, for free. He's in a specialized institute - for free. They've received help for the household on those days/times when he couldn't stay at school. They receive a special fee from the government to help in the life with a severely handicapped person (to make house adjustments for his wheelchair, etc). The doctor had the case reviewed and was sentenced to, IIRC, 2 years suspension of his license, and a fine of a couple thousand dollars.
Why should that doctor pay more; or shoudl they receive more? It makes no sense to me to give someone millions because they have a handicapped child; especially since others, who got a child with similar problems, don't get any help whatsoever. You chose to get a child; you accepted the chance there'd be something wrong with it. Why should the doctor be forced to pay for the rest of his life for one (perhaps minor) mistake? Have a medical board review it and decide upon how much it was he who was in the wrong, not a judge.
*shrug* That's just me and the majority i nBelgium, though.
#299
Norris
Norris
Why should he be forced to pay for the rest of his life? Because she and her family are going to have to pay for the rest of hers, both monetarily and with social perceptions (she's lost several "good" friends because they made jokes about her condition behind her back).
#300
Bubble181
Bubble181
Monetarily, they really aren't much worse off - in a state where there's decent health care; plus, the government provides them with aid. Socially - frankly, they were bad friends, good riddance. It's not a problem of the doctor's if they have friends with bad tastes in humour or a lack of empathy.
My point's simple: for them, the difference between a baby born with a genetic or natural birth defect and one born with a birth defect caused by medical incompetence is nil. In the US system, parents with the one receive next-to-nothing, hile the second receives, with some "luck" (I do agree it's not exactly a fitting choice of words, given the circumstances; most parents wouldp robably prefer just having their child without the birth defect) millions of dollars. In the Belgian system, both receive similar and equal care and help, while in the second case they'll also receive some reimbursement by the doctor for his mistake (I believe the maximum that can be awarded by a judge is somewhere in the $500,000 ballpark, though that's pretty much if the doctor made a MAJOR mistake that could and should have been easily avoided by even a novice), and the doctor receives punishment by a bench of equals who determine his medical qualities and whether or not he should be allowed to practice medicine again and if so, when. It seems to make more sense, to me.
My point's simple: for them, the difference between a baby born with a genetic or natural birth defect and one born with a birth defect caused by medical incompetence is nil. In the US system, parents with the one receive next-to-nothing, hile the second receives, with some "luck" (I do agree it's not exactly a fitting choice of words, given the circumstances; most parents wouldp robably prefer just having their child without the birth defect) millions of dollars. In the Belgian system, both receive similar and equal care and help, while in the second case they'll also receive some reimbursement by the doctor for his mistake (I believe the maximum that can be awarded by a judge is somewhere in the $500,000 ballpark, though that's pretty much if the doctor made a MAJOR mistake that could and should have been easily avoided by even a novice), and the doctor receives punishment by a bench of equals who determine his medical qualities and whether or not he should be allowed to practice medicine again and if so, when. It seems to make more sense, to me.
#301
Espy
I'm not saying your friend didn't deserve some compensation. I am saying that it doesn't mean the way the legal system is set up regarding doc's and their insurance, etc, is a good thing. A lot of people are getting rich on those lawsuits, and most of the time it's the guy charging 500 dollars an hour.
EDIT: Here's another pretty good article about it and the focus on defensive medicine and how much money is involved. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12973517
Espy
I agree, the idea is not to get rid of any responsibility regarding doc's. It's about changing a system that is specifically engineered to make money for lawyers and in doing so create a medical system that is not actually trying to help you but instead to legally protect itself, making EVERYONE suffer both financially and in their own medical procedures.Dorko said:Ok, I am ok to preface this by saying I am uneducated on the concept of tort reform. But every time I hear it \"simplified\", it translates to \"protect doctors from losing big lawsuits\". While I can sympathize with wanting to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, I have a slight personal reason to not see a cap put on damages that can be awarded to patients. See, my best friend in high school benefited from a lawsuit that paid out a big time amount (though she was unclear on just how much). Apparently, when she was born the doctor (who was older and a little bit older school, according to her parents at least) used some kind of tongs (likely with a better name) to pull her out. He squeezed too hard, and she ended up with birth defects because of it. One of her hands is largely useless (fully formed but the fingers don't really move) and one of her legs was shorter than the other (to the point of giving her a kind of limping walk, at least until she sacrificed a summer to get surgery to alleviate it). She qualifies as handicapped because of all this. Because a doctor smurfed up before she was even out of her mother. And you bet her parents sued, and you bet they got a lot of money. As they should have.
I'm not saying your friend didn't deserve some compensation. I am saying that it doesn't mean the way the legal system is set up regarding doc's and their insurance, etc, is a good thing. A lot of people are getting rich on those lawsuits, and most of the time it's the guy charging 500 dollars an hour.
EDIT: Here's another pretty good article about it and the focus on defensive medicine and how much money is involved. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12973517
#302
Norris
1) I disagree with the comparison mainly in that in the case of medical incompetence, it could have been prevented. Genetics can't be changed (or selected for cheaply) but a doctor's mistake could be avoided. To me, it's the difference between a car accident caused by a black ice versus one caused by a negligent driver. In one case, it was incredibly difficult to catch in time to avoid while the other was caused by the direct actions of someone.
2) Normally it's thousands. Not millions. Unless a doctor is fantastically well-to-do or screwed up in a way that defies belief.
Norris
We basically have to agree to disagree, because I'm coming at this from the perspective of living in the U.S. But I have two points to make:Bubble181 said:My point's simple: for them, the difference between a baby born with a genetic or natural birth defect and one born with a birth defect caused by medical incompetence is nil. In the US system, parents with the one receive next-to-nothing, hile the second receives, with some "luck" (I do agree it's not exactly a fitting choice of words, given the circumstances; most parents wouldp robably prefer just having their child without the birth defect) millions of dollars.
1) I disagree with the comparison mainly in that in the case of medical incompetence, it could have been prevented. Genetics can't be changed (or selected for cheaply) but a doctor's mistake could be avoided. To me, it's the difference between a car accident caused by a black ice versus one caused by a negligent driver. In one case, it was incredibly difficult to catch in time to avoid while the other was caused by the direct actions of someone.
2) Normally it's thousands. Not millions. Unless a doctor is fantastically well-to-do or screwed up in a way that defies belief.
Fair enough. But the solution isn't then capping how much a victim can collect, but capping how much of a percentage the lawyer is allowed to take of that. If it's the lawyers abusing the system, punish them. Not the patients.Espy said:It's about changing a system that is specifically engineered to make money for lawyers and in doing so create a medical system that is not actually trying to help you but instead to legally protect itself, making EVERYONE suffer both financially and in their own medical procedures.
#303
SpecialKO
The debt-holder could legally force the company to layoff employees, take possession of or sell off its assets, or even force a change of executive leadership.
Talk about a "hostile takeover".
SpecialKO
Not to mention, what if the company's short-term debt was bought out by another country or company?Bubble181 said:A 100% privatized army would mean your country is, effectively, run by that company. Wonderful.
The debt-holder could legally force the company to layoff employees, take possession of or sell off its assets, or even force a change of executive leadership.
Talk about a "hostile takeover".
#304
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz
And what's the incentive for that company to win a war? As soon as the war's done you don't need the army any more, so there are big layoffs, and you're left with no standing army. Or what if the company goes broke? Or what if, to prevent a monopoly you have several private armies in a country, what would make them work well together? What's to stop them from fighting each other in a bloody civil war?TeKeo said:Not to mention, what if the company's short-term debt was bought out by another country or company?Bubble181 said:A 100% privatized army would mean your country is, effectively, run by that company. Wonderful.
The debt-holder could legally force the company to layoff employees, take possession of or sell off its assets, or even force a change of executive leadership.
Talk about a "hostile takeover".
#305
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Man, I had a hell of a day yesterday with Canada's nightmarish healthcare system. I woke up with a bad clog in my ear (something I am prone to. I get horrible wax clogs that render me deaf in that ear) and was forced to go see a doctor for a proper flushing. So, I walk the two blocks to the local public health clinic and go inside, the receptionist tells me there will be about a half hours wait. I am ok with this as I am a walk in and did not make an appointment. So I sit in the waiting room and read a little bit of the third Harry Potter book when, and I am not kidding this actually happened, they called me in in only 16 minutes. Fuck, what a horrible experience. Then I walk into the examination room, explain to the doctor my issue, he takes me to the room with the sink and the nifty syringe and he flushes my ear out. Voila, I can hear again.
Man, my country's healthcare system blows.
Man, my country's healthcare system blows.
#306
crono1224
Or did you slip him some money?
Clearly you can't get decent care in a decent time.
crono1224
So this is after you crossed the boarder into america for that?Frankie said:Man, I had a * of a day yesterday with Canada's nightmarish healthcare system. I woke up with a bad clog in my ear (something I am prone to. I get horrible wax clogs that render me deaf in that ear) and was forced to go see a doctor for a proper flushing. So, I walk the two blocks to the local public health clinic and go inside, the receptionist tells me there will be about a half hours wait. I am ok with this as I am a walk in and did not make an appointment. So I sit in the waiting room and read a little bit of the third Harry Potter book when, and I am not kidding this actually happened, they called me in in only 16 minutes. smurf, what a horrible experience. Then I walk into the examination room, explain to the doctor my issue, he takes me to the room with the sink and the nifty syringe and he flushes my ear out. Voila, I can hear again.
Man, my country's healthcare system blows.
Or did you slip him some money?
Clearly you can't get decent care in a decent time.
#307
Covar
Covar
funny my friend I go swimming with had pretty much the exact same story when he had to get his ears cleaned. only difference was he gave his insurance information.
#308
Biardo
Biardo
I allready pay enough taxes on thoseSteve said:I'm for univeral health care with a mandatory physical every year. If you opt out of the physical then you pay 30% more taxes. If you smoke, are overweight, have a drug or alcohol problem or engage in any behavior that increases your risk to put a strain on healthcare which otherwise could have been prevented then you should get taxed at a higher rate. No sense in punishes people like me who are in prime physical condition. In fact those of us that are in perfect health, the kind that makes doctors get wet, we should pay less taxes.