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:
- Status
S
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:
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 $1000 for it if people aren't willing to pay it? For such strong proponents of supply and demand that seems a bit of a flaw
Other than the current percentage of uninsured people, you have to count that a lot of people have insurances that are anything but that--they only cover the bare minimum, and are full of fail-safes and trapdoors all around (at least from what I've been reading for two years in Times and other assorted places).
With the % of your budget you spend on healthcare you should be able to put in place a system that would put most countries' to shame... Ah well, lobbyists be damned.
With the % of your budget you spend on healthcare you should be able to put in place a system that would put most countries' to shame... Ah well, lobbyists be damned.
Yeah, I mean, the people who don't have universal healthcare (i.e. UStatians) must know a lot more about it than the ones who do (i.e. a fucking lot of other countries), so you are probably right in your fear (phobia would be more like it).Armadillo said:
Of course, if I get it right single-payer means no private medical companies... And I don't get where the hell do you get that idea from. I mean, half the time I go to public healthcare, but I have an insurance too!
Well, no one's saying you should go communist...@Li3n said:
Who exactly tells him teh surgery is worth 1000$?![/quote:3n47e8dt]
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:
(I'm sorry I'm always speaking about my country's case, but I think it IS a good example.)
Listen to DenDenbrought said:
(Sorry for the Looong Post. I'm done for now).
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:
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.
1-It guarantees healthcare for everyone.Covar said:
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.
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:
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
Ha ha, you've known me long enough to know I'm not sly! Thanks for the compliment though!Espy said:
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.
S
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).
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:
If you re-read my original post you know I agree with this. You sly dog. Sly-ster. Sly-a-riffic. :tongue:Krisken said:
@ 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?
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:
(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!
)
S
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.
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:
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:
S
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 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]
J
JCM
Medicare isn't what nationalized healthcare is supposed to be, I wouldn't use it as a detracting point ~_~blotsfan said:
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:
S
Singularity.EXE
So I kinda got this from the Daily Show, but what the hell.blotsfan said:
Is the healthcare supplied to our Armed Forces provided by a private company or is it government run?
S
Steven Soderburgin
Can you at least provide a source for this?blotsfan said:
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.
Who is much more justified in stealing from you then the government is stealing from him?!blotsfan said:
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.
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*
- Status