part of the reason health care costs so much

Pepe Silvia

jlew24asu wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

ok, but isn't the short run moves 'what really drives profit' and not giving people actual health care?

yes, i do think health care is a right, it's in our best interests to have a healthy nation, i believe even George Washington thought the health and education of the people were 2 of the most deserving things a government should spend money on

healthcare is useless if the quality if shit and bankrupts this country. I'm all for reform of the current system, but UHC is not the answer.

teh rest of the world disagrees, but hey, if you're cool with having more uninsured americans than the entire population of Canada......

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

ok, but isn't the short run moves 'what really drives profit' and not giving people actual health care?

yes, i do think health care is a right, it's in our best interests to have a healthy nation, i believe even George Washington thought the health and education of the people were 2 of the most deserving things a government should spend money on

healthcare is useless if the quality if shit and bankrupts this country. I'm all for reform of the current system, but UHC is not the answer.

Then what do you propose? Also, there seems to be plenty of evidence from those in the field of health care that the costs are not unmanageable and it might actually increase the freedom of people to choose doctors.

Jeanwah

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

scb wrote:

Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't understand how "people don't work for free" answers the question "what are your criteria for determining whether or not someone deserves health care". Will you please explain it a little more explicitly? I'm looking more for a checklist of qualifications or something. Like, what would be on your application/questionairre when you determine whether or not someone is deserving of health care.

And again, maybe I'm just slow, but I need to stick to one question at a time in order to follow the conversation.

you must be slow then sorry.

Count me in with her then... cos I don't get it either. How does that answer the question? The closest I can guess is that you're trying to say that one has to be employed to deserve health care without having to actually come out and say it?

I'm with scb also...jlew - please answer the question more specifically. The least you can do jlew, is be more specific of the criteria determining whether someone qualifies for health care or not. And I'm talking more than one short sentence.

Jeanwah

jlew24asu wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

ok, but isn't the short run moves 'what really drives profit' and not giving people actual health care?

yes, i do think health care is a right, it's in our best interests to have a healthy nation, i believe even George Washington thought the health and education of the people were 2 of the most deserving things a government should spend money on

healthcare is useless if the quality if shit and bankrupts this country. I'm all for reform of the current system, but UHC is not the answer.

And your detailed solution is?

polaris_x

uhc in principle is great ... but it will not work in the US ... it only works in conjunction with an overall socialized philosophy ... unfortunately, there are too many special interests groups that's purpose is to make mass profits ... you cannot base a health care system with that as your foundation ...

uhc is barely hanging on in canada here ... it's only surviving because most people believe in it but slowly and surely - those special interest groups are making their way into a system that is teetering ... it's been on a decline for 2 decades now ...

_

polaris_x wrote:

uhc in principle is great ... but it will not work in the US ... it only works in conjunction with an overall socialized philosophy ... unfortunately, there are too many special interests groups that's purpose is to make mass profits ... you cannot base a health care system with that as your foundation ...

uhc is barely hanging on in canada here ... it's only surviving because most people believe in it but slowly and surely - those special interest groups are making their way into a system that is teetering ... it's been on a decline for 2 decades now ...

What if we did away with the special interest groups?

polaris_x

scb wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

uhc in principle is great ... but it will not work in the US ... it only works in conjunction with an overall socialized philosophy ... unfortunately, there are too many special interests groups that's purpose is to make mass profits ... you cannot base a health care system with that as your foundation ...

uhc is barely hanging on in canada here ... it's only surviving because most people believe in it but slowly and surely - those special interest groups are making their way into a system that is teetering ... it's been on a decline for 2 decades now ...

What if we did away with the special interest groups?

well ... you still have to convince half the population that a socialist idea is a good thing ... probably the bigger of the two challenges ...

decides2dream

polaris_x wrote:

scb wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

uhc in principle is great ... but it will not work in the US ... it only works in conjunction with an overall socialized philosophy ... unfortunately, there are too many special interests groups that's purpose is to make mass profits ... you cannot base a health care system with that as your foundation ...

uhc is barely hanging on in canada here ... it's only surviving because most people believe in it but slowly and surely - those special interest groups are making their way into a system that is teetering ... it's been on a decline for 2 decades now ...

What if we did away with the special interest groups?

well ... you still have to convince half the population that a socialist idea is a good thing ... probably the bigger of the two challenges ...

we have public schools, we have food stamps, we have unemployment insurance, disability insurance, etc. i don't think we have too big of a problem embracing a 'social idea'.....since we already embrace many.

Pepe Silvia

decides2dream wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

scb wrote:

What if we did away with the special interest groups?

well ... you still have to convince half the population that a socialist idea is a good thing ... probably the bigger of the two challenges ...

we have public schools, we have food stamps, we have unemployment insurance, disability insurance, etc. i don't think we have too big of a problem embracing a 'social idea'.....since we already embrace many.

or maybe we do....remember a few years ago when Bush veto'd giving health insurance to everyone under 18? what was his reason? because it was too much like socialism.

we might not have a problem since there are already several socialistic programs but it's still a bad word to a large % of the population

polaris_x

decides2dream wrote:

we have public schools, we have food stamps, we have unemployment insurance, disability insurance, etc. i don't think we have too big of a problem embracing a 'social idea'.....since we already embrace many.

yeah ... but there are many who don't believe in even those things ...

decides2dream

polaris_x wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

we have public schools, we have food stamps, we have unemployment insurance, disability insurance, etc. i don't think we have too big of a problem embracing a 'social idea'.....since we already embrace many.

yeah ... but there are many who don't believe in even those things ...

point is....they DO exist and i doubt they're going anywhere either. so 'socialistic' ideas, in and of themselves....are not all viewed as *bad.* also, a big part of obama's platform was an overhaul/reform of healthcare...so i think there are a LOT more people willing to explore these ideas. do the majority want it? idk. however, i think many, many people re absolutely sick and tired - literally - of our current for profit, private healthcare industry.

jlew24asu

polaris_x wrote:

well ... you still have to convince half the population that a socialist idea is a good thing ... probably the bigger of the two challenges ...

but socialism is not a good thing. and can be proven.

soulsinging

scb wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

uhc in principle is great ... but it will not work in the US ... it only works in conjunction with an overall socialized philosophy ... unfortunately, there are too many special interests groups that's purpose is to make mass profits ... you cannot base a health care system with that as your foundation ...

uhc is barely hanging on in canada here ... it's only surviving because most people believe in it but slowly and surely - those special interest groups are making their way into a system that is teetering ... it's been on a decline for 2 decades now ...

What if we did away with the special interest groups?

I'm all for that, but how exactly do you propose to do that?

polaris_x

decides2dream wrote:

point is....they DO exist and i doubt they're going anywhere either. so 'socialistic' ideas, in and of themselves....are not all viewed as *bad.* also, a big part of obama's platform was an overhaul/reform of healthcare...so i think there are a LOT more people willing to explore these ideas. do the majority want it? idk. however, i think many, many people re absolutely sick and tired - literally - of our current for profit, private healthcare industry.

i understand your point ... but my point is that socialist ideas only work when you have a majority buy in ... not when only half the population buys in ... it's like living in a village where half the people want to share their labour and the other doesn't ... inevitably the system breaks down ...

also - as silly as it was - the campaign against Obama were trying to pinpoint him as a "socialist" ... something that apparently pissed a lot of people off simply on the notion of the word ...

Pepe Silvia

jlew24asu wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

well ... you still have to convince half the population that a socialist idea is a good thing ... probably the bigger of the two challenges ...

but socialism is not a good thing. and can be proven.

is our form of capitalism proving to be a good thing? i guess for some

jlew24asu

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

is our form of capitalism proving to be a good thing? i guess for some

yes. capitalism has it flaws, all systems do. but its far better then socialism.

decides2dream

polaris_x wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

point is....they DO exist and i doubt they're going anywhere either. so 'socialistic' ideas, in and of themselves....are not all viewed as *bad.* also, a big part of obama's platform was an overhaul/reform of healthcare...so i think there are a LOT more people willing to explore these ideas. do the majority want it? idk. however, i think many, many people re absolutely sick and tired - literally - of our current for profit, private healthcare industry.

i understand your point ... but my point is that socialist ideas only work when you have a majority buy in ... not when only half the population buys in ... it's like living in a village where half the people want to share their labour and the other doesn't ... inevitably the system breaks down ...

also - as silly as it was - the campaign against Obama were trying to pinpoint him as a "socialist" ... something that apparently pissed a lot of people off simply on the notion of the word ...

and i understood yours. the real point is, neither you or i know, definitively what the majority wants.....and it could well be UHC. or not. also, many throw around 'labels' to combat an idea they're against, remember how everyone was a communist back in the 50s? or hell, even at the start of the iraq war, many were accusd of being against america and unpatriotic b/c they spoke out against dubya and the government? so yea...people can label away, doesn't make it fit......and 'socialist' idea or not, as i already said, we as a country already have in place many, many socialist programs. so we shall see just what america wants. one thing is for sure, whether UHC or some form....many, many people are quite unhappy with the status quo of our current healthcare industry and desire change. how much change? remains to be seen. altho even there, i personally imagine our actual citizens are open to a lot more ideas than our healthcare, for profit industry is....and that is the bigget obstacle. still, doesn't mean it can't be done.

polaris_x

decides2dream wrote:

and i understood yours. the real point is, neither you or i know, definitively what the majority wants.....and it could well be UHC. or not. also, many throw around 'labels' to combat an idea they're against, remember how everyone was a communist back in the 50s? or hell, even at the start of the iraq war, many were accusd of being against america and unpatriotic b/c they spoke out against dubya and the government? so yea...people can label away, doesn't make it fit......and 'socialist' idea or not, as i already said, we as a country already have in place many, many socialist programs. so we shall see just what america wants. one thing is for sure, whether UHC or some form....many, many people are quite unhappy with the status quo of our current healthcare industry and desire change. how much change? remains to be seen. altho even there, i personally imagine our actual citizens are open to a lot more ideas than our healthcare, for profit industry is....and that is the bigget obstacle. still, doesn't mean it can't be done.

how is public education working?

Pepe Silvia

decides2dream wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

point is....they DO exist and i doubt they're going anywhere either. so 'socialistic' ideas, in and of themselves....are not all viewed as *bad.* also, a big part of obama's platform was an overhaul/reform of healthcare...so i think there are a LOT more people willing to explore these ideas. do the majority want it? idk. however, i think many, many people re absolutely sick and tired - literally - of our current for profit, private healthcare industry.

i understand your point ... but my point is that socialist ideas only work when you have a majority buy in ... not when only half the population buys in ... it's like living in a village where half the people want to share their labour and the other doesn't ... inevitably the system breaks down ...

also - as silly as it was - the campaign against Obama were trying to pinpoint him as a "socialist" ... something that apparently pissed a lot of people off simply on the notion of the word ...

and i understood yours. the real point is, neither you or i know, definitively what the majority wants.....and it could well be UHC. or not. also, many throw around 'labels' to combat an idea they're against, remember how everyone was a communist back in the 50s? or hell, even at the start of the iraq war, many were accusd of being against america and unpatriotic b/c they spoke out against dubya and the government? so yea...people can label away, doesn't make it fit......and 'socialist' idea or not, as i already said, we as a country already have in place many, many socialist programs. so we shall see just what america wants. one thing is for sure, whether UHC or some form....many, many people are quite unhappy with the status quo of our current healthcare industry and desire change. how much change? remains to be seen. altho even there, i personally imagine our actual citizens are open to a lot more ideas than our healthcare, for profit industry is....and that is the bigget obstacle. still, doesn't mean it can't be done.

i think poll show over 70% of the population is in favor of UHC

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

is our form of capitalism proving to be a good thing? i guess for some

yes. capitalism has it flaws, all systems do. but its far better then socialism.

our system has many attributes of socialism....social security/medicare being the obvious

UHC is required because the health care industry is raping the public....they are monopolies