If you will go back and read my posts, never once do I flatly say "this can't be done." I freely admit that there needs to be some way to cover the poorest of the poor, people who can't afford it. But it has to be done without screwing up what is currently working for 260 million people, too. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that sort of thing.
I haven't seen a plan yet that doesn't have some some serious baby-throwing-out attached to it.
It's nice to have hope, but there is a fine line between hope and naivete. I could stand on the observation deck of the Empire State Building and have hope I can fly. That's all well and good until ... splat.
Just because 260 million people have health insurance does NOT mean this system is working for them.
# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
Actually, the opposite is true. Malpractice costs would significantly decrease. (Yes, that's just one more way to save money.) This is because the major part of malpractice payouts are to cover future medical expenses after something has gone wrong, but with universal health care there would be no future medical expenses.
# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
Patient CARE is currently being compromised due to fragmented health information, so we need (and will probably get) this reform regardless of other health care reform.
I would even argue that patient confidentiality is compromised WITHOUT centrally-located health information because of the extra people the info must pass through to get from one doctor to the next.
# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
Sorry for all the posts, but I've had a long day at work and was just able to catch up on this thread. (Doesn't anyone else have a job during the day??)
44% of the drugs approved by the canadian health care authorities for use in their country are not allowed by the Health care system due to their high cost,as a result the death rate is 16% higher in canada than the united states. we will pay for the attempt to save 2 trillion with our lives. In canada colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer is 25% higher than the U.S.( Even though canada has a much smaller proportion of poor people,whose frequently bad diets make them more prone to the disease.
Once Obama care is put through to cover everyone,with no commensurate increase in the resources available,the change will be forever.The viscous cycle of cuts in medical resources and in the number of Doctors and nurses will doom Health Care in this country. This wanton destruction will not be reversible by any bill or program.A crucial part of our quality of life will be gone forever.
Politically, voters will feel the impact of these reforms very quickly. when we face rejection or limitation at the hands of bureaucrat's we will understand that our options have become limited. just as the HMO's in the 90's first became universal. The Patient outrage will create a political force all it;s own and those who foisted this shit on us will be in our cross hairs :x
Profit is a motivator? How many innovations have you seen on your electric bill? Most doctor's offices are behind the times in terms of the current technology available. But yes we have people in the most powerful country without insurance, without running water, without electricity..... and other services, so I would say they are fucked.... by the system. Like someone said 10 pages ago, many advancements, be it in medicine or otherwise are funded with government grants.
I think profit is a motivator in pretty much every business, but at the same time innovation and research and adopting new technologies are usually risky and not always profitable. But if you are already making a profit, most businesses will just keep on with the status quo. I see it all the time in my line of work, I am an engineer working on buildings. Contractors and landlords are totally not willing to take a risk on newer, innovative, more efficient technologies because they are usually more expensive and when there is competition you need to keep profits down to make a profit, so no one is willing to take a risk on innovation.
44% of the drugs approved by the canadian health care authorities for use in their country are not allowed by the Health care system due to their high cost,as a result the death rate is 16% higher in canada than the united states. we will pay for the attempt to save 2 trillion with our lives. In canada colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer is 25% higher than the U.S.( Even though canada has a much smaller proportion of poor people,whose frequently bad diets make them more prone to the disease.
um, we're talking about the US, not Canada...
I know you want to use these non-sourced stats and paint a horrible picture, which is fine...but they don't dissuade me...
I don't understand the argument that we shouldn't have universal health care because our quality of care will decline. We're such an instant gratification culture that we are more concerned with how long it will take to get care than what the outcome of that care will be. Let's remember that the United States is not the stellar model of health that we seem to think we are. We actually rank quite poorly when it comes to health outcomes, and are commonly outranked by countries that DO have universal health care. Here are just a few stats I pulled quickly off an American Public Health Association website:
•U.S. life expectancy ranks 46th in the world, behind Japan, most of Europe, and even countries such as South Korea and Jordan.
•A baby born today in the U.S is more likely to die before its first birthday than in almost any other developed country.
•Nearly one in 20 residents in the nation’s capital are HIV-positive.
•All minorities, except Alaska Natives, have a rate of type 2 diabetes that is two to six times greater than that of the white population.
as to the profit and innovation connection, not saying it doesn't exist, b/c of course it does...but it simply is NOT the ONLY motivator for innovation. most of the early inventions of the world were not started within a some business, but by some individual with a mental itch that needed to be scratched. there are countless innovative people who have ideas and theories, and work towards figuring them out out of pures desire and curiosity. obviously, in the medical field, one needs resources for such things....so it's not like inventing the intermittent wiper in your garage. however, within the medical field...it is the doctors and scientists, NOT the corps, who are the ACTUAL innovators and researchers...you know, the ones who figure these things out, create studies, make discoveries, test results, etc, etc. yes, that takes $$$....and LOTs of that $$$ comes from the GOVERNMENT. our government, and governments around the world, including MANY of the UHC countries...sponsor research. also, these doctors and scientists, NO one is suggesting they don't get paid, or make civil servant salaries...so their profit motivation remains intact. bottomline.....we don't need a health care model based on profit to have innovation. besides which, private industry STILL can innovate, research, make amazing discoveries....they simply have to sell it to the government at a reasonable cost. ya know, like they already do in UHC. perhaps if they didn't wine and dine doctors, spend a fortune advertising....and merely spent their $$$ on the research, they'd STILL be able to remain profitable. honestly, ALL these other countries with UHC already....have medical professionals, research scientists....drug companies.....all are profitable, and yet, still innovative. it's not a mutually exclusive arrangement.
scb - the day i start composing my posts for here in word is the day i tske this place TOO seriously. i've started preemptively 'control c'ing my posts before hitting submit when i get lengthy....just in case. ....and doing so now......
Politically, voters will feel the impact of these reforms very quickly. when we face rejection or limitation at the hands of bureaucrat's we will understand that our options have become limited. just as the HMO's in the 90's first became universal. The Patient outrage will create a political force all it;s own and those who foisted this shit on us will be in our cross hairs :x
THIS interests me.
i'd love to understand just HOW 'limited' our choices will become as oppose to today. there have been MANY posts saying we won't have options, less choice.....and i don't see that, at all. currently, with private insurance, i am already limited to what doctors, hospitals, procedures and meds will and won't be covered....so where exactly is the government going to limit that more? i think patient outrage is already in place in the US...thus why the concept of UHC IS being discussed, considered....hopefully implemented, and implemented well, in the future.
Politically, voters will feel the impact of these reforms very quickly. when we face rejection or limitation at the hands of bureaucrat's we will understand that our options have become limited. just as the HMO's in the 90's first became universal. The Patient outrage will create a political force all it;s own and those who foisted this shit on us will be in our cross hairs :x
THIS interests me.
i'd love to understand just HOW 'limited' our choices will become as oppose to today. there have been MANY posts saying we won't have options, less choice.....and i don't see that, at all. currently, with private insurance, i am already limited to what doctors, hospitals, procedures and meds will and won't be covered....so where exactly is the government going to limit that more? i think patient outrage is already in place in the US...thus why the concept of UHC IS being discussed, considered....hopefully implemented, and implemented well, in the future.
there you go again...making sense...stop it, will ya...
Politically, voters will feel the impact of these reforms very quickly. when we face rejection or limitation at the hands of bureaucrat's we will understand that our options have become limited. just as the HMO's in the 90's first became universal. The Patient outrage will create a political force all it;s own and those who foisted this shit on us will be in our cross hairs :x
THIS interests me.
i'd love to understand just HOW 'limited' our choices will become as oppose to today. there have been MANY posts saying we won't have options, less choice.....and i don't see that, at all. currently, with private insurance, i am already limited to what doctors, hospitals, procedures and meds will and won't be covered....so where exactly is the government going to limit that more? i think patient outrage is already in place in the US...thus why the concept of UHC IS being discussed, considered....hopefully implemented, and implemented well, in the future.
I don't know so much that the number of doctors you can visit would be reduced (although, with a major insurance provider like Humana, you can pretty much go anywhere).
What would definitely be reduced, for a lot of people, are the options you have as far as which plan you choose. Right now, I can choose between three options of varying prices and varying coverage levels. If I'm of relatively good health, and don't anticipate numerous trips to the doctor, I can buy a cheaper premium with a higher co-pay. If I'm a hypochondriac, and I know I'm going to be going to the doctor once a week, I can buy a more expensive policy with much lower co-pay and deductible levels.
I don't think I'd have such a choice under the government. You take what you get, and if it doesn't work for you, tough shit.
Here's the other thing. If I decide I don't need or want health insurance, I don't have to have it. Under UHC, as far as I understand it, it's tough shit again. You pay for it, via higher taxes, whether you want it or not. You don't really have the option to decline, even though they say you do.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Politically, voters will feel the impact of these reforms very quickly. when we face rejection or limitation at the hands of bureaucrat's we will understand that our options have become limited. just as the HMO's in the 90's first became universal. The Patient outrage will create a political force all it;s own and those who foisted this shit on us will be in our cross hairs :x
THIS interests me.
i'd love to understand just HOW 'limited' our choices will become as oppose to today. there have been MANY posts saying we won't have options, less choice.....and i don't see that, at all. currently, with private insurance, i am already limited to what doctors, hospitals, procedures and meds will and won't be covered....so where exactly is the government going to limit that more? i think patient outrage is already in place in the US...thus why the concept of UHC IS being discussed, considered....hopefully implemented, and implemented well, in the future.
I don't know so much that the number of doctors you can visit would be reduced (although, with a major insurance provider like Humana, you can pretty much go anywhere).
What would definitely be reduced, for a lot of people, are the options you have as far as which plan you choose. Right now, I can choose between three options of varying prices and varying coverage levels. If I'm of relatively good health, and don't anticipate numerous trips to the doctor, I can buy a cheaper premium with a higher co-pay. If I'm a hypochondriac, and I know I'm going to be going to the doctor once a week, I can buy a more expensive policy with much lower co-pay and deductible levels.
I don't think I'd have such a choice under the government. You take what you get, and if it doesn't work for you, tough shit.
Here's the other thing. If I decide I don't need or want health insurance, I don't have to have it. Under UHC, as far as I understand it, it's tough shit again. You pay for it, via higher taxes, whether you want it or not. You don't really have the option to decline, even though they say you do.
well i have to say, quite honestly......none of that concerns me, at all. i don't look at that for 'choice.' yes, you will HAVE to pay for healthcare tax. no choice. absolutely. there will be no 'plans'........just healthcare. while you can't get out of paying the tax, you won't be forced to go to the doctor either, so if you want to neglect your health, you will still absolutely be free to do so. as to 'getting what you get'......it's access to healthcare, as most of us have now. as to various plans, since it doesn't exist...i see no worry. i see you are focusing tho that you won't have choice in what you pay in, and you are correct. again, i don't have a problem with that. funny thing tho, at my work, i too have 3 options for healthcare insurers, and overall.....their costs are all eerily similar. seems similar for most people i know lucky enough to have access. so the thought of choice there, really not much choice imo...therefore i see the UHC as more choice, b/c of access to doctors and hospitals, and the like. to me, i look at it....you get ALL the coverage you can get.....and isn't that wonderful?
and btw - maybe it's a subconcious thing ...but you keep saying 'higher taxes'....and while yes, we WILL pay higher taxes.....we WON'T be paying for health insurance, so really as i have posted and others....there's no proof at all that our ACTUAL costs will go up at all. so while 'technically' correct, just seems a sneeky way to hint that UHC will be more expensive, whereas many of us believe it will not be, at all, and possibly less expensive...as has been posted in detail numerous times in this thread. then again, it may simply be my own paranoia there. :P
however, i DO see now, just how differently some people see this whole thing, and i truly DO appreciate gaining that understanding of such a different perspective.
however, i DO see now, just how differently some people see this whole thing, and i truly DO appreciate gaining that understanding of such a different perspective.
And that's basically my point. I don't think anybody in America would say it's right for people to die because they don't have access to health care.
My point is, hopefully someone somewhere can come up with a way to get everyone access to health care, while taking into account some of these other factors.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
however, i DO see now, just how differently some people see this whole thing, and i truly DO appreciate gaining that understanding of such a different perspective.
And that's basically my point. I don't think anybody in America would say it's right for people to die because they don't have access to health care.
My point is, hopefully someone somewhere can come up with a way to get everyone access to health care, while taking into account some of these other factors.
i agree with you there.
and sure, you ARE right in the whole idea of you will have no choice, you have to pay for it whether you want it or not, which right now....yea, you don't have to. since the focus of the discussion has always been about the 44 million UNinsured, i truly never give thought to the flip side. i guess for me it's unfathomable to think one would NOT want access to heathcare. granted, i do understand people not wanting to pay for it .....but i just think of the reality of the situation.
my parents had their own, small family business. only had a couple of non-family employees. however, with the healthplan they had for them all, even if an employee did not want to pay for coverage, my parents still had to pay in for the employee to be under the plan. the guy never went to the doctor in all the years he worked there, yet my parents always had to pay. needless to say, it annoyed them...mostly b/c it was such a waste. and then i think of people today, who would LOVe to have coverage. so yea...i guess we don't all appreciate our 'riches' until we don't have em. and i guess too, as i said, i cannot imagine NOT wanting healthcare.
however, i do hear ya.....
main thing in my mind is tho......just like education, i think healthcare is 'one of those things' we all should contribute to, support and participate in...b/c it IS for our own good, and our collective greater good too.
Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.
says who? you?
is eating a right?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.
says who? you?
is eating a right?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
I don't recall signing any such thing ...
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I do wonder, if a parent doesn't feed a child, would that parent get in trouble...?
what does this have to do with anything?
ha ha ha.... oh, the irony...you asked questions like:
says who? <----a question..
you? <----the addition of a question mark makes this a question...
is eating a right? <----wow, this looks to be a question...
what does this have to do with anything? <----what the heck, that sure looks like a question...
ok, mr. intelligent... :P
lets move on, I wonder, what does asking if eating is right have to do with anything...? ooops that's a question...sorry to make your widdle bwain hurt...
to explain, you asked a stupid question is eating a right?...I simply wondered what your stance was on this...I thought about the question is eating a right ? and wondered if a parent failed to feed a small child, would that parent be held accountable...I'm guessing you're saying eating is not a right, therefore not feeding a child doesn't infringe on said child's rights...your arguing that health care is not a right...you, my friend lumped them together...I was just seeking clarification on your logic...
Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.
says who? you?
is eating a right?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
no one is taking away the rights to health care, or food, or clothes. you seem to think people have the right to force others to perform services for them
Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.
says who? you?
is eating a right?
your answer to my question was another question, its very typical of you..
now stop acting like a fucking child with all your little hhahha and cutely spelled words. there are many people here making this a very respectable debate with excellent information. you bring nothing to the table
Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.
says who? you?
is eating a right?
your answer to my question was another question, its very typical of you..
now stop acting like a fucking child with all your little hhahha and cutely spelled words. there are many people here making this a very respectable debate with excellent information. you bring nothing to the table
ut oh, me in twouble...me sworrry....I'll be a good boy now...
I do find it funny that you think you bring sooo much to the table...yet you offer nothing outside of "we can't afford it"....good stuff, indeed...
ut oh, me in twouble...me sworrry....I'll be a good boy now...
I do find it funny that you think you bring sooo much to the table...yet you offer nothing outside of "we can't afford it"....good stuff, indeed...
I've posted several sources and given reasoning behind why "we cant afford it" as well as many other issues I have with UHC. no one here can deny that. so yes, I bring plenty to the table. you, on the other hand, do nothing of the sort besides these little smart ass comments that do nothing but antagonize and insult.
ut oh, me in twouble...me sworrry....I'll be a good boy now...
I do find it funny that you think you bring sooo much to the table...yet you offer nothing outside of "we can't afford it"....good stuff, indeed...
I've posted several sources and given reasoning behind why "we cant afford it" as well as many other issues I have with UHC. no one here can deny that. so yes, I bring plenty to the table. you, on the other hand, do nothing of the sort besides these little smart ass comments that do nothing but antagonize and insult.
how old r u anyway? 20? 21?
again with the "we can't afford it"...a one trick pony...giddy up, cowboy...a tip of the hat to everyone, I see...
why do you want to know how old I am...? am I turning you on or something...?
ut oh, me in twouble...me sworrry....I'll be a good boy now...
I do find it funny that you think you bring sooo much to the table...yet you offer nothing outside of "we can't afford it"....good stuff, indeed...
I've posted several sources and given reasoning behind why "we cant afford it" as well as many other issues I have with UHC. no one here can deny that. so yes, I bring plenty to the table. you, on the other hand, do nothing of the sort besides these little smart ass comments that do nothing but antagonize and insult.
how old r u anyway? 20? 21?
again with the "we can't afford it"...a one trick pony...giddy up, cowboy...a tip of the hat to everyone, I see...
look around champ....I've listed SEVERAL reasons why I dont think UHC would work. not being able to afford it, is just one reason. go back and read my posts, you're bound to learn a thing or two.
why do you want to know how old I am...? am I turning you on or something...?
um, no you dont. thanks for asking though. I only ask your age because you act like a little kid. someone with not much life experience. like some college kid who thinks he has all the answers but really has no fucking clue. I was being really generous when I said u might be 20 or 21. you post like you are about 15 or 16...but I'm just assuming you might be at least college age.
Here's the other thing. If I decide I don't need or want health insurance, I don't have to have it. Under UHC, as far as I understand it, it's tough shit again. You pay for it, via higher taxes, whether you want it or not. You don't really have the option to decline, even though they say you do.
But if you are brought into an emergerncy room, even in the US from what I understand, the doctors have to treat you and don't have the choice to kick you out if you can't pay. So essentially if you choose to have no insurance, if you are brought in to a hospital and either die before paying, or rack up a bill you can't pay before being stable enough to leave you are basically depending on everyone else to pay for your medical care.
Comments
Just because 260 million people have health insurance does NOT mean this system is working for them.
17.1 million people under age 65 were UNDERinsured in 2003, including 9.3 million people with employer-based insurance. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/health/uninsured/underinsured.html
Medical bills contribute to half of all personal bankruptcies. Three-fourths of those bankrupted had health insurance at the time they got sick or injured.
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/pnhp_research_the_case_for_a_national_health_program.php
Maybe you could compose your posts in Word and then just cut and paste - that way you wouldn't lose what you had written.
Actually, the opposite is true. Malpractice costs would significantly decrease. (Yes, that's just one more way to save money.) This is because the major part of malpractice payouts are to cover future medical expenses after something has gone wrong, but with universal health care there would be no future medical expenses.
Says who?
Patient CARE is currently being compromised due to fragmented health information, so we need (and will probably get) this reform regardless of other health care reform.
I would even argue that patient confidentiality is compromised WITHOUT centrally-located health information because of the extra people the info must pass through to get from one doctor to the next.
Sorry to break it to you, but healthcare IS a right.
Politically, voters will feel the impact of these reforms very quickly. when we face rejection or limitation at the hands of bureaucrat's we will understand that our options have become limited. just as the HMO's in the 90's first became universal. The Patient outrage will create a political force all it;s own and those who foisted this shit on us will be in our cross hairs :x
I think profit is a motivator in pretty much every business, but at the same time innovation and research and adopting new technologies are usually risky and not always profitable. But if you are already making a profit, most businesses will just keep on with the status quo. I see it all the time in my line of work, I am an engineer working on buildings. Contractors and landlords are totally not willing to take a risk on newer, innovative, more efficient technologies because they are usually more expensive and when there is competition you need to keep profits down to make a profit, so no one is willing to take a risk on innovation.
says who? you?
is eating a right?
um, we're talking about the US, not Canada...
I know you want to use these non-sourced stats and paint a horrible picture, which is fine...but they don't dissuade me...
great question...is eating a right...? gosh, I don't know...what's your stance on this thought provoking question...?
I do wonder, if a parent doesn't feed a child, would that parent get in trouble...?
EXACTLY.
as to the profit and innovation connection, not saying it doesn't exist, b/c of course it does...but it simply is NOT the ONLY motivator for innovation. most of the early inventions of the world were not started within a some business, but by some individual with a mental itch that needed to be scratched. there are countless innovative people who have ideas and theories, and work towards figuring them out out of pures desire and curiosity. obviously, in the medical field, one needs resources for such things....so it's not like inventing the intermittent wiper in your garage. however, within the medical field...it is the doctors and scientists, NOT the corps, who are the ACTUAL innovators and researchers...you know, the ones who figure these things out, create studies, make discoveries, test results, etc, etc. yes, that takes $$$....and LOTs of that $$$ comes from the GOVERNMENT. our government, and governments around the world, including MANY of the UHC countries...sponsor research. also, these doctors and scientists, NO one is suggesting they don't get paid, or make civil servant salaries...so their profit motivation remains intact. bottomline.....we don't need a health care model based on profit to have innovation. besides which, private industry STILL can innovate, research, make amazing discoveries....they simply have to sell it to the government at a reasonable cost. ya know, like they already do in UHC. perhaps if they didn't wine and dine doctors, spend a fortune advertising....and merely spent their $$$ on the research, they'd STILL be able to remain profitable. honestly, ALL these other countries with UHC already....have medical professionals, research scientists....drug companies.....all are profitable, and yet, still innovative. it's not a mutually exclusive arrangement.
scb - the day i start composing my posts for here in word is the day i tske this place TOO seriously.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
THIS interests me.
i'd love to understand just HOW 'limited' our choices will become as oppose to today. there have been MANY posts saying we won't have options, less choice.....and i don't see that, at all. currently, with private insurance, i am already limited to what doctors, hospitals, procedures and meds will and won't be covered....so where exactly is the government going to limit that more? i think patient outrage is already in place in the US...thus why the concept of UHC IS being discussed, considered....hopefully implemented, and implemented well, in the future.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
there you go again...making sense...stop it, will ya...
I don't know so much that the number of doctors you can visit would be reduced (although, with a major insurance provider like Humana, you can pretty much go anywhere).
What would definitely be reduced, for a lot of people, are the options you have as far as which plan you choose. Right now, I can choose between three options of varying prices and varying coverage levels. If I'm of relatively good health, and don't anticipate numerous trips to the doctor, I can buy a cheaper premium with a higher co-pay. If I'm a hypochondriac, and I know I'm going to be going to the doctor once a week, I can buy a more expensive policy with much lower co-pay and deductible levels.
I don't think I'd have such a choice under the government. You take what you get, and if it doesn't work for you, tough shit.
Here's the other thing. If I decide I don't need or want health insurance, I don't have to have it. Under UHC, as far as I understand it, it's tough shit again. You pay for it, via higher taxes, whether you want it or not. You don't really have the option to decline, even though they say you do.
for the least they could possibly do
you love answering questions with questions. true sign of ones intelligence.
what does this have to do with anything?
well i have to say, quite honestly......none of that concerns me, at all. i don't look at that for 'choice.' yes, you will HAVE to pay for healthcare tax. no choice. absolutely. there will be no 'plans'........just healthcare. while you can't get out of paying the tax, you won't be forced to go to the doctor either, so if you want to neglect your health, you will still absolutely be free to do so. as to 'getting what you get'......it's access to healthcare, as most of us have now. as to various plans, since it doesn't exist...i see no worry. i see you are focusing tho that you won't have choice in what you pay in, and you are correct. again, i don't have a problem with that. funny thing tho, at my work, i too have 3 options for healthcare insurers, and overall.....their costs are all eerily similar. seems similar for most people i know lucky enough to have access. so the thought of choice there, really not much choice imo...therefore i see the UHC as more choice, b/c of access to doctors and hospitals, and the like. to me, i look at it....you get ALL the coverage you can get.....and isn't that wonderful?
and btw - maybe it's a subconcious thing
however, i DO see now, just how differently some people see this whole thing, and i truly DO appreciate gaining that understanding of such a different perspective.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
And that's basically my point. I don't think anybody in America would say it's right for people to die because they don't have access to health care.
My point is, hopefully someone somewhere can come up with a way to get everyone access to health care, while taking into account some of these other factors.
for the least they could possibly do
i agree with you there.
and sure, you ARE right in the whole idea of you will have no choice, you have to pay for it whether you want it or not, which right now....yea, you don't have to. since the focus of the discussion has always been about the 44 million UNinsured, i truly never give thought to the flip side. i guess for me it's unfathomable to think one would NOT want access to heathcare. granted, i do understand people not wanting to pay for it
my parents had their own, small family business. only had a couple of non-family employees. however, with the healthplan they had for them all, even if an employee did not want to pay for coverage, my parents still had to pay in for the employee to be under the plan. the guy never went to the doctor in all the years he worked there, yet my parents always had to pay. needless to say, it annoyed them...mostly b/c it was such a waste. and then i think of people today, who would LOVe to have coverage. so yea...i guess we don't all appreciate our 'riches' until we don't have em. and i guess too, as i said, i cannot imagine NOT wanting healthcare.
however, i do hear ya.....
main thing in my mind is tho......just like education, i think healthcare is 'one of those things' we all should contribute to, support and participate in...b/c it IS for our own good, and our collective greater good too.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
I don't recall signing any such thing ...
for the least they could possibly do
ha ha ha....
says who? <----a question..
you? <----the addition of a question mark makes this a question...
is eating a right? <----wow, this looks to be a question...
what does this have to do with anything? <----what the heck, that sure looks like a question...
ok, mr. intelligent... :P
lets move on, I wonder, what does asking if eating is right have to do with anything...? ooops that's a question...sorry to make your widdle bwain hurt...
to explain, you asked a stupid question is eating a right?...I simply wondered what your stance was on this...I thought about the question is eating a right ? and wondered if a parent failed to feed a small child, would that parent be held accountable...I'm guessing you're saying eating is not a right, therefore not feeding a child doesn't infringe on said child's rights...your arguing that health care is not a right...you, my friend lumped them together...I was just seeking clarification on your logic...
um. I didnt answer a question with a question. I asked a question in regards to a statement. glad we cleared that up.
no one is taking away the rights to health care, or food, or clothes. you seem to think people have the right to force others to perform services for them
you did...and really? how so...?
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaaa.....
scb made a statement. I asked a question in regards to his statement.
your answer to my question was another question, its very typical of you..
now stop acting like a fucking child with all your little hhahha and cutely spelled words. there are many people here making this a very respectable debate with excellent information. you bring nothing to the table
ut oh, me in twouble...me sworrry....I'll be a good boy now...
I do find it funny that you think you bring sooo much to the table...yet you offer nothing outside of "we can't afford it"....good stuff, indeed...
I've posted several sources and given reasoning behind why "we cant afford it" as well as many other issues I have with UHC. no one here can deny that. so yes, I bring plenty to the table. you, on the other hand, do nothing of the sort besides these little smart ass comments that do nothing but antagonize and insult.
how old r u anyway? 20? 21?
again with the "we can't afford it"...a one trick pony...giddy up, cowboy...a tip of the hat to everyone, I see...
why do you want to know how old I am...? am I turning you on or something...?
look around champ....I've listed SEVERAL reasons why I dont think UHC would work. not being able to afford it, is just one reason. go back and read my posts, you're bound to learn a thing or two.
um, no you dont. thanks for asking though. I only ask your age because you act like a little kid. someone with not much life experience. like some college kid who thinks he has all the answers but really has no fucking clue. I was being really generous when I said u might be 20 or 21. you post like you are about 15 or 16...but I'm just assuming you might be at least college age.
But if you are brought into an emergerncy room, even in the US from what I understand, the doctors have to treat you and don't have the choice to kick you out if you can't pay. So essentially if you choose to have no insurance, if you are brought in to a hospital and either die before paying, or rack up a bill you can't pay before being stable enough to leave you are basically depending on everyone else to pay for your medical care.