I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

decides2dream · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

I was just taking a guess. I dont know for sure. but it only makes sense...insurance is more expensive the older you get, and especially so with existing conditions.

you forgot to mention the loss of quality care in your non profit health care system. you comfortable with that too?

Am I comfortable with the perceived notion of some sort of loss of quality care? With due respect, Jlew...you don't this will be the case...no one does...

of course I do. its basic supply and demand laws.

inmytree wrote:

I do know this...I'm comfortable with my police protection, with the city fire fighters, with my local social services. I know bushy's part D Medicaid costs an extra 15 billion to have private insurance companies do the same work as gov't employees who were doing the same thing...

call me kooky, but I'll take my chances on a gov't run system....

ok kooky. you take your crap run government hospital, long lines, and bottom of the barrel doctors.... and I'll take my high quality care at a premium. then I guess we'll both be happy.

jlew, i am sure you DO realize that even within the universal model, there is ALWAYS 'private doctors if one desires...just like within our vast public school system, there are always private schools. i think that, just like education.....all our citizens should have access to healthcare, for life.

i don't know about you, but most people i know pay for their healthcare thru their employers, and once they retire, the portion of their helathcare paid for by employers may change, drastically. i know right now with my firm, i pay 30%, the firm 70%....and that is not meant to change with retirement,m tho we'll see in 20-25 years if that's the case. with my husband, he too pays 30% now, employer 70%....but when he retires, it reverses, as in then he has to pick up 70%. the idea of when you are old, after you've made your major contribution to society, at a time in your life when you most need healthcare....and you may not be able to afford it.....is simply criminal imo. so yea, universal coverage for all, for life. it may be imperfect, there will always be issues - what system doesn't have issues? - but at the very least, the idea that access and help will be there, yes...i'm all for it.

jlew24asu · May 2009

Evil Merlin Part Deux wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Evil Merlin Part Deux wrote:

So if all money was just suddenly burned up, then all structures we've already built would just crumble, and we could no longer build? Basically, we've become skill retarded instantaneously? Until of course...more money was printed? :P

jlew24asu wrote:

can we please talk about realistic solutions?? anyone? anyone?

And you've offered what? Why not try and build on something...anything?

Or think of a starting point on your own that we can all build on?

I never said I had the answers. personally, I'm willing to see what Obama has to offer. his seems to be rather fair, keeping a private along side a public run system. but I would never support UHC.

you and commy seem to be promoting a world with no money. and you don't see how pointless and worthless that suggestion is?

Commy · May 2009

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But if there is say a limited value of good meat or good veggies or property, how do you decide that what the hunter or the farmer does is worth more than say what the barber or the mechanic does or the doctor does? And what is stopping one of those guys from offering the farmer or the hunter preferential treatment, or just better service, at their shops in exchange for some of that good meat. And right there you have just made meat a basic currency in your so called "money free society".

resource based economy.

its a group decision . the people of the community decide. spontaneously. there are no rules. its not like every time the hunter brings in 2 deer or whatever he gets better meat. its a natural decision. group decision.

the meat doesn't belong to the hunter, it belongs to the community. if it becomes an issue, make a stew.

its been done in the past. the island of east timor was purely socialist, pre-indonesian genocide, and they didn't have these little fights over cuts of meet or the good orange.

if you're starting with an island of people that want the community to succeed, these little power struggles won't exist. its a natural evolution of thought, putting hte good of the community above the individual.

A motivator for labor will be recognition from ones peers (piers?). if you do well that day, your labor will be recognized, that's all anyone really strives for anyway, to be recognized for a job well done.

who gets the better cut of meat was a good question, and you're right, you can't reward labor with the better goods, it will breed selfishness, the very thing we are trying to avoid. its a good question, one that i have to think about a bit. i'll get back to you.

inmytree · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

I was just taking a guess. I dont know for sure. but it only makes sense...insurance is more expensive the older you get, and especially so with existing conditions.

you forgot to mention the loss of quality care in your non profit health care system. you comfortable with that too?

Am I comfortable with the perceived notion of some sort of loss of quality care? With due respect, Jlew...you don't this will be the case...no one does...

of course I do. its basic supply and demand laws.

inmytree wrote:

I do know this...I'm comfortable with my police protection, with the city fire fighters, with my local social services. I know bushy's part D Medicaid costs an extra 15 billion to have private insurance companies do the same work as gov't employees who were doing the same thing...

call me kooky, but I'll take my chances on a gov't run system....

ok kooky. you take your crap run government hospital, long lines, and bottom of the barrel doctors.... and I'll take my high quality care at a premium. then I guess we'll both be happy.

lol...your soothsaying abilities are uncanny...your pretend to know how it would look and how things will happen...I wonder, why aren't the elderly and those on medicare trading in their crappy insurance and buying into the premium stuff....what a bunch of dumbasses they must be...

Commy · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

you and commy seem to be promoting a world with no money. and you don't see how pointless and worthless that suggestion is?

its been done successfully in the past. crime was virtually eliminated. the majority of crimes committed today are either motivated by greed or passion, without money you get rid of a large percentage of those crimes.

jlew24asu · May 2009

inmytree wrote:

lol...your soothsaying abilities are uncanny...your pretend to know how it would look and how things will happen...I wonder, why aren't the elderly and those on medicare trading in their crappy insurance and buying into the premium stuff....what a bunch of dumbasses they must be...

like I said, you take your crap run government shit, and I'll have mine. there is a big difference when talking about taking care of our elderly, which we already cant afford, and then apply it to the ENTIRE population.

how do you think we would pay for it anyway? the numbers are staggering.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4842931.html
(from 05)
While President George W. Bush remains focused on Social Security, an even bigger fiscal time bomb is ticking away in the United States—Medicare.

The Social Security trust fund is projected to become exhausted in 2041, but the public health system runs completely dry much sooner: in 2020. What is more, to bring Social Security into balance over the next 75 years would require a 15 percent increase in payroll taxes today (or a corresponding reduction in benefits), whereas bringing Medicare into balance would require an immediate 107 percent increase in revenue (or a 48 percent reduction in outlays).Even more significant, the present underfunding of Medicare ($29.7 trillion) is more than seven times that of Social Security ($4 trillion).

jlew24asu · May 2009

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

you and commy seem to be promoting a world with no money. and you don't see how pointless and worthless that suggestion is?

its been done successfully in the past. crime was virtually eliminated. the majority of crimes committed today are either motivated by greed or passion, without money you get rid of a large percentage of those crimes.

are you still pushing this no money novice idea? ok i'll bite. when and where did it work in the past

decides2dream · May 2009

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

you and commy seem to be promoting a world with no money. and you don't see how pointless and worthless that suggestion is?

its been done successfully in the past. crime was virtually eliminated. the majority of crimes committed today are either motivated by greed or passion, without money you get rid of a large percentage of those crimes.

does one need money to have crimes of greed or passion?
i don't think doing away with currency, alone, will have any bearing on crime. one can be greey for goods without having any money in the equation.

and damnit, i wrote another post and it got lost in the vastness of the internet, and i am far too lazy to retype. :P

Evil Merlin Part Deux · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

I never said I had the answers. personally, I'm willing to see what Obama has to offer. his seems to be rather fair, keeping a private along side a public run system. but I would never support UHC.

you and commy seem to be promoting a world with no money. and you don't see how pointless and worthless that suggestion is?

I was stating that people should open up and try to understand it before starting a counter argument using money as the backbone of the argument. That doesn't offer anything. Why not dive in, and find the imperfections of the system without using money. Focus on the system, not greed. That's all. Let's throw out greed, find a system that works, then implement the value. You guys are closing off the argument in an ass backwards way. Just jump on it and go with it and see if you have any ideas of your own that you could throw in there.

However, yes, if money never existed I do think we would be fine. Why? We're here to live, and we'll provide to survive. That's all. Obviously it's just in theory. So no, it's not completely pointless, it's getting our creative minds working into gathering thoughts to provide the best working system for us all. I know you don't have the answers, I don't have the answers either, and commy doesn't have them either, but if the three of us represented the majority of the living...I'm pretty sure we could all sit down and come up with something that works for the majority of us overtime if that's what we devoted some time and energy to, which we're not, but you get it...

Just like you can say "do you think people will work for free?" I can ask "if a dollar bill never existed does that mean a cement foundation, and a dry walled aluminum frame would never be created?" We can both answer no, and then nothing is ever done.

Seems like why nothing ever gets done in our government system. Us as citizens shouldn't drag that out too. Just like for some reason you think you'd get bottom of the barrel healthcare under a universal system without any actual research to back that up, rather than jump on you and completely discount you 100% without giving you a chance, d2d offers universal healthcare for all, but you have a choice to keep your private health care if you're able and willing to do that... a thought to benefit her needs and yours. It's an idea.

See, building on ideas that is all. No harm.

Commy · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

you and commy seem to be promoting a world with no money. and you don't see how pointless and worthless that suggestion is?

its been done successfully in the past. crime was virtually eliminated. the majority of crimes committed today are either motivated by greed or passion, without money you get rid of a large percentage of those crimes.

are you still pushing this no money novice idea? ok i'll bite. when and where did it work in the past

like i mentioned a few times, Spain Pre-Franco. 40's i believe. give or take a decade.

inmytree · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

lol...your soothsaying abilities are uncanny...your pretend to know how it would look and how things will happen...I wonder, why aren't the elderly and those on medicare trading in their crappy insurance and buying into the premium stuff....what a bunch of dumbasses they must be...

like I said, you take your crap run government shit, and I'll have mine. there is a big difference when talking about taking care of our elderly, which we already cant afford, and then apply it to the ENTIRE population.

how do you think we would pay for it anyway? the numbers are staggering.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4842931.html
(from 05)
While President George W. Bush remains focused on Social Security, an even bigger fiscal time bomb is ticking away in the United States—Medicare.

The Social Security trust fund is projected to become exhausted in 2041, but the public health system runs completely dry much sooner: in 2020. What is more, to bring Social Security into balance over the next 75 years would require a 15 percent increase in payroll taxes today (or a corresponding reduction in benefits), whereas bringing Medicare into balance would require an immediate 107 percent increase in revenue (or a 48 percent reduction in outlays).Even more significant, the present underfunding of Medicare ($29.7 trillion) is more than seven times that of Social Security ($4 trillion).

I'd start by asking why it cost $900 dollars for a anesthesiologist to give a shot to ones shoulder prior to surgery....

(that's how much the bill was for this 30 second task when I had my rotator cuff repaired a couple years ago...)

Kel Varnsen · May 2009

Commy wrote:

who gets the better cut of meat was a good question, and you're right, you can't reward labor with the better goods, it will breed selfishness, the very thing we are trying to avoid. its a good question, one that i have to think about a bit. i'll get back to you.

On top of the meat, you can also add things like property (how do you decide who gets the beachfront house and who has to live next to the garbage dump), plus anything that is one of a kind (if someone is an artist and they make a sculpture do they have to make enough so that each person on the society has one). I mean you are going to almost regulary have situations where something is rare and there are a lot of people who want it.

decides2dream · May 2009

i think the major obstacle to all this, outside of simply human nature

...is simply our world has grown to BIG and too GLOBAL. do we go back to small, small tribal life? how else does one barter and/or participate in a global world without *something* as an agreed upon tool? i mean, isn't that what, elementarily, currency is.... a tool of trade? b/c no matter how we all may say working for the greater good, for the community...humnaity has always deemed some resources or skills better or more valuable than others....and systems for barter.....and systems of laws....have developed in time to make all of this *easier*...not more difficult.

this is not to say it's entirely impossible to change the system enitrly, tho improbable....but i think even more so.....does the vast majority desire it? i personally think not. i think looking back at where we started, how it all developed and the WHYs of it....would be better served to figuring out where we want to go next, and reworking current systems a bit more....feasible. i think we can somehow balance the greater good along with individual desires. again, not in a perfect way.....but at least in a better way. i honestly vcannot think of a society, human or any other species.....that truly does not have some form of leadership, some general laws...and even some barter/currency if you will.....to serve the needs of the group. some may be more community-minded than others, but then a lot of it is the individual nature of the species, and even there.....there are always some leaders, and some who fare better than others, etc. life is not designed to be 100% *fair* across the board.

Commy · May 2009

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Commy wrote:

who gets the better cut of meat was a good question, and you're right, you can't reward labor with the better goods, it will breed selfishness, the very thing we are trying to avoid. its a good question, one that i have to think about a bit. i'll get back to you.

On top of the meat, you can also add things like property (how do you decide who gets the beachfront house and who has to live next to the garbage dump), plus anything that is one of a kind (if someone is an artist and they make a sculpture do they have to make enough so that each person on the society has one). I mean you are going to almost regulary have situations where something is rare and there are a lot of people who want it.

I think you need to realize that private-property is a thing of the past....things will need to be decided by the community, but in terms of a large house on the water, that won't exist. If it does, it won't belong to one individual or 1 family. private property does not exist.

And it also important to remember that there will be no groups or institutions exploiting our labor, things like resources will be plentiful. There won' t be a fight for the good stuff, because we will all be getting the good stuff.

art will be celebrated, and again, private property does not exist, so no 1 individual is going to own a painting, and have it on his wall. If the artist wants a friend to have something he created, he can let him hang it on his wall for a time.

But the idea that I have better meat than you, or the idea that I have better property than you, or the idea that i'm better than you because i have this painting simply will not exist in an anarchist society. Private property does not exist.

jlew24asu · May 2009

Commy wrote:

like i mentioned a few times, Spain Pre-Franco. 40's i believe. give or take a decade.

oh my bad. didnt see where you said it already. and why did Spain not keep this non-money system?

jlew24asu · May 2009

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

lol...your soothsaying abilities are uncanny...your pretend to know how it would look and how things will happen...I wonder, why aren't the elderly and those on medicare trading in their crappy insurance and buying into the premium stuff....what a bunch of dumbasses they must be...

like I said, you take your crap run government shit, and I'll have mine. there is a big difference when talking about taking care of our elderly, which we already cant afford, and then apply it to the ENTIRE population.

how do you think we would pay for it anyway? the numbers are staggering.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4842931.html
(from 05)
While President George W. Bush remains focused on Social Security, an even bigger fiscal time bomb is ticking away in the United States—Medicare.

The Social Security trust fund is projected to become exhausted in 2041, but the public health system runs completely dry much sooner: in 2020. What is more, to bring Social Security into balance over the next 75 years would require a 15 percent increase in payroll taxes today (or a corresponding reduction in benefits), whereas bringing Medicare into balance would require an immediate 107 percent increase in revenue (or a 48 percent reduction in outlays).Even more significant, the present underfunding of Medicare ($29.7 trillion) is more than seven times that of Social Security ($4 trillion).

I'd start by asking why it cost $900 dollars for a anesthesiologist to give a shot to ones shoulder prior to surgery....

(that's how much the bill was for this 30 second task when I had my rotator cuff repaired a couple years ago...)

answer a question with a question. nice move.

and um, the anesthetic they gave you, took longer then 30 seconds to research, develop, and produce.

jlew24asu · May 2009

I'll ask again, since it was ignored. how do you pro-UHC system people plan on paying for this?

knowing that a similar system designed to take care of only senior citizens is 30 TRILLION dollars underfunded.

decides2dream · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

I'll ask again, since it was ignored. how do you pro-UHC system people plan on paying for this?

knowing that a similar system designed to take care of only senior citizens is 30 TRILLION dollars underfunded.

i'm no healthcare specialist, nor am i an economist...but i'd say firstly, look at other models from other countries and how they do it. enough models do exist to study. after that, i truly think simply by cutting out the middlemanl, the insurance iundustry would more than likely cover the bulk of the cost. as i've said earlier...we already do offer free health care to some....and the vast majority of the rest of us pay for our healthcare thru our employer deductions.....so instead of giving to the HMOs, goes direct to goverment fund for healthcare. obviously, there is still paperwork involved, but i bet a VAST amount is greatly reduced, again, lowering costs. doctors are already pressed in a corner by insurance companies for fees, etc....so i am sure further restructuring could be done. again, obviously i am no expert.....but it IS doable.

inmytree · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

answer a question with a question. nice move.

and um, the anesthetic they gave you, took longer then 30 seconds to research, develop, and produce.

I'm sorry but I have another question: how do you know this....?

I'm serious...perhaps the anesthetic they gave me was developed 30 years ago...so the research, development and production costs are low...perhaps a gov't grant paid for the research....perhaps it just cost pennies to produce...

see, I can assume, too....

jlew24asu · May 2009

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

I'll ask again, since it was ignored. how do you pro-UHC system people plan on paying for this?

knowing that a similar system designed to take care of only senior citizens is 30 TRILLION dollars underfunded.

i'm no healthcare specialist, nor am i an economist...but i'd say firstly, look at other models from other countries and how they do it. enough models do exist to study. after that, i truly think simply by cutting out the middlemanl, the insurance iundustry would more than likely cover the bulk of the cost. as i've said earlier...we already do offer free health care to some....and the vast majority of the rest of us pay for our healthcare thru our employer deductions.....so instead of giving to the HMOs, goes direct to goverment fund for healthcare. obviously, there is still paperwork involved, but i bet a VAST amount is greatly reduced, again, lowering costs. doctors are already pressed in a corner by insurance companies for fees, etc....so i am sure further restructuring could be done. again, obviously i am no expert.....but it IS doable.

but we can't base it off the models of other countries. we are too large and demand too high (quality) of care compared to other countries.

and yes, we do offer it for "free" to some...the elderly. and its 30 Trillon underfunded. thats 3000 billion. or 30,000 million.

its simply NOT doable in this country, especially given our tough economic times. its going to take years to recover from this alone. and not to mention, a huge part of the population (baby bombers) are set to retire, get older, and need care.

and say we somehow do decide to provide UHC. the materials, the drugs, the doctors, the research, the equipment, will all be provider by the lowest bidder to save costs.

no thanks

I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

Comments

Categories