How exactly does a person pay bills when they are dead?
o sorry I missed that. well in the case of dying, yes I suppose they would be stuck with the bill. although I wouldnt be surprised if the hospital had lawyers go after my estate.
but had I had surgery and spend considerable time in an ICU and lived.... I would get the bill. not everyone who goes to the hospital dies ya know.
I know not everyone who goes to the hospital, but I would imagine that a fair number of people who are brought into an emergency room do. And if those people choose not to have insurance they are basically saying that they will leave the responsibility for paying for their medical treatment up to everyone else. At least in the Canadian system I know anyone who shows up in a hospital has contributed at least a little bit through things like sales tax to making sure the system keeps running rather than trying to get a free ride.
again and again with this baseless argument. "well England did it" "well Cuba does it" turn the page in the playbook. England, like most countries and a small % the size of America
More people = more taxes = more money for health care
Congressional leaders who have spent decades promoting a government-run health care system for the United States are abuzz about Michael Moore's new film, "Sicko," hoping it will sway a new generation of voters to support their agenda.
But heaven forbid that Congress would wind up making policy based upon propaganda -- because that is exactly what would happen if anyone were to base any health reform proposals on Moore's film, says Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute.
* For example, Moore ignores the limits, restrictions on access, and rationing of care in single-payer health care systems in Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
* In Canada, more than 800,000 people are on waiting lists for surgery and other medical treatment, with some forced to wait months or even years for the care they need.
One of Moore's core arguments is that profit in the health sector is evil and that we should rid our health care system of private "for-profit" physician practices, hospitals and suppliers. He and other single-payer advocates are convinced that a generous and benevolent government would put doctors and hospitals back in charge of decisions. But this isn't the case, says Turner:
* In our own government-run health care systems -- Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Veteran Affairs - government micromanagement and price controls are the norm.
* Government makes decisions about what will be covered, under what circumstances and for whom, and how much doctors and hospitals will be paid for their services.
* And government seldom gets it right -- overpaying for some and underpaying for others, but also inducing over-consumption of health care.
Source: Grace-Marie Turner, "Marie Turner: `Sicko' serves up health care lies," Pasadena Star News, July 4, 2007.
You mention the word 'bias' and then post the above article? Hilarious.
'The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.'
nope. never. we all pay taxes. why should we be forced to pay more for servies that should be available to evry single person within the country. why should the health system be made available on the proviso that it make a profit??
i accept the system isnt perfect. but i dont jump up and down and scream about its inadequacies. i accept them and know that what has to be done cant be done when I want it to be done, but when the system allows it. maybe as an australian i have a different mindset. it never ceases to amaze me that americans who supposedly have a government for the people and of the people, they are hesitant to embrace it or even allow it work for them. as i said before, what is it you think your government should be responsible for??? surely it must be more than 'national' security and collecting taxes.
no, thats about it. your country has about 21 million people, thats about half the size of California. America is LARGE. its not as easy to provide care for 300 million people, and do it with high quality that we have come to demand and expect.
yep i know how many poeple my country has. and i know how many people your country has. imo it is that easy.its all about management. your country and mine waste so much money on security(and other bullshit) and yet when it comes to their people, they couldnt be bothered. why is that???
ok fine, we'll disagree. I do not believe America can effectively manage a successful, high quality, healthcare system for 300 million people. look at our public education system as an example compared to the private schooling in America. private schooling is infinitely better.
again and again with this baseless argument. "well England did it" "well Cuba does it" turn the page in the playbook. England, like most countries and a small % the size of America
More people = more taxes = more money for health care
lol yea, its all so easy. lets just raise taxes and give the government more power and control. sorry, not interested.
Congressional leaders who have spent decades promoting a government-run health care system for the United States are abuzz about Michael Moore's new film, "Sicko," hoping it will sway a new generation of voters to support their agenda.
But heaven forbid that Congress would wind up making policy based upon propaganda -- because that is exactly what would happen if anyone were to base any health reform proposals on Moore's film, says Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute.
* For example, Moore ignores the limits, restrictions on access, and rationing of care in single-payer health care systems in Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
* In Canada, more than 800,000 people are on waiting lists for surgery and other medical treatment, with some forced to wait months or even years for the care they need.
One of Moore's core arguments is that profit in the health sector is evil and that we should rid our health care system of private "for-profit" physician practices, hospitals and suppliers. He and other single-payer advocates are convinced that a generous and benevolent government would put doctors and hospitals back in charge of decisions. But this isn't the case, says Turner:
* In our own government-run health care systems -- Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Veteran Affairs - government micromanagement and price controls are the norm.
* Government makes decisions about what will be covered, under what circumstances and for whom, and how much doctors and hospitals will be paid for their services.
* And government seldom gets it right -- overpaying for some and underpaying for others, but also inducing over-consumption of health care.
Source: Grace-Marie Turner, "Marie Turner: `Sicko' serves up health care lies," Pasadena Star News, July 4, 2007.
You mention the word 'bias' and then post the above article? Hilarious.
'The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.'
I likfe how you ignore the actual content though. well done
The government could ever adequately prove that it would actually spend my tax dollars on their stated purpose. See Social Security-- you know, that supplemental retirement program that I'm never going to see a dime of, which has probably been used to blow up some third world country that has posed no direct threat to us.
The government could ever adequately prove that it would actually spend my tax dollars on their stated purpose. See Social Security-- you know, that supplemental retirement program that I'm never going to see a dime of, which has probably been used to blow up some third world country that has posed no direct threat to us.
you and I both know thats not possible. EVEN if we dissolved our military and never was nvolved in another war for the rest of our lives.
* For example, Moore ignores the limits, restrictions on access, and rationing of care in single-payer health care systems in Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
I don't know of anyone in England who has ever encountered any 'limits', 'restrictions on access', or 'rationing of care' in their experience with the NHS.
* In Canada, more than 800,000 people are on waiting lists for surgery and other medical treatment
Funny, but I never realized that surgery was a walk in, walk out arrangement. I thought that all - except emergencies - types of surgery required a waiting time beforehand. I never looked at surgical operations as being on a par with fast food restaurants.
* In our own government-run health care systems -- Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Veteran Affairs - government micromanagement and price controls are the norm.
* Government makes decisions about what will be covered, under what circumstances and for whom, and how much doctors and hospitals will be paid for their services.
So what? What's the alternative? Doctors deciding themselves how much to pay themselves?
* In Canada, more than 800,000 people are on waiting lists for surgery and other medical treatment
Funny, but I never realized that surgery was a walk in, walk out arrangement. I thought that all - except emergencies - types of surgery required a waiting time beforehand. I never looked at surgical operations as being on a par with fast food restaurants.
Yea in Canada you have people who have to wait, but it is typically people who have non-life threatening injuries or things like that. If you are having a heart attack and need surgery or a cat-scan you will get it, but if you injured your shoulder playing pick-up football on the weekend you might have to wait awhile. But how else could it be with a limited number of surgeons. I mean there aren't that many medical schools in Canada.
again and again with this baseless argument. "well England did it" "well Cuba does it" turn the page in the playbook. England, like most countries and a small % the size of America
More people = more taxes = more money for health care
exactly. it is simply math right there.
and as many have pointed out more taxes doesn't actually even mean more money out of your pocket, just going directly to healthcare taxes rather than health insurance companies. again, by cutting out the for profit nature of the industry would cut a HUGE amount out of overall costs as well....along with the streamlined process, more cost cuts, etc. and as far as innovation in medicine, it will still happen. doctors and scientists, you know...the ones who actually DO the research and innovation...still get paid. i mean, there is innovation in other countries in the medical field, countries with universal healthcare. it's ALL doable!
lol yea, its all so easy. lets just raise taxes and give the government more power and control. sorry, not interested.
lol yea, b/c it''s so much nicer to have my healthcare options tied to my emploiyment, and some private company having power and control over my healthcare options. sorry, not interested. i far rather governmental controls, b/c then...ALL doctors and hospital are available, and sure...still will be limits, but it's impossible to completely iradicate them. and again, you seem to refuse to see that raising taxes, in and of itself, does NOT necessarily raise your COST. paying peter instead of paul...it's a simple concept.
again and again with this baseless argument. "well England did it" "well Cuba does it" turn the page in the playbook. England, like most countries and a small % the size of America
More people = more taxes = more money for health care
exactly. it is simply math right there.
and as many have pointed out more taxes doesn't actually even mean more money out of your pocket, just going directly to healthcare taxes rather than health insurance companies. again, by cutting out the for profit nature of the industry would cut a HUGE amount out of overall costs as well....along with the streamlined process, more cost cuts, etc. and as far as innovation in medicine, it will still happen. doctors and scientists, you know...the ones who actually DO the research and innovation...still get paid. i mean, there is innovation in other countries in the medical field, countries with universal healthcare. it's ALL doable!
you keep leaving out the fact between voluntary and forced. and its not simple math....we have a progressive tax system here which is very complicated. not to mention we are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. this is far from simple.
lol yea, b/c it''s so much nicer to have my healthcare options tied to my emploiyment, and some private company having power and control over my healthcare options. sorry, not interested. i far rather governmental controls, b/c then...ALL doctors and hospital are available, and sure...still will be limits, but it's impossible to completely iradicate them. and again, you seem to refuse to see that raising taxes, in and of itself, does NOT necessarily raise your COST. paying peter instead of paul...it's a simple concept.
I know I know. this is all so simple. look, we disagree. you want the government to run everything, and I prefer the private sector to. the private section gives me more choices and control of my own fate. I'm a less government person, you are a larger more powerful government girl. fundamental difference
What a great attitude to have. Why not just say 'Fuck the poor'?
I just wish there was a middle ground between "Fuck the poor" and "Fuck the rest of us."
christ....THERE IS!
again, in all these other countries with UHC, you think they all are 'getting fucked'......? seriously?
you PAY for healthcare now thru payroll deductions, your employer pays.....instead it goes to UHC thru tax....same fuckin' thing, you're not anymore fucked than right now! difference is.....EVERYone will have healthcare, for LIFE. wouldn't that be nice? and holy shit, it isn't just the poor, or the unemployed.....it's even middle class working people who happen to have jobs that offer no benefits, and there are many....and/or these same people who have children with serious and expensive illlnesses, or illnesses themselves. once more, preventative care Is the best option overall, far cheaper too in the long run...so it's in OUR OWN best interest to provide healthcare to all our citizens.
i just think of a company like mcdonalds.....most of their staff is part-time, therefore they don't have to insure them. even amongst those who work 'full-time' there are ways of designating staff so one does not have to offer healthcare. this is an extremely profitable business. why should they not pay towards the well-being of americans, especially since they make their profits off of things that are not so good for americans? sorry, i do believe they can cut into their vast profit margin just a wee bit, and cough up some dough towards healthcare. all other companies that already offer payment towards healthcare, it's easy, just transfer it towards healthcare tax. and again, the BIGGEST cost-saver is getting ride of the FOR PROFIT nature of the health industry. currently at the end of the day....after the actual medical costs, the medical staff pay, admin pay, etc, etc......there is a PROFIT...and BIG dollars, simply going into some company, some stock, someone's pocket.....out of our healthcare dollars. that is unnecessary. i personally do not believe profit should be built into our healthcare. service for all should be built into our healthcare. that's not fucked, that's just right.
jlew...i don't care if it's being FORCED. i am forced to pay taxes that go towards a war.....i am FINE with being FORCED to pay towards HEALTHCARE. makes sense to me. and when i say it's 'simple'...obviously, i don't mean figuring it all out....just that yes, simple, it CAN be done. you keep referring to other countries being smaller, us bigger, therefore...can't be done. wrong. THAt part is 'simple' to figure out. more people = more taxes = more funds for healthcare. it IS that simple.
and you're right, we DO disagree. i also happen to think you are under a serious illusion if you think you have 'more choices' under a private, for profit model. you ARE limited to plans your employer offers, you are limited in those plans of what doctors/hospitals/etc you may utilize, and they too can say no to certain treatments and such...so where is all this freedom? beyond that, say you lose your job tomorrow and have difficulty landing another....lose your insurance in the interim...and then have a catastrophic accident? it DOES happen you know. then yea...what freedom....you can spend half your life in debt. great freedom. i far rther a UHC system that guarantees care, at all stages of employement and life, for all. THAT's true freedom in healthcare to me. so damn straight, we disagree........
btw - you keep talking of these 'trillions of dollars'......well get RIDOF PROFIT, and how much can be SAVED right there? seriously! you are looking towards one model to see the failur of another. wrong. it would be a DIFFERENT model. costs will CHANGE. you're right tho.....the main, fundamental difference is....you simply prefer the private , for profit sector....why i seriously can't understand...whereas i would far prefer government involvement, not-for-profit, healthcare for all. if you simply argued THAt point, while we'd still disagree....at least i'd understand. instead you keep saying it' can't be done! impossible! meanwhile, that is FALSE.
What a great attitude to have. Why not just say 'Fuck the poor'?
I just wish there was a middle ground between "Fuck the poor" and "Fuck the rest of us."
christ....THERE IS!
again, in all these other countries with UHC, you think they all are 'getting fucked'......? seriously?
you PAY for healthcare now thru payroll deductions, your employer pays.....instead it goes to UHC thru tax....same fuckin' thing, you're not anymore fucked than right now! difference is.....EVERYone will have healthcare, for LIFE. wouldn't that be nice? and holy shit, it isn't just the poor, or the unemployed.....it's even middle class working people who happen to have jobs that offer no benefits, and there are many....and/or these same people who have children with serious and expensive illlnesses, or illnesses themselves. once more, preventative care Is the best option overall, far cheaper too in the long run...so it's in OUR OWN best interest to provide healthcare to all our citizens.
i just think of a company like mcdonalds.....most of their staff is part-time, therefore they don't have to insure them. even amongst those who work 'full-time' there are ways of designating staff so one does not have to offer healthcare. this is an extremely profitable business. why should they not pay towards the well-being of americans, especially since they make their profits off of things that are not so good for americans? sorry, i do believe they can cut into their vast profit margin just a wee bit, and cough up some dough towards healthcare. all other companies that already offer payment towards healthcare, it's easy, just transfer it towards healthcare tax. and again, the BIGGEST cost-saver is getting ride of the FOR PROFIT nature of the health industry. currently at the end of the day....after the actual medical costs, the medical staff pay, admin pay, etc, etc......there is a PROFIT...and BIG dollars, simply going into some company, some stock, someone's pocket.....out of our healthcare dollars. that is unnecessary. i personally do not believe profit should be built into our healthcare. service for all should be built into our healthcare. that's not fucked, that's just right.
jlew...i don't care if it's being FORCED. i am forced to pay taxes that go towards a war.....i am FINE with being FORCED to pay towards HEALTHCARE. makes sense to me. and when i say it's 'simple'...obviously, i don't mean figuring it all out....just that yes, simple, it CAN be done. you keep referring to other countries being smaller, us bigger, therefore...can't be done. wrong. THAt part is 'simple' to figure out. more people = more taxes = more funds for healthcare. it IS that simple.
and you're right, we DO disagree. i also happen to think you are under a serious illusion if you think you have 'more choices' under a private, for profit model. you ARE limited to plans your employer offers, you are limited in those plans of what doctors/hospitals/etc you may utilize, and they too can say no to certain treatments and such...so where is all this freedom? beyond that, say you lose your job tomorrow and have difficulty landing another....lose your insurance in the interim...and then have a catastrophic accident? it DOES happen you know. then yea...what freedom....you can spend half your life in debt. great freedom. i far rther a UHC system that guarantees care, at all stages of employement and life, for all. THAT's true freedom in healthcare to me. so damn straight, we disagre........
once more, preventative care Is the best option overall, far cheaper too in the long run...so it's in OUR OWN best interest to provide healthcare to all our citizens.
Preventative care really is where the money savings happens. It means that rich or poor a guy in say his 50's can get regular check-ups from his doctor, and say if he has high blood pressure or is a bit overweight his doctor can go over the risks with him and give him some ways to improve his health, or alternatively can put him on medication to improve things. Either one of those options takes what an hour tops and probably costs the system nothing? Now if a guy in his 50's can't afford to see a doctor either because he has no insurance or he has some sort of deductible that is too expensive for him and the first time he sees his doctor is when he is having a heart attack, an emergency angioplasty or bypass surgery would cost the system way more.
i am forced to pay taxes that go towards a war.....i am FINE with being FORCED to pay towards HEALTHCARE. makes sense to me. and when i say it's 'simple'...obviously, i don't mean figuring it all out....just that yes, simple, it CAN be done. you keep referring to other countries being smaller, us bigger, therefore...can't be done. wrong. THAt part is 'simple' to figure out. more people = more taxes = more funds for healthcare. it IS that simple.
its simple in theory, not in practice. add more money, more people, and the complexities of any situation become less and less simple.
and you're right, we DO disagree. i also happen to think you are under a serious illusion if you think you have 'more choices' under a private, for profit model. you ARE limited to plans your employer offers, you are limited in those plans of what doctors/hospitals/etc you may utilize, and they too can say no to certain treatments and such...so where is all this freedom?
If I do not like the doctor, hospital, insurance co, or employer that I'm with, I'm free to choose from countless others. I'm also free to not do anything at all and fend for myself.
If I don't like the way the government runs things, what other choices do I have? O i know, I can move to another country I guess.
beyond that, say you lose your job tomorrow and have difficulty landing another....lose your insurance in the interim...and then have a catastrophic accident? it DOES happen you know. then yea...what freedom....you can spend half your life in debt. great freedom. i far rther a UHC system that guarantees care, at all stages of employement and life, for all. THAT's true freedom in healthcare to me. so damn straight, we disagree........
well this is different and not what I'm saying. secondly calm the fuck down. if someone losses their job, spouse dies, or a list of other worthy circumstances, then I would expect the government to step in and help. much like unemployment benefits.
you are looking towards one model to see the failur of another. wrong. it would be a DIFFERENT model. costs will CHANGE. you're right tho.....the main, fundamental difference is....you simply prefer the private , for profit sector....why i seriously can't understand...whereas i would far prefer government involvement, not-for-profit, healthcare for all. if you simply argued THAt point, while we'd still disagree....at least i'd understand. instead you keep saying it' can't be done! impossible! meanwhile, that is FALSE.
it can be done. happy? it just can NOT be done at the high levels of quality I demand and expect.
If the government wants to provide health care, we should have the choice of whether or not to partake in that system-- the same goes for social security, and dare I say it, even delivery of our mail.
Those who believe the government will do its job better than the private sector, more power to you. Let them and every other compete in trying to serve us. We will all win. What has to happen before anything else, is that major companies in the private sector and the government have to sever their relationships. We need real choices, not a be-all and end all system, which is what we have now, and will have under a universal system.
If the government wants to provide health care, we should have the choice of whether or not to partake in that system-- the same goes for social security, and dare I say it, even delivery of our mail.
Those who believe the government will do its job better than the private sector, more power to you. Let them and every other compete in trying to serve us. We will all win. What has to happen before anything else, is that major companies in the private sector and the government have to sever their relationships. We need real choices, not a be-all and end all system, which is what we have now, and will have under a universal system.
Stay healthy!
may i ask...what DO you think the government should do?
should there be public education? road maintanence? police? fire and safety? what exactly? in my mind, the government is here to serve the people. serving the people also includes basic services for life...such as safety, travel access, education and healthcare. i don't even have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go towards public schools. while i think the cost is excessive, especially given i don't have children - i do think it should be pro-rated to some degree, but i digress - point is, as a anation, i think education is vastly important and therefore i am happy to support public schools so that ALL have access to education. i feel the same should hold true for healthcare. 'choice' would still be there.....just like there is for private schools. but yes, i think the tax burdens for it should still remain. as a collective society we have to work towards our greater good, not simply the good of ourselves, individually. i mean, let's face it.....we want garbage collectors, a police force, we want someone to do the menial jobs we don't want to do....well they too deserve at the very least, access to education and healthcare.
damn straight tho.....stay healthy!
holy shiut!
yet AGAIN...i had posted a response to jlew....and it didn't %$#&^*! post! :evil:
it's a conspiracy i tell ya. uuuugggghhhhh. eh well, fuck it....lucky you jlew. i am far too lazy to retype it. damn board. anyhoo, whatever. my points stand, as do yours. we disagree. simple as.
What a great attitude to have. Why not just say 'Fuck the poor'?
I just wish there was a middle ground between "Fuck the poor" and "Fuck the rest of us."
christ....THERE IS!
again, in all these other countries with UHC, you think they all are 'getting fucked'......? seriously?
you PAY for healthcare now thru payroll deductions, your employer pays.....instead it goes to UHC thru tax....same fuckin' thing, you're not anymore fucked than right now! difference is.....EVERYone will have healthcare, for LIFE. wouldn't that be nice? and holy shit, it isn't just the poor, or the unemployed.....it's even middle class working people who happen to have jobs that offer no benefits, and there are many....and/or these same people who have children with serious and expensive illlnesses, or illnesses themselves. once more, preventative care Is the best option overall, far cheaper too in the long run...so it's in OUR OWN best interest to provide healthcare to all our citizens.
i just think of a company like mcdonalds.....most of their staff is part-time, therefore they don't have to insure them. even amongst those who work 'full-time' there are ways of designating staff so one does not have to offer healthcare. this is an extremely profitable business. why should they not pay towards the well-being of americans, especially since they make their profits off of things that are not so good for americans? sorry, i do believe they can cut into their vast profit margin just a wee bit, and cough up some dough towards healthcare. all other companies that already offer payment towards healthcare, it's easy, just transfer it towards healthcare tax. and again, the BIGGEST cost-saver is getting ride of the FOR PROFIT nature of the health industry. currently at the end of the day....after the actual medical costs, the medical staff pay, admin pay, etc, etc......there is a PROFIT...and BIG dollars, simply going into some company, some stock, someone's pocket.....out of our healthcare dollars. that is unnecessary. i personally do not believe profit should be built into our healthcare. service for all should be built into our healthcare. that's not fucked, that's just right.
jlew...i don't care if it's being FORCED. i am forced to pay taxes that go towards a war.....i am FINE with being FORCED to pay towards HEALTHCARE. makes sense to me. and when i say it's 'simple'...obviously, i don't mean figuring it all out....just that yes, simple, it CAN be done. you keep referring to other countries being smaller, us bigger, therefore...can't be done. wrong. THAt part is 'simple' to figure out. more people = more taxes = more funds for healthcare. it IS that simple.
and you're right, we DO disagree. i also happen to think you are under a serious illusion if you think you have 'more choices' under a private, for profit model. you ARE limited to plans your employer offers, you are limited in those plans of what doctors/hospitals/etc you may utilize, and they too can say no to certain treatments and such...so where is all this freedom? beyond that, say you lose your job tomorrow and have difficulty landing another....lose your insurance in the interim...and then have a catastrophic accident? it DOES happen you know. then yea...what freedom....you can spend half your life in debt. great freedom. i far rther a UHC system that guarantees care, at all stages of employement and life, for all. THAT's true freedom in healthcare to me. so damn straight, we disagree........
btw - you keep talking of these 'trillions of dollars'......well get RIDOF PROFIT, and how much can be SAVED right there? seriously! you are looking towards one model to see the failur of another. wrong. it would be a DIFFERENT model. costs will CHANGE. you're right tho.....the main, fundamental difference is....you simply prefer the private , for profit sector....why i seriously can't understand...whereas i would far prefer government involvement, not-for-profit, healthcare for all. if you simply argued THAt point, while we'd still disagree....at least i'd understand. instead you keep saying it' can't be done! impossible! meanwhile, that is FALSE.
All I care about is the bottom line. And here is the bottom line. If the government enacts its health care program tomorrow, I ended up paying the same (or more) for an inferior product.
That is how "the rest of us" are getting fucked.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
What a great attitude to have. Why not just say 'Fuck the poor'?
I just wish there was a middle ground between "Fuck the poor" and "Fuck the rest of us."
there is. its called socialism. us and the poor are the same people. if you dont get that then youre doomed.
I'm afraid you might be right. If the train keeps going down this same track, we are all going to be the same. Poor.
Instead of lifting the poor to the level of "the rest of us," we'd rather bring the "rest of us" down to the level of the poor. Out of some warped sense of fairness, I suppose.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
oh the horror...everyone having healthcare...it's a damn crime that I would be fucked like that...
those poor fuckers with no money to pay for healthcare will be leeching off me...I say screw 'em...we can't have socialism like this....I say we do away with road and bridge maintenance, too...It costs way too much...I am sick to death of my taxes going to roads and bridges...why the hell should I pay for others...???
If the government wants to provide health care, we should have the choice of whether or not to partake in that system-- the same goes for social security, and dare I say it, even delivery of our mail.
Those who believe the government will do its job better than the private sector, more power to you. Let them and every other compete in trying to serve us. We will all win. What has to happen before anything else, is that major companies in the private sector and the government have to sever their relationships. We need real choices, not a be-all and end all system, which is what we have now, and will have under a universal system.
Stay healthy!
may i ask...what DO you think the government should do?
should there be public education? road maintanence? police? fire and safety? what exactly? in my mind, the government is here to serve the people. serving the people also includes basic services for life...such as safety, travel access, education and healthcare. i don't even have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go towards public schools. while i think the cost is excessive, especially given i don't have children - i do think it should be pro-rated to some degree, but i digress - point is, as a anation, i think education is vastly important and therefore i am happy to support public schools so that ALL have access to education. i feel the same should hold true for healthcare. 'choice' would still be there.....just like there is for private schools. but yes, i think the tax burdens for it should still remain. as a collective society we have to work towards our greater good, not simply the good of ourselves, individually. i mean, let's face it.....we want garbage collectors, a police force, we want someone to do the menial jobs we don't want to do....well they too deserve at the very least, access to education and healthcare.
damn straight tho.....stay healthy!
holy shiut!
yet AGAIN...i had posted a response to jlew....and it didn't %$#&^*! post! :evil:
it's a conspiracy i tell ya. uuuugggghhhhh. eh well, fuck it....lucky you jlew. i am far too lazy to retype it. damn board. anyhoo, whatever. my points stand, as do yours. we disagree. simple as.
On a federal level - defense. Emphasis on DEFENSE, not offense. Anything else they want to dabble in should be paid for by the people who want it from them ONLY, and should be provided at the state level. This is consistent with what you and everyone else have been telling JLew -- that providing for more people isn't a big deal, and it should work on a slide-rule. Taxes should consistent with the number of people that actually expect that service. Whatever it costs, the people pay it. No profit involved, if that is at all possible with the government (which it could be if it doesn't form no-bid partnerships with their buddies).
Now imagine this-- "buying" your healthcare from different states in the union. You live in New York, but want to buy Montana's plan... why not? You live in Connecticut, have an Arkansas plan, and fall down while visiting your aunt in California and break your leg... You're paying into Arkansas regardless, let them pick up the tab-- we have the technology!
Couple that with private insurance companies who are now forced to compete against the states, how much are their costs going to come down?
Choices is where it's at.
As for everything else-- police, fire, roads, all work pretty well when localized. I'm not against the government serving the people especially at local and state levels where the people have SOME control over in how these institutions operate. I'm against the Federal government getting involved in much of this stuff. It's Unconstitutional for a reason-- it was so the states could do their thing as they see fit.
All I care about is the bottom line. And here is the bottom line. If the government enacts its health care program tomorrow, I ended up paying the same (or more) for an inferior product.
That is how "the rest of us" are getting fucked.
and once again, that is QUITE the ASSUMPTION. it is not an out-and-out probability, merely a possibility...and one i personally do not think will be the case for many, many reasons already listed/discussed. biggest point here is, we just DON'T KNOW......so yea, enough with the doomsday predictions. it Is possible to do, and do well.
anyhooo...i'm out. it was a great discussion with those who actually wanted to discuss, and not just say 'this is how it is, or this is how it will be.' right now, it's all about the possibilities....and i for one am HOPEFUL that we will start making the right choices, for the overall good and benefit of the entirety of the nation. i see it as win-win for everyone, if done right....and we can do it. now, hopefully, we WILL.
vinny, while i hear ya.....we just have very different perspectives on it all.
btw - you seemed to leave out education in all of it.
man, this board is fucked lately....so many issues posting....ggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......... :evil:
and yea, i do NOT need to know that someone else posted in the interim every damn time i try and post!
oh the horror...everyone having healthcare...it's a damn crime that I would be fucked like that...
those poor fuckers with no money to pay for healthcare will be leeching off me...I say screw 'em...we can't have socialism like this....I say we do away with road and bridge maintenance, too...It costs way too much...I am sick to death of my taxes going to roads and bridges...why the hell should I pay for others...???
I think you've completely missed the entire point of this discussion. Good going!
I don't think anyone here is againt the notion of everyone having health care. But there are serious questions as to how to get that accomplished.
It's not as easy as just snapping your fingers and, presto, everybody has quality health care. It doesn't work that way.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
oh the horror...everyone having healthcare...it's a damn crime that I would be fucked like that...
those poor fuckers with no money to pay for healthcare will be leeching off me...I say screw 'em...we can't have socialism like this....I say we do away with road and bridge maintenance, too...It costs way too much...I am sick to death of my taxes going to roads and bridges...why the hell should I pay for others...???
I think you've completely missed the entire point of this discussion. Good going!
I don't think anyone here is againt the notion of everyone having health care. But there are serious questions as to how to get that accomplished.
It's not as easy as just snapping your fingers and, presto, everybody has quality health care. It doesn't work that way.
what are you talking about...? you're the person upset with the Medicaid and admit private insurance is not the answer...you brought up being fucked if UHC happens....I'm just going along with you and others saying it can't happen...I'm just building on the "it's socialism" argument....I'm just supporting the "why should I pay for others" argument...
So I got to thinking....roads and bridges maintenance is socialism...and the product is inferior...so, I just applied the reasons to not seek UHC to roads and bridges...what's not to get...?
I haven't read this whole thing but two observations......
1- People that do not want UHC, have no other suggestions on what to do and it is ignorant to think that there is nothing wrong with the system we have now. Like others have said there is not reason why there should be uninsured people in THIS the most powerful country in the world. So please offer suggestion and tell us your ideal insurance that will not leave working individuals without insurance.... yes working, most of the uninsured work...
2- Stop saying it is impossible, that is the dumbest excuse I have ever heard. If that is the case then you probably think reducing dependence on foreign oil is impossible, or improving the nations public schools is impossible, or going to the moon is impossible..... oh wait...... so many advancements have been made in the last 50-75 years that that to say fixing our health care is impossible is just lazy
all you have done is call people stupid and ignorant who don't agree with you. well done.
and yes, I think UHC is impossible and unaffordable. the problem with you people is that you think FREE healthcare actually means its FREE. yet its anything but.
heres a question for you...should illegal aliens qualify for this free healthcare?
yes people are ignorant, oh yeah and it is simple minded to think that it is impossible
yes people here should get healthcare until we fix the immigration policy a different debate, and BTW that has nothing to do with this conversation
show me where I said anything about free, that is putting words in my mouth, I am not foolish enough to think that anything in life is free :roll:
I will say that privatized insurance is not the answer, but I am bias, because I do not believe in privatization for essentials that we all need (ie healthcare, electricity.... etc)
call me a socialist or an idiot or whatever but when it is for profit people get fucked
oh the horror...everyone having healthcare...it's a damn crime that I would be fucked like that...
those poor fuckers with no money to pay for healthcare will be leeching off me...I say screw 'em...we can't have socialism like this....I say we do away with road and bridge maintenance, too...It costs way too much...I am sick to death of my taxes going to roads and bridges...why the hell should I pay for others...???
I think you've completely missed the entire point of this discussion. Good going!
I don't think anyone here is againt the notion of everyone having health care. But there are serious questions as to how to get that accomplished.
It's not as easy as just snapping your fingers and, presto, everybody has quality health care. It doesn't work that way.
what are you talking about...? you're the person upset with the Medicaid and admit private insurance is not the answer...you brought up being fucked if UHC happens....I'm just going along with you and others saying it can't happen...I'm just building on the "it's socialism" argument....I'm just supporting the "why should I pay for others" argument...
So I got to thinking....roads and bridges maintenance is socialism...and the product is inferior...so, I just applied the reasons to not seek UHC to roads and bridges...what's not to get...?
I'm not so much UPSET with Medicaid as I am using it as an example as to what happens when the government gets involved with health care. This is not going to be good.
Private insurance IS the answer for some 260 million of us. In order to insure the other 44 million or whatever the number is, we need to come up with a system that doesn't screw over the other 260 million of us.
I have yet to see such a plan proposed. I'm not even sure what such a plan would entail. I would be happy to hear it.
But those of us who are skeptical of the government's ability to get something of this magnitude accomplished in any kind of acceptable manner aren't heartless bastards. We're just realists who recognize a government's limits.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Comments
I know not everyone who goes to the hospital, but I would imagine that a fair number of people who are brought into an emergency room do. And if those people choose not to have insurance they are basically saying that they will leave the responsibility for paying for their medical treatment up to everyone else. At least in the Canadian system I know anyone who shows up in a hospital has contributed at least a little bit through things like sales tax to making sure the system keeps running rather than trying to get a free ride.
More people = more taxes = more money for health care
You mention the word 'bias' and then post the above article? Hilarious.
'The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.'
sure, but we the people have a say in what services they provide. doing laundry is a service too. should they do that for me as well?
do you know that for sure or are you just speculating cause YOU are doing ok??[/quote]
there are 40 uninsured people in America...which leaves about 250 million who are. yea, the majority is doing just fine.
ok fine, we'll disagree. I do not believe America can effectively manage a successful, high quality, healthcare system for 300 million people. look at our public education system as an example compared to the private schooling in America. private schooling is infinitely better.
lol yea, its all so easy. lets just raise taxes and give the government more power and control. sorry, not interested.
I likfe how you ignore the actual content though. well done
The government could ever adequately prove that it would actually spend my tax dollars on their stated purpose. See Social Security-- you know, that supplemental retirement program that I'm never going to see a dime of, which has probably been used to blow up some third world country that has posed no direct threat to us.
you and I both know thats not possible. EVEN if we dissolved our military and never was nvolved in another war for the rest of our lives.
I don't know of anyone in England who has ever encountered any 'limits', 'restrictions on access', or 'rationing of care' in their experience with the NHS.
Funny, but I never realized that surgery was a walk in, walk out arrangement. I thought that all - except emergencies - types of surgery required a waiting time beforehand. I never looked at surgical operations as being on a par with fast food restaurants.
So what?
So what? What's the alternative? Doctors deciding themselves how much to pay themselves?
'inducing over-consumption of health care'? Is this code for 'everyone benefits'?
Yea in Canada you have people who have to wait, but it is typically people who have non-life threatening injuries or things like that. If you are having a heart attack and need surgery or a cat-scan you will get it, but if you injured your shoulder playing pick-up football on the weekend you might have to wait awhile. But how else could it be with a limited number of surgeons. I mean there aren't that many medical schools in Canada.
exactly. it is simply math right there.
and as many have pointed out more taxes doesn't actually even mean more money out of your pocket, just going directly to healthcare taxes rather than health insurance companies. again, by cutting out the for profit nature of the industry would cut a HUGE amount out of overall costs as well....along with the streamlined process, more cost cuts, etc. and as far as innovation in medicine, it will still happen. doctors and scientists, you know...the ones who actually DO the research and innovation...still get paid. i mean, there is innovation in other countries in the medical field, countries with universal healthcare. it's ALL doable!
lol yea, b/c it''s so much nicer to have my healthcare options tied to my emploiyment, and some private company having power and control over my healthcare options. sorry, not interested. i far rather governmental controls, b/c then...ALL doctors and hospital are available, and sure...still will be limits, but it's impossible to completely iradicate them. and again, you seem to refuse to see that raising taxes, in and of itself, does NOT necessarily raise your COST. paying peter instead of paul...it's a simple concept.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I just wish there was a middle ground between "Fuck the poor" and "Fuck the rest of us."
for the least they could possibly do
you keep leaving out the fact between voluntary and forced. and its not simple math....we have a progressive tax system here which is very complicated. not to mention we are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. this is far from simple.
are you from America?
I know I know. this is all so simple. look, we disagree. you want the government to run everything, and I prefer the private sector to. the private section gives me more choices and control of my own fate. I'm a less government person, you are a larger more powerful government girl. fundamental difference
there is. its called socialism. us and the poor are the same people. if you dont get that then youre doomed.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
christ....THERE IS!
again, in all these other countries with UHC, you think they all are 'getting fucked'......? seriously?
you PAY for healthcare now thru payroll deductions, your employer pays.....instead it goes to UHC thru tax....same fuckin' thing, you're not anymore fucked than right now! difference is.....EVERYone will have healthcare, for LIFE. wouldn't that be nice? and holy shit, it isn't just the poor, or the unemployed.....it's even middle class working people who happen to have jobs that offer no benefits, and there are many....and/or these same people who have children with serious and expensive illlnesses, or illnesses themselves. once more, preventative care Is the best option overall, far cheaper too in the long run...so it's in OUR OWN best interest to provide healthcare to all our citizens.
i just think of a company like mcdonalds.....most of their staff is part-time, therefore they don't have to insure them. even amongst those who work 'full-time' there are ways of designating staff so one does not have to offer healthcare. this is an extremely profitable business. why should they not pay towards the well-being of americans, especially since they make their profits off of things that are not so good for americans? sorry, i do believe they can cut into their vast profit margin just a wee bit, and cough up some dough towards healthcare. all other companies that already offer payment towards healthcare, it's easy, just transfer it towards healthcare tax. and again, the BIGGEST cost-saver is getting ride of the FOR PROFIT nature of the health industry. currently at the end of the day....after the actual medical costs, the medical staff pay, admin pay, etc, etc......there is a PROFIT...and BIG dollars, simply going into some company, some stock, someone's pocket.....out of our healthcare dollars. that is unnecessary. i personally do not believe profit should be built into our healthcare. service for all should be built into our healthcare. that's not fucked, that's just right.
jlew...i don't care if it's being FORCED. i am forced to pay taxes that go towards a war.....i am FINE with being FORCED to pay towards HEALTHCARE. makes sense to me. and when i say it's 'simple'...obviously, i don't mean figuring it all out....just that yes, simple, it CAN be done. you keep referring to other countries being smaller, us bigger, therefore...can't be done. wrong. THAt part is 'simple' to figure out. more people = more taxes = more funds for healthcare. it IS that simple.
and you're right, we DO disagree. i also happen to think you are under a serious illusion if you think you have 'more choices' under a private, for profit model. you ARE limited to plans your employer offers, you are limited in those plans of what doctors/hospitals/etc you may utilize, and they too can say no to certain treatments and such...so where is all this freedom? beyond that, say you lose your job tomorrow and have difficulty landing another....lose your insurance in the interim...and then have a catastrophic accident? it DOES happen you know. then yea...what freedom....you can spend half your life in debt. great freedom. i far rther a UHC system that guarantees care, at all stages of employement and life, for all. THAT's true freedom in healthcare to me. so damn straight, we disagree........
btw - you keep talking of these 'trillions of dollars'......well get RIDOF PROFIT, and how much can be SAVED right there? seriously! you are looking towards one model to see the failur of another. wrong. it would be a DIFFERENT model. costs will CHANGE. you're right tho.....the main, fundamental difference is....you simply prefer the private , for profit sector....why i seriously can't understand...whereas i would far prefer government involvement, not-for-profit, healthcare for all. if you simply argued THAt point, while we'd still disagree....at least i'd understand. instead you keep saying it' can't be done! impossible! meanwhile, that is FALSE.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
best post in this thread.... :!: :!: :!:
Preventative care really is where the money savings happens. It means that rich or poor a guy in say his 50's can get regular check-ups from his doctor, and say if he has high blood pressure or is a bit overweight his doctor can go over the risks with him and give him some ways to improve his health, or alternatively can put him on medication to improve things. Either one of those options takes what an hour tops and probably costs the system nothing? Now if a guy in his 50's can't afford to see a doctor either because he has no insurance or he has some sort of deductible that is too expensive for him and the first time he sees his doctor is when he is having a heart attack, an emergency angioplasty or bypass surgery would cost the system way more.
I do.
its simple in theory, not in practice. add more money, more people, and the complexities of any situation become less and less simple.
If I do not like the doctor, hospital, insurance co, or employer that I'm with, I'm free to choose from countless others. I'm also free to not do anything at all and fend for myself.
If I don't like the way the government runs things, what other choices do I have? O i know, I can move to another country I guess.
well this is different and not what I'm saying. secondly calm the fuck down. if someone losses their job, spouse dies, or a list of other worthy circumstances, then I would expect the government to step in and help. much like unemployment benefits.
a few billion maybe? and take away profit, you also take away the incentive to innovate and excel at something. seriously!
it can be done. happy? it just can NOT be done at the high levels of quality I demand and expect.
Those who believe the government will do its job better than the private sector, more power to you. Let them and every other compete in trying to serve us. We will all win. What has to happen before anything else, is that major companies in the private sector and the government have to sever their relationships. We need real choices, not a be-all and end all system, which is what we have now, and will have under a universal system.
Stay healthy!
may i ask...what DO you think the government should do?
should there be public education? road maintanence? police? fire and safety? what exactly? in my mind, the government is here to serve the people. serving the people also includes basic services for life...such as safety, travel access, education and healthcare. i don't even have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go towards public schools. while i think the cost is excessive, especially given i don't have children - i do think it should be pro-rated to some degree, but i digress - point is, as a anation, i think education is vastly important and therefore i am happy to support public schools so that ALL have access to education. i feel the same should hold true for healthcare. 'choice' would still be there.....just like there is for private schools. but yes, i think the tax burdens for it should still remain. as a collective society we have to work towards our greater good, not simply the good of ourselves, individually. i mean, let's face it.....we want garbage collectors, a police force, we want someone to do the menial jobs we don't want to do....well they too deserve at the very least, access to education and healthcare.
damn straight tho.....stay healthy!
holy shiut!
yet AGAIN...i had posted a response to jlew....and it didn't %$#&^*! post! :evil:
it's a conspiracy i tell ya.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
All I care about is the bottom line. And here is the bottom line. If the government enacts its health care program tomorrow, I ended up paying the same (or more) for an inferior product.
That is how "the rest of us" are getting fucked.
for the least they could possibly do
I'm afraid you might be right. If the train keeps going down this same track, we are all going to be the same. Poor.
Instead of lifting the poor to the level of "the rest of us," we'd rather bring the "rest of us" down to the level of the poor. Out of some warped sense of fairness, I suppose.
for the least they could possibly do
those poor fuckers with no money to pay for healthcare will be leeching off me...I say screw 'em...we can't have socialism like this....I say we do away with road and bridge maintenance, too...It costs way too much...I am sick to death of my taxes going to roads and bridges...why the hell should I pay for others...???
On a federal level - defense. Emphasis on DEFENSE, not offense. Anything else they want to dabble in should be paid for by the people who want it from them ONLY, and should be provided at the state level. This is consistent with what you and everyone else have been telling JLew -- that providing for more people isn't a big deal, and it should work on a slide-rule. Taxes should consistent with the number of people that actually expect that service. Whatever it costs, the people pay it. No profit involved, if that is at all possible with the government (which it could be if it doesn't form no-bid partnerships with their buddies).
Now imagine this-- "buying" your healthcare from different states in the union. You live in New York, but want to buy Montana's plan... why not? You live in Connecticut, have an Arkansas plan, and fall down while visiting your aunt in California and break your leg... You're paying into Arkansas regardless, let them pick up the tab-- we have the technology!
Couple that with private insurance companies who are now forced to compete against the states, how much are their costs going to come down?
Choices is where it's at.
As for everything else-- police, fire, roads, all work pretty well when localized. I'm not against the government serving the people especially at local and state levels where the people have SOME control over in how these institutions operate. I'm against the Federal government getting involved in much of this stuff. It's Unconstitutional for a reason-- it was so the states could do their thing as they see fit.
and once again, that is QUITE the ASSUMPTION. it is not an out-and-out probability, merely a possibility...and one i personally do not think will be the case for many, many reasons already listed/discussed. biggest point here is, we just DON'T KNOW......so yea, enough with the doomsday predictions. it Is possible to do, and do well.
anyhooo...i'm out. it was a great discussion with those who actually wanted to discuss, and not just say 'this is how it is, or this is how it will be.' right now, it's all about the possibilities....and i for one am HOPEFUL that we will start making the right choices, for the overall good and benefit of the entirety of the nation. i see it as win-win for everyone, if done right....and we can do it.
vinny, while i hear ya.....we just have very different perspectives on it all.
btw - you seemed to leave out education in all of it.
man, this board is fucked lately....so many issues posting....ggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......... :evil:
and yea, i do NOT need to know that someone else posted in the interim every damn time i try and post!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I think you've completely missed the entire point of this discussion. Good going!
I don't think anyone here is againt the notion of everyone having health care. But there are serious questions as to how to get that accomplished.
It's not as easy as just snapping your fingers and, presto, everybody has quality health care. It doesn't work that way.
for the least they could possibly do
what are you talking about...? you're the person upset with the Medicaid and admit private insurance is not the answer...you brought up being fucked if UHC happens....I'm just going along with you and others saying it can't happen...I'm just building on the "it's socialism" argument....I'm just supporting the "why should I pay for others" argument...
So I got to thinking....roads and bridges maintenance is socialism...and the product is inferior...so, I just applied the reasons to not seek UHC to roads and bridges...what's not to get...?
yes people are ignorant, oh yeah and it is simple minded to think that it is impossible
yes people here should get healthcare until we fix the immigration policy a different debate, and BTW that has nothing to do with this conversation
show me where I said anything about free, that is putting words in my mouth, I am not foolish enough to think that anything in life is free :roll:
I have to work in order to keep my insurance....
I will say that privatized insurance is not the answer, but I am bias, because I do not believe in privatization for essentials that we all need (ie healthcare, electricity.... etc)
call me a socialist or an idiot or whatever but when it is for profit people get fucked
I'm not so much UPSET with Medicaid as I am using it as an example as to what happens when the government gets involved with health care. This is not going to be good.
Private insurance IS the answer for some 260 million of us. In order to insure the other 44 million or whatever the number is, we need to come up with a system that doesn't screw over the other 260 million of us.
I have yet to see such a plan proposed. I'm not even sure what such a plan would entail. I would be happy to hear it.
But those of us who are skeptical of the government's ability to get something of this magnitude accomplished in any kind of acceptable manner aren't heartless bastards. We're just realists who recognize a government's limits.
for the least they could possibly do