ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

Right, but you're just one particular case. ............................ person's healthcare? (Charitable, religious beliefs aside.)

A lot of the folks who argue here that they "will have to pay for others" OR that "they will have to buy insurance [that they don't need] or [that is just too expensive for them]" are fooling themselves. They are really gambling. They are gambling that they won't get sick or injured. If they do, then guess what, it is mostly we taxpayer who will wind up carrying them. Except, here is the deal. Just like other kinds of insurance, you don't figure the "benefit" by whether you actually wind up using insurance or not. A lot of the benefit is just plain in the security. Do I complain because my house does not burn down? NO! I am happy. And I still carry insurance because I just never know...

If someone goes to a hospital, gets treated and doesn't pay, does the government ever cover that loss for the hospital? At the hospital near my house, they don't... So in effect, I'm not paying for that at all. The hospital already has written it off.

How much do the uninsured really cost the public? And how do you know socialized healthcare would cose less than today's average cost?

However, here is the deal. Insurance is a "for profit" enterprise. People pay for insurance and insurance companies make sure that they don't pay out in benefits as much as they take in from people's policies. They do this lots of ways. They definitely limit care.. they limit care to most people FAR more than even the most horrific stories pur forward against socialized medicine. They deny coverage for all sorts of things and flat out refuse to carry people who are truly sick. They do this so they can make far more money than any other insurance agency in the world.. and gain more profits than most industries.

So, if insurance companies today restrict care in order to turn a profit, what's to stop the US insurance company from doing the same thing?

What happens to those rejected by the insurance companies? Some get sick and die. No denying that. Others go onto Medicaid or other similar government programs.

What's to stop the state-run healthcare from doing the same?

SO, the reality is that we, right now, are paying for all those people. THAT is a big reason why health care in the US is, right now, far more expensive than any other system in the world. And, to make things worse, we do get worse care, on average. Sure, those headline-making surgeons can take a few people from overseas to do miracles. However, the truth is that the average person living here in the US often has no access or less access to those doctors than people in other countries.

[/quote]

Will socialized healthcare actually reduce our costs or increase them? Who gets screwed and who doesn't?

I know the poorest of the poor will most likely not pay much, but how much would small businesses have to pay? If it's a significant amount, wouldn't that cripple entrepreneurship within this country? If the operating costs increase even more for many companies, wouldn't that encourage them to move?

[PLAYER57832]

Right, but you're just one particular case. ............................ person's healthcare? (Charitable, religious beliefs aside.)

A lot of the folks who argue here that they "will have to pay for others" OR that "they will have to buy insurance [that they don't need] or [that is just too expensive for them]" are fooling themselves. They are really gambling. They are gambling that they won't get sick or injured. If they do, then guess what, it is mostly we taxpayer who will wind up carrying them. Except, here is the deal. Just like other kinds of insurance, you don't figure the "benefit" by whether you actually wind up using insurance or not. A lot of the benefit is just plain in the security. Do I complain because my house does not burn down? NO! I am happy. And I still carry insurance because I just never know...

If someone goes to a hospital, gets treated and doesn't pay, does the government ever cover that loss for the hospital? At the hospital near my house, they don't... So in effect, I'm not paying for that at all. The hospital already has written it off.

How much do the uninsured really cost the public? And how do you know socialized healthcare would cose less than today's average cost?

Medicaid #1.

#2 All the cost may not be passed on through taxes, but it IS passed on. It is a big reason for high costs. (there are other reasons).

However, here is the deal. Insurance is a "for profit" enterprise. People pay for insurance and insurance companies make sure that they don't pay out in benefits as much as they take in from people's policies. They do this lots of ways. They definitely limit care.. they limit care to most people FAR more than even the most horrific stories pur forward against socialized medicine. They deny coverage for all sorts of things and flat out refuse to carry people who are truly sick. They do this so they can make far more money than any other insurance agency in the world.. and gain more profits than most industries.

So, if insurance companies today restrict care in order to turn a profit, what's to stop the US insurance company from doing the same thing?

My point is that a major criticism of socialized medicine is that the government will limit care. I am saying our care is ALREADY limited unless you happen to be lucky.

The truth is that care has to be limited in some manner, but its also that right now, the profit motive is not for curing people, it is for covering healthy people with insurance and ordering as many tests and procedures as possible in medical care. NOTE, I am not saying that this means doctors are intentionally greedy. It is a lot of subtleties.

It is one reason, for example you are likely to get poorer care, not better the more doctors there are in a specialty in your area.

As for "what's to stop" .. our votes. Limits will have to happen still, but we want them to be made for medical/ethical and, yes, fiscal reasons-- but it sits a lot easier to hear "you can't have this expensive treatment because we need to fund vaccinations for kids" than "you cannot have that proceedure because our company has to take more profit than any other insurance company in the world".

What happens to those rejected by the insurance companies? Some get sick and die. No denying that. Others go onto Medicaid or other similar government programs.

What's to stop the state-run healthcare from doing the same?

Votes.

Look at the systems around the world. That has not happened. Again, medical care is not unlimited. Some people want care that is really not effective or appropriate. But limits won't be so insurance executives can each get millions.

ALSO, people will still be able to buy private insurance. This is true in most countries, except Canada. So, if you don't feel you have good enough coverage, you can get the extras you want at your own expense, just like now. Except, those policies will be available to everyone, not just for people who work in the biggest companies and so forth.

SO, the reality is that we, right now, are paying for all those people. THAT is a big reason why health care in the US is, right now, far more expensive than any other system in the world. And, to make things worse, we do get worse care, on average. Sure, those headline-making surgeons can take a few people from overseas to do miracles. However, the truth is that the average person living here in the US often has no access or less access to those doctors than people in other countries.

Will socialized healthcare actually reduce our costs or increase them? Who gets screwed and who doesn't? [/quote]

Right now, WE ALL "get screwed". We pay far more for our medical care than anyone else in the world.

I know the poorest of the poor will most likely not pay much, but how much would small businesses have to pay? If it's a significant amount, wouldn't that cripple entrepreneurship within this country? If the operating costs increase even more for many companies, wouldn't that encourage them to move?

The figure I heard a while ago was $500. That seems like a lot, but is less than it costs to insure your average employee right now.

Right now, a small business has to pay the most for care. They don't necessarily make enough to really benefit from the tax break and so forth. (they could just as well pay a little more). Big companies get to benefit not only from huge tax breaks, but also get reduced costs for insurance, etc.

BUT, look at the people. I know of more than a few people who plain cannot work because if they did, they could not get Medicaid and could not get any other reasonable insurance (insurance that offered coverage they could afford to use). Most of our community either has Medicaid or an "insurance" that has a $1000 per person deductable, PLUS co-pays of $35 for basic visits, $75 for after hours care, etc. (co-pays do not count toward the deductable). After that, the insurance then only covers 90%. After another $2000 it went up to 90 to 95% coverage. If you get ill in November-December, then you effectively have a $2000 per person deductable. Only when you have paid $5000 do you finally reach the "catastrophic limits" and get full coverage. So, a person making 20,000-30,000 is supposed to be able to afford $7-8,000? For that matter, just "daily" stuff quickly adds up to a thousand or two for a family. (all in co-pays, so it does not "count" toward that deductable).

Again THAT is why we need reform and why we need a baseline government policy.

[PLAYER57832]

... I am curious what supporters of universal health care feel about the massive fines and prison time that will result from not purchasing government-mandated insurance.

... I am also curious to hear their take on the penalties to be levelled against states which try to impose caps on malpractice payouts to lawyers.

... Looking forward to it.

...

... Quoting myself here... Anybody here arguing about charity, and how great universal care would be care to address the above?

...

As some of us have said, the current bill isn't what we want either. It could possibly make things worse. I mean, a public option falls short of what I'd choose by quite a bit. And the option in the bill is limp-wristed. And it has a bunch of bullshit tacked on that it doesn't need.

Are the fines, etc too high? I don't know.

However, you have to have a requirement that all be covered or the system will break. Insurance works because people who don't need it pay premiums and that money then helps pay for those who do. That is true for ALL types of insurance.

However, the chances of your getting sick are far, far greater than the chance that your house will burn down. In fact, it is virtually gauranteed that you will get sick at some point. So, you are as much paying for your own future care as for other people's care.

[Snorri1234]

[1] By having a large amount of people's welfare directly in the hands of the government, could they not use that to their advantage? By making people independent on the government's handouts, they're less likely to get agitated over other issues. For example, look at how Morocco, Tunisia, and more or less Egypt run things (Hell, even the Gulf States for that matter). They directly provide their people with just enough welfare/handouts in order to keep them just complacent enough. This is one of the reasons why those countries democracies are so defunct or nonexistant. The people are paid to be complacent, more or less, and America does not need more complacent people.

But the government already has people in their control if you look at it that way. They can easily say they will raise taxes if the people do not do what they want for example. They do not really need healthcare as an added pressure option, allthough the party that got it can of course brag about it.

[2] I love it when a foreignor assumes that he knows how American politics work. I didn't vote for all those jerkoffs pushing for this, did I? No, so don't cast blame on me. And typically the president, senators, and congressmen hardly ever win an overwhelming majority of the votes. Usually it's just a very slight majority. There's more I could say, but for the sake of being concise, I won't.

I didn't mean you in particular, but you as in the populace. If the people elected a government that tries to blackmail them there is something very wrong with the system.

[MeDeFe]

What happens to those rejected by the insurance companies? Some get sick and die. No denying that. Others go onto Medicaid or other similar government programs.

What's to stop the state-run healthcare from doing the same?

Maybe the minor fact that healthy people contribute far more to the economy and GDP growth than sick people. The government keeping people healthy will generate a lot more money for them than they could make from withholding care.

[Snowgun]

It's obvious what is happening to this country (US).

Totally. People are realising that their system is utterly broken in a very fundamental way and they want to fix that.

Not working properly? Yes, The government already screwed it with medicare, free coverage for anyone who walks off the street, non competing insurance, ect. And it's not "people". No "people" rose up and demanded a government plan, the politik hungry admisistration did that.

A complacency has settled in from years of being on the top of the game, and as such things have happened before (see "Europe") the masses who have nothing to strive against want an even greater utopia, run by their overarching nanny government and paid for by someone other than themselves. The US is starting to RUN down this road (the fucking chinese are getting more capitalist than us, WTF?). All we have to do is look at the stagnantism of europe to the remains of the USSR to see how this turns out. Which contry in the last 150 years has invented, developed, or otherwise lead the market of 90% of the tech and other "shit" that you use today?

Dunno....japan?

Just cuz you jack off to Hentai doesn't mean it's considered a world altering tech. Yea Japan makes cool robots. Do you see one in your house yet cooking your food? Hence the 90% number above.

nuke tech [which pretty much europe runs on]

What? That's retarded.

It would take too long to explain history ( Chicago Pile-1, manhattan project, Hanford), energy, and high technology to your retarded ass.

and all the pharma and medical advances that we practically GIVE to the rest of the world, pay for the R&D ourselves, because their health care system is to fucking broke to foot the bill.

Yeah you're pratically giving them to others instead of demanding huge and ridiculous prices.

Anyway, even ignoring the fact that the government is usually the one who sponsors the most important medical breaktroughs, your argument is utterly retarded because it has no real links to how the world actually is.

It's like when mommy and daddy buy your toys for you, even when you may buy one or a part of one with your allowance. The toy makers don't make that shit cheap just cuz its sold to children. Your parents have to foot the rest of the cost to make the economics keep spinning. The US pays high prices to subsidize the rest of the world.

And government sponsoring the most important medical breakthroughs? HA. HAHA, HAHAHAHA. You must be either be in highschool or live in europe, where government IS the ONLY one who sponsors anything. How's that going for them over there? The last piece of Europe tech i've come across is the fucking FORK AND KNIFE.

Who gives a shit if health care is "free" to the unwashed masses if they can't get quality, no advances ever get made, and it bankrupts the country? If the US goes who do you think is gonna support the rest of the worlds healthcare tech assholes!

We will?

Unless you're saying that the relatively few technologies the US develops to help like an unbelievably small portion of the world is significant.

Now your just being obstinate because you and everyone else knows that shit ain't true. See point #2. Hows holland's windmills and tulips working out for world advancement?

How do I know this? Because I've been working in this field, making implants and devices for various start up companies, and I KNOW how the wizard pulls the levers behind the curtain. We test our shit in europe only because they fucking BEG to let us give them our new tech, but they don't pay us shit. We just use it as a proving ground so we can be solid for the FDA here in the states. Why do we go through all the trouble to get FDA approved to sell in the US? RIght now my company could EASILY walk into china, europe, africa, South america, austrailia and sell. BUT WE AND OUR INVESTORS WOULDN"T GET PAID SHIT FOR OUR EFFORTS CUZ THEIR HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS ARE FUXORED. No pay, no R&D, no new "medical breakthroughs". Don't even get me started on the quality of Doctors issue, my whole family practices and i could go on for hours.

What the f*ck?

f*ck yea...recognise

Is the US healthcare system AWESOME! f*ck no.

Indeed. It's pretty far from awesome.

Agreed. Now just show me a undeniably better one cuz if there was we would have switched long ago.

There is a lot that could be fixed and tweeked, starting with shooting all the fucking lawyers in this country (love you chemefreak! ). but converting to a single payor /communist / eurofag bullshit jackoff fest is only gonna clusterfuck everything.

Yeah going with the system that every other civilized country uses with great pleasure is going to be bad....

"Every other?" No. "Civilized?" debatable. "With great pleasure?" HA. if your government told you to take it in the ass "with great pleasure" you'd line up like russians in the 1990's for bread. Thats why your grandfathers left your knocked up grandmothers to come to this country to get away from Europe's aristocracy. It's sad really, I shouldn't bag on you guys, you just don't know any better. Never tasted real freedom and opportunity.

TRUST ME

Sure dude. It's obvious you are very well educated on this topic.

Thanks! If you want to compare educational resume penises i'm all for it. Here, let me change my salutation:

Snowgun, Ph.D., MSME, BS, BA

Have a nice day!

[Frigidus]

Snowgun, Ph.D., MSME, BS, BA

Have a nice day!

Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't be a fucking idiot. But hey, don't let me get in the way of your huge e-penis.

[Snorri1234]

Not working properly? Yes, The government already screwed it with medicare, free coverage for anyone who walks off the street, non competing insurance, ect. And it's not "people". No "people" rose up and demanded a government plan, the politik hungry admisistration did that.

Actually, the people damn well rose up.

nuke tech [which pretty much europe runs on]

What? That's retarded.

It would take too long to explain history ( Chicago Pile-1, manhattan project, Hanford), energy, and high technology to your retarded ass.

Except for France Europe still relies mostly on normal ways of generating energy. In fact, a few countries are even considering doing away with nuclear power alltogether.

It's like when mommy and daddy buy your toys for you, even when you may buy one or a part of one with your allowance. The toy makers don't make that shit cheap just cuz its sold to children. Your parents have to foot the rest of the cost to make the economics keep spinning. The US pays high prices to subsidize the rest of the world.

Actually, it's like when you negotiate for the price because you're buying in bulk and the seller figures they can sell the rest of their product for far higher prices so it's not a big deal.

The fact that your government is forbidden from negotiating drugprices for medicare is your own damn problem. The drugcompanies aren't giving their stuff to us, it's just that we get a cheaper price because a government has a better bargaining-position than an individual.

Do you think the pharmaceutical companies are obligated in some way to give us a lower price?

Also, your system is still far more expensive.
"However, national expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for only 12.9% of total health care costs, compared to an OECD average of 17.7% (2003 figures)."linky linky
So you can quit your crying about how expensive your meds are and realise that even if they weren't it would still be a ridiculously expensive system.

Is the US healthcare system AWESOME! f*ck no.

Indeed. It's pretty far from awesome.

Agreed. Now just show me a undeniably better one cuz if there was we would have switched long ago.

What do you want to base "better" on? Life expectancy? Infant mortality rate? Number of medical professionals per capita? Costs? Acces?

Because your system is pretty much peforming worse than nearly every other country with universal healthcare in those things.

"Every other?" No. "Civilized?" debatable.

Every other civilized country has universal healthcare. That's a fact.

"With great pleasure?" HA. if your government told you to take it in the ass "with great pleasure" you'd line up like russians in the 1990's for bread. Thats why your grandfathers left your knocked up grandmothers to come to this country to get away from Europe's aristocracy. It's sad really, I shouldn't bag on you guys, you just don't know any better. Never tasted real freedom and opportunity.

Jesus you're an ignorant f*ck.

Thanks! If you want to compare educational resume penises i'm all for it. Here, let me change my salutation:

Snowgun, Ph.D., MSME, BS, BA

Have a nice day!

Shame you didn't even include your height and how much you could benchpress.

[PLAYER57832]

And government sponsoring the most important medical breakthroughs? HA. HAHA, HAHAHAHA. You must be either be in highschool or live in europe, where government IS the ONLY one who sponsors anything.

This shows how little you know of OUR system.

In fact, a large percentage of ground-breaking research comes directly from the NIH (national Institute for Health). However, becuase the government is not allowed to take a profit, those discoveries are given, for free to companies that they have every right to patent and market them for a profit.

This idea that it is the profit-making sector of the US that really leads advanced technology (in medicine or anything else) is essentially wrong. Companies do well at coming up with quick fixes to problems and inventing problems that they then promptly solve. The do NOT do well at the necessarily more long-term and not directly profitable research. They do very poorly at things like finding cures for diseases that only a few people have -- shoot, they have to get huge incentives to even product drugs already invented to cure more obscure diseases ("orphan drugs").

Further, where profit does operate most, it is in a completely negative way. Such as when there are more doctors practicing in an area, particularly in specialty field, the success rate goes DOWN, not up.

Also, doctors have very little incentive to truly cure people. Thankfully, ethics make sure that most do try, but the economic reality is that a doctor benefits far more from a long series of expensive treatment than from actually curing anyone. And, it shows.

[Snowgun]

And government sponsoring the most important medical breakthroughs? HA. HAHA, HAHAHAHA. You must be either be in highschool or live in europe, where government IS the ONLY one who sponsors anything.

This shows how little you know of OUR system.

In fact, a large percentage of ground-breaking research comes directly from the NIH (national Institute for Health). However, becuase the government is not allowed to take a profit, those discoveries are given, for free to companies that they have every right to patent and market them for a profit.

This idea that it is the profit-making sector of the US that really leads advanced technology (in medicine or anything else) is essentially wrong. Companies do well at coming up with quick fixes to problems and inventing problems that they then promptly solve. The do NOT do well at the necessarily more long-term and not directly profitable research. They do very poorly at things like finding cures for diseases that only a few people have -- shoot, they have to get huge incentives to even product drugs already invented to cure more obscure diseases ("orphan drugs").
.

You are correct in the fact that government technically funds what we like to call "basic" research. I myself lived off that research funding for a couple years doing genetics and other stuff. And this research DOES break ground, in the sense of theory. HOWEVER, the fact is that these THEORIES are really only about 15% the way to an end product, which is evidenced by how europe doesn't come up with SHITfor products when they actually have very good academic research system (I studied over there a little).

The rest of your post is pure nonsense and completely innacurate, and sounds like some bullshit populist propoganda to make the little guy hate the successful big guy who fucking works for a living to provide your kid's vaccines and cold medicine.

[Timminz]

populist propoganda

That's just what the majority of people want you to think.

[Snowgun]

Not working properly? Yes, The government already screwed it with medicare, free coverage for anyone who walks off the street, non competing insurance, ect. And it's not "people". No "people" rose up and demanded a government plan, the politik hungry admisistration did that.

Actually, the people damn well rose up.

Yea! Against this bullshit!

nuke tech [which pretty much europe runs on]

What? That's retarded.

It would take too long to explain history ( Chicago Pile-1, manhattan project, Hanford), energy, and high technology to your retarded ass.

Except for France Europe still relies mostly on normal ways of generating energy. In fact, a few countries are even considering doing away with nuclear power alltogether.

Changing the subject cuz you realized you spaced on this one isn't gonna win anything.

The fact that your government is forbidden from negotiating drugprices for medicare is your own damn problem. The drugcompanies aren't giving their stuff to us, it's just that we get a cheaper price because a government has a better bargaining-position than an individual.

Do you think the pharmaceutical companies are obligated in some way to give us a lower price?

Good post, you realize now that what i'm saying is true. Only Problem is that your "Big Government" only buys the cheap version of the drug, and also the drugs that are off their patients. And YES, in a way due to supply, demand, government regulation, and economics, the pharma companies ARE obligated to give you guys a lower price.

Some light reading to explain whats really going on.

http://www.aims.ca/library/MPPI_pharma-revised_.pdf

The rest of the expence part of your post is another subject (therefore off topic to this piece), but can be slightly summed up in my origional post by "shoot the lawyers".

Is the US healthcare system AWESOME! f*ck no.

Indeed. It's pretty far from awesome.

Agreed. Now just show me a undeniably better one cuz if there was we would have switched long ago.

What do you want to base "better" on? Life expectancy? Infant mortality rate? Number of medical professionals per capita? Costs? Acces?
Because your system is pretty much peforming worse than nearly every other country with universal healthcare in those things.

Another insiteful post! Yes, like i've ALREADY said, our system isn't perfect and could be better, but a lot of the things you have listed can be easily twisted by statistics, cultural differences between our countries, and fact. E.g., Access? Not the same in your system, thats why you fly here for cancer treatments, ect. And lets not forget QUALITY. That covers the last three for sure. Life Expectancy? f*ck, we also INVENTED fast food, so we're not perfect. LOL

"Every other?" No. "Civilized?" debatable.

Every other civilized country has universal healthcare. That's a fact.

Well, not if you don't count India, Eastern Europe, or half of South America as civilized. But that is exactly what I said in the post you quoted, debatable. And if we did things like the rest of the world, we'd not be who we are, #1 with a Bullet. (though this socialism resurgance here has a slipping, be prepared to welcome your new chinese overlords).

"With great pleasure?" HA. if your government told you to take it in the ass "with great pleasure" you'd line up like russians in the 1990's for bread. Thats why your grandfathers left your knocked up grandmothers to come to this country to get away from Europe's aristocracy. It's sad really, I shouldn't bag on you guys, you just don't know any better. Never tasted real freedom and opportunity.

Jesus you're an ignorant f*ck.

Struck a cord there did I? Unpleasant doesn't make it un-true.

Thanks! If you want to compare educational resume penises i'm all for it. Here, let me change my salutation:

Snowgun, Ph.D., MSME, BS, BA

Have a nice day!

Shame you didn't even include your height and how much you could benchpress.

LOL, yea, I apologise about that but you started it with your flippant remark, and those degrees are all relative to the medical industry, so I was trying to give context to my insight. Unless you feel benchpress would help in this discussion?

[Snowgun]

Snowgun, Ph.D., MSME, BS, BA

Have a nice day!

Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't be a fucking idiot. But hey, don't let me get in the way of your huge e-penis.

The depth of your oxymoron astounds me. I apologise if my E-penis hit you in the face, I don't like to whip it out, only when my education is challenged:

Sure dude. It's obvious you are very well educated on this topic.

Unless I mistook the sarcasm I read in this, if so mea culpa.

[Snorri1234]

Changing the subject cuz you realized you spaced on this one isn't gonna win anything.

You said Europe relied on nuclear technology, they don't really.

Good post, you realize now that what i'm saying is true. Only Problem is that your "Big Government" only buys the cheap version of the drug, and also the drugs that are off their patients.

I assume you mean patents?
WELL SHIT WHO THE f*ck CARES? If the gov gets a cheaper price why is it their fault?

The real problem here is the fact that the drug companies try to pass off the money they're not making from Europe to the US. But that's your fault for taking that and not our fault for being in a better position.

And YES, in a way due to supply, demand, government regulation, and economics, the pharma companies ARE obligated to give you guys a lower price.

They could of course not sell them....

They are obligated in teh same way that a company that manufactures tv's is obligated to lower their prices if their shit isn't selling.

The rest of the expence part of your post is another subject (therefore off topic to this piece), but can be slightly summed up in my origional post by "shoot the lawyers".

That still isn't the biggest part of the cost. Are you saying that other countries do not have malpractice regulations?

Another insiteful post! Yes, like i've ALREADY said, our system isn't perfect and could be better, but a lot of the things you have listed can be easily twisted by statistics, cultural differences between our countries, and fact.

Certainly they can be twisted but not to the extent that you can actually ignore them. Cultural differences do not explain why you got fewer doctors than other countries. Or why costs are higher. (Or why more babies die over there.)

E.g., Access? Not the same in your system, thats why you fly here for cancer treatments, ect.

Actually acces to the basic factors of care that apply to about 90 to 95% of the people is the same. Aside from the few people who fly to the US to get treatment there is no significant difference between how we measure access.

And besides, you can't really claim that that is because of your freemarket system. For the same reason that me going to the city to get more specialised goods isn't because I live in some sort of socialist town as opposed to the free-market of the city.

And lets not forget QUALITY. That covers the last three for sure.

No really quality doesn't cover the last three in the slightest.
Because aside from a few exceptions due to the fact the US is larger than my country the quality isn't better.

Life Expectancy? f*ck, we also INVENTED fast food, so we're not perfect. LOL

Yes and a large part of Europe is greatly enjoying that fast food. Certainly a part of the lower life expectancy is due to things like higher obesity but you can't claim that's all of it. And also ignores the many specific things wrong with the system that arguably are incredibly bad for overall health.

Well, not if you don't count India, Eastern Europe, or half of South America as civilized. But that is exactly what I said in the post you quoted, debatable.

Okay yeah by civilized world I mean Canada and Western Europe which I took to be an accepted definition. Perhaps I should say "the rich world"?

And if we did things like the rest of the world, we'd not be who we are, #1 with a Bullet. (

That's arguable though. If we take Western Europe (pop around 400/500 million depending on how you count) and put it next to the USA the GDP's are about the same.

But that's not even important since some of your practices might actually make your economy less awesome. Do you think doing things like the rest of the world is always bad?

LOL, yea, I apologise about that but you started it with your flippant remark, and those degrees are all relative to the medical industry, so I was trying to give context to my insight. Unless you feel benchpress would help in this discussion?

Well they might be relevant but on the other hand they're also kinda limited to your own system. The biggest problem in these debates is that people talk about how bad the european systems are without really knowing anything about them.

I mean, if they understood more about the other systems there might've been better discussion on the new system that would have to be implemented.

[Snowgun]

The biggest problem in these debates is that people talk about how bad the european systems are without really knowing anything about them.

I mean, if they understood more about the other systems there might've been better discussion on the new system that would have to be implemented.

Very good point. Too many people assume that because we are the odd system out there that there must be something wrong, and they blindly assume that it should be like what they know. But the way we roll (our methods in general) has been working pretty fucking good for the last 100 years, and history crowns us (in all around generality) as wholesale asskickers up to this point. It may be hard to accept the idea that we don't like things like the idea of 80% taxes. There are subtleties behind this that stifles our system. PERIOD, the proof is our economy and what we invent and produce. Strokes for different folks.

Yea, we COULD stop doing all the shit we do, stop selling to the world, stop developing tech, but that would be cutting of our nose to spite our face. Both the US and other countries get benefits from the gradient. We just don't see any reason to conform to another system, since we don't believe it works. We can argue about quality and such till the cows come home.

The funny part is the dutch USED to be the biggest capitalist asskickers in the world! It was a period of high culture and good standard of living of the times. What happened? (not saying it went to shit, but it ain't what it used to be). Some here in the US KNOW what happened (socialism) and we don't want to go that direction, because IN OUR EYES (you may think it's fine) it didn't work out so well.

Drams of socialism have already damaged our health system, because government influence never mixes well, unless it's very carefully done (Government, careful and elegent? ha ) We see the same shit in the housing market (fanny mae), our economy (fucking bailouts? wtf?) so the proof is the shit doesn't work the way WE want it to. So why pour more gass on the fire? It doesn't get us to the ends that WE want, why do we have to adopt someone else's system?

[PLAYER57832]

The rest of your post is pure nonsense and completely innacurate, and sounds like some bullshit populist propoganda to make the little guy hate the successful big guy who fucking works for a living to provide your kid's vaccines and cold medicine.

Propaganda?

You have been balonied. I spoke the truth... and its pretty easily verified. But, then, you "already know the truth"... so why bother seeing if its correct.

[PLAYER57832]

The biggest problem in these debates is that people talk about how bad the european systems are without really knowing anything about them.

I mean, if they understood more about the other systems there might've been better discussion on the new system that would have to be implemented.

Very good point. Too many people assume that because we are the odd system out there that there must be something wrong, and they blindly assume that it should be like what they know. But the way we roll (our methods in general) has been working pretty fucking good for the last 100 years, and history crowns us (in all around generality) as wholesale asskickers up to this point. It may be hard to accept the idea that we don't like things like the idea of 80% taxes. There are subtleties behind this that stifles our system. PERIOD, the proof is our economy and what we invent and produce. Strokes for different folks.

And you completely missed Snorri's point, because for all you claim to know our system (you don't, but that is another debate), you prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you know NOTHING about other systems.

[Frigidus]

The biggest problem in these debates is that people talk about how bad the european systems are without really knowing anything about them.

I mean, if they understood more about the other systems there might've been better discussion on the new system that would have to be implemented.

Very good point. Too many people assume that because we are the odd system out there that there must be something wrong, and they blindly assume that it should be like what they know. But the way we roll (our methods in general) has been working pretty fucking good for the last 100 years, and history crowns us (in all around generality) as wholesale asskickers up to this point. It may be hard to accept the idea that we don't like things like the idea of 80% taxes. There are subtleties behind this that stifles our system. PERIOD, the proof is our economy and what we invent and produce. Strokes for different folks.

And you completely missed Snorri's point, because for all you claim to know our system (you don't, but that is another debate), you prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you know NOTHING about other systems.

Not to mention that his paper thin tie-in to our reasonable military success and outrageous tax rates don't do anything to help his point. It's a lot easier to claim you're an expert than to sound like one.

[Snowgun]

Well i'm holding my breath waiting for you two arm chair naysayers to enlighten us. Just spouting off obvious false claims (player) and tiresome ad hominum attacks (player and fridigus) doesn't advance the topic any.

Here, I can do it to!

nah nah nah! You are all wrong! player doesn't know the system and frigidus is stupid.

Hope you guys are ok after you shake that one off.

Now player will entertain us with more propaganda with no background and Frigidus will call me an idiot again. And...go!

[Phatscotty]

:lol:

Well i'm holding my breath waiting for you two arm chair naysayers to enlighten us. Just spouting off obvious false claims (player) and tiresome ad hominum attacks (player and fridigus) doesn't advance the topic any.

Here, I can do it to!

nah nah nah! You are all wrong! player doesn't know the system and frigidus is stupid.

Hope you guys are ok after you shake that one off.

Now player will entertain us with more propaganda with no background and Frigidus will call me an idiot again. And...go!

Here Here! Timminz and Snorri get stuck in the same gulag as well

[Frigidus]

:lol:

Well i'm holding my breath waiting for you two arm chair naysayers to enlighten us. Just spouting off obvious false claims (player) and tiresome ad hominum attacks (player and fridigus) doesn't advance the topic any.

Here, I can do it to!

nah nah nah! You are all wrong! player doesn't know the system and frigidus is stupid.

Hope you guys are ok after you shake that one off.

Now player will entertain us with more propaganda with no background and Frigidus will call me an idiot again. And...go!

I'd argue with you if everything you've said hasn't already been refuted, and if you had actually proposed a solution.

And even if you had, I usually don't argue with fuckrags who open up with flag-waving propaganda as their sole selling point, back up their embarrassing lack of an argument by citing their made up doctorate, follow it up with some ad hominem involving his opponents supposed wank material, and then cry when he gets opened up on in turn.

[Phatscotty]

why is it both sides think they make a logical argument, yet neither side hears anything. Can we take the politics out of it? or is that impossible......Health Care is now politicized. Thanks a lot! Now we'll never get anything done

[luns101]

why is it both sides think they make a logical argument, yet neither side hears anything.

I think part of that is due to the fact that people use their personal experiences to make up their arguments. Of course it's logical to them because they lived through it. When someone disagrees with their view, it must feel like they're being told that what they experienced is invalid.

[Phatscotty]

why is it both sides think they make a logical argument, yet neither side hears anything.

I think part of that is due to the fact that people use their personal experiences to make up their arguments. Of course it's logical to them because they lived through it. When someone disagrees with their view, it must feel like they're being told that what they experienced is invalid.

good point. My #1 hangup is about COST or WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM. never can get through on that question. I am so eager to hear the answer you have no idea!

[BigBallinStalin]

What happens to those rejected by the insurance companies? Some get sick and die. No denying that. Others go onto Medicaid or other similar government programs.

What's to stop the state-run healthcare from doing the same?

Maybe the minor fact that healthy people contribute far more to the economy and GDP growth than sick people. The government keeping people healthy will generate a lot more money for them than they could make from withholding care.

So if you're senior citizen, I wonder if they'd care as much as current insurance companies. The thought may come to them: "why pay any longer for this guy? He's not contributing much."

I wonder how much costs the government would cover. Say if one is diagnosed with cancer at a young age (20s), how much would the government cover?