Conquer Club

ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby SultanOfSurreal on Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:03 am

bedub1 wrote:So what would you guys be willing to pay to go see a doctor? Should it be "free"? Somebody complained about $70, which I think is very cheap. How much is your life and health and the valuable time of a doctor worth? I bet it's harder and requires more school and expensive equipment and insurance than being a lawyer, and I know lawyers that don't think anything of charging $200+ for a 1 hour consult...some of them are $4000/hour.....


in all countries with universal healthcare, training and schooling for doctors is subsidized and insurance costs for doctors are literally about 1000% lower than in the US

ps $70 is not cheap you sheltered piece of suburban white trash
User avatar
Private SultanOfSurreal
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:11 am

Timminz wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I believe this is what happened in Canada.

False.


There are private health insurance providers in Canada? I just heard this last night on the radio, so I may be misunderstanding.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby SultanOfSurreal on Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:11 am

There have been a lot of debates and discussions recently, both on this forum and in other venues, about the state of healthcare. Looking at the rising costs of health insurance, and at the growing numbers of the uninsured, many are calling for government intervention, and the institution of a system where care is guaranteed to all - usually described as "universal" healthcare. It's a fascinating topic - the issues involved include humanitarian, financial and ideological ones. Unfortunately, debate on the subject is characterised by a startling phenomenon: one side is right, and the other is completely wrong.

Given the importance of medicine, I feel that it would be useful to clarify this issue. I will explain clearly, and with evidence, why it is that universal healthcare of any sort would be better than the current system in every significant way. If you find yourself disagreeing with this assertion, I ask that you read on before replying, as all conceivable objections will be addressed and resolved.

Why The Current Situation Is Bad

At the moment, healthcare in America is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. These fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of the medical profession, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. There then exists the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organisations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred.

Unfortunately, this system has enormous problems. As of 2006, 44.8 million people in America do not have health insurance. Many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. Without health insurance, the up-front costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. In fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. In 2001, this was 2,038,549 bankruptcies.

Furthermore, health insurance does not fully cover medical expenses. Different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, threshholds and other expense-minimising devices. As a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness.

As well as failing to provide care, and driving individuals into bankruptcy, the existing system is also exorbitantly expensive. Health care spending is now 15% of U.S. GDP - the highest in the world. The costs to businesses, who commonly pay premiums for their employees in lieu of salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. The annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. Paying more doesn't result in more value, either - obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world, the U.S. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries.

What Is Universal Health Care?

Universal Health Care, or UHC, refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. Every developed nation (OECD member) in the world, apart from the United States, has a UHC system. There are three main types:

In a fully public system, there is no or little private healthcare, and the health insurance industry is not a significant one. Medical service providers are government employees, and the education of doctors is also subsidised. The most well known example of a fully public system is the original English NHS, although a private sector is now developing in the U.K. as well.

In an optional public, the government provides the same services, but a private health services industry also exists (generally regulated), and . Sometimes health insurers exist, used by people who prefer private services. This is the most common, and examples include Australia and Sweden.

In a subsidised private system, the government pays for health care, but it is provided by private entities. Either the government acts as a health insurer for the populace, or it pays the fees for private health insurers to do so. This is done in Canada.

For the purposes of discussion, I will be assuming the characteristics of an optional public system, like those used in most of Europe. However, the benefits of UHC apply to all of the above types of organisation.

How UHC Will Improve Things

The single largest problem with healthcare in America is that many people don't have it. It's obvious how UHC solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). By definition, this is no longer a problem under UHC. All developed nations other than the United States make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. The two reasons which make a person uninsurable - insurer decisions and lack of money - will no longer exist.

The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost - which to the individual shows up as taxation. UHC is inherently cheaper - far cheaper - due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. When it comes to individual health care costs:

According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:

Australia: $1017
Canada: $916
Sweden: $532
United Kingdom: $397

The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

Australia: $2106
Canada: $2338
Sweden: $2468
United Kingdom: $2372

American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

Frequently Raised Objections

There are many incorrect arguments against the implementation of UHC in the United States. In order to better facilitate discussion, I will explain the errors found in the most common.

"America isn't Europe!", or It Won't Work Here
The argument from American exceptionalism states that what works in Europe will not work in the U.S. It's said that this is because European nations have more people in less space, resulting in less logistical difficulties, and because European government is more competent.

Firstly, not all developed nations are European. The most obvious example that counteracts the logistical argument is Australia, where there are 20 million people in only slightly less space than America's 300 million. This does indeed affect prices, as can be seen by comparing Australia to Sweden or the U.K. - but it doesn't bring them anywhere near the levels currently experienced in America.

The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and American government, achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.

"It is immoral to force me to pay for others' healthcare."
You are already paying for others' healthcare. Furthermore, you are paying far more than you would be under UHC. The U.S. government incurs massive costs from paying hospital fees when ER visitors have no money, and from the limited coverage that it provides, which cannot take advantage of economies of scale and which has to subsidise corporate profit.

As demonstrated above, U.S. taxes devoted to healthcare are the highest in the world. Even if you choose not to have health insurance, under the current system, you are still paying more for others' healthcare than you would be paying for theirs plus your own under UHC.

"This is socialism."
It is not socialist to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. Even the most staunch libertarian admits that there are some services in this category, such as national defence.

Secondly, it is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position.

"I don't want more government bureaucracy."
UHC will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like Medicare and also the plethora of state-specific programs. Regardless, the lives and money saved are more important than any potential expansion of the state.

"Why don't we try making the system even more private instead? That might help."
It might. However, there's no evidence to suggest it, and many reasons to presume it wouldn't. By its nature, the less publicly-supported a system, the more people will be unable to purchase health services.

The only potential gain would be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the U.S. must follow.

"Doctors will be paid less."
They probably will. In nations with UHC, doctors often earn less - for example, U.S. doctors earn 30% more than Canadian doctors - but this isn't an inherent problem. It is still one of the highest-paying professions in the world, and there are many other ways of attracting skilled people to medicine - such as subsidising their education.

It is sometimes claimed that doctors paid less in a country with UHC will instead go elsewhere where they can be paid more, but once the U.S. has UHC there will not be an elsewhere to go.

"Medical research is funded by the payments of the rich in the current system, and will be reduced."
It is not true that most medical research is done in the United States. In 2000, U.S. research spending was $46 billion, but European spending was also $43 billion. And although U.S. research spending doubled in the last decade, the funding's efficacy has actually decreased.

Secondarily, if the option for private healthcare still exists - and there is no reason why it should not - there will still be people choosing to pay more for a higher quality of care, faster service, et cetera. Their profits will still be reinvested in the development of new drugs, equipment and understanding of the human body, as they still are in nations with UHC today. Even in the United States, private spending accounts for only 57% of research spending.

"With the option of private healthcare, the rich will 'opt out' and costs will go up."
This isn't necessarily true at all; although private healthcare is usually allowed in UHC nations (for good reasons), it doesn't have to decrease the taxes paid by all to support the public system!

"Other countries fix drug prices, so the US has to pay more for drugs."
This is another common misconception. U.S. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it's around the average or even slightly lower. From the OECD:

Canada: 17.7%
Germany: 15.2%
Iceland: 13.3%
Australia: 13.3%
US: 12.4%
Sweden: 12%
Ireland: 11.6%

In Conclusion

Thank you for reading. To those who were not previously supporters of UHC, I apologise if anything seemed condescending, but there's no shame in being wrong due to not having all the facts or having been misled. If anyone has questions feel free to ask, and hopefully we can now discuss what sort of UHC system ought to be implemented or how the political will for it can be gathered, rather than being bogged down by misconceptions about its desirability.
Last edited by SultanOfSurreal on Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Private SultanOfSurreal
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:53 am

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:13 am

SultanOfSurreal wrote:in all countries with universal healthcare, training and schooling for doctors is subsidized and insurance costs for doctors are literally about 1000% lower than in the US

ps $70 is not cheap you sheltered piece of suburban white trash


Neither subsidizing for doctors or medical malpractice reform are included in the current healthcare bill.

And I think suburban and white trash are mutually exclusive. But, yes, $70 is not cheap. Time for a new health insurance plan for said individual.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:17 am

thegreekdog wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:Why would that matter?


I don't know if you're missing the point on purpose or not, but I'll try to re-explain. When the government "competes" with the free market, it's not really a competition, at least on the amount one has to pay. The government is subsidized by taxes and the lack of a need to generate income. Taxes, for their part, are taken directly from (1) the companies the government is in competition with and (2) the people the government is supposed to help. So, the government will offer a person health insurance for $10, private companies offer health insurance for $100 (because they are required to by law). So a person is obviously going to choose the government. Eventually, all private health insurance companies fold up, government runs the healthcare system. I believe this is what happened in Canada. So, for you and anyone else, including the President, to say that there will be competition, is a bit shortsighted, inaccurate, and uninformed (or nefarious, depending).


So what you're saying is that people would rather take the shitty health care the government offers than the superawesome and far better service the private companies provide?

Not only is that contrary to what happens in other countries with both private and public health insurance (including Germany, the Uk and others) but it is in fact contrary to your own belief in the free market. The idea is that people will pay more for better services if they can afford it. It doesn't matter if the government doesn't have to make a profit because according to all the opponents the service they will provide won't be as good.

Your objection to this contradicts the very belief on which you object to the entire idea of public health care.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Timminz on Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:25 am

thegreekdog wrote:
Timminz wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I believe this is what happened in Canada.

False.

There are private health insurance providers in Canada?


Yes. Although, they are not alternatives to public care, but are used for additional coverage. For example, dental, and vision are not covered by the government.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby bedub1 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:23 am

SultanOfSurreal wrote:
bedub1 wrote:So what would you guys be willing to pay to go see a doctor? Should it be "free"? Somebody complained about $70, which I think is very cheap. How much is your life and health and the valuable time of a doctor worth? I bet it's harder and requires more school and expensive equipment and insurance than being a lawyer, and I know lawyers that don't think anything of charging $200+ for a 1 hour consult...some of them are $4000/hour.....


in all countries with universal healthcare, training and schooling for doctors is subsidized and insurance costs for doctors are literally about 1000% lower than in the US

ps $70 is not cheap you sheltered piece of suburban white trash

Please don't flame me.

My roommate got some rust drilled out of his eyeball and restored his sight for $70. Thats cheap. I'd easily pay $500-$1000 or probably more to get that done. $70 IS cheap to see a doctor. It's barely more expensive than a PS3 or Wii or Xbox360 video game.
Colonel bedub1
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby joecoolfrog on Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:10 am

bedub1 wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:
bedub1 wrote:So what would you guys be willing to pay to go see a doctor? Should it be "free"? Somebody complained about $70, which I think is very cheap. How much is your life and health and the valuable time of a doctor worth? I bet it's harder and requires more school and expensive equipment and insurance than being a lawyer, and I know lawyers that don't think anything of charging $200+ for a 1 hour consult...some of them are $4000/hour.....


in all countries with universal healthcare, training and schooling for doctors is subsidized and insurance costs for doctors are literally about 1000% lower than in the US

ps $70 is not cheap you sheltered piece of suburban white trash

Please don't flame me.

My roommate got some rust drilled out of his eyeball and restored his sight for $70. Thats cheap. I'd easily pay $500-$1000 or probably more to get that done. $70 IS cheap to see a doctor. It's barely more expensive than a PS3 or Wii or Xbox360 video game.


So what , are you saying that you wouldn't rather pay $40 than $70....I dont believe you !
User avatar
Brigadier joecoolfrog
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: London ponds

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby bedub1 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:18 pm

joecoolfrog wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
SultanOfSurreal wrote:
bedub1 wrote:So what would you guys be willing to pay to go see a doctor? Should it be "free"? Somebody complained about $70, which I think is very cheap. How much is your life and health and the valuable time of a doctor worth? I bet it's harder and requires more school and expensive equipment and insurance than being a lawyer, and I know lawyers that don't think anything of charging $200+ for a 1 hour consult...some of them are $4000/hour.....


in all countries with universal healthcare, training and schooling for doctors is subsidized and insurance costs for doctors are literally about 1000% lower than in the US

ps $70 is not cheap you sheltered piece of suburban white trash

Please don't flame me.

My roommate got some rust drilled out of his eyeball and restored his sight for $70. Thats cheap. I'd easily pay $500-$1000 or probably more to get that done. $70 IS cheap to see a doctor. It's barely more expensive than a PS3 or Wii or Xbox360 video game.


So what , are you saying that you wouldn't rather pay $40 than $70....I dont believe you !

I think a doctors time is more valuable than a video game, and people should be willing to spend more on their health than on a video game. So I think people need to stop bitching about $70 being so expensive....because it's not.
Colonel bedub1
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby GabonX on Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:15 pm

70$ is like two weeks worth of beer and ciggerates.

With health costs this outrageous, poor people would have to cut back on beer and ciggerates.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Frigidus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:29 pm

GabonX wrote:70$ is like two weeks worth of beer and ciggerates.

With health costs this outrageous, poor people would have to cut back on beer and ciggerates.


Yeah, those damn poor people. Get a job!
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Timminz on Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:38 pm

GabonX wrote:70$ is like two weeks worth of beer and ciggerates.

With health costs this outrageous, poor people would have to cut back on beer and ciggerates.


That's one of the more asinine things I've seen from you yet. Do you have to try hard to be that much of an ass?

It would also be enough to feed someone for a couple weeks.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby spurgistan on Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:08 pm

I guess my question is this: if opponents of expanded Medicare (which is basically what the present proposals are, if I understand them) are right, why do they need to lie and say that the gubmint is going to start euthanizing people?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Timminz on Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:18 pm

spurgistan wrote:why do they need to lie and say that the gubmint is going to start euthanizing people?

Because the truth isn't going to scare anyone into agreeing with your views, and that's the only way some people seem to think they can convince anyone of anything.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Frigidus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:59 pm

Timminz wrote:
spurgistan wrote:why do they need to lie and say that the gubmint is going to start euthanizing people?

Because the truth isn't going to scare anyone into agreeing with your views, and that's the only way some people seem to think they can convince anyone of anything.


For more, see Hell.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:32 pm

Nobunaga wrote:... I appreciate the measured response, but...

... "Granfather" here means insurance that is in force if/when this bill passes, correct?

... Under "Limitation on New Enrollment", we see, ...

(A) In General. - Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offerring such (the grandfather) coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

... What comes after concerns dependents and the terms & conditions, not relevant to the argument.

... PLAYER, anybody, tell me how this can mean anything but the illegality of new insurance policies, issued by insurance companies, acting independently of government. Such becomes illegal - show me where I'm wrong. (not being snarky here - time for that later when I know what I'm talking about).

...


If you reread just about any type of legislation, pertaining to contracts of just about any kind, you will see something similar.

All it means is that the policies that will be offered after the legislation must be different from the old policies because the rules have changed. In no way does it mean that insurers cannot offer new policies. Its just they have to offer new policies that meet the new legal criteria.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:34 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
KuppenTruppen wrote:You know what's fun? Complaining about something unrelated to the real problem at hand. I happen to think that free universal healthcare is a great idea. You know what I don't like though? Bureaucracy, which is found EVERYWHERE in your U.S. government. Having Public Healthcare will be no different than preparing your taxes, prosecuting someone, being prosecuted, getting on Welfare, registering to vote, or frankly doing anything else involving the government. Maybe it isn't that public healthcare is bad. Maybe it's just your government.


YES!!!! EXACTLY RIGHT!!!! I hope the rest of you non-US citizens take this statement to heart.


Someone who has not dealt with Blue Cross, except perhaps as a high-tiered Highmark policy holder :roll: :roll:

BECAUSE, I can absolutely gaurantee it is far easier to deal with any government agency -- EVEN AN IRS AUDIT, than to have to deal with those jerks. Furthermore, you wind up having to deal with their worst right when you need it most .. when your kid or spouse or you yourself are sick and having to make critical medical decisions.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:45 pm

SultanOfSurreal wrote:
bedub1 wrote:So what would you guys be willing to pay to go see a doctor? Should it be "free"? Somebody complained about $70, which I think is very cheap. How much is your life and health and the valuable time of a doctor worth? I bet it's harder and requires more school and expensive equipment and insurance than being a lawyer, and I know lawyers that don't think anything of charging $200+ for a 1 hour consult...some of them are $4000/hour.....


Let's get some reality here.

I live in an area that is not precisely wealthy. Even the most basic of visits cost from $50 (for basic Chiropratic manipulation) to $90 (for most physicals). A few flu clinics do offer flu (only) vaccines for $20. HOWEVER, to get the vaccines your child needs to enter school costs around $400 minimum... and you have to duplicate them 3 times.

A basic gynecological exam..initial patient visit is aroun $120. Additional visits vary. If you get the standard pap smear, etc it will run you another $125 without insurance. I have no idea about mammograms, except a friend told me it cost here $750.

In PA, you kids are required, by law to get dental visits in various grades (1rst and 3rd, not sure when else). That is another $55 just for a basic visit. Eye exams are about $80. Glasses run from $120- over $300 depending on the lenses (note, we don't live in a city with those 2 for $50 or whatever deals they are now offering, furthermore those rates only ever apply to basic perscriptions, without stigmatisms or such).

Teh doctors don't get most of that money. It goes to offices, receptionists, medical records agencies, billing agencies, etc.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:45 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
KuppenTruppen wrote:You know what's fun? Complaining about something unrelated to the real problem at hand. I happen to think that free universal healthcare is a great idea. You know what I don't like though? Bureaucracy, which is found EVERYWHERE in your U.S. government. Having Public Healthcare will be no different than preparing your taxes, prosecuting someone, being prosecuted, getting on Welfare, registering to vote, or frankly doing anything else involving the government. Maybe it isn't that public healthcare is bad. Maybe it's just your government.


YES!!!! EXACTLY RIGHT!!!! I hope the rest of you non-US citizens take this statement to heart.


Someone who has not dealt with Blue Cross, except perhaps as a high-tiered Highmark policy holder :roll: :roll:

BECAUSE, I can absolutely gaurantee it is far easier to deal with any government agency -- EVEN AN IRS AUDIT, than to have to deal with those jerks. Furthermore, you wind up having to deal with their worst right when you need it most .. when your kid or spouse or you yourself are sick and having to make critical medical decisions.


Clearly you have never dealt with an IRS audit. In any case, perhaps there needs to be government regulation on the type of bureaucracy you're describing with various health insurance entities.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:50 pm

Even if the US bureaucracy is so much more worse than in Europe, this will still perform so much more better than the current system.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:58 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
KuppenTruppen wrote:You know what's fun? Complaining about something unrelated to the real problem at hand. I happen to think that free universal healthcare is a great idea. You know what I don't like though? Bureaucracy, which is found EVERYWHERE in your U.S. government. Having Public Healthcare will be no different than preparing your taxes, prosecuting someone, being prosecuted, getting on Welfare, registering to vote, or frankly doing anything else involving the government. Maybe it isn't that public healthcare is bad. Maybe it's just your government.


YES!!!! EXACTLY RIGHT!!!! I hope the rest of you non-US citizens take this statement to heart.


Someone who has not dealt with Blue Cross, except perhaps as a high-tiered Highmark policy holder :roll: :roll:

BECAUSE, I can absolutely gaurantee it is far easier to deal with any government agency -- EVEN AN IRS AUDIT, than to have to deal with those jerks. Furthermore, you wind up having to deal with their worst right when you need it most .. when your kid or spouse or you yourself are sick and having to make critical medical decisions.


Clearly you have never dealt with an IRS audit. In any case, perhaps there needs to be government regulation on the type of bureaucracy you're describing with various health insurance entities.


Actually, I have. However, I have heard pure horror stories.

I probably was wrong in saying they were worse, but it is certainly no better. Also, both can go on for years and require lots of your personal money to fight .. something some people facing audits have and few facing Blue Cross have.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:08 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:Even if the US bureaucracy is so much more worse than in Europe, this will still perform so much more better than the current system.


As I've said many times, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing debate. My problem with the current healthcare plan (which I have actually read) is that it is an "all" plan. I think we can have universal healthcare without a government single-payor system. This is generally called compromise, and is generally what happens in the United States.

(1) Federal government creates regulations making it easier for Americans to get health insurance coverage instead of getting the runaround from their providers
(2) Federal government expands and revamps Medicare to ensure that the uninsured Americans who cannot afford health insurance get coverage.

That should work well without having a single payor system.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby jsholty4690 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:58 pm

The main problem with most of the Health Care plans is that they would need tax increases on most Americans (although I'm a Republican, I'm for the increase). And personally, I don't see many Americans getting on that bandwagon because 1) Obama promised to increase taxes only on the super rich and 2) no one likes to see their money go bye bye (At least most Americans don't).
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jsholty4690
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:42 pm
Location: Peoria, IL

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:06 pm

If you want to pay more taxes go ahead. Do not impose your taxes on other people. The IRS accepts checks. I already pay half my fucking income with nothing to show for it except road construction, which never seems to have enough money. WHY WOULD ANYONE GIVE ANOTHER DIME TO A BLACK HOLE GOV'T?????????????????????????????????????????
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:08 pm

jsholty4690 wrote:The main problem with most of the Health Care plans is that they would need tax increases on most Americans (although I'm a Republican, I'm for the increase). And personally, I don't see many Americans getting on that bandwagon because 1) Obama promised to increase taxes only on the super rich and 2) no one likes to see their money go bye bye (At least most Americans don't).


While it's certainly true that a tax increase will make people unlikely to agree with the plan, it's probable that the money they pay in taxes will be far less than the money they would have spent on insurance.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users