|
On November 10 2009 05:45 damenmofa wrote:
oh lord, such misinformation in this thread. Why has nobody opposed the argument that a healthcare system costs much money and therefore weakens the economy? If you look at business ethics or modern economy, such claims are unfounded. In fact one can argue it strenghthens the economy, because it enables more people who have problems (in this case get sick, other example would be to get unemployed) to get productive again and contribute to the economy. Also, it enables people to invest more riskily on the market (in this case health, other example would be money), potentially creating more innovations/revenues and general wealth.
Its not like the scientific debate about social market economy is clear cut in terms of it costing more money than it generates or vice versa. It kinda shocks me that people seem oblivious to the fact that there are good economical arguments for a social market economy and even come up with horseshit like "stealing". Try to inform yourself a lil next time pls.
tl:dr
I'm going to talk about stuff without backing any of it up, just take my word for it I know what I'm talking about.
p.s. you guys are stupid
the end
/smug
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:55 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 05:51 motbob wrote:
After they are stabilized, the hospital does exactly that. Yes. Because their life is no longer in immediate danger. Housing and feeding those without the means to do so is part of existing social programs, and not the business of a hospital. I don't see how that's relevant.
...where have I seen this method of argument before? lol. Get proven wrong on one point and then switch points ASAP, right?
This is how it's relevant:
YOU SAID:
Except health insurance *doesn't* save people's lives.
I showed that it, in fact, does, since it opens up the option of getting treatment for cancer/heart disease/diabetes/anything else that is not going to cause your death in the next 24 hours.
|
On November 10 2009 04:11 Try wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 04:04 knatt wrote:
What's wrong with free health care? Find it kind of unnecessary for children with no health insurance to die in vain because of some random stupid shit.
I don't even know if I'm saying anything that makes any sense, since my knowledge of American politics is very limited. Oh well, life goes on~~~ Yeah, these kind of posts make me think that very few people posting here actually understand the financial ramifications of universal health care. There are many problems with free health care in the United States. 1. People will always go for the more expensive treatment. 2. People will go to the ER for very minor cuts and diseases. 3. Doctors will be paid far less, which will increase the shortage of surgeons and PCP's. 4. Baby boomers are aging, and will cause the debt to explode. 5. Presciption drug companies will be paid far less, decreasing their incentive to find cures. 6. Due to 1 and 2, wait times for treatments will be far longer 7. (This point might be controversial) People who are more useful to society (generally those who make more money, for example, Bill Gates or someone with a good job probably contributed more than some random hobo) should be able to get better health care. 8. etc, etc, etc.
Bwahwhahwahwhawhahwhawhahwah
wait.
.
.
.
.
BUAAUBAUBAUHBAUAHBUAHBAUAHBAAU
Great troll. This made my day. Shows that you have no idea how Health Care works in other countries
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:59 motbob wrote:I showed that it, in fact, does, since it opens up the option of getting treatment for cancer/heart disease/diabetes/anything else that is not going to cause your death in the next 24 hours.
Read my edit. I conceded that point, but also pointed out that it doesn't directly fall out of the ethical "right to life". I'm not sure we're arguing in the same place, but my point is you can't justify universal healthcare solely out of the fact that it saves lives. It only does it sometimes, and it isn't the only way the same outcome could be achieved in those cases.
|
If it doesn't pass, I'm moving to Canada. Maybe.
|
I can't wait for somebody else's money pays for my healthcare needs without effort required on my part other than going to a clinic. What a lot of people don't realize is that America is all about convenience! What's more convenient than getting to dodge one type of insurance?
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 06:02 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 05:59 motbob wrote:YOU SAID:
Except health insurance *doesn't* save people's lives. I showed that it, in fact, does, since it opens up the option of getting treatment for cancer/heart disease/diabetes/anything else that is not going to cause your death in the next 24 hours. Read my edit. I conceded that point, but also pointed out that it doesn't directly fall out of the ethical "right to life". I'm not sure we're arguing in the same place, but my point is you can't justify universal healthcare out of the fact that it saves lives. It only does it sometimes, and it isn't the only way the same outcome could be achieved in those cases.
It's true that you can't justify certain things based on the number of lives they save. For example, there was a bill under discussion concerning airplane safety seats that would have saved lives, but was not passed partly because the amount of money that it would cost per life saved was too high. The EPA doesn't carry out every single program that it could... it only carries out the ones that would cost less than $7.4 million (or was it 4.7 million? can't remember) per life saved.
But health care is almost certainly worth the costs. There's a Harvard study in The American Journal of Public Health that claims that 45,000 American adults die every year due to lack of health insurance. Let's say they're off by half, and that the real figure is only 22,000. Now, remember that health care will cost about $570 billion in taxes over 9 years, both on the rich and on people who do not buy health insurance. So that's ($570 billion/9)/22000, or $2.9 million per life saved. So that's actually a better value than some other government programs see, even if the Harvard researchers didn't know what they were talking about. If we take the Harvard study at face value, it would be $1.4 million per life saved, which by governmental standards is certainly worth it.
|
On November 10 2009 05:58 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 05:45 damenmofa wrote:
oh lord, such misinformation in this thread. Why has nobody opposed the argument that a healthcare system costs much money and therefore weakens the economy? If you look at business ethics or modern economy, such claims are unfounded. In fact one can argue it strenghthens the economy, because it enables more people who have problems (in this case get sick, other example would be to get unemployed) to get productive again and contribute to the economy. Also, it enables people to invest more riskily on the market (in this case health, other example would be money), potentially creating more innovations/revenues and general wealth.
Its not like the scientific debate about social market economy is clear cut in terms of it costing more money than it generates or vice versa. It kinda shocks me that people seem oblivious to the fact that there are good economical arguments for a social market economy and even come up with horseshit like "stealing". Try to inform yourself a lil next time pls. tl:dr I'm going to talk about stuff without backing any of it up, just take my word for it I know what I'm talking about. p.s. you guys are stupid the end /smug
This is a terrible post. You're not even addressing the point. Troll?
|
Yes, socialism is at our core, I can vouch for that. Any and all government jobs pay its employees a set amount of money depending on what their position is, and how long they have served.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 06:24 johnnyD wrote:
Yes, socialism is at our core, I can vouch for that. Any and all government jobs pay its employees a set amount of money depending on what their position is, and how long they have served.
Uh, in the army at least, the way you get to higher paying positions is through merit. I would assume that's true in the general bureaucracy as well.
|
I find it disturbing that there is such much resistance to giving the citizens of your blessed land of the free, best country in the world etc. a healthcare system that will care for them if they get sick.
Or maybe service should guarantee citizenship? As it stands now I see this between the lines: If you dont have a job, your worthless, if you dont have healthcare your worthless. If your worthless noone would miss you, your just stealing using our roads, our public space, our land.
How many uninsured people do you have again? Say all thoose millions got struck with a disease that only affects people unemployed and worthless, it will kill them if left untreated, not a big loss in your book from what I'am reading seeing as it would leave only the superior that currently have jobs. I exagerate, but sadly not by much I fear.
So, now having basic healthcare avaible to you if you get sick so you can be treated:
You can get a citizen back looking for a job, maybe he'll become very succesful and help the economy.
Your working and doing best you can but it dosent quite cover things, your kid gets sick, you'll now not have to worry about not getting that child a doctor, you can support it and have some stress taken out, making you a happier worker and citizen.
Thats just two scenarios, none of them seem far fetched and none makes you lazy.
Once upon a time someone said, qouting from memory; Do not judge a society based upon the one that has it best, judge it based upon its poorest citizen.
If we do not collaboratively strive for the betterment of our community and land and world, what is there to be so proud of?
That you can die, freely, in diabetes.
That you can go to jail, freely, stealing a piece of food because your not getting jobs and the worlds best country would have you die of starvation.
As of after wwII the home of the brave; land of the free, that so many splendid and humane minds helped fund and lay their lives, slowly rots.
|
On November 10 2009 06:29 Ceril wrote:
I find it disturbing that there is such much resistance to giving the citizens of your blessed land of the free, best country in the world etc. a healthcare system that will care for them if they get sick.
Or maybe service should guarantee citizenship? As it stands now I see this between the lines: If you dont have a job, your worthless, if you dont have healthcare your worthless. If your worthless noone would miss you, your just stealing using our roads, our public space, our land.
How many uninsured people do you have again? Say all thoose millions got struck with a disease that only affects people unemployed and worthless, it will kill them if left untreated, not a big loss in your book from what I'am reading seeing as it would leave only the superior that currently have jobs. I exagerate, but sadly not by much I fear.
So, now having basic healthcare avaible to you if you get sick so you can be treated:
You can get a citizen back looking for a job, maybe he'll become very succesful and help the economy.
Your working and doing best you can but it dosent quite cover things, your kid gets sick, you'll now not have to worry about not getting that child a doctor, you can support it and have some stress taken out, making you a happier worker and citizen.
Thats just two scenarios, none of them seem far fetched and none makes you lazy.
Once upon a time someone said, qouting from memory; Do not judge a society based upon the one that has it best, judge it based upon its poorest citizen.
If we do not collaboratively strive for the betterment of our community and land and world, what is there to be so proud of?
That you can die, freely, in diabetes.
That you can go to jail, freely, stealing a piece of food because your not getting jobs and the worlds best country would have you die of starvation.
As of after wwII the home of the brave; land of the free, that so many splendid and humane minds helped fund and lay their lives, slowly rots.
Healthcare costs money, we are in debt. The American taxpayers will have to pick up the bill to cover people putting nothing back into the system.
I don't want to be FORCED to pay for someone else.
IT IS SELFISH to assume society should take care of you.
|
Undisputed. - Could you please explain why other western nations, with socialised medicine, have a cheaper per capita expense on healthcare than the US?
Also, why, in those countries, hasn't the world ended with all those dire consequences that are happening if US becomes socialised?
|
On November 10 2009 06:39 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 06:29 Ceril wrote:
I find it disturbing that there is such much resistance to giving the citizens of your blessed land of the free, best country in the world etc. a healthcare system that will care for them if they get sick.
Or maybe service should guarantee citizenship? As it stands now I see this between the lines: If you dont have a job, your worthless, if you dont have healthcare your worthless. If your worthless noone would miss you, your just stealing using our roads, our public space, our land.
How many uninsured people do you have again? Say all thoose millions got struck with a disease that only affects people unemployed and worthless, it will kill them if left untreated, not a big loss in your book from what I'am reading seeing as it would leave only the superior that currently have jobs. I exagerate, but sadly not by much I fear.
So, now having basic healthcare avaible to you if you get sick so you can be treated:
You can get a citizen back looking for a job, maybe he'll become very succesful and help the economy.
Your working and doing best you can but it dosent quite cover things, your kid gets sick, you'll now not have to worry about not getting that child a doctor, you can support it and have some stress taken out, making you a happier worker and citizen.
Thats just two scenarios, none of them seem far fetched and none makes you lazy.
Once upon a time someone said, qouting from memory; Do not judge a society based upon the one that has it best, judge it based upon its poorest citizen.
If we do not collaboratively strive for the betterment of our community and land and world, what is there to be so proud of?
That you can die, freely, in diabetes.
That you can go to jail, freely, stealing a piece of food because your not getting jobs and the worlds best country would have you die of starvation.
As of after wwII the home of the brave; land of the free, that so many splendid and humane minds helped fund and lay their lives, slowly rots.
Healthcare costs money, we are in debt. The American taxpayers will have to pick up the bill to cover people putting nothing back into the system. I don't want to be FORCED to pay for someone else. IT IS SELFISH to assume society should take care of you.
It is SELFISH not wanting to help your countrymen.
It is sad you are FORCED to pay for public roads, tracks, the army, the goverment.to mention a few.
|
On November 10 2009 06:24 johnnyD wrote:
Yes, socialism is at our core, I can vouch for that. Any and all government jobs pay its employees a set amount of money depending on what their position is, and how long they have served.
Oh, we're socialist? So what means of production do I own, in common with my fellow citizens, that I was not aware of?
|
USA spends, before any implementation of socialised medicine, 13.8% of it's GDP on health. Germany and switzerland are next two highest in the world at 10%. Why have the wonders of the free market raped the American people of affordable healthcare?
|
On November 10 2009 05:59 timmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 04:11 Try wrote:On November 10 2009 04:04 knatt wrote:
What's wrong with free health care? Find it kind of unnecessary for children with no health insurance to die in vain because of some random stupid shit.
I don't even know if I'm saying anything that makes any sense, since my knowledge of American politics is very limited. Oh well, life goes on~~~ Yeah, these kind of posts make me think that very few people posting here actually understand the financial ramifications of universal health care. There are many problems with free health care in the United States. 1. People will always go for the more expensive treatment. 2. People will go to the ER for very minor cuts and diseases. 3. Doctors will be paid far less, which will increase the shortage of surgeons and PCP's. 4. Baby boomers are aging, and will cause the debt to explode. 5. Presciption drug companies will be paid far less, decreasing their incentive to find cures. 6. Due to 1 and 2, wait times for treatments will be far longer 7. (This point might be controversial) People who are more useful to society (generally those who make more money, for example, Bill Gates or someone with a good job probably contributed more than some random hobo) should be able to get better health care. 8. etc, etc, etc. Bwahwhahwahwhawhahwhawhahwah wait. . . . . BUAAUBAUBAUHBAUAHBUAHBAUAHBAAU Great troll. This made my day. Shows that you have no idea how Health Care works in other countries
Some points are true, some are wrong:
1. With public health care you will get basic treatment, but you can still pay for the expensive(better) one.
2. The problem with the expensive system in america is that people "have to" wait too long with their illness. Most times the later you go to get treatment the more expensive it will get.
4. As of now People over 65 have a government-run insurance anyway?!? You basically say that people who worked the last 40 or so years and build up america should just die quick.
5. America has the best medical research. Doing that research for profit seems inhuman to me though.
6. True. Americans have the shortest wait times at the moment. But better wait than get no treatment at all.
If you compare the American and the German healthcare costwise:
About 45% of the costs in America are payed from taxes. In America this covers treatment for >65 year people and other cases. In Germany ALL costs are covered with the same amount of money in terms of costs per citizen.
Like motbob wrote it is in your interest to cure people to allow them to work. The costs raise significantly the later you go for treatment.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
The "we are in debt" argument is sort of bad in my opinion... the bill is deficit neutral. It's not increasing the debt... why is the debt relevant?
|
ITT: Americans embarrassing Americans.
On November 10 2009 06:39 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 06:29 Ceril wrote:
I find it disturbing that there is such much resistance to giving the citizens of your blessed land of the free, best country in the world etc. a healthcare system that will care for them if they get sick.
Or maybe service should guarantee citizenship? As it stands now I see this between the lines: If you dont have a job, your worthless, if you dont have healthcare your worthless. If your worthless noone would miss you, your just stealing using our roads, our public space, our land.
How many uninsured people do you have again? Say all thoose millions got struck with a disease that only affects people unemployed and worthless, it will kill them if left untreated, not a big loss in your book from what I'am reading seeing as it would leave only the superior that currently have jobs. I exagerate, but sadly not by much I fear.
So, now having basic healthcare avaible to you if you get sick so you can be treated:
You can get a citizen back looking for a job, maybe he'll become very succesful and help the economy.
Your working and doing best you can but it dosent quite cover things, your kid gets sick, you'll now not have to worry about not getting that child a doctor, you can support it and have some stress taken out, making you a happier worker and citizen.
Thats just two scenarios, none of them seem far fetched and none makes you lazy.
Once upon a time someone said, qouting from memory; Do not judge a society based upon the one that has it best, judge it based upon its poorest citizen.
If we do not collaboratively strive for the betterment of our community and land and world, what is there to be so proud of?
That you can die, freely, in diabetes.
That you can go to jail, freely, stealing a piece of food because your not getting jobs and the worlds best country would have you die of starvation.
As of after wwII the home of the brave; land of the free, that so many splendid and humane minds helped fund and lay their lives, slowly rots.
Healthcare costs money, we are in debt. The American taxpayers will have to pick up the bill to cover people putting nothing back into the system. I don't want to be FORCED to pay for someone else. IT IS SELFISH to assume society should take care of you.
I love it when people oppose things out of some moral justification with no regard to the possible outcomes. If we actually sat down and tried to actually reform the system without political grandstanding and all the lobbying I'll bet we could make a system thats cheaper, better, and covers more people. It shouldn't be this freaking hard, the rest of the world has done all the testing for us, we just need to take the good parts of other systems and make it work for us, but no, if it means I might be paying for some poor dude to live then fuck that asshole I'll take paying more for my own healthcare.
|
On November 10 2009 06:42 RoyW wrote:
Undisputed. - Could you please explain why other western nations, with socialised medicine, have a cheaper per capita expense on healthcare than the US?
Also, why, in those countries, hasn't the world ended with all those dire consequences that are happening if US becomes socialised?
Why do we lead the world in cancer survival rates? The US health care system is so horrible people from around the world come here to be treated. The US is probably one of the few places you drop into an emergency room and be treated even with no ID because they cannot turn you away. Outside of the US health care is rationed and optimized based on age mostly from what I have seen. We spend the most I think because doctors have to cover there asses from malpractice lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
