|
United States10501 Posts
On June 22 2011 05:07 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 05:05 nakedsurfer wrote:
So to get this straight....In United States, if you commit a crime and go to jail for it then you get free(or atleast cheaper?) healthcare but the people who actually contribute to society but don't have insurance pay a shit load for healthcare?
You should do a little research on how many people come a cross the border to Canada to get health care there.It's quite ironic.
It's a 2-way street
http://newsdurhamregion.com/life/article/141202
|
On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have. Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former
What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument...
There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead.
So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people.
This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 22 2011 10:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:16 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:10 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:01 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:55 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 09:51 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:46 StrangrDangr wrote:
So he is having trouble getting insurance due to his pre-existing conditions? I thought the point of insurance was to get it before you get sick, so to avoid such problems. and you haven't considered that he couldn't afford it? Seriously.. use a little common sense  He can afford a condo on the beach, he is clearly hurting for money. It was not from lack of money but rather a lack of forsight. Seriously.. read the op  you read the OP... He is hoping for a three-year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach. I think are misjudgeing how much social security is. You cannot afford a condo on your social security check. That's not because he's sitting on a pile of cash. It's because he's a moron. The article even says he has a "depleted bank account." Now you are confusing cause and effect, the cause is him not getting insured when he had a job and the effect is him now being out of money. It is not the other way around. And where was that in the article..? Don't state your speculation like it's fact
If he is out of money and it is not from health care expenses then it means that this entire stunt was less about the affordability of health care and more about the inability of one man to budget his money.
|
On June 22 2011 10:14 DerNebel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 09:53 OsoVega wrote:
There is no such thing as free health care. If you don't pay enough tax to cover what you health care costs, it is stolen health care. If you pay the same amount of tax towards health care as you use, it is no different than just paying for it, only you aren't free to choose. If you pay more towards health care than you use, you are being stolen from. I agree with you on your main point. There is no such thing as free healthcare, there must always be a price. That's just how the world works. But then saying that it's stolen healthcare if your treatment costs more than you pay I feel is ridiculous. In countries with free healthcare the agreement is that everyone pays their share to make sure they themselves can get treated, no matter how bad their illness is. It is, essentially, a nationwide insurance. You don't call a car repair stolen if it costs more than you have paid in insurance rates, do you? Then why would this be different? It also works the other way around. The insurance company does not steal anything from you if you don't wreck your car. They simply make sure that if you wreck your car, it's going to be fine no problem at all.
This explains the logic and fairness of insurance. It does not explain the logic or fairness of unequal taxation. A person acting in his own self interest would not volunteer to take part in an insurance program where he pays five times as much to receive the same service, to insure others who can't really afford "their share". When you pay a private insurance company you pay an amount of money according to the chances of you actually running into the problems you're being insured for. This is what makes it fair. When you pay for a universal government healthcare program you pay a percentage of your income, likely according to the average chances of running into those problems of your entire nation, which is a very, very big difference.
|
United States10501 Posts
On June 22 2011 10:39 StrangrDangr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:19 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:16 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:10 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:01 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:55 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 09:51 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:46 StrangrDangr wrote:
So he is having trouble getting insurance due to his pre-existing conditions? I thought the point of insurance was to get it before you get sick, so to avoid such problems. and you haven't considered that he couldn't afford it? Seriously.. use a little common sense He can afford a condo on the beach, he is clearly hurting for money. It was not from lack of money but rather a lack of forsight. Seriously.. read the op you read the OP... He is hoping for a three-year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach. I think are misjudgeing how much social security is. You cannot afford a condo on your social security check. That's not because he's sitting on a pile of cash. It's because he's a moron. The article even says he has a "depleted bank account." Now you are confusing cause and effect, the cause is him not getting insured when he had a job and the effect is him now being out of money. It is not the other way around. And where was that in the article..? Don't state your speculation like it's fact If he is out of money and it is not from health care expenses then it means that this entire stunt was less about the affordability of health care and more about the inability of one man to budget his money.
he has been out of work for 3 years. Him being out of money probably has little to do with how he budgets his money
|
On June 22 2011 10:39 StrangrDangr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:19 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:16 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:10 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:01 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:55 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 09:51 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:46 StrangrDangr wrote:
So he is having trouble getting insurance due to his pre-existing conditions? I thought the point of insurance was to get it before you get sick, so to avoid such problems. and you haven't considered that he couldn't afford it? Seriously.. use a little common sense He can afford a condo on the beach, he is clearly hurting for money. It was not from lack of money but rather a lack of forsight. Seriously.. read the op you read the OP... He is hoping for a three-year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach. I think are misjudgeing how much social security is. You cannot afford a condo on your social security check. That's not because he's sitting on a pile of cash. It's because he's a moron. The article even says he has a "depleted bank account." Now you are confusing cause and effect, the cause is him not getting insured when he had a job and the effect is him now being out of money. It is not the other way around. And where was that in the article..? Don't state your speculation like it's fact If he is out of money and it is not from health care expenses then it means that this entire stunt was less about the affordability of health care and more about the inability of one man to budget his money.
This is what I gathered from the article. He was irresponsible about his budget, and now he's just trying to beat the system and use the cost of healthcare as a scapegoat until his social security kicks in.
|
On June 22 2011 10:33 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:08 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 09:45 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:28 canikizu wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ a year? There's no harm to cut 1 hamburger a year for sick people, you know? Of course the problem is not that easy, but you get my point. Except 3 million a day is absolutely nothing and you'd need to charge about $10-$20 a day if not more It would cost the 311 million people in the US $7500 a year on average to cover the US's health care expenditures. That's about 2500 hamburgers. But after everyone eats 2500 fewer hamburgers per year our healthcare costs are bound to go down No doubt. 2500 fewer hamburgers per year is 4000 fewer calories per day. We'd all be dead of starvation, which is a good way to keep health care costs down. Eat rice, dude, like the Asians. But seriously, US healthcare cost is stupid, every time someone got sick, somebody gets a new car. One of my friends got into a car accident, although he was fine, he was forced into the ambulance, brought to the hospital, sit there 3 hours, talk to the doctor 10 minutes, and got a $8000 hospital +$500 ambulance service + $500 doctor bill. The only thing the doctor gave him is a subscription for a painkiller pill, which he doesn't need to use if he doesn't feel headache in the morning.
your friend can sue the insurance company of the at-fault driver to cover these costs (they will settle very quickly in most cases, just to limit costs)
(if he was the at-fault driver, his insurance should have covered it)
|
United States10501 Posts
On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have. Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago.
Sorry but why would the poor people be immortal if they had the rich people's money but the rich people themselves aren't immortal? What do the poor people do with the rich people's money that makes them immortal and that the rich can't do themselves since clearly every rich person in the history of the world has died before reaching even 130 years of age.
Now I really really hope you are trolling..
|
On June 22 2011 10:35 Tremendous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:27 Tremendous wrote:I feel like there are some misunderstandings as to what a socialized healthcare system actualy means and what the governments role in it is. The governments DOES NOT run the hospitals, they also have no say direct say in the treatment of patients. The government provides FUNDING and oversight. They dont have gestapo-ish stormtroopers walking the halls telling the doctors who they can treat and who that cant treat. The idea that the cost of a universal healthcare system is much higher then a privatized system is also untrue. In fact, most EU countries with a universal healthcare system spend less pr. capita on healthcare than the US, because the systems end up simpler because you cut out a lot of the buracracy the costs go down signeficantly. fx. Take the Danish system http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279Universal healthcare isnt a scary communist buggyman or an enormous cashsink. i also imagine the insurance that hospitals have to pay outside of the US is much cheaper due to the significantly (assumption, correct me if i'm wrong) lower amount of lawsuits (as well as the lack of lawsuits themselves, let alone the insurance) Indeed. When doctors dont have to worry about the cost of the treatments then they will provide the best possible help they can. Also, as they dont feel obligated to "cut corners" for the insurance companies there are a lot less problems with people getting poor treatment.
I think he was talking about torts and tort reform, which I think should be put into some perspective. Tort reform would create savings of about .2% in healthcare costs. Ttorts themselves represent about 2% of healthcare spending.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf (source)
The per capita cost difference of US compared to most OECD nations is about 1/3 give or take 10% per country. So malpractice lawsuits just doesn't come near to covering that gap .
Edit: @lastchance, not all states allow you to sue the at-fault driver or his insurance in a car accident.
|
On June 22 2011 10:46 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:39 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:19 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:16 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:10 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:01 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:55 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 09:51 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:46 StrangrDangr wrote:
So he is having trouble getting insurance due to his pre-existing conditions? I thought the point of insurance was to get it before you get sick, so to avoid such problems. and you haven't considered that he couldn't afford it? Seriously.. use a little common sense He can afford a condo on the beach, he is clearly hurting for money. It was not from lack of money but rather a lack of forsight. Seriously.. read the op you read the OP... He is hoping for a three-year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach. I think are misjudgeing how much social security is. You cannot afford a condo on your social security check. That's not because he's sitting on a pile of cash. It's because he's a moron. The article even says he has a "depleted bank account." Now you are confusing cause and effect, the cause is him not getting insured when he had a job and the effect is him now being out of money. It is not the other way around. And where was that in the article..? Don't state your speculation like it's fact If he is out of money and it is not from health care expenses then it means that this entire stunt was less about the affordability of health care and more about the inability of one man to budget his money. This is what I gathered from the article. He was irresponsible about his budget, and now he's just trying to beat the system and use the cost of healthcare as a scapegoat until his social security kicks in.
I guess all of my economics classes that told me to save for retirement/loss of job must have deluded me into thinking that people actually do this.
|
On June 22 2011 10:50 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:35 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 10:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:27 Tremendous wrote:I feel like there are some misunderstandings as to what a socialized healthcare system actualy means and what the governments role in it is. The governments DOES NOT run the hospitals, they also have no say direct say in the treatment of patients. The government provides FUNDING and oversight. They dont have gestapo-ish stormtroopers walking the halls telling the doctors who they can treat and who that cant treat. The idea that the cost of a universal healthcare system is much higher then a privatized system is also untrue. In fact, most EU countries with a universal healthcare system spend less pr. capita on healthcare than the US, because the systems end up simpler because you cut out a lot of the buracracy the costs go down signeficantly. fx. Take the Danish system http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279Universal healthcare isnt a scary communist buggyman or an enormous cashsink. i also imagine the insurance that hospitals have to pay outside of the US is much cheaper due to the significantly (assumption, correct me if i'm wrong) lower amount of lawsuits (as well as the lack of lawsuits themselves, let alone the insurance) Indeed. When doctors dont have to worry about the cost of the treatments then they will provide the best possible help they can. Also, as they dont feel obligated to "cut corners" for the insurance companies there are a lot less problems with people getting poor treatment. I think he was talking about torts and tort reform, which I think should be put into some perspective. Tort reform would create savings of about .2% in healthcare costs. Ttorts themselves represent about 2% of healthcare spending. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf (source) The per capita cost difference of US compared to most OECD nations is about 1/3 give or take 10% per country. So malpractice lawsuits just doesn't come near to covering that gap . Edit: @lastchance, not all states allow you to sue the at-fault driver or his insurance in a car accident.
i've never heard of that.. do you have any reference for that?
|
On June 22 2011 10:53 StrangrDangr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:46 seiferoth10 wrote:On June 22 2011 10:39 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:19 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:16 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:10 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 10:01 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:55 StrangrDangr wrote:On June 22 2011 09:51 BlackJack wrote:[quote] and you haven't considered that he couldn't afford it? Seriously.. use a little common sense He can afford a condo on the beach, he is clearly hurting for money. It was not from lack of money but rather a lack of forsight. Seriously.. read the op you read the OP... He is hoping for a three-year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach. I think are misjudgeing how much social security is. You cannot afford a condo on your social security check. That's not because he's sitting on a pile of cash. It's because he's a moron. The article even says he has a "depleted bank account." Now you are confusing cause and effect, the cause is him not getting insured when he had a job and the effect is him now being out of money. It is not the other way around. And where was that in the article..? Don't state your speculation like it's fact If he is out of money and it is not from health care expenses then it means that this entire stunt was less about the affordability of health care and more about the inability of one man to budget his money. This is what I gathered from the article. He was irresponsible about his budget, and now he's just trying to beat the system and use the cost of healthcare as a scapegoat until his social security kicks in. I guess all of my economics classes that told me to save for retirement/loss of job must have deluded me into thinking that people actually do this.
Indeed they don't. It's quite a well known fact.
Edit: People don't save.
|
On June 22 2011 10:47 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:33 canikizu wrote:On June 22 2011 10:08 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 09:45 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:28 canikizu wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ a year? There's no harm to cut 1 hamburger a year for sick people, you know? Of course the problem is not that easy, but you get my point. Except 3 million a day is absolutely nothing and you'd need to charge about $10-$20 a day if not more It would cost the 311 million people in the US $7500 a year on average to cover the US's health care expenditures. That's about 2500 hamburgers. But after everyone eats 2500 fewer hamburgers per year our healthcare costs are bound to go down No doubt. 2500 fewer hamburgers per year is 4000 fewer calories per day. We'd all be dead of starvation, which is a good way to keep health care costs down. Eat rice, dude, like the Asians. But seriously, US healthcare cost is stupid, every time someone got sick, somebody gets a new car. One of my friends got into a car accident, although he was fine, he was forced into the ambulance, brought to the hospital, sit there 3 hours, talk to the doctor 10 minutes, and got a $8000 hospital +$500 ambulance service + $500 doctor bill. The only thing the doctor gave him is a subscription for a painkiller pill, which he doesn't need to use if he doesn't feel headache in the morning. your friend can sue the insurance company of the at-fault driver to cover these costs (they will settle very quickly in most cases, just to limit costs) (if he was the at-fault driver, his insurance should have covered it)
I don't really remember the detail, but something like the other dude doesn't have insurance, and my friend didn't have full coverage, so....
But even if that's the case, is $9000 the right price? I can't imagine that it is.
|
On June 22 2011 10:59 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:47 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:33 canikizu wrote:On June 22 2011 10:08 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 09:45 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:28 canikizu wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ a year? There's no harm to cut 1 hamburger a year for sick people, you know? Of course the problem is not that easy, but you get my point. Except 3 million a day is absolutely nothing and you'd need to charge about $10-$20 a day if not more It would cost the 311 million people in the US $7500 a year on average to cover the US's health care expenditures. That's about 2500 hamburgers. But after everyone eats 2500 fewer hamburgers per year our healthcare costs are bound to go down No doubt. 2500 fewer hamburgers per year is 4000 fewer calories per day. We'd all be dead of starvation, which is a good way to keep health care costs down. Eat rice, dude, like the Asians. But seriously, US healthcare cost is stupid, every time someone got sick, somebody gets a new car. One of my friends got into a car accident, although he was fine, he was forced into the ambulance, brought to the hospital, sit there 3 hours, talk to the doctor 10 minutes, and got a $8000 hospital +$500 ambulance service + $500 doctor bill. The only thing the doctor gave him is a subscription for a painkiller pill, which he doesn't need to use if he doesn't feel headache in the morning. your friend can sue the insurance company of the at-fault driver to cover these costs (they will settle very quickly in most cases, just to limit costs) (if he was the at-fault driver, his insurance should have covered it) I don't really remember the detail, but something like the other dude doesn't have insurance, and my friend didn't have full coverage, so.... But even if that's the case, is $9000 the right price? I can't imagine that it is.
That's only right if he didn't have health insurance.
|
On June 22 2011 10:33 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:08 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 09:45 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:28 canikizu wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ a year? There's no harm to cut 1 hamburger a year for sick people, you know? Of course the problem is not that easy, but you get my point. Except 3 million a day is absolutely nothing and you'd need to charge about $10-$20 a day if not more It would cost the 311 million people in the US $7500 a year on average to cover the US's health care expenditures. That's about 2500 hamburgers. But after everyone eats 2500 fewer hamburgers per year our healthcare costs are bound to go down No doubt. 2500 fewer hamburgers per year is 4000 fewer calories per day. We'd all be dead of starvation, which is a good way to keep health care costs down. Eat rice, dude, like the Asians. But seriously, US healthcare cost is stupid, every time someone got sick, somebody gets a new car. One of my friends got into a car accident, although he was fine, he was forced into the ambulance, brought to the hospital, sit there 3 hours, talk to the doctor 10 minutes, and got a $8000 hospital +$500 ambulance service + $500 doctor bill. The only thing the doctor gave him is a subscription for a painkiller pill, which he doesn't need to use if he doesn't feel headache in the morning.
Yeah the US healthcare situation is pretty fucked, and the sad thing is that insurance company lobbyists have long since bought and paid for both parties.
|
On June 22 2011 10:59 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:47 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:33 canikizu wrote:On June 22 2011 10:08 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 10:05 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 09:45 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 09:28 canikizu wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ a year? There's no harm to cut 1 hamburger a year for sick people, you know? Of course the problem is not that easy, but you get my point. Except 3 million a day is absolutely nothing and you'd need to charge about $10-$20 a day if not more It would cost the 311 million people in the US $7500 a year on average to cover the US's health care expenditures. That's about 2500 hamburgers. But after everyone eats 2500 fewer hamburgers per year our healthcare costs are bound to go down No doubt. 2500 fewer hamburgers per year is 4000 fewer calories per day. We'd all be dead of starvation, which is a good way to keep health care costs down. Eat rice, dude, like the Asians. But seriously, US healthcare cost is stupid, every time someone got sick, somebody gets a new car. One of my friends got into a car accident, although he was fine, he was forced into the ambulance, brought to the hospital, sit there 3 hours, talk to the doctor 10 minutes, and got a $8000 hospital +$500 ambulance service + $500 doctor bill. The only thing the doctor gave him is a subscription for a painkiller pill, which he doesn't need to use if he doesn't feel headache in the morning. your friend can sue the insurance company of the at-fault driver to cover these costs (they will settle very quickly in most cases, just to limit costs) (if he was the at-fault driver, his insurance should have covered it) I don't really remember the detail, but something like the other dude doesn't have insurance, and my friend didn't have full coverage, so.... But even if that's the case, is $9000 the right price? I can't imagine that it is.
(to clarify for anyone reading who doesn't know, i am talking about his car insurance company, not health insurance)
no it isn't, that's a highly inflated price. the insurance company would in theory pay the medical bills, which would be very much less than what they actually put on the bill. for car repair, i'd have him see if he has "underinsured/uninsured motorost" coverage
|
On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have. Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. User was temp banned for this post.
could've just said you were trolling and saved us the read
|
On June 22 2011 10:58 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:50 TheFrankOne wrote:On June 22 2011 10:35 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 10:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:27 Tremendous wrote:I feel like there are some misunderstandings as to what a socialized healthcare system actualy means and what the governments role in it is. The governments DOES NOT run the hospitals, they also have no say direct say in the treatment of patients. The government provides FUNDING and oversight. They dont have gestapo-ish stormtroopers walking the halls telling the doctors who they can treat and who that cant treat. The idea that the cost of a universal healthcare system is much higher then a privatized system is also untrue. In fact, most EU countries with a universal healthcare system spend less pr. capita on healthcare than the US, because the systems end up simpler because you cut out a lot of the buracracy the costs go down signeficantly. fx. Take the Danish system http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279Universal healthcare isnt a scary communist buggyman or an enormous cashsink. i also imagine the insurance that hospitals have to pay outside of the US is much cheaper due to the significantly (assumption, correct me if i'm wrong) lower amount of lawsuits (as well as the lack of lawsuits themselves, let alone the insurance) Indeed. When doctors dont have to worry about the cost of the treatments then they will provide the best possible help they can. Also, as they dont feel obligated to "cut corners" for the insurance companies there are a lot less problems with people getting poor treatment. I think he was talking about torts and tort reform, which I think should be put into some perspective. Tort reform would create savings of about .2% in healthcare costs. Ttorts themselves represent about 2% of healthcare spending. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf (source) The per capita cost difference of US compared to most OECD nations is about 1/3 give or take 10% per country. So malpractice lawsuits just doesn't come near to covering that gap . Edit: @lastchance, not all states allow you to sue the at-fault driver or his insurance in a car accident. i've never heard of that.. do you have any reference for that?
Its complicated, because there is no standardized system but...
.
"twelve U.S. states and the Commonwealth territory of Puerto Rico require policyholders to operate under a "no-fault" scheme in which individuals injured in automobile accidents are limited in their ability to seek recovery from other drivers or vehicle owners involved in an accident"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance
Not the best source but Im not a lawyer (you can look up health care cost differences without my help if thats what you were asking about)
it would depend on the circumstances and all that because each state is different, but this is not the thread to talk about car insurance... which i really dont want to do anyways.
|
On June 22 2011 10:20 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 09:16 RJGooner wrote:
I love how you just repeated what I said and didn't respond to it. Are you going to contend that that's not the case? If so, evidence? If you feel that I've misrepresented the American right wing somewhere in this dialog, feel free to correct me I'm pretty sure I've nailed the gist of most of your logics somewhere in the right-wing line in a neutral manner, but I might have left one or two out.
Whether or not this is a "talking point" of the conservative wing of American politics is irrelevant. Please do let me know when you would like to actually debate the topic with...you know.. facts.
|
On June 22 2011 10:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have. Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. Sorry but why would the poor people be immortal if they had the rich people's money but the rich people themselves aren't immortal? What do the poor people do with the rich people's money that makes them immortal and that the rich can't do themselves since clearly every rich person in the history of the world has died before reaching even 130 years of age. Now I really really hope you are trolling..
He is trolling of course. I hope he does paint himself as a peaceful person when he advocates taking money from people by force and giving it to others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
404
373
EPT
