Did a quick search. Hope no one is posting this as I type
A man decicided to 'rob' a bank for $1 in order to go to Jail and get medical care.
Is this what it has come to? I, myself, am not very involved politically and not completely sure what happened to Obama Care. Or whatever happened to his idea of everyone having health care. Has the plan been enacted at all?
Regardless of that. This citizen felt it was necessary for him to 'desire' to go to an institution where people get punished, in order to get health care. Really?
I think the whole situation is pretty sad. When you'd rather be in jail than try to deal with bureaucracy and government the 'conventional way', you know action is needed.
Now I seriously hope people will think before posting comments about how he is unemployed and with no money. His medical condition, however severe it may be, certainly impaired him from working optimally and you cannot expect him to carry out his day-to-day like everyone else would.
Also: Does this man have no family? Could he not afford medicare at all? This is really concerning. Please discuss.
GASTONIA, N.C. — A Gaston County man robbed a bank and then sat down on the floor to wait for police to arrest him.
"(This is the) first time I've ever been in trouble with the law,” James Verone said from the Gaston County Jail on Friday. “I'm sort of a logical person and that was my logic. (That was) what I came up with.”
That is how Verone said he came to the decision to rob the RBC bank on New Hope Road on Thursday, June 9.
He didn’t have a gun and he handed the teller a rather unusual note.
"The note said ‘This is a bank robbery. Please only give me one dollar,’" Verone said.
Then he did the strangest thing of all.
"I started to walk away from the teller, then I went back and said, 'I'll be sitting right over there in the chair waiting for the police," Verone said.
And that is what he did.
The teller called 911 and police released the recording:
911 Operator: Is he being threatening to ya’ll?
Bank teller: Yes
911 Operator: What is, he has threatened you?
Bank teller: Yes
911 Operator: To shoot you?
Bank teller: Uh, yes. He’s sitting on the sofa. He can hear everything I’m saying, so I’m in a back room. But there’s four of us here in the bank. Please hurry.
911 Operator: Ok ma’am. They’re just right out there.
So why did Verone do everything he could to get arrested?
"Because I wanted to make it known that this wasn't for monetary reasons, but for medical reasons," he said.
Hoping for three-year sentence Verone said he doesn’t have medical insurance. He has a growth of some sort on his chest, two ruptured disks and a problem with his left foot. He is 59-years-old and with no job and a depleted bank account, he thought jail was the best place he could go for medical care and a roof over his head.
Verone said he wanted police to arrest him.
"Oh yeah. I went in knowing I was going to jail," Verone said.
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've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor on Myrtle Beach," Verone said.
He admits his story is unusual and said he wouldn't recommend anyone else do what he did, but Verone said he has no regrets. He said he is getting good medical care now, but the jail doctor accused him of manipulating the system.
"If it is called manipulation, then out of necessity because I need medical care then I guess I am manipulating the courts to get medical care," Verone said.
Verone may have a problem with his plan because he only demanded one dollar in the bank robbery. Police charged him, not with bank robbery, but larceny from a person. He might not get as much time in the slammer as he was hoping for.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Because he is in the US, where healthcare costs an extortionate amount of money, and without insurance, even the smallest of things can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars when they are available for free in many other countries.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
at least every other first world country
many "third" world countries do too.. if he had enough money to travel , he should just gone to cuba and got great health care.. also here in Argentina
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
I completely agree. He did what he had to and made the best of the situation.
the usa have fallen quite deep...economical,financial and social...sad story and mb now the even the last will understand, there is no change in obama, there will be no change by anyone. you are slaves of the big companies and banks. nobody gives a shit about you getting healthcare! they only thing they give a shit about is money and power
free food and clothes also, if i were ever to become homeless or w/e id just go to jail =P they'll take care of ya in there (id be too scared for a maximum security prison though... lol)
i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ask for a bit more money (not necessarily a ridiculous amount), not say what his purpose was and that way get a more guaranteed spot in jail? Puzzling situation, your health care system has some flaws America.
On June 22 2011 04:41 gwaihir wrote: the usa have fallen quite deep...economical,financial and social...sad story and mb now the even the last will understand, there is no change in obama, there will be no change by anyone. you are slaves of the big companies and banks. nobody gives a shit about you getting healthcare! they only thing they give a shit about is money and power
True. Unless your income is in the billions, the government doesn't care about you. And if your income is in the billions, then the government more or less becomes your b!tch. Right now the public is divided and misinformed for this to happen pretty much indefinitely.
Public awareness has gotten a *little* better, but not much.
Stories like these make me freak out whenever I think of my health care situation... some of my friends can't afford it either and have to go for different plans to just mitigate the costs of their medical bills.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
On June 22 2011 04:45 vyyye wrote: Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ask for a bit more money (not necessarily a ridiculous amount), not say what his purpose was and that way get a more guaranteed spot in jail? Puzzling situation, your health care system has some flaws America.
This was more than just a bank robbery to get into jail in order to receive health care. He made it a political protest as well, which brings attention to the ridiculous healthcare clusterfuck that we have in the USA. The man understands that the healthcare problem is bigger than himself.
On June 22 2011 04:50 trainRiderJ wrote: Where I live the people without insurance just use the emergency room or a free clinic. Do they not have those in New York?
In what part of the country are emergency rooms free of cost?
better article. He worked as a truck driver for Coca Cola for 17 year years, lost his job about 3 years ago and went broke because he couldn't find anything else. He didn't want to go to family because he didn't want to burden them.
I don't understand how he couldn't get on medicaid, welfare or any of the many other programs that exist...
On June 22 2011 04:41 iG.Zeep wrote: free food and clothes also, if i were ever to become homeless or w/e id just go to jail =P they'll take care of ya in there (id be too scared for a maximum security prison though... lol)
thats quite standart. many homeless people (and we got quite some here that actually decide to be homeless) do some minor crap to go to jail for some weeks when it gets really cold during winter and they dont have a place to stay.
at topic .. dunno. the healthcare system in the usa always was pathetic at best to me.just never could understand how a country as big,powerful and (used to be) rich like that does not provide the most basic life/health support to their citizens. america sure is a amazing place to be rich. but a not exactly great place to have average/low/no income.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
at least every other first world country
many "third" world countries do too.. if he had enough money to travel , he should just gone to cuba and got great health care.. also here in Argentina
If he had enough money to travel, he could have gone to see a doctor...
On June 22 2011 04:51 Bibdy wrote: Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Plenty of successful health care programs are run by private organizations, in fact I think that's more common than the Canadian and UK way of outright having doctors become government employees.
I'm always amused that when some American politician,like Obama for instance,raises the question of restructuring health care and making it socially available to everyone,a guy like Glen Beck(and there are quite a few like him in the congress,nuts) yells from the top of his lungs COMMUNISM,SOCIALISM AAAAAA.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
Thank you.
This, this 1000 times.
To add, and I hope I'm not cheapening your point, but "free-market capitalism, in which competition keeps prices low for consumers, but profits high for companies loyal to their costumers gets completely thrown out when the product in question ( in this case healthcare ) is mandatory for the consumer. Meaning any insane price requested has to be met; "pay or you'll die".
Sad situation, privatization of medicare in Canada has me worried. Yes I know the talks aren't extreme, but it really is a slippery slope. Once the healthcare companies have you over a barrel, they can pretty much do as they please.
My country is too racist to want government healthcare for everyone, all the old white farts don't want their money going to poor brown people, but they're fine with exporting death in the form of predator drones, what a sad state of affairs.
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?
On June 22 2011 05:04 jmack wrote: To add, and I hope I'm not cheapening your point, but "free-market capitalism, in which competition keeps prices low for consumers, but profits high for companies loyal to their costumers gets completely thrown out when the product in question ( in this case healthcare ) is mandatory for the consumer. Meaning any insane price requested has to be met, pay or you'll die.
Sad situation, privatization of medicare in Canada has me worried. Yes I know the talks aren't extreme, but it really is a slippery slope. Once the healthcare companies have you over a barrel, they can pretty much do as they please.
The US doesn't have anything close to free-market capitalism for its health care markets. Outside of banking, it's one of the most regulated industries. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, simply a warning that your ideological rhetoric is making you look ignorant.
On June 22 2011 04:58 Phelski wrote: obama's health care is this 1)make everyone buy private health care 2) if they dont, or cannot afford it, then they get taxed/ sued
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?
It's a constitutional requirement to treat prisoners for injuries. People who contribute to society pay for healthcare no matter what, healthcare isn't free you know.
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.
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?
I think your forgetting that ironically.. we're paying there healthcare. (LOL)
On June 22 2011 04:58 Phelski wrote: obama's health care is this 1)make everyone buy private health care 2) if they dont, or cannot afford it, then they get taxed/ sued
Someone watches a little too much Glen and Bill.
He's basically correct. There might be some subsidies involved for the poor; I think Medicaid is supposed to be bolstered.
On June 22 2011 04:58 Phelski wrote: obama's health care is this 1)make everyone buy private health care 2) if they dont, or cannot afford it, then they get taxed/ sued
You mean the Healthcare plan Democrats had to butcher to get a couple of Republican votes?
The original version, even with its flaws, was much better than the clusterfuck that was created because of stupid compromises.
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?
It's a constitutional requirement to treat prisoners for injuries. People who contribute to society pay for healthcare no matter what, healthcare isn't free IN AMERICA you know.
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?
Yea, you also get a free bed to sleep on, unlike most people who have to pay for one! Insanity!
I find the story pretty funny, i've heard similar ones with homeless people or whatever, or people afraid of being killed if they didnt go to jail.
On June 22 2011 04:58 Phelski wrote: obama's health care is this 1)make everyone buy private health care 2) if they dont, or cannot afford it, then they get taxed/ sued
...stop watching Fox.
But on topic, this is really sad. As a European living in America I can see that what this country needs is some socialistic aspects, nobody can pay for College or Healthcare and yet they'd rather have low taxes than make that affordable. I don't think the red scare ever ended here, my wishes won't ever happen. Again, sad.
Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
On June 22 2011 04:50 trainRiderJ wrote: Where I live the people without insurance just use the emergency room or a free clinic. Do they not have those in New York?
In what part of the country are emergency rooms free of cost?
All of them? Well, they'll send you a bill but they can't force you to pay them. It will ruin your credit, but so does going to jail.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
at least every other first world country
many "third" world countries do too.. if he had enough money to travel , he should just gone to cuba and got great health care.. also here in Argentina
Can't go to Cuba from the US, would have to go to Canada first and then go from there. Also, there are some islands (forgot which ones, owned by Britain I think) that allow US citizens to travel to Cuba from them.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
The corporations are the middle-man, they're not doing very nice things to the bovine industry, dairy or agriculture industry.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
Don't know why you're being a dick to him, hes completely right.
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
The real question is if EU style healthcare is workable in a country that has a military budget greater than the rest of the world combined. Everything wrong with healthcare in this country is because of the government, they aren't going to fix it.
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
Well most people consider health care a human right rather than a consumer product so they feel pretty strongly about this.
Health care and death penalty is basically what gets the bashing rolling ^^
The doc who treated him seemed to be a major prick. Accusing the guy of "manipulating the system" when it's pretty much his only choice - and when the doc's job is merely to treat the guy. "You should have died a painful death like the rest of you scum" or what was he thinking? He is getting paid anyway so what the fuck does he care where his money comes from? And why kick someone who is already down?
Whoever needs medical care here gets it. Not only if they can pay for it, but simply because we have chosen to create a society where we, if we somehow ended up like that guy, would receive the same support he does now.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
Don't know why you're being a dick to him, hes completely right.
He's in fact completely wrong. Healthcare costs are in fact skyrocketing because there is generally too much compassion in how healthcare services are distributed. And, yes, profitability also drives this as well. The UK has a much better system where they refuse to fund any service that can't be proved to extend a person's life.
On June 22 2011 04:50 trainRiderJ wrote: Where I live the people without insurance just use the emergency room or a free clinic. Do they not have those in New York?
In what part of the country are emergency rooms free of cost?
All of them? Well, they'll send you a bill but they can't force you to pay them. It will ruin your credit, but so does going to jail.
Dude... what? Emergency rooms are free because you can ruin your credit/go to jail instead of paying for them? Is that what you're trying to tell me?
I guess in your mind everything in society is free because you can always ruin your credit instead of paying!
"3 hots and a cot" has been a reason for some desperate men to get themselves into jail ever since jails stop being so horrible as far as feeding and keeping you clean and stuff.
So, uh, what does this have to do with the state of America? Leechers will leech whatever they think they need to leech.
The corporations are the middle-man, they're not doing very nice things to the bovine industry, dairy or agriculture industry.
On June 22 2011 04:58 Phelski wrote: obama's health care is this 1)make everyone buy private health care 2) if they dont, or cannot afford it, then they get taxed/ sued
You mean the Healthcare plan Democrats had to butcher to get a couple of Republican votes?
The original version, even with its flaws, was much better than the clusterfuck that was created because of stupid compromises.
The only compromise the democrats did was take out "free healthcare for everyone clause" the government run healthcare program. Which that program would have destroyed and bankrupt every single health insurance company.
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
Well Germany isn't really small you know. I could state the obvious that if the majority of the budget wouldn't go to the military than I'm sure that you could work something out.Hey,maybe even throw in a free college education in there
But to be fair,in light of the 14 trillion dollar debt USA faces,there will need to be more structural issues resolved before healthcare and education.
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
It's really only because of people in a state of mind like this that a "workable" health care system doesn't already exist in the US. "Doesn't cause prices to rise" is as generic and short sighted as you can possibly get on the subject. Prices of what? Are you talking about taxes? Government spending? Are you talking about the price of insurance itself?
You'll never have a progressive community as long as it's citizens continually think that "we are a long ways" from something that is realistically feasible in every way. How closed minded can we get?
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
The corporations are the middle-man, they're not doing very nice things to the bovine industry, dairy or agriculture industry.
Good try.
You missed his point entirely. The test for market failure isn't whether or not the product is required to live. The food market is in fact quite competitive, with a range of quality and prices. There isn't really any market failure there except the general one of pollution, which exists in all markets.
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
The EU is bigger than the US. Of course we're broken up into dozens of smaller countries which do things their own way but equally you guys are a federal state. The current system is broken, I think everyone can agree on that. It is neither free market nor public and the deep divisions and prejudices within American society keep it broken. End of the day, the problem is with the American people and their ability to cripple politician's attempts to fix it. That's not US bashing.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
It also doesn't help when the products they used to sell are no longer made in that country. Also the reason why there is so much hate on the idea of health care within the government is because a lot of people in power are backed/sponsored by healthcare companies. Just goes to show you how bad America screwed up, what happened to all those who wanted things for the betterment of their country, not the fattening of their wallets?
On June 22 2011 04:50 trainRiderJ wrote: Where I live the people without insurance just use the emergency room or a free clinic. Do they not have those in New York?
In what part of the country are emergency rooms free of cost?
All of them? Well, they'll send you a bill but they can't force you to pay them. It will ruin your credit, but so does going to jail.
Dude... what? Emergency rooms are free because you can ruin your credit/go to jail instead of paying for them? Is that what you're trying to tell me?
I guess in your mind everything in society is free because you can always ruin your credit instead of paying!
Err, you cannot go to jail for not paying your debt. And, no, most services are not rendered if you cannot prove you have enough money and/or credit to pay for it. Emergency room services are one of the exceptions. They'll treat you without any proof of insurance or ability to pay.
you could drop what about 30 germanys into the US?
I could state the obvious that if the majority of the budget wouldn't go to the military than I'm sure that you could work something out.Hey,maybe even throw in a free college education in there
umm the us had a 3.5 trillion dollar budget or something about 1/5 of it went to the military 1/5 to running the domestic government and 3/5 into entitlement programs and various subsidies and welfare programs and education spending and all kinds of stuff
this kind of ignorance about the usa is just really widespread
and hey guess what we spend all that money so that when 'the world' demands something or done or we actually fight for our own interest we can do it, libya has shown that they sure as hell can't do it themselves.
dont whine about our military spending when europe drags us into libya and shows exactly why we have to spend that much, because europe wont spend enough.
canada is a nice change from this though they have a realistic defense budget for what they think their interests are
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
extending human life and combating disease and injury is something that people have shown they will spend great amounts of money on
so to you sir i must say herp derp
cus that sounds like just the kind of thing capitalism loves
or more accurately the market, nationalized health care systems have the same struggles with containing costs. the market cares not for your schemes and bureaucrats.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
True, but its not likely that I will suddenly run out of food out of events that are entirely beyond my control (or if I did, we just got hit by a big fuckoff natural disaster and everyone else did as well, so we're in the same boat together). If some douchebag runs a red light and puts me in hospital, the situation suddenly boils down to how much money I should pay to fix a problem caused by some other asshole.
What's wrong with society pooling together to help its least fortunate? I don't see why people should be penalized just for being unlucky enough to get caught in an accident. We're really that terrified of that 1% of douchebags in society that will try to scam the system, to lift a finger to help the rest? Call me crazy, but when a small handful of assholes at high school abused the school gym equipment, causing them to disallow anyone else to use it unsupervised, I thought that was completely bullshit.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
This, this and this!
The main purpose and goal of a nations healthcare must ALWAYS be to make people healthier, not to make money.
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
It's really only because of people in a state of mind like this that a "workable" health care system doesn't already exist in the US. "Doesn't cause prices to rise" is as generic and short sighted as you can possibly get on the subject. Prices of what? Are you talking about taxes? Government spending? Are you talking about the price of insurance itself?
You'll never have a progressive community as long as it's citizens continually think that "we are a long ways" from something that is realistically feasible in every way. How closed minded can we get?
Do you know what the national debt of the US currently is^^? He is right when he says it can't be done yet.The problem is no one wants to even touch the root problem of the monetary system that is in America right now.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
The corporations are the middle-man, they're not doing very nice things to the bovine industry, dairy or agriculture industry.
Good try.
are you saying you have trouble buying food? do you want the government to provide food to all people? if not, why not, when it's clear that our very lives depend on food?
corporations are not the middle-men... do you think it's the government that actually sells the food?
On June 22 2011 05:13 Dagobert wrote: Whoever needs medical care here gets it. Not only if they can pay for it, but simply because we have chosen to create a society where we, if we somehow ended up like that guy, would receive the same support he does now.
Just because it works there doesn't mean it will work here. We just spend way too much on military and our welfare programs are a complete joke. Spend two years shoplifting and getting evicted from apartments to support your meth habit and then have a baby and be rewarded welfare money for it. That is life in the US. Pretty much everything here is fucked up there is no simple way to fix it and it has been the government doing it us for a long time, they are not going to help without a drastic change in leadership, both parties just fight over who gets to fuck us.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
The vast majority of Americans are covered by insurance and/or government programs. The real problem in America is the huge rises in healthcare costs.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
The corporations are the middle-man, they're not doing very nice things to the bovine industry, dairy or agriculture industry.
Good try.
are you saying you have trouble buying food? do you want the government to provide food to all people? if not, why not, when it's clear that our very lives depend on food?
corporations are not the middle-men... do you think it's the government that actually sells the food?
The government doesn't actually provide anything, they only take and redistribute, oh and they get fucking rich beyond imagination in the process.
On June 22 2011 04:50 trainRiderJ wrote: Where I live the people without insurance just use the emergency room or a free clinic. Do they not have those in New York?
In what part of the country are emergency rooms free of cost?
All of them? Well, they'll send you a bill but they can't force you to pay them. It will ruin your credit, but so does going to jail.
Dude... what? Emergency rooms are free because you can ruin your credit/go to jail instead of paying for them? Is that what you're trying to tell me?
I guess in your mind everything in society is free because you can always ruin your credit instead of paying!
Err, you cannot go to jail for not paying your debt. And, no, most services are not rendered if you cannot prove you have enough money and/or credit to pay for it. Emergency room services are one of the exceptions. They'll treat you without any proof of insurance or ability to pay.
Yes, but that doesn't change my original point. Going to an emergency room is not free of cost. If you can't pay, your credit will be ruined.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
This, this and this!
The main purpose and goal of a nations healthcare must ALWAYS be to make people healthier, not to make money.
Unfortunately, healthcare and healthcare innovation cannot exist without money. You're not gonna find many doctors willing to work for free.
On June 22 2011 04:50 trainRiderJ wrote: Where I live the people without insurance just use the emergency room or a free clinic. Do they not have those in New York?
In what part of the country are emergency rooms free of cost?
All of them? Well, they'll send you a bill but they can't force you to pay them. It will ruin your credit, but so does going to jail.
Dude... what? Emergency rooms are free because you can ruin your credit/go to jail instead of paying for them? Is that what you're trying to tell me?
I guess in your mind everything in society is free because you can always ruin your credit instead of paying!
Err, you cannot go to jail for not paying your debt. And, no, most services are not rendered if you cannot prove you have enough money and/or credit to pay for it. Emergency room services are one of the exceptions. They'll treat you without any proof of insurance or ability to pay.
Yes, but that doesn't change my original point. Going to an emergency room is not free of cost. If you can't pay, your credit will be ruined.
It's a better option than going to jail, which was the main point. Honestly, bad credit is probably not much of a worry given that people in such dire straights will most likely have outstanding credit card debt, which is far worse than hospital debt.
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
about 20% of americans are without some form of health insurance
these are easy statistics to find try to find out on your own before asking misconceived questions
i have no money for a place to sleep but i cant or wont meet the conditions necessary to get government housing
i go rob a convenience store to get into jail to have a place to live
is this an indictment of me or the system?
this guy sounds like he's not very smart, from what the msnbc story says he would have qualified for some kind of state or federal public health insurance
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
True, but its not likely that I will suddenly run out of food out of events that are entirely beyond my control (or if I did, we just got hit by a big fuckoff natural disaster and everyone else did as well, so we're in the same boat together). If some douchebag runs a red light and puts me in hospital, the situation suddenly boils down to how much money I should pay to fix a problem caused by some other asshole.
What's wrong with society pooling together to help its least fortunate? I don't see why people should be penalized just for being unlucky enough to get caught in an accident. We're really that terrified of that 1% of douchebags in society that will try to scam the system, to lift a finger to help the rest? Call me crazy, but when a small handful of assholes at high school abused the school gym equipment, causing them to disallow anyone else to use it unsupervised, I thought that was completely bullshit.
nothing wrong with that.
what's wrong with me coming up to you with a gun and forcing you to pay my hospital bill?
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
The vast majority of Americans are covered by insurance and/or government programs. The real problem in America is the huge rises in healthcare costs.
So I fail to see any sympothay for this guy. He's 59 without any money and without any sort of medical insurance and its America's problem? Since when did life and financial planning fall into the resposibility of the government?
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Anyone who still thinks private corporations run healthcare in the USA doesn't have a damn clue and has never tried to run a private practice. The government controls everything, that is why prices are so high, well...one of the many reasons.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
The corporations are the middle-man, they're not doing very nice things to the bovine industry, dairy or agriculture industry.
Good try.
are you saying you have trouble buying food? do you want the government to provide food to all people? if not, why not, when it's clear that our very lives depend on food?
corporations are not the middle-men... do you think it's the government that actually sells the food?
The government doesn't actually provide anything, they only take and redistribute, oh and they get fucking rich beyond imagination in the process.
Why couldn't he just move to canada? Here in Canadia land we have free healthcare, so just move to Canada, solve all your problems (fer free!) and then just move back to were u live. Im not sure how much it costs to travel to canada from were he is, but im sure he can afford it in a 3 year period (I mean he spent 3 years in jail).
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
The EU is bigger than the US. Of course we're broken up into dozens of smaller countries which do things their own way but equally you guys are a federal state. The current system is broken, I think everyone can agree on that. It is neither free market nor public and the deep divisions and prejudices within American society keep it broken. End of the day, the problem is with the American people and their ability to cripple politician's attempts to fix it. That's not US bashing.
It's so true. Our healthcare system is broken, obama tries to fix it, and the process of fixing it gets so fucked up and now the opponents who were all trying to block it in the first place are pointing at it and screaming LOOK ITS STILL BROKEN OBAMA IS A FAILURE, and people LISTEN -_-;
Healthcare is only a single example, too. And this isn't just Republicans screwing over Democrats either - it goes both ways. 2-Party politics is fucking us over.
I feel like this also was why the government was originally planned (in the constitution) to be more state-based than federal-based. Different regions disagree on policy SO much, and nothing gets done as a result.
On June 22 2011 05:25 Lucid90 wrote: Why couldn't he just move to canada? Here in Canadia land we have free healthcare, so just move to Canada, solve all your problems (fer free!) and then just move back to were u live. Im not sure how much it costs to travel to canada from were he is, but im sure he can afford it in a 3 year period (I mean he spent 3 years in jail).
Does free healthcare apply to anyone within the borders of Canada? Or only to citizens?
I have a hard time believing something like this would work. It seems so surreal to game the system in such a major way. Of course, you'd have to go to prison, which does not sound like a very fun place, at least from what I've gathered by watching tv.
On June 22 2011 05:15 AeonStrife wrote: Its only going to get a lot worse/ridiculous before it gets better. Expect to hear more stories of the same caliber in the coming years.
Probably not, since most people in the country still jobs and those that don't or make very little will most likely qualify for medicaid. I've not seen any mention of the guy's status with that
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
The EU is bigger than the US. Of course we're broken up into dozens of smaller countries which do things their own way but equally you guys are a federal state. The current system is broken, I think everyone can agree on that. It is neither free market nor public and the deep divisions and prejudices within American society keep it broken. End of the day, the problem is with the American people and their ability to cripple politician's attempts to fix it. That's not US bashing.
I'd say it's certainly more the politicians who are being prodded by well-funded lobbyists than anything else. I think most people agree that it's certainly broken in some fashion.
It's quite normal! In Norway the prisons are quite luxurious, so its not really a punishment to go to prison if you don't mind to not travel around. You get everything you need and more so. Actually, the prisons are quite full, and people do crimes just to get to prison. And some actual criminals get let go because the prisons are full. So you basically end up with prisons full with former criminals, they wont have a chance to get a job outside after they've been to prison, so they do crimes only to get back in and live quite comfortably. Quite sad...
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
The vast majority of Americans are covered by insurance and/or government programs. The real problem in America is the huge rises in healthcare costs.
So I fail to see any sympothay for this guy. He's 59 without any money and without any sort of medical insurance and its America's problem? Since when did life and financial planning fall into the resposibility of the government?
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
ye. Fuck that guy. only the rich and privileged deserve healthcare
On June 22 2011 05:24 Treemonkeys wrote: Anyone who still thinks private corporations run healthcare in the USA doesn't have a damn clue and has never tried to run a private practice. The government controls everything, that is why prices are so high, well...one of the many reasons.
How can one person be so wrong, so many times, in two sentences?
On June 22 2011 05:25 Lucid90 wrote: Why couldn't he just move to canada? Here in Canadia land we have free healthcare, so just move to Canada, solve all your problems (fer free!) and then just move back to were u live. Im not sure how much it costs to travel to canada from were he is, but im sure he can afford it in a 3 year period (I mean he spent 3 years in jail).
Does free healthcare apply to anyone within the borders of Canada? Or only to citizens?
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
about 20% of americans are without some form of health insurance
these are easy statistics to find try to find out on your own before asking misconceived questions
i have no money for a place to sleep but i cant or wont meet the conditions necessary to get government housing
i go rob a convenience store to get into jail to have a place to live
is this an indictment of me or the system?
this guy sounds like he's not very smart, from what the msnbc story says he would have qualified for some kind of state or federal public health insurance
I already knew it before asking, its to make a point.
People keep putting the blame in the wrong place. Everyone thinks "Sad that this guy has no money and can't get his medical help, good for him for making a stand", while I'm thinking, "Why is this guy 59 without any money and medical insurance".
You live in a country where you know this is how medical coverage works. Why wouldn't you be prepared for it?
On June 22 2011 05:24 Treemonkeys wrote: Anyone who still thinks private corporations run healthcare in the USA doesn't have a damn clue and has never tried to run a private practice. The government controls everything, that is why prices are so high, well...one of the many reasons.
How can one person be so wrong, so many times, in two sentences?
Nice argument dude, do you have any idea how many rules private practices have to follow? How much it costs to follow them? How often the government changes them? How much it costs to keep up with the changes? No, you don't.
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Baby Boomers are starting to get into their early-to-late 60s (lots and lots of new health conditions that need to be treated, and the elderly tend to go to the doctor A LOT), new technologies and products coming out at an amazing rate, exorbitant liability insurance, overuse of diagnostic tests, overregulation of the market that limits consumer choice, and health care providers having to pick up the tab for the uninsured which they pass on to the insurance companies who pass it on to the consumer.
Basically people lacking insurance is a problem but solving it with some big government spending program and not solving the other problems would be horrible, and that's what Obamacare will do.
To my knowledge, the tax in USA is a lot smaller than Canada or EU. At the same time, stereo-typically (correct me if I'm wrong), most Americans own 2 or more cars right? And the cars might be pickup trucks or just cars that are inefficient. It just appears that Americans "seemly" have more money, less tax, buys more luxury items, whereas in Canada or EU or other countries with "free healthcare" don't have as much money for personal use as Americans do.
So to me, it would appear that it's not really "fully" the government's fault. But rather it would appear (Correct me if I'm wrong) that most Americans want less tax, more money to themselves to spend on luxury items. But with this system, universal free healthcare would be near impossible due to lack of funding (from low tax).
On June 22 2011 05:26 KimJongChill wrote: I have a hard time believing something like this would work. It seems so surreal to game the system in such a major way. Of course, you'd have to go to prison, which does not sound like a very fun place, at least from what I've gathered by watching tv.
Yeah funnily enough a U.S president trying to increase taxes by 10-15% to fund public health care is about as unlikely to get elected as a head of state in a country with public health care would be if they wanted to decrease taxes by 10-15% to remove it ^^
On June 22 2011 05:24 Razith wrote: What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
All the fucking old people whose medical costs are covered by Medicare and/or Cadillac insurance plans with absolutely zero oversight. I would have more faith in a national healthcare system if I were confident our political system would be willing to make the hard decisions and not pay for certain services. Unfortunately, old people have a ton of political influence, which is it's impossible to reform Medicare.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
This, this and this!
The main purpose and goal of a nations healthcare must ALWAYS be to make people healthier, not to make money.
the problem with america, is that if one becomes unable to work due to unforseeable circumstances, such as an injury. if you are left unable to work, your really quite in the shithole. you cant pay your bills, your credit becomes shit you end up in debt and with no1 to help you.
and to top it off, everyone is trying to make a buck off your sorry ass. our priorities are so broken
On June 22 2011 05:25 Lucid90 wrote: Why couldn't he just move to canada? Here in Canadia land we have free healthcare, so just move to Canada, solve all your problems (fer free!) and then just move back to were u live. Im not sure how much it costs to travel to canada from were he is, but im sure he can afford it in a 3 year period (I mean he spent 3 years in jail).
Does free healthcare apply to anyone within the borders of Canada? Or only to citizens?
I believe anyone? I was ambulanced to a hospital while in canada (skiing injury) and didn't have to pay, to my knowledge. I have no idea if they got my insurance company to pay though, and just picked up the co-pay themselves?
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Baby Boomers are starting to get into their early-to-late 60s (lots and lots of new health conditions that need to be treated, and the elderly tend to go to the doctor A LOT), new technologies and products coming out at an amazing rate, exorbitant liability insurance, overuse of diagnostic tests, overregulation of the market that limits consumer choice, and health care providers having to pick up the tab for the uninsured which they pass on to the insurance companies who pass it on to the consumer.
Basically people lacking insurance is a problem but solving it with some big government spending program and not solving the other problems would be horrible, and that's what Obamacare will do.
Wrong, the reasons prices continue to go up is because of how expensive it is for private practices to keep up with all of the government rules. If they actually let doctors run healthcare how they wanted, prices would go down.
the problem with america, is that if one becomes unable to work due to unforseeable circumstances, such as an injury. if you are left unable to work, your really quite in the shithole. you cant pay your bills, your credit becomes shit you end up in debt and with no1 to help you.
and to top it off, everyone is trying to make a buck off your sorry ass. our priorities are so broken
Ummm, the government provides disability insurance and unemployment benefits - based on how much you earned, up to a point - for that just very situation, and have extended them (the unemployment benefits) repeatedly during the current crisis to an almost fantastical 99 weeks.
our priorities would be broken if your comment was anything close to accurate.
I could state the obvious that if the majority of the budget wouldn't go to the military than I'm sure that you could work something out.Hey,maybe even throw in a free college education in there
umm the us had a 3.5 trillion dollar budget or something about 1/5 of it went to the military 1/5 to running the domestic government and 3/5 into entitlement programs and various subsidies and welfare programs and education spending and all kinds of stuff
this kind of ignorance about the usa is just really widespread
and hey guess what we spend all that money so that when 'the world' demands something or done or we actually fight for our own interest we can do it, libya has shown that they sure as hell can't do it themselves.
dont whine about our military spending when europe drags us into libya and shows exactly why we have to spend that much, because europe wont spend enough.
canada is a nice change from this though they have a realistic defense budget for what they think their interests are
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
extending human life and combating disease and injury is something that people have shown they will spend great amounts of money on
so to you sir i must say herp derp
cus that sounds like just the kind of thing capitalism loves
or more accurately the market, nationalized health care systems have the same struggles with containing costs. the market cares not for your schemes and bureaucrats.
Wow,I don't even feel like arguing this because i would have to type and essay on how wrong this is.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
True, but its not likely that I will suddenly run out of food out of events that are entirely beyond my control (or if I did, we just got hit by a big fuckoff natural disaster and everyone else did as well, so we're in the same boat together). If some douchebag runs a red light and puts me in hospital, the situation suddenly boils down to how much money I should pay to fix a problem caused by some other asshole.
What's wrong with society pooling together to help its least fortunate? I don't see why people should be penalized just for being unlucky enough to get caught in an accident. We're really that terrified of that 1% of douchebags in society that will try to scam the system, to lift a finger to help the rest? Call me crazy, but when a small handful of assholes at high school abused the school gym equipment, causing them to disallow anyone else to use it unsupervised, I thought that was completely bullshit.
nothing wrong with that.
what's wrong with me coming up to you with a gun and forcing you to pay my hospital bill?
What does that have to do with literally anything we're discussing here?
On June 22 2011 05:28 weeba2933 wrote: To my knowledge, the tax in USA is a lot smaller than Canada or EU. At the same time, stereo-typically (correct me if I'm wrong), most Americans own 2 or more cars right? And the cars might be pickup trucks or just cars that are inefficient. It just appears that Americans "seemly" have more money, less tax, buys more luxury items, whereas in Canada or EU or other countries with "free healthcare" don't have as much money for personal use as Americans do.
So to me, it would appear that it's not really "fully" the government's fault. But rather it would appear (Correct me if I'm wrong) that most Americans want less tax, more money to themselves to spend on luxury items. But with this system, universal free healthcare would be near impossible due to lack of funding (from low tax).
Am I wrong here?
At the rate that health care costs are increasing, the US won't be able to afford a universal system no matter how high taxes are.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
True, but its not likely that I will suddenly run out of food out of events that are entirely beyond my control (or if I did, we just got hit by a big fuckoff natural disaster and everyone else did as well, so we're in the same boat together). If some douchebag runs a red light and puts me in hospital, the situation suddenly boils down to how much money I should pay to fix a problem caused by some other asshole.
What's wrong with society pooling together to help its least fortunate? I don't see why people should be penalized just for being unlucky enough to get caught in an accident. We're really that terrified of that 1% of douchebags in society that will try to scam the system, to lift a finger to help the rest? Call me crazy, but when a small handful of assholes at high school abused the school gym equipment, causing them to disallow anyone else to use it unsupervised, I thought that was completely bullshit.
nothing wrong with that.
what's wrong with me coming up to you with a gun and forcing you to pay my hospital bill?
What does that have to do with literally anything we're discussing here?
...that is effectively how "government funded" healthcare works.
Wow,I don't even feel like arguing this because i would have to type and essay on how wrong this is.
what was wrong with it
i can link you the budget numbers
i can link you the stories about europe's increasing problems with sustaining the libyan war
i can link you canada's defense spending
i can explain to you very easily and simply why an industry that provides goods or services that are perceived by people as so valuable and essential that they have positive price elasticity is the kind of industry capitalists would want to get into. hint: you can make money!
What does that have to do with literally anything we're discussing here?
Pay into the nationalized health care system or face some kind of penalty.
Don't pay the penalty, maybe get arrested and go to jail.
All government acts telling the people to do this or not do that are based upon the threat or use of coercion through financial or legal punishments including confinement in prison.
Some people view this to a greater or lesser degree as legalized robbery.
On June 22 2011 05:24 Treemonkeys wrote: Anyone who still thinks private corporations run healthcare in the USA doesn't have a damn clue and has never tried to run a private practice. The government controls everything, that is why prices are so high, well...one of the many reasons.
How can one person be so wrong, so many times, in two sentences?
Nice argument dude, do you have any idea how many rules private practices have to follow? How much it costs to follow them? How often the government changes them? How much it costs to keep up with the changes? No, you don't.
You are trying to make the argument that healthcare costs (from the consumer) are high because of government regulation on private practices. It's as if you think insurance companies aren't a part of the equation at all. It's as if you think there is no fundamental problem with a few private companies controlling health care prices in the first place. It's as if you don't take into account the gigantic dollar sign we have placed on our own health in this country.
It's actually crazy that people think the cost of care itself and not insurance is the root problem. It's mind blowingly insane.
So, how smart would you think this guy is when the Judge doesn't incarcerate him, but fines him ? The government doesn't "have" to put people in jail, they have other options.
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Baby Boomers are starting to get into their early-to-late 60s (lots and lots of new health conditions that need to be treated, and the elderly tend to go to the doctor A LOT), new technologies and products coming out at an amazing rate, exorbitant liability insurance, overuse of diagnostic tests, overregulation of the market that limits consumer choice, and health care providers having to pick up the tab for the uninsured which they pass on to the insurance companies who pass it on to the consumer.
Basically people lacking insurance is a problem but solving it with some big government spending program and not solving the other problems would be horrible, and that's what Obamacare will do.
Wrong, the reasons prices continue to go up is because of how expensive it is for private practices to keep up with all of the government rules. If they actually let doctors run healthcare how they wanted, prices would go down.
...then why does the US end up paying about twice as much per capita than any other industrialized nation for healthcare and ends up at around 17th in terms of health results? Is it because the US allows the government too much involvement in the healthcare system compared to all of those...government-run healthcare systems?
I have heard of this sort of robbery before. Homeless people rather live in jail than to suffer on the streets. Hell, they may even provide you with education which you are in jail - much better than trying to find a warm place to sleep on a cold winter night.
When it comes to health - those with money are willing to pay, almost regardless of the cost. Training new doctors involves a lot of money. Developing new drugs cost a lot of money. In a world where money is so important, to an extend where you can use it to buy the best chances (newer, more expensive medication, better doctors and care), the poor suffer the most.
On June 22 2011 05:28 weeba2933 wrote: To my knowledge, the tax in USA is a lot smaller than Canada or EU. At the same time, stereo-typically (correct me if I'm wrong), most Americans own 2 or more cars right? And the cars might be pickup trucks or just cars that are inefficient. It just appears that Americans "seemly" have more money, less tax, buys more luxury items, whereas in Canada or EU or other countries with "free healthcare" don't have as much money for personal use as Americans do.
So to me, it would appear that it's not really "fully" the government's fault. But rather it would appear (Correct me if I'm wrong) that most Americans want less tax, more money to themselves to spend on luxury items. But with this system, universal free healthcare would be near impossible due to lack of funding (from low tax).
Am I wrong here?
At the rate that health care costs are increasing, the US won't be able to afford a universal system no matter how high taxes are.
Hmmm... Okay. I'm don't quite know the cost to fund healthcare. But, how are other countries able to fund it?
I do know the doctor salaries in USA is a lot higher than those in Canada. That may also be another factor why Canada can fund universal healthcare. But at the same time most doctors in Canada do wish to go to USA for the higher salary.
On June 22 2011 05:28 weeba2933 wrote: To my knowledge, the tax in USA is a lot smaller than Canada or EU. At the same time, stereo-typically (correct me if I'm wrong), most Americans own 2 or more cars right? And the cars might be pickup trucks or just cars that are inefficient. It just appears that Americans "seemly" have more money, less tax, buys more luxury items, whereas in Canada or EU or other countries with "free healthcare" don't have as much money for personal use as Americans do.
So to me, it would appear that it's not really "fully" the government's fault. But rather it would appear (Correct me if I'm wrong) that most Americans want less tax, more money to themselves to spend on luxury items. But with this system, universal free healthcare would be near impossible due to lack of funding (from low tax).
Am I wrong here?
At the rate that health care costs are increasing, the US won't be able to afford a universal system no matter how high taxes are.
It's not like it would be hard to cut spending. Like its the most simple process in the world. I mean it all really comes down to common sense. Do we really need to have troops in every country in the world save a few? Do we really need to be involved in 5 wars? Do we really need to have 80% of the worlds total military spending. Do we need to crowd our jails with non violent offenders. I mean. The answer is pretty fucking easy.. Unless your a politician. Who has to have his true opinions swayed by fear mongering news organizations. Is it really that complicated? I think not.
On June 22 2011 05:37 Kaitlin wrote: So, how smart would you think this guy is when the Judge doesn't incarcerate him, but fines him ? The government doesn't "have" to put people in jail, they have other options.
I imagine this would encourage the guy to commit increasingly severe crimes until he was finally put in jail... also there is a minimum prison-term for a lot of crimes.
That's below 4 times the size. (The US is about 3.75 times bigger population wise)
Arguing that it wouldn't work because the US is "so big" is retarded. Get a government that works, get laws that work, and it will be fine. But I think we all realize that's not going to happen, at least not for a good while.
Hmmm... Okay. I'm don't quite know the cost to fund healthcare. But, how are other countries able to fund it?
Go google about NHS difficulties in keeping costs down, they are not able to do it perfectly either. David Cameron has walked a tricky tightrope and maybe none too well when it comes to trying to rein in NHS costs without making the public think benefits are going to be drastically cut.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
True, but its not likely that I will suddenly run out of food out of events that are entirely beyond my control (or if I did, we just got hit by a big fuckoff natural disaster and everyone else did as well, so we're in the same boat together). If some douchebag runs a red light and puts me in hospital, the situation suddenly boils down to how much money I should pay to fix a problem caused by some other asshole.
What's wrong with society pooling together to help its least fortunate? I don't see why people should be penalized just for being unlucky enough to get caught in an accident. We're really that terrified of that 1% of douchebags in society that will try to scam the system, to lift a finger to help the rest? Call me crazy, but when a small handful of assholes at high school abused the school gym equipment, causing them to disallow anyone else to use it unsupervised, I thought that was completely bullshit.
nothing wrong with that.
what's wrong with me coming up to you with a gun and forcing you to pay my hospital bill?
What does that have to do with literally anything we're discussing here?
...that is effectively how "government funded" healthcare works.
Oh, so there's nothing wrong with a socialized healthcare system, except that we have to hand over control to someone else in order to organize such a thing on a scale large enough to manage nearly 400 million people.
How do you propose we set one up them? Leave it to the individual states to manage? If that's the case, I'm curious what instills more faith in state government than federal government?
To answer the people asking if he can just go to the ER, of course he can. The problem is he has outpatient medical problems that will need a few weeks/months of expensive testing and treatment. The ER/hospital will make sure that he is not having a heart attack, look at his foot and discharge him. If he is lucky, he may stay in the hospital long enough to get a biopsy of chest mass, but he definitely won't be able to afford treatment if he has cancer. He will get a bill that he obviously won't pay, unless he gets a job and starts to put his life together. I don't blame him for thinking 1-3 years in jail would be better for him then trying to get medical care through Medicaid.
The fact is, after losing your job, medical problems are the number 2 cause of bankrupcy in the US. I don't know anything about accounting or politics, so I won't comment on what the solution to this problem is. I do think that we live in a post-scarcity economy. If we have money to drop bombs on random country X at the drop of a hat, I don't see why we can't come up with some kind of fair system to get everyone food, housing, medical care and education.
Don't be too hard on the prison doctor. I try to give everyone a reasonable chance. I was taking care of one guy who told me how (horrible thing spoilered) + Show Spoiler +
he would beat 14-15 year old girls to keep them in line as prostitutes for him.
I can't imagine taking care of prisoners every day, but it probably destroys your faith in humainty pretty quickly.
On June 22 2011 05:24 Treemonkeys wrote: Anyone who still thinks private corporations run healthcare in the USA doesn't have a damn clue and has never tried to run a private practice. The government controls everything, that is why prices are so high, well...one of the many reasons.
How can one person be so wrong, so many times, in two sentences?
Nice argument dude, do you have any idea how many rules private practices have to follow? How much it costs to follow them? How often the government changes them? How much it costs to keep up with the changes? No, you don't.
You are trying to make the argument that healthcare costs (from the consumer) are high because of government regulation on private practices. It's as if you think insurance companies aren't a part of the equation at all. It's as if you think there is no fundamental problem with a few private companies controlling health care prices in the first place. It's as if you don't take into account the gigantic dollar sign we have placed on our own health in this country.
It's actually crazy that people think the cost of care itself and not insurance is the root problem. It's mind blowingly insane.
It its the cost of regulation that drove prices up that made insurance needed. "gigantic dollar sign" wtf is that supposed to mean? Doctors are not like HEY LETS RAPE THEM FOR ALL WE CAN GET. They want to make a nice profit, and they have to cover the huge amount they spent on medical school, and the cost of running running a practice goes up EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Every time congress meets they add on new rules which means doctors pay for new computer systems, software upgrades, and higher employee to doctor ratio to keep up with all the paperwork which means costs go up - constantly.
Aaah, there's nothing like a little ignorance to brighten up my day.
Germany has about 82 million citizens
The US has about 309 million citizens
That's below 4 times the size. (The US is about 3.75 times bigger population wise)
Arguing that it wouldn't work because the US is "so big" is retarded. Get a government that works, get laws that work, and it will be fine. But I think we all realize that's not going to happen, at least not for a good while.
so, i was talking about geography, not population, the fact that germany has such a densely populated country helps you about as much as being a generally sparsely populated one in between the coasts hinders us
i think what is retarded is making assertions the way you do and taking what people say the way you want it to mean so you can talk shit on them
That's below 4 times the size. (The US is about 3.75 times bigger population wise)
Arguing that it wouldn't work because the US is "so big" is retarded. Get a government that works, get laws that work, and it will be fine. But I think we all realize that's not going to happen, at least not for a good while.
He wasn't being ignorant... he was using a different method to compare the countries. The USA is in fact 27.5 times bigger than Germany.
You can make your point that a country being 3-4 times bigger in population doesn't mean a similar healthcare system wouldn't work... but you have just made a point. You really don't deserve to say someone else is retarded for not sharing you belief in such a complicated issue.
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Baby Boomers are starting to get into their early-to-late 60s (lots and lots of new health conditions that need to be treated, and the elderly tend to go to the doctor A LOT), new technologies and products coming out at an amazing rate, exorbitant liability insurance, overuse of diagnostic tests, overregulation of the market that limits consumer choice, and health care providers having to pick up the tab for the uninsured which they pass on to the insurance companies who pass it on to the consumer.
Basically people lacking insurance is a problem but solving it with some big government spending program and not solving the other problems would be horrible, and that's what Obamacare will do.
Wrong, the reasons prices continue to go up is because of how expensive it is for private practices to keep up with all of the government rules. If they actually let doctors run healthcare how they wanted, prices would go down.
Haha this statement is complete bullshit. The prices are so high for lots of reasons - one of the biggest reasons is because our health care system is so decentralized, so many different private offices and clinics create a TON of redundancy throughout the country.
Seriously, stop spouting your idiocy.
Point in case: One of the best clinics in the country, the Mayo Clinic, offers MUCH better care than your average clinic, and for MUCH cheaper as well. Why? Because they've combined so many health care functions into one place, reducing tons of administrative and other redundant costs. Further more, look at a state like Texas, which is ranked close to last in the country in health care quality and is also ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE!
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
cause half of americans think "statutory health insurance system"="death penal for grandma and grandpa"
On June 22 2011 05:28 weeba2933 wrote: To my knowledge, the tax in USA is a lot smaller than Canada or EU. At the same time, stereo-typically (correct me if I'm wrong), most Americans own 2 or more cars right? And the cars might be pickup trucks or just cars that are inefficient. It just appears that Americans "seemly" have more money, less tax, buys more luxury items, whereas in Canada or EU or other countries with "free healthcare" don't have as much money for personal use as Americans do.
So to me, it would appear that it's not really "fully" the government's fault. But rather it would appear (Correct me if I'm wrong) that most Americans want less tax, more money to themselves to spend on luxury items. But with this system, universal free healthcare would be near impossible due to lack of funding (from low tax).
Am I wrong here?
At the rate that health care costs are increasing, the US won't be able to afford a universal system no matter how high taxes are.
It's not like it would be hard to cut spending. Like its the most simple process in the world. I mean it all really comes down to common sense. Do we really need to have troops in every country in the world save a few? Do we really need to be involved in 5 wars? Do we really need to have 80% of the worlds total military spending. Do we need to crowd our jails with non violent offenders. I mean. The answer is pretty fucking easy.. Unless your a politician. Who has to have his true opinions swayed by fear mongering news organizations. Is it really that complicated? I think not.
It would be highly unrealistic to defund the entire military (5% of our GDP), but even if they did, health care costs would overcome the difference within a decade or so. Right now, they're at 16% and projected to be about 30% within 20 years. At that point, you would have to tax everything at 50% just to fund health care.
On June 22 2011 05:28 weeba2933 wrote: To my knowledge, the tax in USA is a lot smaller than Canada or EU. At the same time, stereo-typically (correct me if I'm wrong), most Americans own 2 or more cars right? And the cars might be pickup trucks or just cars that are inefficient. It just appears that Americans "seemly" have more money, less tax, buys more luxury items, whereas in Canada or EU or other countries with "free healthcare" don't have as much money for personal use as Americans do.
So to me, it would appear that it's not really "fully" the government's fault. But rather it would appear (Correct me if I'm wrong) that most Americans want less tax, more money to themselves to spend on luxury items. But with this system, universal free healthcare would be near impossible due to lack of funding (from low tax).
Am I wrong here?
At the rate that health care costs are increasing, the US won't be able to afford a universal system no matter how high taxes are.
It's not like it would be hard to cut spending. Like its the most simple process in the world. I mean it all really comes down to common sense. Do we really need to have troops in every country in the world save a few? Do we really need to be involved in 5 wars? Do we really need to have 80% of the worlds total military spending. Do we need to crowd our jails with non violent offenders. I mean. The answer is pretty fucking easy.. Unless your a politician. Who has to have his true opinions swayed by fear mongering news organizations. Is it really that complicated? I think not.
I totally understand what you're saying. I agree and disagree with the war. It's expensive, and probably not profitable unless for Iraq case for oil. But the leaders of the countries USA is at war with ARE pretty horrible dictators. Should USA be the one to intervene? I guess different people have different opinions.
As for spending so much in military. It's debatable. 80% is quite significant. But being World's #1 Superpower, it is expected to have the strongest military force. Because you know how people are. When you are #1, other people WANT to bring you down. I guess it's part of human nature to wish to see #1 fail.
In my opinion, I don't think these questions are "common sense". If a massacre is occurring in a country, should the world leaders just let it go? I don't know. People have different opinions.
Maybe there are some parts that needs some less funding. But in my opinion, the situation isn't as "black and white".
On June 22 2011 05:28 weeba2933 wrote: To my knowledge, the tax in USA is a lot smaller than Canada or EU. At the same time, stereo-typically (correct me if I'm wrong), most Americans own 2 or more cars right? And the cars might be pickup trucks or just cars that are inefficient. It just appears that Americans "seemly" have more money, less tax, buys more luxury items, whereas in Canada or EU or other countries with "free healthcare" don't have as much money for personal use as Americans do.
So to me, it would appear that it's not really "fully" the government's fault. But rather it would appear (Correct me if I'm wrong) that most Americans want less tax, more money to themselves to spend on luxury items. But with this system, universal free healthcare would be near impossible due to lack of funding (from low tax).
Am I wrong here?
At the rate that health care costs are increasing, the US won't be able to afford a universal system no matter how high taxes are.
It's not like it would be hard to cut spending. Like its the most simple process in the world. I mean it all really comes down to common sense. Do we really need to have troops in every country in the world save a few? Do we really need to be involved in 5 wars? Do we really need to have 80% of the worlds total military spending. Do we need to crowd our jails with non violent offenders. I mean. The answer is pretty fucking easy.. Unless your a politician. Who has to have his true opinions swayed by fear mongering news organizations. Is it really that complicated? I think not.
Do you really need to spend that much on medicine? There is a very weak correlation between medicine spending and health. It's probably the first thing you should look at if you want to cut your budget.
Why does everyone ignore that the US pays half the entire worlds military budget COMBINED? China, Russia, and the rest of the entire fucking world - combined - is still less than what the US spends on military! You cannot pay for this shit and expect to be able to afford everything that other countries with literally a single digit percentage of what US spends on military. You gotta cut corners to pay for that shit and healthcare is one of those corners.
im actually pretty geeked that my guess was so close, guesstimate i guess would be better
=D
anyway why the USA being less densely populated is a problem is that we need as many hospitals as we can get in order to cover as many people as possible.
all these hospitals naturally want the best equipment and the best doctors and nurses and assistants and employees in general they can get their hands on
but not all of these hospitals live in communities with the wealth to support it
but most of the time the hospitals get the equipment at least anyway, or the best they can get is still pretty expensive, and this cost is passed on to insurance companies, especially as medical technology keeps improving so fast
so, it isn't the whole problem or even 15% of the problem, but you add everything up including people being uninsured and you have a big problem, one not necessarily fixed by insuring the uninsured through government and putting new regulations on insurance companies that are going to inevitably raise their costs
Why does everyone ignore that the US pays half the entire worlds military budget COMBINED? China, Russia, and the rest of the entire fucking world - combined - is still less than what the US spends on military! You cannot pay for this shit and expect to be able to afford everything that other countries with literally a single digit percentage of what US spends on military. You gotta cut corners to pay for that shit and healthcare is one of those corners.
oh please the US spends about 700 billion a year on defense currently as said about 5% of GDP guess how much health care is? 16% last i checked and rising. thats a lot more than 700 billion.
no one ignores it, people who think about it dismiss it because its unrealistic and wouldnt help anyway
On June 22 2011 04:50 trainRiderJ wrote: Where I live the people without insurance just use the emergency room or a free clinic. Do they not have those in New York?
In what part of the country are emergency rooms free of cost?
Here's a hint: they don't pay the bill, the rest of us do indirectly through higher costs. At least in their case we're not also paying for their food and lodging.
To be honest, I have felt like almost doing this before, I just recently had to pay 120 for a doctor to say I had a ailment I was already aware of. Then I had to pay 120 more for medicine that would cost 15 bucks for someone with insurance.
How is this something that is going to get me out of debt and prepare me for life on my own? *I am still living with my family by the way at 22 years old, and still recovering from illness so I cannot work.
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Baby Boomers are starting to get into their early-to-late 60s (lots and lots of new health conditions that need to be treated, and the elderly tend to go to the doctor A LOT), new technologies and products coming out at an amazing rate, exorbitant liability insurance, overuse of diagnostic tests, overregulation of the market that limits consumer choice, and health care providers having to pick up the tab for the uninsured which they pass on to the insurance companies who pass it on to the consumer.
Basically people lacking insurance is a problem but solving it with some big government spending program and not solving the other problems would be horrible, and that's what Obamacare will do.
Wrong, the reasons prices continue to go up is because of how expensive it is for private practices to keep up with all of the government rules. If they actually let doctors run healthcare how they wanted, prices would go down.
Haha this statement is complete bullshit. The prices are so high for lots of reasons - one of the biggest reasons is because our health care system is so decentralized, so many different private offices and clinics create a TON of redundancy throughout the country.
Seriously, stop spouting your idiocy.
Point in case: One of the best clinics in the country, the Mayo Clinic, offers MUCH better care than your average clinic, and for MUCH cheaper as well. Why? Because they've combined so many health care functions into one place, reducing tons of administrative and other redundant costs. Further more, look at a state like Texas, which is ranked close to last in the country in health care quality and is also ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE!
Yeah dude, I have been working in the medical industry for the past 8 years, what is your experience?
ANYONE who runs a private practice will tell you that costs have been constantly going up. One clinic doing better than others has fuck all to do with that.
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.
Wow,I don't even feel like arguing this because i would have to type and essay on how wrong this is.
what was wrong with it
i can link you the budget numbers
i can link you the stories about europe's increasing problems with sustaining the libyan war
i can link you canada's defense spending
i can explain to you very easily and simply why an industry that provides goods or services that are perceived by people as so valuable and essential that they have positive price elasticity is the kind of industry capitalists would want to get into. hint: you can make money!
Alright,
first of all you can't dump 30 Germanys into the US.Germany has 81 million people living in it,the US has 311.For the sake of argument ill say EU is bigger than the US and everyone here has pretty much free healthcare in one form or another.
Second,I'm aware of the US budget.What you aren't aware of is how insanely high the cost of your military is compared to the world.1/5 of the 3.5 trillion dollar budget going to the military is insane. You spend more on military than the rest of the world.
Third,if your argument is that EU dragged the US into the war with Libya,than that's quite ironic because,the Eu is equally obliged to support the US in every stupid war march that they can think off,which during the cores of the last few decades,US had a lot of them which didn't help your budget either.
Your last point is exactly the root of American problem.Capitalism has its fingers in everything,and if you think that's a good thing your deluded.
On June 22 2011 05:48 Spacely wrote: To be honest, I have felt like almost doing this before, I just recently had to pay 120 for a doctor to say I had a ailment I was already aware of. Then I had to pay 120 more for medicine that would cost 15 bucks for someone with insurance.
How is this something that is going to get me out of debt and prepare me for life on my own? *I am still living with my family by the way at 22 years old, and still recovering from illness so I cannot work.
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.
Realistically speaking, it's probably not Joe Smith's medical bills you will be paying.
On June 22 2011 05:24 Treemonkeys wrote: Anyone who still thinks private corporations run healthcare in the USA doesn't have a damn clue and has never tried to run a private practice. The government controls everything, that is why prices are so high, well...one of the many reasons.
How can one person be so wrong, so many times, in two sentences?
Nice argument dude, do you have any idea how many rules private practices have to follow? How much it costs to follow them? How often the government changes them? How much it costs to keep up with the changes? No, you don't.
You are trying to make the argument that healthcare costs (from the consumer) are high because of government regulation on private practices. It's as if you think insurance companies aren't a part of the equation at all. It's as if you think there is no fundamental problem with a few private companies controlling health care prices in the first place. It's as if you don't take into account the gigantic dollar sign we have placed on our own health in this country.
It's actually crazy that people think the cost of care itself and not insurance is the root problem. It's mind blowingly insane.
It its the cost of regulation that drove prices up that made insurance needed. "gigantic dollar sign" wtf is that supposed to mean? Doctors are not like HEY LETS RAPE THEM FOR ALL WE CAN GET. They want to make a nice profit, and they have to cover the huge amount they spent on medical school, and the cost of running running a practice goes up EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Every time congress meets they add on new rules which means doctors pay for new computer systems, software upgrades, and higher employee to doctor ratio to keep up with all the paperwork which means costs go up - constantly.
Spoiler alert: No one is talking about Doctors in this thread, except for you. The vast majority Americans don't walk into a private practice and pay cash to get their heart transplant. That's the entire point of insurance. I effectively pay into a risk pool in my insurance company constantly, so that if something happens to me that costs a ton of money, my insurance company can pay for it. Over time, insurance companies find new and improved ways to make larger profit margins by keeping sick people out of the risk pools and by finding ways to pay out less money, while charging more money. Cost of insurance is the problem we are talking about. No one is accusing a Doctor of saying LOL LETS MAKE HEART TRANSPLANTS COST A BILLION DOLLARS LOLOL...
On June 22 2011 05:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: oh please the US spends about 700 billion a year on defense currently as said about 5% of GDP guess how much health care is? 16% last i checked and rising. thats a lot more than 700 billion.
no one ignores it, people who think about it dismiss it because its unrealistic and wouldnt help anyway
The only thing unrealistic is expecting that having military bases in 170+ different countries will be sustainable, it will fall apart like all empires.
I recall a news article about a husband entering the army in order to provide his cancer-stricken wife with medicare. It was the only way they could afford it.
Speaking as an outsider, it sounds as though the US forces you to buy health insurance in order to have medicare. I understand the US' love of private enterprises and such, but why would you let anyone except your government control healthcare? A private enterprise is by definition looking out for itself and only for itself, whereas a public institution is for everyone.
On June 22 2011 05:48 Spacely wrote: To be honest, I have felt like almost doing this before, I just recently had to pay 120 for a doctor to say I had a ailment I was already aware of. Then I had to pay 120 more for medicine that would cost 15 bucks for someone with insurance.
How is this something that is going to get me out of debt and prepare me for life on my own? *I am still living with my family by the way at 22 years old, and still recovering from illness so I cannot work.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
the political right in the US is pulling the spectrum so far to their side that the most liberal parties in the US are more conservative than most of Europe's conservative parties.
Wow,I don't even feel like arguing this because i would have to type and essay on how wrong this is.
what was wrong with it
i can link you the budget numbers
i can link you the stories about europe's increasing problems with sustaining the libyan war
i can link you canada's defense spending
i can explain to you very easily and simply why an industry that provides goods or services that are perceived by people as so valuable and essential that they have positive price elasticity is the kind of industry capitalists would want to get into. hint: you can make money!
Alright,
first of all you can't dump 30 Germanys into the US.Germany has 81 million people living in it,the US has 311.For the sake of argument ill say EU is bigger than the US and everyone here has pretty much free healthcare in one form or another.
Second,I'm aware of the US budget.What you aren't aware of is how insanely high the cost of your military is compared to the world.1/5 of the 3.5 trillion dollar budget going to the military is insane. You spend more on military than the rest of the world.
Third,if your argument is that EU dragged the US into the war with Libya,than that's quite ironic because,the Eu is equally obliged to support the US in every stupid war march that they can think off,which during the cores of the last few decades,US had a lot of them which didn't help your budget either.
Your last point is exactly the root of American problem.Capitalism has its fingers in everything,and if you think that's a good thing your deluded.
wow those are some terrible, terrible arguments.
getting out this thread. arguing with socialists is like arguing with children/women.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
Something nobody has mentioned: Prison healthcare sucks too. The man accomplished little else than going to jail and bringing some attention to his plight.
Second,I'm aware of the US budget.What you aren't aware of is how insanely high the cost of your military is compared to the world.1/5 of the 3.5 trillion dollar budget going to the military is insane. You spend more on military than the rest of the world.
So? it's irrelevant how much we spend compared to the rest of the world, this is what you are missing
first of all you can't dump 30 Germanys into the US.Germany has 81 million people living in it,the US has 311.For the sake of argument ill say EU is bigger than the US and everyone here has pretty much free healthcare in one form or another.
umm you do pay taxes dont you
so i guess it isnt free
for the last time i was talking about geography and population density which have important influence on costs of everything including healthcare
Third,if your argument is that EU dragged the US into the war with Libya,than that's quite ironic because,the Eu is equally obliged to support the US in every stupid war march that they can think off,which during the cores of the last few decades,US had a lot of them which didn't help your budget either.
no they arent
also like to mention that in those wars we pulled our weight, and your opinion of the intelligence of them is what it is. i believe one of those wars in the last few decades was another mess europe was embarrassed by and couldnt clean up itself, called the former yugoslavia?
the issue isnt a deficit caused by the wars it is the ability to pay for them period. we have the ability, europe doesnt. so dont whine about it because you ask us for help too and we GLADLY GIVE IT, not with a bunch of bitchy whining like what comes from across the atlantic
Your last point is exactly the root of American problem.Capitalism has its fingers in everything,and if you think that's a good thing your deluded.
i disagree, and assertions are just assertions, calling me deluded makes it about as true as me saying you sound very happy with my opinions making that true
i would also like to point out that a huge amount of military spending in the US goes towards maintaining our logistical capabilities, without which worldwide humanitarian operations would be hopelessly crippled. millions of people would have died from starvation, illness, and natural disasters over the last 60 years that DIDNT DIE because it was the US military and merchant marine and merchant air that was flying and sailing in the majority of relief supplies.
if you wanna bitch about our military spending i guess a big chunk of all that food and medicine can find its way to africa on its own, huh?
the political right in the US is pulling the spectrum so far to their side that the most liberal parties in the US are more conservative than most of Europe's conservative parties.
i guess you could also say that the political right in the US is convincing the american people that they are correct in their views.
ohwait that just means people are dumb or something.
That being said, im really not surprised that someone has come this far. I mean if you got shitty health and cant pay for it, what are you gonna rob a bank and god to jail. I'd have done the same thing if it was me,
On June 22 2011 05:50 TheKefka wrote: On June 22 2011 05:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Wow,I don't even feel like arguing this because i would have to type and essay on how wrong this is.
what was wrong with it
i can link you the budget numbers
i can link you the stories about europe's increasing problems with sustaining the libyan war
i can link you canada's defense spending
i can explain to you very easily and simply why an industry that provides goods or services that are perceived by people as so valuable and essential that they have positive price elasticity is the kind of industry capitalists would want to get into. hint: you can make money!
Alright,
first of all you can't dump 30 Germanys into the US.Germany has 81 million people living in it,the US has 311.For the sake of argument ill say EU is bigger than the US and everyone here has pretty much free healthcare in one form or another.
Second,I'm aware of the US budget.What you aren't aware of is how insanely high the cost of your military is compared to the world.1/5 of the 3.5 trillion dollar budget going to the military is insane. You spend more on military than the rest of the world.
Third,if your argument is that EU dragged the US into the war with Libya,than that's quite ironic because,the Eu is equally obliged to support the US in every stupid war march that they can think off,which during the cores of the last few decades,US had a lot of them which didn't help your budget either.
Your last point is exactly the root of American problem.Capitalism has its fingers in everything,and if you think that's a good thing your deluded.
wow those are some terrible, terrible arguments.
getting out this thread. arguing with socialists is like arguing with children/women.
Who would want the slightest chance for socialism to happen when you have something as beautiful as the American dream right? + Show Spoiler +
On June 22 2011 05:50 TheKefka wrote: On June 22 2011 05:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Wow,I don't even feel like arguing this because i would have to type and essay on how wrong this is.
what was wrong with it
i can link you the budget numbers
i can link you the stories about europe's increasing problems with sustaining the libyan war
i can link you canada's defense spending
i can explain to you very easily and simply why an industry that provides goods or services that are perceived by people as so valuable and essential that they have positive price elasticity is the kind of industry capitalists would want to get into. hint: you can make money!
Alright,
first of all you can't dump 30 Germanys into the US.Germany has 81 million people living in it,the US has 311.For the sake of argument ill say EU is bigger than the US and everyone here has pretty much free healthcare in one form or another.
Second,I'm aware of the US budget.What you aren't aware of is how insanely high the cost of your military is compared to the world.1/5 of the 3.5 trillion dollar budget going to the military is insane. You spend more on military than the rest of the world.
Third,if your argument is that EU dragged the US into the war with Libya,than that's quite ironic because,the Eu is equally obliged to support the US in every stupid war march that they can think off,which during the cores of the last few decades,US had a lot of them which didn't help your budget either.
Your last point is exactly the root of American problem.Capitalism has its fingers in everything,and if you think that's a good thing your deluded.
wow those are some terrible, terrible arguments.
getting out this thread. arguing with socialists is like arguing with children/women.
You showed him. You are clearly the more eloquent debater. Let me know when you get into the Priesthood and we can celebrate over lemonade and Fox News.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading.
Who would want the slightest chance for socialism to happen when you have something as beautiful as the American dream right?
i try not to be as mean towards other countries as some of their people are to america, but croatia is just a field of roses and puppydogs, right? people are just dying to immigrate there. walking across the desert even.
You showed him. You are clearly the more eloquent debater. Let me know when you get into the Priesthood and we can celebrate over lemonade and Fox News.
well instead of snarking you could read my posts
but they would probably make you angrier honestly you might not want to
There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican.
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
On June 22 2011 04:51 Bibdy wrote: Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
Do you mean life? Because it works great when someone's livelihood is on the line...
There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican.
Calvin Coolidge.
Moving on...
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
most of this paragraph is wrong, specifically the protectionist, humanitarian aid, and defense spending parts. also the read a book part makes you look bad.
you go read a book, and maybe some news stories about whose ships and helicopters were the ones delivering aid the earliest and delivering the most supplies overall during the Boxing Day Tsunami disaster just for example... (answer: United States)
Who would want the slightest chance for socialism to happen when you have something as beautiful as the American dream right?
i try not to be as mean towards other countries as some of their people are to america, but croatia is just a field of roses and puppydogs, right? people are just dying to immigrate there. walking across the desert even.
You showed him. You are clearly the more eloquent debater. Let me know when you get into the Priesthood and we can celebrate over lemonade and Fox News.
well instead of snarking you could read my posts
but they would probably make you angrier honestly you might not want to
I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading.
I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'.
You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen!
Moral hazard just isn't something you can fix, unless you want to implant a chip in every human-being that stops them taking stupid risks. How much fun would life be then?
Who would want the slightest chance for socialism to happen when you have something as beautiful as the American dream right?
i try not to be as mean towards other countries as some of their people are to america, but croatia is just a field of roses and puppydogs, right? people are just dying to immigrate there. walking across the desert even.
You showed him. You are clearly the more eloquent debater. Let me know when you get into the Priesthood and we can celebrate over lemonade and Fox News.
well instead of snarking you could read my posts
but they would probably make you angrier honestly you might not want to
I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off.
Those who resort to ad homs ironically end up sounding the most idiotic. Just so you know.
[Citation needed], I'd like to see it. I can't imagine it would be that much.
i explained it in a post in this thread
and treemonkeys nice way to change the subject, we weren't talking about maintaining troops in 170+ countries (which in most of those countries amounts to 100 people or less), we were talking about the US being unable to move towards solving the health care problem because of alleged wasted money on defense, when its been shown or at least argued that cutting military spending would be of little help.
also no more defense spending means a lot of people out of work and no health insurance for them, have you thought of that?
I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off.
no, i have not gone to any rallies being of rather mean means (like that pun? basically said im pretty poor and its sadly true)
and do you feel an urge to caricature people who say things you dont like politically all the time? it doesnt seem likely to produce any kind of understanding or even honest exchange of ideas.
hell yeah, theres a multitude of different countries in europe. countries like germany, having something about 80 mil people and also countries that are fucking huge compared to their population (don't know, something like sweden for example?) and pretty much everything in between ///Edit: And every country got its healthcaresystem, no matter how small, big, poor or rich///
So, you guys want to tell me, because of the very special ratio of USA-Size VS USA-population its fucking impossible to get a healthcare system provided by taxes because of infrastructure and so on? Are you kidding? It's simply a question of will. Theres a lot of people in this thread who don't want to pay a little more, to secure everyone in your country (talking about healthcare). Well it's your decision. I feel pretty good knowing, that I will at least always get medical treatment for free (as in "don't have to pay the moment I arrive, but indirect via taxes"), no matter what kind of accident may happen / no matter If I got the money to pay taxes AT ALL.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading.
I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'.
You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen!
The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate.
My ideal healthcare system is Singapore, which is pretty market-oriented as these things go. They have government controls on what is subsidized to keep costs low.
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
most of this paragraph is wrong, specifically the protectionist, humanitarian aid, and defense spending parts. also the read a book part makes you look bad.
you go read a book, and maybe some news stories about whose ships and helicopters were the ones delivering aid the earliest and delivering the most supplies overall during the Boxing Day Tsunami disaster just for example... (answer: United States)
you dont know what military spending is.
I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out.
When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit.
My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close.
So, you guys want to tell me, because of the very special ratio of USA-Size VS USA-population its fucking impossible to get a healthcare system provided by taxes because of infrastructure and so on? Are you kidding?
when you present an argument ill respond to it
saying that "sweden has low population density too" ignores the overall size of sweden and of the US, im pretty sure thats kind of important when you have to ship something 2000 miles as opposed to 500, things like that.
There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare. At the rate of increasing health costs, they'll eventually go bankrupt; take a look at Greece for example. So when the argument gets made it that the U.S should adopt the EU style of healthcare because it "works", ask this question in the next 10-20 years.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading.
I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'.
You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen!
The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate.
What stops that going on with our current system? The ultimate goal should be getting people healthy. If the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance the service might help, then they should have the power to prescribe it. If they were wrong, then they are ultimately accountable. If they continuously make bad calls, (accounting for reasonable doubt/some unknown illness) then their job is on the line.
Putting the power of medical services in the hands of the patient, who hasn't got the faintest fucking clue how medicinal science works, really doesn't sound conducive to good healthcare for all. Nearly everyone shows up to a doctor's appointment in the US with wikipedia and webmd.com entries loaded up on their smartphone, ready to tell their doctor, "I think I've got that. Fix it.".
There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican.
Calvin Coolidge.
Moving on...
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
most of this paragraph is wrong, specifically the protectionist, humanitarian aid, and defense spending parts. also the read a book part makes you look bad.
you go read a book, and maybe some news stories about whose ships and helicopters were the ones delivering aid the earliest and delivering the most supplies overall during the Boxing Day Tsunami disaster just for example... (answer: United States)
you dont know what military spending is.
I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out.
When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit.
My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close.
I'm all for decreasing the military's budget and getting out of unnecessary wars. But that's not going to fix the healthcare problem.
So, you guys want to tell me, because of the very special ratio of USA-Size VS USA-population its fucking impossible to get a healthcare system provided by taxes because of infrastructure and so on? Are you kidding?
when you present an argument ill respond to it
saying that "sweden has low population density too" ignores the overall size of sweden and of the US, im pretty sure thats kind of important when you have to ship something 2000 miles as opposed to 500, things like that.
I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare.
There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican.
Calvin Coolidge.
Moving on...
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
most of this paragraph is wrong, specifically the protectionist, humanitarian aid, and defense spending parts. also the read a book part makes you look bad.
you go read a book, and maybe some news stories about whose ships and helicopters were the ones delivering aid the earliest and delivering the most supplies overall during the Boxing Day Tsunami disaster just for example... (answer: United States)
you dont know what military spending is.
I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out.
When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit.
My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close.
I'm all for decreasing the military's budget and getting out of unnecessary wars. But that's not going to fix the healthcare problem.
It's going to help with the budget a lot. Which will help with everything else.
On June 22 2011 06:16 Yang Wenli wrote: There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and you get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare.
The US is one country, Europe is many different countries with different economies, levels of debt and systems of healthcare. It's been working pretty damn well in the majority of the countries for over 60 years, you can't just write that off by consolidating all of Europe into one and pulling out random figures.
On June 22 2011 06:18 ThreeAcross wrote: I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all.
Obviously it's not free but in every other Western country it costs less and a better service is usually provided...
I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all.
You don't need to be rich to afford healthcare in the states. I do it for my family, on a modest income in a fairly expensive area. I do believe that our healthcare system isn't anywhere near perfect, but I do not agree that we need a government run system.
I do think we need to stop all the frivolous lawsuits that happen that make doctors carry exorbitant amounts of insurance that in turn raise costs.
Also, I don't really know the answer to this so if someone does let me know. Where are most drugs researched in the world? I know it takes a lot of money to do drug research, so that might contribute. I think I am going to look that up now.
I know there are a lot of people who commit crimes just to have a safer place to stay and some food to eat. Prison can be easier than life on the street. This is sort of like that except on a larger scale.
[Citation needed], I'd like to see it. I can't imagine it would be that much.
i explained it in a post in this thread
and treemonkeys nice way to change the subject, we weren't talking about maintaining troops in 170+ countries (which in most of those countries amounts to 100 people or less), we were talking about the US being unable to move towards solving the health care problem because of alleged wasted money on defense, when its been shown or at least argued that cutting military spending would be of little help.
also no more defense spending means a lot of people out of work and no health insurance for them, have you thought of that?
I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off.
no, i have not gone to any rallies being of rather mean means (like that pun? basically said im pretty poor and its sadly true)
and do you feel an urge to caricature people who say things you dont like politically all the time? it doesnt seem likely to produce any kind of understanding or even honest exchange of ideas.
More specifically, this comment:
"also no more defense spending means a lot of people out of work and no health insurance for them, have you thought of that?"
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out.
who cares if we have more? the people who were saved dont care that per capita or whatever country X gave more. they care about tons of food brought in, doses of medicine, the raw numbers of what is available vs. what is needed.
all that per capita superiority wouldnt help one bit if the US just said "eh, no more" tomorrow and backed it up.
the large bulk of us military spending is maintaining the capability to deliver lots of stuff to pretty much anywhere in the world pretty damn fast, it doesnt matter if we only use it sometimes, when needed, for humanitarian aid
if we didnt spend the money to maintain the capability, we couldnt bring to bear enough capability fast enough to make the kind of difference we can
so i disagree with your assertions here
When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit.
youre changing the subject i dont know if you're talking about humanitarian spending military spending or total US spending
the US's troubles with katrina have what relevance here exactly, except to point to one of the few examples where the US humanitarian response was less than stellar?
and i hardly consider barely over a thousand people dying to be some kind of horrible indictment on the us, as tragic as it was that many of those people did die needlessly
My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close.
So, would a more free market hurt or not? You say it's an illusion to think that more free market is good, but then say we don't have one, not even close. So... uh... didn't you contradict yourself? If we're not even close, and what we have is shitty, aren't we then closer to the end of the spectrum?
I didn't think you were saying socialism is shitty, but...
anyway this other point as you call it is kind of incoherent anyway.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading.
I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'.
You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen!
The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate.
What stops that going on with our current system? The ultimate goal should be getting people healthy. If the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance the service might help, then they should have the power to prescribe it. If they were wrong, then they are ultimately accountable. If they continuously make bad calls, (accounting for reasonable doubt/some unknown illness) then their job is on the line.
Putting the power of medical services in the hands of the patient, who hasn't got the faintest fucking clue how medicinal science works, really doesn't sound conducive to good healthcare for all. Nearly everyone shows up to a doctor's appointment in the US with wikipedia and webmd.com entries loaded up on their smartphone, ready to tell their doctor, "I think I've got that. Fix it.".
The current system sucks too. Giving everyone free healthcare will simply make the problem worse, unless there is some serious reforming of the healthcare system. And the power shouldn't be given to doctors or patients, unless they are exposed to the cost of the service (and under our system they are not).
I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare.
i gave my reasoning for it, go read it and agree or disagree or stop badgering
im pretty sure russias healthcare is shitty too, so, uh, right
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
okay let's try to understand:
government collects taxes from people
these taxes come from their incomes or reserves of cash
if the government has no more need for taxes for defense, people working in defense industries would not benefit ONE BIT, as their incomes COME from those taxes. government doesnt have that money anymore. isnt paying it out to defense companies which then pay their employees usually quite well for their skilled labor, and through usually pretty damn nice employer provided health insurance and company investment plans.
so what should they do, go on welfare?
really all this arrogant yelling from you guys and you dont know what youre talking about at all
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading.
I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'.
You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen!
The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate.
What stops that going on with our current system? The ultimate goal should be getting people healthy. If the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance the service might help, then they should have the power to prescribe it. If they were wrong, then they are ultimately accountable. If they continuously make bad calls, (accounting for reasonable doubt/some unknown illness) then their job is on the line.
Putting the power of medical services in the hands of the patient, who hasn't got the faintest fucking clue how medicinal science works, really doesn't sound conducive to good healthcare for all. Nearly everyone shows up to a doctor's appointment in the US with wikipedia and webmd.com entries loaded up on their smartphone, ready to tell their doctor, "I think I've got that. Fix it.".
The current system sucks too. Giving everyone free healthcare will simply make the problem worse, unless there is some serious reforming of the healthcare system. And the power shouldn't be given to doctors or patients, unless they are exposed to the cost of the service (and under our system they are not).
That's what's great about a socialised healthcare system, though. Doctors are given the power to make those calls, AND they're held accountable. In addition, presumably, their goal is always to get the patient healthy (if just to get them out of their hair). With the US system right now, the power is in the hands of the patient, but acting as a proxy for the insurance company who foots the bill. It just doesn't work as we're seeing sky-rocketing costs, and oftentimes genetic-discrimination as a result of that system (90% probability of Huntington's disease? OH HELL NO! Find another insurance company, buddy).
On June 22 2011 06:16 Yang Wenli wrote: There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and you get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare.
The US is one country, Europe is many different countries with different economies, levels of debt and systems of healthcare. It's been working pretty damn well in the majority of the countries for over 60 years, you can't just write that off by consolidating all of Europe into one and pulling out random figures.
On June 22 2011 06:18 ThreeAcross wrote: I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all.
Obviously it's not free but in every other Western country it costs less and a better service is usually provided...
I'm not pulling random figures out of my ass, go research each European country public debt in comparison to their GDP and the tax rates. You'll find it is much higher than the United States and that the fact taxes alone cannot finance the social programs. Also just because it has worked for over 60 years does not mean it will continue to function as it is in the future. Cuts will have to be made or more funding to be secured. Take at look at Social Security in the United States, been here for ever 70+ years, yet there will not be enough money to give beneficiaries the full amount in the future.
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
okay let's try to understand:
government collects taxes from people
these taxes come from their incomes or reserves of cash
if the government has no more need for taxes for defense, people working in defense industries would not benefit ONE BIT, as their incomes COME from those taxes. government doesnt have that money anymore. isnt paying it out to defense companies which then pay their employees usually quite well for their skilled labor, and through usually pretty damn nice employer provided health insurance and company investment plans.
so what should they do, go on welfare?
really all this arrogant yelling from you guys and you dont know what youre talking about at all
Do you not see how idiotic that is? Stop trying to act like you're the one who knows what you're talking about. One could use that argument for a lot of jobs that are ultimately created by the government.
Cut back on welfare programs? What are the social workers going to do - oh well I guess we can't cut that.
Simplify the tax code? Well what about all the tax accountants? out of the job... can't do that I guess either.
Obviously I could go on and on. If the defense industry needs to shrink, so be it. Most of the talent there are engineers and can probably find work elsewhere. Even if they couldn't your solution that we just can't cut funding on anything that creates jobs is absurd and impractical.
That's what's great about a socialised healthcare system, though. Doctors are given the power to make those calls, AND they're held accountable. In addition, presumably, their goal is always to get the patient healthy (if just to get them out of their hair).
that doesnt describe the NHS at least, in the place of insurance companies is a literal rationing board, the NICE. also there have been some scandals about the NHS denying coverage based on their determination of how much a costly operation or drug will "benefit" the patient and other considerations that have no real place in the hands of anyone but the patient in a humane healthcare system. i dont know much about other nationalized healthcare systems but the NHS definitely is not meeting their presumable goal.
Do you not see how idiotic that is? Stop trying to act like you're the one who knows what you're talking about. One could use that argument for a lot of jobs that are ultimately created by the government.
i agree, it is a valid argument.
Cut back on welfare programs? What are the social workers going to do - oh well I guess we can't cut that.
i disagree with abolishing entire sectors of government
we disagree only about the extent of the government's responsibilities not what they are, you're painting me as holding a position farther to the right than what i really have
Simplify the tax code? Well what about all the tax accountants? out of the job... can't do that I guess either.
another point to make is that there are arguments to be made that simplifying the tax code and less bureaucracy creates more positive economic activity than the negative impact, there is no argument to be made that ending defensive spending and having the government spend it on something else or give it back to the citizens would bring more positive activity than the negatives caused by lost jobs and loss of stability on the seas and around the world
Obviously I could go on and on. If the defense industry needs to shrink, so be it. Most of the talent there are engineers and can probably find work elsewhere. Even if they couldn't your solution that we just can't cut funding on anything that creates jobs is absurd and impractical.
i think youre wrong ive showed why i think that without having to yell
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
okay let's try to understand:
government collects taxes from people
these taxes come from their incomes or reserves of cash
if the government has no more need for taxes for defense, people working in defense industries would not benefit ONE BIT, as their incomes COME from those taxes. government doesnt have that money anymore. isnt paying it out to defense companies which then pay their employees usually quite well for their skilled labor, and through usually pretty damn nice employer provided health insurance and company investment plans.
so what should they do, go on welfare?
really all this arrogant yelling from you guys and you dont know what youre talking about at all
Well techincally they're already on welfare. They're doing things that are useless both for the population and the world, and it sertainly doesn't help the US economically. What if all your soldiers were working their asses off in US industries, colleges and doing something useful. God damn that's alot of income lost for the country.
Funny, here we are trying to move away from free healthcare because it means doctors are underpaid and the whole system is in deep red numbers. I'd say it's a noble idea, but when you have aging population and no huge growth of economy, it can easily turn against you.
Well techincally they're already on welfare. They're doing things that are useless both for the population and the world, and it sertainly doesn't help the US economically. What if all your soldiers were working their asses off in US industries, colleges and doing something useful. God damn that's alot of income lost for the country.
i disagree that things would be better. i think there would be more wars and more protectionism, more piracy, more big countries like russia economically bullying smaller countries like the ukraine, = less trade.
except in weapons maybe, so maybe we'd need that defense industry after all.
I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare.
i gave my reasoning for it, go read it and agree or disagree or stop badgering
im pretty sure russias healthcare is shitty too, so, uh, right
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
okay let's try to understand:
government collects taxes from people
these taxes come from their incomes or reserves of cash
if the government has no more need for taxes for defense, people working in defense industries would not benefit ONE BIT, as their incomes COME from those taxes. government doesnt have that money anymore. isnt paying it out to defense companies which then pay their employees usually quite well for their skilled labor, and through usually pretty damn nice employer provided health insurance and company investment plans.
so what should they do, go on welfare?
really all this arrogant yelling from you guys and you dont know what youre talking about at all
Well techincally they're already on welfare. They're doing things that are useless both for the population and the world, and it sertainly doesn't help the US economically. What if all your soldiers were working their asses off in US industries, colleges and doing something useful. God damn that's alot of income lost for the country.
Also valid. DeepElemBlues looks at things from a very short term perspective. OMG WE LOSE JOBS CAN'T DO IT. Sorry, our country will lose superpower status VERY soon if we keep this short term viewpoint that so many people seem to have.
It's like an American industry that can't support itself. Does the government help or does it not? If it helps, we keep jobs but create a money sink. If we don't help the industry, it likely fails, people lose their jobs, but ultimately those resources are better allocated elsewhere.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading.
I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'.
You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen!
The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate.
What stops that going on with our current system? The ultimate goal should be getting people healthy. If the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance the service might help, then they should have the power to prescribe it. If they were wrong, then they are ultimately accountable. If they continuously make bad calls, (accounting for reasonable doubt/some unknown illness) then their job is on the line.
Putting the power of medical services in the hands of the patient, who hasn't got the faintest fucking clue how medicinal science works, really doesn't sound conducive to good healthcare for all. Nearly everyone shows up to a doctor's appointment in the US with wikipedia and webmd.com entries loaded up on their smartphone, ready to tell their doctor, "I think I've got that. Fix it.".
The current system sucks too. Giving everyone free healthcare will simply make the problem worse, unless there is some serious reforming of the healthcare system. And the power shouldn't be given to doctors or patients, unless they are exposed to the cost of the service (and under our system they are not).
That's what's great about a socialised healthcare system, though. Doctors are given the power to make those calls, AND they're held accountable. In addition, presumably, their goal is always to get the patient healthy (if just to get them out of their hair). With the US system right now, the power is in the hands of the patient, but acting as a proxy for the insurance company who foots the bill. It just doesn't work as we're seeing sky-rocketing costs, and oftentimes genetic-discrimination as a result of that system (90% probability of Huntington's disease? OH HELL NO! Find another insurance company, buddy).
Let's not call it "socialized" please, as if there's some "capitalist" version of health care. That deteriorates into stupid ideological debates. Personally, I'm not sure if a free market system would work, and I don't think I'd be willing to try it. So, yes, I agree that there needs to be some regulation of costs. This means by necessity that some people will not get all their health care covered. But I do think it would be better to have everyone covered at the expense of not covering every service. Again, the Singaporean system is my preferred policy choice: universal catastrophic health insurance, restrictions on which basic services are funded, and a private market for those who want it. All funded by mandatory savings accounts. The outcomes are pretty amazing even if we control for cultural factors (which sadly nobody ever does).
[Citation needed], I'd like to see it. I can't imagine it would be that much.
i explained it in a post in this thread
and treemonkeys nice way to change the subject, we weren't talking about maintaining troops in 170+ countries (which in most of those countries amounts to 100 people or less), we were talking about the US being unable to move towards solving the health care problem because of alleged wasted money on defense, when its been shown or at least argued that cutting military spending would be of little help.
also no more defense spending means a lot of people out of work and no health insurance for them, have you thought of that?
I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off.
no, i have not gone to any rallies being of rather mean means (like that pun? basically said im pretty poor and its sadly true)
and do you feel an urge to caricature people who say things you dont like politically all the time? it doesnt seem likely to produce any kind of understanding or even honest exchange of ideas.
What's so funny about this that my original comment about Fox News was directed (with quote included) to the guy who said arguing with a socialist is like arguing with a woman. Then you responded to it and we've been corresponding since then. So yes, I do feel the need to caricature someone who would insult women for no reason in the same breath as insulting socialists. However, you caricatured yourself by responding to my comment about Fox News assuming I was talking to you.
To make a response regarding the original topic of this thread: I believe there are other methods of getting help instead of having to go down this road of committing a crime (that will be with you the rest of your life) and getting, what essentially is, handouts from taxpayer money. Any chance that this guy could have had at establishing a normal life is out the window with this kind of crime. Who could trust this guy enough to take a chance on employing him?
I don't mean to sound callous but my philosophy is very much conservative and coming from the Ayn Rand perspective. That's not to say I lack compassion or am not kind to others, but I have enough of a problem as it is with the amount of taxes I pay and the misappropriation of those funds during these times.
When you read misappropriation, you're probably thinking, "Jeez, this guy sounds like a dick. His money is going toward helping people and he's angry about it?" Please understand though, I am very cynical when it comes to the government at any level. I believe these people are just as selfish and greedy as the businessman trying to keep his business afloat. I don't have a problem with greed (hence Ayn Rand) but there's a difference between being responsible and moral and being irresponsible and immoral. Whereas a businessman has to MAKE his money in some way (again moral or not), politicians have this money thrown at them in the form of taxes. That doesn't seem too fair to me.
For those of you who believe that government should be the controller of health and welfare, I ask: What makes these politicians better at managing healthcare than a businessman? Why is there such a negative connotation for the word businessman? Is there no respect for the person going out day after day attending to a business that he works for or brought up on his own and fulfilling the demands of his patrons? Sure there are bad people out there, but aren't there bad politicians, too?
Another point/question: I would contend that the United States is one of the most unhealthy countries in the world. Is this, in fact, true? I would assume so based upon the amount of childhood obesity rates (which isn't going to get any better because schools have to cut budgets due to deficits) and general obesity rate for adults. But who is to blame for all this? The fast food companies (again, companies are the bad guy...) or the people who live these sedentary lifestyles and do nothing physical except for walking to/from their car. Health care costs would fall greatly if we took better care of ourselves and made better decisions about our health.
Long story short, the guy made a decision that, I think, he will live to regret, but, I guess, at least he lives, I believe government manages programs and the like very badly and with little success and instead of forcing doctors, hospitals, etc. to take better of the population, we can start making decisions at home that will lead to healthier lives.
So glad, I abuse the fuck out of the system and get free medical from welfare, this year alone my wife's medical bills would have been several hundred thousand dollars, but we haven't paid a dime out of pocket.
What's so funny about this that my original comment about Fox News was directed (with quote included) to the guy who said arguing with a socialist is like arguing with a woman. Then you responded to it and we've been corresponding since then. So yes, I do feel the need to caricature someone who would insult women for no reason in the same breath as insulting socialists. However, you caricatured yourself by responding to my comment about Fox News assuming I was talking to you
if i dont think what you said to someone was fair i think i can say so, and also, i mentioned the caricaturing after you directed it at me, not just for directing it at him
so, i guess, youre wrong and i didnt caricature myself? im pretty sure even if i did what you said it wouldnt have been caricaturing myself...
also if you reference fox news as a way to associate people with sexism, do you think im sexist too?
Also valid. DeepElemBlues looks at things from a very short term perspective. OMG WE LOSE JOBS CAN'T DO IT. Sorry, our country will lose superpower status VERY soon if we keep this short term viewpoint that so many people seem to have.
It's like an American industry that can't support itself. Does the government help or does it not? If it helps, we keep jobs but create a money sink. If we don't help the industry, it likely fails, people lose their jobs, but ultimately those resources are better allocated elsewhere.
ummm, that's a decidedly anarcho-capitalist way to look at the military, isn't it?
also i dont look at things through the short term, i mean i guess i could talk about all the technologies we have today that originated in research for things useful for the military...
theres no need to freak out the US isnt losing superpower status any time soon.
On June 22 2011 06:41 Irrelevant wrote: So glad, I abuse the fuck out of the system and get free medical from welfare, this year alone my wife's medical bills would have been several hundred thousand dollars, but we haven't paid a dime out of pocket.
So glad I live in a country where I don't need to abuse the fuck out of the system to get treated for my illnesses.
On June 22 2011 06:41 Irrelevant wrote: So glad, I abuse the fuck out of the system and get free medical from welfare, this year alone my wife's medical bills would have been several hundred thousand dollars, but we haven't paid a dime out of pocket.
So glad I live in a country where I don't need to abuse the fuck out of the system to get treated for my illnesses.
Yea it would be nice to not have to find loopholes and do illegal things just to take care of your medical expensive, but can't afford to move out of country just yet so have to make do with what we got.
On June 22 2011 06:16 Yang Wenli wrote: There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and you get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare.
The US is one country, Europe is many different countries with different economies, levels of debt and systems of healthcare. It's been working pretty damn well in the majority of the countries for over 60 years, you can't just write that off by consolidating all of Europe into one and pulling out random figures.
On June 22 2011 06:18 ThreeAcross wrote: I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all.
Obviously it's not free but in every other Western country it costs less and a better service is usually provided...
I'm not pulling random figures out of my ass, go research each European country public debt in comparison to their GDP and the tax rates. You'll find it is much higher than the United States and that the fact taxes alone cannot finance the social programs. Also just because it has worked for over 60 years does not mean it will continue to function as it is in the future. Cuts will have to be made or more funding to be secured. Take at look at Social Security in the United States, been here for ever 70+ years, yet there will not be enough money to give beneficiaries the full amount in the future.
Uh yeah. GDP isn't the same as income you know. GDP is the production of a country. The US has a huge military production that doesn't yield an income, and is only a huge cash sink for instance, whereas other countries have more refined GDP that actually makes something. Compare IKEA to the US defense department. Guess what gives more tax money.
China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no. Sweden has 42% of its GDP in debt, whereas the US has over 90%, and is estimeted 2012 to be around 110%, so your logic is still flawed.
Second,I'm aware of the US budget.What you aren't aware of is how insanely high the cost of your military is compared to the world.1/5 of the 3.5 trillion dollar budget going to the military is insane. You spend more on military than the rest of the world.
So? it's irrelevant how much we spend compared to the rest of the world, this is what you are missing
Of course it's not irrelevant,it shows that the US(not you,your government,more precisely the banks that own them) has a interest in war,weather you like to admit it or not.And war helps no one except the banks and stock holders.Us has a 14 trillion $ debt,who do you think they ow it to?
first of all you can't dump 30 Germanys into the US.Germany has 81 million people living in it,the US has 311.For the sake of argument ill say EU is bigger than the US and everyone here has pretty much free healthcare in one form or another.
for the last time i was talking about geography and population density which have important influence on costs of everything including healthcare
You pay taxes as well lol,even more than me and you still do not have health care.How is that a argument.I already said however that the US can't solve something like the health care issue without having to carefully rethink their monetary system.
Third,if your argument is that EU dragged the US into the war with Libya,than that's quite ironic because,the Eu is equally obliged to support the US in every stupid war march that they can think off,which during the cores of the last few decades,US had a lot of them which didn't help your budget either.
also like to mention that in those wars we pulled our weight, and your opinion of the intelligence of them is what it is. i believe one of those wars in the last few decades was another mess europe was embarrassed by and couldnt clean up itself, called the former yugoslavia?
the issue isnt a deficit caused by the wars it is the ability to pay for them period. we have the ability, europe doesnt. so dont whine about it because you ask us for help too and we GLADLY GIVE IT, not with a bunch of bitchy whining like what comes from across the atlantic
Wow,just wow.Wasn't America so kind to us poor little Europeans.As i stated you fight wars not to pull your weight but because the people that own you decide that you should go to war and play the global police for their interest. And about the Yugoslavia,it is funny how little you know about it if you think the US did anything major to clean up the mess. Croatia "cleaned" that mass up practically by itself.Only thing the US did was bomb Beograd and that was ass far as they helped Croatia in that war.They had more interventions in BIH and Kosovo.
Your last point is exactly the root of American problem.Capitalism has its fingers in everything,and if you think that's a good thing your deluded.
i disagree, and assertions are just assertions, calling me deluded makes it about as true as me saying you sound very happy with my opinions making that true
i would also like to point out that a huge amount of military spending in the US goes towards maintaining our logistical capabilities, without which worldwide humanitarian operations would be hopelessly crippled. millions of people would have died from starvation, illness, and natural disasters over the last 60 years that DIDNT DIE because it was the US military and merchant marine and merchant air that was flying and sailing in the majority of relief supplies.
if you wanna bitch about our military spending i guess a big chunk of all that food and medicine can find its way to africa on its own, huh?
It's funny because the people,civilians,the military ends up saving in one part of the world,it make up for it by killing double the amount in another part. Look up the civilian casualties that the recent wars have caused.It's not pretty.
So glad I live in a country where I don't need to abuse the fuck out of the system to get treated for my illnesses.
get free medical from welfare
he isnt abusing the system, he is doing the same thing that people without enough money to pay do in european countries. you're paying for people "abusing" the system the same way he does. they dont pay taxes, he doesnt pay insurance premiums.
It's funny because the people,civilians,the military ends up saving in one part of the world,it make up for it by killing double the amount in another part. Look up the civilian casualties that the recent wars have caused.It's not pretty.
the civilian casualties of all the US wars from the last 15 years are far less than double the amount saved, its ridiculous
youre comparing maybe 250,000 people killed in the wars most of them killed by terrorists not the US, and the tens of thousands every year that would die if we werent feeding and healing them
along with everyone else too, i dont want to put the US up to the result of putting everyone else down, every life we all save is worth it
and i feel like im being conservative on the tens of thousands, but i dont want to exaggerate
On June 22 2011 04:41 gwaihir wrote: you are slaves of the big companies and banks. nobody gives a shit about you getting healthcare! they only thing they give a shit about is money and power
Posts like these always entertain me. Especially considering well... German political development over the past 200 years. I guess the argument is that the state is driving the corporations rather than the other way around.
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?
pretty much. unfortunately, it seems like if I understand some politicians logic they might look at this and say "hey, guess we better stop giving healthcare to people in jail!" or something equally stupid.
China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no.
If China's GDP/capita were as high as Sweden's, then it would pretty much mean that. As it is, China has a huge GDP but it also has a "huger" population. So it is still quite a poor country.
Bad side of capitalism, "shrug", I hope the man got better and that he wont have to do something like that again to get treatment, people deserve better
China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no.
If China's GDP/capita were as high as Sweden's, then it would pretty much mean that.
No it wouldn't. GDP is a flawed system based only on production. Soviet Russia had a ginormous GDP, but that didn't mean they were living well, that just meant they made a fuckton of tanks -.-'
What's so funny about this that my original comment about Fox News was directed (with quote included) to the guy who said arguing with a socialist is like arguing with a woman. Then you responded to it and we've been corresponding since then. So yes, I do feel the need to caricature someone who would insult women for no reason in the same breath as insulting socialists. However, you caricatured yourself by responding to my comment about Fox News assuming I was talking to you
if i dont think what you said to someone was fair i think i can say so, and also, i mentioned the caricaturing after you directed it at me, not just for directing it at him
so, i guess, youre wrong and i didnt caricature myself? im pretty sure even if i did what you said it wouldnt have been caricaturing myself...
also if you reference fox news as a way to associate people with sexism, do you think im sexist too?
Which part wasn't fair? The guy made a degrading comment toward the intelligence of women... and even got banned for it. I think I was pretty "fair" considering what I could have said about it.
What I'm about to say next, I'm not sure I know how to say in a way that you'll understand, but I'll do my best.
I wasn't referencing Fox News as a way to associate someone with sexism. I referenced Fox News because the guy was throwing around the word "Socialist" exactly like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly do. Because he made a statement that was so ignorant, he got banned for it... it makes me think that he probably watches Fox News. I am fully aware that I have a total caricature in my mind for someone who watches Fox News. I'm totally comfortable with that. The caricature in my head is unfortunately scarily accurate.
Maybe healthcare shouldn't be allowed to be capitalist. It doesn't work. Paying doctors and surgeons and nurses for their time is very important, they spent thousands and thousands for the training to get there and they worked themselves into a long term industry but maybe the large conglomerates shouldn't be allowed to rape the market they control.
This isn't nice cars or phones, this is human health. It should be a right of every world citizen to receive care.
Governments need to protect and serve the needs of the people otherwise they all will crumble into irrelevance. This isn't 1776 anymore, the founding fathers are relics of a world without relevance. We need governments built for the world we live in now, not slave owners, racists and ancient thinking. We can do better. We can have a more perfect union.
We need a new constitution. We need a new federal system.
I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out.
who cares if we have more? the people who were saved dont care that per capita or whatever country X gave more. they care about tons of food brought in, doses of medicine, the raw numbers of what is available vs. what is needed.
all that per capita superiority wouldnt help one bit if the US just said "eh, no more" tomorrow and backed it up.
the large bulk of us military spending is maintaining the capability to deliver lots of stuff to pretty much anywhere in the world pretty damn fast, it doesnt matter if we only use it sometimes, when needed, for humanitarian aid
if we didnt spend the money to maintain the capability, we couldnt bring to bear enough capability fast enough to make the kind of difference we can
When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit.
youre changing the subject i dont know if you're talking about humanitarian spending military spending or total US spending
the US's troubles with katrina have what relevance here exactly, except to point to one of the few examples where the US humanitarian response was less than stellar?
and i hardly consider barely over a thousand people dying to be some kind of horrible indictment on the us, as tragic as it was that many of those people did die needlessly
My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close.
So, would a more free market hurt or not? You say it's an illusion to think that more free market is good, but then say we don't have one, not even close. So... uh... didn't you contradict yourself? If we're not even close, and what we have is shitty, aren't we then closer to the end of the spectrum?
I didn't think you were saying socialism is shitty, but...
anyway this other point as you call it is kind of incoherent anyway.
Well since you've quite craftily missed everything. I'm not talking about what is good or what isn't. I'm saying that so many people believe this is a classically capitalistic/free-market economy when it is MUCH MUCH less than that. You just engineered all of these things i've "said" because thats where see a contradiction.
The US has the worst humanitarian responses to its own country in the entire civilized world.
China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no.
If China's GDP/capita were as high as Sweden's, then it would pretty much mean that.
No it wouldn't. GDP is a flawed system based only on production. Soviet Russia had a ginormous GDP, but that didn't mean they were living well, that just meant they made a fuckton of tanks -.-'
China isn't a command economy like the USSR (and their GDP numbers were most likely gamed), so the GDP per capita numbers would be a pretty good indication of quality of life, just as it is for pretty much every other non-oil country.
Also, income is part of GDP, as labor is what you pay for when you produce stuff.
i am making what i think is a pretty commonsense argument
spread out larger population means a need for more hospitals, equipment, staff, etc
many places are not large enough to have the wealth base to make paying for all this operate in the black. not enough people around have insurance because there arent enough people around period, but they still need the hospital. and, smaller and more geographically more isolated towns tend to have lower incomes overall, so less people can afford health insurance too.
so the costs are passed to insurance companies which pass them to consumers of their health insurance plans.
nationalized healthcare doesn't solve this, it just adds to the costs by insuring more; broadening the base of people who have to pay for it through taxes wont fix the basic cost problems, one of which i have described above
i do care whether im correct or not but you seem not very interested in trying to find out
Well since you've quite craftily missed everything. I'm not talking about what is good or what isn't. I'm saying that so many people believe this is a classically capitalistic/free-market economy when it is MUCH MUCH less than that. You just engineered all of these things i've "said" because thats where see a contradiction.
I will say that the system is closer to crony-capitalism than real capitalism. Crony-capitalism is just as bad as socialism.
I didn't engineer anything you said, you contradicted yourself. You said:
1. Belief in free-market being better is an illusion. 2. We are FAR from a free-market system. 3. The current system is bad.
So, the conclusion should be...? Well there is none because 1 contradicts 2 and 3.
The US has the worst humanitarian responses to its own country in the entire civilized world.
i get the feeling that the differences are more likely than not inconsequential
for example, i could point to all those people dying in france in 2003 some of them because their younger relatives go on vacation and the air conditioning isnt on or they dont have any and regardless of the cause so many people died of heat exhaustion.
isnt that a pretty bad humanitarian response from a country towards itself for a civilized country?
you can provide your evidence of how the US is the worst (no, we arent, and the distinction is meaningless for whatever country has it, and i dont know which country that is) now k?
China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no.
If China's GDP/capita were as high as Sweden's, then it would pretty much mean that.
No it wouldn't. GDP is a flawed system based only on production. Soviet Russia had a ginormous GDP, but that didn't mean they were living well, that just meant they made a fuckton of tanks -.-'
China isn't a command economy like the USSR (and their GDP numbers were most likely gamed), so the GDP per capita numbers would be a pretty good indication of quality of life, just as it is for pretty much every other non-oil country.
How did we get on this topic anyway...
The investment banker with no sence of worth in human life said that every European country has a worse debt / gdp than USA, which isn't true, and even if it was, we have less of a military producing a fuckton of useless GDP. Making humvees contributes to the GDP, but not to the quality of living.
On June 22 2011 06:16 Yang Wenli wrote: There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and you get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare.
The US is one country, Europe is many different countries with different economies, levels of debt and systems of healthcare. It's been working pretty damn well in the majority of the countries for over 60 years, you can't just write that off by consolidating all of Europe into one and pulling out random figures.
On June 22 2011 06:18 ThreeAcross wrote: I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all.
Obviously it's not free but in every other Western country it costs less and a better service is usually provided...
I'm not pulling random figures out of my ass, go research each European country public debt in comparison to their GDP and the tax rates. You'll find it is much higher than the United States and that the fact taxes alone cannot finance the social programs. Also just because it has worked for over 60 years does not mean it will continue to function as it is in the future. Cuts will have to be made or more funding to be secured. Take at look at Social Security in the United States, been here for ever 70+ years, yet there will not be enough money to give beneficiaries the full amount in the future.
Uh yeah. GDP isn't the same as income you know. GDP is the production of a country. The US has a huge military production that doesn't yield an income, and is only a huge cash sink for instance, whereas other countries have more refined GDP that actually makes something. Compare IKEA to the US defense department. Guess what gives more tax money.
China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no. Sweden has 42% of its GDP in debt, whereas the US has over 90%, and is estimeted 2012 to be around 110%, so your logic is still flawed.
Was I arguing whether or not the living standard was better? I don't think so, I'm merely arguing the fact that healthcare, in addition to social programs that EU countries are not sustainable for future levels. I do concede that I got the U.S GDP debt figure wrong as I did not take into account state and intra level of debt.
I think the whole situation is pretty sad. When you'd rather be in jail than try to deal with bureaucracy and government the 'conventional way', you know action is needed.
If it came down to it, I would do a crime to get treatment.
It's not that great in Canada right now. If you don't have a GP (and it's very hard to get one) you have to pay out of pocket for a private doctor. You also have to pay for your medication, which can be very expensive. It covers a very limited amount of things, whenever I get testing I pay out of pocket. When my brother was in hospital it was costing us 1k a day, luckily he had his first nations band cover the cost.
Fuck the monopoly over healthcare. I will have none of it. Fuck a country that bleeds people dead. Stuffs people into giant grotesque walking heart attacks.
Maybe healthcare shouldn't be allowed to be capitalist. It doesn't work. Paying doctors and surgeons and nurses for their time is very important, they spent thousands and thousands for the training to get there and they worked themselves into a long term industry but maybe the large conglomerates shouldn't be allowed to rape the market they control.
This isn't nice cars or phones, this is human health. It should be a right of every world citizen to receive care.
Governments need to protect and serve the needs of the people otherwise they all will crumble into irrelevance. This isn't 1776 anymore, the founding fathers are relics of a world without relevance. We need governments built for the world we live in now, not slave owners, racists and ancient thinking. We can do better. We can have a more perfect union.
We need a new constitution. We need a new federal system.
Those big conglomerates all lined behind Obamacare, something to think about.
It's nice to know political liberty and the pursuit of happiness are relics of an ancient racist slave-owning world without relevance.
you dont know that this country is about people ruling themselves in a way they all get together and choose to be ruled, i guess.
Fuck the monopoly over healthcare. I will have none of it. Fuck a country that bleeds people dead. Stuffs people into giant grotesque walking heart attacks.
...you do know the biggest providers of health insurance in this country after employers are the state and federal governments, right?
On June 22 2011 06:11 Toadesstern wrote: hell yeah, theres a multitude of different countries in europe. countries like germany, having something about 80 mil people and also countries that are fucking huge compared to their population (don't know, something like sweden for example?) and pretty much everything in between ///Edit: And every country got its healthcaresystem, no matter how small, big, poor or rich///
So, you guys want to tell me, because of the very special ratio of USA-Size VS USA-population its fucking impossible to get a healthcare system provided by taxes because of infrastructure and so on? Are you kidding? It's simply a question of will. Theres a lot of people in this thread who don't want to pay a little more, to secure everyone in your country (talking about healthcare). Well it's your decision. I feel pretty good knowing, that I will at least always get medical treatment for free (as in "don't have to pay the moment I arrive, but indirect via taxes"), no matter what kind of accident may happen / no matter If I got the money to pay taxes AT ALL.
No dude, it's not our decision, we have fuck all say in it.
On June 22 2011 07:02 Euronyme wrote: The investment banker with no sence of worth in human life said that every European country has a worse debt / gdp than USA, which isn't true, and even if it was, we have less of a military producing a fuckton of useless GDP. Making humvees contributes to the GDP, but not to the quality of living.
Well someone still needs to be paid to make them. That increases that person's quality of living for sure. Not to say that there aren't better uses of the money, but it's wrong to say it's "useless" GDP.
On June 22 2011 06:57 AttackZerg wrote: Maybe healthcare shouldn't be allowed to be capitalist. It doesn't work. Paying doctors and surgeons and nurses for their time is very important, they spent thousands and thousands for the training to get there and they worked themselves into a long term industry but maybe the large conglomerates shouldn't be allowed to rape the market they control.
This isn't nice cars or phones, this is human health. It should be a right of every world citizen to receive care.
Governments need to protect and serve the needs of the people otherwise they all will crumble into irrelevance. This isn't 1776 anymore, the founding fathers are relics of a world without relevance. We need governments built for the world we live in now, not slave owners, racists and ancient thinking. We can do better. We can have a more perfect union.
We need a new constitution. We need a new federal system.
The thing is, it's really difficult to single out one specific thing and make it "non capitalistic" in a full-on capitalist environment. Most of the arguments of the side that opposes the "socialization" of healthcare in the US are actually true.
To build a society with a government that can serve its citizens instead of having them run a financial obstacle course for their entire life (and if you fall for whatever reason, you're fucked), you need to rein-in capitalism in general and have a government actively organize and run the country.
In general, I do agree with your points, I just think that it's a broader issue than just healthcare.
No dude, it's not our decision, we have fuck all say in it.
well of course it's our decision
if you vote for the same old assholes, you're going to think it isn't your decision because they do the same thing every time
vote for someone new
get people to vote for someone new
get people to vote for someone who doesnt want to be in congress forever
get people to vote for someone who has a personal stake in fixing the problems of the country
in a country that has had so much political upheaval but is still going strong, you really think the will of the people does not count?
To build a society with a government that can serve its citizens instead of having them run a financial obstacle course for their entire life (and if you fall for whatever reason, you're fucked), you need to rein-in capitalism in general and have a government that can actively organize and run the country.
i hear the russians and comrade mao had a lot of practice at trying to actively organize and run entire countries
that hitler fellow too
THE POINT IS
it doesnt work
also it seems to be pretty shitty for the people being actively organized and run
Health care should be personal thing. The whole system is screwed up when this kind of thing happens. The solution is personal empowerment to attain good health not government health care.
ummm, to come together and hash out the issues of the day and live their lives in a way according to their conscience and their own perception of their self interest (turns out, lots of people think the best way to do that is helping out people worse off than they are! volunteering, charity, being a liberal, the list is endless)
are you denying that the ability to do these things exists in the united states?
Maybe healthcare shouldn't be allowed to be capitalist. It doesn't work. Paying doctors and surgeons and nurses for their time is very important, they spent thousands and thousands for the training to get there and they worked themselves into a long term industry but maybe the large conglomerates shouldn't be allowed to rape the market they control.
This isn't nice cars or phones, this is human health. It should be a right of every world citizen to receive care.
Governments need to protect and serve the needs of the people otherwise they all will crumble into irrelevance. This isn't 1776 anymore, the founding fathers are relics of a world without relevance. We need governments built for the world we live in now, not slave owners, racists and ancient thinking. We can do better. We can have a more perfect union.
We need a new constitution. We need a new federal system.
Those big conglomerates all lined behind Obamacare, something to think about.
It's nice to know political liberty and the pursuit of happiness are relics of an ancient racist slave-owning world without relevance.
you dont know that this country is about people ruling themselves in a way they all get together and choose to be ruled, i guess.
Fuck the monopoly over healthcare. I will have none of it. Fuck a country that bleeds people dead. Stuffs people into giant grotesque walking heart attacks.
...you do know the biggest providers of health insurance in this country after employers are the state and federal governments, right?
I didn't say that the ideas are wrong, they are just insufficient. The pursuit of happiness if just colorful language, happiness isn't a pursuit, the real promise is "a pursuit that makes you happy" which is beautiful, but still not enough.
I never said anything about working within the system as it stands, I never even said I was liberal, I just said that health care is a human right.
If you do not believe that ideals and cultures have evolved since the constitution was written then we disagree and cannot come to agreeable terms. I believe that we are evolving constantly and our system no longer holds relevance in too many areas to serve us all equally, or correctly.
No money, no job, no healthcare, no family to support and having severe medical issues, I cannot say I disagree with his action.
And yes, it's manipulating the system, but what else could he have done? I have no knowledge of the American healthcare other than that's it very bad ) but considering this man wanted to go to jail for healthcare I assume that was his only option.
ummm, to come together and hash out the issues of the day and live their lives in a way according to their conscience and their own perception of their self interest (turns out, lots of people think the best way to do that is helping out people worse off than they are! volunteering, charity, being a liberal, the list is endless)
are you denying that the ability to do these things exists in the united states?
On June 22 2011 07:02 Euronyme wrote: The investment banker with no sence of worth in human life said that every European country has a worse debt / gdp than USA, which isn't true, and even if it was, we have less of a military producing a fuckton of useless GDP. Making humvees contributes to the GDP, but not to the quality of living.
Well someone still needs to be paid to make them. That increases that person's quality of living for sure. Not to say that there aren't better uses of the money, but it's wrong to say it's "useless" GDP.
It's tax money paying for bogus jobs -.-' If the government hired 200 million people to make airplanes that are too heavy to lift, then sure, you've just improved the quality of life for 200 million people, and your GDP is through the roof.. That's like the definition of useless lmao.
I didn't say that the ideas are wrong, they are just insufficient. The pursuit of happiness if just colorful language, happiness isn't a pursuit, the real promise is "a pursuit that makes you happy" which is beautiful, but still not enough.
the right to pursue, uh, a pursuit that makes you happy isn't of vital importance?
that's so many freedoms rolled up into one that i disagree.
I never said anything about working within the system as it stands, I never even said I was liberal, I just said that health care is a human right.
i didnt say you were a liberal either, i was just pointing out that nationalized healthcare may not be so conglomerate free
If you do not believe that ideals and cultures have evolved since the constitution was written then we disagree and cannot come to agreeable terms. I believe that we are evolving constantly and our system no longer holds relevance in too many areas to serve us all equally, or correctly.
i disagree, i believe that the ideas in the declaration of independence, the preamble to the constitution, the bill of rights, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments speak to true human ideals in their political and legal relations with their government and fellow citizens.
and that they are just as necessary and important today as they were in 1776, 1787, 1865, and 1866.
i do believe that cultures and ideals evolve and that the constitution and its amendments have wonderfully expressed that while still emphasizing timeless and universal ideas of liberty and freedom
i dont think we need to look to the constitution at all to solve the health insurance problem in this country, reasonable legislation from the congress and state assemblies can do the trick i think
it's two totally different issues.
no no i meant that i think belgium has just as much belief in and respect for individual initiative and freedom as the united states
I have no knowledge of the American healthcare other than that's it very bad )
is it?
stuff like this makes americans not want to listen to anyone else if our healthcare is very bad please stop coming to our mayo clinic and other facilities that rich foreigners are always coming to
I didn't say that the ideas are wrong, they are just insufficient. The pursuit of happiness if just colorful language, happiness isn't a pursuit, the real promise is "a pursuit that makes you happy" which is beautiful, but still not enough.
the right to pursue, uh, a pursuit that makes you happy isn't of vital importance?
that's so many freedoms rolled up into one that i disagree.
If you do not believe that ideals and cultures have evolved since the constitution was written then we disagree and cannot come to agreeable terms. I believe that we are evolving constantly and our system no longer holds relevance in too many areas to serve us all equally, or correctly.
i disagree, i believe that the ideas in the declaration of independence, the preamble to the constitution, the bill of rights, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments speak to true human ideals in their political and legal relations with their government and fellow citizens.
and that they are just as necessary and important today as they were in 1776, 1787, 1865, and 1866.
i do believe that cultures and ideals evolve and that the constitution and its amendments have wonderfully expressed that while still emphasizing timeless and universal ideas of liberty and freedom
i dont think we need to look to the constitution at all to solve the health insurance problem in this country, reasonable legislation from the congress and state assemblies can do the trick i think
no no i meant that i think belgium has just as much belief in and respect for individual initiative and freedom as the united states
Aren't republicans against public health care? Afaik, Obama tried to do something of a European variant, but got shut down and had to make drastic changes to please enough republicans for it to go through. That's atleast what I've heard.
On June 22 2011 06:57 AttackZerg wrote: Maybe healthcare shouldn't be allowed to be capitalist. It doesn't work. Paying doctors and surgeons and nurses for their time is very important, they spent thousands and thousands for the training to get there and they worked themselves into a long term industry but maybe the large conglomerates shouldn't be allowed to rape the market they control.
This isn't nice cars or phones, this is human health. It should be a right of every world citizen to receive care.
Governments need to protect and serve the needs of the people otherwise they all will crumble into irrelevance. This isn't 1776 anymore, the founding fathers are relics of a world without relevance. We need governments built for the world we live in now, not slave owners, racists and ancient thinking. We can do better. We can have a more perfect union.
We need a new constitution. We need a new federal system.
The thing is, it's really difficult to single out one specific thing and make it "non capitalistic" in a full-on capitalist environment. Most of the arguments of the side that opposes the "socialization" of healthcare in the US are actually true.
To build a society with a government that can serve its citizens instead of having them run a financial obstacle course for their entire life (and if you fall for whatever reason, you're fucked), you need to rein-in capitalism in general and have a government actively organize and run the country.
In general, I do agree with your points, I just think that it's a broader issue than just healthcare.
I agree.
I do believe that there our too many things that domino out of effect when you change a billion dollar industry in a 14 trillion dollar a year economy during a economic melt down.
It would require drastic changes that seem impossible, it would have to become illegal to use the medical industry to create wealth. It would have to change entirely to a non-profit business structure, which of course runs the risk of hampering the development of new frontiers in medicine.
I just know that the system can never work as is, and that is all I know.
ummm, to come together and hash out the issues of the day and live their lives in a way according to their conscience and their own perception of their self interest (turns out, lots of people think the best way to do that is helping out people worse off than they are! volunteering, charity, being a liberal, the list is endless)
are you denying that the ability to do these things exists in the united states?
Oh no,I do not deny at all the privilege to do those things in any other country as in the US. But to make it sound like those things happen in America any more than in any other country is quite vague.
Aren't republicans against public health care? Afaik, Obama tried to do something of a European variant, but got shut down and had to make drastic changes to please enough republicans for it to go through. That's atleast what I've heard.
being against nationalized healthcare doesnt mean we're against reform, at least i hope not we do need it
Oh no,I do not deny at all the privilege to do those things in any other country as in the US. But to make it sound like those things happen in America any more than in any other country is quite vague.
well i wasnt trying to do that if it came off that way i wrote badly
1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each. I'm a good American, and I love making a profit off of something I made, but profiting by making the dangerously ill sell their homes and an extra kidney is ludicrous.
2) Keep Obamacare, at least up to the part where Insurance companies are getting forced to not do that "pre-existing condition" bullshit. And they can't artificially raise premiums on people who have developed a chronic illness to force them from their plan. Don't tell me it didn't happen, I've seen the articles and the interviews. And that's what happens when you've allowed capitalism to infect the business of safeguarding life. People are killed to make a few bucks.
3) Allow people to buy into Tri-Care, the current form of insurance for the American military. I'm currently on it, and it's awesome. There's no dental, but fuck. When you get basically any major surgery for a simple 20 dollar co-pay, and every medicine you could ever need for either a 3 or 6 dollar co-pay, it's awesome. Once I'm out of undergraduate school, I could stay in Tri-Care if I agreed to a premium of $1,000 a quarter. That's a flat $4,000 a year to be on some pretty damned awesome insurance. If I had that money, and wasn't a poor ass college student, I wouldn't hesitate. If the government could offer that to me, and I'm the dependent of retired Air Force, then there's no reason why they can't offer similar to the American people at large.
4) Introduce Tort Reform. It's ridiculous how American "Sue and Counter-Sue" culture has become. Long gone are the days where if your neighbor broke a post in the fence he would fucking just repair the fence. Now you have to sue him to fix it (but, obviously, the plantiff has only given the defendant a month to fix it, but everyone's douches here apparently) and there's got to be a counter-claim about how the tree in their yard blocks light from some important room and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
This, of course, translates into a woman getting 50 million dollars because a doctor left a sponge in her stomach cavity. Nothing was harmed, and the hospital paid for the procedure to take it out, and obviously offered a settlement in line with her...you know..having to be cut open again...but no. The woman gets 50 million dollars. That's ludicrous. People should get money if they're damaged like that, but there's a reason why there's a doctor shortage. No small part of it is the 300,000 dollars in student loan debt followed by exorbitant malpractice insurance costs. Don't tell me that the doctors deserve to pay those outlandish costs, because they don't.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
And no, it's not discrimination against the poor. It's the fact that going through all of the hoops for Medicare and Medicaid is fucking annoying and time consuming and completely unwarranted. There's all of that work and paperwork, and you're not even guaranteed to get all of your costs back.
I'm all for helping poor people, I promise. I grew up living pay check to pay check and learning how to eat Mustard/Ketchup sandwiches when we couldn't afford the two dollar lumps of "Ham and Cheese Loaf," which is as disgusting as it sounds. My mother went on WIC when she had my littlest brother, and she came off of it promptly when he turned one. She only ever took outright government assistance in Welfare when she cut up her hand in the glass factory she was working in and so couldn't work there or in the second job she had. She was on it for a year, and jumped right back off when she got a job with the school district.
I've never really known what it's like to have all of my expenses "cared for." It's just never worked out that way for me, especially now that I'm in college. I may have scholarships, which have saved me from ten thousands of dollars worth of debt, but I can't work when I'm taking a full course load of 18 hours. I'm constantly living with the idea of stretching out the 1,000 dollars I get from my scholarships to live on for 4 bloody months a semester. Yeah, I remember those London riots that the students had. They were over what, having to pay 5,000 dollars a year or a semester for schooling? Lulz, I would be paying $10,000 a semester ($20,000 an academic year) for schooling if I didn't have scholarships. And that's the normal thing around here in America.
I say all of that to shore up any claim that I'm just "out of touch" or "don't know what I'm talking about." No, I do. I know what it's like to not be able to get sick because your mom can't afford to take you to the hospital. I know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck for most of my life. I also know what it's like to have quality health insurance in Tricare, and I know the fear that's pulsing through me when I turn 22 and I'm thrown off of it. No one should have to be in constant fear of being sick.
Government subsidized healthcare would at least ease that pain. Give everyone a fucking 200 dollar tax credit for healthcare insurance, and be done with it. Give them that, give them the option to buy into TriCare, and do the other stuff I called for up above. All of that, and I'm only 21 years old. Damn. I should be a politician or something.
Aren't republicans against public health care? Afaik, Obama tried to do something of a European variant, but got shut down and had to make drastic changes to please enough republicans for it to go through. That's atleast what I've heard.
being against nationalized healthcare doesnt mean we're against reform, at least i hope not we do need it
Oh no,I do not deny at all the privilege to do those things in any other country as in the US. But to make it sound like those things happen in America any more than in any other country is quite vague.
well i wasnt trying to do that if it came off that way i wrote badly
Ok,so what do you suggest the alternative is?You obviously stated that you think the EU social model is not right for the US,but the current US model is bad as well. As a American citizen what do you think would be a good solution?
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
maybe instead of robbing a bank he should actually read the OP.
i understand where this guy is coming from. i have never been to a doctor/dentist or any physician. it is outrageously expensive. a trip to the dentist can run you 2-6k EASILY, how do they expect you to be able to pay for this up front with no assistance?
The question is will government subsidized health care really ease that pain, in the long run no the costs are unsustainable and in the short term well we can see what is going on, many employers are saying they will drop employee healthcare after Obamacare is fully implemented in 2013. That dumps an additional burden on the government, and undoubtedly some of those people won't get new health insurance at all... and the government system is very unlikely to do much if anything to lower spending or even the rate of increase in spending.
Except for expanding subsidies I agree with everything you said, it was great.
As a American citizen what do you think would be a good solution?
I think that it's inevitable that we're going to have to increase the number of young people on government insurance and the elderly on it aren't going to be getting off, but there are ways to reduce costs in the industry, tort reform, making incentives for hospitals and doctors to pool resources and for companies to make even better technology, costs will inevitably come down someday that way it has happened in every other industry ever...
Also reform insurance regulation to allow insurance companies to offer a wider variety of plans, this is the biggest thing I think. Buy as much or as little insurance as you want, there is a plan out there for you. With enough people paying premiums even if it's not a large amount, there will still be more money in the system to help cover as many people as possible. The greatest businessmen who wish to sell goods or services to the masses realize that the key to great success is not selling fewer products at a large profit, but rather selling a much larger number of products at a small profit margin.
There's no way to completely end the problem of scarcity in healthcare yet, unfortunately, doesn't matter if you're private or nationalized.
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
Would you hire a 59 years old man with two ruptured discs, some type of "growth" on his chest and problems with his left foot? I think he need medical help before he can find a job, and how can he get medical help without insurance, which he would get if he had money? Did you just read the title or what?
I didn't say that the ideas are wrong, they are just insufficient. The pursuit of happiness if just colorful language, happiness isn't a pursuit, the real promise is "a pursuit that makes you happy" which is beautiful, but still not enough.
the right to pursue, uh, a pursuit that makes you happy isn't of vital importance?
that's so many freedoms rolled up into one that i disagree.
If you do not believe that ideals and cultures have evolved since the constitution was written then we disagree and cannot come to agreeable terms. I believe that we are evolving constantly and our system no longer holds relevance in too many areas to serve us all equally, or correctly.
i disagree, i believe that the ideas in the declaration of independence, the preamble to the constitution, the bill of rights, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments speak to true human ideals in their political and legal relations with their government and fellow citizens.
and that they are just as necessary and important today as they were in 1776, 1787, 1865, and 1866.
i do believe that cultures and ideals evolve and that the constitution and its amendments have wonderfully expressed that while still emphasizing timeless and universal ideas of liberty and freedom
i dont think we need to look to the constitution at all to solve the health insurance problem in this country, reasonable legislation from the congress and state assemblies can do the trick i think
I have no knowledge of the American healthcare other than that's it very bad )
is it?
stuff like this makes americans not want to listen to anyone else if our healthcare is very bad please stop coming to our mayo clinic and other facilities that rich foreigners are always coming to
I, no longer am satisfied with the promises of the constitution. Every single thing you mentioned is in fact, very important to me, I am not anti-american, I just know we can do better.
The system isn't sustainable. The checks and balances are too manipulable.
For 200 years, the constitution and the resulting institutions have been repeatedly raped by the truly rich. The government and its aims are the by-product of the constitution that is what needs an entire revamping.
Of course, human rights are not something I hold issue with, this entire thread is an issue of human rights, as far as I'm concerned.
On June 22 2011 06:41 Irrelevant wrote: So glad, I abuse the fuck out of the system and get free medical from welfare, this year alone my wife's medical bills would have been several hundred thousand dollars, but we haven't paid a dime out of pocket.
This can't be true. If your wife had a medical condition requiring several hundred thousand dollars to treat you would not be "glad". Unless you really hate your wife
For 200 years, the constitution and the resulting institutions have been repeatedly raped by the truly rich. The government and its aims are the by-product of the constitution that is what needs an entire revamping.
Well I must disagree, I'm pretty sure the last 200 years have seen the poor and the middle class lifted higher, faster, and with more solid foundation than ever in history in the countries that have made the greatest strides in development. And those are the countries that favor capitalism.
I suggest we allow the system that has produced so much be allowed to keep giving us the good life, and that the good life may spread to all of the world that does not have it yet.
On June 22 2011 07:33 Mauldo wrote: 1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each. I'm a good American, and I love making a profit off of something I made, but profiting by making the dangerously ill sell their homes and an extra kidney is ludicrous.
2) Keep Obamacare, at least up to the part where Insurance companies are getting forced to not do that "pre-existing condition" bullshit. And they can't artificially raise premiums on people who have developed a chronic illness to force them from their plan. Don't tell me it didn't happen, I've seen the articles and the interviews. And that's what happens when you've allowed capitalism to infect the business of safeguarding life. People are killed to make a few bucks.
3) Allow people to buy into Tri-Care, the current form of insurance for the American military. I'm currently on it, and it's awesome. There's no dental, but fuck. When you get basically any major surgery for a simple 20 dollar co-pay, and every medicine you could ever need for either a 3 or 6 dollar co-pay, it's awesome. Once I'm out of undergraduate school, I could stay in Tri-Care if I agreed to a premium of $1,000 a quarter. That's a flat $4,000 a year to be on some pretty damned awesome insurance. If I had that money, and wasn't a poor ass college student, I wouldn't hesitate. If the government could offer that to me, and I'm the dependent of retired Air Force, then there's no reason why they can't offer similar to the American people at large.
4) Introduce Tort Reform. It's ridiculous how American "Sue and Counter-Sue" culture has become. Long gone are the days where if your neighbor broke a post in the fence he would fucking just repair the fence. Now you have to sue him to fix it (but, obviously, the plantiff has only given the defendant a month to fix it, but everyone's douches here apparently) and there's got to be a counter-claim about how the tree in their yard blocks light from some important room and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
This, of course, translates into a woman getting 50 million dollars because a doctor left a sponge in her stomach cavity. Nothing was harmed, and the hospital paid for the procedure to take it out, and obviously offered a settlement in line with her...you know..having to be cut open again...but no. The woman gets 50 million dollars. That's ludicrous. People should get money if they're damaged like that, but there's a reason why there's a doctor shortage. No small part of it is the 300,000 dollars in student loan debt followed by exorbitant malpractice insurance costs. Don't tell me that the doctors deserve to pay those outlandish costs, because they don't.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
And no, it's not discrimination against the poor. It's the fact that going through all of the hoops for Medicare and Medicaid is fucking annoying and time consuming and completely unwarranted. There's all of that work and paperwork, and you're not even guaranteed to get all of your costs back.
I'm all for helping poor people, I promise. I grew up living pay check to pay check and learning how to eat Mustard/Ketchup sandwiches when we couldn't afford the two dollar lumps of "Ham and Cheese Loaf," which is as disgusting as it sounds. My mother went on WIC when she had my littlest brother, and she came off of it promptly when he turned one. She only ever took outright government assistance in Welfare when she cut up her hand in the glass factory she was working in and so couldn't work there or in the second job she had. She was on it for a year, and jumped right back off when she got a job with the school district.
I've never really known what it's like to have all of my expenses "cared for." It's just never worked out that way for me, especially now that I'm in college. I may have scholarships, which have saved me from ten thousands of dollars worth of debt, but I can't work when I'm taking a full course load of 18 hours. I'm constantly living with the idea of stretching out the 1,000 dollars I get from my scholarships to live on for 4 bloody months a semester. Yeah, I remember those London riots that the students had. They were over what, having to pay 5,000 dollars a year or a semester for schooling? Lulz, I would be paying $10,000 a semester ($20,000 an academic year) for schooling if I didn't have scholarships. And that's the normal thing around here in America.
I say all of that to shore up any claim that I'm just "out of touch" or "don't know what I'm talking about." No, I do. I know what it's like to not be able to get sick because your mom can't afford to take you to the hospital. I know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck for most of my life. I also know what it's like to have quality health insurance in Tricare, and I know the fear that's pulsing through me when I turn 22 and I'm thrown off of it. No one should have to be in constant fear of being sick.
Government subsidized healthcare would at least ease that pain. Give everyone a fucking 200 dollar tax credit for healthcare insurance, and be done with it. Give them that, give them the option to buy into TriCare, and do the other stuff I called for up above. All of that, and I'm only 21 years old. Damn. I should be a politician or something.
just for your first reason about the pill companies charging a bunch for their developed meds. Why shouldn't they? If people are willing to pay for the product then they should charge as much as they feel they can without the demand dropping.
The price could be reduced by more competition perhaps to help drive the cost lower.
But if a company has the only cure to brain cancer and no other company has it then yes, it will cost TONS. If 20 companies had an effect cure then the price would drop drastically. (unless of course they all work together to keep it high )
On June 22 2011 07:02 Euronyme wrote: The investment banker with no sence of worth in human life said that every European country has a worse debt / gdp than USA, which isn't true, and even if it was, we have less of a military producing a fuckton of useless GDP. Making humvees contributes to the GDP, but not to the quality of living.
Well someone still needs to be paid to make them. That increases that person's quality of living for sure. Not to say that there aren't better uses of the money, but it's wrong to say it's "useless" GDP.
It's tax money paying for bogus jobs -.-' If the government hired 200 million people to make airplanes that are too heavy to lift, then sure, you've just improved the quality of life for 200 million people, and your GDP is through the roof.. That's like the definition of useless lmao.
If all your country is doing is making useless planes, in fact your GDP is zero, as your currency is worthless. On the other hand, there are some stimulative effects of paying some people to dig up holes and fill them in, though again, I don't think this is the most efficient use of such money. And I would definitely agree that paying people to shoot other people is often more than useless. Making humvees alone is not useless GDP though.
On June 22 2011 07:33 Mauldo wrote: 1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each. I'm a good American, and I love making a profit off of something I made, but profiting by making the dangerously ill sell their homes and an extra kidney is ludicrous.
2) Keep Obamacare, at least up to the part where Insurance companies are getting forced to not do that "pre-existing condition" bullshit. And they can't artificially raise premiums on people who have developed a chronic illness to force them from their plan. Don't tell me it didn't happen, I've seen the articles and the interviews. And that's what happens when you've allowed capitalism to infect the business of safeguarding life. People are killed to make a few bucks.
3) Allow people to buy into Tri-Care, the current form of insurance for the American military. I'm currently on it, and it's awesome. There's no dental, but fuck. When you get basically any major surgery for a simple 20 dollar co-pay, and every medicine you could ever need for either a 3 or 6 dollar co-pay, it's awesome. Once I'm out of undergraduate school, I could stay in Tri-Care if I agreed to a premium of $1,000 a quarter. That's a flat $4,000 a year to be on some pretty damned awesome insurance. If I had that money, and wasn't a poor ass college student, I wouldn't hesitate. If the government could offer that to me, and I'm the dependent of retired Air Force, then there's no reason why they can't offer similar to the American people at large.
4) Introduce Tort Reform. It's ridiculous how American "Sue and Counter-Sue" culture has become. Long gone are the days where if your neighbor broke a post in the fence he would fucking just repair the fence. Now you have to sue him to fix it (but, obviously, the plantiff has only given the defendant a month to fix it, but everyone's douches here apparently) and there's got to be a counter-claim about how the tree in their yard blocks light from some important room and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
This, of course, translates into a woman getting 50 million dollars because a doctor left a sponge in her stomach cavity. Nothing was harmed, and the hospital paid for the procedure to take it out, and obviously offered a settlement in line with her...you know..having to be cut open again...but no. The woman gets 50 million dollars. That's ludicrous. People should get money if they're damaged like that, but there's a reason why there's a doctor shortage. No small part of it is the 300,000 dollars in student loan debt followed by exorbitant malpractice insurance costs. Don't tell me that the doctors deserve to pay those outlandish costs, because they don't.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
And no, it's not discrimination against the poor. It's the fact that going through all of the hoops for Medicare and Medicaid is fucking annoying and time consuming and completely unwarranted. There's all of that work and paperwork, and you're not even guaranteed to get all of your costs back.
I'm all for helping poor people, I promise. I grew up living pay check to pay check and learning how to eat Mustard/Ketchup sandwiches when we couldn't afford the two dollar lumps of "Ham and Cheese Loaf," which is as disgusting as it sounds. My mother went on WIC when she had my littlest brother, and she came off of it promptly when he turned one. She only ever took outright government assistance in Welfare when she cut up her hand in the glass factory she was working in and so couldn't work there or in the second job she had. She was on it for a year, and jumped right back off when she got a job with the school district.
I've never really known what it's like to have all of my expenses "cared for." It's just never worked out that way for me, especially now that I'm in college. I may have scholarships, which have saved me from ten thousands of dollars worth of debt, but I can't work when I'm taking a full course load of 18 hours. I'm constantly living with the idea of stretching out the 1,000 dollars I get from my scholarships to live on for 4 bloody months a semester. Yeah, I remember those London riots that the students had. They were over what, having to pay 5,000 dollars a year or a semester for schooling? Lulz, I would be paying $10,000 a semester ($20,000 an academic year) for schooling if I didn't have scholarships. And that's the normal thing around here in America.
I say all of that to shore up any claim that I'm just "out of touch" or "don't know what I'm talking about." No, I do. I know what it's like to not be able to get sick because your mom can't afford to take you to the hospital. I know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck for most of my life. I also know what it's like to have quality health insurance in Tricare, and I know the fear that's pulsing through me when I turn 22 and I'm thrown off of it. No one should have to be in constant fear of being sick.
Government subsidized healthcare would at least ease that pain. Give everyone a fucking 200 dollar tax credit for healthcare insurance, and be done with it. Give them that, give them the option to buy into TriCare, and do the other stuff I called for up above. All of that, and I'm only 21 years old. Damn. I should be a politician or something.
These things just make me realize how fundamentally different the countrys are.
Setting aside all the arguing now,in my eyes,a system that forces people to live in constant fear of debt because of things we take for granted here over sees is truly stomach turning. I cant even begin to imagine how its possible for a kid to be in his early 20s and have a 5 to 6 figure debt hanging over his head because of basic things like health care and education.
I know its not my place to critique something that i do not fully understand and things are fucked up in my country as well,but all i can say is i feel sorry for every American that has to live like this.
For 200 years, the constitution and the resulting institutions have been repeatedly raped by the truly rich. The government and its aims are the by-product of the constitution that is what needs an entire revamping.
Well I must disagree, I'm pretty sure the last 200 years have seen the poor and the middle class lifted higher, faster, and with more solid foundation than ever in history in the countries that have made the greatest strides in development. And those are the countries that favor capitalism.
I suggest we allow the system that has produced so much be allowed to keep giving us the good life, and that the good life may spread to all of the world that does not have it yet.
I'm pretty sure that our government doesn't even own the dollars we use and pays to spend its own money.
Every time I want to go to a doctor, I feel the need to shoot somebody in the face. One time I went just to get a SIGNATURE(to verify that I have had all my vaccines), and the lady up front told me it would cost $100 to have meet the doctor. I kindly told her it was just for a quick signature, and after I realized she was an utter moron, I left and forged it myself.
A capitalist health care system needs to be removed, only problem is that our country has had it for so long that creating a universal health care system would cost too much money and piss off too many people.
On June 22 2011 07:33 Mauldo wrote: 1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each. I'm a good American, and I love making a profit off of something I made, but profiting by making the dangerously ill sell their homes and an extra kidney is ludicrous.
2) Keep Obamacare, at least up to the part where Insurance companies are getting forced to not do that "pre-existing condition" bullshit. And they can't artificially raise premiums on people who have developed a chronic illness to force them from their plan. Don't tell me it didn't happen, I've seen the articles and the interviews. And that's what happens when you've allowed capitalism to infect the business of safeguarding life. People are killed to make a few bucks.
3) Allow people to buy into Tri-Care, the current form of insurance for the American military. I'm currently on it, and it's awesome. There's no dental, but fuck. When you get basically any major surgery for a simple 20 dollar co-pay, and every medicine you could ever need for either a 3 or 6 dollar co-pay, it's awesome. Once I'm out of undergraduate school, I could stay in Tri-Care if I agreed to a premium of $1,000 a quarter. That's a flat $4,000 a year to be on some pretty damned awesome insurance. If I had that money, and wasn't a poor ass college student, I wouldn't hesitate. If the government could offer that to me, and I'm the dependent of retired Air Force, then there's no reason why they can't offer similar to the American people at large.
4) Introduce Tort Reform. It's ridiculous how American "Sue and Counter-Sue" culture has become. Long gone are the days where if your neighbor broke a post in the fence he would fucking just repair the fence. Now you have to sue him to fix it (but, obviously, the plantiff has only given the defendant a month to fix it, but everyone's douches here apparently) and there's got to be a counter-claim about how the tree in their yard blocks light from some important room and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
This, of course, translates into a woman getting 50 million dollars because a doctor left a sponge in her stomach cavity. Nothing was harmed, and the hospital paid for the procedure to take it out, and obviously offered a settlement in line with her...you know..having to be cut open again...but no. The woman gets 50 million dollars. That's ludicrous. People should get money if they're damaged like that, but there's a reason why there's a doctor shortage. No small part of it is the 300,000 dollars in student loan debt followed by exorbitant malpractice insurance costs. Don't tell me that the doctors deserve to pay those outlandish costs, because they don't.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
And no, it's not discrimination against the poor. It's the fact that going through all of the hoops for Medicare and Medicaid is fucking annoying and time consuming and completely unwarranted. There's all of that work and paperwork, and you're not even guaranteed to get all of your costs back.
I'm all for helping poor people, I promise. I grew up living pay check to pay check and learning how to eat Mustard/Ketchup sandwiches when we couldn't afford the two dollar lumps of "Ham and Cheese Loaf," which is as disgusting as it sounds. My mother went on WIC when she had my littlest brother, and she came off of it promptly when he turned one. She only ever took outright government assistance in Welfare when she cut up her hand in the glass factory she was working in and so couldn't work there or in the second job she had. She was on it for a year, and jumped right back off when she got a job with the school district.
I've never really known what it's like to have all of my expenses "cared for." It's just never worked out that way for me, especially now that I'm in college. I may have scholarships, which have saved me from ten thousands of dollars worth of debt, but I can't work when I'm taking a full course load of 18 hours. I'm constantly living with the idea of stretching out the 1,000 dollars I get from my scholarships to live on for 4 bloody months a semester. Yeah, I remember those London riots that the students had. They were over what, having to pay 5,000 dollars a year or a semester for schooling? Lulz, I would be paying $10,000 a semester ($20,000 an academic year) for schooling if I didn't have scholarships. And that's the normal thing around here in America.
I say all of that to shore up any claim that I'm just "out of touch" or "don't know what I'm talking about." No, I do. I know what it's like to not be able to get sick because your mom can't afford to take you to the hospital. I know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck for most of my life. I also know what it's like to have quality health insurance in Tricare, and I know the fear that's pulsing through me when I turn 22 and I'm thrown off of it. No one should have to be in constant fear of being sick.
Government subsidized healthcare would at least ease that pain. Give everyone a fucking 200 dollar tax credit for healthcare insurance, and be done with it. Give them that, give them the option to buy into TriCare, and do the other stuff I called for up above. All of that, and I'm only 21 years old. Damn. I should be a politician or something.
just for your first reason about the pill companies charging a bunch for their developed meds. Why shouldn't they? If people are willing to pay for the product then they should charge as much as they feel they can without the demand dropping.
The price could be reduced by more competition perhaps to help drive the cost lower.
But if a company has the only cure to brain cancer and no other company has it then yes, it will cost TONS. If 20 companies had an effect cure then the price would drop drastically. (unless of course they all work together to keep it high )
1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each.
What about the other 100 pills they spent $50 million on that turned out to be useless, should medical research be a pursuit that loses money? Maybe the cost is exorbitant, but how else will we puruade the best and the brightest to work for such an important goal.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
Many doctors would not accept Medicare at all if they were allowed. They get paid much less than they would through other means. Of course when Doctors are working 110+ hour work weeks and get over $100,000 in debt from medical school I find it hard to blame them for wanting acceptable compensation.
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
Would you hire a 59 years old man with two ruptured discs, some type of "growth" on his chest and problems with his left foot? I think he need medical help before he can find a job, and how can he get medical help without insurance, which he would get if he had money? Did you just read the title or what?
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
maybe instead of robbing a bank he should actually read the OP.
i understand where this guy is coming from. i have never been to a doctor/dentist or any physician. it is outrageously expensive. a trip to the dentist can run you 2-6k EASILY, how do they expect you to be able to pay for this up front with no assistance?
point out the part of the OP you think i missed, please
also, you should get a job that provides insurance - that's what i did to remedy that situation
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
Would you hire a 59 years old man with two ruptured discs, some type of "growth" on his chest and problems with his left foot? I think he need medical help before he can find a job, and how can he get medical help without insurance, which he would get if he had money? Did you just read the title or what?
i legally would not be able to turn him down for employment due to those issues unless they would literally prevent him from doing the work he applied for - plenty of handicapped old men work at wal-mart
what's with people not understanding that you need to do work to get anywhere in life?
This guy didn't even do his research on how much money you have to demand in order for it to be robbery?
On the healthcare topic, people are really overstating how 'bad' it is in the states. Yes, insurance companies are messed up, and if you don't have insurance it's pretty bad. But people are pretending that every American is walking around diseased and injured with no one to save them.
Sorry, but no health care system is perfect. Not in Europe, not in Canada, not in South America.
1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each.
What about the other 100 pills they spent $50 million on that turned out to be useless, should medical research be a pursuit that loses money? Maybe the cost is exorbitant, but how else will we puruade the best and the brightest to work for such an important goal.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
Many doctors would not accept Medicare at all if they were allowed. They get paid much less than they would through other means. Of course when Doctors are working 110+ hour work weeks and get over $100,000 in debt from medical school I find it hard to blame them for wanting acceptable compensation.
just wondering, what doctors work 22 hours a day? (and dont doctors get paid around 180,000 a year after a few years?)
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
maybe instead of robbing a bank he should actually read the OP.
i understand where this guy is coming from. i have never been to a doctor/dentist or any physician. it is outrageously expensive. a trip to the dentist can run you 2-6k EASILY, how do they expect you to be able to pay for this up front with no assistance?
point out the part of the OP you think i missed, please
also, you should get a job that provides insurance - that's what i did to remedy that situation
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
Would you hire a 59 years old man with two ruptured discs, some type of "growth" on his chest and problems with his left foot? I think he need medical help before he can find a job, and how can he get medical help without insurance, which he would get if he had money? Did you just read the title or what?
i legally would not be able to turn him down for employment due to those issues unless they would literally prevent him from doing the work he applied for - plenty of handicapped old men work at wal-mart
what's with people not understanding that you need to do work to get anywhere in life?
The amusing thing is that he'd have to work at walmart for a minimum of one year to get healthcare to remedy his situation. And who's to say his condition won't drastically worsen or become fatal after one year of no treatment?
1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each.
What about the other 100 pills they spent $50 million on that turned out to be useless, should medical research be a pursuit that loses money? Maybe the cost is exorbitant, but how else will we puruade the best and the brightest to work for such an important goal.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
Many doctors would not accept Medicare at all if they were allowed. They get paid much less than they would through other means. Of course when Doctors are working 110+ hour work weeks and get over $100,000 in debt from medical school I find it hard to blame them for wanting acceptable compensation.
just wondering, what doctors work 22 hours a day?
Residents. Surgical residents have frequently worked 120 hours in a week. They passed a law that you can't be scheduled for that now, but most still work upwards of 100 because they aren't paid worth shit and have a ton of debt to pay off so they moonlight to pay bills.
1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each.
What about the other 100 pills they spent $50 million on that turned out to be useless, should medical research be a pursuit that loses money? Maybe the cost is exorbitant, but how else will we puruade the best and the brightest to work for such an important goal.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
Many doctors would not accept Medicare at all if they were allowed. They get paid much less than they would through other means. Of course when Doctors are working 110+ hour work weeks and get over $100,000 in debt from medical school I find it hard to blame them for wanting acceptable compensation.
just wondering, what doctors work 22 hours a day?
They don't work the standard 5 days a week. As far as the laws meant to limit the amount of hours they can put in, they are often disregarded entirely.
1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each.
What about the other 100 pills they spent $50 million on that turned out to be useless, should medical research be a pursuit that loses money? Maybe the cost is exorbitant, but how else will we puruade the best and the brightest to work for such an important goal.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
Many doctors would not accept Medicare at all if they were allowed. They get paid much less than they would through other means. Of course when Doctors are working 110+ hour work weeks and get over $100,000 in debt from medical school I find it hard to blame them for wanting acceptable compensation.
just wondering, what doctors work 22 hours a day?
Residents. Surgical residents have frequently worked 120 hours in a week. They passed a law that you can't be scheduled for that now, but most still work upwards of 100 because they aren't paid worth shit and have a ton of debt to pay off so they moonlight to pay bills.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
at least every other first world country
many "third" world countries do too.. if he had enough money to travel , he should just gone to cuba and got great health care.. also here in Argentina
People with onlya U.S Citzenship cannot go to cuba.
On June 22 2011 05:47 Treemonkeys wrote: Why does everyone ignore that the US pays half the entire worlds military budget COMBINED? China, Russia, and the rest of the entire fucking world - combined - is still less than what the US spends on military! You cannot pay for this shit and expect to be able to afford everything that other countries with literally a single digit percentage of what US spends on military. You gotta cut corners to pay for that shit and healthcare is one of those corners.
AKA Lets kill more people at home so we can afford to kill more people abroad.
i know someone who chooses to work 84 hours a week (12 hours a day for 7) but then takes 7 days off at home. bit crazy but it suits her. salary is about 7.60/hour or 1270/month (before tax)
just a short question for those who think capitalistic way of dealing with health care is good; does a non-profitable person deserves to live? like a disabled person, or maybe a old person which doesn't have any money left, or maybe someone really stupid, or someone who is chronicly ill? ... in the end all those persons are not making money and just bad for the state, because it has to somehow pay for them. so why don't you kill them? in a capitalistic way this is perfectly logic.
On June 22 2011 08:29 Finrod1 wrote: just a short question for those who think capitalistic way of dealing with health care is good; does a non-profitable person deserves to live? like a disabled person, or maybe a old person which doesn't have any money left, or maybe someone really stupid, or someone who is chronicly ill? ... in the end all those persons are not making money and just bad for the state, because it has to somehow pay for them. so why don't you kill them? in a capitalistic way this is perfectly logic.
This is the kind of thinking that lead to a few wars in the past.
On June 22 2011 08:29 Finrod1 wrote: just a short question for those who think capitalistic way of dealing with health care is good; does a non-profitable person deserves to live? like a disabled person, or maybe a old person which doesn't have any money left, or maybe someone really stupid, or someone who is chronicly ill? ... in the end all those persons are not making money and just bad for the state, because it has to somehow pay for them. so why don't you kill them? in a capitalistic way this is perfectly logic.
Pretty sure you don't know what the definition of "capitalist" is. Because Germany has a pretty capitalist healthcare system. Way more capitalist than the UK or Canada's.
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
maybe instead of robbing a bank he should actually read the OP.
i understand where this guy is coming from. i have never been to a doctor/dentist or any physician. it is outrageously expensive. a trip to the dentist can run you 2-6k EASILY, how do they expect you to be able to pay for this up front with no assistance?
point out the part of the OP you think i missed, please
also, you should get a job that provides insurance - that's what i did to remedy that situation
On June 22 2011 07:38 OFCORPSE wrote:
On June 22 2011 07:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: maybe instead of robbing a bank he might get a job
Would you hire a 59 years old man with two ruptured discs, some type of "growth" on his chest and problems with his left foot? I think he need medical help before he can find a job, and how can he get medical help without insurance, which he would get if he had money? Did you just read the title or what?
i legally would not be able to turn him down for employment due to those issues unless they would literally prevent him from doing the work he applied for - plenty of handicapped old men work at wal-mart
what's with people not understanding that you need to do work to get anywhere in life?
The amusing thing is that he'd have to work at walmart for a minimum of one year to get healthcare to remedy his situation. And who's to say his condition won't drastically worsen or become fatal after one year of no treatment?
i wonder what he's been doing for the past year? probably not working - the problem is going to be that people are going to try to live for free, then when something happens that costs money, or would be remedied by already being employed, they are shit out of luck - then try to live off of the system
if you read the OP, you'll see that he plans to just live off of social security on the beach for the rest of his life (after prison), this man has probably never been a productive member of society
1) Limit the amount of money that the Pharmaceutical companies can charge for a pill. I don't care if it took your 50 million dollars to design the pill, you don't have to make 50 million of those LIFESAVING PILLS and charge 100 bucks each.
What about the other 100 pills they spent $50 million on that turned out to be useless, should medical research be a pursuit that loses money? Maybe the cost is exorbitant, but how else will we puruade the best and the brightest to work for such an important goal.
4) Make accepting Medicare and Medicaid easier. There was a report by the AP that talked about a study done in Illinois. Children who were on state insurance were forced to wait for life saving specialists up to a month or two months longer than those children with private insurance. When your child has a "Holy shit, heart tumor" problem and the cardiologist says "Sorry, I have to make you wait a month and a half" while he squeezes in the private insurance baby two weeks from when they called there's something wrong.
Many doctors would not accept Medicare at all if they were allowed. They get paid much less than they would through other means. Of course when Doctors are working 110+ hour work weeks and get over $100,000 in debt from medical school I find it hard to blame them for wanting acceptable compensation.
just wondering, what doctors work 22 hours a day?
Residents. Surgical residents have frequently worked 120 hours in a week. They passed a law that you can't be scheduled for that now, but most still work upwards of 100 because they aren't paid worth shit and have a ton of debt to pay off so they moonlight to pay bills.
No. They are actual doctors that have graduated from medical school but aren't certified to be a practicing physician by themselves yet. So they are actual doctors working for doctors, whom get paid less than the nurses and PAs that you mentioned.
Hey look a stunt of some guy to get health care with no actual reasons as to why he was broke in the first place and no actual information other then telling us he was sick and had no money.
You guys do realize that if you are actually ill you can walk up to a hospital and ask for help right? If you are unable to pay surprise surprise it get's charged to the state.
This story seems to just want to garner attention to an issue and judging by the article I might as well of gotten the story from msnbc oh wait it is from them, nevermind. I am sorry he's sick but this is just him trying to get attention and some news blokes capitalizing on it.
It's a silly story nonetheless. I would of robbed for a 1.99 buy my self a snack or two from the machines while the police came.
I don't blame him, in fact I'm rather impressed by his decision. Manipulating the system? Sure, but if that's what you need to do to get medical attention then by all means go for it.
On June 22 2011 08:29 Finrod1 wrote: just a short question for those who think capitalistic way of dealing with health care is good; does a non-profitable person deserves to live? like a disabled person, or maybe a old person which doesn't have any money left, or maybe someone really stupid, or someone who is chronicly ill? ... in the end all those persons are not making money and just bad for the state, because it has to somehow pay for them. so why don't you kill them? in a capitalistic way this is perfectly logic.
Pretty sure you don't know what the definition of "capitalist" is. Because Germany has a pretty capitalist healthcare system. Way more capitalist than the UK or Canada's.
there are far to many definitions of capitalism. so which to choose? i dont want to argue about that, sry. i was adressing the persons that were saying it's too expensive for the system to take care of everyones health. then it should be to expensive to take care of those persons/conditions that i mentioned. but where to draw the line? i nerver said that the german healt care system is very good, or did i? it is not. ^^
Best part is even with health insurance you can get stuck paying SHITLOADS of fucking money because of bullshit loopholes and high ass deductibles/coinsurance.
I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
Um, the NHS is probably the most "left-wing" health care system in the world. The fears that privatization will turn it in to an "American" system are stupid and unfounded. Many countries manage just fine with a government-funded, privatized system. In fact, some get remarkably better results. Like, oh, France.
On June 22 2011 08:56 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
Yea.... except where do you think all the medical innovation is coming from that makes these universal healthcare systems better? Where do you think Canada gets all its drugs from?
I knew I was forgetting a right-wing talking point somewhere. Let me correct myself, and thanks for reminding me:
I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, innovative atrophy, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
On June 22 2011 08:56 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
Yea.... except where do you think all the medical innovation is coming from that makes these universal healthcare systems better? Where do you think Canada gets all its drugs from?
Is this supposed to be a valid argument? It's great that some medical innovations are developed here, that doesn't do the average Joe any good if he can't afford it. They're separate issues.
No, I understood your point perfectly fine. But if you're going to use an example of how the rest of the world has more "left-wing" healthcare systems than the US (actually, they don't), then picking the NHS and Canada's system is pretty silly given that they are the most left-wing systems on the spectrum of successful healthcare systems.
Labeling this debate as if it's between left-wing and right-wing, or capitalist and socialist, is ignorant, unproductive and generally leads to shit-flinging instead of reasoned discussion.
On June 22 2011 08:56 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
To each other, Britons love to complain about the NHS, retailing gruesome tales of substandard care, of long waiting lists for simple operations like hip replacements, of snotty surgeons and naughty nurses. But when Americans began citing the NHS as the epitome of socialized medicine gone wrong, people here bristled.
Hardly "we live it and it works." Healthcare reform wouldn't be an issue in other countries right now if their systems were so perfect..
On June 22 2011 08:56 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
Yea.... except where do you think all the medical innovation is coming from that makes these universal healthcare systems better? Where do you think Canada gets all its drugs from?
Is this supposed to be a valid argument? It's great that some medical innovations are developed here, that doesn't do the average Joe any good if he can't afford it. They're separate issues.
These innovations, while expensive at the start start getting cheaper because of competition, that's how the system works.
Look I'm not saying that the system is perfect or anywhere close to good, but to say that universal healthcare systems are far and away better is being dishonest.
On June 22 2011 09:07 acker wrote: I knew I was forgetting a right-wing talking point somewhere. Let me correct myself, and thanks for reminding me:
I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, innovative atrophy, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
The fact that I know many people who are afraid of socialized medicines because of long wait times for operations/death panels etc is hilarious when I look at 'pre-existing condition' clauses when looking for health insurance.
On June 22 2011 08:56 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
Yea.... except where do you think all the medical innovation is coming from that makes these universal healthcare systems better? Where do you think Canada gets all its drugs from?
Healthcare systems, and medical research aren't all that related. One is usually a corporate affair, while the other requires legislative action.
On June 22 2011 09:22 Playguuu wrote: Could afford a condominium but not health insurance?
Yo man what you in for? Healthcare
He knew he was sick, had growths etc so it would be a prexisting condition so insurance wouldn't provide full coverage, so if it was anything remotely serious, he was fucked.
On June 22 2011 09:22 Playguuu wrote: Could afford a condominium but not health insurance?
Yo man what you in for? Healthcare
He knew he was sick, had growths etc so it would be a prexisting condition so insurance wouldn't provide full coverage, so if it was anything remotely serious, he was fucked.
So the solution is to go spend 10 years in prison? Lmao
USA has a lot of money allocated in military. Troops stationed all over the world and this actually led to those countries getting free healthcare, why spend on military if you are allied with the US and they have troops stationed in your country?
Problem is this won't last forever. Spending $1,000,000~ to eliminate an enemy that just spent maybe $50 on their ak47 or homemade explosives doesn't add up to be cost effective (well it does because it's the safest way to fight a war but the US obviously doesn't have an unlimited amount of money) very much apparent now with all the budget cuts EVERYWHERE else to keep the military going. US economy was great because of it's military power but it will also deteriorate because of it as well. Not saying the US will collapse or anything but they can't run like this forever. Also countries with free healthcare and such might have to spend more on military if thats the case but who knows
He is hoping for a three-year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach.
Yet again putting burden on the social system. How much does his prison stay cost? Should have to work in prison to get medical imo. With a gun I'll be shocked if he does 3.
On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote: Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own.
Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ 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.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
You didn't answer my question. I'm fully aware of how insurance works. I'm asking why I should want a mandated, forced, global healthcare system.
If you are really sickly and stuff, of course you support it because you get other people to pay for your illnesses, but if you are really healthy then you are forced into paying for other people. Sure, some healthy people might decide the safety net is worth it but the failing of an individual mandate is that it removes the ability of people to choose. If I think that I could better prepare for health related costs on my own by setting aside money for the future then why should I not be able to do that? Why is more government the answer to everything?
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.
Realistically speaking, it's probably not Joe Smith's medical bills you will be paying.
Realistically speaking, I am. If I were part of a universal health insurance racket then I would be subsidizing those at higher risks then me.
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 $3.65 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.
365 days in a year. So, not $3.40. Yea yea, I know it's an example, but we can still discuss things accurately right?
So again, why would I want to be forced into helping them? If I wanted insurance I could get it. If I wanted to be responsible for my own medical costs then why can't I just take a dollar out of my paycheck and save it myself?
On June 22 2011 09:26 ahbeez wrote: USA has a lot of money allocated in military. Troops stationed all over the world and this actually led to those countries getting free healthcare, why spend on military if you are allied with the US and they have troops stationed in your country?
Problem is this won't last forever. Spending $1,000,000~ to eliminate an enemy that just spent maybe $50 on their ak47 or homemade explosives doesn't add up to be cost effective (well it does because it's the safest way to fight a war but the US obviously doesn't have an unlimited amount of money) very much apparent now with all the budget cuts EVERYWHERE else to keep the military going. US economy was great because of it's military power but it will also deteriorate because of it as well. Not saying the US will collapse or anything but they can't run like this forever. Also countries with free healthcare and such might have to spend more on military if thats the case but who knows
Sorry, but from your post we get the feeling that countries with free healthcare receive major help from the US military, wich is pretty off.
Lol what a dolt. Prison healthcare is terrible and they hit up your estate for it when you die.
Other people in thread saying there countries healthcare is free do not pay taxes I know it is stylish in many countries to leach off the system and not pay taxes. In China it is grounds for execution. In the US they hit up your estate for it after you die. But US pays there taxes nonetheless.
This dumbass is dreaming if he thinks he is gonna get a coast property on a fixed income.
So why is government healthcare such a rip off? Same people who eat grease off the carpet pay the same rates as young people who do not even need healthcare. Just because a cost is labeled "taxes" doesnt mean its free.
Do people in other countries really think there healthcare comes out of the goodness of the medical communities hearts?
On June 22 2011 08:56 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
Yea.... except where do you think all the medical innovation is coming from that makes these universal healthcare systems better? Where do you think Canada gets all its drugs from?
Is this supposed to be a valid argument? It's great that some medical innovations are developed here, that doesn't do the average Joe any good if he can't afford it. They're separate issues.
You have no idea how things work, do you? Researching a new medicine is incredibly expensive and it takes 7-10 years to get a drug approved and only 3/20 drugs give back revenue, not to forget that only one out of every ten thousand compounds actually becomes a drug approved for sale. Drugs don't grow on trees. They are invented and discovered because there is a certain motivation - money. America dominates the biopharmaceutical industry and accounts for 80% of research and development spending in that area. Pretty much almost all new drugs come from America.
Now, there is a special reason why this all happens in America but not, for example, Europe. There's much more innovation in America due to the possibility of huge gains by investing in the biopharmaceutical industry. Think about how many dozens of thousands of lives are saved every year because of these researches. Milton Friedman once said that a government system could be as efficient and even better than its privately run counterpart but in a government system there's always stagnation. Some may die because they couldn't afford healthcare - but think of the thousands that live every year because of this system too. Capitalism will prevail.
On June 22 2011 08:56 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
Yea.... except where do you think all the medical innovation is coming from that makes these universal healthcare systems better? Where do you think Canada gets all its drugs from?
Is this supposed to be a valid argument? It's great that some medical innovations are developed here, that doesn't do the average Joe any good if he can't afford it. They're separate issues.
You have no idea how things work, do you? Researching a new medicine is incredibly expensive and it takes 7-10 years to get a drug approved and only 3/20 drugs give back revenue, not to forget that only one out of every ten thousand compounds actually becomes a drug approved for sale. Drugs don't grow on trees. They are invented and discovered because there is a certain motivation - money. America dominates the biopharmaceutical industry and accounts for 80% of research and development spending in that area. Pretty much almost all new drugs come from America.
Now, there is a special reason why this all happens in America but not, for example, Europe. There's much more innovation in America due to the possibility of huge gains by investing in the biopharmaceutical industry. Think about how many dozens of thousands of lives are saved every year because of these researches. Milton Friedman once said that a government system could be as efficient and even better than its privately run counterpart but in a government system there's always stagnation. Some may die because they couldn't afford healthcare - but think of the thousands that live every year because of this system too. Capitalism will prevail.
That and you gotta pay koreans (just using them as an example because they have major patents that end up in many of the new drugs) for their ip to make your drug function. So you pay again and again for the new pills that you paid for the old pills. Go take a look at all the patents for even a new heart drug and you'll see you end paying them in the cost of that new pill or even old ones.
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.
Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over.
You didn't answer my question. I'm fully aware of how insurance works. I'm asking why I should want a mandated, forced, global healthcare system.
If you are really sickly and stuff, of course you support it because you get other people to pay for your illnesses, but if you are really healthy then you are forced into paying for other people. Sure, some healthy people might decide the safety net is worth it but the failing of an individual mandate is that it removes the ability of people to choose. If I think that I could better prepare for health related costs on my own by setting aside money for the future then why should I not be able to do that? Why is more government the answer to everything?
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.
Realistically speaking, it's probably not Joe Smith's medical bills you will be paying.
Realistically speaking, I am. If I were part of a universal health insurance racket then I would be subsidizing those at higher risks then me.
theres basicly 2 points (for me) 1) I don't mind paying a bit more, even if I know I'm paying more than someone else, because I'm earning more to achieve "free" healthcare. It's like you said, I am willing to pay more, to have that net, not just for me, but for everyone I care, probably even for those I don't care. 2) thats the way democracy works. If the majority wants to have that kind of web, so be it, as long as it's not against something rudimental.
Seems like the majority of the us thinks they don't need healthcare, I'm fine with that, I just think they're wrong to put something as importan as your life on the scales
On June 22 2011 09:26 ahbeez wrote: USA has a lot of money allocated in military. Troops stationed all over the world and this actually led to those countries getting free healthcare, why spend on military if you are allied with the US and they have troops stationed in your country?
Problem is this won't last forever. Spending $1,000,000~ to eliminate an enemy that just spent maybe $50 on their ak47 or homemade explosives doesn't add up to be cost effective (well it does because it's the safest way to fight a war but the US obviously doesn't have an unlimited amount of money) very much apparent now with all the budget cuts EVERYWHERE else to keep the military going. US economy was great because of it's military power but it will also deteriorate because of it as well. Not saying the US will collapse or anything but they can't run like this forever. Also countries with free healthcare and such might have to spend more on military if thats the case but who knows
Sorry, but from your post we get the feeling that countries with free healthcare receive major help from the US military, wich is pretty off.
There is this... "cultural myth" is what I'd call it in the US that our military spending and foreign policy of the last several decades stabilizes the world effectively and stops other countries from spending more on military. You can see it a couple times in this thread.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, I just don't know enough about recent history, but I think Eisenhower saw what was coming and his warning was not well heeded.
On June 22 2011 09:33 Medrea wrote: Lol what a dolt. Prison healthcare is terrible and they hit up your estate for it when you die.
Other people in thread saying there countries healthcare is free do not pay taxes I know it is stylish in many countries to leach off the system and not pay taxes. In China it is grounds for execution. In the US they hit up your estate for it after you die. But US pays there taxes nonetheless.
This dumbass is dreaming if he thinks he is gonna get a coast property on a fixed income.
So why is government healthcare such a rip off? Same people who eat grease off the carpet pay the same rates as young people who do not even need healthcare. Just because a cost is labeled "taxes" doesnt mean its free.
Do people in other countries really think there healthcare comes out of the goodness of the medical communities hearts?
nah people in other countries think it's "fair" to let everyone pay taxes, instead of just one human beeing paying a shitload of money because he got unlucky in some kind of accident he could not have affected and therefore having debts for the rest of his (ruined) life.
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
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.
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.
He would get medi-caid if he waited 5 years but he decided prison was better. :/
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
On June 22 2011 09:26 ahbeez wrote: USA has a lot of money allocated in military. Troops stationed all over the world and this actually led to those countries getting free healthcare, why spend on military if you are allied with the US and they have troops stationed in your country?
Problem is this won't last forever. Spending $1,000,000~ to eliminate an enemy that just spent maybe $50 on their ak47 or homemade explosives doesn't add up to be cost effective (well it does because it's the safest way to fight a war but the US obviously doesn't have an unlimited amount of money) very much apparent now with all the budget cuts EVERYWHERE else to keep the military going. US economy was great because of it's military power but it will also deteriorate because of it as well. Not saying the US will collapse or anything but they can't run like this forever. Also countries with free healthcare and such might have to spend more on military if thats the case but who knows
Sorry, but from your post we get the feeling that countries with free healthcare receive major help from the US military, wich is pretty off.
There is this... "cultural myth" is what I'd call it in the US that our military spending and foreign policy of the last several decades stabilizes the world effectively and stops other countries from spending more on military. You can see it a couple times in this thread.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, I just don't know enough about recent history, but I think Eisenhower saw what was coming and his warning was not well heeded.
It's true though. Look at Libya. EU countries can't even run a bombing campaign on their own and have to be helped by the US. Who refuels the planes? And supplies the bombs? I don't know how many people are aware of the fact that England and France ran out of munitions and were supplied by the United States for awhile. It's kind of sad because Libya is in the backyard of Europe and they can't sustain involvement on their own. The US is halfway across the world and is supporting the bombers logistically......
Why? Because the US is such a dominant part of NATO that other countries don't feel the need to spend more on domestic military forces because they can just use ours. It's kind of like in a 2v2 where one person will macro units hard so he can hold off the other team until his teammate can rush game winning tech. Except if the blue guy is only using medivacs and ravens because of political reasons and the teching guy has to use his couple of military units to fight things probably don't work out too well for them.
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.
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
On June 22 2011 09:33 Medrea wrote: Lol what a dolt. Prison healthcare is terrible and they hit up your estate for it when you die.
Other people in thread saying there countries healthcare is free do not pay taxes I know it is stylish in many countries to leach off the system and not pay taxes. In China it is grounds for execution. In the US they hit up your estate for it after you die. But US pays there taxes nonetheless.
This dumbass is dreaming if he thinks he is gonna get a coast property on a fixed income.
So why is government healthcare such a rip off? Same people who eat grease off the carpet pay the same rates as young people who do not even need healthcare. Just because a cost is labeled "taxes" doesnt mean its free.
Do people in other countries really think there healthcare comes out of the goodness of the medical communities hearts?
nah people in other countries think it's "fair" to let everyone pay taxes, instead of just one human beeing paying a shitload of money because he got unlucky in some kind of accident he could not have affected and therefore having debts for the rest of his (ruined) life.
See I hear this argument a lot but it's not really realistic either. How many people get randomly unlucky? vs how many people choose to believe that they are unlucky?
Most medical issues are not random, and are generally a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors. All of these are predictable. People should educate themselves and assess their own risk.
On June 22 2011 05:03 TheKefka wrote: I'm always amused that when some American politician,like Obama for instance,raises the question of restructuring health care and making it socially available to everyone,a guy like Glen Beck(and there are quite a few like him in the congress,nuts) yells from the top of his lungs COMMUNISM,SOCIALISM AAAAAA.
And the sad thing is people buy it.Silly USA.
QFT
I can't tell you how many times I meet people like this. It is SO frustrating because they are close-minded and brain washed. They do NOT do their own research, and only listen to stupid rabble like Glen Beck and the Fox News pinheads.
(Fox News is not the only news station with heavy bias, however I feel it is the most detrimental bias to keep our country back from being better.)
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.
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 $7500 a year on average to cover the US's health care expenditures. That's about 2500 hamburgers.
On June 22 2011 09:46 StrangrDangr wrote: So he is having trouble getting insurance due to his pre-existing conditions? I thought the point of insurance was to get it before you get sick, so to avoid such problems.
and you haven't considered that he couldn't afford it? Seriously.. use a little common sense
He can afford a condo on the beach, he is clearly hurting for money. It was not from lack of money but rather a lack of forsight. Seriously.. read the op
On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote: Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own.
Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ 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 $7500 a year on average to cover the US's health care expenditures. That's about 2500 hamburgers.
But after everyone eats 2500 fewer hamburgers per year our healthcare costs are bound to go down
On June 22 2011 09:46 StrangrDangr wrote: So he is having trouble getting insurance due to his pre-existing conditions? I thought the point of insurance was to get it before you get sick, so to avoid such problems.
and you haven't considered that he couldn't afford it? Seriously.. use a little common sense
He can afford a condo on the beach, he is clearly hurting for money. It was not from lack of money but rather a lack of forsight. Seriously.. read the op
you read the OP...
He is hoping for a three-year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach.
I think are misjudgeing how much social security is. You cannot afford a condo on your social security check.
On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote: Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own.
Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ 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.
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.
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."
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.
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. I will agree that he is a moron though.
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
Does logic not what explain the effects of 3 years of jail for someone of his age?
The danger of physical harm by other inmates, the poor qualify food, lack of fresh air, limited exercise not to mention being confined in a small space day after day. I really hope he does make it to the beach house.
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
On June 22 2011 09:33 Medrea wrote: Lol what a dolt. Prison healthcare is terrible and they hit up your estate for it when you die.
Other people in thread saying there countries healthcare is free do not pay taxes I know it is stylish in many countries to leach off the system and not pay taxes. In China it is grounds for execution. In the US they hit up your estate for it after you die. But US pays there taxes nonetheless.
This dumbass is dreaming if he thinks he is gonna get a coast property on a fixed income.
So why is government healthcare such a rip off? Same people who eat grease off the carpet pay the same rates as young people who do not even need healthcare. Just because a cost is labeled "taxes" doesnt mean its free.
Do people in other countries really think there healthcare comes out of the goodness of the medical communities hearts?
nah people in other countries think it's "fair" to let everyone pay taxes, instead of just one human beeing paying a shitload of money because he got unlucky in some kind of accident he could not have affected and therefore having debts for the rest of his (ruined) life.
See I hear this argument a lot but it's not really realistic either. How many people get randomly unlucky? vs how many people choose to believe that they are unlucky?
Most medical issues are not random, and are generally a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors. All of these are predictable. People should educate themselves and assess their own risk.
That's exactly my point. There's an EXTREMLY low amount of people who get unlucky, like REALY EXTREMLY low. But those are fucked for the rest of their lifes for no other reason than beeing unlucky. I'm not talking about a cough or something like that. We got to pay 10€ everytime we go to a doctor in germany. Noone cares about that. But one might care about some serious problems, that are that rare and more importantly costly, that a single person might not be able to pay for it.
I don't know what the numbers for stuff like cancer or genetic illnesses are (really don't know what it's called in english sry, guess it's clear what I'm talking about?). Let's say one out a thousand gets cancer or something like that, just for the purpose of numbers. Do you think it's fair that the guy has to pay for the treatment himself (aprox: shittons of money) and 999 people who got lucky, because they don't have cancer don't have to pay? not even a single cent? If you think that's fair I'm glad I'm not living in the us.
Of course there's things like alcoholics who got an increased chance to need a new liver someday and therefore you could probably say it's their own fault but still, as long as we're able to help I think we should do, no matter what.
On June 22 2011 09:07 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, innovative atrophy, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
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.
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 so you can cut out a lot of the buracracy which brings down costs signeficantly.
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.
Universal 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)
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.
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.
Universal 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.
America shouldn't get public healthcare, because we can't afford it since we're in a deficit, and once if ever we get out of it, no it's not a top priority concern. We don't need more government it's already huge.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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)
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.
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.
Universal 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.
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 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 10:27 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.
Universal 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.
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?
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 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 $9000 the right price? I can't imagine that it is.
On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote: Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own.
Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ 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 $9000 the right price? I can't imagine that it is.
That's only right if he didn't have health insurance.
On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote: Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own.
Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ 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 + $500 doctor bill. The only thing the doctor gave him is a subscription for a painkiller pill, which he doesn't need to use if he doesn't feel headache in the morning.
Yeah the US healthcare situation is pretty fucked, and the sad thing is that insurance company lobbyists have long since bought and paid for both parties.
On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote: Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own.
Take the US for example, each person of 300 millions people give 1 cent per day to cure sick people. That's 3 million dollars a day, and cost you what? 30 cent/month, or 3,4$ 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 10:10 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 10:27 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.
Universal 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.
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"
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 09:07 acker wrote: I've always been kind of amused by the disconnect between the American right wing and the rest of the first world when it comes to universal health care.
Right Wing: "Universal health care by government decree is wracked by moral hazard, wait lists, innovative atrophy, and skyrocketing costs. We need to deregulate and privatize health care even further in order to reach the free market solution."
Rest if the World: "Err...we live it, and it works. Call us healthcare socialists."
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 10:10 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.
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.
Universal 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.
Much better formulated than I could do it.
Not to say our system is perfect though. We still do have a significant amount of private hospitals, and the public hospitals are right now experiencing budget cuts like crazy. Then again, so is the rest of the country, because of some bad political decisions leaving us unprepared for the financial crisis. Not to say the opposition would be any better at it, but the country is in a rough spot right now.
On June 22 2011 10:37 Kiarip wrote: America shouldn't get public healthcare, because we can't afford it since we're in a deficit, and once if ever we get out of it, no it's not a top priority concern. We don't need more government it's already huge.
We could always call our World War II and World War I debts from the allied powers.
I know Britain paid the US back for World War II (Thank you guys, Brits always have class I say, big fan).
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.
Universal 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.
Much better formulated than I could do it.
Not to say our system is perfect though. We still do have a significant amount of private hospitals, and the public hospitals are right now experiencing budget cuts like crazy. Then again, so is the rest of the country, because of some bad political decisions leaving us unprepared for the financial crisis. Not to say the opposition would be any better at it, but the country is in a rough spot right now.
Tremendous' points still stand though.
When doctors don't have to worry about cost of treatment, they will provide the most expensive help they can. You may call this "best possible help," but in many cases, the odds of better health outcomes is low to non-existent. It's actually a good thing many European countries are willing to make the unpopular decision to curb health care costs. Otherwise, you really will end up with the fucked up American system, where it's simply not feasible to widen health care coverage because it's so damn expensive.
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.
Universal 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.
Much better formulated than I could do it.
Not to say our system is perfect though. We still do have a significant amount of private hospitals, and the public hospitals are right now experiencing budget cuts like crazy. Then again, so is the rest of the country, because of some bad political decisions leaving us unprepared for the financial crisis. Not to say the opposition would be any better at it, but the country is in a rough spot right now.
Tremendous' points still stand though.
When doctors don't have to worry about cost of treatment, they will provide the most expensive help they can. You may call this "best possible help," but in many cases, the odds of better health outcomes is low to non-existent. It's actually a good thing many European countries are willing to make the unpopular decision to curb health care costs. Otherwise, you really will end up with the fucked up American system, where it's simply not feasible to widen health care coverage because it's so damn expensive.
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
On June 22 2011 10:37 Kiarip wrote: America shouldn't get public healthcare, because we can't afford it since we're in a deficit, and once if ever we get out of it, no it's not a top priority concern. We don't need more government it's already huge.
America cant afford the huge military budget and waging 3 wars at the same time but you still do it. So its more important to get weapons and get into wars than taking care of your own ppl. Talk about priorites.
In my opinion the US healthcare system and the whole society in general to put 99% of the citizens in huge debt so they cant do anything about it. Media propaganda plays a huge role here and makes if you get public healthcare you are one step away from communism. I find it really wierd that almost never you see americans protesting and asking and fighting for your human rights like in europe.
And about ppl complaining that they dont wanna use their tax money to heal some random joe. Where is your human compasion geez even if you dont want to pay for someone else then you can look it like you are paying for yourself so that IF you get sick you can be treated without being scared to sell your house to stay alive.
In my country the living standard is really low so when someone is really sick he cant really afford to pay 200k $ for some major surgery so ppl always help eachother with sms donations that cost 2-3$. Whats 2$ compared to a life? If you cant afford to give that much than you are a horrible human being.
America cant afford the huge military budget and waging 3 wars at the same time but you still do it. So its more important to get weapons and get into wars than taking care of your own ppl. Talk about priorites.
Why do people keep bringing up this stupid military non-sequitur. Reducing the military budget by a drastic 50% would not help. That's 2.5% of GDP. Health care costs in the US are 16% of GDP, and will be 20% within 5 years. Cut the military if you like (I'm all for that on its own merits), but it's not going to help in the long-run.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
You know what you're suggesting is malpractice right?
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
And as far as I'm aware noone said this was a good idea either. Nor is it reality.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
You know what you're suggesting is malpractice right?
No, he isn't. He's suggesting that life has a price, and he's perfectly correct in that statement. The difference would be that when the taxpayers are paying, domovoi (incorrectly) argues that they will then use this money inappropriately, specifically "End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway". If you were to decide if you wanted to pay this yourself or not, that's fine, but when it's the taxpayers then lines have to be drawn somewhere.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight.
On June 22 2011 11:45 HellRoxYa wrote: And as far as I'm aware noone said this was a good idea either. Nor is it reality.
It's the reality in the US, where in many cases doctors don't care about costs. Maybe doctors shouldn't care about costs, but someone needs to.
No, he isn't. He's suggesting that life has a price, and he's perfectly correct in that statement. The difference would be that when the taxpayers are paying, domovoi (incorrectly) argues that they will then use this money inappropriately, specifically "End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway". If you were to decide if you wanted to pay this yourself or not, that's fine, but when it's the taxpayers then lines have to be drawn somewhere.
I'm not sure what's so incorrect about the notion that if taxpayers pay for your treatment, you're probably not going to care about the cost of that treatment.
No, he isn't. He's suggesting that life has a price, and he's perfectly correct in that statement. The difference would be that when the taxpayers are paying, domovoi (incorrectly) argues that they will then use this money inappropriately, specifically "End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway". If you were to decide if you wanted to pay this yourself or not, that's fine, but when it's the taxpayers then lines have to be drawn somewhere.
I'm not sure what's so incorrect about the notion that if taxpayers pay for your treatment, you're probably not going to care about the cost of that treatment.
1. Private doctors gain from expensive treatments. The more expensive the treatment the more provision you get. 2. See Tremendous post above yours.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight.
Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest.
This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments. I would love it if the US had something like this, but usually that ends up with cries about death panels.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight.
Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest.
This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments.
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight.
Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest.
This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments.
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
depends on the situation, euthanasia comes to mind
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
You know what you're suggesting is malpractice right?
What he's suggesting is rationing and it's entirely logical. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on treatments with a very low chance of working while elsewhere people aren't getting vaccines which cost very little compared to the cost of the disease they prevent is madness. Rationing makes sense.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight.
Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest.
This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments.
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
depends on the situation, euthanasia comes to mind
Only if the patient agrees. What if the patient wants to live? He's arguing that we just let them die anyway.
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote: What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight.
Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest.
This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments.
I misunderstood. Thought you where talking about treatments in general instead of End-of-Life treatment. Sorry =)
Major treatments and high-cost procedure are regulated. If the cost/benifit ratio is crap then it wont get approved. The people running the hospitals have to follow a budget so they cant just approve any treatment.
i belive the reason many EU countries are having to cut healthcare costs atm is because of an increase in life-style deseases (unhealth diet, inactivity etc). But this is considered as a seperate problem which is to be solved by making healthy living more attractive.
Instead of spending billions of dollars finding easier and more efficient ways to kill people, why not spend a few billion to save the lives of your own citizens America?
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
On June 22 2011 12:15 orn wrote: Instead of spending billions of dollars finding easier and more efficient ways to kill people, why not spend a few billion to save the lives of your own citizens America?
Killing people is good for business. And when you are done killing people you can sell the rights to rebuild the country to your friends.
On June 22 2011 12:15 orn wrote: Instead of spending billions of dollars finding easier and more efficient ways to kill people, why not spend a few billion to save the lives of your own citizens America?
Killing people is good for business. And when you are done killing people you can sell the rights to rebuild the country to your friends.
Who says killing people doesn't give people back home a better quality of life? Most technological advancements happen DURING war.
On June 22 2011 12:15 orn wrote: Instead of spending billions of dollars finding easier and more efficient ways to kill people, why not spend a few billion to save the lives of your own citizens America?
Killing people is good for business. And when you are done killing people you can sell the rights to rebuild the country to your friends.
Who says killing people doesn't give people back home a better quality of life? Most technological advancements happen DURING war.
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
Then taxes will be 100% and even that won't be enough. There are many ridiculously expensive treatments that have marginal benefits. The general purpose of public healthcare is as you say, but it still has to operate in the real world with limited budget. And actually increasing that budget to allow people to use one more ridiculously expensive treatment might even cause more deaths than not covering it. If you rearrange your budget, you have to take the money from somewhere. Will it be research, road maintenance, food quality controls ? Yes, in the beginning you can cut waste, but there will always be another treatment that is not covered. Second possibility is to increase taxes, but if you do it too muc, you might cripple your economy and increase poverty, which will have a sideeffect of actually causing more healthproblems and possibly actually lowering your tax income.
This basically makes me sick to my stomach. No solution in sight. This country is too bipartisan for any effective bills to be passed. Well there is one sure solution, put some money aside from every pay check cause you never know on those rainy days...
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Essentially if you pay taxes, then you already paid for this guy to get healthcare in jail... With universal healthcare, we can bypass many of the problems we face; people going broke for an illness, people doing crazy things like this man did in order to get some help. Who knows.
We can always not pay the thousands of politicians out there... Imagine how much money we would have for healthcare and other essential programs.
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.
Universal 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.
Much better formulated than I could do it.
Not to say our system is perfect though. We still do have a significant amount of private hospitals, and the public hospitals are right now experiencing budget cuts like crazy. Then again, so is the rest of the country, because of some bad political decisions leaving us unprepared for the financial crisis. Not to say the opposition would be any better at it, but the country is in a rough spot right now.
Tremendous' points still stand though.
When doctors don't have to worry about cost of treatment, they will provide the most expensive help they can. You may call this "best possible help," but in many cases, the odds of better health outcomes is low to non-existent. It's actually a good thing many European countries are willing to make the unpopular decision to curb health care costs. Otherwise, you really will end up with the fucked up American system, where it's simply not feasible to widen health care coverage because it's so damn expensive.
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
Many reasons. Because they are doctors and are obliged to try as much as possible to save someone. Because they want to prevent possible lawsuit. Because they are bribed by the provider of the treatment. And so on. Basically because they are human.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
True. And hey, while we're at it, why should you pay for someone else's kids to go to school? And why the FUCK are you paying for the fire service to save other people's lives? I mean, it's not like it's your life. And on top of that you're paying for those lazy unemployed bastards to not starve to death. I walked past a library earlier. I looked inside, that shit was FULL OF BIG ASS BOOKS. All out of your bank account. Did they even ask you?
Actually now I think about there's a whole shitload of things that YOU, yes you specifically you, are paying for, for other people. Those selfish cunts. You should kick off. Why can't they all just pay for it themselves? Why do we even have a government? This is bullshit.
On June 22 2011 04:50 trainRiderJ wrote: Where I live the people without insurance just use the emergency room or a free clinic. Do they not have those in New York?
In what part of the country are emergency rooms free of cost?
ERs are legally obligated to stabilize anyone who comes in, even if they have no means to pay, but nothing beyond that.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance
On June 22 2011 09:33 Medrea wrote: Lol what a dolt. Prison healthcare is terrible and they hit up your estate for it when you die.
Other people in thread saying there countries healthcare is free do not pay taxes I know it is stylish in many countries to leach off the system and not pay taxes. In China it is grounds for execution. In the US they hit up your estate for it after you die. But US pays there taxes nonetheless.
This dumbass is dreaming if he thinks he is gonna get a coast property on a fixed income.
So why is government healthcare such a rip off? Same people who eat grease off the carpet pay the same rates as young people who do not even need healthcare. Just because a cost is labeled "taxes" doesnt mean its free.
Do people in other countries really think there healthcare comes out of the goodness of the medical communities hearts?
nah people in other countries think it's "fair" to let everyone pay taxes, instead of just one human beeing paying a shitload of money because he got unlucky in some kind of accident he could not have affected and therefore having debts for the rest of his (ruined) life.
See I hear this argument a lot but it's not really realistic either. How many people get randomly unlucky? vs how many people choose to believe that they are unlucky?
Most medical issues are not random, and are generally a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors. All of these are predictable. People should educate themselves and assess their own risk.
That's exactly my point. There's an EXTREMLY low amount of people who get unlucky, like REALY EXTREMLY low. But those are fucked for the rest of their lifes for no other reason than beeing unlucky. I'm not talking about a cough or something like that. We got to pay 10€ everytime we go to a doctor in germany. Noone cares about that. But one might care about some serious problems, that are that rare and more importantly costly, that a single person might not be able to pay for it.
I don't know what the numbers for stuff like cancer or genetic illnesses are (really don't know what it's called in english sry, guess it's clear what I'm talking about?). Let's say one out a thousand gets cancer or something like that, just for the purpose of numbers. Do you think it's fair that the guy has to pay for the treatment himself (aprox: shittons of money) and 999 people who got lucky, because they don't have cancer don't have to pay? not even a single cent? If you think that's fair I'm glad I'm not living in the us.
Of course there's things like alcoholics who got an increased chance to need a new liver someday and therefore you could probably say it's their own fault but still, as long as we're able to help I think we should do, no matter what.
Yes. I think that it is entirely fair that people should take care of their own personal problems. I would not think it is fair if my neighbor gets a flat tire because he was driving over glass and I have to buy him a new tire.
Do you think it is fair to force other people to pay for the problems of others? Heres a thought, give away your money to all your co-workers. I'm sure they have problems that you do not have. It's not fair that you have money to spend while they have important issues and bills to take care of.
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.
Universal 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.
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.
Tort reform would save more then that. While the actual costs of lawsuits and such only equate directly to 2% of healthcare costs the insurance costs for doctors also get jacked up higher because of them. They pass these costs down you know. All around cheaper end use is better in every way.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance
And if you decide that you do not want to pay insurance the men with guns kick in your door and take it from you. Awesome huh? And you are paying for others health care as long as you are not sick.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance
When you're paying health insurance you're not paying for anybody else's health, except incidentally as part of a voluntary, beneficial system of shared risk. When you pay for public healthcare though, you're essentially paying for other people's insurance. Unless of course other people are paying for your insurance, but you get the point.
On June 22 2011 12:15 orn wrote: Instead of spending billions of dollars finding easier and more efficient ways to kill people, why not spend a few billion to save the lives of your own citizens America?
Are we still talking about the country with streets of gold, the American Dream, and the place that gives immigrants and minorities more rights than natural citizens and the general populous? Because if we are, your logic is skewed. How could we send soldiers off to lifetime trauma in war if we are actually giving them positive options in our country? I don't remember the %, but in a private study a relatively high percentage of servicemen and women said they signed up only for the chance at an education and or the chance to have a decent paying job with basic benefits. I know it's a bit unrelated, but this is indeed the country that used to get ideas for the CIA from cokehead Hollywood producers productions, please do not give our government's organizational ability too much credit - specifically after it has grown 10 fold since Bush was elected.
Health insurance was originally a bunch of people, pooling together their money into a common account in which every member that contributes to the pool of money is entitled to withdraw money from that pool to pay for their health costs as long as they continue to contribute a small amount every so often. The idea was that since health costs are extremely high, by pooling money, people can help one another since you're not always going to be ill. At the same time, this also meant that when you needed the money, you would be assured to have it. Everybody wins.
Then companies came along and realized that they could make money out of this. They did. They make a ridiculous amount of money by bastardizing the original system to get as much money out of people as they can.
When you buy health insurance, even privatized health insurance, you ARE paying for other people's health. You're contributing to the pool of money being held by Blue Shield, Kaiser, Aetna, etc... that is and will be withdrawn from to pay for someone else' health costs who subscribes to that company. The difference is that not only are you contributing to that pool of money with your premiums, you're paying the workers of that company as well.
Some people say the difference is that it's voluntary when it's privatized health care insurance. I'd argue that it's not. It's a necessity. You can't simply decide to not get sick or not get in an accident. You can minimize the risk factors, but sometimes life just takes a giant dump on you. Right now, it's simply a matter that those who can afford get to have the benefit of being healthy while those who can't afford get fucked when life decides to go south.
And for those who dislike paying for other people's stuff, keep in mind that you already do that via taxes. You pay for other people's clean water, their security (police and firefighters), their information (libraries and invention of the internet was a government project fyi), and transportation (public transit and roads) amongst others. Hell, you pay for their retirement funds ffs.
^Poster above me. Get rid of the spoilers and the stuff in it if you don't wanna get banned.
I'm going to go slightly off topic but I'll just share a story to be discussed.
My baby cousin (who turns 3 in about 2 months) was diagnosed with a brain tumour about 4 months ago. This came about from my aunt taking her to see a doctor because her head suddenly started swelling and then seeing a specialist and then straight to the ER. After evaluating her case for a few hours, doctors immediately started operating on her. The surgery took just over 8 hours and stopped when the doctor decided that they had done all they could in that session and my cousin would have to recover before she could be operated on further. Speaking with the doctor he said we were extremely lucky since by his guess, if we had waited another 24 hours she would have been had a 80-90% chance of being dead. As of now, she's still on chemotherapy and will continue to be on chemo for another (approximately) six months to kill off the remainder of the tumour. From the statements above in the thread, I'd imagine that if my cousin was in the USA, It'd probably have rung up at over $100k+ for the surgery+doctor+specialist, it probably wouldn't have been performed in time to save her had we lived in the USA and the subsequent surgeries that she's undergone + chemotherapy would've racked up a couple of million in healthcare bills easily.
The doctor said that a case of a malignant brain tumour happens to about 5 kids a year, tops. By some of the opinions in this article, what I'm getting is that she either should've died by no fault of her own, or put my aunt/uncle in an absurd financial situation from selling their house and borrowing money from everyone else in the family and relying on financial support from our extended family in order to have enough money to pay for the surgery or lose their daughter due to bad luck?
I know a lot of people are opposed to the idea of paying for other people's healthcare but from a statistic I saw a while back.
"Nationally, more than two-thirds of U.S. households reported giving to charity in 2004, with average contributions of $2,047 that year, according to a study released in January by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. "
I really do not see the issue in adding a $100-$150 charge a year that covers all non-trivial problems for everyone across the USA. Stuff such as broken bones or simple surgeries that require at most an overnight stay wouldn't be covered but it would help with insurance companies as well since they no longer have to deal with the odd extreme out there case which wrecks their bottom line if the charge goes through.
On June 22 2011 09:33 Medrea wrote: Lol what a dolt. Prison healthcare is terrible and they hit up your estate for it when you die.
Other people in thread saying there countries healthcare is free do not pay taxes I know it is stylish in many countries to leach off the system and not pay taxes. In China it is grounds for execution. In the US they hit up your estate for it after you die. But US pays there taxes nonetheless.
This dumbass is dreaming if he thinks he is gonna get a coast property on a fixed income.
So why is government healthcare such a rip off? Same people who eat grease off the carpet pay the same rates as young people who do not even need healthcare. Just because a cost is labeled "taxes" doesnt mean its free.
Do people in other countries really think there healthcare comes out of the goodness of the medical communities hearts?
nah people in other countries think it's "fair" to let everyone pay taxes, instead of just one human beeing paying a shitload of money because he got unlucky in some kind of accident he could not have affected and therefore having debts for the rest of his (ruined) life.
See I hear this argument a lot but it's not really realistic either. How many people get randomly unlucky? vs how many people choose to believe that they are unlucky?
Most medical issues are not random, and are generally a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors. All of these are predictable. People should educate themselves and assess their own risk.
That's exactly my point. There's an EXTREMLY low amount of people who get unlucky, like REALY EXTREMLY low. But those are fucked for the rest of their lifes for no other reason than beeing unlucky. I'm not talking about a cough or something like that. We got to pay 10€ everytime we go to a doctor in germany. Noone cares about that. But one might care about some serious problems, that are that rare and more importantly costly, that a single person might not be able to pay for it.
I don't know what the numbers for stuff like cancer or genetic illnesses are (really don't know what it's called in english sry, guess it's clear what I'm talking about?). Let's say one out a thousand gets cancer or something like that, just for the purpose of numbers. Do you think it's fair that the guy has to pay for the treatment himself (aprox: shittons of money) and 999 people who got lucky, because they don't have cancer don't have to pay? not even a single cent? If you think that's fair I'm glad I'm not living in the us.
Of course there's things like alcoholics who got an increased chance to need a new liver someday and therefore you could probably say it's their own fault but still, as long as we're able to help I think we should do, no matter what.
Yes. I think that it is entirely fair that people should take care of their own personal problems. I would not think it is fair if my neighbor gets a flat tire because he was driving over glass and I have to buy him a new tire.
Do you think it is fair to force other people to pay for the problems of others? Heres a thought, give away your money to all your co-workers. I'm sure they have problems that you do not have. It's not fair that you have money to spend while they have important issues and bills to take care of.
Are you just comparing not having a working car with dying ? You not having a working car does not pose really any moral problem for the society. Society letting you die unnecessarily because you have no money on the other hand is a moral dilemma for normal humans. And yes I think sometimes it is fair to force other people to pay for the problems of others. Depends on the details, as always.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance
And if you decide that you do not want to pay insurance the men with guns kick in your door and take it from you. Awesome huh? And you are paying for others health care as long as you are not sick.
I have nothing against law enforcement. So yes, awesome. Did you actually read what I wrote ? Yes you are paying for the healthcare of others as far as having insurance is paying healthcare for others. The mandatory nature of that insurance does not change that fact. In private insurance case if you are healthy and paying insurance, you are also paying healthcare for others. As for the rest, I have no problem with mandatory health insurance, I find it a good thing, you do not. There are many advantages, and the only disadvantage is loss of so-called "freedom" not to pay. I do not consider it important freedom to begin with so I do not care.
On June 22 2011 05:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: im actually pretty geeked that my guess was so close, guesstimate i guess would be better
=D
anyway why the USA being less densely populated is a problem is that we need as many hospitals as we can get in order to cover as many people as possible.
all these hospitals naturally want the best equipment and the best doctors and nurses and assistants and employees in general they can get their hands on
but not all of these hospitals live in communities with the wealth to support it
but most of the time the hospitals get the equipment at least anyway, or the best they can get is still pretty expensive, and this cost is passed on to insurance companies, especially as medical technology keeps improving so fast
so, it isn't the whole problem or even 15% of the problem, but you add everything up including people being uninsured and you have a big problem, one not necessarily fixed by insuring the uninsured through government and putting new regulations on insurance companies that are going to inevitably raise their costs
Why does everyone ignore that the US pays half the entire worlds military budget COMBINED? China, Russia, and the rest of the entire fucking world - combined - is still less than what the US spends on military! You cannot pay for this shit and expect to be able to afford everything that other countries with literally a single digit percentage of what US spends on military. You gotta cut corners to pay for that shit and healthcare is one of those corners.
oh please the US spends about 700 billion a year on defense currently as said about 5% of GDP guess how much health care is? 16% last i checked and rising. thats a lot more than 700 billion.
no one ignores it, people who think about it dismiss it because its unrealistic and wouldnt help anyway
Look up north bro.
Last I checked we had a bigger landmass and only about 10% of the population... You could do it.
iCanada, you guys are also not spread nearly as thin. Your cities are CITIES. We have like 3 cities in the entire US - NY, LA, Miami. Other than that, we actually cover our entire landmass, whereas it is way too cold for you to do so. That's really a horrible comparison considering that Canada doesn't use more than half of its land.
However, I don't dispute the "you can do it" part.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
because they are the people you live with on this earth. If you are ever on a soccer team and sprain your ankle, would you want to have to quit the game all together simply because there are those that could replace you?
The cost of public health care is also split between the masses. As we all know there are many more poor then rich, but the system (well the one in canada) tries to tax the richer to make the disparity between the classes minute. it's a socialist system, so that's all up to the masses to decide on what is best considering the situation the land is under.
I think that since we really cannot say one life is more important than another, because there are too many exceptions, we must take a broad standpoint of socialists for healthcare and provide it as equally as possible.
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
Taxes in Canada are ridiculous.
30-50% income tax depends on your career, property tax, carbon tax, and everything else you use your money for gets ~12% provincial tax + government tax.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
because they are the people you live with on this earth. If you are ever on a soccer team and sprain your ankle, would you want to have to quit the game all together simply because there are those that could replace you?
The cost of public health care is also split between the masses. As we all know there are many more rich then poor, but the system (well the one in canada) tries to tax the richer to make the disparity between the classes minute. it's a socialist system, so that's all up to the masses to decide on what is best considering the situation the land is under.
I think that since we really cannot say one life is more important than another, because there are too many exceptions, we must take a broad standpoint of socialists for healthcare and provide it as equally as possible.
Wut. That's not true. There are a ton more poor than rich. I think what you're trying to get at is that the very few rich control the vast majority of the $$$.
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
Taxes in Canada are ridiculous.
30-50% income tax depends on your career, property tax, carbon tax, and everything else you use your money for gets ~12% provincial tax + government tax.
Income tax in US for 2010 was 10-35% depending on your annual income bracket and status (single, married, etc...).
Also for reference, income tax rates in the US haven't always been this rate. Some points in history have seen much higher tax rates depending on the income bracket. In 1952-53 tax rates went from 22.2% to 92% depending on your income bracket. The current US income tax rate is considered quite low even just in the context of US history, never mind the rest of the world.
On June 22 2011 15:40 Game wrote: iCanada, you guys are also not spread nearly as thin. Your cities are CITIES. We have like 3 cities in the entire US - NY, LA, Miami. Other than that, we actually cover our entire landmass, whereas it is way too cold for you to do so. That's really a horrible comparison considering that Canada doesn't use more than half of its land.
However, I don't dispute the "you can do it" part.
over 90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the usa border.
But i dont really see what this has to do with healthcare when did land mass come into play, someone explain plz
Also Canada has 34 million ppl
Usa has 300 million ppl.
Maybe some of you amurricans should immigrate to Canada so we can expand...USA needs to transfer some workers to their expansions.
Something I've learned. Canadians and Americans are pretty much indistinguishable. At least the northerners...I've heard things about people from the south (racism and such) but the cultures are ridiculously similar, so is the dialect (for the most part) and the food..
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
Increased taxes damage the economy and that you can only support an advanced health care system if you have a strong economy. At some point, a person has to create wealth so that equipment can be purchased and doctors can be paid. Every time you raise taxes, you reduce your society's ability to produce wealth, and therefore eventually reduce your ability to provide health care.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
because they are the people you live with on this earth. If you are ever on a soccer team and sprain your ankle, would you want to have to quit the game all together simply because there are those that could replace you?
The cost of public health care is also split between the masses. As we all know there are many more rich then poor, but the system (well the one in canada) tries to tax the richer to make the disparity between the classes minute. it's a socialist system, so that's all up to the masses to decide on what is best considering the situation the land is under.
I think that since we really cannot say one life is more important than another, because there are too many exceptions, we must take a broad standpoint of socialists for healthcare and provide it as equally as possible.
Wut. That's not true. There are a ton more poor than rich. I think what you're trying to get at is that the very few rich control the vast majority of the $$$.
dude just calling the ambulance in the US costs around 5,000 dollars,what a joke. My friend's mom broke her arm and after calling 911 they got slapped with a 5,000 dollar bill. America's healthcare system is pretty broken atm.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance
When you're paying health insurance you're not paying for anybody else's health, except incidentally as part of a voluntary, beneficial system of shared risk. When you pay for public healthcare though, you're essentially paying for other people's insurance. Unless of course other people are paying for your insurance, but you get the point.
When you pay for public healthcare you are also part of a beneficial system of shared risk as other people also pay into the system. It just includes additional "down-on-luck/being a minor" component in most countries (I assume).
On June 22 2011 15:58 recklessfire wrote: dude just calling the ambulance in the US costs around 5,000 dollars,what a joke. My friend's mom broke her arm and after calling 911 they got slapped with a 5,000 dollar bill. America's healthcare system is pretty broken atm.
They called an ambulance for a broken arm? That was pretty dumb. Hell, driving over to the local ED is WAY cheaper than using the ambulance.
Yeah ambulances are expensive because they are for emergencies. Idiots think they are having a medical emergency when they aren't, but the EMTs still have to take them to the hospital. You should only use the ambulance if it is physically impossible to make it to the hospital and there is no one around to assist you.
One time I saw a mother take her child to the ED just for an ear infection. I facepalmed hard for that one, that's what primary care docs are for.
Oh, and another pet peeve: EDs and Urgent Care are two different beasts. If your condition isn't life threatening go to Urgent Care, you'll be seen by a primary care doc that can probably help you for a fraction of the cost. ED's are staffed by docs specializing is stabilizing patients about to die, so if you're there because of your ear infection (and thanks to legislature, they HAVE to treat you in the ED no matter what your condition is), don't be surprised by the ridiculous bill.
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Because he is in the US, where healthcare costs an extortionate amount of money, and without insurance, even the smallest of things can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars when they are available for free in many other countries.
I'm not sure what "foreigners" feel about the cost of healthcare...but it really isn't exorbitant (and I live in America). Only the people who feel like it'd be worth the cost of a few steaks and cigarettes a month to go without healthcare are really affected...
On June 22 2011 04:45 vyyye wrote: Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ask for a bit more money (not necessarily a ridiculous amount), not say what his purpose was and that way get a more guaranteed spot in jail? Puzzling situation, your health care system has some flaws America.
It doesn't matter, he can just rob another bank for $1.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Because he is in the US, where healthcare costs an extortionate amount of money, and without insurance, even the smallest of things can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars when they are available for free in many other countries.
I'm not sure what "foreigners" feel about the cost of healthcare...but it really isn't exorbitant (and I live in America). Only the people who feel like it'd be worth the cost of a few steaks and cigarettes a month to go without healthcare are really affected...
The actual cost of healthcare without insurance is really really high. The cost of premiums of insurance is pretty low.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Because he is in the US, where healthcare costs an extortionate amount of money, and without insurance, even the smallest of things can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars when they are available for free in many other countries.
I'm not sure what "foreigners" feel about the cost of healthcare...but it really isn't exorbitant (and I live in America). Only the people who feel like it'd be worth the cost of a few steaks and cigarettes a month to go without healthcare are really affected...
The actual cost of healthcare without insurance is really really high. The cost of premiums of insurance is pretty low.
This is true. Hospitals purposely overcharge those without insurance. Because they can't expect everyone without insurance to pay, they make up the difference from those without insurance that do pay.
On June 22 2011 04:58 Phelski wrote: obama's health care is this 1)make everyone buy private health care 2) if they dont, or cannot afford it, then they get taxed/ sued
Heavily subsidized if you can't afford it. The health care program isn't slated to go into full effect until 2014. Most of the state exchanges haven't even been set up yet
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
Increased taxes damage the economy and that you can only support an advanced health care system if you have a strong economy. At some point, a person has to create wealth so that equipment can be purchased and doctors can be paid. Every time you raise taxes, you reduce your society's ability to produce wealth, and therefore eventually reduce your ability to provide health care.
That's a theory based entirely on the Laffer Curve (which itself is debatable), the thing is that current tax rates in the US are no where near the point where they reduce revenue or stifle innovation. Taxes are at historic lows
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance
When you're paying health insurance you're not paying for anybody else's health, except incidentally as part of a voluntary, beneficial system of shared risk. When you pay for public healthcare though, you're essentially paying for other people's insurance. Unless of course other people are paying for your insurance, but you get the point.
When you pay for public healthcare you are also part of a beneficial system of shared risk as other people also pay into the system. It just includes additional "down-on-luck/being a minor" component in most countries (I assume).
That's the point I mean to emphasize. Any time you have a system which certain people can't afford, but are allowed into anyway, that means that someone else is paying for them. Or to put it in a less backwards way, health costs money, and health insurance also costs money, and if you want either one of those things you should be ready and able to pay for it legitimately, otherwise you can just take money from someone else against their will. You do benefit of course from the insurance, but the ratio of how much you benefit to how much you pay for it is obviously skewed to balance off the same ratio of the people who would not normally be able to afford it, but are allowed to have it anyway, which is conveniently skewed in their favour. You're paying for other people's insurance.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
There's a very common view among some on the right in this country that all social programs are illegitimate. It's pretty depressing.
france health care system does not work 10 billions € budget deficit in 2009, 12 billion € in 2010, the minister in 2010 planned for 14 billion € in 2014, the system is based on people paying for the others the amount of money circulating in french bank keeps lowering when the people(middle high class) supporting the whole system will have export all their money outside of the country the charge will become unbearable for the middle classes to supports everyone the only way out is either stop the whole health care system which will bring the lower class to civil war or keep ignoring it till the middle class implose which will lead to civil war actually the civil war is enivitable in france my post should be remembered in 20 years
On June 22 2011 17:15 antikk555 wrote: I cant believe there is anyone actually stupid enough as to try and defend the current healthcare situation in the US.
May you all have a horrible accident, lose your jobs and have to watch your children die of a curable illness because you cant afford to pay for it.
Aww, thanks guy. It's good to see there are still some reasonable people here!
On June 22 2011 15:40 Game wrote: iCanada, you guys are also not spread nearly as thin. Your cities are CITIES. We have like 3 cities in the entire US - NY, LA, Miami. Other than that, we actually cover our entire landmass, whereas it is way too cold for you to do so. That's really a horrible comparison considering that Canada doesn't use more than half of its land.
However, I don't dispute the "you can do it" part.
chicago's not a city? (miami is actually pretty small, comparatively)
You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote: You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?
On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote: You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?
Nothing against you really, it just amazes and somewhat amuses me that nothing is done about the situation while the general opinion seems to be that it must be changed, and my comment on the politics is correct in my opinion, Obama had huge troubles getting the recent changes through the senate did he not?
On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote: You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?
On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote: You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?
Nothing against you really, it just amazes and somewhat amuses me that nothing is done about the situation while the general opinion seems to be that it must be changed, and my comment on the politics is correct in my opinion, Obama had huge troubles getting the recent changes through the senate did he not?
i have no idea.. i don't really know much about politics unless it involves me... i pay $48/month for 100% coverage with a $10 copay for anything (dental, medical, vision) and i am happy with that...
There are plenty people in America who understand the shortcomings in the system, that's not the problem. Our citizens are divided by the insidious alliance of social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, and it has turned us against each other. But that's another story...
I think things like this need to happen here in order for the working class to wake up and understand that this man could be anybody's grandpa. People are still laboring under the delusion that this country's social fabric is still strong and vibrant, but the truth is that it is tearing apart household by household, and it is due to the depression combined with the inability to access basic health care. I see it happening to people I love who have worked all their lives and cannot afford to even purchase health care. Whether it's because they are unlucky or stupid I hardly believe that they deserve to suffer like they do. It's all the more sickening because I am lucky enough to be provided for.
I do think things will change, I haven't lost that much faith in the system, nor in my countrymen. We just need to collectively understand that we have all been played for fools. I have no idea how we're going to get there, but if anything is going to catalyze this paradigm it will be dramatic and bold political statements such as the one written about here.
On June 22 2011 15:15 Ryuu314 wrote: Health insurance was originally a bunch of people, pooling together their money into a common account in which every member that contributes to the pool of money is entitled to withdraw money from that pool to pay for their health costs as long as they continue to contribute a small amount every so often. The idea was that since health costs are extremely high, by pooling money, people can help one another since you're not always going to be ill. At the same time, this also meant that when you needed the money, you would be assured to have it. Everybody wins.
Then companies came along and realized that they could make money out of this. They did. They make a ridiculous amount of money by bastardizing the original system to get as much money out of people as they can.
Except health insurance companies are not making much money at all. According to The New York Times (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/how-much-money-do-insurance-companies-make-a-primer/) one of the largest health care company in America has been making about 5.5%profit, a very minute sum compared to most industries. (yeah the article is a few years old, they have reported losses several times since then, thanks to the recession) Many of the smaller companies are reporting even smaller net gains or are outright losing money.
While the American hate is pretty hilarious, let me just point out the following: our system allows for more medical innovation than any other country. The best metric I could find for this was the number of nobel laureates in medicine per country: 85 for the US, second best being Britain at 24. So we're basically screwing over the people who can't afford health insurance in favor of advancing medicine. Is that good? Depends on your perspective.
I'm going to post what i have posted on another website,
The solution is so obvious to your healthcare problems that its laughable. Implement a mixed system (see australia for an approximate idea) where after earning a particular amount and not having private health insurance you hit the next progressive tax pracket. if you do have the private health insurance then you get a tax rebate at the end of the financial year.
Yes taxes will need to rise and it would be suicide by the governmnet that implements it which is why career politicans will NEVER EVER DO IT (as well as the loss of kickbacks from insurance companies). whilst im on a role, i also think that the power of lobbies is deterimental to your country. In most other countries what these lobbies do would be considered corruption but in the US its a way of life. Bascially what i am trying to say is that you need to look at your entire political system and reform it before healthcare reform, but it will never be done becuase career politicians will only lose in the optimum outcome.
On June 22 2011 18:01 seiferoth10 wrote: While the American hate is pretty hilarious, let me just point out the following: our system allows for more medical innovation than any other country. The best metric I could find for this was the number of nobel laureates in medicine per country: 85 for the US, second best being Britain at 24. So we're basically screwing over the people who can't afford health insurance in favor of advancing medicine. Is that good? Depends on your perspective.
Hrm, well pretty interesting since I believe the majority of our "medical innovation" is funded by U.S. taxpayers through NIH grants. The dividends of which are showered upon private corporations who then charge those same taxpayers to use the fruits of their (the taxpayers') investment. While I agree that the U.S. can produce some great technology, I disagree that we are distributing it properly. Not only that, but I would be interested in seeing the percentage of Americans who actually have access to this wonderful technology.
Edit: This perspective is that poor people (the majority) suffer and die so that rich people can have better and better things. Is that seriously a political proposition that's supposed to appeal to the majority of Americans?
On June 22 2011 18:01 seiferoth10 wrote: While the American hate is pretty hilarious, let me just point out the following: our system allows for more medical innovation than any other country. The best metric I could find for this was the number of nobel laureates in medicine per country: 85 for the US, second best being Britain at 24. So we're basically screwing over the people who can't afford health insurance in favor of advancing medicine. Is that good? Depends on your perspective.
Hrm, well pretty interesting since I believe the majority of our "medical innovation" is funded by U.S. taxpayers through NIH grants. The dividends of which are showered upon private corporations who then charge those same taxpayers to use the fruits of their (the taxpayers') investment. While I agree that the U.S. can produce some great technology, I disagree that we are distributing it properly. Not only that, but I would be interested in seeing the percentage of Americans who actually have access to this wonderful technology.
Also per capita the US trails a lot of other countries in this regard
Who would want the slightest chance for socialism to happen when you have something as beautiful as the American dream right?
i try not to be as mean towards other countries as some of their people are to america, but croatia is just a field of roses and puppydogs, right? people are just dying to immigrate there. walking across the desert even.
You showed him. You are clearly the more eloquent debater. Let me know when you get into the Priesthood and we can celebrate over lemonade and Fox News.
well instead of snarking you could read my posts
but they would probably make you angrier honestly you might not want to
Croatia is one of the most beautiful countries I've been recommended for a vacation. The seafood is apparently to die for and after hearing so many good things about it it's on top of my to go places the next time I am not busy during the warm season (that would be when hell freezes over by the looks of things).
I may not queue up for going to live in Croatia but it's sure as hell higher on my list that the US which is around the same spot as Iraq, not a good place to make a life. Your country is one of the few countries on this planet I avoided getting a job in just due to how stupidly organized it looks. I'd rather learn German, or worse, Chinese, as my 5th language and go live there. Tourism would be nice though, looks beautiful and the people quite nice.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
So, why doesn't every citizen in your country get free food? What if people starve? What about housing? Do you provide free housing?
I'm not claiming America is the greatest country in the world, but your logic astounds me. So where exactly is the line you draw between how much 'we should pay for those less fortunate?' Because no matter what you think it is, it's rather arbitrary and definitely subjective.
So how about you save your judgmental attitude? What if someone said you were a selfish, self-centered person because you don't volunteer 20 hours a week at the homeless shelter, or donate all of your savings to charity?
I would not be alive if it wasn't for "socialist healthcare". I would never have been able to afford a health insurance given the number of problems I have had. Just one of my treatments costed about 3k dollars every month (out of which I had to pay about 300 dollars a year).
Today I am a healthy and contributing member of society, I hope my tax money can help to pay for someone else's health care. I would like to think that society as a whole has profited off of the investment they did in supplying health care to me.
On June 22 2011 05:26 ThePhan2m wrote: It's quite normal! In Norway the prisons are quite luxurious, so its not really a punishment to go to prison if you don't mind to not travel around. You get everything you need and more so. Actually, the prisons are quite full, and people do crimes just to get to prison. And some actual criminals get let go because the prisons are full. So you basically end up with prisons full with former criminals, they wont have a chance to get a job outside after they've been to prison, so they do crimes only to get back in and live quite comfortably. Quite sad...
And why is Norway paying for that? That sounds funny....
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
So, why doesn't every citizen in your country get free food? What if people starve? What about housing? Do you provide free housing?
I'm not claiming America is the greatest country in the world, but your logic astounds me. So where exactly is the line you draw between how much 'we should pay for those less fortunate?' Because no matter what you think it is, it's rather arbitrary and definitely subjective.
So how about you save your judgmental attitude? What if someone said you were a selfish, self-centered person because you don't volunteer 20 hours a week at the homeless shelter, or donate all of your savings to charity?
We have solutions (and problems) for things like this but its a mute point in the scheme of things as we don't suffer the unemploymnet that plagues the US, the extra stuff you added is also off topic. A lack of food leads to health problems,cause and effect, here we are talking about the effect not the cause.
On June 22 2011 18:01 seiferoth10 wrote: While the American hate is pretty hilarious, let me just point out the following: our system allows for more medical innovation than any other country. The best metric I could find for this was the number of nobel laureates in medicine per country: 85 for the US, second best being Britain at 24. So we're basically screwing over the people who can't afford health insurance in favor of advancing medicine. Is that good? Depends on your perspective.
Hrm, well pretty interesting since I believe the majority of our "medical innovation" is funded by U.S. taxpayers through NIH grants. The dividends of which are showered upon private corporations who then charge those same taxpayers to use the fruits of their (the taxpayers') investment. While I agree that the U.S. can produce some great technology, I disagree that we are distributing it properly. Not only that, but I would be interested in seeing the percentage of Americans who actually have access to this wonderful technology.
Edit: This perspective is that poor people (the majority) suffer and die so that rich people can have better and better things. Is that seriously a political proposition that's supposed to appeal to the majority of Americans?
Well we have to pay the innovators right? And while I will agree that most of the innovations are priced on the higher sides, two examples of innovation from the US that are available to most people are non-drowsy antihistamines and a bunch of different depression medication.
On June 22 2011 18:06 BordZ wrote: I'm going to post what i have posted on another website,
The solution is so obvious to your healthcare problems that its laughable. Implement a mixed system (see australia for an approximate idea) where after earning a particular amount and not having private health insurance you hit the next progressive tax pracket. if you do have the private health insurance then you get a tax rebate at the end of the financial year.
Yes taxes will need to rise and it would be suicide by the governmnet that implements it which is why career politicans will NEVER EVER DO IT (as well as the loss of kickbacks from insurance companies). whilst im on a role, i also think that the power of lobbies is deterimental to your country. In most other countries what these lobbies do would be considered corruption but in the US its a way of life. Bascially what i am trying to say is that you need to look at your entire political system and reform it before healthcare reform, but it will never be done becuase career politicians will only lose in the optimum outcome.
I do agree with all this, and it's quite accurate.
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of public healthcare? The purpose of public healthcare is to split the cost of ridiculously priced procedures among the public so that they become affordable. If you're going to say who can and cannot benefit from public healthcare, then that isn't really public. The solution I see is to raise taxes until healthcare can fund itself. After all, that's public healthcare right: if you're relatively healthy you actually get screwed.
Increased taxes damage the economy and that you can only support an advanced health care system if you have a strong economy. At some point, a person has to create wealth so that equipment can be purchased and doctors can be paid. Every time you raise taxes, you reduce your society's ability to produce wealth, and therefore eventually reduce your ability to provide health care.
That's a theory based entirely on the Laffer Curve (which itself is debatable), the thing is that current tax rates in the US are no where near the point where they reduce revenue or stifle innovation. Taxes are at historic lows
Tax "rates" are not at historic lows. Tax revenues to the government may be, but that's only because the economy is in the shitter, and less income means less taxes.
I've always thought if I was in a similar position I would make a similar decision. I do hope he receives his medical attention but law enforcement aren't stupid. he should be released immediately and put through another program.
On June 22 2011 18:01 seiferoth10 wrote: While the American hate is pretty hilarious, let me just point out the following: our system allows for more medical innovation than any other country. The best metric I could find for this was the number of nobel laureates in medicine per country: 85 for the US, second best being Britain at 24. So we're basically screwing over the people who can't afford health insurance in favor of advancing medicine. Is that good? Depends on your perspective.
I don't know, I always thought it had something to do with the US population being relatively large. Quick look at wikipedia claims that the US has five times the population of Britain, therefore for me it would make sense that they would have more nobel laureates as well. Obviously it doesn't directly translate over, but it looks like considering the population the US and Britain are pretty even there, don't you think?
But even if it was otherwise true, I don't think that's a very good way to go about it. Screwing the people or a part of it over a greater good doesn't usually work out in the end. You could compare it to slavery, but I'm not sure if that'd be a bit much. After all, I don't know that much about american health care, other than that it's bad.
On June 22 2011 04:45 vyyye wrote: Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ask for a bit more money (not necessarily a ridiculous amount), not say what his purpose was and that way get a more guaranteed spot in jail? Puzzling situation, your health care system has some flaws America.
This was more than just a bank robbery to get into jail in order to receive health care. He made it a political protest as well, which brings attention to the ridiculous healthcare clusterfuck that we have in the USA. The man understands that the healthcare problem is bigger than himself.
This x1000.
You have to appreciate the symbolism of his actions. Clearly something is wrong over the pond when people been to go to jail in order to be treated for health problems.
Isn't bank robbery considered a fed offence? Even with the small ammunt he can expect a harsh punishment.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
So, why doesn't every citizen in your country get free food? What if people starve? What about housing? Do you provide free housing?
I'm not claiming America is the greatest country in the world, but your logic astounds me. So where exactly is the line you draw between how much 'we should pay for those less fortunate?' Because no matter what you think it is, it's rather arbitrary and definitely subjective.
So how about you save your judgmental attitude? What if someone said you were a selfish, self-centered person because you don't volunteer 20 hours a week at the homeless shelter, or donate all of your savings to charity?
On June 22 2011 15:58 recklessfire wrote: dude just calling the ambulance in the US costs around 5,000 dollars,what a joke. My friend's mom broke her arm and after calling 911 they got slapped with a 5,000 dollar bill. America's healthcare system is pretty broken atm.
What the fuck? Are you serious? 5.000 for an ambulance???
Too many pages to read through so I don't know if anyone commented on it yet but to the people that try to sound smart with the whole "food is a great and competitive market" or whatever are completely clueless.
All modern Governments spends huge amounts of money subsidizing farmers and have provided them with industrial technology, which in turn is developed in universities by heavy public funding, which allows the huge food production. Industrial countries also only subsidize their own farmers so their farmers have a huge competitive advantage compared to non-industrial/third world farmers.
Those are the reasons why food is cheap and accessible to everyone living in a modern industrial society, not some entrepreneur struggling to provide food to the people despite the oppression of government taxes.
socialism and captalism have their situational strengths. It's foolish to say one is better than the other outright. Anyway, in this situation not having good medical care is really dumb. This guy cant help the economy now, since hes in jail and with a crimal record. If he had his medical care he could've earned the government like a 100k$ in taxes. I mean you could say he was already useless to society, thats why you've got to look @ the effects on a massive sample size.
look at brazil, one of the strongest growing economies. They pay people to go to school so poor kids actually get the ability to be able to earn real money for the government instead of just being stuck in the cycle of poverty.
On June 22 2011 19:11 Potatisodlaren wrote: Too many pages to read through so I don't know if anyone commented on it yet but to the people that try to sound smart with the whole "food is a great and competitive market" or whatever are completely clueless.
All modern Governments spends huge amounts of money subsidizing farmers and have provided them with industrial technology, which in turn is developed in universities by heavy public funding, which allows the huge food production. Industrial countries also only subsidize their own farmers so their farmers have a huge competitive advantage compared to non-industrial/third world farmers.
Those are the reasons why food is cheap and accessible to everyone living in a modern industrial society, not some entrepreneur struggling to provide food to the people despite the oppression of government taxes.
This, and not only this but food might be a great and competitive market but healthcare isn't. When such a large amount of people can't afford such an essential thing, it's not fucking working.
There are only two arguments in this thread I've seen to prop up America's shite system; 'why should I pay for other people' and 'socialised healthcare is just involuntary insurance'. Both of which have been shat all over by everyone else like the rubbish they are. I've yet to see anyone make even a vaguely convincing point supporting the idea that healthcare should be a service provided by private companies.
On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote: You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?
Nothing against you really, it just amazes and somewhat amuses me that nothing is done about the situation while the general opinion seems to be that it must be changed, and my comment on the politics is correct in my opinion, Obama had huge troubles getting the recent changes through the senate did he not?
i have no idea.. i don't really know much about politics unless it involves me... i pay $48/month for 100% coverage with a $10 copay for anything (dental, medical, vision) and i am happy with that...
Are you a student or something ? Otherwise I highly doubt 48/month is 100% coverage(what do you mean by that anyway), what is your cap, in general wtf ? Average premiums for employer-provided insurance seems to be around 4000 annually. And I highly doubt even those are without caps and a lot of small print. With 48/month it would be actually as cheap as minimum wage workers pay here for insurance, and our spending per capita is 4-5 times lower than US.
Conclusion ? USA got owned Solution ? No more free medi care in jails, anyone agrees :o ? On a serious note, i think a medi care system powered by tax payer money would be to expensive to USA right now altho they could set up some free hospitals..etc to treat ppl who can't afford it but not under the top-notch conditions many clinics in the USA have right now.
On June 22 2011 18:01 seiferoth10 wrote: While the American hate is pretty hilarious, let me just point out the following: our system allows for more medical innovation than any other country. The best metric I could find for this was the number of nobel laureates in medicine per country: 85 for the US, second best being Britain at 24. So we're basically screwing over the people who can't afford health insurance in favor of advancing medicine. Is that good? Depends on your perspective.
There might be some point in your argument, but note cca 50 mln people in Britain, 300 in US, so per capita Britain is actually better.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
So, why doesn't every citizen in your country get free food? What if people starve? What about housing? Do you provide free housing?
I'm not claiming America is the greatest country in the world, but your logic astounds me. So where exactly is the line you draw between how much 'we should pay for those less fortunate?' Because no matter what you think it is, it's rather arbitrary and definitely subjective.
So how about you save your judgmental attitude? What if someone said you were a selfish, self-centered person because you don't volunteer 20 hours a week at the homeless shelter, or donate all of your savings to charity?
Actually food and housing is dealt with by welfare system, so.
it's funny whenever i hear or read about this healthcare problem for the poor in the US because i can't imagine the medical system in any other way than we have in the EU. covered by the state that is.
It's funny that a country whose people wear their christian religions as a political popularity gimmick, fail at even the basic teachings and compassion that Christianity is supposed to have (but rarely shows).
Yeah, its the poors fault for being poor, we shouldn't help them or pay any money for them. How Christian. If Jesus did exist and was alive today, they'd call him a communist and anti-American.
On June 22 2011 21:46 Vore210 wrote: It's funny that a country whose people wear their christian religions as a political popularity gimmick, fail at even the basic teachings and compassion that Christianity is supposed to have (but rarely shows).
Yeah, its the poors fault for being poor, we shouldn't help them or pay any money for them. How Christian. If Jesus did exist and was alive today, they'd call him a communist and anti-American.
This thread was bad enough, and now you bring religion into it? You are quite brave sir.
On June 22 2011 21:46 Vore210 wrote: It's funny that a country whose people wear their christian religions as a political popularity gimmick, fail at even the basic teachings and compassion that Christianity is supposed to have (but rarely shows).
Yeah, its the poors fault for being poor, we shouldn't help them or pay any money for them. How Christian. If Jesus did exist and was alive today, they'd call him a communist and anti-American.
This thread was bad enough, and now you bring religion into it? You are quite brave sir.
It's not so much that im trying to bring religion into it (as there's no religious debate that can be had from what I said, after all, since what I said is simply true) but when you see hypocrisy in something, what else can you say?
I even kept a fairly agnostic standpoint so neither theists nor atheists would jump onto it.
Religion is a big aspect of getting elected in the states, lets not beat around the bush. I'm just saying they surely talk the talk but they're nowhere near walking the walk as far as professing their faith and christian values are concerned.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
at least every other first world country
many "third" world countries do too.. if he had enough money to travel , he should just gone to cuba and got great health care.. also here in Argentina
croatia is hardly "first world country", and has free health care. we're talking about a country that was in a huge war 10 years ago. lol@usa
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
at least every other first world country
many "third" world countries do too.. if he had enough money to travel , he should just gone to cuba and got great health care.. also here in Argentina
croatia is hardly "first world country", and has free health care. we're talking about a country that was in a huge war 10 years ago. lol@usa
I Am amazed at all these posts saying we have free healthcare lol at u USA, yet a lot of people from those countries with any kind of money refuse to take advatage of that fantastic free healthcare system and go to USA whenever they need any serious medcial procedure done.
On June 22 2011 22:14 kukarachaa wrote: I Am amazed at all these posts saying we have free healthcare lol at u USA, yet a lot of people from those countries with any kind of money refuse to take advatage of that fantastic free healthcare system and go to USA whenever they need any serious medcial procedure done.
That a small group of people with the financial freedom choose to go to the US, Thailand, Switzerland or wherever to get medical treatment from expensive experts is not really the issue here.
The important thing is that when you give the whole population a baseline security of common health care as a right, you inject a lot of productivity into your workforce that benefits society as a whole.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
at least every other first world country
many "third" world countries do too.. if he had enough money to travel , he should just gone to cuba and got great health care.. also here in Argentina
croatia is hardly "first world country", and has free health care. we're talking about a country that was in a huge war 10 years ago. lol@usa
I Am amazed at all these posts saying we have free healthcare lol at u USA, yet a lot of people from those countries with any kind of money refuse to take advatage of that fantastic free healthcare system and go to USA whenever they need any serious medcial procedure done.
That's because doctors earn shit here (my father who is considered to be one of the best, if not the best, specialist in laparoscopic surgery in the country earns about 4 times the minimum wage so go figure) and all the good surgeons/specialists go to USA just because you pay them ridiculous amounts of money (the same could be said about certain scientists too).
The important thing is that when you give the whole population a baseline security of common health care as a right, you inject a lot of productivity into your workforce that benefits society as a whole.
Really? I thought telling someone, "if you don't have a job you don't get insurance" was a better way of injecting productivity into a society than telling them no matter what they do they are covered.
That's because doctors earn shit here (my father who is considered to be one of the best, if not the best, specialist in laparoscopic surgery in the country earns about the same as average programmer/graphic designer without a degree so go figure) and all the good surgeons/specialists go to USA just because you pay them ridiculous amounts of money (the same could be said about certain scientists too).
Looking at the amount of debt they rack up as well as the insane hours they work I find it hard to classify them as getting ridiculous amounts of money.
Joe earns $10 a year. Bill only earns $1 a year. Insurance costs $1 a year and it will cover as many as possible, but only one at a time.
Clearly, Bill cannot pay for insurance because he got other expenses aswell. But if Joe pays $0.9 and Bill pays $0.1 they can both use the health care system. Joe's costs are even reduced, because if he'd pay all by himself, it would have cost him $1 and it is unlikely that both of them need to use the system at the same time.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
at least every other first world country
many "third" world countries do too.. if he had enough money to travel , he should just gone to cuba and got great health care.. also here in Argentina
croatia is hardly "first world country", and has free health care. we're talking about a country that was in a huge war 10 years ago. lol@usa
I Am amazed at all these posts saying we have free healthcare lol at u USA, yet a lot of people from those countries with any kind of money refuse to take advatage of that fantastic free healthcare system and go to USA whenever they need any serious medcial procedure done.
the subject is so simple (us healtcare is fucked up, period) that i didnt even feel the need to make a serious comment about it. i apologize.
however, ive read about it many times on forums because i couldnt belive that country such as US can have such medieval way of dealing with something that should be everyone's right and not a privilage. (most of the discussions were just that, free healt care right or privilage)
so, as always, i get amazed that there are actually people from united states that defend the current system. i would never go so far as some in this thread and say "i hope your children get cancer and u get in a situation where u can not pay the bills so u can see what are we talking about", but i am shocked that some people in states dont have enough human in them to see that life is above all else and that taking care of sick population in any country should and always will be a first priority, for any goverment. stating that "its not your fault they didnt work to get the needed money" or "its like paying for fixing someone elses broken car" is just... wrong. on so many levels. wrong.
and to reply to the quote, no, even if u get really complicated diseases that require very unique specialists, u go to germany, england, austria and similiar countries from europe. but then again, we're talking about common illnesses, cancers, and other mean stuff, which belive it or not can be treated even in the "third world countries". also, what he said:
On June 22 2011 22:20 Manit0u wrote: That's because doctors earn shit here (my father who is considered to be one of the best, if not the best, specialist in laparoscopic surgery in the country earns about 4 times the minimum wage so go figure) and all the good surgeons/specialists go to USA just because you pay them ridiculous amounts of money (the same could be said about certain scientists too).
Joe earns $10 a year. Bill only earns $1 a year. Insurance costs $1 a year and it will cover as many as possible, but only one at a time.
Clearly, Bill cannot pay for insurance because he got other expenses aswell. But if Joe pays $0.9 and Bill pays $0.1 they can both use the health care system. Joe's costs are even reduced, because if he'd pay all by himself, it would have cost him $1 and it is unlikely that both of them need to use the system at the same time.
That's because doctors earn shit here (my father who is considered to be one of the best, if not the best, specialist in laparoscopic surgery in the country earns about the same as average programmer/graphic designer without a degree so go figure) and all the good surgeons/specialists go to USA just because you pay them ridiculous amounts of money (the same could be said about certain scientists too).
Looking at the amount of debt they rack up as well as the insane hours they work I find it hard to classify them as getting ridiculous amounts of money.
The US doctors rack up debt due to college etc. In Poland higher education is free for the most part (at least our best universities are free) so you can become a doctor here, free of any debt, and move to US where they're going to pay you a lot.
EDIT: The only thing my dad regrets is that he didn't work for the army as a doctor like all his friends. 15 years until retirement with officer pension and can still work at a regular hospital or start private practice? Win.
That's because doctors earn shit here (my father who is considered to be one of the best, if not the best, specialist in laparoscopic surgery in the country earns about the same as average programmer/graphic designer without a degree so go figure) and all the good surgeons/specialists go to USA just because you pay them ridiculous amounts of money (the same could be said about certain scientists too).
Looking at the amount of debt they rack up as well as the insane hours they work I find it hard to classify them as getting ridiculous amounts of money.
The US doctors rack up debt due to college etc. In Poland higher education is free for the most part (at least our best universities are free) so you can become a doctor here, free of any debt, and move to US where they're going to pay you a lot.
Even discounting debt, the workload itself more than qualifies doctors to make a decent wage. Of course as they get so few das off and work such long shifts most never get a chance to enjoy their money anyways.
The important thing is that when you give the whole population a baseline security of common health care as a right, you inject a lot of productivity into your workforce that benefits society as a whole.
Really? I thought telling someone, "if you don't have a job you don't get insurance" was a better way of injecting productivity into a society than telling them no matter what they do they are covered.
This doesn't work quite so well in an economy where >10% of the population is looking for full-time work with benefits but is stuck with temp work, part time work or nothing. The US isn't big on labor rights, the employers hold most of the power, especially in the current economic climate.
It's also restrictive on the economy. Traditional career paths are the main source of security via health insurance. For people whose strengths lie in non-traditional work like freelancing, the system is archaic. It also punishes people for making career switches - even jobs that do provide affordable insurance typically have a 3-6 month probation period, so if you have an accident or major health issue during that time, tough shit. Maybe you should've stayed at your old job, working to half your potential.
A EU style universal health care system could work in the US. The problem is that it would require a HUGE amount of reform. They precident that gets the nessesary reforms through needs to have planetsized titanium balls cause he will be labled the anti-christ and he will never EVER get reelected to anything ever again. Most career polititians make way to much money to take the risk.
The important thing is that when you give the whole population a baseline security of common health care as a right, you inject a lot of productivity into your workforce that benefits society as a whole.
Really? I thought telling someone, "if you don't have a job you don't get insurance" was a better way of injecting productivity into a society than telling them no matter what they do they are covered.
That's because doctors earn shit here (my father who is considered to be one of the best, if not the best, specialist in laparoscopic surgery in the country earns about the same as average programmer/graphic designer without a degree so go figure) and all the good surgeons/specialists go to USA just because you pay them ridiculous amounts of money (the same could be said about certain scientists too).
Looking at the amount of debt they rack up as well as the insane hours they work I find it hard to classify them as getting ridiculous amounts of money.
By introducing basic safety you increase productivity, because you prevent a big number of people from going through personal bankruptcy or living in debt and that keeps them more productive members of the society. It also allows a person to pick better suited job, as insurance quality is not part of the equation, thus simplifying it.
The mechanism you describe also does not work well enough for many people, because they are not motivated by events they think will not happen to them. They care about the disease only after they have it.
Coming from a family of doctors and seeking to become one myself, I wish to clear something up. In the US, though doctors make a lot of money, they don't do it for the money. Between the amount of time (~11 years minimum) it takes to become a doctor (4 years for college, 4 years for med school, 3-4 years residency, and that's not including a fellowship which you need in order to specialize), the rigorous schooling, the costs of college and medical school, bad hours, and the fact that you still have to go to seminars and training every year to keep up, all the people who are doing it "for the money" get weeded out. If you really want to make money you'd be far far better off going into something like business or law, where you can have a relatively structured work schedule and still make tons of money. I want to become a doctor because growing up around that sort of thing has made me interested in it and I enjoy helping people that need help.
Edit: The debt that doctors rack up is from the costs of college and medical school. Even coming from an upper-middle class family where money was saved starting at my birth for my college education, I know that I'm going to have to pay for medical school myself.
I believe the average is close to around $200k for graduating doctors, followed by a few years as a resident making next to nothing while still working 110+ hours a week, it is a while before that debt can even begun to be paid off.
On June 22 2011 23:09 kef wrote: Coming from a family of doctors and seeking to become one myself, I wish to clear something up. In the US, though doctors make a lot of money, they don't do it for the money. Between the amount of time (~11 years minimum) it takes to become a doctor (4 years for college, 4 years for med school, 3-4 years residency, and that's not including a fellowship which you need in order to specialize), the rigorous schooling, the costs of college and medical school, bad hours, and the fact that you still have to go to seminars and training every year to keep up, all the people who are doing it "for the money" get weeded out. If you really want to make money you'd be far far better off going into something like business or law, where you can have a relatively structured work schedule and still make tons of money. I want to become a doctor because growing up around that sort of thing has made me interested in it and I enjoy helping people that need help.
Edit: The debt that doctors rack up is from the costs of college and medical school. Even coming from an upper-middle class family where money was saved starting at my birth for my college education, I know that I'm going to have to pay for medical school myself.
I got it later that the debt is probably because of cost of education in US, well concerning Polish, Czech, ... doctors moving west for money, they got their education basically for free.
Wow.. I guess the only people defending US healthcare are those who can afford to pay for it. You try living without one and end up with some illness and risk to lose everything when you need to see a doctor.
I've read stories about people having to sell their homes because they where in a car accident and needed further treatment. Same story goes for the poor fellas with cancer. The most amusing fact is that the US in general tend to preach about freedom and equal living conditions for the people everywhere, I guess US is an exception of that.
Even the wounded civilians in Afghanistan gets free medical care by US doctors. I really don't see how anyone can support this with a clean conscience.
EDIT: Doctors should make tons of money, because when we need it, our life depends on it. However, that shouldn't be on the patients shoulders, in my opinion the government should pay instead of spending a fuckton on warfare.
On June 22 2011 23:37 MERLIN. wrote: Glad so many people can see the flaws eith the states, I wonder how many Americans do though, I believe this is the biggest problem. They just don't.
No, they are busy fighting for human rights everywhere else but at home.
On June 22 2011 22:39 Harrow wrote: This doesn't work quite so well in an economy where >10% of the population is looking for full-time work with benefits but is stuck with temp work, part time work or nothing. The US isn't big on labor rights, the employers hold most of the power, especially in the current economic climate.
It's also restrictive on the economy. Traditional career paths are the main source of security via health insurance. For people whose strengths lie in non-traditional work like freelancing, the system is archaic. It also punishes people for making career switches - even jobs that do provide affordable insurance typically have a 3-6 month probation period, so if you have an accident or major health issue during that time, tough shit. Maybe you should've stayed at your old job, working to half your potential.
Thanks, this is exactly the basic thought-work behind how having a social safety net you increase the productivity of the population.
On June 22 2011 23:22 Svartstol wrote: Wow.. I guess the only people defending US healthcare are those who can afford to pay for it. You try living without one and end up with some illness and risk to lose everything when you need to see a doctor.
I've read stories about people having to sell their homes because they where in a car accident and needed further treatment. Same story goes for the poor fellas with cancer. The most amusing fact is that the US in general tend to preach about freedom and equal living conditions for the people everywhere, I guess US is an exception of that.
Even the wounded civilians in Afghanistan gets free medical care by US doctors. I really don't see how anyone can support this with a clean conscience.
EDIT: Doctors should make tons of money, because when we need it, our life depends on it. However, that shouldn't be on the patients shoulders, in my opinion the government should pay instead of spending a fuckton on warfare.
People are selfish. They think because they did some work, and followed the path laid out for them, that anyone can have what they have, and anyone who has no money is stupid/lazy.
I've read before that many people against better social care in exchange for higher taxes, would actually save money, but are against it because it has been drilled into them that the American dream is true and that any socialism is bad. Even if they do lose out I can't believe that other people can be so opposed to earning a bit less money, in exchange from improving the lives of others. The world would be a better place if more people looked at their overall picture, instead of their own life.
On June 22 2011 23:51 RiceMuncher wrote: American politics was always hypocritical. To me, it never made any sense.
I mean. Obama should not be president because of some STUPID BIRTH CERTIFICATE? LOl
Following the constitution is not stupid... I actually wish my Colombia did that but we have tons of people over there who simply ignore it and the sad part is that no one does anything to stop them or to protect the constitution. So I love the US because of that.
Anyway, stop going off topic and actually contribute to the thread.
It is sad that this guy had to do this, but it is the true reality of our health care system where you are refused care for having a condition which requires care.... I am so glad that in a few years it will be against the law to refuse health care to anyone here.
On June 22 2011 09:33 Medrea wrote: Lol what a dolt. Prison healthcare is terrible and they hit up your estate for it when you die.
Other people in thread saying there countries healthcare is free do not pay taxes I know it is stylish in many countries to leach off the system and not pay taxes. In China it is grounds for execution. In the US they hit up your estate for it after you die. But US pays there taxes nonetheless.
This dumbass is dreaming if he thinks he is gonna get a coast property on a fixed income.
So why is government healthcare such a rip off? Same people who eat grease off the carpet pay the same rates as young people who do not even need healthcare. Just because a cost is labeled "taxes" doesnt mean its free.
Do people in other countries really think there healthcare comes out of the goodness of the medical communities hearts?
nah people in other countries think it's "fair" to let everyone pay taxes, instead of just one human beeing paying a shitload of money because he got unlucky in some kind of accident he could not have affected and therefore having debts for the rest of his (ruined) life.
See I hear this argument a lot but it's not really realistic either. How many people get randomly unlucky? vs how many people choose to believe that they are unlucky?
Most medical issues are not random, and are generally a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors. All of these are predictable. People should educate themselves and assess their own risk.
That's exactly my point. There's an EXTREMLY low amount of people who get unlucky, like REALY EXTREMLY low. But those are fucked for the rest of their lifes for no other reason than beeing unlucky. I'm not talking about a cough or something like that. We got to pay 10€ everytime we go to a doctor in germany. Noone cares about that. But one might care about some serious problems, that are that rare and more importantly costly, that a single person might not be able to pay for it.
I don't know what the numbers for stuff like cancer or genetic illnesses are (really don't know what it's called in english sry, guess it's clear what I'm talking about?). Let's say one out a thousand gets cancer or something like that, just for the purpose of numbers. Do you think it's fair that the guy has to pay for the treatment himself (aprox: shittons of money) and 999 people who got lucky, because they don't have cancer don't have to pay? not even a single cent? If you think that's fair I'm glad I'm not living in the us.
Of course there's things like alcoholics who got an increased chance to need a new liver someday and therefore you could probably say it's their own fault but still, as long as we're able to help I think we should do, no matter what.
Yes. I think that it is entirely fair that people should take care of their own personal problems. I would not think it is fair if my neighbor gets a flat tire because he was driving over glass and I have to buy him a new tire.
Do you think it is fair to force other people to pay for the problems of others? Heres a thought, give away your money to all your co-workers. I'm sure they have problems that you do not have. It's not fair that you have money to spend while they have important issues and bills to take care of.
Are you just comparing not having a working car with dying ? You not having a working car does not pose really any moral problem for the society. Society letting you die unnecessarily because you have no money on the other hand is a moral dilemma for normal humans. And yes I think sometimes it is fair to force other people to pay for the problems of others. Depends on the details, as always.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance
And if you decide that you do not want to pay insurance the men with guns kick in your door and take it from you. Awesome huh? And you are paying for others health care as long as you are not sick.
I have nothing against law enforcement. So yes, awesome. Did you actually read what I wrote ? Yes you are paying for the healthcare of others as far as having insurance is paying healthcare for others. The mandatory nature of that insurance does not change that fact. In private insurance case if you are healthy and paying insurance, you are also paying healthcare for others. As for the rest, I have no problem with mandatory health insurance, I find it a good thing, you do not. There are many advantages, and the only disadvantage is loss of so-called "freedom" not to pay. I do not consider it important freedom to begin with so I do not care.
EDIT:typo
Actually, yes. The principal of the issue is the same. There is no "moral" problem for society to deal with. Besides, why are we legislating morality? Should we also require everybody take bible classes and outlaw abortion and teach creationism in school? If you think it fair to force others to pay for the problems of others, where do you draw the line? How do you decide? Or is it only okay to make people pay for others when you are making people richer then you pay for yourself?
Paying for insurance is paying for healthcare for others. Sometimes people don't want or need it. Yes, did you read what I wrote? In real life, people can decide they do not need or want insurance. It's pathetic how people want the government to hand everything to them so they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Everybody would give up all the freedom they had if it only meant they did not have to work. There are really no advantages to a mandatory health insurance plan. None.
On June 22 2011 15:58 recklessfire wrote: dude just calling the ambulance in the US costs around 5,000 dollars,what a joke. My friend's mom broke her arm and after calling 911 they got slapped with a 5,000 dollar bill. America's healthcare system is pretty broken atm.
You know why that is? Because you are also paying for the people that use the service and can't pay for it.
"well why not make everybody pay for it?! thats more fair then me needing to pay for other people!"
Obviously because you used the service and I didn't. It would be more fair if everybody who needed the service paid for it and so you didn't have to make up the cost right? It's most fair when people who use the service pay for it, and people who do not use the service do not pay for it.
Why can't we just do that instead? It's like that for EVERY. OTHER. thing in the world.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
So, why doesn't every citizen in your country get free food? What if people starve? What about housing? Do you provide free housing?
I'm not claiming America is the greatest country in the world, but your logic astounds me. So where exactly is the line you draw between how much 'we should pay for those less fortunate?' Because no matter what you think it is, it's rather arbitrary and definitely subjective.
So how about you save your judgmental attitude? What if someone said you were a selfish, self-centered person because you don't volunteer 20 hours a week at the homeless shelter, or donate all of your savings to charity?
We have solutions (and problems) for things like this but its a mute point in the scheme of things as we don't suffer the unemploymnet that plagues the US, the extra stuff you added is also off topic. A lack of food leads to health problems,cause and effect, here we are talking about the effect not the cause.
All that other stuff you disregard as off topic is actually quite on topic. Same principal. Same exact principal. Same exact logic. Of course, people like to handwave it off when confronted on it because it isn't convenient to them. Typical.
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: *It's pathetic how people want the government to hand everything to them so they don't have to be responsible for themselves. **Everybody would give up all the freedom they had if it only meant they did not have to work. ***There are really no advantages to a mandatory health insurance plan. None.
Point-by-point *Actually, people mostly don't want to have to figure out everything for themselves. These people want a paternalistic government to make decisions for them. It's somewhat understandable and I wouldn't call it pathetic.
**They don't want to make uncomfortable choices or face uncomfortable realities. They can blame the "paternalistic" government when the economic realities fail.
***There is some benefit to mandatory health insurance in smaller more uniform risk populations. 300 million people of the US is a bit too large. Different prices for men and women would also help.
On June 23 2011 00:20 Ghad wrote: Newsflash: Healthcare isn't like every other thing in the world.
Empty assertion???
It'd be more of a newsflash if you could substantiate, quantify, and qualify how it's different from every other thing in the world.
On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote: You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?
Nothing against you really, it just amazes and somewhat amuses me that nothing is done about the situation while the general opinion seems to be that it must be changed, and my comment on the politics is correct in my opinion, Obama had huge troubles getting the recent changes through the senate did he not?
i have no idea.. i don't really know much about politics unless it involves me... i pay $48/month for 100% coverage with a $10 copay for anything (dental, medical, vision) and i am happy with that...
Are you a student or something ? Otherwise I highly doubt 48/month is 100% coverage(what do you mean by that anyway), what is your cap, in general wtf ? Average premiums for employer-provided insurance seems to be around 4000 annually. And I highly doubt even those are without caps and a lot of small print. With 48/month it would be actually as cheap as minimum wage workers pay here for insurance, and our spending per capita is 4-5 times lower than US.
nope, full time employee for time warner cable - 48/month is 100% coverage as long as i go to preferred providers for blue cross/blue shield (which are everywhere) - there isn't a cap, and $10 copay for almost everything
DAVID BROOKS had an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday that proclaimed the near impossibility of restraining costs in health care through centralised government efficiency evaluations, which is being justly ridiculed by people (Jon Chait, Jonathan Cohn, Ezra Klein) who note that every single one of the world's centralised government-regulated health-care systems is far cheaper than America's relatively decentralised private-sector one. Mr Brooks has surely had this explained to him a thousand times by now, and his failure to process the fact or incorporate it into his worldview seems to me most likely to reflect an absence of the ideological furniture on which the fact could sit. Mr Brooks doesn't seem to have an instinctive understanding of how it can be possible for unregulated free-market health-care systems to cost more and deliver inferior care than strongly regulated systems with heavy government involvement, and that's why, while he occasionally must have to acknowledge the existence of the French health-care system, he can't seem to retain it.
Here's one example among a million. The other day I went to the IPO announcement of a company that does some fairly state-of-the-art medical stuff. The company was spun off from a public institute a few years back to exploit this technology, but it's been unable to establish significant revenue or market share, or to get within shouting distance of breaking even. Meanwhile, competitors with similar technologies have gobbled up most of the market share, and one is already quite profitable. The company said it planned to raise some tens of millions of dollars with the share issue, many times its current annual expenditures and about a third of its overall market cap. And what would it do with this money? It was going to use half of it to finance a marketing drive, targeting key decisionmakers at American health-care providers and health insurers, and doctors.
Why hadn't this company been able to generate significant revenues? Were its technologies inferior? No, said an independent molecular biologist I talked to. Its product was certainly as good as the competition's. Moreover, it had actually gone to the trouble of getting its technology approved by the FDA, which the competition hadn't. (In this sub-sector FDA approval isn't yet mandatory.) But it hadn't marketed itself well. It hadn't established the relationships with providers and insurers that would ensure that its product was the one they selected. Doing so would require a marketing budget of tens of millions of dollars, in a sub-sector where the entire annual market is a few hundred million dollars.
Just think about this for a minute. A medical technology company is going public to generate the money it needs to advertise its products to hospital directors and insurance-company reimbursement officers. This entails significant extra expenditures for marketing, the new stocks issued to fund the marketing will ultimately have to pay dividends, banks will have to be paid to supervise the IPO that was needed to generate the funds to finance the marketing campaign (presumably charging the industry-cartel standard 7%)...and all this will have to be paid for by driving up the price the company charges to deliver its technologies. But beyond the added expense, why would anyone think that a system in which marketing plays such a large role is likely to be more effective, to lead to better treatment, than the kind of process of expert review that governs grant awards at NIH or publishing decisions at peer-reviewed journals? Why do we think that a system in which ads for Claritin are all over the subways will generate better overall health results than one where a national review board determines whether Claritin delivers treatment outcomes for some populations sufficiently superior to justify its added expense over similar generics? What do we expect from a system in which, as ProPublica reports today, body imaging companies hire telemarketers to sell random people CT scans over the phone?
Matthew Yglesias takes the right tack by comparing the medical industry to the shoe industry, where we all agree that the private sector produces far better shoes at far lower cost than could be produced by a state-owned manufacturer. I think the analogy is also helpful when we add in the dimension of marketing. Beyond a certain point, you can't explain the value of a great pair of shoes in any rational fashion. The reason a pair of Air Jordans was vastly superior to a pair of nondescript Soviet sneakers in 1989 was only partly that they were more durable, or had better support and traction. Most of the added value wasn't there. It was in the interplay of marketing and fashion. The satisfaction customers derive from marketing and fashion is absolutely real; in the case of shoes, it's practically the whole point. But in the case of medicine, it usually shouldn't have any place in decisionmaking. We shouldn't be aiming to make Americans happy by marketing medically useless knee surgery to them and then letting them walk down the street feeling all fine and dandy with snazzy new knees that aren't actually any better than the old ones. Not in the publically insured sector, anyway. Medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery is fine, but not on the taxpayer's dime.
The other key thing to pay attention to is who this marketing campaign was targeted at: key decisionmakers at providers and insurance companies. Those are the people who decide whether medical procedures get ordered. It's not patients. Patients aren't going to experience a loss of freedom or satisfaction because an expert reviewer at the Independant Payment Advisory Board makes the call as to whether a procedure is medically beneficial, rather than the corresponding bureaucrat at their insurance provider or at the for-profit clinic they're attending. Health care is different from buying shoes. Which is why it wouldn't be at all surprising if a board of 15 experts could play a major role in reducing expenses and improving care outcomes in the American medical industry. That's what corresponding boards of experts in France, Germany, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and so on do, which is why their health-care systems cost half what ours does, cover everyone in their countries, and generally provide better care.
On June 22 2011 21:17 mcc wrote: Are you a student or something ? Otherwise I highly doubt 48/month is 100% coverage(what do you mean by that anyway), what is your cap, in general wtf ? Average premiums for employer-provided insurance seems to be around 4000 annually. And I highly doubt even those are without caps and a lot of small print. With 48/month it would be actually as cheap as minimum wage workers pay here for insurance, and our spending per capita is 4-5 times lower than US.
nope, full time employee for time warner cable - 48/month is 100% coverage as long as i go to preferred providers for blue cross/blue shield (which are everywhere) - there isn't a cap, and $10 copay for almost everything
Single, right? Age doesn't matter since you're probably pool in some risk group along with fellow employees. 48/month is after 80% employer coverage, right? Full premium price would then be 240 per month?
As for per capital spending, they're meaningless unless prices are mainly market driven. If you have any market manipulation or subsidization, the raw numbers are beyond distorted.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
Well yeah, everywhere else provides proper health care
well if that was ironic i have to say you that the most countrys DOES there was even some demo with sending some us guys to KUBA cause kuba does this healthcare which us didnt xD and if kuba have better health system then usa i would start thinking
On June 22 2011 09:33 Medrea wrote: Lol what a dolt. Prison healthcare is terrible and they hit up your estate for it when you die.
Other people in thread saying there countries healthcare is free do not pay taxes I know it is stylish in many countries to leach off the system and not pay taxes. In China it is grounds for execution. In the US they hit up your estate for it after you die. But US pays there taxes nonetheless.
This dumbass is dreaming if he thinks he is gonna get a coast property on a fixed income.
So why is government healthcare such a rip off? Same people who eat grease off the carpet pay the same rates as young people who do not even need healthcare. Just because a cost is labeled "taxes" doesnt mean its free.
Do people in other countries really think there healthcare comes out of the goodness of the medical communities hearts?
nah people in other countries think it's "fair" to let everyone pay taxes, instead of just one human beeing paying a shitload of money because he got unlucky in some kind of accident he could not have affected and therefore having debts for the rest of his (ruined) life.
See I hear this argument a lot but it's not really realistic either. How many people get randomly unlucky? vs how many people choose to believe that they are unlucky?
Most medical issues are not random, and are generally a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors. All of these are predictable. People should educate themselves and assess their own risk.
That's exactly my point. There's an EXTREMLY low amount of people who get unlucky, like REALY EXTREMLY low. But those are fucked for the rest of their lifes for no other reason than beeing unlucky. I'm not talking about a cough or something like that. We got to pay 10€ everytime we go to a doctor in germany. Noone cares about that. But one might care about some serious problems, that are that rare and more importantly costly, that a single person might not be able to pay for it.
I don't know what the numbers for stuff like cancer or genetic illnesses are (really don't know what it's called in english sry, guess it's clear what I'm talking about?). Let's say one out a thousand gets cancer or something like that, just for the purpose of numbers. Do you think it's fair that the guy has to pay for the treatment himself (aprox: shittons of money) and 999 people who got lucky, because they don't have cancer don't have to pay? not even a single cent? If you think that's fair I'm glad I'm not living in the us.
Of course there's things like alcoholics who got an increased chance to need a new liver someday and therefore you could probably say it's their own fault but still, as long as we're able to help I think we should do, no matter what.
Yes. I think that it is entirely fair that people should take care of their own personal problems. I would not think it is fair if my neighbor gets a flat tire because he was driving over glass and I have to buy him a new tire.
Do you think it is fair to force other people to pay for the problems of others? Heres a thought, give away your money to all your co-workers. I'm sure they have problems that you do not have. It's not fair that you have money to spend while they have important issues and bills to take care of.
Are you just comparing not having a working car with dying ? You not having a working car does not pose really any moral problem for the society. Society letting you die unnecessarily because you have no money on the other hand is a moral dilemma for normal humans. And yes I think sometimes it is fair to force other people to pay for the problems of others. Depends on the details, as always.
On June 22 2011 14:58 dogabutila wrote:
On June 22 2011 13:05 mcc wrote:
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
Well in well designed public healthcare system you are not paying for other people's health care anymore than you do when you pay insurance to your insurance company. You are basically paying insurance, the difference is you cannot choose different provider and you are forced to insure yourself. And of course the amount you pay is calculated kind of strangely for an insurance
And if you decide that you do not want to pay insurance the men with guns kick in your door and take it from you. Awesome huh? And you are paying for others health care as long as you are not sick.
I have nothing against law enforcement. So yes, awesome. Did you actually read what I wrote ? Yes you are paying for the healthcare of others as far as having insurance is paying healthcare for others. The mandatory nature of that insurance does not change that fact. In private insurance case if you are healthy and paying insurance, you are also paying healthcare for others. As for the rest, I have no problem with mandatory health insurance, I find it a good thing, you do not. There are many advantages, and the only disadvantage is loss of so-called "freedom" not to pay. I do not consider it important freedom to begin with so I do not care.
EDIT:typo
Actually, yes. The principal of the issue is the same. There is no "moral" problem for society to deal with. Besides, why are we legislating morality? Should we also require everybody take bible classes and outlaw abortion and teach creationism in school? If you think it fair to force others to pay for the problems of others, where do you draw the line? How do you decide? Or is it only okay to make people pay for others when you are making people richer then you pay for yourself?
Paying for insurance is paying for healthcare for others. Sometimes people don't want or need it. Yes, did you read what I wrote? In real life, people can decide they do not need or want insurance. It's pathetic how people want the government to hand everything to them so they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Everybody would give up all the freedom they had if it only meant they did not have to work. There are really no advantages to a mandatory health insurance plan. None.
Do not confuse real moral(ethical) problems with mostly imaginary problems of religious people. And all reasonable laws legislate morality at least to some degree, otherwise they are pointless. And you draw the line in such a way as to maximize benefit to society. It is too general, yes, but specific answer depends on the issue in question and even then it is very hard to determine.
You will probably have at least one of the following replies to the above: 1) Who am I (or anyone) to decide what is of biggest benefit to society ? Well that is the crux of the matter as it comes down to morality/ethical systems we use. There is probably no point discussing that with you as we will not agree on the common basis to be able to discuss it. Another way to answer it would be to point out that I am just saying that I have no problem with forcing people for a good reason, but I am not doing the forcing and I am not doing the deciding where to draw the line and what is a good reason. Both are in fact societal processes that are in the long run not really driven by anyone in particular unfortunately, because as such they are not really maximizing benefit to society. From historical perspective they are just increasing that benefit for most of the time very slightly in the long term.
2) You might also oppose on the basis of rights. But again I consider rights just approximations of deeper principles for everyday use. Kind of quick way to determine right and wrong if time is short. And again we probably cannot agree on any basis for further discussion.
But maybe I am wrong, and we can agree on some basis for the discussion of those ethical topics.
As for the rest there is a lot of advantages to mandatory public healthcare. Economies of scale, not dealing with problems like what to do with uninsured person dying of curable causes. Do we let him die, or help him at our expense. Moral response is to help him, but then people would start to misuse that, so we just make insurance mandatory. Other advantages are related to productivity and benefits of people feeling and being save from crushing disasters. And yes people always have and always will sacrifice freedom for safety. And there is nothing wrong with that if that trade is not an illusion.
On June 23 2011 00:46 Kevan wrote: This is another reason why I wouldn't ever want to live in the US. What could be more important than healthcare for those who need it?
Our healthcare bill that was passed a few years back will do a tremendous job of helping a situation like this, but the problem is that it doesn't take effect until 2014. So unfortunately this kind of thing will happen in the meantime.
On June 23 2011 00:46 Kevan wrote: This is another reason why I wouldn't ever want to live in the US. What could be more important than healthcare for those who need it?
Overwhelming red tape or lawsuits for doctors willing to help the needy apparently...
State governments have nearly made it impossibly expensive or risky for doctors to give out health care for free.
On June 22 2011 15:58 recklessfire wrote: dude just calling the ambulance in the US costs around 5,000 dollars,what a joke. My friend's mom broke her arm and after calling 911 they got slapped with a 5,000 dollar bill. America's healthcare system is pretty broken atm.
You know why that is? Because you are also paying for the people that use the service and can't pay for it.
"well why not make everybody pay for it?! thats more fair then me needing to pay for other people!"
Obviously because you used the service and I didn't. It would be more fair if everybody who needed the service paid for it and so you didn't have to make up the cost right? It's most fair when people who use the service pay for it, and people who do not use the service do not pay for it.
Why can't we just do that instead? It's like that for EVERY. OTHER. thing in the world.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
So, why doesn't every citizen in your country get free food? What if people starve? What about housing? Do you provide free housing?
I'm not claiming America is the greatest country in the world, but your logic astounds me. So where exactly is the line you draw between how much 'we should pay for those less fortunate?' Because no matter what you think it is, it's rather arbitrary and definitely subjective.
So how about you save your judgmental attitude? What if someone said you were a selfish, self-centered person because you don't volunteer 20 hours a week at the homeless shelter, or donate all of your savings to charity?
We have solutions (and problems) for things like this but its a mute point in the scheme of things as we don't suffer the unemploymnet that plagues the US, the extra stuff you added is also off topic. A lack of food leads to health problems,cause and effect, here we are talking about the effect not the cause.
All that other stuff you disregard as off topic is actually quite on topic. Same principal. Same exact principal. Same exact logic. Of course, people like to handwave it off when confronted on it because it isn't convenient to them. Typical.
Bolded = BUUULL. SHIT.
Police. Fire service. Education. Armed forces. The whole fucking public sector.
How about next time something is stolen from you, you pay for the police to investigate it? Why should other people pay for a service they are not using?
How about if your house is on fire, unless you have insurance you don't get a fire service? How about everyone funds their own kids education?
Is this ultra-capitalist society you seem to think you live in nice? Because it sounds fucking horrific to me.
...seriously if you didn't realise that there are plenty of services that are publicly funded, where the fuck did you think your taxes were going?
On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote: You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?
Nothing against you really, it just amazes and somewhat amuses me that nothing is done about the situation while the general opinion seems to be that it must be changed, and my comment on the politics is correct in my opinion, Obama had huge troubles getting the recent changes through the senate did he not?
i have no idea.. i don't really know much about politics unless it involves me... i pay $48/month for 100% coverage with a $10 copay for anything (dental, medical, vision) and i am happy with that...
Are you a student or something ? Otherwise I highly doubt 48/month is 100% coverage(what do you mean by that anyway), what is your cap, in general wtf ? Average premiums for employer-provided insurance seems to be around 4000 annually. And I highly doubt even those are without caps and a lot of small print. With 48/month it would be actually as cheap as minimum wage workers pay here for insurance, and our spending per capita is 4-5 times lower than US.
nope, full time employee for time warner cable - 48/month is 100% coverage as long as i go to preferred providers for blue cross/blue shield (which are everywhere) - there isn't a cap, and $10 copay for almost everything
Even considering the correction by TanGeng it still seems you have rather exceptionally good plan. Good for you, bad for those who don't.
On June 23 2011 00:54 The KY wrote: Bolded = BUUULL. SHIT.
Police. Fire service. Education. Armed forces. The whole fucking public sector.
How about next time something is stolen from you, you pay for the police to investigate it? Why should other people pay for a service they are not using?
How about if your house is on fire, unless you have insurance you don't get a fire service? How about everyone funds their own kids education?
As for paying the police to investigate stolen property, you might as well. Currently all the police does is file a police report. Then they do NOTHING. Seriously.
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.
Universal 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. Torts themselves represent about 2% of healthcare spending.
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.
Tort reform would save more then that. While the actual costs of lawsuits and such only equate directly to 2% of healthcare costs the insurance costs for doctors also get jacked up higher because of them. They pass these costs down you know. All around cheaper end use is better in every way.
No it would not. It is not some sort of magic bullet or even a highly effective cost reduction method. I posted a CBO analyses of costs and you just go "no." You have no basis for your claim. That 2% of costs includes insurance that doctors have because of torts and the .2% savings also includes effects of reducing malpractice insurance.
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: Actually, yes. The principal of the issue is the same. There is no "moral" problem for society to deal with. Besides, why are we legislating morality? Should we also require everybody take bible classes and outlaw abortion and teach creationism in school? If you think it fair to force others to pay for the problems of others, where do you draw the line?How do you decide? Or is it only okay to make people pay for others when you are making people richer then you pay for yourself?
where do you draw the line? are you for real? "how is it fair to force paying for problems of other?" it's fair in a sense that YOU can be that "other". you don't pay for other, you pay for yourself, your family, friends, loved ones. and when worse comes to worse, because all paid some amount, YOU or someone YOURS gets the help without financial breakdown later on.
is this really such a hard concept for people in the states (the ones living the famous dream at least) to understand? helping someone other than yourself is not the worst thing in the world, if that someone can be you.
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: Paying for insurance is paying for healthcare for others. Sometimes people don't want or need it. Yes, did you read what I wrote? In real life, people can decide they do not need or want insurance. It's pathetic how people want the government to hand everything to them so they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Everybody would give up all the freedom they had if it only meant they did not have to work. There are really no advantages to a mandatory health insurance plan. None.
no. its not paying for others, if everyone did it. its also not true that u dont need it if u work. some people work and still can get into situations where they are helpless. are u even human? how on earth can u deny a person right to get medical care no matter how much he possibly fucked up in life. its not your problem? jesus fucking christ, how do you people sleep at night?
edit: i just saw that it was you who wrote this (i even referenced it in my post on previous page)
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: Yes. I think that it is entirely fair that people should take care of their own personal problems. I would not think it is fair if my neighbor gets a flat tire because he was driving over glass and I have to buy him a new tire.
so not wanting to pay for other person flat tire = letting human life end. i hope you get banned because you are a horrible, horrible person. worst thing is, you probably have rich parents or at least comfortable background, that gives you confidence to make such unethical claims. shame that people like you make americans look bad.
On June 23 2011 00:46 Kevan wrote: This is another reason why I wouldn't ever want to live in the US. What could be more important than healthcare for those who need it?
i think this is the fundamental concept that many americans fail to grasp. it's a society where the capitalistic "you want it you earn it" mantra goes so deep into mentality of the people, that they cant accept anything being "given out" for "free", even if its human life they are talking about.
On June 23 2011 00:54 The KY wrote: Bolded = BUUULL. SHIT.
Police. Fire service. Education. Armed forces. The whole fucking public sector.
How about next time something is stolen from you, you pay for the police to investigate it? Why should other people pay for a service they are not using?
How about if your house is on fire, unless you have insurance you don't get a fire service? How about everyone funds their own kids education?
As for paying the police to investigate stolen property, you might as well. Currently all the police does is file a police report. Then they do NOTHING. Seriously.
Right since your post contained no information other than "private fire fighters used to exist and they do now on a micro scale to specifically protect rich peoples homes from wildfires" I will give some historical context for private fire fighters.
Now imagine a house was burning down but had no insurance. The fire fighters would show up and wait for the house next to it to catch on fire, unless of course it also had no insurance, then no one shows up and whatever is on fire burns to the ground.
Or if they were just private fire fighters they would go to the house and whoever got there first would put it out and get paid. Yay! this seems like a better system, doesn't it? Well if two companies got there at the same time, things would often devolve into a brawl, while the house still burned! Public firefighters are far more effective t han private schemes ever were.
At times like these I'm so glad that Norway has free healthcare available to all. It might not be the most effective in the world, but at least people usually get the help they need.
but maybe the problem with our healthcare is that people who can pay use up most of the resources in healthcare. The problem is not that we have a lack of physicians in healthcare, just whatever we have is going to be used up mostly by people of higher influence. The reason why doctors in the past were so well off was because the rich had them in their payroll. The doctors have less time to check out cost-efficient medicine, when most of their time is spent studying how to the most perfect cure of a disease for the rich, who don't care about cost-effectiveness.
I have to give this guy some credit, it’s a genius move. There's no better way to get mainstream media attention and public sympathy than to martyr yourself for some leftist cause.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
True. And hey, while we're at it, why should you pay for someone else's kids to go to school? And why the FUCK are you paying for the fire service to save other people's lives? I mean, it's not like it's your life. And on top of that you're paying for those lazy unemployed bastards to not starve to death. I walked past a library earlier. I looked inside, that shit was FULL OF BIG ASS BOOKS. All out of your bank account. Did they even ask you?
Actually now I think about there's a whole shitload of things that YOU, yes you specifically you, are paying for, for other people. Those selfish cunts. You should kick off. Why can't they all just pay for it themselves? Why do we even have a government? This is bullshit.
yeah seriously, not sure why the rest of these people are bums and cant get good jobs. i pay for my school, so should everyone else.
On June 23 2011 00:46 Kevan wrote: This is another reason why I wouldn't ever want to live in the US. What could be more important than healthcare for those who need it?
i think this is the fundamental concept that many americans fail to grasp. it's a society where the capitalistic "you want it you earn it" mantra goes so deep into mentality of the people, that they cant accept anything being "given out" for "free", even if its human life they are talking about.
and we are talking about human life.
how the fuck do you put a price tag on that?
Oh, yes, that probably explains why it's impossible to reform Medicare. Because Americans hate giving out healthcare for free.
On June 22 2011 21:17 mcc wrote: Are you a student or something ? Otherwise I highly doubt 48/month is 100% coverage(what do you mean by that anyway), what is your cap, in general wtf ? Average premiums for employer-provided insurance seems to be around 4000 annually. And I highly doubt even those are without caps and a lot of small print. With 48/month it would be actually as cheap as minimum wage workers pay here for insurance, and our spending per capita is 4-5 times lower than US.
nope, full time employee for time warner cable - 48/month is 100% coverage as long as i go to preferred providers for blue cross/blue shield (which are everywhere) - there isn't a cap, and $10 copay for almost everything
Single, right? Age doesn't matter since you're probably pool in some risk group along with fellow employees. 48/month is after 80% employer coverage, right? Full premium price would then be 240 per month?
As for per capital spending, they're meaningless unless prices are mainly market driven. If you have any market manipulation or subsidization, the raw numbers are beyond distorted.
unmarried, if i were married with my girlfriend it'd be $60/month for the both of us
i don't know what amount the employer covers - it doesn't matter much to me, i get my insurance and that's all i need to know
On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote: You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay? Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets.
you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?
Nothing against you really, it just amazes and somewhat amuses me that nothing is done about the situation while the general opinion seems to be that it must be changed, and my comment on the politics is correct in my opinion, Obama had huge troubles getting the recent changes through the senate did he not?
i have no idea.. i don't really know much about politics unless it involves me... i pay $48/month for 100% coverage with a $10 copay for anything (dental, medical, vision) and i am happy with that...
Are you a student or something ? Otherwise I highly doubt 48/month is 100% coverage(what do you mean by that anyway), what is your cap, in general wtf ? Average premiums for employer-provided insurance seems to be around 4000 annually. And I highly doubt even those are without caps and a lot of small print. With 48/month it would be actually as cheap as minimum wage workers pay here for insurance, and our spending per capita is 4-5 times lower than US.
nope, full time employee for time warner cable - 48/month is 100% coverage as long as i go to preferred providers for blue cross/blue shield (which are everywhere) - there isn't a cap, and $10 copay for almost everything
Even considering the correction by TanGeng it still seems you have rather exceptionally good plan. Good for you, bad for those who don't.
those who don't should go for jobs with at least decent healthcare - one might say that that's a good idea until those positions are filled, but i feel it's an irrelevant point to say that because jobs are open in large part due to people not working (such as the man the OP is about) and any further solution, unless involving handing things out for free, would likely also not be put to use by the people who should be using it
Fire service always existed in one way or another. It's a matter of circumstances. In the rural villages, you could count on your neighbor to help you in times of fire. When a firebell rang, everyone got up and helped each other. There was no such thing as fire insurance.
On June 23 2011 01:12 TheFrankOne wrote: Right since your post contained no information other than "private fire fighters used to exist and they do now on a micro scale to specifically protect rich peoples homes from wildfires" I will give some historical context for private fire fighters.
Now imagine a house was burning down but had no insurance. The fire fighters would show up and wait for the house next to it to catch on fire, unless of course it also had no insurance, then no one shows up and whatever is on fire burns to the ground.
It's also contradicted by history when London firefighters protected every house, whether or not they paid, because of the propensity of fires to spread. The private fire service in cities isn't one of watching a house burn down, but rather a free-rider problem of people not buying fire insurance. In cities it makes sense to cover neighborhood by neighborhood because of the densities.
In rural areas, private fire companies could generate a great measure of goodwill by fighting the fires of non-insured houses near insured houses when they aren't needed elsewhere. That goodwill is valuable to private companies - unlike that public fire house that watched the house burn down to make an example of the owner.
On June 23 2011 01:12 TheFrankOne wrote: Well if two companies got there at the same time, things would often devolve into a brawl, while the house still burned!
So the fire teams fight and the owner doesn't pay either team. Seems like an impossible stupid scenario. Sounds completely made up. Or an arrangement that everyone would abandon after the first mishap. Is that a wide spread problem??? IRL example please?
The point of bringing up private fire fighting services is to contradict the total lack of imagination by people who can't conceive of a proper way police, firefighting, education, and other services might be provided entirely privately.
Whether or not it's better depends on the circumstances. When you have public officials refusing to provide firefighting service, you just might want to consider private solutions. It's the same situation as when the public health care system refuses to foot the bill for treatment and drugs.
Leaving fires to burn is simply massively wasteful. The cost of putting out fires is always going to be less than the cost of replacing what is burned in the fire. If some guy doesn't pay his fire insurance and his house burns down then you've saved a few bucks in tax money because you didn't have to pay to put it out but he's lost hundreds of thousands in property and possessions. Destruction is wasteful. The guy who is going to take the biggest hit is the guy who is now homeless obviously but society as a whole will have gotten poorer, resources which could have been spent charitably or invested or even put back into the economy by buying shit will now be tied up replacing an entirely preventable loss. One of the issues with capitalism dealing with these issues is that not everyone makes completely optimal decisions, a lot of people assume things won't happen to them or they get fucked by insurers/employers etc. However these people are still a part of society, just because you may make better decisions does not mean you are disconnected from the results of theirs. Long term, everyone wins if less shit is destroyed in fires and private coverage would be tied to the threat of letting things burn.
By the way, why do people say you can't put a price on life? Every day we put a price on life. When I drive into work to make money, there is a higher chance that I will die from a car accident than if I had just stayed at home.
so not wanting to pay for other person flat tire = letting human life end. i hope you get banned because you are a horrible, horrible person. worst thing is, you probably have rich parents or at least comfortable background, that gives you confidence to make such unethical claims. shame that people like you make americans look bad.
The worst thing is, you really think that since you believe your opinion to be correct, people should be banned (in other words, shut up, no speech for you) just for disagreeing.
Who is really the unethical person here?
i think this is the fundamental concept that many americans fail to grasp. it's a society where the capitalistic "you want it you earn it" mantra goes so deep into mentality of the people, that they cant accept anything being "given out" for "free", even if its human life they are talking about.
and we are talking about human life.
how the fuck do you put a price tag on that?
I think this is a fundamental problem that many foreigners fail to grasp. They talk about America and what they say is so ridiculously inaccurate, their mentality that America is some "survival of the fittest" cowboy society and this mentality is so deep, that they cannot accept that Americans give out more in charity than anyone else around and have a deep concern for human life.
And we are talking about fellow human beings.
How does it feel to dehumanize other people just because you know absolutely nothing about them other than they are "capitalist" and you *know* what a "capitalist" is?
You and almost every other person in this thread criticizing America has shown that they know little if anything about how life in the US actually is.
I simply do not recognize the country you are talking about and I live here. And I am certainly not rich. I'm about as poor as you can get in America. Wanna guess how much I live on a month? Don't tell me how being poor in America is, I know.
By the way, I don't think "you want it you earn it" is something to look down upon, unless you're lazy of course.
On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote: why should i have to pay for someone else's health care?
True. And hey, while we're at it, why should you pay for someone else's kids to go to school? And why the FUCK are you paying for the fire service to save other people's lives? I mean, it's not like it's your life. And on top of that you're paying for those lazy unemployed bastards to not starve to death. I walked past a library earlier. I looked inside, that shit was FULL OF BIG ASS BOOKS. All out of your bank account. Did they even ask you?
Actually now I think about there's a whole shitload of things that YOU, yes you specifically you, are paying for, for other people. Those selfish cunts. You should kick off. Why can't they all just pay for it themselves? Why do we even have a government? This is bullshit.
yeah seriously, not sure why the rest of these people are bums and cant get good jobs. i pay for my school, so should everyone else.
Man I hope your trolling right now, because that's a fucking dumb thing to say. Straight up.
Obviously your education can't have been worth the money if you don't understand why not everyone, in fact most people, can't afford it.
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: Actually, yes. The principal of the issue is the same. There is no "moral" problem for society to deal with. Besides, why are we legislating morality? Should we also require everybody take bible classes and outlaw abortion and teach creationism in school? If you think it fair to force others to pay for the problems of others, where do you draw the line?How do you decide? Or is it only okay to make people pay for others when you are making people richer then you pay for yourself?
where do you draw the line? are you for real? "how is it fair to force paying for problems of other?" it's fair in a sense that YOU can be that "other". you don't pay for other, you pay for yourself, your family, friends, loved ones. and when worse comes to worse, because all paid some amount, YOU or someone YOURS gets the help without financial breakdown later on.
is this really such a hard concept for people in the states (the ones living the famous dream at least) to understand? helping someone other than yourself is not the worst thing in the world, if that someone can be you.
Should do? Yes Have to do? No Being generous, charitable, and having that moral compulsion to help is to be admired. Teaching people that they are entitled to such generosity is not.
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: Paying for insurance is paying for healthcare for others. Sometimes people don't want or need it. Yes, did you read what I wrote? In real life, people can decide they do not need or want insurance. It's pathetic how people want the government to hand everything to them so they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Everybody would give up all the freedom they had if it only meant they did not have to work. There are really no advantages to a mandatory health insurance plan. None.
no. its not paying for others, if everyone did it. its also not true that u dont need it if u work. some people work and still can get into situations where they are helpless. are u even human? how on earth can u deny a person right to get medical care no matter how much he possibly fucked up in life. its not your problem? jesus fucking christ, how do you people sleep at night?
edit: i just saw that it was you who wrote this (i even referenced it in my post on previous page)
Public health care system deny people all the time. It's called economic reality. Some treatments are un-affordable. In the private system, affordability is everybody's problem. In the public system, it's truly not your fucking problem. You always pay your taxes and your mandatory fees. Then some bureaucrat decides for everyone and you either get it or you don't from the public system.
Then, there is something called charity. People give to worthy causes all the time. It's a better bet on supporting people who really ended up in trouble through little fault of their own.
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: Yes. I think that it is entirely fair that people should take care of their own personal problems. I would not think it is fair if my neighbor gets a flat tire because he was driving over glass and I have to buy him a new tire.
so not wanting to pay for other person flat tire = letting human life end. i hope you get banned because you are a horrible, horrible person. worst thing is, you probably have rich parents or at least comfortable background, that gives you confidence to make such unethical claims. shame that people like you make americans look bad.
If you are a good neighbor, you should care for a neighbor's misfortune. If your neighbor is an odious character, it'd be more excusable to not care. Again, it's a question of should or must.
Giving neighbors the choice to help also allows them to assess whether or not the person was unfortunate or unwise. Compassion for neighbors doing something irresponsible akin to driving over glass repeatedly is misplaced.
Well said Kwark. Let's also not forget that in keeping with your analogy, preventative care would lessen the cost of healthcare per person by a huge margin. The industry would lose it's profit margin because less people are getting sick and requiring expensive treatment. The real argument is whether something like healthcare should even be profit-motivated in the first place, since it creates incentive to let people suffer if they don't possess money. This is money that could be spent on other areas in the economy, which I like since people get to have more things and suffer less. It's easy to see why there's such a large fight being put up by our insurance companies with so much at stake.
Domovoi: I think people are speaking to the ethics, not the pragmatism. Of course a human life has a value attached to it, even for a gov't program it needs to be done in order to estimate budget requirements. I think the implied idea is that it is unethical to tell someone that they are not valuable enough to stay alive or to not suffer. Sometimes I think the wealthiest in America forget that they would have nothing if not for the rest of us who have worked so hard to provide them with the country that has given them the opportunity to become so wealthy. It ain't possible without the taxpayers. The least we deserve as thanks is not to die in the streets or put ourselves in prison.
Edit: DeepElem, I suggest you read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-5. It explains the chronic condition in the American psyche that the poor hate themselves for being poor because we live in a country where it is shameful to not have money. We think that the poor are in the minority when in reality they are in the majority. I don't know how you get your healthcare, if you're so poor and don't know anybody who can take care of you. Maybe you just don't need it yet... The mentality of working for your money is fantastic, obviously, but turning that into a physical punishment (which is what denial of healthcare is) upon failure is morally reprehensible IMO.
Man I hope your trolling right now, because that's a fucking dumb thing to say. Straight up.
Obviously your education can't have been worth the money if you don't understand why not everyone, in fact most people, can't afford it.
No I think what you said was dumber. If you don't understand that *most* people already can afford it because they uh kind of already have it, don't tell people what is dumb to say. So much ignorance. 80% = most by any kind of definition.
Sometimes I think the wealthiest in America forget that they would have nothing if not for the rest of us who have worked so hard to provide them with the country that has given them the opportunity to become so wealthy. It ain't possible without the taxpayers. The least we deserve as thanks is not to die in the streets or put ourselves in prison.
Funniest thing I've heard, the rich are dependent on people paying taxes.
Sorry, the rich are dependent on people being consumers. Consumers are dependent on the rich to put out cheap products.
Both sides need each other, and it isn't a rich vs. poor issue. Not everything is about class, the greatest thing about America is that despite best efforts of people to convince us otherwise, we are not a society of class division and envy the way Europe is and the way Canada has deluded itself into thinking. Class. What a foreign notion.
By the by, the original point I was making with the fire service analogy is that publicly funded services are common and no one (sane) is complaining about having to pay to save people from fires, or pay for people to have access to their right to an education.
Man I hope your trolling right now, because that's a fucking dumb thing to say. Straight up.
Obviously your education can't have been worth the money if you don't understand why not everyone, in fact most people, can't afford it.
No I think what you said was dumber. If you don't understand that *most* people already can afford it because they uh kind of already have it, don't tell people what is dumb to say. So much ignorance. 80% = most by any kind of definition.
We are, of course, referring to education here? How many people do you know who could afford a private school? I don't know any.
It is degrading for a rich country like the U.S. to care of their weakest that poorly. I am glad that man did such a thing, and hope he will be followed by many others, to use this exploit to such an amount that there will finally health care for everyone.
Edit: DeepElem, I suggest you read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-5. It explains the chronic condition in the American psyche that the poor hate themselves for being poor because we live in a country where it is shameful to not have money. We think that the poor are in the minority when in reality they are in the majority. I don't know how you get your healthcare, if you're so poor and don't know anybody who can take care of you. Maybe you just don't need it yet... The mentality of working for your money is fantastic, obviously, but turning that into a physical punishment (which is what denial of healthcare is) upon failure is morally reprehensible IMO.
ROFL
Slaughterhouse-5 is a work of fiction by a man deeply affected by being in the middle of the firebombing of Dresden who also never in his works moved past an emotional maturity of about 14.
I don't hate myself for being poor, guess Kurt wasn't so right after all?
Read Breakfast of Champions, you'll see how limited your understanding of Kurt's work is.
Please don't tell people to go read a book, especially a book of fiction.
The poor are really in the majority, because Slaughterhouse-5 says so?
"Mystification" is a term more useful in theory than in practice.
Don't be so presumptuous as to say that you *know* how the poor think based on a fiction book written 4+ decades ago.
It's fucking ridiculous that these are the kinds of arguments being offered up. Totally fucking ridiculous.
On June 23 2011 02:46 KwarK wrote: Leaving fires to burn is simply massively wasteful. The cost of putting out fires is always going to be less than the cost of replacing what is burned in the fire. If some guy doesn't pay his fire insurance and his house burns down then you've saved a few bucks in tax money because you didn't have to pay to put it out but he's lost hundreds of thousands in property and possessions. Destruction is wasteful. The guy who is going to take the biggest hit is the guy who is now homeless obviously but society as a whole will have gotten poorer, resources which could have been spent charitably or invested or even put back into the economy by buying shit will now be tied up replacing an entirely preventable loss. One of the issues with capitalism dealing with these issues is that not everyone makes completely optimal decisions, a lot of people assume things won't happen to them or they get fucked by insurers/employers etc. However these people are still a part of society, just because you may make better decisions does not mean you are disconnected from the results of theirs. Long term, everyone wins if less shit is destroyed in fires and private coverage would be tied to the threat of letting things burn.
I'd counter that learning the right lessons is more valuable than material losses. Teaching people to be irresponsible is orders of magnitude more harmful than letting them feel the pain of their irresponsibility of their decisions. Capitalism teaches its lessons very well.
But a private fire service also would not have taught its lesson by letting the house burn. The policy of letting the house burn is out of line with being late on a $75 charge. A private company would have easily offered to put the fire out on a fee-for-service schedule that they offer homeowner not under their coverage.
On June 23 2011 03:09 The KY wrote: By the by, the original point I was making with the fire service analogy is that publicly funded services are common and no one (sane) is complaining about having to pay to save people from fires, or pay for people to have access to their right to an education.
People complain when the public education, police service, and fire protection are awful. It's a common complaint in the US. In the case of fire and education, the rich go private. The poor are stuck with the suck.
Man I hope your trolling right now, because that's a fucking dumb thing to say. Straight up.
Obviously your education can't have been worth the money if you don't understand why not everyone, in fact most people, can't afford it.
No I think what you said was dumber. If you don't understand that *most* people already can afford it because they uh kind of already have it, don't tell people what is dumb to say. So much ignorance. 80% = most by any kind of definition.
Sometimes I think the wealthiest in America forget that they would have nothing if not for the rest of us who have worked so hard to provide them with the country that has given them the opportunity to become so wealthy. It ain't possible without the taxpayers. The least we deserve as thanks is not to die in the streets or put ourselves in prison.
Funniest thing I've heard, the rich are dependent on people paying taxes.
Sorry, the rich are dependent on people being consumers. Consumers are dependent on the rich to put out cheap products.
Both sides need each other, and it isn't a rich vs. poor issue. Not everything is about class, the greatest thing about America is that despite best efforts of people to convince us otherwise, we are not a society of class division and envy the way Europe is and the way Canada has deluded itself into thinking. Class. What a foreign notion.
Right, which is why this is such a problem. If people can't even afford healthcare, how are they supposed to consume and keep industry flowing? Welcome to a classic Keynesian recession, where aggregate demand has completely fallen out the bottom (that's what the half-assed stimulus checks were supposed to counteract). The rich are waging war on the poor, they are using our tax dollars to do their investing for them and they are enriching themselves off the successes. Unfortunately it is about class, because if you look at the data you will see that the richest in America garner more and more of our net wealth every year. That means they are taking more and more of our ability to consume and survive away from us, so that they can store that wealth for themselves.
We are, of course, referring to education here? How many people do you know who could afford a private school? I don't know any.
Thought you were referring to health care, if you're referring to education, then why not support school vouchers? Instead of paying taxes to shitty public schools parents keep that money to pay for a private school.
Private schools vary in price, there are cheap ones and expensive ones.
I don't care if you don't know *any* people who could afford *private* school, anecdotal evidence is valid again? Fine, I knew plenty of people who weren't rich who scrimped and saved and put their kids through the local private Catholic school system. Does that mean I'm right? Cool!
It is degrading for a rich country like the U.S. to care of their weakest that poorly. I am glad that man did such a thing, and hope he will be followed by many others, to use this exploit to such an amount that there will finally health care for everyone.
It's quite degrading to be so ignorant.
Right, which is why this is such a problem. If people can't even afford healthcare, how are they supposed to consume and keep industry flowing?
I'll let you think about why this statement is so hilariously wrong. Hint: not being able to afford healthcare isn't why Americans aren't spending. It might have something to do with else... you can guess what.
Welcome to a classic Keynesian recession, where aggregate demand has completely fallen out the bottom (that's what the half-assed stimulus checks were supposed to counteract).
Why has aggregate demand fallen?
The rich are waging war on the poor, they are using our tax dollars to do their investing for them and they are enriching themselves off the successes.
I'm aware of this, I don't support the crony capitalism practiced by the Democrats since 2009.
Unfortunately it is about class, because if you look at the data you will see that the richest in America garner more and more of our net wealth every year.
The argument doesn't support the conclusion.
That means they are taking more and more of our ability to consume and survive away from us, so that they can store that wealth for themselves.
The economy isn't a zero-sum game you silly billy.
"There's class warfare, all right," Mr. Buffet said, "but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
Hahahaha Mr. Buffet, you're hilarious. Banks wouldn't be extending credit to anyone if the government wasn't backing them up and pulling the strings.
The only rich people benefiting from this economy are those who have shown their loyalty to the Democratic Party.
I'm not going to accept critiques of the perversion of crony capitalism as critiques of capitalism. Talk shit on crony capitalism all you want, I'll agree with you 100%.
Edit: DeepElem, I suggest you read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-5. It explains the chronic condition in the American psyche that the poor hate themselves for being poor because we live in a country where it is shameful to not have money. We think that the poor are in the minority when in reality they are in the majority. I don't know how you get your healthcare, if you're so poor and don't know anybody who can take care of you. Maybe you just don't need it yet... The mentality of working for your money is fantastic, obviously, but turning that into a physical punishment (which is what denial of healthcare is) upon failure is morally reprehensible IMO.
ROFL
Slaughterhouse-5 is a work of fiction by a man deeply affected by being in the middle of the firebombing of Dresden who also never in his works moved past an emotional maturity of about 14.
I don't hate myself for being poor, guess Kurt wasn't so right after all?
Read Breakfast of Champions, you'll see how limited your understanding of Kurt's work is.
Please don't tell people to go read a book, especially a book of fiction.
The poor are really in the majority, because Slaughterhouse-5 says so?
"Mystification" is a term more useful in theory than in practice.
Don't be so presumptuous as to say that you *know* how the poor think based on a fiction book written 4+ decades ago.
It's fucking ridiculous that these are the kinds of arguments being offered up. Totally fucking ridiculous.
Hmm, someone sounds angry. Classic American response to being challenged by ideas you don't like or understand. I'm sorry you don't believe fiction has any relevance to real life; that's your loss. The poor are in the majority as a statistic, and no I'm not going to waste time digging it up for your ignorant ass. You can find it yourself if you're so sure you're right. I can tell how the poor think because I can see them voting against their own financial interests in every election. Vonnegut helped me understand what I was seeing in the real world, which by the way is the point of political commentary that happens to be in the form of fiction.
Notice how I managed to refute your poor understanding of the situation without calling it totally fucking ridiculous? Take notes child.
Edit: Wow, now I get it. You're being partisan about all this with that Democrat comment. This is exactly the stonewall in America we're dealing with, as soon as you become convinced it's a liberal you're talking to you shut down and get angry. 3 word sentences don't constitute a valid answer by the way, and you REALLY need to do some proper research.
Yeah, it's the billionaires vs the rest of us. But when pols say tax the rich, they don't mean billionaires. They mean the people making 150k-300k a year.
The solution that you want is more government which is also precisely the apparatus that those billionaires have total control over.
Assuming public schools = bad schools? Mine was ok. Oh sorry, anecdotal evidence again.
Regardless, the obvious problem with people paying for their own kids is that the poor are forced to send their kids to the lower quality schools. Goodbye social mobility.
Yeah, it's the billionaires vs the rest of us. But when pols say tax the rich, they don't mean billionaires. They mean the people making 150k-300k a year.
The solution that you want is more government which is also precisely the apparatus that those billionaires have total control over.
So the solution is to take government out of the picture and let the wealthy have completely free reign over the people? What a joke. The state is the best chance we have. Saying I want "more government" is a really lazy thing to say, I want well regulated government and a fairer tax system. "More government" could mean literally anything.
Edit: Wow, now I get it. You're being partisan about all this with that Democrat comment. This is exactly the stonewall in America we're dealing with, as soon as you become convinced it's a liberal you're talking to you shut down and get angry. 3 word sentences don't constitute a valid answer by the way, and you REALLY need to do some proper research.
I'm simply stating facts.
Look at which companies are getting Obamacare waivers.
Look at how the UAW got an illegal stock deal when Chrysler and GM were bailed out.
If the GOP was practicing crony capitalism I'd say it too, but they haven't yet, so I won't.
You go do some research.
Notice how I managed to refute your poor understanding of the situation without calling it totally fucking ridiculous? Take notes child.
Now watch this!
Hmm, someone sounds angry. Classic American response to being challenged by ideas you don't like or understand.
Classic response to repeated ignorance you mean. Nice to see how you think using stereotypes constitutes a good argument, your "child" remark is looking really good now.
I'm sorry you don't believe fiction has any relevance to real life; that's your loss.
*yawn*
I didn't say that, I said Slaughterhouse-5's assertions are wrong.
The poor are in the majority as a statistic, and no I'm not going to waste time digging it up for your ignorant ass.
I actually looked the statistics up.
If we accept your definition of poor then how many people in Europe are poor?
Can't afford private education means you're poor?
Okay, you're ridiculous.
By any reasonable definition the poor are in the minority, the rich are in an even smaller minority, and the majority reside in the middle class of income.
You can find it yourself if you're so sure you're right. I can tell how the poor think because I can see them voting against their own financial interests in every election.
*yawn*
You're just so smart, you've figured out people's interests better than they can!
"Mystification."
Vonnegut helped me understand what I was seeing in the real world, which by the way is the point of political commentary that happens to be in the form of fiction.
I disagree with that understanding, and you are a silly person for imagining yourself to be intellectual when you use strawmen and such silly definitions of words and the argument you are using with fiction is so broad and general that it is almost ludicrous.
Fiction is good commentary when it is accurate; Slaughterhouse-5 isn't accurate. Now who's being defensive? Just because I've read Vonnegut and don't have the belief in its message you do, you're getting really defensive about how smart you are and dumb I am. Interesting!
I'm not sure how that's possible. The poverty line is defined as the bottom 10% (or was it 20?). If you are going by some absolute definition of "poor," then very few people in the US are poor. The average world GDP per capita (PPP adjusted) is $10,000 a year, which is even lower than the US poverty line.
I'm not sure how that's possible. The poverty line is defined as the bottom 10% (or was it 20?). If you are going by some absolute definition of "poor," then very few people in the US are poor. The average world GDP per capita (PPP adjusted) is $10,000 a year, which is even lower than the US poverty line.
If you go to a public school you are poor I guess. Or maybe he means something different. Poor seems to mean whatever he wants it to mean.
Yeah I was thinking that might have been a problem, I'm not talking about the homeless I'm talking about a middle class that is rapidly disappearing. Of course you can push the bar lower and lower using percentages, but what I'm trying to say is that more and more people are having trouble making house payments, securing healthcare, and generally living well every year. I'm talking about the working class, and we are dirt poor compared to the very wealthy, that's where I got that from. Sorry for the confusion. Think the average population in a working class town just making ends meet. More and more people are falling into that situation all the time when they used to be able to save for retirement, vacations, etc. It's all on the news if you aren't seeing it happening around you like I am.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
The vast majority of Americans are covered by insurance and/or government programs. The real problem in America is the huge rises in healthcare costs.
So I fail to see any sympothay for this guy. He's 59 without any money and without any sort of medical insurance and its America's problem? Since when did life and financial planning fall into the resposibility of the government?
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Wow, I don't know what to say.
This is so insanely narrow-minded...
You don't know anything about his live, how can you possible claim it's his own fault that he's in such dire straits? 'Faith' can throw horrible things at any man, things that white middle-class males fail to grasp.
slaughterhouse-5 has pretty good oldie ideas such as free will with non-linear 4-dimensional time visitings... how is it related to this discussion on healthcare again? lol i can't find it....
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
The vast majority of Americans are covered by insurance and/or government programs. The real problem in America is the huge rises in healthcare costs.
So I fail to see any sympothay for this guy. He's 59 without any money and without any sort of medical insurance and its America's problem? Since when did life and financial planning fall into the resposibility of the government?
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Wow, I don't know what to say.
This is so insanely narrow-minded...
You don't know anything about his live, how can you possible claim it's his own fault that he's in such dire straits? 'Faith' can throw horrible things at any man, things that white middle-class males fail to grasp.
On June 22 2011 04:34 Razith wrote: So what happened to all his money? Why couldn't he afford health care in the first place?
Why does it matter? Better this way than him actually going out and robbing people. His situation was only going to deteriorate until death or crime, his solution is, as he said, logical.
It matters because thats what put him in this situation; no money for his medical bills. Are the majority of Americans without some sort of medical insurance? Are the Americans here on TL.net without medical insurance?
The vast majority of Americans are covered by insurance and/or government programs. The real problem in America is the huge rises in healthcare costs.
So I fail to see any sympothay for this guy. He's 59 without any money and without any sort of medical insurance and its America's problem? Since when did life and financial planning fall into the resposibility of the government?
What are the major causes of these rises in healthcare costs?
Wow, I don't know what to say.
This is so insanely narrow-minded...
You don't know anything about his live, how can you possible claim it's his own fault that he's in such dire straits? 'Faith' can throw horrible things at any man, things that white middle-class males fail to grasp.
lol when one white guy takes it out on another white guy...epic
i'm pretty sure the man could get care without going to jail...much of the recent political focus has been to tax the high-earners...the people getting the bad end of the stick are the illegal immigrants
On June 23 2011 03:16 teekesselchen wrote: It is degrading for a rich country like the U.S. to care of their weakest that poorly. I am glad that man did such a thing, and hope he will be followed by many others, to use this exploit to such an amount that there will finally health care for everyone.
Maybe Germans shouldn't be so condescending about PHC.
We're in a fine situation right now, but this could change within months, once the Euro fails (which seems to be an actual possibility as of now).
Edit: Wow, now I get it. You're being partisan about all this with that Democrat comment. This is exactly the stonewall in America we're dealing with, as soon as you become convinced it's a liberal you're talking to you shut down and get angry. 3 word sentences don't constitute a valid answer by the way, and you REALLY need to do some proper research.
I'm simply stating facts.
Look at which companies are getting Obamacare waivers.
Look at how the UAW got an illegal stock deal when Chrysler and GM were bailed out.
If the GOP was practicing crony capitalism I'd say it too, but they haven't yet, so I won't.
Hmm, someone sounds angry. Classic American response to being challenged by ideas you don't like or understand.
Classic response to repeated ignorance you mean. Nice to see how you think using stereotypes constitutes a good argument, your "child" remark is looking really good now.
The poor are in the majority as a statistic, and no I'm not going to waste time digging it up for your ignorant ass.
I actually looked the statistics up.
If we accept your definition of poor then how many people in Europe are poor?
Can't afford private education means you're poor?
Okay, you're ridiculous.
By any reasonable definition the poor are in the minority, the rich are in an even smaller minority, and the majority reside in the middle class of income.
You can find it yourself if you're so sure you're right. I can tell how the poor think because I can see them voting against their own financial interests in every election.
*yawn*
You're just so smart, you've figured out people's interests better than they can!
Vonnegut helped me understand what I was seeing in the real world, which by the way is the point of political commentary that happens to be in the form of fiction.
I disagree with that understanding, and you are a silly person for imagining yourself to be intellectual when you use strawmen and such silly definitions of words and the argument you are using with fiction is so broad and general that it is almost ludicrous.
Fiction is good commentary when it is accurate; Slaughterhouse-5 isn't accurate. Now who's being defensive? Just because I've read Vonnegut and don't have the belief in its message you do, you're getting really defensive about how smart you are and dumb I am. Interesting!
Watch this: Halliburton defense contracts Iraq George Bush Cheney blah blah blah fucking blah. Oh yeah you don't care about that since it's only democrats who are corrupt. Moving on.
No, you're just angry. Sorry, but anger in a political conversation has no place, period. Keep practicing.
I explained my poverty stance pretty well since then, and ironically you never defined poverty either so don't be a hypocrite. When wealth is transferring every year to the highest tier, how can you say that the middle will always be in the middle? Wake up and pay attention to the deterioration going on in the country's middle class please.
Yes, I do think that I know peoples' interests better than they do when I see Tea Partiers going out holding up signs that say they want less government but that it can't touch their medicare. People don't know what the hell their interests are much of the time, they are just doing what they are told by their local culture and the personality cult of American politicians. If they weren't then why are some politicians being elected who openly say that they are going to cut taxes for the wealthiest in exchange for losing social programs those same voters depend on? I don't understand the source of your faith.
I never imagined myself to be an intellectual, but thanks for the compliment. I'm sorry you didn't get from Vonnegut what I did, but at least I can quote sections from the story and explain why I think the way I do. I'd love to hear why Vonnegut has the emotional maturity of a 14 year old who has survived a firebombing in Dresden. How much combat have you seen lately? Maybe you are just insulting someone because they have beliefs you don't share. At least reality supports my conclusions. What fantasy America are you living in where these things aren't happening? Maybe you need to come to terms with the fact that your utopia is slipping through your fingers. Oh, and I'm done with you. This has wasted enough of my day already, and I'm tired of being personally attacked as a consequence of your zealotry. Have a good one, keep up the not caring about anyone but yourself!
slaughterhouse-5 has pretty good oldie ideas such as free will with non-linear 4-dimensional time visitings... how is it related to this discussion on healthcare again? lol i can't find it....
it's a funny and deeply moving book vonnegut was a great writer but he was wrong about who americans are
personally i like mother night the best, the most human of his novels i think
anyway ive been reading up on the german healthcare system and the whole "sick fund" idea is something i find intriguing, it sounds kind of catastrophic care insurance which is an idea i support. basically you pay low insurance premiums and on routine things like doctor visits and prescriptions the co-pay is a little higher, but if the shit hits the fan you are totally covered. i think it would be one thing to try to try to broaden the base of people paying insurance premiums, lessening the strain on the system.
Watch this: Halliburton defense contracts Iraq George Bush Cheney blah blah blah fucking blah. Oh yeah you don't care about that since it's only democrats who are corrupt. Moving on.
No actually a better example would be private military companies hired by the State Department, Halliburton was chosen because it is literally the only company in the world with the capacity to do the work that was needed to be done, go Google it you will find links of Democrats admitting as much. Donald Rumsfeld was very much behind privatizing as many military functions as possible and it was a big mistake.
No, you're just angry. Sorry, but anger in a political conversation has no place, period. Keep practicing.
If anger is so bad why do you keep trying to produce it with your arrogant pronouncements and expressions of contempt.
I explained my poverty stance pretty well since then, and ironically you never defined poverty either so don't be a hypocrite. When wealth is transferring every year to the highest tier, how can you say that the middle will always be in the middle? Wake up and pay attention to the deterioration going on in the country's middle class please.
You never asked what my definition of poverty is.
Are you now?
Explain to me how wealth is transferring except through government action. I am not someone who supported bailouts or who supports subsidies or other ways government distorts the market.
I never said the middle will always be there, I said they are in the majority, which they are.
I'm well aware of what is going on in this country, I just disagree as to the reasons and solutions. I see the rich who are getting help from the government getting richer, the rich who do not stagnating, and everyone else getting worse. So whose fault is that? Only one group of people has an unfair advantage, and it isn't that they are rich. It is that the government is helping them.
Yes, I do think that I know peoples' interests better than they do when I see Tea Partiers going out holding up signs that say they want less government but that it can't touch their medicare. People don't know what the hell their interests are much of the time, they are just doing what they are told by their local culture and the personality cult of American politicians. If they weren't then why are some politicians being elected who openly say that they are going to cut taxes for the wealthiest in exchange for losing social programs those same voters depend on? I don't understand the source of your faith.
You deal in stereotypes and caricatures of people's beliefs, and you say "people say this" in terms crafted to best suit a way for you to make them look silly. Why not produce what politicians actually say, like, direct quotes?
I never imagined myself to be an intellectual, but thanks for the compliment. I'm sorry you didn't get from Vonnegut what I did, but at least I can quote sections from the story and explain why I think the way I do. I'd love to hear why Vonnegut has the emotional maturity of a 14 year old who has survived a firebombing in Dresden. How much combat have you seen lately? Maybe you are just insulting someone because they have beliefs you don't share. At least reality supports my conclusions. What fantasy America are you living in where these things aren't happening? Maybe you need to come to terms with the fact that your utopia is slipping through your fingers. Oh, and I'm done with you. This has wasted enough of my day already, and I'm tired of being personally attacked as a consequence of your zealotry. Have a good one, keep up the not caring about anyone but yourself!
You live in a fantasy world where you speak for others and then proceed to insult them based on the stuff you say they said that they didn't say.
I didn't say Vonnegut had the emotional maturity of a 14 year old who survived Dresden, I said he never moved past 14. And in his works he never did. It was all intentional of course, he was gonzo before Hunter exploded the whole scene. Go read Breakfast of Champions and tell me Vonnegut wasn't being absurd for the sake of absurdity and got a little lost in it, too whipped up, sometimes.
I can quote parts of Breakfast of Champions, Mother Night, Slaughterhouse-5, whatever you want. I think it's kind of silly though.
You're the one insulting someone repeatedly for the beliefs they share, and you do it based not on what they said but what you say they said.
Zealotry, who is being so zealous?
Utopia slipping through fingers? Come to terms? What is this half-baked e-psychoanalysis going on here? Paging Dr. E-Freud, right?
I'm glad you're some internet psychic and you can tell I don't care about anyone but myself.
Using your own words against you is the best way for me to argue.
On June 23 2011 03:53 IzieBoy wrote: slaughterhouse-5 has pretty good oldie ideas such as free will with non-linear 4-dimensional time visitings... how is it related to this discussion on healthcare again? lol i can't find it....
It's the part where they are all huddled together with European prisoners after the firebombing, and the British are commenting how all the Europeans help each other and talk to each other and care for each other but the Americans just fought and stayed away from each other and became angry at each other. He went on to say that the underlying reason was that Americans just don't care about each other because they believe deep down that people always deserve what they get. They don't know how to care. I'm not saying he's 100% right, but the man was definitely onto something.
It's the part where they are all huddled together with European prisoners after the firebombing, and the British are commenting how all the Europeans help each other and talk to each other and care for each other but the Americans just fought and stayed away from each other and became angry at each other. He went on to say that the underlying reason was that Americans just don't care about each other because they believe deep down that people always deserve what they get. They don't know how to care. I'm not saying he's 100% right, but the man was definitely onto something.
So, some fictional account of how POWs act is "on to something" (based on Vonnegut's personal experiences as they were, it was still a dramatization) should I point to other accounts of American POWs acting with great solidarity and humanity for each other?
I don't think you understand that the way you talk makes you sound like you're basing your characterization of Americans off the dramatization of one anecdotal account of a bunch of POWs in the middle of one of the most intensely hellish experiences humans have ever endured.
How about in Mother Night at the very end when Frank Wirtanen on his own initiative reveals that he existed and that he was Howard Campbell's handler during the war, that Campbell really was an American agent the whole time and not a Nazi war criminal? How does that fit in with your beliefs about what Vonnegut according to you has to say about Americans?
i wonder why old people (over age 40) are so against obamacare. one reason i can think of is that they just earn a lot more than younger folks and are taxed a bit more, but then they also are getting a discount somewhere for something right?
Income from self-employment and wages of single individuals in excess $200,000 annually will be subject to an additional tax of 0.9%. The threshold amount is $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly (threshold applies to joint compensation of the two spouses), or $125,000 for a married person filing separately.[41] In addition, an additional tax of 3.8% will apply to the lesser of net investment income or the amount by which adjusted gross income exceeds $200,000 ($250,000 for a married couple filing jointly; $125,000 for a married person filing separately.[42]
Companies which provide early retiree benefits for individuals aged 55–64 are eligible to participate in a temporary program which reduces premium costs.
On June 23 2011 03:48 SolidusR wrote: Yeah I was thinking that might have been a problem, I'm not talking about the homeless I'm talking about a middle class that is rapidly disappearing. Of course you can push the bar lower and lower using percentages, but what I'm trying to say is that more and more people are having trouble making house payments, securing healthcare, and generally living well every year. I'm talking about the working class, and we are dirt poor compared to the very wealthy, that's where I got that from. Sorry for the confusion. Think the average population in a working class town just making ends meet. More and more people are falling into that situation all the time when they used to be able to save for retirement, vacations, etc. It's all on the news if you aren't seeing it happening around you like I am.
Middle class inflation-adjusted incomes are rising, though not as fast as the rich (though if you count health care insurance as part of one's income, then middle-class incomes are in fact rising pretty fast). That doesn't mean the middle class is "disappearing." Everyone is still getting richer, or at least not getting poorer. By the way, this phenomenon is happening across the Western world and has more to do with globalization than anything else. Don't fall for the fallacy that rising income inequality = people getting poorer.
I think your opinion is colored by the recent recession we had. You shouldn't use 2-3 years of data to make comments about a general trend.
On June 23 2011 00:46 Kevan wrote: This is another reason why I wouldn't ever want to live in the US. What could be more important than healthcare for those who need it?
i think this is the fundamental concept that many americans fail to grasp. it's a society where the capitalistic "you want it you earn it" mantra goes so deep into mentality of the people, that they cant accept anything being "given out" for "free", even if its human life they are talking about.
and we are talking about human life.
how the fuck do you put a price tag on that?
Its not even just "you want it you earn it", that is actually good motto if not taken to extremes. It more seems like "mine, mine, and you cannot have it, my precious".
On June 23 2011 00:46 Kevan wrote: This is another reason why I wouldn't ever want to live in the US. What could be more important than healthcare for those who need it?
i think this is the fundamental concept that many americans fail to grasp. it's a society where the capitalistic "you want it you earn it" mantra goes so deep into mentality of the people, that they cant accept anything being "given out" for "free", even if its human life they are talking about.
and we are talking about human life.
how the fuck do you put a price tag on that?
Its not even just "you want it you earn it", that is actually good motto if not taken to extremes. It more seems like "mine, mine, and you cannot have it, my precious".
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: Actually, yes. The principal of the issue is the same. There is no "moral" problem for society to deal with. Besides, why are we legislating morality? Should we also require everybody take bible classes and outlaw abortion and teach creationism in school? If you think it fair to force others to pay for the problems of others, where do you draw the line?How do you decide? Or is it only okay to make people pay for others when you are making people richer then you pay for yourself?
where do you draw the line? are you for real? "how is it fair to force paying for problems of other?" it's fair in a sense that YOU can be that "other". you don't pay for other, you pay for yourself, your family, friends, loved ones. and when worse comes to worse, because all paid some amount, YOU or someone YOURS gets the help without financial breakdown later on.
is this really such a hard concept for people in the states (the ones living the famous dream at least) to understand? helping someone other than yourself is not the worst thing in the world, if that someone can be you.
Should do? Yes Have to do? No Being generous, charitable, and having that moral compulsion to help is to be admired. Teaching people that they are entitled to such generosity is not.
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote: Paying for insurance is paying for healthcare for others. Sometimes people don't want or need it. Yes, did you read what I wrote? In real life, people can decide they do not need or want insurance. It's pathetic how people want the government to hand everything to them so they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Everybody would give up all the freedom they had if it only meant they did not have to work. There are really no advantages to a mandatory health insurance plan. None.
no. its not paying for others, if everyone did it. its also not true that u dont need it if u work. some people work and still can get into situations where they are helpless. are u even human? how on earth can u deny a person right to get medical care no matter how much he possibly fucked up in life. its not your problem? jesus fucking christ, how do you people sleep at night?
edit: i just saw that it was you who wrote this (i even referenced it in my post on previous page)
Public health care system deny people all the time. It's called economic reality. Some treatments are un-affordable. In the private system, affordability is everybody's problem. In the public system, it's truly not your fucking problem. You always pay your taxes and your mandatory fees. Then some bureaucrat decides for everyone and you either get it or you don't from the public system.
Then, there is something called charity. People give to worthy causes all the time. It's a better bet on supporting people who really ended up in trouble through little fault of their own.
You know that a lot of public healthcare systems allow and actually has private component that you can buy if basic coverage is not enough for you ?
Man I hope your trolling right now, because that's a fucking dumb thing to say. Straight up.
Obviously your education can't have been worth the money if you don't understand why not everyone, in fact most people, can't afford it.
No I think what you said was dumber. If you don't understand that *most* people already can afford it because they uh kind of already have it, don't tell people what is dumb to say. So much ignorance. 80% = most by any kind of definition.
Sometimes I think the wealthiest in America forget that they would have nothing if not for the rest of us who have worked so hard to provide them with the country that has given them the opportunity to become so wealthy. It ain't possible without the taxpayers. The least we deserve as thanks is not to die in the streets or put ourselves in prison.
Funniest thing I've heard, the rich are dependent on people paying taxes.
Sorry, the rich are dependent on people being consumers. Consumers are dependent on the rich to put out cheap products.
Both sides need each other, and it isn't a rich vs. poor issue. Not everything is about class, the greatest thing about America is that despite best efforts of people to convince us otherwise, we are not a society of class division and envy the way Europe is and the way Canada has deluded itself into thinking. Class. What a foreign notion.
Funny how of all western first world nations the class divisions are most noticable in US
On June 23 2011 03:30 The KY wrote: Assuming public schools = bad schools? Mine was ok. Oh sorry, anecdotal evidence again.
Regardless, the obvious problem with people paying for their own kids is that the poor are forced to send their kids to the lower quality schools. Goodbye social mobility.
Well you are in UK, it seems only US public services are really awful, does not mean other countries could not do it better. My public school was excellent, same with gymnasium(like high school?), same with university. Yes there are shitty public schools, but they are shitty not because they are public, but because of other reasons.
Every country on that list spends less on healthcare pr. capita than the US and as far as i know most of them have universal healthcare systems that work (with varying degress of success).
On June 23 2011 03:30 The KY wrote: Assuming public schools = bad schools? Mine was ok. Oh sorry, anecdotal evidence again.
Regardless, the obvious problem with people paying for their own kids is that the poor are forced to send their kids to the lower quality schools. Goodbye social mobility.
Well you are in UK, it seems only US public services are really awful, does not mean other countries could not do it better. My public school was excellent, same with gymnasium(like high school?), same with university. Yes there are shitty public schools, but they are shitty not because they are public, but because of other reasons.
And yes US has quite poor social mobility.
It's kind of hard to accurately measure the quality of US public schools. The schools in the suburbs and/or rich areas and/or areas with lots of Asians are fantastic (e.g. Stuyvesant). Where you see shitty schools are in the inner-cities. And it's not just the lack of income, but also a culture that derides education. Schools that attract poor people who care about education (e.g. charter schools or parochial schools) seem to do fairly well.
I'm a supporter of what's called "school reform" in the US, and some of the abuses of the teacher's unions are on the surface quite outrageous (e.g. rubber rooms), but I'm not very confident reform is going to change much given that it appears culture is a driving factor.
On June 23 2011 03:30 The KY wrote: Assuming public schools = bad schools? Mine was ok. Oh sorry, anecdotal evidence again.
Regardless, the obvious problem with people paying for their own kids is that the poor are forced to send their kids to the lower quality schools. Goodbye social mobility.
Well you are in UK, it seems only US public services are really awful, does not mean other countries could not do it better. My public school was excellent, same with gymnasium(like high school?), same with university. Yes there are shitty public schools, but they are shitty not because they are public, but because of other reasons.
And yes US has quite poor social mobility.
It's kind of hard to accurately measure the quality of US public schools. The schools in the suburbs and/or rich areas and/or areas with lots of Asians are fantastic (e.g. Stuyvesant). Where you see shitty schools are in the inner-cities. And it's not just the lack of income, but also a culture that derides education. Schools that attract poor people who care about education (e.g. charter schools or parochial schools) seem to do fairly well.
I'm a supporter of what's called "school reform" in the US, and some of the abuses of the teacher's unions are on the surface quite outrageous (e.g. rubber rooms), but I'm not very confident reform is going to change much given that it appears culture is a driving factor.
I was being kind of sarcastic/condescending in my first sentence as I was kind of annoyed by bad logic employed in the implication : public services are badly run in one place -> public services always awful and private ones are better. At least as far as schools go I know that there are drastic differences in quality of public schools, much bigger differences than in EU (or at least here). And from my friends that have been to US schools I know that there are public schools on the highest level of quality.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
True, but its not likely that I will suddenly run out of food out of events that are entirely beyond my control (or if I did, we just got hit by a big fuckoff natural disaster and everyone else did as well, so we're in the same boat together). If some douchebag runs a red light and puts me in hospital, the situation suddenly boils down to how much money I should pay to fix a problem caused by some other asshole.
What's wrong with society pooling together to help its least fortunate? I don't see why people should be penalized just for being unlucky enough to get caught in an accident. We're really that terrified of that 1% of douchebags in society that will try to scam the system, to lift a finger to help the rest? Call me crazy, but when a small handful of assholes at high school abused the school gym equipment, causing them to disallow anyone else to use it unsupervised, I thought that was completely bullshit.
nothing wrong with that.
what's wrong with me coming up to you with a gun and forcing you to pay my hospital bill?
What does that have to do with literally anything we're discussing here?
...that is effectively how "government funded" healthcare works.
Oh, so there's nothing wrong with a socialized healthcare system, except that we have to hand over control to someone else in order to organize such a thing on a scale large enough to manage nearly 400 million people.
How do you propose we set one up them? Leave it to the individual states to manage? If that's the case, I'm curious what instills more faith in state government than federal government?
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
The EU is bigger than the US. Of course we're broken up into dozens of smaller countries which do things their own way but equally you guys are a federal state. The current system is broken, I think everyone can agree on that. It is neither free market nor public and the deep divisions and prejudices within American society keep it broken. End of the day, the problem is with the American people and their ability to cripple politician's attempts to fix it. That's not US bashing.
The primary reason of doing it at the state rather than federal level is the fact that there's a bit of a divide in the states when it comes to government involvement. There are some states that would go kicking and screaming against a federal healthcare program, while others would welcome it with open arms. So the idea is everyone ends up happy when the federal government has little say, then the states can screw themselves up however they want. If their programs fail, they would be highly incentivised to try the other option(s).
I'm a strong believer in States' Rights, and think the federal government should have less of a say in individual state economies, and in general focus on foreign policy and maintaining a military(but not as the World Police, but that's a story for another thread). This is probably based off the amount of corruption at the federal level. I'm not saying there's no corruption at the State level of government, but there's far less corruption in this field, and thus, more secure.(at least, here in Idaho. I know there's some very bad areas, such as Chicago Politics, but I have little knowledge about it)
On June 22 2011 18:13 Aoi SCV wrote: I would not be alive if it wasn't for "socialist healthcare". I would never have been able to afford a health insurance given the number of problems I have had. Just one of my treatments costed about 3k dollars every month (out of which I had to pay about 300 dollars a year).
Today I am a healthy and contributing member of society, I hope my tax money can help to pay for someone else's health care. I would like to think that society as a whole has profited off of the investment they did in supplying health care to me.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
I think this is interesting. Americans are the most charitable people on Earth. However, we are (mostly) vehemently against using taxation and the federal government as a form of charity for our own interests(i.e. advancing/modernizing our welfare state). We like to give, but we refuse to be forced to give.
Meanwhile, in other European countries and Australia & New Zealand, you have people who are proud to pay their taxes, knowing it's going to something to better the collective. Perhaps it's an ideological perspective? Americans(believing in individualism) give to other individuals, while Europeans(believing in collectivism) give to the collective? Tax rates are the minimum tax, but few in the USA ever offer more than what is necessary. Is it like that in Europe as well, or do people often offer more of their income?
If the federal government was the most efficient, national charity in existence, I'm sure you'd see more Americans invest in it. But with the current wars, the bureaucratic nightmare, the heavy levels of lobbying and corporatism, divisiveness in the 2-coalition party system, and generally inefficient federal work(They can't even run a Postal Service, let alone a single payer system for the elderly- why should I trust them to have the competence to run a truly universal healthcare program?), I honestly think it'd be easier to weaken the beast of government and use private means, both non-profit and for-profit, than to attempt to tame that beast. Social programs produced by State governments would be more efficient, and easier to implement since you wouldn't have an as broad political landscape to appease. An exaggerated comparison would be having the EU Parliament run every EU member state's economy and social programs. Would a German want Greece to have a voice on their fiscal policy? Likewise, would a Texan want California to have a voice on their fiscal policy?
I wouldn't consider myself very experienced in this field, so please correct me if I've got anything wrong.
On June 22 2011 04:45 Nero. wrote: i dont get why americans are trying so hard to not get a statutory health insurance system. In most of Europe we have it for such a long time and nobody here is walking around in chains or lost their freedom because of it
it just feels like the states act very "medieval" about this topic
Because America, being the beacon of capitalism, has this propensity to believe that EVERYTHING should be run by private organizations, rather than the government. They don't take the time to realize that when you take an industry like healthcare and put it in the hands of financiers, accountants, corporations and general bean-counters who's only concern is profitability, you've completely eliminated humanity and compassion from the equation.
Capitalism works great when you've got products/services to sell. Not so great when someone's livelihood is on the line.
rofl.
dont you need food as well to survive? can you buy food from CORPORATIONS or do you need it provided by your friendly government?
True, but its not likely that I will suddenly run out of food out of events that are entirely beyond my control (or if I did, we just got hit by a big fuckoff natural disaster and everyone else did as well, so we're in the same boat together). If some douchebag runs a red light and puts me in hospital, the situation suddenly boils down to how much money I should pay to fix a problem caused by some other asshole.
What's wrong with society pooling together to help its least fortunate? I don't see why people should be penalized just for being unlucky enough to get caught in an accident. We're really that terrified of that 1% of douchebags in society that will try to scam the system, to lift a finger to help the rest? Call me crazy, but when a small handful of assholes at high school abused the school gym equipment, causing them to disallow anyone else to use it unsupervised, I thought that was completely bullshit.
nothing wrong with that.
what's wrong with me coming up to you with a gun and forcing you to pay my hospital bill?
What does that have to do with literally anything we're discussing here?
...that is effectively how "government funded" healthcare works.
Oh, so there's nothing wrong with a socialized healthcare system, except that we have to hand over control to someone else in order to organize such a thing on a scale large enough to manage nearly 400 million people.
How do you propose we set one up them? Leave it to the individual states to manage? If that's the case, I'm curious what instills more faith in state government than federal government?
On June 22 2011 05:08 On_Slaught wrote: Didn't take long for this to turn into a US bashing thread. Is this a sad reality? Yes. Is EU style healthcare workable in a country the size of the US? Lol. Are there worse things that could happen? Yes.
Sadly we are a long ways from having a workable health care system that doesn't cause prices to rise.
The EU is bigger than the US. Of course we're broken up into dozens of smaller countries which do things their own way but equally you guys are a federal state. The current system is broken, I think everyone can agree on that. It is neither free market nor public and the deep divisions and prejudices within American society keep it broken. End of the day, the problem is with the American people and their ability to cripple politician's attempts to fix it. That's not US bashing.
The primary reason of doing it at the state rather than federal level is the fact that there's a bit of a divide in the states when it comes to government involvement. There are some states that would go kicking and screaming against a federal healthcare program, while others would welcome it with open arms. So the idea is everyone ends up happy when the federal government has little say, then the states can screw themselves up however they want. If their programs fail, they would be highly incentivised to try the other option(s).
I'm a strong believer in States' Rights, and think the federal government should have less of a say in individual state economies, and in general focus on foreign policy and maintaining a military(but not as the World Police, but that's a story for another thread). This is probably based off the amount of corruption at the federal level. I'm not saying there's no corruption at the State level of government, but there's far less corruption in this field, and thus, more secure.(at least, here in Idaho. I know there's some very bad areas, such as Chicago Politics, but I have little knowledge about it)
On June 22 2011 18:13 Aoi SCV wrote: I would not be alive if it wasn't for "socialist healthcare". I would never have been able to afford a health insurance given the number of problems I have had. Just one of my treatments costed about 3k dollars every month (out of which I had to pay about 300 dollars a year).
Today I am a healthy and contributing member of society, I hope my tax money can help to pay for someone else's health care. I would like to think that society as a whole has profited off of the investment they did in supplying health care to me.
On June 22 2011 16:08 Geolich wrote: what a joke of a country america is
i cannot fathom how people can be so heartless to say 'well its his problem, why should i pay for it'
what sort of attitude is this? i mean some idiot earlier compared this to paying for his neighbours tire when it goes flat after driving over glass. are you fucking serious?
give me my tax bracket system up to 49% or 50% such as we have in australia so that citizens do not have to be without necessities such as healthcare.
Seriously, this thread makes me so thankful to be an Australian citizen. I just don't understand why America's system is the way it is. They've bought into the ideology of capitalism so much that it's now overruling basic neighbourly love and compassion. So sad that things are the way they are.
I think this is interesting. Americans are the most charitable people on Earth. However, we are (mostly) vehemently against using taxation and the federal government as a form of charity for our own interests(i.e. advancing/modernizing our welfare state). We like to give, but we refuse to be forced to give.
Meanwhile, in other European countries and Australia & New Zealand, you have people who are proud to pay their taxes, knowing it's going to something to better the collective. Perhaps it's an ideological perspective? Americans(believing in individualism) give to other individuals, while Europeans(believing in collectivism) give to the collective? Tax rates are the minimum tax, but few in the USA ever offer more than what is necessary. Is it like that in Europe as well, or do people often offer more of their income?
If the federal government was the most efficient, national charity in existence, I'm sure you'd see more Americans invest in it. But with the current wars, the bureaucratic nightmare, the heavy levels of lobbying and corporatism, divisiveness in the 2-coalition party system, and generally inefficient federal work(They can't even run a Postal Service, let alone a single payer system for the elderly- why should I trust them to have the competence to run a truly universal healthcare program?), I honestly think it'd be easier to weaken the beast of government and use private means, both non-profit and for-profit, than to attempt to tame that beast. Social programs produced by State governments would be more efficient, and easier to implement since you wouldn't have an as broad political landscape to appease. An exaggerated comparison would be having the EU Parliament run every EU member state's economy and social programs. Would a German want Greece to have a voice on their fiscal policy? Likewise, would a Texan want California to have a voice on their fiscal policy?
I wouldn't consider myself very experienced in this field, so please correct me if I've got anything wrong.
Agree with you completely. To add-on to that, at least the States can't print their own money and add to the inflation. The Federal government needs to be stripped of most of its power, tons of taxes shouldn't even be in existence. Tons of regulations shouldn't be in existence. Tons of things that are currently funded by the government have no economical right to exist, especially not in the situation we're in right now.
Obama has no idea on how economics works. Public health-care is definitely not the most efficient way to go about things especially nation-wide health-care given the amount of bureaucracy. As of right now every single dollar that goes to the government for ANY purpose, I don't even care if it's for saving innocent kids from burning buildings is a dollar wasted, and I hate how foreigners from other places come into these threads not understanding American politics at all come in and say that our Federal government doesn't do enough, and that our people are moral-less, because some of them (those that aren't ignorant and lazy) don't want to give our government money, as if it's some kind of magical treasury box into which if you put enough of your hard-earned money, good things will happen to you, and all evils will be warded off.
Yeah, it's the billionaires vs the rest of us. But when pols say tax the rich, they don't mean billionaires. They mean the people making 150k-300k a year.
The solution that you want is more government which is also precisely the apparatus that those billionaires have total control over.
So the solution is to take government out of the picture and let the wealthy have completely free reign over the people? What a joke. The state is the best chance we have. Saying I want "more government" is a really lazy thing to say, I want well regulated government and a fairer tax system. "More government" could mean literally anything.
What "universal health care" by the federal government is vesting more power in the very institution and political machines that the billionaires use to stick it to the rest of the population. You tell me what that will accomplish.
If you say government reform first, then do that first. When we see a good track record of it working, then I'd give the argument a little bit more credibility. If state under its current structure is the "best chance" we got, may god help us all.
On June 23 2011 03:30 The KY wrote: Assuming public schools = bad schools? Mine was ok. Oh sorry, anecdotal evidence again.
Regardless, the obvious problem with people paying for their own kids is that the poor are forced to send their kids to the lower quality schools. Goodbye social mobility.
That would also assume that schools in poor districts and rich districts are the same quality, and that by living in a poor area, they aren't going to get a worse education. Separate but equal? Hardly.
Many inner city public schools in poor areas of US are terrible. In some cases, the kids would be better off not going to school because of the degree to which education system is disastrously run. In extreme cases, it can resemble a 6 hour jail term every weekday for children.
Anyone who lives in these districts send their children to private school or moves to a different school district. Case in point, Obama sends his children to private school rather than weather the DC school system. The only people who can't run away from these awful school systems in the US are the poor. If there is any cause for poor income mobility, it's because of the terrible inner city public education. And people have every right to complain about the terrible school systems.
The same is true for the police departments in such districts. Because of the drug war and crime, the cops view the residents of their districts as subjects to be subdued into submission rather than people who they are accountable to and who the are in charge of protecting. "Black people don't trust police officers?" I reckon they have every right not to trust them.
On June 23 2011 05:29 smokeyhoodoo wrote: If we had a free market this wouldn't be a problem.
It's not as much a problem of a lack of free market as it is too expensive and risky for doctors to help this guy free of charge.
Under the current legal climate in US, there is either too much red tape or too much liability risk associated with helping someone who can't pay. The legal system is strangling the charitable spirit of doctors.
If we had a free market this wouldn't be a problem.
It's not as much a problem of a lack of free market as it is too expensive and risky for doctors to help this guy free of charge.
Under the current legal climate in US, there is either too much red tape or too much liability risk associated with helping someone who can't pay. The legal system is strangling the charitable spirit of doctors.
Could you explain this further? I'm not trying to argue, just kind of ignorant on this topic so I would like some further reading from you or outside sources.
On June 23 2011 03:18 natabata wrote: i would have done the same thing myself, dont lots of homeless do it for food?
Yep, although generally more for shelter in bad weather conditions for food. 2 hots and a cot is pretty well known in the corrective system. They generally roll up to a 7-11 / rite aid / cvs and ask for cigerettes and not pay and hang out outside until the police get there.
On June 23 2011 03:30 The KY wrote: Assuming public schools = bad schools? Mine was ok. Oh sorry, anecdotal evidence again.
Regardless, the obvious problem with people paying for their own kids is that the poor are forced to send their kids to the lower quality schools. Goodbye social mobility.
That would also assume that schools in poor districts and rich districts are the same quality, and that by living in a poor area, they aren't going to get a worse education. Separate but equal? Hardly.
Many inner city public schools in poor areas of US are terrible. In some cases, the kids would be better off not going to school because of the degree to which education system is disastrously run. In extreme cases, it can resemble a 6 hour jail term every weekday for children.
Anyone who lives in these districts send their children to private school or moves to a different school district. Case in point, Obama sends his children to private school rather than weather the DC school system. The only people who can't run away from these awful school systems in the US are the poor. If there is any cause for poor income mobility, it's because of the terrible inner city public education. And people have every right to complain about the terrible school systems.
The same is true for the police departments in such districts. Because of the drug war and crime, the cops view the residents of their districts as subjects to be subdued into submission rather than people who they are accountable to and who the are in charge of protecting. "Black people don't trust police officers?" I reckon they have every right not to trust them.
On June 23 2011 05:29 smokeyhoodoo wrote: If we had a free market this wouldn't be a problem.
It's not as much a problem of a lack of free market as it is too expensive and risky for doctors to help this guy free of charge.
Under the current legal climate in US, there is either too much red tape or too much liability risk associated with helping someone who can't pay. The legal system is strangling the charitable spirit of doctors.
Yeah, agreed with you as well. When people argue for public healthcare like a lot of people here do they point to the current healthcare system which isn't really public, and they say, if this is capitalism and it's supposed to drive the prices down how come healthcare is so unaffordable? Obviously the common people are just being screwed by corporations, because healthcare is "essential" and so its cost can be jacked up as high as you want.
But this is wrong, people need to look at the $'s being made to see who's getting screwed by who? Are the doctors screwing the patients/insurance companies? Sure they make a lot, but you have to consider that they are already getting screwed by the enormous loans that they have, that are almost completely necessary nowadays in order to be able to make it through college and especially med-school (blame the inflation and guaranteed student loans for such high tuitions.)
Then there's the pharmaceutical companies that are offering bribes to medical facilities in order to use their drugs which are often times more expensive. But it's the doctors that stick their necks out to accept this. But then you gotta look at who creates the regulations for the work of these companies and the type of both risks and rewards that are artificially manufactured by the regulations that result from the public sector researchers. There's way more room for corruption, and bureaucratic money sinks in the relationship between the government regulators and the pharmaceutical companies than between pharmaceutical companies and the hospitals/clinics/doctors.
That's where all the money ends up getting stuck, there and the civil courts given how everyone sues everyone else left and right.
People say insurance is expensive... It's really not. Insurance is simply a guarantee for you to receive medical treatment, it can only be expensive relative to how much the medical treatment costs... So look at how much money the insurance companies are making... not all that much. It's not the insurance that's expensive, it's the actual medical treatment that's expensive right now, and why is it so expensive? The reasons listed above and then some, it's a complicated process, but in general wherever the government tries to lay down their regulations they create bureaucratic sinkholes, through which most of the consumers' cash falls into the lap of those whom the government arbitrarily puts in these overseeing positions of power.
EPT
)
you read the OP...
