|
United States43464 Posts
On March 23 2010 14:05 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 10:02 randomKo_Orean wrote:On March 23 2010 09:38 StarsPride wrote:
its a joke that i have to live in a country where im forced to pay for everyones health insurance in a socialistic program. This is the kind of shit our founding fathers fought against.
This is not freedom and it is a clear sign that the congressman and even our own president has lost touch with what there duties are. It is there duty to uphold the constitution. No man can prove this is constitutional.. Our decleration and Our constitution is what seperates us from every other nation on the globe. It ensures us that no government can take away our god given right to choose.
The government can not by any means pass the health care bill LEGALY. People are FORCED to BUY insurance to ensure CITEZENSHIP.
such a shame.. this country is such a wreck. Let me be one of the few to say HEALTHCARE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. HEALTH COST IS THE PROBLEM. The fuck you talking about? You do realize most elderly people on Medicaid/Medicare are against the health care reform, right? Yet, they are using socialized health care for fuck's sake -_-;; "Forced to pay for everyone's health insurance" Whoopie fucking do, United States is the LAST 1st-class country to have "socialized" health care. By the way, did you even read the damn bill? Americans piss me off, because they don't even know the basis behind "socialism" (omgsobadright?) -- Sweden has the highest standard of living, and they are considered socialist democracy, but idiots in the States think socialism = bad always. You fucking idiots, you know those FREEDOM FIGHTERS in Sparta when they fought against the Persians (ie 300)? They were fucking communists. Literally.
User was warned for this post. The US had the best healthcare system in the world bar none. It's not perfect, but there is no where else I'd rather live.
The best doctors and hospitals in the world are in the US but the system itself is woefully poor. Per capita you spend several times more than comparable nations with worse outcomes. It is simply untrue that the US system is the best in the world, the statistics contradict that in every key indicator, from life expectancy to disease rates. If you have money to buy the best then the US is great but the vast majority of people won't have that experience.
|
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
As well educated as a majority of folks here on the issue seem to be; some of you sure can act fucking childish. Please keep the discussion objective and stay away from the personal insults.
The ban hammer will be watching.
|
As an ex-pat living in Japan I have to say... America's #37 rating for healthcare if clear and obvious now that I'm in the socialized system of Japan's #9 rating. Night and day. I nearly cried the first time through the Japanese system... because I was so shocked at how good it was and so sadden by how bad and embarrassing the American system was.
I can't fathom why Americans are so hyped against it and why as a country we can't wrap out brains around what socialism actually means.
Fundamentally, there's no way for a publicly traded company (i.e. big, pharma, med insurance, etc.) to hold the best interests of people's health. Their entire objective is profit. Profit is attained by the reduction of cost in comparison to the increase of margin. This not a model health benefits can follow without a general rape of the end user.
|
United States43464 Posts
On March 23 2010 14:38 ellenburstyn wrote:
And I agree with not comparing to UK's health care system, not all crazy nazi socialized medicine systems are the same.
Yeah, like the UK system works well and gets shit on by Americans who don't understand it, have never been to the UK, don't realise the UK also has a thriving private option with insurance that actually works and don't realise that per capita Brits spend about half what Americans do on healthcare.
If I hear one more guy on Fox saying that socialised medicine means doctors deciding how much your life is worth on a whim and endless waiting lists "like in the UK" I'll detonate the bomb.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 23 2010 15:05 IndigO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 13:21 dirtylaundry wrote:
thats nex-november, hes from seattle, and his intelligence level is probably not lower then yours( also its his actual picture, is that what makes you envious?) I dont understand how you can insult someone over a matter like this one, to me someone like tangent is absolutely out of his mind but im not throwing insults his way Im not randomKo_orean, im NeX-November or Juuu on gg.net. YOUR ignorance and arrogance level is seriously in question smi.meow or are you mmrow on gg.net? lets keep it legit and post comments and question like this on the thread i posted in? To make this short as I can… The new health care system isn’t “free” at all. You will be forced upon to purchase the new government health program even if you choose not to. If you are currently uninsured and refuses to PURCHASE the new government health program you can be jailed up to 5 years and pay fine of $250,000. This bill will also raise and create more taxes, raise the cost of preminiums, weaken the medicate instead of strengthen it, it will increase the unemployment rate, it will increase the countries deficit, it will give the people no freedom at all relating to health care, it will give the government more power over the people, it violates the 10th amendment of the Constitution, the doctor won’t decide what kind plan/treatment you shall receive some guy in a suit in some new government run agency will. It’s like paying penalty for living. Do you think this is what the American people want right now? They should be talking about decreasing the money supply and creating more jobs. I’m not saying let’s keep the current health care program we have right now, I hate it with a passion. Our current health care and soon to be new health care program aren’t the only programs that brainless people in Washington D.C can come up with to help the people of this nation. I don't get it... they believe increasing spending will decrease the spending???? ummm... Yes, private insurance companies can’t deny you coverage because of pre existing conditions but you must realize that they WANT you in the government program. When I saw the new health bill that will cover the 32+ millions in America and the health companies can’t deny you because of pre existing conditions I couldn’t believe it, and good thing I didn’t from the new leaders that didn’t bring change for jack shit except bring more suffering to the people. And the first mother f@#$ing black president gets noble peace prize for sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan?!??? Tell me one thing that Obama and his administration did that they say they will do during his presidential campaign? Did Bush do what he say he will do when he was running his presidential campaign or ANY presidents of America? LOL you should see what he says. Obama just used the desperation of the American people for change after the bush administration as a tool to manipulate the people to believing their agenda like Bush did with “Terrorism”.
IndigO,
I'm quite sure that the jail terms were in the house version of the bill. The Senate Bill has rising surcharge penalties. Don't get too carried away. That said, there is quite a bit of unfunded mandate for the states in the bill and it's up to the states to create a good exchange program for those that need to buy health insurance, but don't have an employee program or don't have a job. There is also no public option (the government plan) and the exchange program could be good or it could be bad. The more important half of the equation is still yet to be decided.
Although on this point, I am feeling that Nullification and Interposition are going to be revived ideas with states getting tired of unfunded mandates and the federal government meddling. State sovereignty assertions would be more important than the health care plan. Plenty of people have been pouring cold water on the idea though. I'm still eagerly anticipating it.
|
USA is standing on it's knees economically and still the people in America keep going on like before:
"Don't take my money, I shouldn't have to contribute!"
You all do realize how childish of a mindset that is?
Also people who think USA has one of the best healthcare systems need to wake up.
|
It's so funny to watch people flail around with their signs that say "Don't let the government take away our Medicare!" or whatnot and not even realize what Medicare really is.
Like people have been saying, USA has a lot of good doctors, but the system does not work very well. I wish the Republicans came up with any kind of alternative instead of making up lies every step of the way.
|
Florida State Attorney Generals Office say it will file lawsuit against the bill which probly will go to supreme court with 9 other states so far after Obama signs the bill. The bill clearly goes against the 10th. But supreme court ok's Bills like The Patriot Act.... Let me tell u story the high school i went to, teached american constitution in my U.S history class during my junior year and if the teacher gave us assignment and if it had question like Patriot Act blah blah blah is this constitutional or not? i would say no. Me, a kid that dont really give a f#$k about the whole constitutional shit back then is just doing the assignment to get a good grade on it. The point is... it doesnt need to be deeply analed by this so called "supreme court" to figure out if this is not consitutional or not
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 23 2010 17:39 IndigO wrote:
The point is... it doesnt need to be deeply analed by this so called "supreme court" to figure out if this is not consitutional or not That might be true but we're at that period in the life of the bill where there's no other places for the "Supreme Court" to go with it, without making a huge mess. I just hope they take their time and not try to push it too fast, or we might see the bill stop right there. If that happens, I think it's unlikely we'll ever see it tried again. The whole process is really sensitive and turbulent, and you really need an experienced and thoughtful "Supreme Court" to do it properly.
|
On March 23 2010 17:02 Zoler wrote:
Also people who think USA has one of the best healthcare systems need to wake up.
If you don't have money, you might die from an easily treatable illness. If you have money, the best care in the world is in the USA.
|
Yeah, and such a system S U C K S .
There are no other words to describe something like this. It's like saying:
Your poor so you probably just die if you have bad luck.
The wast majority of People does not have the kind of money to afford *the best treatment in the world*. They get worse treatment than people in many other countries geht, thats why your healthcare system S U C K S compared to that of... nearly all developed countries in the world, even if these countries in allmost all other fields are way worse off.
|
On March 23 2010 13:49 HeartOfTofu wrote:
I have to say that I'm personally not bothered by the concept of healthcare reform so much as the manner in which it was passed. This past year has just been a particularly ugly year in American politics in my eyes and only further proves to me why a single political party should never control both houses of Congress and the Executive office...
While supporters of reform may praise the Democratic party and the President for essentially playing "hardball" to get the bill passed at all costs, I think we need to be conscious of the fact that it's these kinds of power plays that ingrain deep resent and division across the country and leads countries into civil war be it military or political. Regardless of all that is said about efforts to make Republicans a part of this law making process, the simple fact that they were willing to push this through without a single Republican vote just because they could speaks volumes about how much they actually cared about Republican input at all. Please don't think I'm some right-wing nut either because I'd say the same thing about the Republicans if they were the ones in power and pulling this nonsense. Also, if it was the Republicans pulling this crap (and maybe one day they will be in the position to), I'm sure plenty of Democrats would have loads of unpleasant things to say about it as well. Just because you CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD regardless of the ideology behind the cause.
And to top it all off, what did we really get for all these absurd politics? We ended up with a bastardized bill that does little to nothing in the way of real reform in the healthcare industry. While the bill is touted as a "great first step", I would have hoped for a bit more than a "great first step" after ingraining so much resentment and spending so much political capital. Let's not kid ourselves here... I think it's clear to just about everyone on BOTH sides that there are some serious flaws in this bill that was passed that are going to need to be addressed at some future date when they should have been addressed before passing it. While I will admit I was against healthcare reform being passed right now (not on principle but on timing due to our current economic state and other troubles), but if you're going to go ahead and stir up trouble to do it, at least do it right the first time around for heaven's sake..
When I realize that we're eventually going to be in this same spot a few years from now to try to fix this bill to what it should have been, it makes me want to dig a hole and go hide in it because if anything, it's only going to get uglier from here... And if all this political drama wasn't enough for one lifetime, they're already off talking about immigration reform... FML
I think I'll go start digging that hole now because I'm sick of hearing the idiots crying "Armageddon" and I'm tired of hearing the rhetoric of Pelosi and her ilk... Where the hell did all the sensible people go? -_-
yes yes yes thank you. someone who i really agree with here. Many many valid points are getting brought up here but i think this guys sums it up best.
People need to get their heads out of the clouds if they think America has the best medicine. We have the best medicine if you can pay for it. Socialized medicine is where we need to head, but the way we just did it, and with a terrible bill its almost completely useless. It's not universal health care, and with all the reforms im curious to see what actually comes out of it.
As he said we stepped on a ton of toes and pissed of the GOP hardcore with this bill. This will not make any matters better for the future. It doen't fix the healthcare problem really it just creates another fucking social security problem where we need to fix it again down the road because it was faulty to begin with. We either need to not have the bill or go 100 percent. It also, as other people have pointed out, screws over lots of doctors that put their hard time into going to school for 12 years including residency to now make way less money and pile up over 200k, maybe more of school loans. Where was their say in the matter?
I agree that its cheaper for universal health care, aka preventative medicine, but this isn't it and it sucks that we have to decide to go hard on this bill now when we have soo many other issues wrong with our country at the moment.
Lastly i have to agree that hearing the far left and the far right talk about it makes it seem like we are talking about different issues here. Fox needs to stick to the damn truth about the bill not attack whether we are becoming to socialist, and that socialism is bad.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 23 2010 20:18 Velr wrote:
Yeah, and such a system S U C K S .
There are no other words to describe something like this. It's like saying:
Your poor so you probably just die if you have bad luck.
The wast majority of People does not have the kind of money to afford *the best treatment in the world*. Not the best, but most people have access to very good hospitals and doctors. I don't know how it's been painted around the world, but it's not as polarized as you're making it out to be. This is a justice issue for the lower classes, and to preserve the current state of affairs for the middle class over the coming decades. The current system is unsustainable, but most people still have good healthcare service today.
If you have bad luck, you're not going to die, you'll still receive treatment. You'll just be financially crippled from it, and that's what they're seeking to alleviate. Preventative medicine so you don't have to go to the ER, and subsidized coverage.
|
Yes, i don't believe you just die over there if your poor.
But the two things that really show that your system is bad/flawed:
Getting financially crippled because you got ill or had an accident? Thats like playing the a lottery with your future/live.
Getting on average worse treatment then people in other countries? Thats what all these statistics actually say (child mortality...).
I mean just imagine if the USA wouldn't have the *very best* Health Care money can buy (which is of no use to "Joe the plumber"). What arguments would be left over for your system as whole?
And another thing is... The very best health care is so friggin expensive that if you can pay for it, you should have no problems to pay for a flight to the US from Europe or anywhere else in the world  .
Wanting to finance stuff with charity is fine. But what i don't get is, why do you think the money from Charity is spend more efficient than from your Goverment?
Btw: It's such a huge diffrence in mentality from Europe to the US when it comes to the Goverment/Tax-funded vs "Charity-funded" argument.. It just leads to endless arguments as soon as the two "world views" clash on each other. Sometimes people (including me) forget that we live on two diffrent continents and travelling between the two was not that easy for the average citizen.
|
United States22883 Posts
The statistics are misleading and don't paint an accurate picture, as statistics usually fail to do. Just as the earlier post about America's cancer survival rate being the best, so too are the infant mortality rates misleading. Each country uses different counting methodology, with America's being more rigorous than countries like Canada's. When you adjust for the same methods, there isn't much differentiation between any first world country.
Cost is what's most in need of fixing.
It's rare that I'll so thoroughly agree with Noam Chomsky, but I think he was completely right when he said corporate interests were the original heavy movers behind this healthcare reform. At this point, it's taken a life of its own among the public, but at the beginning it was really big companies who were feeling the pain because of the benefits they had to provide. They weren't dissatisfied with the level of treatment, they were being hurt financially in comparison to Japanese and European companies that had more support from their governments in this area. I'm not sure that this plan has really addressed that, though.
|
The 2 really big swiss Pharma companies (Novartis and Roche) just said that they are happy with the results, What I read in short:
"We will most likely have to lower our prices in the US due to government influence but on the other side we got over 30'000'000 new customers."
|
On March 23 2010 22:51 Velr wrote:
The 2 really big swiss Pharma companies (Novartis and Roche) just said that they are happy with the results, What I read in short:
"We will most likely have to lower our prices in the US due to government influence but on the other side we got over 30'000'000 new customers."
As I said before, all pharmaceutical and insurance companies win from this legislation. They'll have many more customers and reliable payment. They actually won't need to lower their prices since price isn't a competitive issue with medication. Lobbying makes the world go round.
|
They will have to lower the prices because the goverment has a say in how much they can charge for their *service/medicine*... Question is, how strong is the pharma lobby in your country :/... It's damn strong in Switzerland :/...
The thing is... The Doctor/Hospital lobbies are also damn strong and never forget the "customer lobbies" which also want the best treatment possible... The whole thing is such a minefield and way to many entities try to "win".
|
You think the government is going to put a price ceiling on medication? That's insane.
Edit: I suppose I should elaborate incase people don't follow my reasoning. Pharmaceutical companies have one of the largest lobby groups in the US. Price ceilings would not be imposed for this reason. In addition, price ceilings can cause shortages, which is exactly what the government does not want by providing universal healthcare.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 23 2010 20:56 Jibba wrote:
The statistics are misleading and don't paint an accurate picture, as statistics usually fail to do. Just as the earlier post about America's cancer survival rate being the best, so too are the infant mortality rates misleading. Each country uses different counting methodology, with America's being more rigorous than countries like Canada's. When you adjust for the same methods, there isn't much differentiation between any first world country.
Cost is what's most in need of fixing.
It's rare that I'll so thoroughly agree with Noam Chomsky, but I think he was completely right when he said corporate interests were the original heavy movers behind this healthcare reform. At this point, it's taken a life of its own among the public, but at the beginning it was really big companies who were feeling the pain because of the benefits they had to provide. They weren't dissatisfied with the level of treatment, they were being hurt financially in comparison to Japanese and European companies that had more support from their governments in this area. I'm not sure that this plan has really addressed that, though.
I really can't believe that you can dismiss those statistics and leave it at that. Is there some evidence that leads you believe that each country uses clearly different counting methods that cause a +/- 3 variance in infant mortality rates?
Not only that, but the problem with the cancer survival rate article was not that it used poor methods, but that it basically said that every type of cancer has one survival rate, which isn't the case. Plus they left out a lot of other cancers that have sucky survival rates.
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf
One of their sources. Page 17, table from the American Cancer Society. 5 Year survival rate on cancers.
Breast (female) 88.5%. - Ok that's cool.
Esophagus 15.6% - that's not.
Prostate 99% - That's cool.
Pancreas 5% - That's not.
Just read source data and don't read stuff that tries to build off of the source data.
And why do you have to buy the European cancer statistics? That's just stupid. Can't access that, so I can't make a good comparison =_=.
Anyway, my point is that statistics do hold value, and you can't discredit them, and the US does have a better cancer survival rate :3. It just sucks in other aspects of medical care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
