No it isn't, stop being an idiot. I'm glad to see that people here are finally catching on to your bullshit. Sooner or later you'll get hit by the ban train. Choo Choo!
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 2
- 0
How's it going to do that? Like my coworker from Canada right now, morbidly obese who is on Diabetes II meds and eats cinnamon rolls for breakfast and lasagne?
The point above is pure and true, there is in fact no data to indicate how many "uninsured" people manage to find ample money for sh*t they don't need.
You realize $9442 of that is payed by the employer right? And the total out of pocket avg. is $2675--so your point is moot. Something tells me that if you have to pay for 300 mil Americans it's going to cost trillions so taxes will be significantly higher. And do you think most people would put up with higher taxes and sub standard care? I don't think so.
I would just like to say that my father is in the process of recovering from cancer, he has recieved amazing care on the NHS, and I'm very grateful to the NHS doctors and nurses who treated him. I cannot imagine he could have got better treatmant anywhere in the world. This story shows there are very bad hospitals here as well as good ones, but I think there are bad hospitals everywhere, and I'm sure whoever compared it to a third world hospital has never even seen such a facility. This is a big blown up story (and it has certainly been blown up) precisely because it is unusual. The NHS is flawed, but it means one thing - if you are sick or injured you will be treated regardless of who you are. It's the only morally sound system and 99% of Brits wouldn't trade it for anything. That's why it is now unthinkable, even for the most fringe right-wing MPs, to suggest abolishing the national health service.
It's going to do that because by going to the doctor early, you can prevent complications which cost a lot more later. And you can goto the doctor at the onset of symptoms, rather than only when violently ill. Just having regular labs and treatments for certain ailments can be the difference maker between having to use the ER or not. Extreme cases like your coworker cannot be used to argue for/rationalize any situation.
The point was about the number of uninsured, not your judgment on 20 year olds and the 'unproductive'. The fact that you fail to recognize the size of this number of people either highlights your inability to reason, count or both.
Glad to hear your father is doing well. But it sounds like he is lucky.
http://politicalcalculations.b...ncer-us-vs-europe.html
And what about the large number of people who don't have employers that pay $10K in medical costs? The remaining $6K a year isn't a number to sneeze at either.
Not everyone makes 30K+ each year with generous employment benefits like healthcare benefits exceeding $9-$10k in value.
As for the sub-standard care, do you actually have any qualitative data about this or are you basing your opinion on a story you read about a small number of incidents?
That assumes all, or even most, people act rationally, which is questionable. Plenty of "preventive care" is free (watch your diet, drink in moderation, don't smoke, don't do drugs, etc.), yet we as a nation still choose horribly unhealthy lifestyle habits. My mom currently works as an RD for a major HMO, so by default every single person she sees is insured, but the majority are still non-compliant with basic self-care instructions.
Do they differentiate between people who are able to pay for their insurance but dont? What about illegal aliens?
UHC would crumble just like Hawaii's did recently. We do not have the facilites, staff, or the infrastructure to accomodate everyone in the US going to the doctor with a fever. Just look at your average ER room, where hospitals will treat you regardless of immigration status or insurance coverage. I was in one with a buddy 2 weeks ago in Brawley, CA. It was a nightmare.
Add in a time where we have NO MONEY for the programs that are already in place, this is like someone who is about to lose their home wanting to put a Yacht on a credit card.
Hillary Clinton was the one who wanted single-payer healthcare, and she failed at getting elected. Obama is not pushing for UHC, thankfully.
Agreed. The neocons in the US somehow think that doctors who are part of UHC systems are slumming. Last time I checked doctors here in Canada were living it up with high end cars, big houses in the best neighborhoods and frequently taking vacations. And these are general practitioners. Anyone with some specialization probably comes close to making what their US counterparts make (varies greatly by discipline and region) despite being in a not-for-profit system.
Doesn't that stat only counts those who are diagnosed and treated? Surely uninsured people in the US don't get that, they would die having never been in the system until that point, so the stats couldn't have been collected.
I was just going over the numbers given that the avg US family pays $15K in health benefits, when actually 60% of that is paid by the employer.
I know that not everyone can make $30K+ a year, but if they are making sub 30 right now they won't stay there for long. If they are productive and work hard they will do better than that. Most people who are poor are not some 10 years down the line.
There are incidents on both sides that would qualify as sub standard care. I just know that the US govt. will not be able to sustain the care we have now--some like to think so--but it won't. My idea is that having a single payer system should be the last resort, because it won't be any cheaper. And if it is, care will be cheaper too, can't wait.
Not necessarily. If you suffer from something like lupus, or an ailment that requires means of suppression (eg steroid treatment as a suppressant) if you get that one treatment done you don't have to wait until you're near kidney failure and have to goto the IR. This same person can afford to do their labs regularly and on some kind of a timetable, versus having to pay between $1K-$2K per lab each time.
And in the great American system, once you have an ailment you're either uninsurable or will not be covered for that ailment, unless you were miraculously lucky and somehow got onto a plan (which probably means you're a congressman/woman or senator).
UHC doesn't mean everything is free for all. eg in Canada it provides basic health care for free to all (and we have a LOT of people who are not here via what the americans would call *legal* immigration). The supplemental choices vary from province to province, and are typically covered by your secondary insurance provider.
What it means is if you get really sick you can goto the ER/GP for free. You may be admitted to a general area where beds are segregated by overhanging curtain type things. If you have better insurance you can get a private/semi-private room, or pay for one. What are not covered are things like eyeglass exams, physio for the most part, etc.
The fact that the facilities have a lot of use prevents people from going in there for stupid shit. People also learn over time that certain things it just wastes your time going in for an hour and not getting medication because it's just a minor cold. Because its not-for-profit a lot of the funds get used a lot more productively.
The problem is with the for-profit healthcare system in the US, everything is ridiculously expensive. Did you know that a hospital in Ontario will charge you a maximum of approx $300 for a trip to the ER whether you have identification/coverage or not? Because that is what the realistic cost per patient probably is from a facilities standpoint.
In the US a trip to the ER typically is $5K unless you're on the best coverage possible. When gauze rolls are $50 and a pill of tylenol is $10, and you have to pay for the entire roll though only a snippet is used, you get gouging to the extreme. And right now the individuals are paying, as well as the business who have insurance.
The problem is with the for-profit healthcare system in the US, everything is ridiculously expensive. Did you know that a hospital in Ontario will charge you a maximum of approx $300 for a trip to the ER whether you have identification/coverage or not? Because that is what the realistic cost per patient probably is from a facilities standpoint.
In the US a trip to the ER typically is $5K unless you're on the best coverage possible. When gauze rolls are $50 and a pill of tylenol is $10, and you have to pay for the entire roll though only a snippet is used, you get gouging to the extreme. And right now the individuals are paying, as well as the business who have insurance.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,943
- 126
so much ignorant in this thread. Holy fuck, its not even worth the time to respond with anything but...
http://imgwtf.com/wp-content/u.../anteaters-335x450.jpg
http://imgwtf.com/wp-content/u.../anteaters-335x450.jpg
OK, so the care is potentially substandard on both sides of the equation. But for the general populace, is it not a better alternative to have the option of going to the hospital for necessary surgery and not foot a $100K bill. Even people with insurance have massive costs, but it's the ones without that get marginalized because they can't afford, or can't qualify for health insurance and don't have jobs where their employer will pay their health premiums.
As for the working hard and not remaining poor, that is very subjective. If you live paycheck to paycheck every month, and your income coming in doesn't increase with inflation (whether from promotions or raises) you're not doing too well. Throw in a trip to the ER and there go 5 years of savings.
As for the healthcare costs listed above, if they are indeed $15K for a family of four, then for $300M it would be $1.125 trillion. Even if there is a sharp increase in number of people going to the doctor, the cost reductions in going to a non-gouging mode and reduction in ER use would make up for that.
The good news is that a big chunk of that would be subsidized by the profit margins of the health insurance industry (which are pretty massive), and in the end the costs to business and the home user decrease.
Right, and my point is nowhere near moot. Did you not understand what I wrote? We were talking about the uninsured, and so obviously part of their coverage is NOT being taken up by their employer. The number was simply to illustrate that Ocguy's idea that instead of people paying for a cell phone that they could pay for health care was silly.
Furthermore, as has been mentioned over, and over, and over again on here, UHC care is not sub-standard, nations with it have better health statistics than the US does overall and for a fraction of the cost.
Period.
Stuff like this is routine in Europe, especially when it comes to the medical care of minorities. It's part of the silent genocide.
Genocide has been thrown around so much it doesnt mean anything anymore. Now when those minorites have a real genocide on their hands (darfur), the African Union wont do anything to stop it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New Apple SoC - M1 - For lower end Macs - Geekbench 5 single-core >1700- Started by Eug
- Replies: 2K
-
Info AMD confirms Windows 11 slow down its CPUs up to 15%- Started by deasd
- Replies: 213
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 14K
-
Question 'Ampere'/Next-gen gaming uarch speculation thread
- Started by Ottonomous
- Replies: 5K
-
Facebook
Twitter