The idea is to prevent catastrophes before they occur and for two reasons. First, medical catastrophes are terrible and can have great negative impacts on your life should you endure one. Second, consistently practicing and paying for reasonable preventative care as well as maintaining a decent level of health in general will tremendously reduce one's overall medical costs. Most medical costs occur amongst the elderly. Most elderly that incur the largest medical costs are those that did not practice a healthy lifestyle while they were younger and did not utilize preventative care.
Beyond that, preventative health care is still something which costs a decent amount of money and most are not able to pay for it even though it will cost them much less in the long run. You can also look at it as costing you a lot less in the long run depending on who floats the bill.
For about 16 years now.
I haven't had dental coverage for most of those years; I pay about $80 twice a year for a standard dental cleaning, and I haven't had a cavity in my entire life.
I wonder what would happen to auto insurance if Geico was paying for oil changes.
My wife is 5'7 and weighs 135 pounds 1 year after having her first baby.. never gets as much as a cold, but was diagnosed with a "syndrome" that she doesnt even need to take medication for but might have an effect on her in 40 years...so they won't cover her, PERIOD.
I'll just tell her to exercise more and eat vegetables!
You act as though someone is barred from getting a preventative checkup if they don't have insurance.
The funny thing about it is that everyone expects to get more out of a health insurance program than they put into it.......who's going to be the source of funding for all those people?
Originally posted by: eleison
Personal commentary: Just saw this posted in another forum. I thought it was interesting. I believe this is happening right now. Socialism seems to always go in a circle (remember Jimmy Carter). Its like when I broke my smart phone's screen today. I've broken my pda screen before, and for the past 8 years, I've been careful to not break the smart phone's screen. But alas, history repeats itself.
Great, cannot wait until Obama is president. If history has any bearing, its going to be bad -- high unemployment, inflation, etc. It would be funny if the Bush years, in the future, were seen as the "good years'...
Yea, the odds are people will get a tax cut with Obama -- that is if they still have a job once Obama gets done fubaring it with the "share the wealth" ideology. Remember, in a bad economy the poor gets hurt the most (lost jobs, no employment, etc)... To the rich, its just one less "golden covered back scratcher" ..just my opinion
This is an example of someone who cannot see the difference between socialism and hard line communism.
Be sure to let us know when Obama proposes state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distriubtion of goods!
Somebody else nails it.
The true extent of socialism is measured by government control of the economy in terms of ownership over production and ownership over financial institutions.... Sound familiar to anybody?
What's particularly galling and amusing at the same time is insistence on taxation as an instrument of socialism. How fuckin wrong can you be? taxation is an incident of governance since time immemorial and is part of a social contract.
Redistribution of wealth? CAPITALISM WAS INVENTED TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH!
Your argument is basically that people should be more personally responsible so that people like you and I don't have to pay for it later. Well guess what? That is never going to happen. You either make it easier for them to get regular preventative care while they are younger so that it costs you and I less overall in the future or you run the much heavier risk of trying to save your pennies now hoping that you don't have to pay up big time later in life. We tried the ladder and it doesn't work.
So, If the dow is up 420 points...
That means that all this "Socialism" is enabling a whole lot of capitalists to enrich themselves with all those government dollars from the Fed and the EU. One or the other, guys. Either socialism is a good thing and nobody should be allowed to own over a certain amount of money or it isn't and no self respecting "capitalist" should be willing to invest in markets supported by "fiat money" from Socialist governments".
It is fun to poke fun at the right-wingers who extole the glories of the free market, then stick their hands out for the biggest wad of welfare ever granted. But it is all meaningless. They will find trillions to bail out the investor class that owns them, but if we ask for $75 billion for health insurance for kids they will declare these "budget busters", totally reckless expenditures that we cannot afford. And the media and the economists will nod their heads and say "Amen." The doublethink these folks can indulge in is mind-blowing.
That means that all this "Socialism" is enabling a whole lot of capitalists to enrich themselves with all those government dollars from the Fed and the EU. One or the other, guys. Either socialism is a good thing and nobody should be allowed to own over a certain amount of money or it isn't and no self respecting "capitalist" should be willing to invest in markets supported by "fiat money" from Socialist governments".
It is fun to poke fun at the right-wingers who extole the glories of the free market, then stick their hands out for the biggest wad of welfare ever granted. But it is all meaningless. They will find trillions to bail out the investor class that owns them, but if we ask for $75 billion for health insurance for kids they will declare these "budget busters", totally reckless expenditures that we cannot afford. And the media and the economists will nod their heads and say "Amen." The doublethink these folks can indulge in is mind-blowing.
I wasn't aware that electing Obama meant that we were going to be trying "true Socialism." Could you please address the following points:
A) Please define "true Socialism."
B) Explain how policy implemented by Obama results in A.
C) Only to be completed after researching A. Now that you've realized how impossible a task A really is, I'd like you to describe the differing ideologies that fall under the Socialist moniker and then tell me which most closely resembles Obama. At this point, you'll also probably need to defend McCain for voting in favor of public ownership in private banks and (perhaps) insurance companies.
D) After finally determining which ideology you'd like to use to define Obama, you'll need to intelligently argue and defend your position by using Obama's policy experience and expectations.
After completing these tasks, I believe that we, as a forum, can come together and have an intelligent debate as to whether or not Obama is a Socialist in any sense of the word. Until then, the term Socialist simply appears to be the "attack of the day." I've even seen people refer to Obama as Marxist. I can only assume they've never actually read Marx (and I can't necessarily blame them for this, Das Kapital reads like a dictionary, either by intent or poor translation). However, if you don't actually understand the various Socialist paradigms then I don't know why you'd give anyone that label.
A) Please define "true Socialism."
B) Explain how policy implemented by Obama results in A.
C) Only to be completed after researching A. Now that you've realized how impossible a task A really is, I'd like you to describe the differing ideologies that fall under the Socialist moniker and then tell me which most closely resembles Obama. At this point, you'll also probably need to defend McCain for voting in favor of public ownership in private banks and (perhaps) insurance companies.
D) After finally determining which ideology you'd like to use to define Obama, you'll need to intelligently argue and defend your position by using Obama's policy experience and expectations.
After completing these tasks, I believe that we, as a forum, can come together and have an intelligent debate as to whether or not Obama is a Socialist in any sense of the word. Until then, the term Socialist simply appears to be the "attack of the day." I've even seen people refer to Obama as Marxist. I can only assume they've never actually read Marx (and I can't necessarily blame them for this, Das Kapital reads like a dictionary, either by intent or poor translation). However, if you don't actually understand the various Socialist paradigms then I don't know why you'd give anyone that label.
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.
We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?
I'll let you know when it happens. However, can you let me know when people start yelling, "Obama!! you promised us jobs!!! I believed in you!! Where are the jobs!!!"
Funny how the crazies haven't followed up telling me to tell my wife to do more exercise or eat vegetables!
I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.
Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?
You mean like those manufacturing jobs that Bush sent over seas along with his gracious tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to trickle down too?
They were state run which doesn't have the money of the federal government... why Medicare/medicaid have NOT failed.
You do realize that medicare/medicaid take up 21% of the national budget and only ~10 million people are enrolled in it. I can't imagine 300+ million.
If everybody makes use of preventive healthcare, then everybody's health insurance will be too expensive.
What I want is to force other people, who take care of themselves, to pay for my lifestyle. It should happen at gunpoint, so they don't have a choice. You see, the healthy have an obligation to pay for the sick.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter