Do you have any clue how SS works. The money that is "surplus" is put into treasury bonds. The money that is invested into those treasury bond is now the governments money until which time they are cashed in. Nobody has spent the SS surplus.
Do you have any clue how SS works. The money that is "surplus" is put into treasury bonds. The money that is invested into those treasury bond is now the governments money until which time they are cashed in. Nobody has spent the SS surplus.
Originally posted by: Zebo
Remeber, Berkeley of all places, runs the Federal weapons labs.
That may explain why US servicemen have been saddled with the POS 5.56mm NATO.
rudeguy
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 47,351
- 14
- 61
I haven't read all the replies in this thread, and I never will.
We already have Medicaid to pay for the poor's medical bills. A lot, if not most of the people on Medicaid could be out working. But why would they? We pay them to sit at home, cover their medical bills, and if they ever want a raise all they have to do is pop out another kid for us working fools to pay for.
Why not fix the system? Get all of the people who don't deserve it out of there, and get the ones that really do need it, but have been denied it, in.
And yes, I support Sam Kinnison's theory of shooting the homeless.
We already have Medicaid to pay for the poor's medical bills. A lot, if not most of the people on Medicaid could be out working. But why would they? We pay them to sit at home, cover their medical bills, and if they ever want a raise all they have to do is pop out another kid for us working fools to pay for.
Why not fix the system? Get all of the people who don't deserve it out of there, and get the ones that really do need it, but have been denied it, in.
And yes, I support Sam Kinnison's theory of shooting the homeless.
Why is it that everyone one assumes "universal health care" = free? I have never said give away free healthcare, I have been arguing for AFFORDABLE health care.
EIther way free is still cheaper on us. If we go with free which one of these scenarios is cheaper on taxpayers?
1) Man has a chest cold, goes to the doctor, gets some antibiotics
2) Man has a chest cold, doesn't go to the doctor, gets pneumonia, goes to emergency room
Scenario 2 is far more expensive on your taxes.
Uppsala9496
Diamond Member
- Nov 2, 2001
- 5,272
- 19
- 81
Preventative medical care isn't a good argument. Some health plans for example cover birth control as a method of preventative health care. Far cheaper for birth control (about $1 day) than it is for a pregnancy/birth (at least $5,000).
Not all health plans follow this logic however. If a health plan doesn't follow that logic, than what makes anyone think that it can be applied to those that currently don't have coverage?
Universal healthcare in the US is not practical. Never has been, and never will be.
Not all health plans follow this logic however. If a health plan doesn't follow that logic, than what makes anyone think that it can be applied to those that currently don't have coverage?
Universal healthcare in the US is not practical. Never has been, and never will be.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,547
- 20,262
- 146
Untrue when you consider the fact that every universal health care plan in the US involves banning private health care to avoid a two tier system, keep better doctors from charging more, and keep the wealthy from gaining better care than the poor.
In education, a teacher can leave and work for a private concern.
As for the military, it benefits us all equally and is called for specifically in the Constitution. It is one of the few things the federal government is actually chartered to tax and spend for.
Birth control example isn't a good argument either. We are talking about basic standard of living health care here, by that I mean if you are sick you don't have to worry about going to the doctor.
It costs taxpayers more for a delivery (5,000 - 15,000). If the mother is poor and can't afford it, your taxes will pay for it anyway. So which is cheaper for you? The $1 a day ($365 a year) or the $10,000 for the delivery?
You example is invalid either way.
EtOH
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I think a (key words coming) well thought out plan would be a good thing. I don't mean EVERYTHING should be covered, but big ticket items based on need? Sure.
Now the problem is how to effectively administer such a thing. The govt. is inept, and both sides will use it as a political club to bludgeon the opposition with, and insurance companies would love this cash cow.
A suggestion.
Appoint physicians, health care advocates, insurance reps etc. and pretty much lock them in a room (metaphorically of course). Select people AND PAY THEM for a given term. They could be people retired from their particular fields, or else they would have to cut ties with their employers so there would not be pressure from them on deciding on a particular plan. Their mandate would be to come up with a plan and a way to administer it, according to broad parameters given to them by Congress.
Take several options before Congress, who would be bound by the original legislation from tampering with these suggestions. They can select one of the options, and SUGGEST changes ENTIRELY at the discretion of the panel. It gets kicked around, and then Congress must select one, and FUND it.
The panel's job would be to check to see if things were working and present periodic self assessments, and report to Congress with changes to the plan if needed. Health care would be continuously monitored for quality and cost, and an objective public report given at regular intervals. If things went truly out of whack, then Congress can mandate that changes be made in order to meet the stated goals, but the panel selects how that is done.
Now the problem is how to effectively administer such a thing. The govt. is inept, and both sides will use it as a political club to bludgeon the opposition with, and insurance companies would love this cash cow.
A suggestion.
Appoint physicians, health care advocates, insurance reps etc. and pretty much lock them in a room (metaphorically of course). Select people AND PAY THEM for a given term. They could be people retired from their particular fields, or else they would have to cut ties with their employers so there would not be pressure from them on deciding on a particular plan. Their mandate would be to come up with a plan and a way to administer it, according to broad parameters given to them by Congress.
Take several options before Congress, who would be bound by the original legislation from tampering with these suggestions. They can select one of the options, and SUGGEST changes ENTIRELY at the discretion of the panel. It gets kicked around, and then Congress must select one, and FUND it.
The panel's job would be to check to see if things were working and present periodic self assessments, and report to Congress with changes to the plan if needed. Health care would be continuously monitored for quality and cost, and an objective public report given at regular intervals. If things went truly out of whack, then Congress can mandate that changes be made in order to meet the stated goals, but the panel selects how that is done.
Uppsala9496
Diamond Member
- Nov 2, 2001
- 5,272
- 19
- 81
Hospitals can not turn someone away from care if it is deemed life threatening.
And the birth control example was just that, an example. I was merely pointing out an example of preventative healthcare.
And socialized medicine does not work. Sweden is a great example. A small country of 8.6M people and it didn't work. It is no longer free to go to the doctor. This is a country that is founded on the cradle to grave welfare system. And it failed. No way could you even attempt to pull that off in the US. Too many people.
Oh, and in Sweden some people are taxed at 75%. Imagine trying to tax people here at 75% of their wages. Can you say revolution???
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
- Ronald Reagan
That's the medical future for all of us, if government takes over medical care. The last thing we need is a government-run medical system with the "compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Post Office, at Pentagon pricing."
- Unknown
- Ronald Reagan
That's the medical future for all of us, if government takes over medical care. The last thing we need is a government-run medical system with the "compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Post Office, at Pentagon pricing."
- Unknown
God this country is in such dire need of universal health care, the only reason it won't pass is because of the fat politicians in DC who won't do it unless it benefits them. Something like 40% of people in America don't have health insurance. That is absolutely horrible. Health should be every human being's right, and quite frankly I'm surprised this country places money above health.
For those of you who (surprisingly?) said NO to the poll, go watch John Q., and ask yourselves that if you didn't have a job which gave you health care, would you want universal health care? I'm also speaking as a college student who can tell you that the health care the university gives you sucks balls too.
For those of you who (surprisingly?) said NO to the poll, go watch John Q., and ask yourselves that if you didn't have a job which gave you health care, would you want universal health care? I'm also speaking as a college student who can tell you that the health care the university gives you sucks balls too.
This number grows everytime someone opens their mouth. Early in the thread it was 45million, then it was 75million, and now its 40%. Making up statistics doesn't help prove your point.
FYI the real number is close to the original 45million cited earlier. In case you're math challenged, let's round that up to 50 million, and round the US population down to 290million. That still leaves only 17% of people not covered. Less than half of your claimed 40%
packmule
Senior member
- Sep 6, 2004
- 258
- 0
- 76
These people you say drop dead every year have had the opportunity to purchase Health Care much like every other American. If it is forced on the population the quality of care given will be no where at the level we are accustomed to now.
Look at Canada's Health System it is great as long as you do not need it. However if you need it may take a while to run a test that could in fact show a serious problem that needs to be corrected immediatley.
Look at Canada's Health System it is great as long as you do not need it. However if you need it may take a while to run a test that could in fact show a serious problem that needs to be corrected immediatley.
So you're saying that the right to life is only reserved for those who can afford it? That seriously sickens me, I think I need to go puke, I can't believe how greedy, arrogant, and heartless some people can be.
PS - I'm not claiming that I'm correct, I dont' remember the exact statistic, it could be that I meant around 40 million people instead of 40% of people. If you're so hellbent on proof, why don't you prove to me why only the people with money should live and how they're better than the lower classes.
Here is the funamental problem. Yes, universal healthcare would bring serious problems. And I don't support it. But something needs to be done. You say that every American has the opportunity to purchase healthcare. That's not true. What if you are choosing between healthcare or food? How about for my mom and our family, that when she was at an employer who didn't offer health insurance that we had to drop our plan for a month or two before moving to one with a lot less coverage because for middle class families, health insurance is a huge expense.
So I don't support universal healthcare. But something drastic needs to be done.
What does healthcare have to do with the right to live? What does government run universal healthcare have to do with the right to live? If someone needs treatment they can get it right now, regardless of their ability to pay. There are free clinics available to the homeless, sponsored through the generosity of individuals who donate their time and money.
What we're saying is that these government sponsored programs will fail. Look at Tennesse, TennCare is bankrupting the state. To implement this system successfully in the US would require the complete removal of the private health care system, and thus all motivation for doctors to perform. This will actually lower care for those that can pay for it. Unless you're willing to allow for a multi-tiered system where "free" care is only a very basic item, and the private sector is still allowed to exist. Then people will complain because some people still get better care than others. Are you really telling me that if I'm willing to pay top dollar for my care that I should be denied the opportunity to receive it? Perhaps we should implement three meals a day for all people, but only at government run foodhouses. Then ban supermarkets and restaurants because we wouldn't want someone to receive better food than what the government provides.
As for why healthcare doesn't cost as much in another country. Basically no other country recognizes medical procedure patents. This means that when a US hospital funds its research, acquires a procedure patent, and publishes its results. Other hospitals need to pay royalities to deliver these treatments. In another country, they can just steal the end result of that research and use it without paying. Imagine how much cheaper you could distribute music and movies if you never had to pay royalties.
Personally, I'd like to see these procedure patents outlawed, along with the software patents. However the legal system doesn't agree with me, and so costs for care in the US go up.
This is actually what the medical savings accounts are designed to help with. People can get major health insurance coverage at far cheaper prices than they can get complete health coverage. Then instead of paying out $800/month to the health insurance company, they put $500/month in an account (tax-free!) ear marked for when they might need it. These families can then afford regular doctor visits, and even have the money to cover emergenices like broken bones. If they get into a major accident, in comes the major health insurance coverage.
This is an attempt to redifine the system. For so long we've lived with one company billing another company and being told that if you don't have health insurance you're screwed. Steps like the health savings accounts are designed to remove our dependence on health insurance and let doctors bill their actual customers. No more three month battles between companies over what is covered and what isn't, no more squabbles about who needs to pay for what. No more fear that even with health insurance you can be told "sorry, we don't deal with <somecompany> anymore, too many hassles."
If you personally have the money in the bank, you control when you use it, and you can work out the payment system with the institution providing you with the care. They're trying to put a little bit of humanity back into healthcare, instead of just sending invoices back and forth for months on end.
Yup... instead let us continue paying for emergency and life threatening health care for those that can't aford to pay for it out of their own pockets or through insurance. Which in turn raises the cost of your insurance premium.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter