For U.S Citizens Only: Do you support universal health care

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: MySoS
I for one support it. There are countless people dropping dead each year in the U.S due to lack of medical insurance, and something needs to be done.
If so, they should fund it with a voluntary tax...
 

Wallydraigle

Banned
Nov 27, 2000
10,754
1
0
Originally posted by: desteffy
I think we should definately have it.

For all you people who say we shouldnt, why not just get rid of police and fire too? and then have the fire dept charge us $5000 for coming to put out a fire, unless we buy insurance.



I'd be for that too. No, I'm not joking.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Where the fvck did all the blue state voters of this board take off to? It's your party trying to shove this BS down our throats. I have no doubt it would fare as poorly as the friggen Social Security program you saddled us with.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: desteffy
I think we should definately have it.

For all you people who say we shouldnt, why not just get rid of police and fire too? and then have the fire dept charge us $5000 for coming to put out a fire, unless we buy insurance.


the government already has building codes, product safety standards and zoning laws to minimize the chance of fire. There is no such standard for food or personal behavior.
 

EtOH

Senior member
Oct 13, 1999
845
0
0
Absolutely 100%. Kinda sad we are pretty much the only industrial nation without it. That being said it will never happen, insurance/hmo companies would lose too much money and they lobby hard.

I can and have had to pay for it on my own, so affording it is NOT an issue.

It really wouldn't cost much money despite what all the fiscal conservatives say. You are already paying for it anyway with higher insurance and premiums to help cover those that don't have it already.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
No.

We don't need any more of a nanny state. Nor is it economically sound.

Who cares what everyone else done. Things aren't right by consensus.
 

EtOH

Senior member
Oct 13, 1999
845
0
0
Originally posted by: Ornery
Where the fvck did all the blue state voters of this board take off to? It's your party trying to shove this BS down our throats. I have no doubt it would fare as poorly as the friggen Social Security program you saddled us with.

Social Security is not in nearly as much of a crisis as it is made out to be by the right wing nut jobs.

Medicare etc are WAY worse off the Social Security, yet we don't hear jack about fixing that. Why? Cause it helps poor people. Just keep cutting funding, the states then have to make it up, and then our state taxes go up. If you want to talk tax cuts fine, but at least admit it is just a shell game and isn't really anything but smoke and mirrors.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: EtOH
Originally posted by: Ornery
Where the fvck did all the blue state voters of this board take off to? It's your party trying to shove this BS down our throats. I have no doubt it would fare as poorly as the friggen Social Security program you saddled us with.

Social Security is not in nearly as much of a crisis as it is made out to be by the right wing nut jobs.

Medicare etc are WAY worse off the Social Security, yet we don't hear jack about fixing that. Why? Cause it helps poor people. Just keep cutting funding, the states then have to make it up, and then our state taxes go up. If you want to talk tax cuts fine, but at least admit it is just a shell game and isn't really anything but smoke and mirrors.

Not now, but in a few years social security will collapse like the house of cards it is.

Aging population = growing number on seniors and shrinking number of workers. Doesn't anyone else see a problem with this? The system is fundamentally flawed and was only propped up by the baby boom in the first place. Either we raise taxes on everyone or we privatize. I for one don't want to be enslaved by the elderly, so let's do this thing!
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Speaking of "smoke and mirrors", looks like one of our blue state voters got sucked in... COMPLETELY!
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: Ornery
Where the fvck did all the blue state voters of this board take off to? It's your party trying to shove this BS down our throats. I have no doubt it would fare as poorly as the friggen Social Security program you saddled us with.

Off in their utopia -- P&N.

And to answer the question, NO, NO, NO, AND HELL NO!
 

EtOH

Senior member
Oct 13, 1999
845
0
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: EtOH
Originally posted by: Ornery
Where the fvck did all the blue state voters of this board take off to? It's your party trying to shove this BS down our throats. I have no doubt it would fare as poorly as the friggen Social Security program you saddled us with.

Social Security is not in nearly as much of a crisis as it is made out to be by the right wing nut jobs.

Medicare etc are WAY worse off the Social Security, yet we don't hear jack about fixing that. Why? Cause it helps poor people. Just keep cutting funding, the states then have to make it up, and then our state taxes go up. If you want to talk tax cuts fine, but at least admit it is just a shell game and isn't really anything but smoke and mirrors.

Not now, but in a few years social security will collapse like the house of cards it is.

Aging population = growing number on seniors and shrinking number of workers. Doesn't anyone else see a problem with this? The system is fundamentally flawed and was only propped up by the baby boom in the first place. Either we raise taxes on everyone or we privatize. I for one don't want to be enslaved by the elderly, so let's do this thing!


In a matter of years depends on where you get your information. If you go to the fiscal conservatives yes, it will crash in a couple of years. If you go by economist projects it will crash within about 60 years. MOre than likely it is somewhere in the middle.

I have no qualms with the idea it is in peril and needs to be adjusted. My point is there are programs (medicare/medicaid) in much more dire straigths that Social Security.

If you actually bother to look at the number of people in a generation you find 2 interesting things. The baby boomers had the largets population growth by percentage, but there are still more people by population in the lower age groups than the age group that is about to retire.


 

EtOH

Senior member
Oct 13, 1999
845
0
0
I am officially going to get out of this thread now, I see it isn't good for my mental health.

Everyone is entitled to there own opinion. By that I don't mean regurgitating Fox News's opinion. Go out and get the information for yourself and form your own opinions. If that opinion agrees with Fox News than by all means more power to you, if not that is fine as well.

That is the beauty of a democracy, there is no right or wrong. Only majority rules, typically the majority is wrong on 90% of the issues (even liberals). With that being said I would not consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, both groups are far to conservative for me :)

I am sure this whole poll/thread was meant as flame bait and yes I got sucked in.

It is fun to be young and opinionated!

EtOH
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Not only no, but HELL no.

Look at any other government agency to see how horrible government health care would be. Go tour your local VA hospital.

The worst Doctors are in the military that is a fact.

I think the Health System and The Justice System needs a serious Enema. I believe there should be limits on what and how much a person can sue for which in turn should lower health costs. I mean paying 6 bucks for a bandaid in a hospital is ridiculous. Another thing that drives health costs up is the cost of drugs which IMHO are outrageous.

Ausm
 

EtOH

Senior member
Oct 13, 1999
845
0
0
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: Amused
Not only no, but HELL no.

Look at any other government agency to see how horrible government health care would be. Go tour your local VA hospital.

The worst Doctors are in the military that is a fact.

Ausm

Better for poor people to have bad doctors than no doctors. Having to wait until you are on your death bed to see a doctor is never good regardless of how good the doctor is.
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
National health care is not the way to go.

One of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive is because malpractice insurance is so frigging expensive. Get rid of the lawyers, qand you get rid of a lot of the "hidden" costs of healthcare.


But I am a firm believer that you are not entitled to my money to make your bills, or pay for your healthcare, living expenses, food on your table, etc. You want to eat, get a job, you want healthcare, pay for it yourself, or find a job where the employer offers it. You want a wife and kids, educate yourself so you can find a good job and support them and provide for their well being.
 

EtOH

Senior member
Oct 13, 1999
845
0
0
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
National health care is not the way to go.

One of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive is because malpractice insurance is so frigging expensive. Get rid of the lawyers, qand you get rid of a lot of the "hidden" costs of healthcare.


But I am a firm believer that you are not entitled to my money to make your bills, or pay for your healthcare, living expenses, food on your table, etc. You want to eat, get a job, you want healthcare, pay for it yourself, or find a job where the employer offers it. You want a wife and kids, educate yourself so you can find a good job and support them and provide for their well being.

Malpractice suits have very little to do with the cost of healthcare. In states where they have capped it (often mis-quoted) it only dropped healthcare costs by a fraction of a percent. The number they quote is actually the reduction in costs after health inusurance reforms, not the reduction after reforms on malpractice

Maplractice accounts for less than 1% of healthcare costs.

EtOH
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
National health care is not the way to go.

One of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive is because malpractice insurance is so frigging expensive. Get rid of the lawyers, qand you get rid of a lot of the "hidden" costs of healthcare.


But I am a firm believer that you are not entitled to my money to make your bills, or pay for your healthcare, living expenses, food on your table, etc. You want to eat, get a job, you want healthcare, pay for it yourself, or find a job where the employer offers it. You want a wife and kids, educate yourself so you can find a good job and support them and provide for their well being.



You got that right Bottom feeding Lawyers need to be eliminated.


Ausm
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Originally posted by: EtOH
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
National health care is not the way to go.

One of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive is because malpractice insurance is so frigging expensive. Get rid of the lawyers, qand you get rid of a lot of the "hidden" costs of healthcare.


But I am a firm believer that you are not entitled to my money to make your bills, or pay for your healthcare, living expenses, food on your table, etc. You want to eat, get a job, you want healthcare, pay for it yourself, or find a job where the employer offers it. You want a wife and kids, educate yourself so you can find a good job and support them and provide for their well being.

Malpractice suits have very little to do with the cost of healthcare. In states where they have capped it (often quoted) it only dropped healthcare costs by a fraction of a percent. The number quoted is the reduction in costs after health inusurance reforms.

Maplractice accounts for less than 1% of healthcare costs.

EtOH



Where the fvck do you get those figures? Also, If it is true then what is driving up healthcare costs?

Ausm
 

MisterCornell

Banned
Dec 30, 2004
1,095
0
0
Not having insurance is not the same as not getting healthcare. People don't buy insurance to save money. They buy it to cut risk. You do realize that if you went through your life without buying insurance (any kind of insurance), you would likely - on average - save money? That's why many people pay for their health care out of pocket with cash. And this is not typically "rich people", most of whom work for companies that have health care plans. ALso, a lot of young and healthy people don't buy health insurance. Again, all this is risky, but they do it save money. Many doctors will cut you an additional discount on top if you pay them with cash, ecause that saves them *a lot* of paperwork. Dealing with private insurance companies is a hassle, and medicare/medicaid is even worse. Doctors will happily take cash, and many patients take advantage of this. Out of the "45 million" without health insurance, I would imagine only a few of them are actually not getting any healthcare. Hell, even illegals from Mexico are able to get their health care taken care of here in the U.S., typically at the taxpayers expense.
 

BannedTroll

Banned
Nov 19, 2004
967
0
0
Absolutely NOT. People dying sucks but I see no reason to pay to extend their lives or pay for the mistakes they made early on
 

eakers

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
12,169
2
0
its funny reading this thread as a canadian. everyone here is soooooo anti privatized healthcare and say the exact opposite what you guys say
"health care is not a right" vs. "health care is a right"
"poor welfare sponges people can die" vs. "no life is worth more than another"
etc.
 

EtOH

Senior member
Oct 13, 1999
845
0
0
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: EtOH
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
National health care is not the way to go.

One of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive is because malpractice insurance is so frigging expensive. Get rid of the lawyers, qand you get rid of a lot of the "hidden" costs of healthcare.


But I am a firm believer that you are not entitled to my money to make your bills, or pay for your healthcare, living expenses, food on your table, etc. You want to eat, get a job, you want healthcare, pay for it yourself, or find a job where the employer offers it. You want a wife and kids, educate yourself so you can find a good job and support them and provide for their well being.

Malpractice suits have very little to do with the cost of healthcare. In states where they have capped it (often quoted) it only dropped healthcare costs by a fraction of a percent. The number quoted is the reduction in costs after health inusurance reforms.

Maplractice accounts for less than 1% of healthcare costs.

EtOH



Where the fvck do you get those figures? Also, If it is true then what is driving up healthcare costs?

Ausm


Where do you get the figures that show it is all due to Lawyers?

It is due to many many things, malpractice is about 1% of it. I will try to find the study again for you, unless you want to do your own research (Fox News doesn't count).
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: MySoS
I for one support it. There are countless people dropping dead each year in the U.S due to lack of medical insurance, and something needs to be done.

Why don't they pay for coverage?
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: eakers
its funny reading this thread as a canadian. everyone here is soooooo anti privatized healthcare and say the exact opposite what you guys say
"health care is not a right" vs. "health care is a right"
"poor welfare sponges people can die" vs. "no life is worth more than another"
etc.

And remind me again where rich Canadians go for operations???

Free healthcare to the noninsured in the US has made emergency rooms absolutely useless.