"THE HORRORS OF CANADA"
-fat american that doesn't like waiting an average of two weeks to have unimportant, elective surgery.
-fat american that doesn't like waiting an average of two weeks to have unimportant, elective surgery.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 31
- 91
sorry but you are. The horror story cases of people having to wait months to get life saving surgery and when they do it's too late are dwarfed by the cases of people going bankrupt because insurance companies drop coverage based on bogus "pre-existing conditions" right when something expensive happens.
I guess it comes down to would you rather be bankrupt or dead?
I think everyone will agree there can be a better balance out there that what we currently have. But do you *really* believe government will get it right? And once the government takes over an industry there is no going back.
This is what it comes down to in the US. Not in civilized countries however.
What I love most is that if you ask any old person on medicare they'll tell you how much they love it and how easy it is to use. The "medicare is a disaster" shit is the same type of "repeat a lie until it's truth" stuff we saw with "I invented the internet" and "john kerry was a coward"
Keep enjoying being denied coverage on "pre-existing conditions" and being denied claims because it costs insurances money... They get rich off denying you.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 31
- 91
I assume by your response that you believe that if a private option is implemented a private option will then be cheap? Or did you just feel like bashing someone who has an opposing view without actually addressing the topic?
They skewed the report by essentially taking snippets and using them to justify their position. This is not an "analysis" at all, but a cleverly disguised Op-Ed. I encourage you to take the time to read through their sources.
For example:
This is called building a straw man. You built an entirely separate argument and use it to refute another argument, without ever really mentioning what their position was.
They describe the majority of these 46 million as being transient individuals, as in, those temporarily without coverage. They also say that 20 million or so may be young people who don't think insurance is important.
This ignores the main point of the argument, which was that under a UHC system those 46 mullion people would have insurance all the time. In fact, those 20 million people under 34 without insurance may be the most at risk group! Cancer survival rates of this group have continued to decline over the past 30 years, while the elderly and children continue to increase. This is for people who are in the "prime" of their lives. These individuals are also in the middle of large transitions, whether it is graduating from college, starting their own families, or whatever. The reason this group is so uninsured is because that it is extremely expensive to pay for health insurance when you are just starting your career. If you have kids as well, that makes it even more difficult, if not impossible.
They also describe our current system as universal, but then imply that 10 million or so of those without insurance may be illegal citizens. This ignores the fact that we are already PAYING for those individuals to use our hospitals. It also ignores the tremendous financial ruin that can occur for individuals who do not have health insurance should they need to use the ER and not be eligible for medicaid.
Here's a second example:
If you open up their source, you will also discover that the US had the worst overall ranking of the six countries compared, yet they use this article to imply we have superior health care to other countries. Again, disingenuous reporting.
[/quote]
For example:
This is called building a straw man. You built an entirely separate argument and use it to refute another argument, without ever really mentioning what their position was.
They describe the majority of these 46 million as being transient individuals, as in, those temporarily without coverage. They also say that 20 million or so may be young people who don't think insurance is important.
This ignores the main point of the argument, which was that under a UHC system those 46 mullion people would have insurance all the time. In fact, those 20 million people under 34 without insurance may be the most at risk group! Cancer survival rates of this group have continued to decline over the past 30 years, while the elderly and children continue to increase. This is for people who are in the "prime" of their lives. These individuals are also in the middle of large transitions, whether it is graduating from college, starting their own families, or whatever. The reason this group is so uninsured is because that it is extremely expensive to pay for health insurance when you are just starting your career. If you have kids as well, that makes it even more difficult, if not impossible.
They also describe our current system as universal, but then imply that 10 million or so of those without insurance may be illegal citizens. This ignores the fact that we are already PAYING for those individuals to use our hospitals. It also ignores the tremendous financial ruin that can occur for individuals who do not have health insurance should they need to use the ER and not be eligible for medicaid.
Here's a second example:
If you open up their source, you will also discover that the US had the worst overall ranking of the six countries compared, yet they use this article to imply we have superior health care to other countries. Again, disingenuous reporting.
[/quote]
I believe that the only way for americans to get covered for pre-existing conditions is by a government option. Paying 17% of my income for crappy catastrophic insurance is an incredible joke at age 27 with a 26 year old wife.
Yep, those Europeans are dropping like flies. Hell, half of them have limbs the weren't set properly after being broken. 2 out of 3 children there are born with 2 heads. Limbaugh told me so, and I believe every word he says.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 31
- 91
That's great. Now, answer the question regarding the private option that you slammed spidey on. Do you believe that if a private option is implemented a private option will be cheap? Or is he actually trying to use 'fear tactics' by making that assertion as according to your post there must be no basis for his assumption.
Your situation might be unfortunate, but stop trying to pass off your isolated situation as being the situation for every other person who has private health insurance.
The official projections for a public health insurance option is a cost of $66,000 per person. Does your insurance cost you $66,000 per year? I doubt it. Saying that the public plan will be cheaper than all private plans is a blatant lie.
The public option will not be free. It will cost someone, somewhere something. Either through taxes or more borrowing.
$66,000 per year, per person...that is astronomically higher than a good private health insurance plan costs.
We spend way more overall for healthcare than any other 1st world country. They all run single payer schemes. Do the math
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 31
- 91
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 31
- 91
If the official projections are invented then we're all in for a treat when the 'real' numbers are released.
The public plan will not cost $66,000 per person and you know it. RPS has a pretty good track record of using hilariously false numbers in his posts, and he's been owned on it repeatedly. Taking what he says seriously will just end up reflecting badly on you.
Personally, I've got no problem with there being no public option, with a few caveats.
1.) Insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions.
2.) Insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions should be affordable, and if necessary, subsidized based on income levels.
3.) Health Insurance should be portable. My car insurance doesn't rely on my job, neither should my health care.
4.) There needs to be measures taken to reintroduce competition into the industry. Whether this is done through non-profit privately run co-ops or a more public option is fine by me, but four companies controlling nearly the entire industry is an oligarchy that must be broken out. If the free market really can fix this problem, than we need free market competition back in the system.
I'm also fine if the above required mandated coverage. I would also expect strict regulation to make sure that costs do not spiral out of control due to For-Profit greed.
However, just giving everyone insurance won't fix the problem. We also need to increase the supply of doctors and nurses, reduce administrative costs, boost preventative care programs (this includes more than just visiting your doctor, it should include things such as work sponsored exercise programs, ect), better IT, ect. We should also probably consider capping compensation on malpractice suits.
This is a multi-faceted problem. Fixing one of those problems will not fix health care.
Regarding the so called "cost" of the public plan, the numbers released were for a plan that wasn't even finished. To treat them as a hard-coded number that won't change is disingenuous. ...Or should I be digging up the articles about the Bush admin who was fired for suggesting the Iraq war might cost $50 billion.
1.) Insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions.
2.) Insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions should be affordable, and if necessary, subsidized based on income levels.
3.) Health Insurance should be portable. My car insurance doesn't rely on my job, neither should my health care.
4.) There needs to be measures taken to reintroduce competition into the industry. Whether this is done through non-profit privately run co-ops or a more public option is fine by me, but four companies controlling nearly the entire industry is an oligarchy that must be broken out. If the free market really can fix this problem, than we need free market competition back in the system.
I'm also fine if the above required mandated coverage. I would also expect strict regulation to make sure that costs do not spiral out of control due to For-Profit greed.
However, just giving everyone insurance won't fix the problem. We also need to increase the supply of doctors and nurses, reduce administrative costs, boost preventative care programs (this includes more than just visiting your doctor, it should include things such as work sponsored exercise programs, ect), better IT, ect. We should also probably consider capping compensation on malpractice suits.
This is a multi-faceted problem. Fixing one of those problems will not fix health care.
Regarding the so called "cost" of the public plan, the numbers released were for a plan that wasn't even finished. To treat them as a hard-coded number that won't change is disingenuous. ...Or should I be digging up the articles about the Bush admin who was fired for suggesting the Iraq war might cost $50 billion.
Pre-existing conditions is a HUGE problem and NOT isolated to me. Why should millions of people be screwed out of health so corporations could make bigger profits?
Your BS numbers don't scare me. We pay more than any other country and get less.
:thumbsup:
Good thing extremists like RPS aren't in power, they'd be tossing people into "Soylent Green" machines.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter