• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Health Care Poll

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
After full GOP control 2002-2006, are you still in denial that GOP can't govern?
Let me get this through your thick skull. I do not support Bush, nor the neo-cons.

What you define as "govern" is obviously not how I define it.

I believe in a small federal government. You obviously support a big and powerful federal government. Maybe because you have yet to learn the lessons and warnings laid out by our founding fathers.

Government is corrupt. And not just half of it either.
Both parties are for big government, because that's what the American people are for. If you don't believe me, find a candidate dumb enough to run on eliminating Social Security and Medicare and see what happens to him. Republicans expanded Medicare and exploded federal spending when they had the power, except they also botched governing. Now, if you want to engage in wishful thinking, yeah you can dream about your small federal government that no party is really for aside from empty words from the GOP. But Democrats are better at running the government we have, even if it's not the one you wish we had.
Its so obvious.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp

So you think a swanky private hospital is representative of the US health care system overall? Even when you take your insurance to a swanky private hospital, guess what, the insurance company can drag their feet or refuse to pay for procedures that you need. Then what your swanky private hospital doctor says can be overridden by some bureaucrat working for the insurance company who may have an MD but has never seen you.
It happened to me when my doc ordered a CT.
Sounds like you have an HMO.

Should've gone with the PPO, there's a reason it (almost always) costs more.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,972
4,983
126
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: senseamp

So you think a swanky private hospital is representative of the US health care system overall? Even when you take your insurance to a swanky private hospital, guess what, the insurance company can drag their feet or refuse to pay for procedures that you need. Then what your swanky private hospital doctor says can be overridden by some bureaucrat working for the insurance company who may have an MD but has never seen you.
It happened to me when my doc ordered a CT.
Sounds like you have an HMO.

Should've gone with the PPO, there's a reason it (almost always) costs more.
I have PPO. Blue Cross Blue Shield Options PPO. But I don't see why you are finding that kind of service acceptable when it comes to people in HMOs.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
No to all three.

There's nothing wrong with the US healthcare system - the problem is the attitude of the population.

The United States public has taken the attitude that they can buy their way out of anything to the extreme, and they are paying a price for which there is no "cure" - you cannot eat horribly, exercise little or none, and engage in unhealthy behaviors and then expect health insurance to bail you out.

They shouldn't do so, nor should they be expected to. It really is just amazing to me that so many people out there expect someone else's money to pay for their poor lifestyle choices. My healthcare costs are nice and low - because I eat well, exercise well, sleep enough, and manage my stress. I don't smoke either, nor drink in excess.

People talk about socialized health care, or nationalized health care, or whatever euphemism you want to use, as though it will actually alleviate the so-called "problems" in the US health system rather than make them worse. This is equally ludicrous to me as other claims, because all the major health insurers in this nation take their pricing and reimbursement cues from Medicare, the government run operation. And, of all the major insurers in this nation, Medicare is the stingiest of them all. If you put medicine in the hands of the government, you're going to see benefits decrease, not increase.

There are plenty of other more specific issues we could get into (the overuse of pharmacy being an especially popular one right now), but the overarching issue is simply that the majority of the public in this country wants to do all the things that feel good and are bad for you, and have health professionals prevent them from having to face the consequences. Sorry to tell you folks, but incredibly difficult skilled work has always been expensive. That hasn't changed - the American lifestyle has.



Originally posted by: Slew Foot
So what does the US health care cost, $2 trillion a year? Divide by 300 mil, and you get 6700/person. So would you want your taxes going up by about 4K/year per person (Ive taken out about what is covered by the government already) for socialized care?

I agree with the rest of your point, but bad math. There aren't 300 million taxpaying employed Americans in this country. It's significantly less than that.

Part of the cost problem is the inability of certain clinics to deny care to people who can't pay for it. EMTALA was one of the biggest mistakes of the Reagan administration, proving once and for all that that man was no conservative.

Health Care is expensive and difficult for taxpaying, employed Americans because most everyone outside of that demographic is receiving care on their tab for free. To keep from going under, hospitals have to get the money from somewhere - and it comes from people doing it by the book. You want to fix a large part of the health care cost "problem"? Repeal EMTALA. Inside a couple years people would be singing a lot rosier tunes.



Originally posted by: agentbad
I think making the health care system national would dramatically reduce the strain on much of our populace that can barely afford to live. Suddenly they will have money for other things like a good education which in turn will get them out of the poverty cycle.

Not trying to be rude, but I think that's largely crap. I went to a public high school. Yes, I went to a private college, because I had that opportunity. I had many friends, however, who went to state schools, sometimes on scholarship or loans. I actually had a friend who attended MY same school on scholarship and would NOT have been able to afford it otherwise without massive debt.

And I knew other people in high school, who's family's had plenty of means, that turned into useless societal leeches. I do not call them "friends" because they are not. The company you keep helps define who you are and whom you become.

There ARE people who get a raw deal, but they are a VERY small percentage of the population - I would bet <5%. I remember doing Christmas Cheer work with my church youth group back in high school, taking donated presents to supposedly "underprivileged" families that would not have had presents otherwise. Many of these families had personal belongings far nicer than my own. Video Game consoles, Direct TV, Cars, all kinds of possessions, and yet supposedly they needed this charity. They did not "need" our charity - they needed to amend their poor spending habits. You have to buy your children clothing before you can buy satellite television.

The roundabout point that I'm getting to through all this is that I have seen little to no evidence that the majority of the working poor/unemployed in this country (which I will remind people amounts to a small percentage of the overall population) are being screwed by the system. What I see evidence of is that they are wasteful people who make bad decisions even in the face of good advice. I will reiterate that this is NOT all of them, but I have yet to see reason that this is not the majority.

People point at the unemployment rate sometimes as though it's a sin. 5% unemployment does not worry me. I would bet that 5% or so of any society is unemployable, plain and simple. As I put it to another friend recently: "Take 100 random people off the street. Think you'll get 5 people who are any combination of the following: assholes, deadbeats, cheats, liars, criminals?"

And please don't try to tell me that social inequities produce many of these traits. Sometimes, maybe, but not always. As I already said, I had and continue to have many friends who built themselves from the humblest beginnings. The people who do not have typically have not earned.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: ja1484
No to all three.

There's nothing wrong with the US healthcare system - the problem is the attitude of the population.

The United States public has taken the attitude that they can buy their way out of anything to the extreme, and they are paying a price for which there is no "cure" - you cannot eat horribly, exercise little or none, and engage in unhealthy behaviors and then expect health insurance to bail you out.

They shouldn't do so, nor should they be expected to. It really is just amazing to me that so many people out there expect someone else's money to pay for their poor lifestyle choices. My healthcare costs are nice and low - because I eat well, exercise well, sleep enough, and manage my stress. I don't smoke either, nor drink in excess.

People talk about socialized health care, or nationalized health care, or whatever euphemism you want to use, as though it will actually alleviate the so-called "problems" in the US health system rather than make them worse. This is equally ludicrous to me as other claims, because all the major health insurers in this nation take their pricing and reimbursement cues from Medicare, the government run operation. And, of all the major insurers in this nation, Medicare is the stingiest of them all. If you put medicine in the hands of the government, you're going to see benefits decrease, not increase.

There are plenty of other more specific issues we could get into (the overuse of pharmacy being an especially popular one right now), but the overarching issue is simply that the majority of the public in this country wants to do all the things that feel good and are bad for you, and have health professionals prevent them from having to face the consequences. Sorry to tell you folks, but incredibly difficult skilled work has always been expensive. That hasn't changed - the American lifestyle has.



Originally posted by: Slew Foot
So what does the US health care cost, $2 trillion a year? Divide by 300 mil, and you get 6700/person. So would you want your taxes going up by about 4K/year per person (Ive taken out about what is covered by the government already) for socialized care?

I agree with the rest of your point, but bad math. There aren't 300 million taxpaying employed Americans in this country. It's significantly less than that.

Part of the cost problem is the inability of certain clinics to deny care to people who can't pay for it. EMTALA was one of the biggest mistakes of the Reagan administration, proving once and for all that that man was no conservative.

Health Care is expensive and difficult for taxpaying, employed Americans because most everyone outside of that demographic is receiving care on their tab for free. To keep from going under, hospitals have to get the money from somewhere - and it comes from people doing it by the book. You want to fix a large part of the health care cost "problem"? Repeal EMTALA. Inside a couple years people would be singing a lot rosier tunes.



Originally posted by: agentbad
I think making the health care system national would dramatically reduce the strain on much of our populace that can barely afford to live. Suddenly they will have money for other things like a good education which in turn will get them out of the poverty cycle.

Not trying to be rude, but I think that's largely crap. I went to a public high school. Yes, I went to a private college, because I had that opportunity. I had many friends, however, who went to state schools, sometimes on scholarship or loans. I actually had a friend who attended MY same school on scholarship and would NOT have been able to afford it otherwise without massive debt.

And I knew other people in high school, who's family's had plenty of means, that turned into useless societal leeches. I do not call them "friends" because they are not. The company you keep helps define who you are and whom you become.

There ARE people who get a raw deal, but they are a VERY small percentage of the population - I would bet <5%. I remember doing Christmas Cheer work with my church youth group back in high school, taking donated presents to supposedly "underprivileged" families that would not have had presents otherwise. Many of these families had personal belongings far nicer than my own. Video Game consoles, Direct TV, Cars, all kinds of possessions, and yet supposedly they needed this charity. They did not "need" our charity - they needed to amend their poor spending habits. You have to buy your children clothing before you can buy satellite television.

The roundabout point that I'm getting to through all this is that I have seen little to no evidence that the majority of the working poor/unemployed in this country (which I will remind people amounts to a small percentage of the overall population) are being screwed by the system. What I see evidence of is that they are wasteful people who make bad decisions even in the face of good advice. I will reiterate that this is NOT all of them, but I have yet to see reason that this is not the majority.

People point at the unemployment rate sometimes as though it's a sin. 5% unemployment does not worry me. I would bet that 5% or so of any society is unemployable, plain and simple. As I put it to another friend recently: "Take 100 random people off the street. Think you'll get 5 people who are any combination of the following: assholes, deadbeats, cheats, liars, criminals?"

And please don't try to tell me that social inequities produce many of these traits. Sometimes, maybe, but not always. As I already said, I had and continue to have many friends who built themselves from the humblest beginnings. The people who do not have typically have not earned.
:thumbsup:
 

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,048
17
81
Originally posted by: ja1484
No to all three.

There's nothing wrong with the US healthcare system - the problem is the attitude of the population.

..SNIP.....
And please don't try to tell me that social inequities produce many of these traits. Sometimes, maybe, but not always. As I already said, I had and continue to have many friends who built themselves from the humblest beginnings. The people who do not have typically have not earned.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
The status quo is your way. It doesn't work. Republicans aren't opposed to universal healthcare because they think it's going to fail, they are opposed to it because they know it will succeed, and they will never ever get rid of it. How many countries that implemented universal coverage decided to go back to the type of system we have now? You can call it Socialist medicine, Stalinist medicine, Leninist medicine, Marxist medicine, whatever cold war cliche you want. It's going to happen because the current system is a failure, and once it's here, it's here to stay. Democrats only have to succeed in passing it once, GOP has to keep fighting it over and over again, and never lose. Something that can happen will happen if given enough time :)

That's exactly the kind of attitude I've been talking about. The health care in this country is the most advanced, most effective in the world. It works fine. The problem is, people expect it to fix things it wasn't designed to, that they knowingly created.

You say it doesn't work. If health care in this country didn't work, people would not be restored to health.

What this system does NOT do is take up the slack for a complete lack of personal responsibility for one's own health, though God knows it's been trying for the past 20 years as our waistlines have steadily expanded.

Now, everyone wants the best. Everyone who loses a foot due to Type II Diabetes induced PVD wants a $58,000 computerized foot prosthesis to replace it. Insurance tells them they can only have the $2,500 standard internal-pylon model. Not quite as snazzy, not quite as functional, but it gets the job done and for a lot less money.

But what's it matter, right? It's "somebody else's" money.

The top-tier item in any area costs a lot of money. 8800 Ultras cost the most because they're the most advanced items available in their field. Same rule applies to medical equipment and medical TREATMENT, but everyone thinks cost should be no issue because quality of life, or even a life, may be on the line.

But who's to make that decision? Who says the $100,000 spent keeping a terminal cancer patient with a 1.5% chance of remission and recovery alive for another week couldn't be used to save 5 other lives through surgeries? Or another 3 lives with medication?

Death is a natural part of life, and people in this country, largely thanks to the fundamentalist theocratic movement that has tied itself so closely to the modern GOP, have forgotten how to face it with dignity and grace. I feel almost silly saying this at the ripe old age of 24, but I hope I can maintain a higher standard when my time comes. I'd be embarrassed not to.



Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
We'd have higher taxes but lower insurance costs and lower benefits managements costs, etc. You have to look at the big picture. Supposedly we're already spending a higher percentage of our GDP on health care than other first world nations.

First of all, I have a very low premium and a very high deductible. I don't need my taxes raised to a higher amount to receive the same level of care, thanks. As a single white male with no dependents, I get reamed hard enough by the tax system as it is.

Secondly, yes, we're spending a higher percentage of our GDP on health care than other first world nations. I can tell you two things related to this:

#1, It's proof positive that if the system changes to nationalized health, benefits decrease on average. You have politicians making the decisions about where the money goes then, not insurance payors.

I know at this point, most left-wingers have been trained to believe that health insurance companies are blood sucking profiteers, but this is just incorrect. I work with these reps on a daily basis. They're part of care management teams and they empathize and care about our patients the same way we do - unfortunately, they, like us in health care, have to face realities instead of trading party-line soundbites on internet forums. The dollars are limited, and there are qualifications for where they go.

By the way, for those playing the home game, as of 2006, depending on which source you looked at, 79-88 cents of every health insurance dollar went to pay for health care costs, meaning of all the money health insurance companies handled during that year, 12-21% of it was all they had for all their company overhead and profit. The rest went out as reimbursement/payments.

#2, we spend a larger portion of our GDP on health care because we have a less healthy society, period. No nation on earth is as fat as us, and it's largely a self-induced wound, so to speak. It's not because we have a wasteful system - get the *truth* about almost any hospital, and you'll see they're some of the most efficient organizations in modern day business - and most of them non-profit to boot.




I'm tired of typing and it's 1AM here. Happy New Year everybody. I'm going to read some and go to bed.

Edit: But I will be back tomorrow. There's more that needs to be said here.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Fern
3. The uninsured, or "self-insured" are charged much higher rates than many insured for like services. Why should person A pay more than person B?

It's NOT economy of scale either. We'll all treated one person at a time. No diff. It's not like making a batch of 100 versus 1. No cost savings available to the care provider.
because person B is actually an insurance company who can directs hundreds and thousands to the doctor + hospital services and therefore has the market power to negotiate a lower rate from the doctor + hospital

Kind of sort of.

You have to understand that because of things like EMTALA, hospitals have to meet their costs to stay open somehow. When people, regardless of who they are or their ability to compensate, receive all needed emergency treatment, it creates a debt that the hospital is left to make up.

Thus, it is absolutely necessary for these hospitals to attract a large number of patients from the big payors, as these larger insurance companies typically reimburse most if not all of the cost of procedures and treatment. They are allowed to negotiate a rate because that's the price of the Mexican standoff - their policy holders (i.e. patients) need the care, and the hospital needs the money.

Since those compensatory amounts are set in contract with the big payors, the aforementioned debts have to be made up from somewhere, and the only place the hospital can legally do it is by bumping the prices a little on self-pays, private-pays, and out-of-network patients.

It's either that, or the hospital closes.

The medical system cannot win - on one side, you have the government legislating what treatment they have to provide regardless of the money needed to make it happen, and on the other side you have a bunch of "moralists" (who are nothing of the sort) piping about how denying medicine to people who can't pay is putting a price on lives.

You know what's in the middle? What's in the middle is the fact that DuPont will not sell your hospital or health network any more disinfectant if you can't provide them with payment. Medical equipment companies will not provide you with more sheets for the hospital beds. Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline won't sell you more vaccines and antibiotics unless you pay them. Doctors, Rehab Specialists, Pharmacists, Nurses, and other medical personnel WILL NOT WORK FOR YOU WITHOUT BEING PAID.

I repeat: The money has to come from somewhere, because if you go back far enough on the chain, the medical system is always eventually drawing from the manufacturing portion of the economy.

A lot of people like to talk about the "problems" with the health care system, but no one ever suggests rubber gloves be given away for free - that's robbing honest workers of the money in their paychecks. And I agree - we shouldn't be robbing the areas of industry in this country to prop up the medical system - just like we shouldn't be robbing the medical system to provide treatment to provide treatment for anyone and everyone who wants it, regardless of how they got themselves into that situation.



Originally posted by: senseamp
We'll just have to become better voters then, and stop electing Republicans who put provisions into Medicare to not negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals.
Also, we are not better consumers of healthcare than we are voters. If we were, we wouldn't be paying 50% more than anyone to get mediocre results on par with Cuba which pays 10 times less. That would be like calling someone who pays $200K for a Corolla a good automotive consumer. :D

God, you really are truly ignorant. It's not like the Democrats are any better than the GOP. In fact, suggesting a difference between the two parties at all is pretty laughable. They've both been overtaken by extremists, and your posts are just another example of the "My Team is Better Than Your Team!" mentality that extremist politicos fall in to.

People like you think partisanship can solve the problems we face. Unfortunately, you're also the zealots who are voting. No wonder we end up with stupid, partisan politicians in Washington.

And no wonder the majority of the people in this country don't vote any more. There's no one representing them.


Originally posted by: senseamp
So I don't think the Dept of Education is to blame for poor achievement by American students. It has more to do with societal and family factors.

There - you said it yourself. So what the hell is changing the educational system going to do to address these family factors? By definition, if the child is at school, he or she is not with his/her family.

God, are you really this blind to what's coming out of your mouth?

The people I knew in school who wasted their time did so regardless of punishment or consequences. They didn't want to take advantage of the opportunities they were given.

F*ck them. Let them rot. It is not my job to take up slack for other people's poor decisions.
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
The less government the better.

No Federal healthcare, keep my taxes low, and no overbearing laws. Let the market work.
 

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,181
1
0
This issue is the same as immigration.
People are open to different approaches and ideas, including me.. but before that we need to see action in other areas.

Fiscal responsibility before socialized healthcare discussions.
Border security before amnesty discussions. I was one of those who called Washington both times amnesty was being pushed in congress and let them know how much I opposed it, had my extended family do it as well.

Can't do all the beneficial stuff for the politicians without any of the hard work. We won't go for it.
'Free' healthcare is fairly popular for votes and increases dependency on the US gov't, obviously useful for politicians.
Amnesty is clearly beneficial for the party that passes it, too bad it never will if a Republican President pushed it and it still failed in a Democratic congress. The majority has spoken on that one. Bamboozling in socialized medicine without doing some prereqs won't happen either. We won't stand for a warfare+welfare state.

edit to add- my personal take on socialized medicine is that there are people on the streets and malnourished in America still. Food is > healthcare for life, and it seems disengenous to me to want healthcare to everyone when not everyone even has food on the table. Lets get our priorities straight if we intend to help our countrymen. I guess it depends on how down the food chain you want to help someone, I prefer to start on the bottom if gov't has a place in this at all.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Kind of sort of.

You have to understand that because of things like EMTALA, hospitals have to meet their costs to stay open somehow. When people, regardless of who they are or their ability to compensate, receive all needed emergency treatment, it creates a debt that the hospital is left to make up.

Thus, it is absolutely necessary for these hospitals to attract a large number of patients from the big payors, as these larger insurance companies typically reimburse most if not all of the cost of procedures and treatment. They are allowed to negotiate a rate because that's the price of the Mexican standoff - their policy holders (i.e. patients) need the care, and the hospital needs the money.

Since those compensatory amounts are set in contract with the big payors, the aforementioned debts have to be made up from somewhere, and the only place the hospital can legally do it is by bumping the prices a little on self-pays, private-pays, and out-of-network patients.

It's either that, or the hospital closes.

The medical system cannot win - on one side, you have the government legislating what treatment they have to provide regardless of the money needed to make it happen, and on the other side you have a bunch of "moralists" (who are nothing of the sort) piping about how denying medicine to people who can't pay is putting a price on lives.

You know what's in the middle? What's in the middle is the fact that DuPont will not sell your hospital or health network any more disinfectant if you can't provide them with payment. Medical equipment companies will not provide you with more sheets for the hospital beds. Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline won't sell you more vaccines and antibiotics unless you pay them. Doctors, Rehab Specialists, Pharmacists, Nurses, and other medical personnel WILL NOT WORK FOR YOU WITHOUT BEING PAID.

I repeat: The money has to come from somewhere, because if you go back far enough on the chain, the medical system is always eventually drawing from the manufacturing portion of the economy.

A lot of people like to talk about the "problems" with the health care system, but no one ever suggests rubber gloves be given away for free - that's robbing honest workers of the money in their paychecks. And I agree - we shouldn't be robbing the areas of industry in this country to prop up the medical system - just like we shouldn't be robbing the medical system to provide treatment to provide treatment for anyone and everyone who wants it, regardless of how they got themselves into that situation.
All of that is nice to hear, however you forget that other countries have achieved UHC and they haven't dropped rubber gloves, disinfectants, or bedsheets to do it. They do it by emphasizing cost effective procedures that don't waste money. In the US, we're building proton accelerators that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to treat prostate cancer. In other countries, they rely on good old x-rays.

God, you really are truly ignorant. It's not like the Democrats are any better than the GOP. In fact, suggesting a difference between the two parties at all is pretty laughable. They've both been overtaken by extremists, and your posts are just another example of the "My Team is Better Than Your Team!" mentality that extremist politicos fall in to.

People like you think partisanship can solve the problems we face. Unfortunately, you're also the zealots who are voting. No wonder we end up with stupid, partisan politicians in Washington.

And no wonder the majority of the people in this country don't vote any more. There's no one representing them.
There is a fundamental difference between the two parties. The Democrats are trying to defend the principles of the New Deal, while the Republicans are out to destroy it. Over the past few decades, tax rates for the richest 1% have dived, while tax rates for the majority of the population as been flat.

There - you said it yourself. So what the hell is changing the educational system going to do to address these family factors? By definition, if the child is at school, he or she is not with his/her family.

God, are you really this blind to what's coming out of your mouth?

The people I knew in school who wasted their time did so regardless of punishment or consequences. They didn't want to take advantage of the opportunities they were given.

F*ck them. Let them rot. It is not my job to take up slack for other people's poor decisions.
Universal Health Care is not related to Education. You may not feel like it is your job to make up for the poor, but we live in a society that does. Thats why we have a progressive tax system. Thats why we have Medicare and Medicaid. Thats why we have Public Schools. Thats why we have Social Security. Taxing the rich may slow down the economy a bit, but if it translates to a better life for most Americans, I'm willing to make that tradeoff.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Originally posted by: Obsoleet
This issue is the same as immigration.
People are open to different approaches and ideas, including me.. but before that we need to see action in other areas.

Fiscal responsibility before socialized healthcare discussions.
Border security before amnesty discussions. I was one of those who called Washington both times amnesty was being pushed in congress and let them know how much I opposed it, had my extended family do it as well.

Can't do all the beneficial stuff for the politicians without any of the hard work. We won't go for it.
'Free' healthcare is fairly popular for votes and increases dependency on the US gov't, obviously useful for politicians.
Amnesty is clearly beneficial for the party that passes it, too bad it never will if a Republican President pushed it and it still failed in a Democratic congress. The majority has spoken on that one. Bamboozling in socialized medicine without doing some prereqs won't happen either. We won't stand for a warfare+welfare state.

edit to add- my personal take on socialized medicine is that there are people on the streets and malnourished in America still. Food is > healthcare for life, and it seems disengenous to me to want healthcare to everyone when not everyone even has food on the table. Lets get our priorities straight if we intend to help our countrymen. I guess it depends on how down the food chain you want to help someone, I prefer to start on the bottom if gov't has a place in this at all.
We borrow 200 billion dollars a year for the Iraq war. We spend 600+ billion a year on the military. Guess how much we spend on food stamps? Less than 50 billion a year. And the current President won't cough up the 35 billion needed to extend health care benefits to children that don't qualify for Medicare, but can't afford health care.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Originally posted by: Jadow
The less government the better.

No Federal healthcare, keep my taxes low, and no overbearing laws. Let the market work.
Sometimes, the market doesn't work. Before Social Security, we ignored old people and left them to die in poor houses. These places were not clean, were not sanitary, and were dreaded by middle aged men and women. Some even committed suicide to avoid the perils associated with old age. How would everything have turned out if we didn't offer old age insurance? I would rather not imagine it.
 

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,181
1
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
We borrow 200 billion dollars a month for the Iraq war. We spend 600+ billion a year on the military. Guess how much we spend on food stamps? Less than 50 billion a year. And the current President won't cough up the 35 billion needed to extend health care benefits to children that don't qualify for Medicare, but can't afford health care.
I understand this and know the numbers.
That said, taxpayers shouldnt be "coughing up" money for welfare or warfare. If we didnt have an income tax, among many other taxes that should be eliminated, more people would be able to afford healthcare.

But unfortunately, it's a privilege. Food is a privilege right? I've never gotten a truly free lunch...
so while people are malnourished and starving, I say we forget about inefficient socialization of our country before that's taken care of.

The more money the individual has, the more freedom he has to make his own decisions. Maybe I don't want to pay for healthcare, or have healthcare coverage myself? That should be my decision, not automatically taken out of my paycheck.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
No to all three.

There's nothing wrong with the US healthcare system - the problem is the attitude of the population.

The United States public has taken the attitude that they can buy their way out of anything to the extreme, and they are paying a price for which there is no "cure" - you cannot eat horribly, exercise little or none, and engage in unhealthy behaviors and then expect health insurance to bail you out.

They shouldn't do so, nor should they be expected to. It really is just amazing to me that so many people out there expect someone else's money to pay for their poor lifestyle choices. My healthcare costs are nice and low - because I eat well, exercise well, sleep enough, and manage my stress. I don't smoke either, nor drink in excess.

People talk about socialized health care, or nationalized health care, or whatever euphemism you want to use, as though it will actually alleviate the so-called "problems" in the US health system rather than make them worse. This is equally ludicrous to me as other claims, because all the major health insurers in this nation take their pricing and reimbursement cues from Medicare, the government run operation. And, of all the major insurers in this nation, Medicare is the stingiest of them all. If you put medicine in the hands of the government, you're going to see benefits decrease, not increase.

There are plenty of other more specific issues we could get into (the overuse of pharmacy being an especially popular one right now), but the overarching issue is simply that the majority of the public in this country wants to do all the things that feel good and are bad for you, and have health professionals prevent them from having to face the consequences. Sorry to tell you folks, but incredibly difficult skilled work has always been expensive. That hasn't changed - the American lifestyle has.
Its not a lifestyle. Its about extending health insurance to all who aren't covered. If you have cancer, if you are involved in an accident, if you have a genetic problem, and you aren't covered, good luck.



I agree with the rest of your point, but bad math. There aren't 300 million taxpaying employed Americans in this country. It's significantly less than that.

Part of the cost problem is the inability of certain clinics to deny care to people who can't pay for it. EMTALA was one of the biggest mistakes of the Reagan administration, proving once and for all that that man was no conservative.

Health Care is expensive and difficult for taxpaying, employed Americans because most everyone outside of that demographic is receiving care on their tab for free. To keep from going under, hospitals have to get the money from somewhere - and it comes from people doing it by the book. You want to fix a large part of the health care cost "problem"? Repeal EMTALA. Inside a couple years people would be singing a lot rosier tunes.
We spend significantly a larger portion of our GDP on healthcare than any other country, yet we don't have everyone covered. The problem, as you described, is cost. Other governments have reigned in costs by focusing on cost effective tests and procedures and negotiating drug prices down. That is exactly what we need in the US today.


Not trying to be rude, but I think that's largely crap. I went to a public high school. Yes, I went to a private college, because I had that opportunity. I had many friends, however, who went to state schools, sometimes on scholarship or loans. I actually had a friend who attended MY same school on scholarship and would NOT have been able to afford it otherwise without massive debt.

And I knew other people in high school, who's family's had plenty of means, that turned into useless societal leeches. I do not call them "friends" because they are not. The company you keep helps define who you are and whom you become.

There ARE people who get a raw deal, but they are a VERY small percentage of the population - I would bet <5%. I remember doing Christmas Cheer work with my church youth group back in high school, taking donated presents to supposedly "underprivileged" families that would not have had presents otherwise. Many of these families had personal belongings far nicer than my own. Video Game consoles, Direct TV, Cars, all kinds of possessions, and yet supposedly they needed this charity. They did not "need" our charity - they needed to amend their poor spending habits. You have to buy your children clothing before you can buy satellite television.

The roundabout point that I'm getting to through all this is that I have seen little to no evidence that the majority of the working poor/unemployed in this country (which I will remind people amounts to a small percentage of the overall population) are being screwed by the system. What I see evidence of is that they are wasteful people who make bad decisions even in the face of good advice. I will reiterate that this is NOT all of them, but I have yet to see reason that this is not the majority.

People point at the unemployment rate sometimes as though it's a sin. 5% unemployment does not worry me. I would bet that 5% or so of any society is unemployable, plain and simple. As I put it to another friend recently: "Take 100 random people off the street. Think you'll get 5 people who are any combination of the following: assholes, deadbeats, cheats, liars, criminals?"

And please don't try to tell me that social inequities produce many of these traits. Sometimes, maybe, but not always. As I already said, I had and continue to have many friends who built themselves from the humblest beginnings. The people who do not have typically have not earned.
Health Care is already guaranteed to the poor through medicare. The people that need help are the working poor, the people who are making less than the median wage, and the people who have chronic illnesses that are denied coverage.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Originally posted by: Hacp
We borrow 200 billion dollars a month for the Iraq war. We spend 600+ billion a year on the military. Guess how much we spend on food stamps? Less than 50 billion a year. And the current President won't cough up the 35 billion needed to extend health care benefits to children that don't qualify for Medicare, but can't afford health care.
I understand this and know the numbers.
That said, taxpayers shouldnt be "coughing up" money for welfare or warfare. If we didnt have an income tax, among many other taxes that should be eliminated, more people would be able to afford healthcare.

But unfortunately, it's a privilege. Food is a privilege right? I've never gotten a truly free lunch...
so while people are malnourished and starving, I say we forget about inefficient socialization of our country before that's taken care of.

The more money the individual has, the more freedom he has to make his own decisions. Maybe I don't want to pay for healthcare, or have healthcare coverage myself? That should be my decision, not automatically taken out of my paycheck.
There are huge inefficiencies with our current system because it is broken.Other countries have figured out a way to lower those inefficiencies, and thats through "socialized" health care. Despite what some may think, the market does not always work. Sometimes, the government does better than market forces, because there is no incentive to help people out in the free market, only to make money. Hence why most governments in developed countries fund public schools, build roads, and provide a safety net to many of its people.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
All of that is nice to hear, however you forget that other countries have achieved UHC and they haven't dropped rubber gloves, disinfectants, or bedsheets to do it. They do it by emphasizing cost effective procedures that don't waste money. In the US, we're building proton accelerators that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to treat prostate cancer. In other countries, they rely on good old x-rays.
People already complain about this "problem" now as part of the "broken" system. When a doc orders up an MRI and an insurance company denies the claim because other, much cheaper diagnostic tools are available, people decry the system.

You're right - things can and are done much more cheaply than the mainstream perceives. But that's not what they want - as I said before, it's an attitude problem of the populace.


There is a fundamental difference between the two parties. The Democrats are trying to defend the principles of the New Deal, while the Republicans are out to destroy it. Over the past few decades, tax rates for the richest 1% have dived, while tax rates for the majority of the population as been flat.
Please stop looking at one issue. The Democrats aren't trying to defend anything, they're trying to get into office for the sake of getting into office. Or didn't you notice them handing W another blank check for his ill-advised wargame a few weeks back?

The Democrats have just as many transgressions as the Republicans, but instead of wrapping themselves jingoistically in the flag or hiding behind the Bible like the GOP does, they prefer to dress up government forced compliance with the "public good".

Apparently, large portions of the public are content swallowing either bullsh*t line whole, as long as it's what they want to hear. Both parties want to control how you live and remove the power of choice from you the individual - they just have different ways of advancing their agenda.




Universal Health Care is not related to Education. You may not feel like it is your job to make up for the poor, but we live in a society that does. Thats why we have a progressive tax system. Thats why we have Medicare and Medicaid. Thats why we have Public Schools. Thats why we have Social Security. Taxing the rich may slow down the economy a bit, but if it translates to a better life for most Americans, I'm willing to make that tradeoff.
We do not live in a society that "makes up for the poor". We live in a society that provides equality of opportunity - and I'm not talking about affirmative action, which is a sham in its own right.

And you need to make up your mind - do we have an honest tax system or no? Last quote you said no, here you say yes. And by the way - Medicare's qualifications are based on age or diagnosis, not financial means. Social Security, as most people think of it, is an entitlement benefit again based on age and employment history, although at times it blankets into "programs for the poor".

Taxing the rich to a greater degree doesn't really bother me, but it will never happen, because they write the checks to the senators.


 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
Its not a lifestyle. Its about extending health insurance to all who aren't covered. If you have cancer, if you are involved in an accident, if you have a genetic problem, and you aren't covered, good luck.
Who's going to pay for it. Do you even know how insurance works? It's not like there's some magical money tree at Blue Cross that they go and harvest whenever someone puts in a big claim. A person's likelihood to incur high medical bills is what their premium is based on.

If you can't afford it now, suddenly having it gifted to you from the government isn't going to solve any financial problems.

MONEY. IS. FINITE.




We spend significantly a larger portion of our GDP on healthcare than any other country, yet we don't have everyone covered. The problem, as you described, is cost. Other governments have reigned in costs by focusing on cost effective tests and procedures and negotiating drug prices down. That is exactly what we need in the US today.
No the haven't. Other governments have reigned in costs by denying or delaying care.

And again, as I pointed out before, these "cost effective procedures", which ARE the better choice, are precisely what people are mad about when their private insurance companies do it now. They're angry that their insurance would only pay for an X-Ray when they wanted an MRI.

So tell me again how you're solving this issue? I mean, I understand that there isn't an issue, that it's just that the public is stupid and needs to leave medicine to medical professionals. You seem to grasp that they're stupid, but somehow also seem to think their complaints are valid somehow, even though you provide as the solution the exact thing these people think is the problem.



Health Care is already guaranteed to the poor through medicare. The people that need help are the working poor, the people who are making less than the median wage, and the people who have chronic illnesses that are denied coverage.
First of all, you're confusing Medicare and Medicaid, which are vastly different programs.

The working poor, if they're working full time, should be receiving coverage through their employers.

As for chronic illnesses, it depends on the illness. I don't think you realize the type of daily figure you can get to artificially prolonging someone's life. I'm sorry, but medicine can't beat some diseases.


 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,972
4,983
126
Actually, the question should be not what problem a universal healthcare system is solving over current system, but what problem the current system is solving over universal healthcare systems that cost 30% to 50% less in other countries and deliver better results. The current system has to justify it's added keep.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Actually, the question should be not what problem a universal healthcare system is solving over current system, but what problem the current system is solving over universal healthcare systems that cost 30% to 50% less in other countries and deliver better results. The current system has to justify it's added keep.
...Not so much, because it's already in place, and changing would have its own costs involved.

The REAL question is, would you prefer to have the government manage the insurance money pool rather than private companies?

After all, we all know how fiscally responsible the government is, and what good spending decisions they make....
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,972
4,983
126
Originally posted by: ja1484
Originally posted by: senseamp
Actually, the question should be not what problem a universal healthcare system is solving over current system, but what problem the current system is solving over universal healthcare systems that cost 30% to 50% less in other countries and deliver better results. The current system has to justify it's added keep.
...Not so much, because it's already in place, and changing would have its own costs involved.

The REAL question is, would you prefer to have the government manage the insurance money pool rather than private companies?

After all, we all know how fiscally responsible the government is, and what good spending decisions they make....
Government. Because it's accountable to me as a voter, while corporations are only accountable to their shareholders, and not to me. When corporations deny care, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing as corporations, maximizing profits for their shareholders.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
And you need to make up your mind - do we have an honest tax system or no? Last quote you said no, here you say yes.
You need to improve your comprehension. We have a progressive tax system that the Republicans have been attacking. They have managed to reduce taxes for the rich under the guise of tax breaks for all. Our system is still very progressive, but less than it was during the time of the New Deal. In addition, they have attacked social security and prevented the US from moving towards UHC.

And by the way - Medicare's qualifications are based on age or diagnosis, not financial means. Social Security, as most people think of it, is an entitlement benefit again based on age and employment history, although at times it blankets into "programs for the poor".
When I say Medicare, I mean Medicare and Medicaid, which are usually lumped together.

Taxing the rich to a greater degree doesn't really bother me, but it will never happen, because they write the checks to the senators.
When Bill Clinton arrived in office, he managed to increase taxes.

Who's going to pay for it. Do you even know how insurance works? It's not like there's some magical money tree at Blue Cross that they go and harvest whenever someone puts in a big claim. A person's likelihood to incur high medical bills is what their premium is based on.

If you can't afford it now, suddenly having it gifted to you from the government isn't going to solve any financial problems.

MONEY. IS. FINITE.
As I said, cut costs and stop wasteful spending. Insurance companies spend a significant amount of cash on costs associated with administration. However that is not the only solution. It will only help to a degree. You need to Negotiate drug prices down and turn to generic drugs rather than new drugs that have questionable benefits. You need to stop wasteful spending on new procedures that have questionable benefits(like that multi million dollar proton accelerator used to treat prostate cancer). You need to stop going to specialists for every strange foot ache you have. Most people associate that with reduced benefits, however other countries have managed to achieve a similar level of health care quality compared to the United States while reducing costs using these strategies.

So tell me again how you're solving this issue? I mean, I understand that there isn't an issue, that it's just that the public is stupid and needs to leave medicine to medical professionals. You seem to grasp that they're stupid, but somehow also seem to think their complaints are valid somehow, even though you provide as the solution the exact thing these people think is the problem.
Its the doctors and hospitals that over prescribe and over medicate. Single payer systems have effectively reduced this wasteful spending. Our system has yet to do this. I think you need to realize that other countries have achieved lower costs and we haven't. Other countries are insuring everyone and we aren't. Its our system thats broken, not theirs.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp

Government. Because it's accountable to me as a voter, while corporations are only accountable to their shareholders, and not to me. When corporations deny care, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing as corporations, maximizing profits for their shareholders.

If you're so naive as to believe the government in this country is accountable to you because you vote, you're beyond help. All I can say is thank goodness people like-minded to you aren't making policy.
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
1
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
You need to improve your comprehension. We have a progressive tax system that the Republicans have been attacking. They have managed to reduce taxes for the rich under the guise of tax breaks for all. Our system is still very progressive, but less than it was during the time of the New Deal. In addition, they have attacked social security and prevented the US from moving towards UHC.
I agree they've been doing a horrible job fiscally. They largely take the blame for this because they're about the only one's who've been in office since the whole problem started in earnest under Reagan.

But honestly, Clinton didn't do much about it either. He ran a nice fat deficit for 6 of his 8 years, balanced the budget out for his last two, and suddenly everyone thought he was the paragon of financial smarts. Talk about easily duped.


When I say Medicare, I mean Medicare and Medicaid, which are usually lumped together.
Here you're just showing your ignorance on the topic, as the two have nothing to do with one another, other than being provided by the government. Even then, they aren't provided by the same government. Medicare is a federal service, whereas Medicaid is a federally mandated service left to state governments to run.

The two are completely dissimilar. They may be lumped together by the layman, but anyone who knows anything about medical reimbursement rarely uses the two in the same sentence.

When Bill Clinton arrived in office, he managed to increase taxes.
Yeah, by one vote, cast by the veep, and only due to the Democratically controlled houses of congress, which were promptly heaved out on their asses the next year.


As I said, cut costs and stop wasteful spending. Insurance companies spend a significant amount of cash on costs associated with administration. However that is not the only solution. It will only help to a degree. You need to Negotiate drug prices down and turn to generic drugs rather than new drugs that have questionable benefits. You need to stop wasteful spending on new procedures that have questionable benefits(like that multi million dollar proton accelerator used to treat prostate cancer). You need to stop going to specialists for every strange foot ache you have. Most people associate that with reduced benefits, however other countries have managed to achieve a similar level of health care quality compared to the United States while reducing costs using these strategies.
Yes, most people do associate that with reduced benefits, which is exactly why they'll have the same complaints under a UHC system, and begin carping about how we never should've changed. You talk about cutting costs and reducing spending like medical facilities aren't on the cutting edge of those processes already.

The problem is not that the medicine costs too much - it's that people are making themselves too sick, too often.

If someone is given the low cost option that's effective, it's not "everything that can be done", so they call the system broken. If someone is given the all-out option, it's expensive, and they call the system wasteful. People in your camp can never be satisfied. You complain even about addressing the problem.


Its the doctors and hospitals that over prescribe and over medicate. Single payer systems have effectively reduced this wasteful spending. Our system has yet to do this. I think you need to realize that other countries have achieved lower costs and we haven't. Other countries are insuring everyone and we aren't. Its our system thats broken, not theirs.
Because if they don't, they're sued for malpractice. You're not addressing my point: If it's not everything, it's not enough. If it is everything, it's wasteful. Other systems in other countries don't provide the level of care we provide here in the US, so it stands to reason they don't spend as much on medical care.

Please don't tell me I need to realize things relating to this - I'm likely much closer to this issue than you are, and at a minimum we're equal. I doubt the latter, since you weren't even familiar with the difference between medicaid and medicare.

I'm also very familiar with many of the misconceptions surrounding this issue, many of which you continue to spread with your posts. The idea that other countries with socialized care or single payor systems get the same quality of care we provide here in the states is one of the most laughable.

 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Here you're just showing your ignorance on the topic, as the two have nothing to do with one another, other than being provided by the government. Even then, they aren't provided by the same government. Medicare is a federal service, whereas Medicaid is a federally mandated service left to state governments to run.

The two are completely dissimilar. They may be lumped together by the layman, but anyone who knows anything about medical reimbursement rarely uses the two in the same sentence.
Why would I not use the two in the same sentence? They are both paid for by the government, and cover two populations that need health care the most, that likely can't afford it. Thats the important part. They are covered. Go back to my statement. You will see that my point was that they were covered. It doesn't matter how they're covered. They are covered.

Please don't tell me I need to realize things relating to this - I'm likely much closer to this issue than you are, and at a minimum we're equal. I doubt the latter, since you weren't even familiar with the difference between medicaid and medicare.

I'm also very familiar with many of the misconceptions surrounding this issue, many of which you continue to spread with your posts. The idea that other countries with socialized care or single payor systems get the same quality of care we provide here in the states is one of the most laughable.
It seems like you are mostly ignorant. I know the difference between medicare and medicaid. Obviously, it was an innocent mistake and you should have realized that. Instead of yabbling about semantics that distract from my main point, which posits that the poor and elderly are covered.

Yes, most people do associate that with reduced benefits, which is exactly why they'll have the same complaints under a UHC system, and begin carping about how we never should've changed. You talk about cutting costs and reducing spending like medical facilities aren't on the cutting edge of those processes already.

The problem is not that the medicine costs too much - it's that people are making themselves too sick, too often.

If someone is given the low cost option that's effective, it's not "everything that can be done", so they call the system broken. If someone is given the all-out option, it's expensive, and they call the system wasteful. People in your camp can never be satisfied. You complain even about addressing the problem.
The problem is that medicine costs too much. Pharmaceutical companies routinely roll out new medicines that have no benefits over their predecessors. They'll charge a boatload for the new drug however. They'll throw out a new ad campaign to convince both people and doctors of the minute benefits associated with the drug and overcharge once their propaganda succeeds.
I'm also very familiar with many of the misconceptions surrounding this issue, many of which you continue to spread with your posts. The idea that other countries with socialized care or single payor systems get the same quality of care we provide here in the states is one of the most laughable.
It is laughable. Sometimes, they even get better care. Shock! Gasp!

The working poor, if they're working full time, should be receiving coverage through their employers.
They should be, but many are not. Businesses aren't required to give health insurance. The main reason they offered insurance before centered around a ruling that prevented Health insurance from being taxable. Now, with the price of plans soaring, many are pinching back. Some businesses don't offer health insurance plans anymore. Others have plans that are too expensive. More savvy businesses avoid the costs entirely by hiring more part time workers that generally don't get coverage to replace full time ones that usually expect it. 46 million are left uncovered.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY