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

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,165
8,675
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
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.
This has got to be a joke. Government is accountable to the people, not the individual voter. If your argument were actually true, that would mean you support GW Bush and the Iraq War. Oh wait, you don't? Then where's this accountability you speak of?
In the meantime, competition and the need for profits does give corporations some accountability to its individual consumers. They're practically desperate to customize their multitude of products to exactly what each consumer desires.
And rest assured, government will be denying care under even the grandest of socialized health care plans. If you feel more comfortable with a bureaucrat making decisions of life-and-death rather than a regulated and competitive business, well...
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,444
1
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
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.
Again, you're missing it: To the common person with very little understanding of how these programs work, of course they seem similar.

What makes you think that elderly persons aren't able to afford health care just because they're old? Way to assume.

I've already listed why they're nothing alike. Try and salvage your revealing comment if you want - it doesn't matter and changes nothing.


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.
Sometimes. Maybe. If they're lucky. And it's a full moon. If they can convince the government to pay. If you worked in a medical field you'd hear on a daily basis the numerous complaints from medicare and medicaid recepients. I certainly do.


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.
Ever heard of generic drugs? You do know that they're chemically identical to the patented stuff and cost way less right? Because, y'know, FDA approved chemistry is FDA approved chemistry.

The ONLY time the argument you present above works is during the period a new pharmaceutical is still under patent. One, that's usually a relatively short period, Two, there haven't been any major pharmaceutical breakthroughs since antibiotics, so this is really a hollow argument at best anyway.

Hmmm.


It is laughable. Sometimes, they even get better care. Shock! Gasp!
And a lot more of the time, we get better care here. By far.

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.

Indeed, many businesses are dropping health coverage for new hires, but HIPAA prevents this in most cases, and you're a little off base here. Businesses are dropping coverage because cost is high. Why is cost high? Again, people take no responsibility for their own health.

Besides, you're not stating a solution. Explain to me how getting these people covered will be any better? The amount of money available for health services will not change, so all you'll be doing is reducing the quality of care received by the top 1/6th of the population to pay for care for the bottom 1/6th. Instead of 1/6th of the population not having any reliable care at all, 100% of the population will have substandard quality care. What a great and noble deed you've done!

Listen, Medicare doesn't cover most costs for health care in this country as it is, because the government is tighter with money than private, for-profit insurers. If you move to a socialized or single payer system, the quality of care will drop not just because the resources are being spread thinner, but also because there will be less resources overall. It's a kick in the nuts from both ends. John Kerry was almost sane because his health reform plan allowed you to opt out of the government option - problem is, he still would've taxed people paying for their own private insurance to pay for the poor.

If people aren't covered, it's generally because they've made bad decisions that've led to it. People talk about people "not being covered" at all but never understand the provision that in order to cover them, we'd all have to make vast sacrifices in what we receive in terms of health care.

I am *not* my brother's keeper. He should take care of his own ass.

 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: ericlp
who says we'd have to pay higher taxes???

Look, if we can find money to kill people; then we can find money to help people.
Because Medicare and SS will be 70% of the budget in a mere 20 years. Medicare covers a relarively small portion of people. To cover everyone will cost much more than anyone of you or the democratic candidates are willing to admit.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Originally posted by: bamacre
Under the constitution, our government has NO right to be managing healthcare. They don't even have the right to be managing education.

Anyone who thinks it is OK to give the federal government more power than it already has is a moron. We should be cleaning up our federal government, not allowing it to make more messes.

Americans have a government vacuum attached to their wallet, and a gun to their head. This has GOT to change.
:thumbsup:

I love the morons we get that complain about the current government all the time (rightfully) but then think that same government can manage a health system, it's quite laughable.
The Govt wouldnt be mananging, they would merely be footing the bill.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bamacre
Under the constitution, our government has NO right to be managing healthcare.

They don't even have the right to be managing education.

Anyone who thinks it is OK to give the federal government more power than it already has is a moron.

We should be cleaning up our federal government, not allowing it to make more messes.

Americans have a government vacuum attached to their wallet, and a gun to their head. This has GOT to change.
Why not just continue what your GOP has been doing the last seven years?

How bout oursourcing Education?

Just send every child in America to India for education.

Dave, our education system has been worse ever since the Dept of Education was created. States can do a better job without it.

As for the rest of your post, I'd reply to it, but you're such a douchebag, you aren't worthy of the time.

Just go vote for Hillary and continue supporting the idea of trading liberty for security. Oh, and her idea of "stay the course" in Iraq.
States cannot afford to offer financial aid like the Dept of Education can. Most people rely heavily on financial aid in order to go to college.

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
its really sad the the main and most credible reason against socialized medicine is the incompetence and corruption of our government.

I agree, and as a proponent of socialize medical care, realize that we need to fix our government before we can do anything else.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
If you think for one second that taxes won't increase exponentially from the year that universal heathcare is implemented, you are not only delusional, but also an idiot.
You're only delusional if you think taxes can be cut, or there wont be massive tax hikes over the next 20-30 years. Medicare read up on it. Even your diety Ron Paul doesnt have a answer for it in his 2008 Presidential Campaign(although before running he supported getting rid of it).
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Oh yeah, I just can't wait until the federal government has access to everyone's private medical records AND the power to tell me and everyone else what medical procedures and prescription drugs we can or can't have.

:roll:
Last I checked, none of the Democratic Candidates are offering a govt managed program. Merely a single payer(the govt) plan that still relies on private insurance companies.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP had since Nixon to fix the HMO/privatized healthcare mess they created. Time is running up. This is one issue I am not losing any sleep over, because I think it's inevitable that we'll have universal healthcare. Big business now sees the writing on the wall that they can't compete if they have to carry the exploding healthcare burden for their employees. So now it's not 1993 when it was a bunch of liberals vs health care industry. Now it's big business vs big business with liberals on the side lines with pop corn :D
So I guess the dems are going to fix it with a socialized medicine? No thanks.
You'll get universal health care, like it or not. It's inevitable. You couldn't fix it your way, now it's time to let others try.
The inevitable outcome of your inevitable universal healthcare is massive tax increases that will get the Dems bounced from office for decades.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP had since Nixon to fix the HMO/privatized healthcare mess they created. Time is running up. This is one issue I am not losing any sleep over, because I think it's inevitable that we'll have universal healthcare. Big business now sees the writing on the wall that they can't compete if they have to carry the exploding healthcare burden for their employees. So now it's not 1993 when it was a bunch of liberals vs health care industry. Now it's big business vs big business with liberals on the side lines with pop corn :D
So I guess the dems are going to fix it with a socialized medicine? No thanks.
You'll get universal health care, like it or not. It's inevitable. You couldn't fix it your way, now it's time to let others try.
My way? What "my way"? Just because someone in politics may make that come true, doesn't in any way, make it right.
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 :)
Succeed in causing a fiscal crisis of EPIC proportions. Tennesse tried universial Healthcare(Hillary Care 1.0 to be exact), TennCare IIRC equated for over 150% of the states budget.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP had since Nixon to fix the HMO/privatized healthcare mess they created. Time is running up. This is one issue I am not losing any sleep over, because I think it's inevitable that we'll have universal healthcare. Big business now sees the writing on the wall that they can't compete if they have to carry the exploding healthcare burden for their employees. So now it's not 1993 when it was a bunch of liberals vs health care industry. Now it's big business vs big business with liberals on the side lines with pop corn :D
So I guess the dems are going to fix it with a socialized medicine? No thanks.
You'll get universal health care, like it or not. It's inevitable. You couldn't fix it your way, now it's time to let others try.
My way? What "my way"? Just because someone in politics may make that come true, doesn't in any way, make it right.
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 :)
What is the status quo? how do you know I support that?

For the record it is a socialistic form of government whether you like that term or not.
Sure, It's Medicare for all. It's not a scary term to me if you call it Socialized medicine.
I don't know what you support or don't, but whatever you support, you better pray it fixes the current healthcare mess and soon, because if it doesn't, universal health coverage will.
Medicare for who it covers now, will bankrupt this country. Thats whats scary about making medicare for all...
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
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
Wow, this is just fucking retarded.

Do you really believe the utter bullshit you type?

Hell, half the problems with healthcare stem from government. Why do we not allow Canadian drugs in the USA? Because the pharmaceutical companies are in bed with the government. They don't want the competition.

Government is corrupt. Period. It has been that way since the beginning and it'll be that way until the end. That's the main reason why our government was created the way it was. And the more power and control we have unfortunately allowed our government to take, the worse our country has become.

Do yourself, and the rest of us a favor, and go read the constitution, and learn some history.

We cannot, and should not, try to fix our problems by giving the government even more power. We should be taking the power back that we have unfortunately given them.
Really, that's why the Republicans expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs? Medicare being good is not really up for debate, neither party wants to end Medicare, and Republicans expanded it. And if it's good for seniors, it's going to be just as good for everyone else. And that's what we are talking about, Medicare for all. You will still be able to buy supplemental coverage if you aren't happy with Medicare coverage.
Bottom line is your party had a very very long time to fix problems its way, and failed miserably. Now it's time for it to STFU and let others try. It's not rocket science, other countries have done it.
Last I checked the democrats controlled the House under Nixon, and every year until 1994. So quit trying to say the Republicans had plenty of tim to fix the problems.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I'd rather not derail this thread into an immigration debate to be honest.
It's a big issue here in the U.S. since that's a component of the nation's runaway health care costs problem. The cheap labor lobby and the altruists don't want to talk about the costs associated with it.
Its a very minor component to the the runaway costs.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,165
8,675
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
its really sad the the main and most credible reason against socialized medicine is the incompetence and corruption of our government.

I agree, and as a proponent of socialize medical care, realize that we need to fix our government before we can do anything else.
Who regulates the regulators?
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
If you think for one second that taxes won't increase exponentially from the year that universal heathcare is implemented, you are not only delusional, but also an idiot.
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.
Taxes already need to be raises 33-50% of what they are now over the next 20-30 years to cover Medicare for Seniors, let alone universial healthcare.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
If you want to live in a tax haven banana republic, move to one.
We'll build the type of government we want over here without you.
Our glorious future, comrade.
If that happens, it will be the GOP that brings it to you, in the name of keeping track of terrists.
Meaning that you're in favor of such loss of civil rights when it suits your own ideological agenda, and opposed to it only when you think it serves the agenda of your ideological opponents. And for this lack of principles, you expect to be rewarded like a fsckin' savior.

:roll:

And for the record, I'm not in favor of the "status quo" or the Republican party. As always, there are more than 2 solutions. Just because you live in a black and white world doesn't mean that the rest of us do.
Right, there is always some diversion. Those who blocked Hillary's plan had 15 years to implement their own solution. Where is it?
Go ask Tennesse how well Hillarys plan worked for them. Read up on TennCare before spouting that crap again.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
If you want to live in a tax haven banana republic, move to one.
We'll build the type of government we want over here without you.
Our glorious future, comrade.
If that happens, it will be the GOP that brings it to you, in the name of keeping track of terrists.
Meaning that you're in favor of such loss of civil rights when it suits your own ideological agenda, and opposed to it only when you think it serves the agenda of your ideological opponents. And for this lack of principles, you expect to be rewarded like a fsckin' savior.

:roll:

And for the record, I'm not in favor of the "status quo" or the Republican party. As always, there are more than 2 solutions. Just because you live in a black and white world doesn't mean that the rest of us do.
Right, there is always some diversion. Those who blocked Hillary's plan had 15 years to implement their own solution. Where is it?
And you're the diversion. Hillary's "plan" is scarcely more than a mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance, similar to existing state laws with car insurance. That you think of that as a "solution" only goes to prove what a partisan idiot you are.

That's an ACLU video BTW (although I doubt you even watched it). Hardly GOP propaganda...
Hillary Care 1.0(the 1993-1994 version) was much more than that. You are refering to Hillary Care 2.0.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: senseamp
That's why it's time to stop being fools and get rid of this messed up healthcare system we got, which is the real folly.
People said the same thing about our education system, and they created the Department of Education.

Guess what happened to our education system?

It costs us more money, and it still sucks. In fact it is worse now than before.
What happened? We have record enrollment at our 2 year colleges and 4 year universities.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,292
740
126
Originally posted by: Hacp
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.
You mean medicad(mostly paid for by the states) or SSI Disability(paid for by the Fed). Medicare is for the elderly.
 

agentbad

Senior member
Nov 2, 2004
269
0
76
I just don't believe in making profits off sick people, it just feels morally wrong to me.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,400
5,411
126
the current US medical care system subsidizes the rest of the world's medical care systems. i wonder what that cost is? if we subtract that and we subtract out all the paper pushing costs that every state but utah has (i.e. every state adopts the same reforms utah did years ago), what is the remaining cost? (MA spends 70% more on medical care per person than utah does, and i highly doubt there is any drop in quality of care. utah must be doing something right)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY