Health Care Poll

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
... and all Republicans are doing is blocking Democrats' solutions...

Because Hillary's solution is unconstitutional.

Well, if that's the case, call her bluff, pass it, and let the USSC overturn it.

Like the USA PATRIOT Act? :roll:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Havent you heard the news? In the fantasy black and white world of Senseamp everything is the republicans fault. Him and Dave should get a room.

Republicans blocked Clinton's health care plan, but they have not come up with any solution of their own. Seems to me that if they blocked a solution and haven't fixed anything themselves, it IS their fault.

psssst, Hillary's original plan failed with a Democrat-controled Congress... pass it on! :Q

Keep on coming up with excuses for not doing anything to fix this healthcare mess.
But don't be surprised when you wake up covered by a universal healthcare plan.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Havent you heard the news? In the fantasy black and white world of Senseamp everything is the republicans fault. Him and Dave should get a room.

Republicans blocked Clinton's health care plan, but they have not come up with any solution of their own. Seems to me that if they blocked a solution and haven't fixed anything themselves, it IS their fault.

psssst, Hillary's original plan failed with a Democrat-controled Congress... pass it on! :Q

Keep on coming up with excuses for not doing anything to fix this healthcare mess.
But don't be surprised when you wake up covered by a universal healthcare plan.

Hillary's plan is and was never UHC. It's a mandate requiring everyone to purchase health insurance. Do you even read up on the issues and positions before jumping on your little partisan bandwagon?

 

[senseamp]

In 15 years, no alternative solution to universal health coverage has emerged. That to me is long enough to conclude there is no other viable solution.
Otherwise with a clear problem to solve, someone would have came up with an alternative solution by now. So it's either status quo or universal healthcare, and status quo won't cut it for much longer. That's why this is one issue I am not worried about

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
In 15 years, no alternative solution to universal health coverage has emerged. That to me is long enough to conclude there is no other viable solution.
Otherwise with a clear problem to solve, someone would have came up with an alternative solution by now. So it's either status quo or universal healthcare, and status quo won't cut it for much longer. That's why this is one issue I am not worried about

Many alternatives have been proposed. Unfortunately, the corruption is already deeply entrenched, which is why the "status quo" wants you to jump from the frying pan into the fire.

And the only reason to not be worried about it (in fact, the only reason why it's back in the forefront again) is because the Boomers are retiring, and the most selfish and entitled generation in the history of humanity is demanding to continue feeding off their children's children's children's children, with hopes of extending it out yet another generation. It's the same old sh!t, with the "think of the children!" kneejerkers like you running the usual distraction campaign for the gerontocracy.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
If you want to be a socialist, move to a socialist country. Those of us who work for a living are tired of you bilking us out of what's ours in the name of "the greater good." This country wasn't founded on the principles of caring for everyone, it was founded on keeping what's rightfully yours. Make whatever stink you want about roads or whatever other program you want to try to back up your position but understand it's baseless and irrelevant. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want a socialist utopia head on over to your favorite socialist country. We here are happy to work for what we feel we need. Thanks and merry Christmas.

Who is John Galt?

Are you certain that you want to live in a truly laissez-faire society? How would you feel about having to pay for every little thing you do, such as driving down a road? How would the nation's utility infrastructure operate if private utility companies couldn't use eminent domain to get easements to lay gas pipes and power wires across people's property? What if the layout of the nation's roads were retarded and inefficient as a result of private property owners refusing to allow easements or to sell easements at reasonable prices?

Do you really think that all forms and degrees of socialism are necessarily evil and bad? Is it possible that sometimes socialist policies might prove to be in one's rational selfish interest?

In reality, although we are individuals and although there is no such thing as a collective mind or consciousness, we don't live on islands and one man's actions can have an effect on another man's well being and the amount of resources available (land, water, air, etc.) are limited.

In the case of health care, it really isn't very amenable to perfect competition. Purchasing health care isn't like buying a widget where you can do price comparisons and take your time shopping. Also, oftentimes the care needed will be far beyond what any one individual could afford. I actually think that a rational socialized medicine would prove to be in an individual's rational selfish interest simply because of the efficiency savings. The mongrel semi-socialized semi-privatized system that we have right now certainly isn't working. Of course, as with anything else in economics, a great many other factors come into play that would affect the cost, efficiency, and efficacy of the program, such as the overall level of rationality of the nation's populace.

I guess in my red faced rage I wasn't clear in my meaning. Roads = everyones best interest. Healthcare = open to debate and IMO does not compare to roads so using roads as an argument for healthcare is BS IMO. We have a population issue and a general health issue. It is not MY responsibility to pay for a fat guys heart meds nor is it YOUR responsibility to pay for my cancer treatments from smoking. The eventual outcome here is smoking will be illegal or "uninsurable" as well as the Big Mac addict. I take no issue with being left to die of whatever ailment befalls me from my own personal choices and other people should take responsibility for their own. Socialized medicine is just one more avenue for the government to come in and tell me what is in my own best interests and that I have no choice but to follow their direction. Bump that! I think far too many people fail to realize how much control they will be giving to the government in how they live their lives. People get sick, old, etc... and they die. Maybe it's in our best interests and "for the greater good" to let them. If all the smokers and fat people are left to their own devices eventually we won't have them right? Unless of course we want to continue to treat them all for being "irresponsible" and living THEIR life how THEY choose. Oh no, we can't have that now can we. WE say how YOU can live because we do not approve of your lifestyle. Up Yours, I'll do what I choose because it affects ME, not YOU and I'd like to keep it that way.

 

[Fern]

I don't like our current system, or maybe I should say aspects of it.

My dislike rests mostly with insurance:

1. If I buy insurance, I'm afraid it's me vs. the big corp when they don't wanna pay for something my Dr. says is necessary. No real way to fight such deep pockets in our judicial system.

2. Major medical isn't REALLY covered as I've seen in many horror stories. There's always some fricken loophole.

Since I'm self employed (i.e., not geting some premo insurance packge from a big corp) am I to be my lawyer in sorting out exactly what is and is NOT covered under a contract? I can't do it.

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.

Since our system is based on insurance, I'd just prefer to see some gov help there. Make some template type coverage be mandated. Make it exceedingly f'ckin clear what's covered and what's not. Let the different providers charge what they do. At least we could make a reasonably informed decision. If we have a complaint, I don't wanna to pay for a lawyer, I want it handled through the gov at no cost to me. If the insurance doesn't live up to the template coverage I paid for, I want the gov to enforce it.

By "template" I mean the development of various standard contracts that all companys must offer (let each set their price), ones that there are no question about coverage. Just doing that would make clear what's really going on.

I think a lot of people are under some delusion about their coverage, and thus their security. I think if we all knew what was really going on, we'd know what to do from there.

Fern

edited for typos

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: SpongeBob
What senseamp doesn't understand is that the fed govt. is even worse at managing things than big business. Take it from someone who is a fed govt. employee.

I have worked for the government a few times too and fully agree.

The government that brought you the ever wonderful
FEMA - Katrina.. great job
INS - How many illegals again.. you don't even have an estimate?
DEA - It's easier for me to get an 8-ball then it is to get some flexoral.
IRS
The corrupt CIA

Yah I want my healthcare operated the same as way organizations have handled their jobs.

Dont forget the TSA. I worked on the initial project to hire security screeners. The waste I saw was unbelievable. Each site had x amount of seats. Ranging from 10 to 350. Each site got two Dell 2800 series servers. Each site got GB switches. The DB app sat on one server. And then that server also served up the test to users on Dell desktops.

The second server sat around collecting dust or walking off one night for a smoke. Then there was the air travel. Really sad. You were not allowed to buy a ticket other than open ended one way tickets. These tickets were 1 notch below first class. Yes my one way ticket between minneapolis and peoria was 968 bucks. My 1 way ticket from minneapolis to Vegas was 1430 bucks. I tried arguing with them to let me buy cheaper non refundable tickets which were in the 250 dollar range but got denied.

All that computer equipment, cell phones, printers. I bet the majority of that got lost and the govt billed.

It's sad when you offer to even do the footwork to get a better deal on stuff and save tax dollars and they don't even comply. I have experienced a lot of the same in my gov dealings. My dad also worked for a city governement. Same type of stuff. wasteing money on worthless junk, but when it came to spending money on something needed it was never in the budget.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: alchemize
From what I've seen, a modification of the French version would be the best for the US. A combination of private and public insurance and care, but not nationalization.

Nationalization to the point of getting the 2 main leeches out of the system could go a long way in paying the bill. (Lawers and malpractice insurance.)

 

[Jaskalas]

Solution to get more Americans health care. Kick all the illegals out of the country and have our poor and impoverished use those freed up medical resources at government expense.

 

[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

 

[senseamp]

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

One more argument for universal single payer healthcare. Everyone will have an insurer that directs 300 Million people to the doctor + hospital services and therefore has the market power to negotiate a lower rate from the doctor + hospital.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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

One more argument for universal single payer healthcare. Everyone will have an insurer that directs 300 Million people to the doctor + hospital services and therefore has the market power to negotiate a lower rate from the doctor + hospital.

And what happens when the pharmaceutical companies lobby congress to not negotiate those prices?

Why do we not allow Canadian drugs to be purchased inside the USA?

Why do you think Hillary is getting so much support from pharmaceutical companies?

Why have HMO's and pharmaceutical companies given more campaign donations to Hillary Clinton than any other candidate?

Surely not to decrease their profits.

I'll tell you why. Because it's easier to screw the American people through the use of the government rather than screwing them directly. We are better consumers than we are voters.

They know this. And their only goal is to increase their profits. And with Hillary's plan, they'll do just that.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

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

One more argument for universal single payer healthcare. Everyone will have an insurer that directs 300 Million people to the doctor + hospital services and therefore has the market power to negotiate a lower rate from the doctor + hospital.

And what happens when the pharmaceutical companies lobby congress to not negotiate those prices?

Why do we not allow Canadian drugs to be purchased inside the USA?

Why do you think Hillary is getting so much support from pharmaceutical companies?

Why have HMO's and pharmaceutical companies given more campaign donations to Hillary Clinton than any other candidate?

Surely not to decrease their profits.

I'll tell you why. Because it's easier to screw the American people through the use of the government rather than screwing them directly. We are better consumers than we are voters.

They know this. And their only goal is to increase their profits. And with Hillary's plan, they'll do just that.

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.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

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

One more argument for universal single payer healthcare. Everyone will have an insurer that directs 300 Million people to the doctor + hospital services and therefore has the market power to negotiate a lower rate from the doctor + hospital.

And what happens when the pharmaceutical companies lobby congress to not negotiate those prices?

Why do we not allow Canadian drugs to be purchased inside the USA?

Why do you think Hillary is getting so much support from pharmaceutical companies?

Why have HMO's and pharmaceutical companies given more campaign donations to Hillary Clinton than any other candidate?

Surely not to decrease their profits.

I'll tell you why. Because it's easier to screw the American people through the use of the government rather than screwing them directly. We are better consumers than we are voters.

They know this. And their only goal is to increase their profits. And with Hillary's plan, they'll do just that.

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.

:laugh:

Well, you know what they say. A fool and his money...

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

:thumbsup:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

:thumbsup:

Really, if GOP had it's way we'd have a Department of Faith Based Education.
I don't know what your beef with Dept of Education is.
I got my student loans from them, and they had the best terms. Other countries have public school systems managed at the federal level too, and they get very good results. 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.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

:thumbsup:

Really, if GOP had it's way we'd have a Department of Faith Based Education.
I don't know what your beef with Dept of Education is.
I got my student loans from them, and they had the best terms. Other countries have public school systems managed at the federal level too, and they get very good results. 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.

LOL, I stated this already. Ever since the Dept of Education was created, the costs of education have gone up, and the quality has gone down.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

:thumbsup:

Really, if GOP had it's way we'd have a Department of Faith Based Education.
I don't know what your beef with Dept of Education is.
I got my student loans from them, and they had the best terms. Other countries have public school systems managed at the federal level too, and they get very good results. 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.

LOL, I stated this already. Ever since the Dept of Education was created, the costs of education have gone up, and the quality has gone down.

Mostly under Republican presidents running the executive branch. Doesn't surprise me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

:thumbsup:

Really, if GOP had it's way we'd have a Department of Faith Based Education.
I don't know what your beef with Dept of Education is.
I got my student loans from them, and they had the best terms. Other countries have public school systems managed at the federal level too, and they get very good results. 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.

LOL, I stated this already. Ever since the Dept of Education was created, the costs of education have gone up, and the quality has gone down.

Mostly under Republican presidents running the executive branch. Doesn't surprise me.

Jeesh, what a partisan hack. :roll:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

:thumbsup:

Really, if GOP had it's way we'd have a Department of Faith Based Education.
I don't know what your beef with Dept of Education is.
I got my student loans from them, and they had the best terms. Other countries have public school systems managed at the federal level too, and they get very good results. 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.

LOL, I stated this already. Ever since the Dept of Education was created, the costs of education have gone up, and the quality has gone down.

Mostly under Republican presidents running the executive branch. Doesn't surprise me.

Jeesh, what a partisan hack. :roll:

After full GOP control 2002-2006, are you still in denial that GOP can't govern?

 

[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.

 

[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.