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.
Facebook
Twitter