Universal healthcare and national debt

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
LOL.....the Yugo was able to get many a people from point A to point B that wouldn't otherwise been able to get there.

Fair enough, I chose the wrong analogy, actually. I was thinking of that little crap car with the gas tank right on the bumper. The one that was actually a decent car but every so often one would go up in flames...

As I have posted previously, I'm pretty solidly on the conservative side WRT to fiscal policy and pretty solidly on the liberal side when to comes to social issues. That is why I think that it is imperative morally AND fiscally to implement a UHC system.

I understand the cause is personal for many, who feel it is the moral obligation of the government to provide health care for all of its citizens. I just disagree with it.

I honestly believe that it will benefit everyone to do so. It will give everyone access to quality medical care without the concerns of losing a home to acquire it and keep the population as a whole a lot healthier.

I just wonder if such a system wouldn't really be just a big give-away to big pharma and big health care. I'm awful suspicious, what with how much $$$ they've been pouring in to the Clinton coffers. On face value, her plan would destroy the latter nearly completely and take a big bite out of the former. Something is fishy...

I honestly believe that it will also be cost effective and cheaper in the long run. As has been stated and linked to many times in the past in other threads, the US is spending nearly double what other countries are spending on healthcare per capita and not even covering a significant portion of the population. We are also dying younger on average than other industrialized nations that have some form of UHC. We are now 42nd in the world in lifespan yet #1 in per capita spending on healthcare. Obviously, if something isn't broke you don't fix it. Clearly....this thing is broken.

It's broken, no bones about it. The only disagreement is with regards to what will fix it. 🙂

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why look at actual outcomes in countries that have universal healthcare when you can regurgitate the same rightwing talking points about big bad government?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2140534&enterthread=y

You missed this thread. Obviously. 😀

And, I have asked you five times now, why are Canadian drugs not allowed in the USA?

Why is it that people bitch bitch bitch about outsourcing of jobs and then turn around and complain that they can?t get their ?cheap? drugs from Canada?

I think the issue is that the drugs can be manufactured in the US and exported to Canada - and subsequently imported back into the US ...

Cheaper than you can buy them directly in the US ...

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think one point missing in the debate is ...

Persons with the means (money) to do it, will always have better access to ... everything.

This isn't class warfare, it's just a fact of life. Whether it be healthcare ... or tickets to ball games ... or access to politicians ...

That's just the way it is ...

 

[Train]

THe US Govt has only ever been good at 2 things:

1. Blowing things up
2. Collecting Taxes

Everything else the Fed does, they suck at really, really bad.

This is why everything that the Fed does that can be, SHOULD be one of the following:

1. Eliminated
2. Privatized
3. Pushed onto the State/local govt's to be run at triple the efficiency.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
RightIsWrong

Please list the federal departments and programs that work well in your opinion.

Best post in this thread.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
In response to FoBoT: First off, the government is NOT a monopoly. The government is not out to turn a profit so that is a moot point. They have no incentive to raise the rates to bring in more revenue they only have incentive to keep costs down to save money.

:laugh: puff puff pass dude :laugh:

Seriously, UHC is not even on the radar. No candidate is even proposing it. And if we did have a real UHC on the federal level, it would be the world's largest employer several times over.
How many times does it have to be said, you cannot compare the success of the social programs in these smaller countries to the US. The scales and systems are much different. Does the entire EU have a socialized health plan? No. So why do you criticize the US for not doing the same when several of the states do? Because some states don't? Then get involved in your state.
And yeah, the Europeans have more money to pay for health care, but that's largely because they don't have our idiotic military expenditures. Fix that first and then we can talk.

Oh, and BTW, the Commonwealth Fund is a known front for Big Oil's push for UHC. That's a propaganda piece you posted, not an actual study. Way to do, dude.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why look at actual outcomes in countries that have universal healthcare when you can regurgitate the same rightwing talking points about big bad government?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2140534&enterthread=y

You missed this thread. Obviously. 😀

And, I have asked you five times now, why are Canadian drugs not allowed in the USA?

Because of the same corporations who killed HillaryCare in the 90s and got themselves nice terms in GOP's medicare drug expansion where the government has to pay whatever they ask.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
RightIsWrong

Please list the federal departments and programs that work well in your opinion.

*crickets*

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why look at actual outcomes in countries that have universal healthcare when you can regurgitate the same rightwing talking points about big bad government?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2140534&enterthread=y

You missed this thread. Obviously. 😀

And, I have asked you five times now, why are Canadian drugs not allowed in the USA?

Because of the same corporations who killed HillaryCare in the 90s and got themselves nice terms in GOP's medicare drug expansion where the government has to pay whatever they ask.

Which is why those same corporations are funding Hillary's campaign today.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: BoberFett
RightIsWrong

Please list the federal departments and programs that work well in your opinion.

Best post in this thread.

You notice he's completely ignoring my posts and choosing to argue with Pabster instead. Why answer tough questions when you've got someone with the intelligence of a retarded puppy to argue with? It makes winning the argument much easier.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why look at actual outcomes in countries that have universal healthcare when you can regurgitate the same rightwing talking points about big bad government?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2140534&enterthread=y

You missed this thread. Obviously. 😀

And, I have asked you five times now, why are Canadian drugs not allowed in the USA?

Because of the same corporations who killed HillaryCare in the 90s and got themselves nice terms in GOP's medicare drug expansion where the government has to pay whatever they ask.

Which is why those same corporations are funding Hillary's campaign today.

Wrong. Those corporations are not looking for bigger profits, they are doing this because it is the moral thing to do.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: BoberFett
RightIsWrong

Please list the federal departments and programs that work well in your opinion.

Best post in this thread.

Sure thing.

List is compiled of agencies gathered from here

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies

National Park Service
National Archives
Army Corp of Engineers
Census Bureau
CDC
CENTCOM
Coast Guard
Army
Navy
Marines
Air Force
FTC
CERT
Consumer Protection Safety Commission
HUD
FHA
FBI
FEMA (Until some idiot thought that they should fall under DHS)
Fed Hwy Commission
Federal Maritime Commission
Student Aid (Until some group of idiots thought that cutting it was a good idea)
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Library of Congress
NASA
National Guard
NIH
Nation Park Service
Oak Ridge Laboratory
OSHA
OMB
Office os Special Counsel
USPS
Smithsonian Institute
U.S. Mint

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: BoberFett
RightIsWrong

Please list the federal departments and programs that work well in your opinion.

Best post in this thread.

You notice he's completely ignoring my posts and choosing to argue with Pabster instead. Why answer tough questions when you've got someone with the intelligence of a retarded puppy to argue with? It makes winning the argument much easier.

I wasn't ignoring you I was hoping that you would actually add something to the thread topic like I requested in the OP.

I wanted to bring more life back to the thread so I finally gave in and responded to your stupid request of "What good can the government do? They have only built this country into what I call the best country on earth but they haven't done any good besides that."

Let me head you off at the pass if I can and answer your next.... "Private industry did that not the government" response:

Part of being a good leader is knowing when to actually lead and when to get out of the way. Private industry has served this country and the rest of the world greatly in many arenas and helped us progress greatly. However, as has been shown to be the case in most other industrialized countries....the government is able to provide health care for ALL CITIZENS (not just a majority that is growing smaller daily) at a cheaper rate (less than 1/2 and more in some cases) than private industry has been able to in the US. Care to disagree? Back up your argument with actual data.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: BoberFett
RightIsWrong

Please list the federal departments and programs that work well in your opinion.

Best post in this thread.

Sure thing.

List is compiled of agencies gathered from here

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies

National Park Service
National Archives
Army Corp of Engineers
Census Bureau
CDC
CENTCOM
Coast Guard
Army
Navy
Marines
Air Force
FTC
CERT
Consumer Protection Safety Commission
HUD
FHA
FBI
FEMA (Until some idiot thought that they should fall under DHS)
Fed Hwy Commission
Federal Maritime Commission
Student Aid (Until some group of idiots thought that cutting it was a good idea)
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Library of Congress
NASA
National Guard
NIH
Nation Park Service
Oak Ridge Laboratory
OSHA
OMB
Office os Special Counsel
USPS
Smithsonian Institute
U.S. Mint

You listed the NPS twice, it's the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the FHA has been a part of HUD since 1965, and a large number of those agencies are either independent, forced to operate on their own without support of taxes, or both.
In general, government agencies exist where competition is either impossible or not desired. Roads are the ultimate example of this, as are emergency services like police and fire.
Health care doesn't fit into any of those. But hey, if you want your health records filed inside your FBI profile, and you want to guarantee profits for the health industry with federal dollars, and use public dollars to relieve corporations of their health care burdens to their employees, then keep right on ahead. But kindly don't pretend that your motives are pure.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor
Without even considering how much the cost is, I'd rather see the money gathered up and burned in a big pile than see the government provide "universal health care."

I know that you are pretty militant in regards toward you impression of the government running the country and/or a slushie stand....but can you add more than just your hatred to the thread?

Like.....

What do you think would be a better solution to make sure that everyone is able to see a doctor if needed and lower the current burden on the fed for medical costs occurred via medicare/medicaid?

I don't see why people seem to think that medical care is a necessity. People existed for thousands of years without doctors. I haven't been to a doctor (other than a dentist) in years. My dogs go to the vet more than I go to the doctor, and I pay for that out of pocket.

Of course, I still realize that some horrible problem could befall me, which is why I pay over $1000 a month for private health insurance.

If you can't afford an accountant, you don't see the accountant. If you can't afford a hooker, you don't see the hooker. If you can't afford the doctor, I'm sorry, you don't see the doctor.

 

[ranmaniac]

Glen Beck, who I normally despise, actually had something very important to say about this issue, it's quite scary the amount of money that is needed to pay for all these entitlement programs. Looks like those of us that ever planned on retiring around 2040+ can forget about Social Security, and the politicians that screwed all of this up will be long dead before then.

We need Universal fiscal responsibility before we can get Universal Healthcare...

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I've always maintained that the U.S. has the best care available in the world...for those that are able to afford it. Our negative numbers are skewed by those who cannot afford healthcare, including illegal aliens. This is not an endorsement of that system, it's just what I believe to be the reality.

With that said, a debate about universal healthcare in this country needs to be based on the premise that we will be trading quality for availability. Any politician that sais that we will be able to extend the quality available to the well insured of this country to everyone else is full of shit. With that said, I would be willing to give up some of the quality that I enjoy so healthcare is universally available. The only problem I have is that the thought of our federal government managing it scares the hell out of me. Will the savings on the administrative side outweigh the bloat that comes with government management? Who knows.

word

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: BoberFett
RightIsWrong

Please list the federal departments and programs that work well in your opinion.

Best post in this thread.

Sure thing.

List is compiled of agencies gathered from here

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies

National Park Service
National Archives
Army Corp of Engineers
Census Bureau
CDC
CENTCOM
Coast Guard
Army
Navy
Marines
Air Force
FTC
CERT
Consumer Protection Safety Commission
HUD
FHA
FBI
FEMA (Until some idiot thought that they should fall under DHS)
Fed Hwy Commission
Federal Maritime Commission
Student Aid (Until some group of idiots thought that cutting it was a good idea)
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Library of Congress
NASA
National Guard
NIH
Nation Park Service
Oak Ridge Laboratory
OSHA
OMB
Office os Special Counsel
USPS
Smithsonian Institute
U.S. Mint

You listed the NPS twice, it's the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the FHA has been a part of HUD since 1965, and a large number of those agencies are either independent, forced to operate on their own without support of taxes, or both.
In general, government agencies exist where competition is either impossible or not desired. Roads are the ultimate example of this, as are emergency services like police and fire.
Health care doesn't fit into any of those. But hey, if you want your health records filed inside your FBI profile, and you want to guarantee profits for the health industry with federal dollars, and use public dollars to relieve corporations of their health care burdens to their employees, then keep right on ahead. But kindly don't pretend that your motives are pure.

I apologize for the duplicates. Completely unintentional.

I bolded what I thought to be the most important sentence in your reply. I think that I speak for at a minimum about 50 million citizens of this country when I say that the competition that is in place in health care is not desired. Individuals and corporations are profiting from the profit squeeze going on at the the expense of the population. Definitely not desirable. People are dying because these fucks need more money.

What does it say about our country when we can allow over 50 million men, women and children to go without health care at all and have probably another 50 million not be able to afford much else BUT their health care because the companies are feeling the squeeze also?

What does it say about this country when the politicians that run it get universal healthcare for life while they deny 1/4 of the population any at all?

As for your paranoia about health records being inside FBI profiles....too late. What do you think that this administration (and to a lessor extent previous admins but only due to technological barriers) have been doing? Does warrantless wiretapping ring a bell? What about data mining? Hell, if my privacy is being compromised...I should at least gain something from it.

And my motives are pure. They are purely selfish because my family is part of the 50 million. We do not have health care because we make I make too much money to qualify for any government programs. My company doesn't offer any coverage because I am an IT professional and work a contract gig. We looked into private insurance but guess what? Have a child with an Autism diagnosis? Not coverable! Have a wife that had Basil Cell skin cancer? Not coverable! Have a daughter that had a concussion suffered in a car accident when she was 5 years old? Not coverable? Have a knee injury from a motorcycle accident over a decade ago? Not coverable!

I think that you get the picture. Even when you WANT AND TRY to get insurance on your own you are denied. Oh, and least I forget....don't have insurance....pay 5x what someone else does that was fortunate enough to get it or was dishonest enough to lie and hide their past.

Yeah....there is no desire or need for UHC!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
Glen Beck, who I normally despise, actually had something very important to say about this issue, it's quite scary the amount of money that is needed to pay for all these entitlement programs. Looks like those of us that ever planned on retiring around 2040+ can forget about Social Security, and the politicians that screwed all of this up will be long dead before then.

We need Universal fiscal responsibility before we can get Universal Healthcare...

That's not particularly true. Estimates for social security, medicare, etc. are based on a gigantic load of revenue and cost projections that have HUGE margins of error built into them. Anyone trying to predict the state of social security in 2040 or beyond is selling you a load of crap unless they put a ton of qualifications on their opinion.

Glenn Beck is an idiot. He's the stupidest and most pathetic right wing pundit I can think of, and that's a position with a lot of competition. In my opinion the only thing that social security needs to fix it is an adjustment to the retirement age to make it more in line with our increased life expectancy. When the program was made people were expected to be on SS for only a few years before croaking. Now some people are on it for 30 years or more.

 

[ZzZGuy]

I've been thinking about this, and hear many people pointing to canada's health care (i'm canadian btw), but our system does have it's flaws and there has been a on going debate on how to fix those.

The problem with the canadian UHC is the excessive wait times, underfunding whenever there is a downturn in the economy, government administration screwing things up as usual and the cost of the whole system on tax payers.

The proposed solution is private health care along side UHC, but that can be a slippery slope, and no offense but it scares the crap out of us that our health care might end up like the USA's. The problem is a massive "brain drain" on the doctors in the UHC sector because private health care clinics would give better pay drawing the specialists and top notch doctors, which would lead to more people seeing private clinics (more $$) which would draw more doctors until the UHC system was so bad that only the most poor would go and risk treatment there anymore.

A balance needs to be struck, where the private health care can co-exist along side the universal health care and to the betterment of both. I also want my doctors to be well paid and not upset that the government is denying them better income so they can pay off their new boat faster... while doing some invasive surgery on me. I could also see UHC cutting coverage more easily and quickly if they could simply say "well, go see the private clinic". I think some system with competition for doctors would be needed, which would make both spend their money wisely and have a system that works. I do not know the solution really.


But assume it works, people with the money would receive fast health care, save UHC system money, free up space for others and provide more incentive for specialized health care (or reduce medical tourism). I could see this system being applied to the USA. I do not believe it would be cheaper, but it would provide working UHC.

 

[Skeeedunt]

I'm sorely undereducated on the matter, but I'll throw this out there anyway. It seems like fixing our current system would be much easier, and produce much better results. How about we:

Outlaw group rates. If you buy insurance, you pay on a per-person basis. Rates must be clearly published and available to anyone, regardless or age, pre-existing condition, anything. Companies can provide tiered levels of service, but a given price point must be purchasable by anyone willing to pay.

Expand Medicaid/care/whatever to cover those legitimately unable to pay for their own coverage.

I rarely hear people discuss this course as an option. Is it deeply flawed in some way? Lay it on me.

 

[Jadow]

I'm 90% opposed to Universal Health Care. The 10% that supports it would support a High Deductible Health Plan that is realistic about treating people over the age of 70.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
Glen Beck, who I normally despise, actually had something very important to say about this issue, it's quite scary the amount of money that is needed to pay for all these entitlement programs. Looks like those of us that ever planned on retiring around 2040+ can forget about Social Security, and the politicians that screwed all of this up will be long dead before then.

We need Universal fiscal responsibility before we can get Universal Healthcare...

That's not particularly true. Estimates for social security, medicare, etc. are based on a gigantic load of revenue and cost projections that have HUGE margins of error built into them. Anyone trying to predict the state of social security in 2040 or beyond is selling you a load of crap unless they put a ton of qualifications on their opinion.

Glenn Beck is an idiot. He's the stupidest and most pathetic right wing pundit I can think of, and that's a position with a lot of competition. In my opinion the only thing that social security needs to fix it is an adjustment to the retirement age to make it more in line with our increased life expectancy. When the program was made people were expected to be on SS for only a few years before croaking. Now some people are on it for 30 years or more.

Yup. He's as pathetic a pundit as they come. It amazes me that politicos use health care/social security as a wedge issue to split America when common sense solutions and commitment will solve all ills (and unfunded liabilities).

Once again. $50 trillion over 75 years doesn't create a ripple in $1500 trillion GDP.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
I've been thinking about this, and hear many people pointing to canada's health care (i'm canadian btw), but our system does have it's flaws and there has been a on going debate on how to fix those.

The problem with the canadian UHC is the excessive wait times, underfunding whenever there is a downturn in the economy, government administration screwing things up as usual and the cost of the whole system on tax payers.

The proposed solution is private health care along side UHC, but that can be a slippery slope, and no offense but it scares the crap out of us that our health care might end up like the USA's. The problem is a massive "brain drain" on the doctors in the UHC sector because private health care clinics would give better pay drawing the specialists and top notch doctors, which would lead to more people seeing private clinics (more $$) which would draw more doctors until the UHC system was so bad that only the most poor would go and risk treatment there anymore.

A balance needs to be struck, where the private health care can co-exist along side the universal health care and to the betterment of both. I also want my doctors to be well paid and not upset that the government is denying them better income so they can pay off their new boat faster... while doing some invasive surgery on me. I could also see UHC cutting coverage more easily and quickly if they could simply say "well, go see the private clinic". I think some system with competition for doctors would be needed, which would make both spend their money wisely and have a system that works. I do not know the solution really.


But assume it works, people with the money would receive fast health care, save UHC system money, free up space for others and provide more incentive for specialized health care (or reduce medical tourism). I could see this system being applied to the USA. I do not believe it would be cheaper, but it would provide working UHC.

Public sector doctors practice tax free - local-state-federal. 4 weeks vacation a year. A round of golf with Tiger Woods. And most importantly ...

Free pornstar hookers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Once again. $50 trillion over 75 years doesn't create a ripple in $1500 trillion GDP.

Who has a $1500 trillion GDP?