Universal Health care: What does it mean for us a citizens?
-
DaveH;303953 wrote:
I never claimed to know anything about bill. It was completed and posted online on Thursday, I doubt you or anyone else has actually read it.All we can do is listen to the analysis from each side and try to determine what the truth is. Even when I hear the analysis from those promoting the bill, I don't like what I'm hearing.
/Thread.
-
thrash;303950 wrote:
Jim, socialism is a "Degree" thing. To some extent, every place puts the desires of some parts of society ahead of the rights of individuals. The US was designed to expressly NOT do this, and was the first place that ever had a revolution that enshrined the intrinsic right of the individual as the supreme principle of reality. We've spent the following 200+ years going away from that and towards socialism: where what your neighbor wants is his for the taking.There is no other country like the US anywhere. We are downgrading and becoming like other places.
Of course the rest of the world does it some other way: the entire rest of the world is wrong. The US constitution and the ideology that went into building it is the most moral and ethical system of governance possible: individual freedom for the individual's sake. No other country or system of government anywhere has this, all others are inferior.
We should stop trying to act like the rest of the world: this country was founded because the rest of the world sucked.
This and now we are trying to become like the rest of the world. Why dont all the dems move to Europe or something and leave our country alone.
-
Eurofan;303942 wrote:
How isnt it a socialist idea..???The bill will rob the people who are fortunate enough to have the means to pay their own insurance and giving it to the less fortunate.
^Sure, not directly.. but you can be sure that the government doesn't have the means/wont pay for this entirely... Its going to come out of the pocket of all tax payers.
Its redistribution of wealth- A socialist ideal.
Haha, yeah... the second link was provided just for those who hate fox news. They are certainly biased, but non biased sources have cited that the majority of the nation is not in favor...
To address this one issue, I think you need to look into what is/isn't in the bill.
There is no "Public Option" from what I can tell, so no one is buying insurance from the government. Nor is it a "medicare-for-all" program.
The closest you can get to calling it that is when you look at subsidies to help people purchase insurance. The theory behind it is that if EVERYONE has health insurance, one of two things will happen:
[LIST=1]
[]Healthier people in the risk pool will make health insurance less of a risk and lower costs for everyone.
[]Everyone will get the medical attention they need w/o fear of being dropped from coverage because they are too sick. In theory if everyone is covered, diseases will be diagnosed at earlier, more treatable stages rather than later and more costly. I forget the exact numbers, but right now >60% of all bankruptcies happen due to medical costs, of them >80% actually have major medical insurance. This bill is aimed at helping prevent this. If bankruptcies were to drop ~50%, in theory that would mean that there would be less businesses/lending institutions having to "eat" that money, making banking and the economy more stable. Which is good for all involved.
[/LIST]
I'll agree that there is a bit of wealth distribution going on in the form of taxation of "Cadillac" policies (which incidentally many union members have....and they typically are far left). The other place it happens is on those making >$200,000 (single) or >$250,000 (family). THIS is the area where my biggest concern lies within this plan.It doesn't limit which insurance policies you can buy, it doesn't limit which doctors you can go to. Which is a good thing.
I'm not sure the "majority of americans" aren't in favor, I'd say the majority don't have any idea what is even being proposed.
-
DelSlow;303954 wrote:
/Thread.cue the kickass fox news breakdown with wicked awesome music and a graphic that would make jimmy carter's head explode.
-
24valvenotak;303962 wrote:
cue the kickass fox news breakdown with wicked awesome music and a graphic that would make jimmy carter's head explode.Carters head is so full of air already, it wouldn't take much to make that peanut-head's head explode. (pun intended)
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Basically what it boils down to is that everything the government sticks its greedy and inefficient fingers into becomes corrupt, inefficient, and bankrupt.
Medicare - Dieing
SS - Dieing
Medicaid - Dieing
Healthcare - Soon to FollowCan anyone think of something that the government has gotten involved in that has operated better since government involvement?
BUT, everything that the government does not regulate to death actually improves over time and costs drop as well. Interesting isn't it? Plastic surgeries are usually the example that are used...insurance doesn't cover them so people have to pay out of pocket for their cosmetic surgeries. What have cosmetic surgery prices done? DROPPED. Government doesn't regulate products like TV's and such, and how much did LCD's cost 10 years ago? I think I remember seeing them at best buy for ~8-$10,000! Now you can buy a BETTER tv for $500-$1000. Things they don't get involved in get better and cheaper. Things they get involved in get costly, bloated, inefficient, and expensive.
Anyone seen what is happening with Greece?
-
StangerBanger96;303966 wrote:
Basically what it boils down to is that everything the government sticks its greedy and inefficient fingers into becomes corrupt, inefficient, and bankrupt.The main reason for that is because to the there is no accountability. Yeah, technically there is probably some government group in charge of keeping tabs on the 4 things you listed, but since it's someone else's money they are keeping tabs on, there is no incentive to really keep an eye on things. Keeping tabs on OUR OWN MONEY is the only way to make sure that the person keeping tabs on the money, is really keeping tabs on the money.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
StangerBanger96;303966 wrote:
BUT, everything that the government does not regulate to death actually improves over time and costs drop as well. Interesting isn't it? Plastic surgeries are usually the example that are used...insurance doesn't cover them so people have to pay out of pocket for their cosmetic surgeries. What have cosmetic surgery prices done? DROPPED. Government doesn't regulate products like TV's and such, and how much did LCD's cost 10 years ago? I think I remember seeing them at best buy for ~8-$10,000! Now you can buy a BETTER tv for $500-$1000. Things they don't get involved in get better and cheaper. Things they get involved in get costly, bloated, inefficient, and expensive.Improved technology, cheaper materials and means of production, among other innovations, certainly have nothing to do with the quality of televisions improving and their prices also dropping. The only reason you can get a new HDTV for cheap is because the government hasn't tried to regulate them.
-
StangerBanger96;303966 wrote:
Basically what it boils down to is that everything the government sticks its greedy and inefficient fingers into becomes corrupt, inefficient, and bankrupt.Medicare - Dieing
SS - Dieing
Medicaid - Dieing
Healthcare - Soon to FollowCan anyone think of something that the government has gotten involved in that has operated better since government involvement?
I don't disagree with most of this. But what I'm saying (for the sake of argument) is that nothing really changes as far as your coverage and your doctors under this plan, other than you are less likely to lose your insurance due to getting sick/losing your job. It does provide a mechanism for those who do not have/qualify for insurance to get coverage and get tax incentives to have coverage (subsidies). See point #2 in my previous post for more info.
I will throw this out there though: Lasik is covered under MANY insurance plans now, at least to some degree. When it was just something people paid for out of pocket the cost was >$2000/eye, presently you can get it done for under $900/eye....and this is since insurance was involved. BTW, plastic surgery still has guidelines they have to follow (and corrective plastic surgery is often covered under insurance as well), so they are regulated as well.
I personally don't think that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. We have a very good one, but to call it the best is a stretch in my mind. Infant mortality was brought up in this thread as a basis for judging how good the system is (and the overall health of a country). By that measure (according to 2009 data) the US has the 46th best healthcare system. Barely in the top 20%.
(I love a good political argument)
-
Trafik Jamz;303975 wrote:
I personally don't think that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. We have a very good one, but to call it the best is a stretch in my mind. Infant mortality was brought up in this thread as a basis for judging how good the system is (and the overall health of a country). By that measure (according to 2009 data) the US has the 46th best healthcare system. Barely in the top 20%.The HBR (harvard business review, the place i often see this data attributed to) data is comparing apples and oranges. In Europe, if a baby is born prematurely, and dies, they don't count that as "infant mortality", they count it as stillbirth or miscarraige.
In the US, once it's 20 weeks old, it's a baby, and they'll try to save it no matter how poor you are. Because capitalism is so fucking bad-ass, these babies are surviving more often than not.
There are some other issues that come into play here, including racial makeup of the US population [there are socio-physiological differences here w.r.t. mortality]
That said, why is "infant mortality" the goal post? I don't frankly care how well you and your baby does. I mean, good luck and all that, and i hope things work out, but as long as I can get the best care possible, that's what I'm after, and that's going to be found here in the US.
I'd be curious to know where you'd rather take your wife to have a baby than here.
-
I'd be curious to know where you would rather go for care outside of the US for anything medical related...
-
amicheze;303974 wrote:
Improved technology, cheaper materials and means of production, among other innovations, certainly have nothing to do with the quality of televisions improving and their prices also dropping. The only reason you can get a new HDTV for cheap is because the government hasn't tried to regulate them.This was all the result of Capitalism...IE the government wasn't forcing regulations that might have hampered the R&D that led to the cheaper materials, improved technology, etc. It's an analogy, not a perfect representation, but then again...answer my question I posed earlier...what has government gotten involved in that has become more efficient and less corrupt than prior to government involvement?
Government got into the housing market back in the early/mid 90's because they wanted everyone in homes...we see how well that turned out!
-
Trafik Jamz;303958 wrote:
To address this one issue, I think you need to look into what is/isn't in the bill.There is no "Public Option" from what I can tell, so no one is buying insurance from the government. Nor is it a "medicare-for-all" program.
The closest you can get to calling it that is when you look at subsidies to help people purchase insurance. The theory behind it is that if EVERYONE has health insurance, one of two things will happen:
[LIST=1]
[]Healthier people in the risk pool will make health insurance less of a risk and lower costs for everyone.
[]Everyone will get the medical attention they need w/o fear of being dropped from coverage because they are too sick. In theory if everyone is covered, diseases will be diagnosed at earlier, more treatable stages rather than later and more costly. I forget the exact numbers, but right now >60% of all bankruptcies happen due to medical costs, of them >80% actually have major medical insurance. This bill is aimed at helping prevent this. If bankruptcies were to drop ~50%, in theory that would mean that there would be less businesses/lending institutions having to "eat" that money, making banking and the economy more stable. Which is good for all involved.
[/LIST]
I'll agree that there is a bit of wealth distribution going on in the form of taxation of "Cadillac" policies (which incidentally many union members have....and they typically are far left). The other place it happens is on those making >$200,000 (single) or >$250,000 (family). THIS is the area where my biggest concern lies within this plan.It doesn't limit which insurance policies you can buy, it doesn't limit which doctors you can go to. Which is a good thing.
I'm not sure the "majority of americans" aren't in favor, I'd say the majority don't have any idea what is even being proposed.
Again, the government is not for free handouts. We are becoming way to reliant as a nation on the government. Why do we bail people out as a government? Why do we give free hand outs? Its not a fucking daycare for christ sake
Ever heard the saying "you learn from your mistakes/failures."????
This shouldnt be a nation where everyone fucking wins.
Obama talks about "being a nation"- drifting away from politics and looking at people as people and not by their party...
How are we as citizens muted on issues like this..? Granted we vote for representatives, but do you honestly think they are listening now..?
Something like 70% of people in our state were opposed to this bill... Earl voted in favor of the bill... HOW IS THAT REPRESENTING US????!?!?!?
Its just ludicrous. This shits scary, it really is...
It is so left wing it isnt even funny...
Edit: Sorry about the profanity...
-
thrash;303979 wrote:
The HBR (harvard business review, the place i often see this data attributed to) data is comparing apples and oranges. In Europe, if a baby is born prematurely, and dies, they don't count that as "infant mortality", they count it as stillbirth or miscarraige.In the US, once it's 20 weeks old, it's a baby, and they'll try to save it no matter how poor you are. Because capitalism is so fucking bad-ass, these babies are surviving more often than not.
There are some other issues that come into play here, including racial makeup of the US population [there are socio-physiological differences here w.r.t. mortality]
That said, why is "infant mortality" the goal post? I don't frankly care how well you and your baby does. I mean, good luck and all that, and i hope things work out, but as long as I can get the best care possible, that's what I'm after, and that's going to be found here in the US.
I'd be curious to know where you'd rather take your wife to have a baby than here.
There are a few countries I wouldn't hesitate to have medical care in. Japan and Germany being amongst those on the the top of the list. I think of all the countries that have gov't provided healthcare, they have the best solution.
FWIW, I didn't set the goal post as infant mortality, I was using a broadly used example of such.
integra_gsr98;303983 wrote:
I'd be curious to know where you would rather go for care outside of the US for anything medical related...Depends on the procedure.
Back surgery: Switzerland. Bar none. My dad is going there to have disc replacement surgery at the recommendation of several US surgeons.
Cancer: USA exclusively
Other diseases would depend on where I thought I'd get the best care.I'll agree that regulation is part of the problem, and in all honesty that is part of the reason I'd go elsewhere for some procedures.
StangerBanger96;303988 wrote:
This was all the result of Capitalism...IE the government wasn't forcing regulations that might have hampered the R&D that led to the cheaper materials, improved technology, etc. It's an analogy, not a perfect representation, but then again...answer my question I posed earlier...what has government gotten involved in that has become more efficient and less corrupt than prior to government involvement?Government got into the housing market back in the early/mid 90's because they wanted everyone in homes...we see how well that turned out!
And Japan isn't regulated? How about China/Korea? Products got cheaper because the labor to produce them got cheaper and the R&D REALLY doesn't change all that much from year to year, yes the processors get faster and the process itself gets refined driving the price down, but to say that those countries don't have regulation to deal with in their in manufacturing processes is laughable at best.
As to your direct question: The telephone industry. I'd argue all day that Ma Bell being broken up and regulated did wonders for the telecommunication industry as a whole. It bred competition at all levels and ultimately lowered the cost of the service.
-
Eurofan;303990 wrote:
Again, the government is not for free handouts. We are becoming way to reliant as a nation on the government. Why do we bail people out as a government? Why do we give free hand outs? Its not a fucking daycare for christ sakeEver heard the saying "you learn from your mistakes/failures."????
This shouldnt be a nation where everyone fucking wins.
Obama talks about "being a nation"- drifting away from politics and looking at people as people and not by their party...
How are we as citizens muted on issues like this..? Granted we vote for representatives, but do you honestly think they are listening now..?
Something like 70% of people in our state were opposed to this bill... Earl voted in favor of the bill... HOW IS THAT REPRESENTING US????!?!?!?
Its just ludicrous. This shits scary, it really is...
It is so left wing it isnt even funny...
Edit: Sorry about the profanity...
I agree whole heartedly with the idea that the government shouldn't be providing handouts. I also challenge EVERYONE who has ever received any sort of a stimulus check or farm subsidy payment or child tax credit, etc... to send it back. I never sent mine back either, don't feel bad.
So don't think of the subsidies as handouts, think of them as tax reductions, it makes it easier to swallow if you are a conservative.
My point is that fiscally it makes more sense to subsidize healthcare than it does to leave it as it is. Socially is a whole new argument of course.
As for learning from your mistakes...let's see, you ended up with pancreatic cancer from no fault of your own and got dropped from your insurance.....yup, won't do that one again, won't be around to. Or you are in a car accident as a child and suffer from severe migraines/numbness/etc... Too bad as an adult you may not be insurable as it is a pre-existing condition. That argument doesn't hold water with me.
To use the same argument the Republicans used when Bush was in office "Sometimes you have to do what is right for the country, even if it isn't popular....that is what defines leadership"
FWIW, I still don't like the healthcare bill that was passed, I'm just arguing the other side of the coin (like I normally do)
-
The real health cost problem is 4 part.
-
We pay WAAAAAAAAAAAY more for medication in this country than even Canada. The same drug, in the same dosage, in the same package may be 2 to 3 times more expensive here. Yay capitalism, way to keep those costs down.
-
People self-prescribe medication essentially. They tell the Dr what is wrong and they just write whatever prescription you want. Trust me, every time I get an ear infection, I get Vicoden. In this country nothing is ever done to figure out what is causing the problem, we just treat the symptoms. No money in cures.
-
This ties directly to #2, but drug companies should not be able to advertise prescription drugs to the public. I don't need to know about every new miracle drug. That is why my Dr. went to med school and why pharmaceuticals hire reps.
-
It's too easy to sue. If you intentionally fuck someone up on the operating table, sure you should be liable. But if a minor mistake is made, you should not be able to sue for millions.
-
-
Trafik Jamz;303998 wrote:
The real health cost problem is 4 part.-
We pay WAAAAAAAAAAAY more for medication in this country than even Canada. The same drug, in the same dosage, in the same package may be 2 to 3 times more expensive here. Yay capitalism, way to keep those costs down.
-
People self-prescribe medication essentially. They tell the Dr what is wrong and they just write whatever prescription you want. Trust me, every time I get an ear infection, I get Vicoden. In this country nothing is ever done to figure out what is causing the problem, we just treat the symptoms. No money in cures.
-
This ties directly to #2, but drug companies should not be able to advertise prescription drugs to the public. I don't need to know about every new miracle drug. That is why my Dr. went to med school and why pharmaceuticals hire reps.
-
It's too easy to sue. If you intentionally fuck someone up on the operating table, sure you should be liable. But if a minor mistake is made, you should not be able to sue for millions.
But the solution to the problems isn't to take over the industry with government...nor should it be to take a complete 180* turn vs the current system. Obama and the Dem's can't understand that though.
-
-
I don't see this as a complete 180* turn either. You will still have your existing policy, only now you can't get dropped for not being healthy enough to have health insurance...even though you were healthy enough when you purchased it. My BIGGEST gripe is the mandated coverage. I'm glad its not the public option (you still buy from the same insurers you always have, you still see the same doctors you always have, no gov't between you and your doctor, etc, etc, etc...)
In all honesty, I'm willing to bet if you looked at the bill, it is 75% what the republicans have asked for and probably less than 50% of what the far left democrats wanted in the beginning.
Right now the only thing the republicans should be upset about is this: Subsidies to help the lowest income people afford mandated coverage.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login