Bay 12 Games Forum

Finally... => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nilocy on August 14, 2009, 03:27:48 pm

Title: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Nilocy on August 14, 2009, 03:27:48 pm
Its now acctually started to annoy me, why are americans so afraid of change? And why the hell are the republicans called Britains National Health Service (NHS) Orwellian (oooooh clever use of a british writer there, gratz america) and evil?! They're saying that our health service is based on a selection commitee that decides who lives and dies? NO IT DOESN'T. Argh, i have a great respect for NHS workers (of which there are 1.3 million in britain) so why is america's right wing anti-reformists using our amazing institution as a negative point against this health reform? whhhhhyyyyy?!
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: sonerohi on August 14, 2009, 03:32:04 pm
As an American, I can say that all the angry protesting stems from two types of people. 1) Those too retarded to figure out what "optional death counseling" means, and 2) The people two busy working to read the legislature, so they take #1's word on it. I haven't yet gotten a chance to peruse the whole thing, but it would seem to me that there really is nothing overly wrong with it.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jualin on August 14, 2009, 04:44:36 pm
As far as I've seen, this is because of fear (isn't Death Panel a very gripping name to call your designated opponent?) and money (the health insurance industry has a ridiculously powerful lobby. You have five guesses as to whom nationalized health care would hurt badly, and the first four don't count.)

It doesn't take much to stop a town hall debate in your favor, either. All you need to do is to take advantage of preconceived notions and have something catchy to shout in order to drown out debate. What better motivator than fear to turn ignorance and misunderstanding into a cold surety that you are the only sane person in a world of thieves and beggars.

Money burns holes in one's pockets, does it not?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 14, 2009, 07:21:12 pm
Yep, let us have a system like in the UK where it takes MONTHS to get simple procedures done. Let us have a system where instead of healthcare being 1/6 of the economy it becomes 5/6 of the economy. I am not a lawmaker nor I am an educated citizen, but to nationalize healthcare is not a good idea. There is a healthcare system in the state of Mass. which resembles the bill they are trying to pass. It is doing terrible last I heard. I am not opposed to healthcare reform, but this bill puts the government in a position where it shouldn't be in. You have canadian citizens waiting 7-8 hours to get a physical and months for surgery. I have seen articles where canadians jump the border to get their procedures done here in the US.

Why are they in such a rush to pass it? It took the Obama family like 8 months to figure out what kind of dog they wanted but they want to push this bill into law in less than 3 months?! It should take them years of debating to get this thing right.

National healthcare no. Healthcare reform yes. It has nothing to do with being afraid of change, but the only examples of national healthcare that are in use have not worked.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Captain Hat on August 14, 2009, 08:34:14 pm
Yep, let us have a system like in the UK where it takes MONTHS to get simple procedures done. Let us have a system where instead of healthcare being 1/6 of the economy it becomes 5/6 of the economy. I am not a lawmaker nor I am an educated citizen, but to nationalize healthcare is not a good idea. There is a healthcare system in the state of Mass. which resembles the bill they are trying to pass. It is doing terrible last I heard. I am not opposed to healthcare reform, but this bill puts the government in a position where it shouldn't be in. You have canadian citizens waiting 7-8 hours to get a physical and months for surgery. I have seen articles where canadians jump the border to get their procedures done here in the US.

Why are they in such a rush to pass it? It took the Obama family like 8 months to figure out what kind of dog they wanted but they want to push this bill into law in less than 3 months?! It should take them years of debating to get this thing right.

National healthcare no. Healthcare reform yes. It has nothing to do with being afraid of change, but the only examples of national healthcare that are in use have not worked.

Because having everyone pay for expensive emergency room visits for things that could have been preventable is much better.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Ampersand on August 14, 2009, 09:12:04 pm
There are legitimate reasons to go for a publicly funded health insurance option. There are also legitimate objections. I'm not going to talk about either of those.

The problem is that the debate has been clouded by illegitimate objections and illegitimate reasons posed in response. And it's starting to get kind of scary.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: bjlong on August 14, 2009, 09:17:45 pm
The problem is that the debate has been clouded by illegitimate objections and illegitimate reasons posed in response. And it's starting to get kind of scary.

Congratulations! You've just learned the first thing about politics: lies spread faster than the truth, so the best way to get your point across is by lying before the other guy does!

IMO, healthcare reform doesn't seem too close. If it does go through, it'll be much different from what Obama wants.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 14, 2009, 09:21:19 pm
Oh no, I'm not getting drawn into this.  I talked myself out of starting a thread on this after I nearly gave myself a aneurysm the other night.  Not even going to touch it.  Hell, I'm trying to unplug myself from my news addiction before it kills me.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Gunner-Chan on August 14, 2009, 09:31:28 pm
I agree with the chinned one... This subject just makes me wanna pull my own head off.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Duke 2.0 on August 14, 2009, 10:25:11 pm
 I make it a point to not post in threads I don't want to post in, not even for a post like this explaining I don't like it. Still, I must add onto the crowd edging away from this thread like a bomb.

 Because this thread is like a chalkboard made of black powder with chalk sticks made of sprinklers.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 14, 2009, 10:34:55 pm
Quote
Posted by: Nilocy
Posted by: sonerohi
Posted by: Jualin
Posted by: Taniec
Posted by: Captain Hat

LET BATTLE BE JOINED
(http://www.nuuanu.k12.hi.us/G-1/public_html/websites/chelsea/images/zeus.gif)
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Neonivek on August 14, 2009, 10:38:53 pm
I'd personally would find this whole Healthcare debate in the USA hillarious if it didn't also include some pretty silly/stupid notions of how the Canadian health system functioned.

Though I guess I should ALSO find it hillarious because they have little understanding of Canadian healthcare.

One arguement I find odd is that they say "The United States cannot have socialised healthcare because they have a large population" which leaves me to say "Right but that also means they have ten times the amount of people to pay for it"
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Enzo on August 14, 2009, 10:48:33 pm
I love Canada :)

Healthcare is part of our national identity. Almost as much as smug, cockeyed amusement at American hijinks is.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Cthulhu on August 14, 2009, 11:04:29 pm
This is another subject where I take my "Everyone is wrong in their own special way" stance.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 14, 2009, 11:15:55 pm
Just who is left among the major Republican politicians these days?  There are some senators and a couple governers, a few former presidential candidates and presidents, and that seems to be it.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Ampersand on August 14, 2009, 11:23:09 pm
Just who is left among the major Republican politicians these days?  There are some senators and a couple governers, a few former presidential candidates and presidents, and that seems to be it.

Why, Sarah Palin of course.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 14, 2009, 11:27:29 pm
That was one of those "couple of governors."
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 15, 2009, 12:25:02 am
Not anymore!  No, she quit being a governor after two years in office!  Why?  I suspect to drive me out of my mind and devote herself full time to generating nails-on-a-chalkboard Pavlovian word salads for rubes to parrot.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ToonyMan on August 15, 2009, 12:32:33 am
She quit because it's too much stress.  You can tell by how she is.  $100 she kills someone within a year.

EDIT:  In other words, she smiles like a liar.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 15, 2009, 01:28:40 am
Just who is left among the major Republican politicians these days?  There are some senators and a couple governers, a few former presidential candidates and presidents, and that seems to be it.

There is Arnold Swarchzeneger.

Of course, given that he is pro-embryo stem cell research, somewhat green, and pro-marijuana legalization, I suspect its likely that die-hard republicans will find him unappealing
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 15, 2009, 01:44:57 am
He's also not a native born American, so he can't run for President.  Cue insanty-mongering in three, two, one...
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Mr Tk on August 15, 2009, 06:47:21 am
I'll put in only this:

First: I hate the fact that media say that going to public health is socialism, and that socialism is equated to communism. Fuck then the UK and many other countries are communist states then by that logic.

Second: I live in New Zealand which has a combination of both systems. Everybody is covered under a public health system (which yes does take time get through operations), however people have the option of joining a private healthcare coverage. Note: Even if you have the private healthcare you can still get the public care as well.

You can have both systems people.


That is all....
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 15, 2009, 06:53:59 am
And viceversa. I think that there are countries where the hospital system is kept private but the social security foots the bill (I dont know how well it works when compared to the social security owned hospitals.)
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Vester on August 15, 2009, 08:02:00 am
Exactly. What's with socialism? Is it, what, intrinsically evil, or something?

From where I'm standing, it looks like the last few sane members of the right have left and all that remains is a lot of people scrabbling desperately for power, willing to do anything short of outright violence to keep it.

In fact I'd prefer that they were simply evil, because if they actually believe what they're saying... well, there's a big problem.

That's just my 2 centavos. Despite my being halfway around the world, the healthcare debate seems silly. There shouldn't be a debate at all.

(Huh. Where will he get the money, though?)
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Ampersand on August 15, 2009, 12:29:47 pm
If he were to take all the money that goes to other healthcare programs and combine it into a single public option, then the additional costs may be relatively low. Taxes on highest percent incomes in the country may have to be raised to cover it entirely.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 15, 2009, 05:36:02 pm
Of course, with public healthcare people won't be spending as much to stay (relatively) healthy.  And taxes have already been raised a bit in the U.S., haven't they?  So public health care would make up for that to an extent.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 15, 2009, 07:38:48 pm
that's the idea, I think
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Cthulhu on August 15, 2009, 10:45:51 pm
Meh, I haven't been paying much attention to it.  The only significant thing I remember reading on it was some article on Newsweek with a conservative and a liberal politician giving their views.  From what I remember, the Conservative gave a much more cogent and well-thought-out response, the Liberal's was mostly emotional appeal.

As Cthulhu, your human emotions mean nothing to me.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 15, 2009, 11:35:42 pm
The current American system is a complete disaster. Something more similar to, say, what they have in Canada, would not be perfect and have plenty of problems, but I'd rather have people waiting longer and some people not having access to some non-life-saving procedures, than have massive numbers of the poorest people in the country have NO way to get health care at all.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Sensei on August 16, 2009, 12:46:30 am
Exactly. What's with socialism? Is it, what, intrinsically evil, or something?

Nothing is intrinsically wrong with socialism. Some people do equate it to communism, which would be fine  usually devolves into dictatorship (or at least that's the popular opinion).

At any rate, to them the idea of anything based on a socialist model in America is like restricting racism on 4chan. It's a matter of principle, and they just want a country to exist in which there are no such systems.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 16, 2009, 01:40:37 pm
Socialism requires people to be interdependent and socially responsible for strangers, which Americans hate. There's a deep-seated American need to be independent from others in many ways and especially not to be picking up the bill for other people, especially if it's for some bad choice another person made.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 16, 2009, 01:45:19 pm
You say that like America is the only country in the world where people don't give a crap about each other.

Oh God dammit, I said I wouldn't post here again...
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ToonyMan on August 16, 2009, 01:49:38 pm
I CALL SCAPE GOAT.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 16, 2009, 02:39:49 pm
Socialism requires people to be interdependent and socially responsible for strangers, which Americans hate. There's a deep-seated American need to be independent from others in many ways and especially not to be picking up the bill for other people, especially if it's for some bad choice another person made.
Not really.  I know a lot of people who aren't like that.  In fact, that's really a more right-wing viewpoint.  Just look at what party is in the majority in the government and why.

At least as far as political views go.  How they actually act is a different matter.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Wiles on August 16, 2009, 03:46:13 pm
I can say that I have benefited greatly from the public health system in Canada. I have a friend who lives in the United States and has the same disease I have, he is in his mid twenties like myself and already has a 5 figure debt because of his illness.

I have never personally had to wait long for surgery nor have I had to wait long periods of time to see a specialist when I was very ill. I know the system is not perfect, there are problems with it, but I am thankful that I wasn't born in the United States, else I would have struggled greatly with financial difficulties and probably not have gotten the same standard of care as I did here because I would have not been able to afford it.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 16, 2009, 04:12:22 pm
You say that like America is the only country in the world where people don't give a crap about each other.

Oh God dammit, I said I wouldn't post here again...

it's a much bigger part of American ideals than a lot of other countries I've been to. It's sort of based in the principles the country was founded on.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 16, 2009, 05:22:55 pm
And so we should just roll with it even though it's a bad way of going about things in this particular case?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Ampersand on August 16, 2009, 06:44:48 pm
The real problem with Healthcare in Canada really has nothing to do with how it has been socialized, but rather that it has a relatively small population spread across a very large area. The father of one of my friends is the only radiologist in an entire Windsor area of New Brunswick.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 16, 2009, 09:15:10 pm
Somewhat off topic: does this lack of doctors translate into big figure salaries for doctors that go work in Canada?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Enzo on August 16, 2009, 09:20:10 pm
No, Canada actually has a shortage of doctors (and nurses) because they make more money if they move to the states.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Shrike on August 16, 2009, 10:18:58 pm
As the son of medical professionals and a liberal, I feel compelled to post.

At this point, the health care 'debate' isn't.

It's a misinformation/defense cycle that only serves to make doubt, and that's what the misinformation-providing right wing is hoping for.

I'm all for a national health care system or insurance (and big pharma) regulations to minimize administrative and PR overhead to reduce costs to consumers, and encouraging more people to become medical professionals.

It's amusing (in a very sad way) to see how simplistic the reasoning is; Sarah Palin calls end of life counselling a "Death panel" and then somehow, it sounds like Obama's planning to have the elderly killed to cut costs. "WE KNEW HE WAS OUT TO GET US AFTER ALL!" When really, it's asking them to prepare for the end of their lives, and think about how much it will cost them to keep living. Yes, there could easily be pressure felt to have a pull-the-plug request, but it's the patient/someone with power of attorney deciding.

Meanwhile, the "Death panels" exist in the for-profit insurance companies. Not in the sense of 'We think everyone should get a living will, and determine if they'd like to die peacefully under medical supervision', but in the sense of "Trying to keep this person alive will cut into our profits, so drop their coverage without warning and let them fend for themselves."

I don't think it's ethical to charge someone for a service, then drop them and keep the money they've paid the moment they start really needing that coverage. And in a capitalistic/free market society, if one company can get away with it, why shouldn't everyone else do the same thing? Maximize profits by minimizing risks. To the shareholders and board, it doesn't matter if you're selling computers or determining who should get critically important medical care. 

I don't think it's ethical for drugs to be made with 500%, 2000%, or even higher profits on each pill, just so the executives can show profitability and then push more ads onto TV that make Americans into hypochondriacs, then claim that price controls would affect the research budget. Their research budget is LESS than the advertising budget.

On the same theme, when the ads tell the guy who doesn't think he's got enough vim in bed to ask his doctor about it, and the doctor says 'no' (for example, because of potential conflicts with another drug), what happens?

In America, the customer is always right, and so the patient can threaten to go to another provider, taking money away from someone who is doing their job and following their oath in order to encourage more prescriptions. HMOs add in a whole new layer of administrative overhead and screwed up pay rules that encourage specialists to not send patients to appropriate doctors, because they get paid less or nothing for a referral, despite their time in diagnosing the issue. There is an incentive to provide worse care for higher rates. There's also a story of a bad surgeon being kept over a good one, because the bad surgeon's patients kept getting worse and had to come back in for more surgery.



It's not free market anymore, it's price fixing and spaghettified logic about prices, creating repeat customers in violation of the Hippocratic oath, and putting a price on human lives.

And yet, all that is ignored because the right wing and lobbyists are able to spew out lies about anything that tries to change the status quo. They aren't trying to justify that our current system is totally awesome, but that any alternatives are worse, stopping debate before anything of possible merit can be found.

Do I have the answers? Heck no. But I'm not going to go stop people from trying to find ones better than what we have.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Realmfighter on August 17, 2009, 01:22:46 am
Yep, let us have a system like in the UK where it takes MONTHS to get simple procedures done. Let us have a system where instead of healthcare being 1/6 of the economy it becomes 5/6 of the economy.
I have no idea about the UK system, but 5/6 of the economy? Even 1/6 doesn't sound right (EI 1/6 of the money flow in UK comes from healthcare. I'm probably wrong)

I am not a lawmaker nor I am an educated citizen, but to nationalize healthcare is not a good idea.
How would you know that, be uneducated?

There is a healthcare system in the state of Mass. which resembles the bill they are trying to pass. It is doing terrible last I heard.
can't comment

I am not opposed to healthcare reform, but this bill puts the government in a position where it shouldn't be in.
Better than a faceless company with no care for anything but profit

You have canadian citizens waiting 7-8 hours to get a physical and months for surgery.
Really? I went to get on a few months ago, and it only took a few hours to get in. As for the long wait time for surgery, you only get long wait times for thing that won't kill you.

I have seen articles where canadians jump the border to get their procedures done here in the US.
Links or it didn't happen

Hold on, i remember a something i read in a different forum that Would be good if everone here to see
Big spoiler
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 17, 2009, 01:57:43 am
I live in a country with socialized healthcare and the wait for normal examinations rarely exceeds 30 mins, and more often is around 15.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 17, 2009, 02:44:58 am
You all want affordable and quality healthcare, eh? I present to you:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The guy who was making it happen since 1991. Heart surgery for $129.95. No health care system can beat that.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Duke 2.0 on August 17, 2009, 02:52:29 am
 "Hi everybody! First, I'll need you all to sign these medical waivers. I'm telling you, with all these regulations and rules coming out, it's becoming impossible to be a doctor. Anyway, onto the procedure. First, I need you to eat some of these greaseburgers to inflate your heart and make locating it easier! Then I'll give you some sleepy gas and cut you open with this knife. A few hours later and you'll be in horrific recovery for weeks."

 Screw the topic, lets de-rail in this direction.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Armok on August 17, 2009, 03:30:41 am
This thread is making me sick. This thread is making me happy I don't live in the US. This thread is making me unhappy that some people I care about (Toady, many of you, some other peaple at internet forums, artist making webocis I enjoy, but still) do live in the US.  :(
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Sensei on August 17, 2009, 03:34:32 am
This thread is making me sick.

Are you going to need to go to the hospital over it?

I hope it's not expensive, what with the health care these days! ;)
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ToonyMan on August 17, 2009, 09:06:38 am
ToonyMan don't need hos-pit-al.  ToonyMan take pain and deal with.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 17, 2009, 12:02:52 pm
And so we should just roll with it even though it's a bad way of going about things in this particular case?

I never said anything of the sort, or that America wasn't made up largely of jackasses.

Also, a truly terrifying aspect of this "debate" is that people like Sarah Palin can basically pull blatant lies out of their ass and be believed by a large portion of the population. People don't even THINK about how they're voting against their interests.
Title: -
Post by: redacted123 on August 17, 2009, 01:41:47 pm
-
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 17, 2009, 03:23:16 pm
Quote
I tend to favour private healthcare simply because it will provide better service than the NHS

I dont know about the british system, but here at least, this seldom is so, because the average public hospital has more resources than the average private one, barring honorable exceptions (cun).
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 17, 2009, 03:45:25 pm
This thread is making me sick. This thread is making me happy I don't live in the US. This thread is making me unhappy that some people I care about (Toady, many of you, some other peaple at internet forums, artist making webocis I enjoy, but still) do live in the US.  :(

Right, because the United States is the worst country in the world. Every citizen is just an ignorant fool with the IQ of a chimp. I think we would all agree the world would be better place if our country just got nuked off the face of the earth; Civilization IV style.

(http://usera.imagecave.com/chuckman/CHUCKMAN-BUSH-INHELMET-CHIMP-THUMBSUP-STATEOFTHEUNION.jpg)
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ToonyMan on August 17, 2009, 03:48:40 pm
Heh, I don't blame anyone.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jreengus on August 17, 2009, 04:00:10 pm
Right, because the United States is the worst country in the world. Every citizen is just an ignorant fool with the IQ of a chimp. I think we would all agree the world would be better place if our country just got nuked off the face of the earth; Civilization IV style.
Congratulations! You just proved yourself right!
Seriously are you so stuck up that you take any criticism of your country as a complete and utter insult that slanders every aspect of it or are you just trolling?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 17, 2009, 04:01:16 pm
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is far better than any of the games in the civilization series. Zakharov FTW
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 17, 2009, 04:02:29 pm
Been a rough couple of weeks. I think the beer is getting to my head.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Ai Shizuka on August 17, 2009, 04:15:33 pm
Main problem about this topic in the US is the twisted belief that everything public = communism.
Followed by a strong inclination to see everything black or white. Different shades of gray do not exist in the US.

You don't have to have a 100% public health system. We have a lot of problems in my country (Italy) but we've recently been ranked #2 for the best health system in the world, behind France. Over here healthcare is completely public with minimal fixed charges for everything (never seen anything above 40 euros, and I'm talking about stuff like 10 sessions of physiotherapy + specialistic visit). Over 60 years old (or 65, not sure) and below XX (kids, I don't remember the age), everything's free.

But you are NOT forced to go public. There are plenty of private clinics, wich have to be approved by the public system, but are 100% autonomous. Those are expensive, obviously (up to 200 euros for a simple orthopedic visit), but usually things are a lot faster.
So basically it's a choice between "almost free but somewhat slow" or "faster but you pay".
Obviously emergencies don't have to wait at all, even with a public system.

I'm talking from personal experience here. A year ago I've totally fucked up my right elbow in a horse accident. Exposited dislocation with multiple broken ligaments, and the wound was full of sand and small pebbles to boot. Urgent surgery was necessary, obviously, and I didn't pay a cent. No questions asked, nothing about my insurance, nothing. You fuck yourself, you go to the hospital, they fix you.
In the US this thing would've costed something between 15,000 and 20,000 dollars. And I'm talking about the surgery alone, not the following 80 sessions of therapy and 20 of ultrasounds. No idea about those, but I've paid 36 euros for each 10 sessions. And guess what? My insurance refunded those.

I'm far from done with this elbow (joint-wise, the thing was basically amputated) and I need more surgery. This time I'm going private to speed things up and my insurance is going to pay everything. But it's my choice. I could easily continue with the doctor who fixed me the first time. A bit slower, but free.


Now my country is totally fucked up in other aspects, but I'm pretty darn proud of our healthcare.
What you have now in the US is a disgrace. Any modern western country should be ashamed of that monstrosity, even more so a great country like the US. I've never managed to understand what's so HORRIBLY wrong about a public healthcare. I can't even imagine the consequences of a hypotetical total privatization here in Italy or any other western european country.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Nilocy on August 17, 2009, 05:00:40 pm
Ok, seems in my total disregard for internet protocol, i forgot to say, DON'T GET PERSONAL.

At Taniec: Your figures are wrong, britain spends about 8% of its GDP on healthcare, and america spends 16%. Go figure, prescriptions (for most drugs at the pharmacy) only cost £4 per item.

The cost to my parents for my braces I had put in when i was a youngin? Free. A guy i was talking to in america forked out $6000 for his daughters braces, and that was just the braces alone, not the dentist treatement afterwards.

And guess how much we (as in each british citizen) pay for this? Nothing more than you guys in america pay in taxes.

Edit: I forgot to mention, why is it that every republican completely forgets theres 47 odd million people (nearly the population of the UK) without health insurance? Idiots.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 17, 2009, 05:08:07 pm
At Taniec: Your figures are wrong, britain spends about 8% of its GDP on healthcare, and america spends 16%. Go figure, prescriptions (for most drugs at the pharmacy) only cost £4 per item.

Gotcha, misread something then. Anyway I'm still not convinced but meh, what happens, happens.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Realmfighter on August 17, 2009, 05:20:31 pm
At Taniec: Your figures are wrong, britain spends about 8% of its GDP on healthcare, and america spends 16%. Go figure, prescriptions (for most drugs at the pharmacy) only cost £4 per item.

Gotcha, misread something then. Anyway I'm still not convinced but meh, what happens, happens.
\

Why are you  not convinced?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 17, 2009, 06:11:39 pm
As a generalization, public health systems tend to have a bottom line that is lower but constant - ie. everyone gets care, whereas private ones have somewhat better service in general IF you can afford it (1/6 of America can't) and also is able to provide very specialized and expensive services. So, Americans go to Canada to get day to day medicine, and Canadians go to America for specialized procedures that Canada's system can't financially support because they don't extort patients for their money.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Enzo on August 17, 2009, 06:31:17 pm
Just want to point out, Americans don't really go to Canada to get day to day medicine, they'd need to be a Canadian citizen to get it. I'm generally trying to stay out of this since it's such a heated topic and I'm not even from the US in the first place, but to briefly convey the main problem I see with the American system:

If you get cancer in Canada, you have to get cancer treatments and you might die.
If you get cancer in the US, you have to get cancer treatments and you might die, and if you don't you're still out hundreds of thousands of dollars, something that would put many people hopelessly in debt for the rest of their lives.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 17, 2009, 06:31:29 pm
I should of gone along with Aqqizar and just stayed out of this. I'll post something from the wall street journal and that will be the end of it from me. I don't want any enemies from this  :(

Tennessee Experiment's High Cost Fuels Health-Care Debate

In 1994, Tennessee launched an ambitious public insurance program to cover its uninsured. The plan, TennCare, fulfilled that mission but nearly bankrupted the state in the process.

As originally envisioned, the Tennessee plan expanded Medicaid, the government health-care program for the poor, to cover people who couldn't afford insurance or who had been denied coverage by an insurance company.

With an initial budget of $2.6 billion, TennCare quickly extended coverage to an additional 500,000 people by making access to its plans easy and affordable. But the program became so expensive that Tennessee was forced to scale it back in 2005.

Now, as Congress debates a national health-care overhaul, state experiments like Tennessee's are informing the discussion.

Unlike Massachusetts's more recent universal coverage law, the TennCare plan is most often cited by opponents. They say TennCare's runaway costs show that the public health-insurance proposal by House Democrats could bankrupt the federal government.

In a letter to Congress last month, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) compared the public plan envisioned in the House bill to TennCare, warning that TennCare became so costly at its peak that it ate up one-third of Tennessee's budget.

"The promise of TennCare has gone unrealized," she wrote.

The Obama administration says TennCare is different from the proposed public plan because its administration of the Tennessee program is contracted out to private companies. A federal public plan would more likely be run by the government, although the White House on Sunday signaled that it wouldn't insist on having a public option.

Another difference, the administration says, is that a public option would increase competition in the health-insurance market by offering an alternative to private insurers; TennCare was the primary option for Tennessee's uninsured.

What the Tennessee experiment did share with health-care-overhaul supporters was its ambition to cover the uninsured. To qualify, patients only had to show a denial letter from an insurance plan. TennCare charged $2.74 a month in premiums for people earning just above the poverty level. Its rolls quickly swelled to 1.4 million people, leaving only 6% of Tennessee's population without health insurance. It never achieved complete universal coverage in part because of an income cap.

"The lesson is you can quite quickly cut the number of uninsured," said Alan Weil, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy. 

TennCare had its failings. The plan, for example, paid health providers less than private insurance plans, prompting some physicians and hospitals to increase charges to private insurers. Some of this resulted in so-called cost shifting, with insurance companies passing on the costs through higher premiums. Opponents of a public option warn the same thing will happen nationally, to the detriment of people who already have health insurance.

Rep. Blackburn says TennCare shows that a public plan would undermine the current employer-based health-care system, citing data from University of California at San Diego that showed 45% of people claiming TennCare's benefits had left employer-provided insurance. Darin Gordon, TennCare's current director, says the switching was more limited than critics allege.

Another Tennessee congressman, Republican Phil Roe, says that as a physician who worked under the program, he saw TennCare's shortcomings up close. He says TennCare reduced access to care: physicians refused to see TennCare patients because of the program's lower reimbursement rates.

TennCare aimed to pay for much of its expanded coverage with cost savings -- mostly by reducing unnecessary care.

In its first five years, TennCare had the lowest per capita cost of any Medicaid program in the country, saving between $245 million and $2 billion by cutting down on emergency-room visits by uninsured patients, for example, according to the Tennessee Justice Center, a public-interest law firm for the poor. It has championed the program and sued the state over cutting people from its rolls.

"TennCare covered the majority of people and did it with the money that was saved by squeezing waste out of health-care infrastructure," said Michele Johnson, managing attorney at the Center.

However, the program's costs quickly escalated. After rising at a roughly $300 million annual rate in its early years, TennCare's budget swelled from $5.4 billion in 2000 to $8.5 billion in 2004. During that period, the state re-assumed much of the risk of managing the program from private insurers who complained they were losing money administering it.

In 2005, with the state's solvency in jeopardy, Gov. Bredesen reduced TennCare's rolls by about 170,000 by booting some people who weren't eligible for Medicaid. He also created a separate limited insurance option called CoverTN that covers only up to $25,000 in annual medical costs.


(Damn that was a pain to type. I should of just found an internet article or scanned the paper)

Anywho...

1. It was more expensive than they thought. Hmmm, sound familiar? Social security, medicare, medicaid all cost around seven times more money than originally thought when they were first created. If the federal government thinks that this new health care policy will cost about $600 billion (give or take) then they better multiplay that number by seven to 4.2 trillion.

2. In a free market, competition lowers prices. How can private companies compete with a government plan? Obama may say that people can keep their current policy if they like it under the new plan, but realistically people will be drawn to the considerably cheaper option. For those who want to keep their plan it may not be possible because costs will actually rise for the private companies just trying to stay in business. The reason costs won't go down for the private companies is because the government is running a non-profit organization. Private companies will now have to increase premiums just to stay afloat from losing all their clients. Eventually everyone will turn to the public option and there goes any private option. As I said in previous posts I am FOR healthcare reform but AGAINST a public option. What is next? Car insurance, life insurance?

3. There will need to be a rather large influx of new doctors and nurses to cover the newly insured. Since the public option is going to be almost free get ready for long ass waiting times. Medical Schools would have to lower their standards for admission to get more doctors out there. Even your average med school woul have to increase the admission rate by like 100%.

4. Salaries for doctors drop a whole lot. The rising cost of education and all the hard work it takes to become a doctor you will see a massive decline in med school applications as well. Don't deny it that doctors are in it for the money.

5. You have around 45 million uninsured people in the United States. 37 mil are of working age. 38% of those working can actually afford it but choose not to get it so they can buy whatever else with that money. Many college grads don't get insurance because they are young, generally healthy, and use the money for other things. 9.7 mil are not U.S citizens. That leaves us with roughly 21 mil not insured. A quarter of uninsured have to option of medicare or medicaid. Now you have 10 million people who REALLY can't afford health insurance. Is the public option the best way to adress those 10 million people? I have no idea to be honest with you.

6. They say of the $600 billion it would cost for public care most of it would just be cutting cost of uncessary care. I didn't know people would go see a doctor for no reason. How else they gonna do it if it isn't enough? Raise taxes. If costs go out of control expect a tax increase from the poor and all the way to the rich. Obama kind of promised no new taxes during his campaign. Whoops.

7. I voted for Obama, but I am starting to regret it. It is pretty obvious that I am more of a conservative than a liberal. I voted for him because I belived he had the stronger economic plan and a stronger foreign policy compared to McCain and that was my main concern back on election day. I never imagined this even though he did mention this a lot during his campaign. Looks like I'll have to do my homework even more in 3 years.

8. I'm going to go watch some TV and avoid the news like a plague. Then fall asleep on the couch hoping everything is fixed when I wake up.

EDIT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18talkshows.html

Intresting indeed...

“The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,” Mr. Obama said. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.”

Yet this is what everyone is yelling about. Must be one painful sliver.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, said the president remained convinced that a public plan was “the best way to go.”

But I thought it was just an aspect of the reform? If it is the best way to go Mr. Obama lied to me by saying it is just a sliver.

Okay, I'm done.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Cthulhu on August 17, 2009, 06:38:42 pm
WE ARE NOW ENEMIES, TANIEC
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Ai Shizuka on August 17, 2009, 07:08:17 pm


2. In a free market, competition lowers prices. How can private companies compete with a government plan? Obama may say that people can keep their current policy if they like it under the new plan, but realistically people will be drawn to the considerably cheaper option. For those who want to keep their plan it may not be possible because costs will actually rise for the private companies just trying to stay in business. The reason costs won't go down for the private companies is because the government is running a non-profit organization. Private companies will now have to increase premiums just to stay afloat from losing all their clients. Eventually everyone will turn to the public option and there goes any private option. As I said in previous posts I am FOR healthcare reform but AGAINST a public option. What is next? Car insurance, life insurance?

No. Wrong on so many levels. We have public statal healthcare here (Italy). And we have plenty of private clinics. GOOD private medics still get a crapload of money. Public healthcare is an OPTION, but people with money still go private to cut the waiting times or to go to some specific medic they know. Some people can't afford private clinics and go straight to the public hospital, but there's a lot of people still spending money in the private healthcare.
Only bad medics are going to end out of business, but that's actually good news.

Quote

5. You have around 45 million uninsured people in the United States. 37 mil are of working age. 38% of those working can actually afford it but choose not to get it so they can buy whatever else with that money. Many college grads don't get insurance because they are young, generally healthy, and use the money for other things. 9.7 mil are not U.S citizens. That leaves us with roughly 21 mil not insured. A quarter of uninsured have to option of medicare or medicaid. Now you have 10 million people who REALLY can't afford health insurance. Is the public option the best way to adress those 10 million people? I have no idea to be honest with you.

I'm 26. I'm a generally very healthy and fit person. But, like I said above, shit happens, so those 38% are idiots. Healthy and young doesn't mean you are invulberable or something.

EDIT: even after blatant number manipulation, still 10 millions. That's a lot of people.

Quote
6. They say of the $600 billion it would cost for public care most of it would just be cutting cost of uncessary care. I didn't know people would go see a doctor for no reason. How else they gonna do it if it isn't enough? Raise taxes. If costs go out of control expect a tax increase from the poor and all the way to the rich. Obama kind of promised no new taxes during his campaign. Whoops.

You can cut from other sectors. But this is potentially huge flame-bait, so let's not get into this.

Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 17, 2009, 07:27:58 pm
My brother couldn't have braces when he was little because it was too pricy for us.  Now that we can afford it (and I have gone through the process), he is in college.  It is not good for social life to have braces in college.

Public healthcare would have made a difference there.

Taniec, about #5; the question you asked at the end of that.  Well?  Duh.  There's no other way for people to get health care they can't afford short of charity, and charity is unreliable.  So it should be quite obvious that the answer would be "yes."

Can't pay yourself, can't get charity, and can't get back up from the government.  You are on your own, often through no fault of your own, in a situation you did not choose to be in and are unable to help yourself.  When a person cannot help himself, the government is obligated to step in.  The fact that my country's government doesn't is one of the things I don't like about it.  America has the potential to be as great as you think it is, but it isn't.  The fact that there even is a debate about public healthcare is one of the reasons. 

If you ask me, the opposition doesn't seem to care about what the issue is.  They are merely trying to use a hot topic to undermine the democrats, when what they are really doing is undermining the country they live in.  Think about it; McCain and the other candidates from the republican party were proposing their own public health care plans before the election, and now that they lost, their supporters are turning on public health care simply to cause trouble for the winners.  They are merely sore losers.

Well, that's longer than I meant it to be.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Nilocy on August 17, 2009, 07:38:03 pm
Taniec, you can't just back out of the arguement now. You've not done as Aqizzar and stayed out of it. Your the main reason we're still here.

I hate judging people, but from what i can tell, your families pretty well off, or at least ones who can afford health care. Sure, thats great and all for you and your family, but what about the people who don't? Are you just going to completely blank them the opportunity to be healthy because they can't afford it? Its a sad day when you see the leaders of the free world not listening to their own people.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 17, 2009, 08:03:04 pm
It is good to know I am the bad guy here. You can tell my father that works two jobs and my mother who works 10 hours a day they are considered the wealthy elite now.

Here is what the people are saying. Obviously I don't matter. Polls from a newspaper.

42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan, 53% are opposed.
62% of independents oppose the plan.

31% strongly approve of Obama, 36% strongly disapprove of him.
The overall poll shows that 48% approve, 52% disapprove

57% disapprove of a single payer system, 32% approve of such a system.

54% of people say no healthcare reform is better than the congressional plan.

Its a sad day when you see the leaders of the free world not listening to their own people.

I agree.

Democratic Republic: people represented by elected officials. The approval numbers have been dropping week after week lately. If this passes it seems to me more people will be angry than happy.

Italy isn't the United States. The UK isn't the US. Where one system can work it may not work in another. If anyone even read the article earlier about Tennessee you can see why I am not in favor. No one can be covered if the entire system goes bankrupt.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 17, 2009, 08:24:26 pm
I'm not even going to touch the physical realities, or lack thereof, in the argument, but I will step in to say, don't try to hide behind polling.  There's now more money being spent this year by insurance and pharmaceutical companies on lobbying and advertising against having any discussion of healthcare than was spent in the entire 2004 Presidential race.  One of the six Senators responsible for compiling the wording on the bill (Republican of course) is going around saying Obama secretly wants to off old people to balance the budget.  There's too much lying and terror floating around in the air for opinion polling to mean anything.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Boksi on August 17, 2009, 08:27:07 pm
Introducing public health care into the American health care system is like using a formula-1 race car on a dirt trail. It doesn't work because the groundwork and the addition just don't fit together. A square peg in a round hole. If you want to make it work, you'll have to do a massive refit of one component so that the other one fits.

Europe never had such a big and established system so socialized health care was easy, pain-free and effective. At least, I think so, but I'm not an expert on history.

West Europe has never been consumed by ideological fervor like the USA and former USSR were, either. We're pretty moderate, really, and it shows in how the systems here work. Not that they always work well, mind you.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Shrike on August 17, 2009, 08:29:54 pm
What I find most interesting/sad is how effective lying is.

All of the contention, stalling, and intentional twisting of facts is driving down public opinion. It's remarkably effective, and with the extremists who want to portray Obama as racist, and his administration as being akin to the third reich being 'entertaining' for the news, it only helps to perpetuate the lies and drag it down further.

People are scared, and started treating their healthcare like a sacred cow without understanding what is going on in the current system, and how they're being manipulated. By having a few loud idiots yell about wrong information, and the press deciding to use things like a man screaming at Specter for leaving before he could ask his question (not because he was upset about the bill), and looping it, it influences other people without any basis in fact. Of course the polls keep dropping. This is important, and the opposition is working to run out the clock, for profit or spite.



In short, there's a difference between what "The People" are saying, and what "the loudest" are saying. Sadly, the latter influence the former, because of how the "Lie-beral" media works (again, thanks to the free market). Sensationalism sells better than fact, and is easier to churn out because you don't have to do any research.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Neonivek on August 17, 2009, 08:32:51 pm
Quote
What I find most interesting/sad is how effective lying is.

Well in a way we created an environment where we want them to lie to us.

Quote
Introducing public health care into the American health care system is like using a formula-1 race car on a dirt trail. It doesn't work because the groundwork and the addition just don't fit together. A square peg in a round hole. If you want to make it work, you'll have to do a massive refit of one component so that the other one fits

The answer is to make the hole bigger, Give the Formula 1 suspension, and to actually go through with that massive refit.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 17, 2009, 08:41:46 pm
The different socialized healthcare systems in Europe date from the thirties and early forties, although there were some earlier small-scale forerunners in Germany and Russia. But before their establishment there were such things as private hospitals and private practices (how could there not be? doctors didnt just pop into existance alongside socialized healthcare). That the US is entrenched on a certain system doesn't mean it cannot change.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Neonivek on August 17, 2009, 08:49:31 pm
When Canada instituted its Free Healthcare system it was mostly brought about due to a highly successful healthcare system in one of its provinces.

Along with this while there were rich doctors, so many of them were so poor that Free Healthcare actually brought up the average pay quite a bit.

The American system however is quite a bit different then where Canada once was. The Doctors arn't in dire straights and their pay keeps them competative enough to attract doctors from many countries. At least to my very limited knowledge.

Along with this America is a LOT more Capitalist and a lot less socialist then Canada ever was.

In conclusion: I am not saying it is easy, I am saying that it is going to be such a tough transition that I predict strikes, protests, and mobs.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 17, 2009, 09:10:30 pm
The bill...no spin, no nothing. Here is my interpretation of it. I only skimmed it for like an hour.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

pg 30 sec 123 - A commitee is formed to decide what kind of coverage is determined under a plan. If under the public option and depending on the plan, you may or may not recieve certain benefits. Appointments made by the president and is ensured to make sure that no group of people are ignored. Doesn't seem so bad right? Why is that that under a public option there are different plans? Shouldn't everything be covered at once under a single payer option?

pg 84 sec 203 - Private companies must adopt to the healthcare exchange and it's policies. Meaning that the public option does indeed have an effect on how the private companies handle the access and price of care.

pg 241 sec 1211 - Doctors are seperated into category and payscale. Government controls your salary and how much you make.

pg 354 sec 1177 EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT. - If that means what I think it means, special needs people can be denied care.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Neonivek on August 17, 2009, 09:19:20 pm
Actually I cant tell what they mean by "Extension of Authority of special needs plans to restrict enrollment"

It is like it is specifically written to be misinterpretted.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 17, 2009, 09:23:44 pm
Most likely it works the other way around, and it is supposed to mean keeping certain parts of the system to people who really need them. IE: rehabilitation of some sort, whatnot.

Might in fact be related to other more general things. AFAIK the US has many hospitals specialized in single things. It obviously would make sense to refer people to them based in the needfulness criteria.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 17, 2009, 09:25:37 pm
Actually I cant tell what they mean by "Extension of Authority of special needs plans to restrict enrollment"

It is like it is specifically written to be misinterpretted.

Well, duh.  That's what sending a bill to committee is supposed to do.  Fuck up the language with a legalese translator so that come August when Congressmen have to go out and sell the thing, they can all say it does whatever they want to say it does.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 17, 2009, 09:29:21 pm
pg 203 line 13 - Basically, the tax you pay is not referred to as a tax. It says there is a certain purpose for it but I can't find that purpose.

pg 143 sec 246 - illegal aliens don't pay a cent. I can forsee many illegals jumping the border just for the free health care. It might even create a bigger immigration problem in the future.

Even those who are for it, you pay for the surgeries of almost 10 million illegals.

Most likely it works the other way around, and it is supposed to mean keeping certain parts of the system to people who really need them. IE: rehabilitation of some sort, whatnot.

I hate to say this, but can that be construed as rationing of care? The whole purpose of univeral health care was to give EVERYONE care and in the bill it mentions restrictions. This is what I want to hear from the politicians. Tell me what the bill is going to do and HOW it is going to do it.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 17, 2009, 09:52:38 pm
Ah, but which politician are you going to believe?  The one that has to spend hours explaining how to wind through the bureaucratic jargon to get to the universal care promised, which was partly dismantled anyway in a vain attempt to get his immovable colleagues to sign it?  Or the guy who shouts in thirty seconds that your spurious, admittedly uninformed gut assumptions are exactly correct?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Neonivek on August 17, 2009, 10:51:55 pm
If only the politicians could be put into such two neat little piles. Unfortunately they are all over the place.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Nilocy on August 18, 2009, 07:02:22 am
I believe the system of taxing for the NHS here in the UK doesn't go under normal tax rules, i believe everyone has to pay them no matter what. Its like National Insurance Contribution, its basically one gigantic insurance scheme that everyones covered under. I have no qualms paying for other people to live at all.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: sneakey pete on August 18, 2009, 08:06:10 am
Even those who are for it, you pay for the surgeries of almost 10 million illegals.

Don't they, you know, keep your economy going though...?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 18, 2009, 08:07:09 am
Not to mention you're paying for such things already, since the Emergency Room doesn't ask for a green card.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: eerr on August 18, 2009, 12:40:10 pm
Exactly. What's with socialism? Is it, what, intrinsically evil, or something?

Nothing is intrinsically wrong with socialism. Some people do equate it to communism, which would be fine  usually devolves into dictatorship (or at least that's the popular opinion).

At any rate, to them the idea of anything based on a socialist model in America is like restricting racism on 4chan. It's a matter of principle, and they just want a country to exist in which there are no such systems.
The only thing wrong with socialism/communism for america-
America is too big for either.

If he were to take all the money that goes to other healthcare programs and combine it into a single public option, then the additional costs may be relatively low. Taxes on highest percent incomes in the country may have to be raised to cover it entirely.
The tax increase for just the richest is massive(10%?), this requires middle and lower class taxes as well.


The current American system is a complete disaster. Something more similar to, say, what they have in Canada, would not be perfect and have plenty of problems, but I'd rather have people waiting longer and some people not having access to some non-life-saving procedures, than have massive numbers of the poorest people in the country have NO way to get health care at all.
how is the american system a disaster?

Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: eerr on August 18, 2009, 01:01:33 pm
Ah, but which politician are you going to believe?  The one that has to spend hours explaining how to wind through the bureaucratic jargon to get to the universal care promised, which was partly dismantled anyway in a vain attempt to get his immovable colleagues to sign it?  Or the guy who shouts in thirty seconds that your spurious, admittedly uninformed gut assumptions are exactly correct?
believe? i'm going to follow the spurious uninformed guy because he's consistent, and conservative, and i don't want the system to pass
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on August 18, 2009, 01:07:32 pm
believe? i'm going to follow the spurious uninformed guy because he's consistent, and conservative, and i don't want the system to pass
That's why we got two terms of Bush, ie. Shit.

I'm just going to quote some stuff here because I don't think it's worth my time to write it out when all I hear is the fact that people who don't want healthcare reform really just hate Obama, and don't seem to care a lick about when they are old. Hence their witty tag line of "Obamacare", when it's the lobbyist dick-sucking Senators and Representatives who really come up with the bill and Obama is endorsing a system where Insurance Companies don't repeatedly gangbang-rape you when you're sick. It's like some people want to be gangbanged by insurance companies.

Quote
Let's see, black man, "Kenyan-born", Muslim-sounding name who spent two years having Republicans, Clintons, and Appalachian rednecks throwing every covert and overt epitaph and stereotype at him, from secret Muslim to angry black man to angry black preacher to palling around with terrorists. They mocked him for going to Harvard, they mocked him for being a community organizer, they mocked him for being too young, they mocked him because his wife showed off her arms, they mocked him for living in Indonesia, they mocked him for writing books. Before he even takes office, he inherits the worst economy since the Great Depression and is immediately blamed for not fixing it, and when he tries, he's blamed for the deficit and for socialism. Conspiracy nuts spend months trying to prove that he's not a citizen and when that fails, they spend weeks chasing him around the country screaming that he wants to kill old people and retarded babies. They carry signs calling him a Muslim Nazi socialist without any hint of irony.

And Glenn Beck is worried he might hate white people.

You know, him being half-white and all. If I were the guy I would hate everyone.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: eerr on August 18, 2009, 01:22:49 pm
believe? i'm going to follow the spurious uninformed guy because he's consistent, and conservative, and i don't want the system to pass
That's why we got two terms of Bush, ie. Shit.
self-interest>fanatical idealism
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on August 18, 2009, 01:26:16 pm
How is it self-interest? Insurance Companies and lobbyists are currently raping this country and you while laughing and burning money.

Nothing we attempt can possibly be worse.

In fact, we probably do need a fanatical idealistic overhaul of the giant piece of shit that is healthcare.

How are YOU insured?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 18, 2009, 02:13:21 pm

how is the american system a disaster?



Massive inequality, a shit load of people can't get care at all, it's dominated by insurance companies that are out to fuck you for as much money as they can while taking any opportunity they can to not provide the care you paid for - which is what you expect when they're run for profit and not regulated enough.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 18, 2009, 04:22:46 pm
Sometimes I really think my country is going downhill fast.  Days when I hear people talking like Taniec and eerr are in this thread are such days.  It's really rather depressing.  Pulling out perfectly benign segments of the bill and just talking about them in a way so as to make it appear deceitful, when the one deceiving is the person talking about the bill rather than the bill itself.  There's a lot of crap illegal aliens don't pay for.  I doubt health care alone will make it significantly worse - especially given the number of illegals there are estimated to be.

The fact that the republicans can get away with such outrageous lies really bothers me.  It's like false advertising.  Does that sound right to you?

If the bill did half the things they said it did, it wouldn't be constitutional and wouldn't even have a chance.  It does though.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Nilocy on August 18, 2009, 04:26:44 pm
Its not blatent false advertising. Its that wonderful free right to enterpret anything the way you want to.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: bjlong on August 18, 2009, 04:59:46 pm
I absolutely love the "Republicans are the only politicians that deceive" vibe that's going on, here. Take a step back, guys, look at it from my point of view.

Both sides are lying. Some people are lying blatantly, some people are lying subtly. This isn't (just) because everyone is flawed, it's because you can't run politics differently. The fact that you've stumbled across three of those lies doesn't mean that the other people aren't lying, it means that you haven't uncovered their lies yet.

For example, the idea that insurance companies just want to "fuck you" is a lie. If it was true, then they'd be out of business in a heartbeat.

There are plenty of lies, on both sides. It's a necessity. You have to get your message across in ten seconds, so you cheat by ruthlessly cutting and fabricating until you get the message that you want people to believe. In the end, this might get them to vote the right way, but for the wrong reasons.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 18, 2009, 05:15:49 pm
The lie about health care that you provided as an example from the supporting side is not one I recall hearing from democratic politicians.  I've heard it, but then, I've heard it from just about everyone (except politicians).  It is, however, true that they are the usual profit-maximization driven company, and maximizing profits naturally involves reducing expenses.  Which in insurance companies involves minimizing payouts to customers.  Therefore it will probably be harder to get good insurance for a good price.  This is why even insured people can go bankrupt from medical bills.

It is also true that just because one side has lies on it doesn't mean the other side doesn't.  However, if the lies from, say, the republicans are more noticed than the other side, then quite clearly those that lie on the republicans are more prominent in their party than those who lie on the democratic side (and by lie I mean spread false information, not stand by).
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 18, 2009, 05:27:02 pm
Sometimes I really think my country is going downhill fast.  Days when I hear people talking like Taniec and eerr are in this thread are such days.  It's really rather depressing.  Pulling out perfectly benign segments of the bill and just talking about them in a way so as to make it appear deceitful, when the one deceiving is the person talking about the bill rather than the bill itself.  There's a lot of crap illegal aliens don't pay for.  I doubt health care alone will make it significantly worse - especially given the number of illegals there are estimated to be.

The fact that the republicans can get away with such outrageous lies really bothers me.  It's like false advertising.  Does that sound right to you?

If the bill did half the things they said it did, it wouldn't be constitutional and wouldn't even have a chance.  It does though.

So I am scum of the nation because I disagree with the bill in question? Republicans lie but democrats don't? This is just unreal. I learned an important life lesson today...never discuss politics ever again in any setting. Here I am pointing stuff out from the bill and citing data which apparently don't mean jack. Even on a forum such as this I would think people would be more civil than to call me a lying republican and I'm the reason this country is going down the moral toilet. What makes you think I'm a republican...just because I don't like the bill? Did you fail to see that I VOTED for Obama on election day who last I checked was a democrat? Here I am trying to discuss what is best for the nation as a whole but the only response I am getting is that my family must be wealthy and I am some right-wing nut who only cares about money, big corporations, and that I don't care about the little man in all of this.

Maybe I shouldn't care at all. I should just blindly listen to what everyone else is saying and not think for myself. This bill will fix everything in health care and be damned how it effects the economy, veterans, and the little man.

Seriously, what am I lying about? All facts I posted I checked with wikipedia, the wall street journal, or other internet articles. I didn't go to shit like FoxNews or CNN for obvious reasons. I went the bill itself and highlited portions of it yet I am still being called a lier and scum of the Earth. Why are eerr and I the bad guys here? Would The Onion be a more reliable source that I should use?

We aren't even discussing the bill anymore, but I have to defend myself from being called a lying republican. Fantastic.

Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 18, 2009, 05:37:56 pm
You pointed out one section and said  "Doesn't seem so bad, right?" as though about to point out some major flaw, and then what you said next didn't seem to point out any real flaw; it seemed like you were merely trying to place doubt on those who read.

One lie:  "So I am scum of the nation . . . ?" stated despite no mention of such a thing.  Another problem, the news that seems so biased towards making Obama seem bad is the news in general, foxnews is merely the worst about it.  Controversy sells, and since the republicans seem to be making that, the media goes along with it.

Does it not strike you as odd that their are non-Americans talking about America's public healthcare and find this whole debate silly?  That these non-Americans actually know something about the so-called issues?  That in several different countries with different healthcare systems, private healthcare still persists and flourishes?  That people with insurance can go bankrupt from one accident that insurance covers?

No, you are not the scum of the nation, but the nation is falling behind every other nation.  And this strange adittude towards public health care -- even just in general, ignoring complaints about specific plans -- is not helping the situations.  America is going backwards.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Vester on August 18, 2009, 06:10:38 pm
You know, this is funny. I'm pretty sure the entire world (not counting the middle east) thinks that the entire Republican party is composed now merely of anti-intellectual bombasts? Because that's who the party has been given over to - blowhards, who scream about an issue rather than going into the nitty-gritty.

Do you have any idea why many of us (foreigners included) think the Republicans are liars? Could it be, maybe, that they have a track record of using hype, disinformation, and generally insidious tactics to destroy their opponents? Take that Al Gore mess, when he said, "I created the Internet", among other things. Of course the right-wingers jumped right all over that, branding him a liar. That he was one of the senators who funded Arpanet, which would eventually become the Internet, was immaterial to them.

There's just so much ugliness in your political discourse nowadays. Rather than trying to find common ground, you have people like Sarah Palin (who makes me embarassed to share her gender) spouting half-educated nonsense - that people believe. And I'm not referring to the stuff she said during the campaign, I'm referring to stuff like "The Health Care bill has a Death Panel provision". Republicans aren't to blame for everything, but their tone and message tends to be incredibly unhelpful.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Heron TSG on August 18, 2009, 06:22:05 pm
Sometimes I really think my country is going downhill fast.  Days when I hear people talking like Taniec and eerr are in this thread are such days.  It's really rather depressing.  Pulling out perfectly benign segments of the bill and just talking about them in a way so as to make it appear deceitful, when the one deceiving is the person talking about the bill rather than the bill itself.  There's a lot of crap illegal aliens don't pay for.  I doubt health care alone will make it significantly worse - especially given the number of illegals there are estimated to be.

The fact that the republicans can get away with such outrageous lies really bothers me.  It's like false advertising.  Does that sound right to you?

If the bill did half the things they said it did, it wouldn't be constitutional and wouldn't even have a chance.  It does though.

So I am scum of the nation because I disagree with the bill in question? Republicans lie but democrats don't? This is just unreal. I learned an important life lesson today...never discuss politics ever again in any setting. Here I am pointing stuff out from the bill and citing data which apparently don't mean jack. Even on a forum such as this I would think people would be more civil than to call me a lying republican and I'm the reason this country is going down the moral toilet. What makes you think I'm a republican...just because I don't like the bill? Did you fail to see that I VOTED for Obama on election day who last I checked was a democrat? Here I am trying to discuss what is best for the nation as a whole but the only response I am getting is that my family must be wealthy and I am some right-wing nut who only cares about money, big corporations, and that I don't care about the little man in all of this.

Maybe I shouldn't care at all. I should just blindly listen to what everyone else is saying and not think for myself. This bill will fix everything in health care and be damned how it effects the economy, veterans, and the little man.

Seriously, what am I lying about? All facts I posted I checked with wikipedia, the wall street journal, or other internet articles. I didn't go to shit like FoxNews or CNN for obvious reasons. I went the bill itself and highlited portions of it yet I am still being called a lier and scum of the Earth. Why are eerr and I the bad guys here? Would The Onion be a more reliable source that I should use?

We aren't even discussing the bill anymore, but I have to defend myself from being called a lying republican. Fantastic.

Yay free thinkers!

America is going backwards.

Only because everyone THINKS it is.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ToonyMan on August 18, 2009, 06:27:55 pm
PRO-PRO--PROP----PROPPPAA---PROPAGANDA!!!
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jreengus on August 18, 2009, 06:39:12 pm
Does anyone get the feeling Taniec is trying to draw attention away from the actual topic and at the same time invalidate his opponents arguments by deliberately interpreting as much as he can as personal insults?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Taniec on August 18, 2009, 06:43:50 pm
Quote
Sometimes I really think my country is going downhill fast.  Days when I hear people talking like Taniec and eerr are in this thread are such days.

Right, so this isn't an insult?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Vester on August 18, 2009, 07:00:14 pm
Does anyone get the feeling Taniec is trying to draw attention away from the actual topic and at the same time invalidate his opponents arguments by deliberately interpreting as much as he can as personal insults?

I don't think so, he did after all have valid arguments that he drew straight from the Bill itself.

This is what I was talking about though, the tone gets ugly.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jreengus on August 18, 2009, 08:22:41 pm
I wasn't trying to say you haven't been insulted at all, it just seemed from the tone of your post that this entire thread had been about bashing you. Which it hadn't. Anyhow seems like this thread could really use a lock before it gets much worse.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Vester on August 18, 2009, 08:24:56 pm
Yeah, political discussion is a no-go on the Internet.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zangi on August 18, 2009, 08:29:58 pm
Generic political 'debate' on the internets:

The equivalent of talking to a brick wall with both sides unwilling to even consider the other side's point(s), only looking for a way to argue or ignore said point(s).

Now to dig my head into this cesspool...  (Not recommended by your local health practitioner.)

As for stopping illegal immigrants from using the emergency room? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Quote
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I'd consider harm can be done by doing nothing about it while still having the power to...  and funny how judgment can be diluted by the sweet promise of currency...

But, considering it...  its a hypocrite thing to do... to use that as a reason to defend the use of the emergency room, while myself being supportive of issues that are the opposite of this:
Quote
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Do I win?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: bjlong on August 18, 2009, 08:33:26 pm
The lie about health care that you provided as an example from the supporting side is not one I recall hearing from democratic politicians.  I've heard it, but then, I've heard it from just about everyone (except politicians).  It is, however, true that they are the usual profit-maximization driven company, and maximizing profits naturally involves reducing expenses.  Which in insurance companies involves minimizing payouts to customers.  Therefore it will probably be harder to get good insurance for a good price.  This is why even insured people can go bankrupt from medical bills.

It is also true that just because one side has lies on it doesn't mean the other side doesn't.  However, if the lies from, say, the republicans are more noticed than the other side, then quite clearly those that lie on the republicans are more prominent in their party than those who lie on the democratic side (and by lie I mean spread false information, not stand by).

Good argument! Well, at least for the first part--I'm pretty sure you could do a bit better on the second.

Yes, I quoted a lie that's being spread verbatim by the grassroots Democrats. It is used by Democrats in office, too, just much more subtly. (Listen to some of the speeches, and see if you can find the hidden messages. This one comes across fairly often!) And, it's true, private companies do use a profit-maximization scheme. However, profit maximization does not mean that the product must suffer--the most successful companies make sure the product truly doesn't, else they get bit by word-of-mouth marketing. What happens is the companies will maximize the gain to cost ratio as much as possible. So, if you can provide mediocre health insurance, keep your customers, and make a ton of money, then it's desirable to offer mediocre health insurance. If you make more money the better insurance you provide, then you'll offer better and better insurance. Insurance companies care about their customer because it's financially sound to do so. I won't go further than that--financial realities much more specific give me a headache.

You now claim that because lies are more noticed on the Republican side, the Republicans lie more. That's clearly false. For one, who's noticing the lies? Fact checker, or this topic? If Fact checker, then fine. If any other metric, then it's probably biased. Also, it doesn't mean that the Republicans are lying more, they're just worse at lying. The real experts only need to imply the lies--see the above instance.

Why? Well, I'll let you figure that one out.

Now, the point of my post, the object lesson. Let me point out that there have been about 10 direct statements that basically boil down to "If you don't support the health care reform as proposed, you're an idiot vomiting what you've heard before onto the screen." This is a blatant lie. There are plenty more such statements implied, but I won't bother to point them out--textual analysis takes too long.

Notice that Taniec was bringing legitimate concerns to the table from his own research, but started getting sidetracked by these personal insults. And, of course, whenever he tried to correct people, he was ignored, implied to be an idiot, and his points went unanswered, for the most part. Now he's fighting fire with fire, lying right along with you, and this also makes him an idiot, and a thread derailer, to boot. Both lies.

Shame on everyone who made that work. You especially, Vester--you were on the leading edge of the direct insults, by my count.

But this brings me back around to my point--politics is conducted through lies. Even here, the few voices of reason (Chairman Poo, kinseti, and Wiles among them) simply aren't interesting enough to discuss, so noone bothers to learn anything from them. If there is a reasonable opponent, he's brow-beaten into losing his temper, or lying right along with you. All because lies make better stories than a reasonable discussion.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Vester on August 18, 2009, 08:37:27 pm
 :-[

I was?

I plead the 1st.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: bjlong on August 18, 2009, 08:40:06 pm
The 1st doesn't get you out of communal shame.

Also, aren't you in a different country or something?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Vester on August 18, 2009, 08:42:05 pm
Yeah, but most of our policies try to emulate American ones, so I have a tendency to blame our problems on incompatible system.

Apparently healthcare reform is something we'll only get if America gets it first.

EDIT: Also, our constitution is based on yours, which means we have the same 1st amendment.

FURTHER EDIT: I looked back at my other post and whaddayaknow, I was being kind of a bitch. I stand by the fact that the right plastered a Al Gore with a smear campaign, though.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zangi on August 18, 2009, 09:21:40 pm
Ah insurance companies.  It is very very easy to believe that your insurer will try to weasel out of an obligation to cover you.  Considering that they are profit oriented entities...

The basics are... caused by your negligence or claiming that the damage was caused by something that you weren't insured for.

I've seen both sides, when an insurance company will try their darndest to prove that it ain't their problem and times when they'd pay out without much of a fight.

Either way, considering how humanity is and this concept of insurance.  The basic ideology of making profits is severely impaired if whatever they cover has a high chance of happening with very low premiums.  Thats why old people or people already sick with something or people who need surgery have very high premiums or get refused outright.
They look for ways to drop people who need surgery since its expensive.  The easiest reason they get people at this... is that the person needing surgery knew that they needed surgery before signing on for the insurance and not disclosing that need for surgery.  (Seriously, they'd refuse the person or ask to specifically exempt coverage of anything related to the surgery.)
(Gotta have some fondness for no-fault for car insurance in NY...)

Look at flood insurance.  Most insurance companies won't touch that, so its government or state run.  Its not profitable, especially in areas that do have flooding when the big rains come every year or so.  Unlike a fire or something, which normally occurs on 1 property and stays in that property.... a flood effects swaths of land and buildings at one time.

So to translate that to life insurance, lets say for example... swine flu or avian influenza mutates and hits america every cold season... killing a bunch of people each time.  Covering that would be unprofitable like flood insurance.  Life insurance companies would not want to cover death by avian influenza/swine flu...  not 100% anyways. 
Especially, if that death rate includes in high amounts, their favorite demographic... 'normal' young healthy people.


And hey, I havn't looked at the health care bill... and I am of the understanding that health insurance companies are still going to be alive and kicking...  but considering it, the government takes most if not all the risky customers...  at whatever low-ish rate.

It means that the health insurance companies can specifically cater to their favorite demographics... low-risk people.  Premiums go down and/or coverage gets better...  cause they still have to compete with the government.
Disclaimer: This here part is just speculation...  but I don't see the government being able to cover everything... not within good time anyways.  Health insurance companies just need to adopt to the times...
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Sergius on August 18, 2009, 10:00:54 pm
Exactly. What's with socialism? Is it, what, intrinsically evil, or something?

Nothing is intrinsically wrong with socialism. Some people do equate it to communism, which would be fine  usually devolves into dictatorship (or at least that's the popular opinion).

At any rate, to them the idea of anything based on a socialist model in America is like restricting racism on 4chan. It's a matter of principle, and they just want a country to exist in which there are no such systems.

That's about right, take for example: highways and roads. If the USA forced everybody to pay for their maintenance all over, regardless of which stretch of road you need to use to go to work or do your shopping, that's socialism, and it would devolve into communism which is considered evil. However, since USA is a capitalist country, every person is assumed to pay to build their own road whenever they need it, with their own money, instead of donating their hard earned cash to the commies, who in turn would spend it on road maintenance and construction. So the people that are poor, which is their own damn fault, have to make do with dirt roads and donkey carts, while the only really cool highways are around the richest mansions. Because, that's the way it works without that damn socialism, right?

Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Heron TSG on August 18, 2009, 10:39:47 pm
Don't we already have our tax money spent on roads all over?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Neonivek on August 18, 2009, 11:13:48 pm
Quote
For example, the idea that insurance companies just want to "fuck you" is a lie. If it was true, then they'd be out of business in a heartbeat

They wouldn't quickly be out of buisness. (As for if it was a lie... I know SOME Insurance companies... that do well... are horrible)

Early Liberalism entirely believed in a Free market without government intervention. There is a reason why Modern Day Liberalism doesn't.

That is why the Government is supposed to sometimes obligated to step in and put restrictions and regulations on buisnesses

For example In Canada the Conservative Minority government wants to make it illegal for Phone companies to charge for Junk mail (mostly because those phone companies are also the ones who give away the cell number).

The point is, just because a company is blindly ripping off people doesn't mean they will go out of buisness, especially if they are essential.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Sergius on August 18, 2009, 11:18:47 pm
Don't we already have our tax money spent on roads all over?

Of course not! If you did, then the illegal immigrants would be able to use them too!
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: ToonyMan on August 18, 2009, 11:22:13 pm
*gasp*

So that's how it works!
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Heron TSG on August 18, 2009, 11:47:27 pm
Don't we already have our tax money spent on roads all over?
Of course not! If you did, then the illegal immigrants would be able to use them too!

explain again how that's a bad thing.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Vester on August 18, 2009, 11:50:27 pm
Don't we already have our tax money spent on roads all over?
Of course not! If you did, then the illegal immigrants would be able to use them too!

explain again how that's a bad thing.

I think he's joking.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Enzo on August 19, 2009, 12:05:22 am
Barbarossa rolls his detect sarcasm check - Critical Miss!

Level Up! Sergius gains +1 Reputation! Serguis gains Title - Deadpan Snarker!

Alright, I'm done.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Heron TSG on August 19, 2009, 12:16:13 am
For the record, I knew he was joking. My question was to anyone who thinks that people new to the country using things paid for by taxpayers is a bad thing.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Enzo on August 19, 2009, 12:25:44 am
New to the country and illegal immigrant are totally different :P

Not directed at Barb :
But why do we think they would have a system where you don't need to be a citizen to get healthcare? It would be very easy to check citizenship in every situation except those where the victim is unconscious and could die without immediate care (car crashes, etc). You can't just walk across the border to get a free Canadian Doctor for exactly this reason.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zironic on August 19, 2009, 12:48:50 am
I vote no healthcare. Instead, there is a huge flat fee. It's called an opt out. You're opting out of evolution. Only 5% of people in the country can get in. None of them can be over 10. They will be given the best healthcare known to man. Getting a congressional medal also gives you this privilege. Not even congress gets the opt out. Once set, it can only be changed every 10 years by a vote of current members.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Sergius on August 19, 2009, 02:00:16 am
Barbarossa rolls his detect sarcasm check - Critical Miss!

Level Up! Sergius gains +1 Reputation! Serguis gains Title - Deadpan Snarker!

Alright, I'm done.

Your post has been appropriated by the Party, for use in signature for the Common Good of the Motherland.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: JoshuaFH on August 19, 2009, 02:43:08 am
I'm a terribly daft and ignorant person on the subject, so I probably don't know much, but if America were to adopt socialized medicine, wouldn't it also have to adopt very high taxes, like those in other countries?
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: sneakey pete on August 19, 2009, 04:32:31 am
I'm a terribly daft and ignorant person on the subject, so I probably don't know much, but if America were to adopt socialized medicine, wouldn't it also have to adopt very high taxes, like those in other countries?

Actually most of "those other counties" pay less taxes than you do.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Aqizzar on August 19, 2009, 04:59:44 am
Not exactly.  In Sweden for instance, the average tax rate is about 50%, as opposed to America's 30%ish average.  They do have a lot more robust social services though.

For you economy nerds, Sweden is about the only place in the world that the Laffer Curve theory has actually been proven.  (And if you know what I'm talking about, you know why it's relevant.)  Turns out, if you provide government guaranteed housing, staples, medical care, transportation, and all other essentials, once you start taking 65% of people's income in taxes, then they consider it a better payoff to just stay home.  So that's the real welfare/ethic bar.

Back to the point though, I suppose it would be trite at this point to remind everyone that if the money spent fighting the Iraq War had instead been spent on a government-provided universal health care, we'd all be rolling around in gold plated gurneys.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Ai Shizuka on August 19, 2009, 06:48:49 am
Iraq

124th reply. I was expecting this much earlier.




Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 19, 2009, 12:47:12 pm


For example, the idea that insurance companies just want to "fuck you" is a lie. If it was true, then they'd be out of business in a heartbeat.


I'll assume you don't know a whole lot about how the health insurance industry, or capitalism in general, works.

Others have explained this as well. But the idea that companies have to play nice and do their best for their customers or they'll be eliminated by competition, is pure fantasy.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zironic on August 19, 2009, 01:12:10 pm


For example, the idea that insurance companies just want to "fuck you" is a lie. If it was true, then they'd be out of business in a heartbeat.


I'll assume you don't know a whole lot about how the health insurance industry, or capitalism in general, works.

Others have explained this as well. But the idea that companies have to play nice and do their best for their customers or they'll be eliminated by competition, is pure fantasy.

Reinforcing Jude;
Here is the insurance logic:
You want to live.
So yes, I think the fuck you theory is pretty accurate. Look at hospitals, they charge exuberant rates, especially for the emergency room - because 1. You're there not by choice and 2. You want to live. Do surgeons and doctors really need huge amounts of cash each year? Look at cuba, they have some of the best healthcare in the world. They are underpaid, understaffed, and socialist. Yet, they have a higher life expectancy.

Also, Believing congress is going to pass a good socialized healthcare that re-balances things, is wrong. Currently, the major congressmen in congress pushing the healthcare bill are in fact in the pockets of big health. Why? Because the healthcare company that is chosen to become part of the national healthcare plan gets garunteed customers and government money. I say: Instant closure of all Health Insurance firms - all people working under them are evaluated. If they are deemed productive, they become part of the nationalized healthcare. Then, the NatHealth is run like a nonprofit. They charge low rates, but also make sure to charge enough to cost us the least amount of money. Here is the problem. Congress is a corrupt and scheming group, directly aimed at gaining votes and money. You don't get votes for closing down companies.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Neonivek on August 19, 2009, 01:16:00 pm
Heck America already has started making laws (or have already) against Credit Card Companies that are ripping off their customers in numberous ways.

They arn't going out of buisness mostly because, well, there is no "Better" company that people will use.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 19, 2009, 02:45:12 pm
It would be a completely horrible idea to have the government just go in and shut down insurance companies. What we need is regulation and restrictions on how freely companies can operate. It's big government, sure, but all you need to do is look at the history of the past 130 or so years to see that letting huge corporations run unchecked has far more destructive results than does allowing the government to regulate them.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zironic on August 19, 2009, 02:47:35 pm
We can't stop capitalists from wanting make money.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zangi on August 19, 2009, 03:00:11 pm
We can't stop (insert generic group of people here) from wanting make money.
Fixed

capitalists
poor people
middle class people
people that work
rich people
union workers
nonunion workers
government employees

and the list goes on...
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Armok on August 19, 2009, 03:07:17 pm
We can't stop everyone except nuns and communists from wanting make money.
Fixed better
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zangi on August 19, 2009, 03:19:10 pm
We can't stop everyone except nuns and communists from wanting make money.
Fixed better
I approve.

I say: Instant closure of all Health Insurance firms - all people working under them are evaluated. If they are deemed productive, they become part of the nationalized healthcare. Then, the NatHealth is run like a nonprofit. They charge low rates, but also make sure to charge enough to cost us the least amount of money. Here is the problem. Congress is a corrupt and scheming group, directly aimed at gaining votes and money. You don't get votes for closing down companies.

Hah... close down all 'non-compliant' health insurance firms and integrate the rest into the government healthcare thing? Do you expect things to be ok with the type of people we have at top running things?  Even if closing down those health insurance firms doesn't affect the politician's votes and money...  Do you expect them to do it right?  Alone?  Yea, they'll cover you, but...
They arn't going out of buisness mostly because, well, there is no "Better" company that people will use.
  Hilarious...  just hilarious...
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Enzo on August 19, 2009, 04:26:11 pm
We can't stop capitalists from wanting make money.

That reminds me of the Frank Zappa quote,

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 19, 2009, 04:36:00 pm
Quote
Sometimes I really think my country is going downhill fast.  Days when I hear people talking like Taniec and eerr are in this thread are such days.

Right, so this isn't an insult?
It wasn't, because it was more of a complaint of the general negative attitude than of you in particular.

I will say one last thing:  Health care is one of the biggest worries for Americans, next to the economy.  Funny thing though, a strong economy doesn't do much good if for example a middle-class American has an accident that costs what is for him an unholy amount of money that even with his insurance will have him bankrupt.  In fact, that will weaken the economy due to how harmful debts are to the ability to buy things of those who can't pay them.  Health care is among the top worries of the lower-than-upper-class citizens, and frankly having a good universal safety net -- or even just a universal safety net -- established ASAP is important.  It is not like any provisions that people worry might backfire can't be edited later -- something much easier (by way of being less controversial) than putting through an entirely new bill.  In short, how long will it take to get a good public health care plan through if this one doesn't pass?  Too long.

Now on the more current train,  U.S. is pretty much commie proof.  Of course, we fear it more than the devil himself, so that should be taken for granted.  Communism is pretty much unconstitutional. And if a law does slip on the slope . . . bangavel from the supreme court.  It's like a forum that way.  They'd need to do an overthrow to get America, and people seem less willing to do that here in the west these days. 
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zironic on August 19, 2009, 09:08:15 pm
Second part of my healthcare plan involves deaf panels. People commonly get confused.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Nilocy on August 20, 2009, 05:41:33 am
The tax rate in the UK is roughly 20% for people earning under £40k, and then it hits a whopping 40% for every pound you earn over that. Which is fairly nice, so people who earn morn pay more for us people who are working for them :D

Anyhoo, I'd like to apologise to Taniec about bringing his family into this, I was fairly angry that he was completely knocking our NHS, which on multiple times, has saved me and my family members from certain pain/death. So you can understand why I got personal.

Again, sorry man.

But onto more constructive arguements. Why did that American talk show host... the guy who cries alot, acctually interview the party who is opposed to the NHS (at least deep down anyway) for the British take of national health systems? Don't you guys in america ever have any completely unbiased arguements? Or is it always the right wing that just starts a massive slagging match. Case and point i guess is this health debate.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Neonivek on August 20, 2009, 06:00:31 am
Quote
Don't you guys in america ever have any completely unbiased arguements? Or is it always the right wing that just starts a massive slagging match

To quote a television show who may have been quoting someone else.

"Love us, hate us, our true enemy is apathy"
-It wasn't Apathy but I cannot remember the word they used.

News is a buisness.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Jude on August 20, 2009, 11:55:18 am
News is a business, but sensationalism bullshit is a much bigger and more lucrative business. That's why NPR (news for intelligent people) has less of an audience than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh (sensationalist bullshit for the willfully ignorant)
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Sergius on August 20, 2009, 04:17:52 pm
Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh's impersonation of Michael J. Fox is epic.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: Zironic on August 20, 2009, 05:29:00 pm
Rush Limbaugh is a great entertainer! Him and stephen colbert parody republican's with a great sense of style.
Title: Re: This American Health Debate thing
Post by: LegoLord on August 20, 2009, 06:46:29 pm
We once spoke of Rush Limbaugh in my Law Ed class last semester (the teacher let us get talk during notes, as long as we wrote).  One guy said, despite his flaws, "He's got jokes, man."

I responded:  "No, Rush Limbaugh doesn't have jokes.  He is a joke."  Que laughter from the class and various "ooh, burn!"'s.

And this is in South Carolina.