ill post a separate thread if this idea takes off... i mean its only 15 min old at this point.
Kuzipaluza '09 ... This time it means something....
I'll offer the same thing, we can hold "Puro's Herf-a-thon '09" here in Dallas TX for those on the board that maybe can't afford to travel all the way to Ohio from the southern part of the country but would still like to help out. There is a great little bar right around the corner from here with a TON of pool tables and an awesome B&M about 2 miles down the road that has almost anything you would want. Everyone that comes can donate whatever they can afford, then we can have pool tournaments. Rent 2 or 3 tables for the night and have 8 ball and 9 ball and team tournaments to raise money for the family... I'm down for this!!!
Just PM if anyone is interested!
We just heard a couple days ago that the 6-year-old daughter of a friend is going to die within the next month from cancer. She has been battling this since she was 2 years old. The parents will be left with memories, heartbreak, and $1M+ in debt after exhausting all their savings, including their retirement. Anybody who thinks healthcare reform in this country isn't needed can *** off.
Health care reform, YES, Government take over of the Healthcare system, NO.
Our healthcare industry could be fixed by the private sector if government would just get the hell out of the way.
We've tried that. It's not working. Private insurance is a racket. Private healthcare, and particularly drugs, are out of control. I've covered this on the forum before, including where our country ranks with respect to access and cost for healthcare compared to other countries.
Actually, no, we didn't try what is needed by the private sector to fix healthcare. No matter what, I do not want my healthcare taken over by a Government that has already bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc...The Govt has no interest in actually fixing our healthcare system, this is all about having more control over us.
Just look at the healtcare our Vets get, VA is garbage. If this passes, mark my words, Healthcare cost will skyrocket and the Government will start rationing treatments...sorry...you're too old and your treatment too expensive...we need to spend the money on someone younger...have a nice trip to the hospice.
We just heard a couple days ago that the 6-year-old daughter of a friend is going to die within the next month from cancer. She has been battling this since she was 2 years old. The parents will be left with memories, heartbreak, and $1M+ in debt after exhausting all their savings, including their retirement. Anybody who thinks healthcare reform in this country isn't needed can *** off.
Health care reform, YES, Government take over of the Healthcare system, NO.
Our healthcare industry could be fixed by the private sector if government would just get the hell out of the way.
We've tried that. It's not working. Private insurance is a racket. Private healthcare, and particularly drugs, are out of control. I've covered this on the forum before, including where our country ranks with respect to access and cost for healthcare compared to other countries.
Actually, no, we didn't try what is needed by the private sector to fix healthcare. No matter what, I do not want my healthcare taken over by a Government that has already bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc...The Govt has no interest in actually fixing our healthcare system, this is all about having more control over us.
Just look at the healtcare our Vets get, VA is garbage. If this passes, mark my words, Healthcare cost will skyrocket and the Government will start rationing treatments...sorry...you're too old and your treatment too expensive...we need to spend the money on someone younger...have a nice trip to the hospice.
true the VA sucks but it's getting better. Truth be told, healthcare in Canada and the UK is much better than here.
Truth be told, healthcare in Canada and the UK is much better than here.
...unless you smoke
...or have some other disease that was brought on by your lifestyle (making you a drain on the system) ...or are old and no treatment will help (even if you can afford it)
...or want to try an experimental treatment that has yet to be proven because you have tried all other options and they have failed (again, even if you can afford it)
...or want to go to the dentist but the waiting list is too long and you have no idea if you can make it there in 6 months (UK only)
...or if you want to get immediate treatment on a non life threatening ailment but cant due to waiting lists (even if you can afford it)
... or if you want elective surgery (but cant afford it)
...or If you want surgery that you dont consider "elective" but the government does.
Are Americans willing to trust the government with all of their health care requirements? Should we rely on the government to make medical decisions and place our health entirely in the hands of politicians? Should we expect the government to place our needs ahead of powerful hospital groups or public employee unions? Surely we can rely on the government to insure that there are enough medical facilities in our own communities rather than in, say, the district of a powerful committee chairman? Can we expect the Federal Health Board to establish priorities based on the public interest and not their own agendas? Will some diseases become more politically correct than others?
If I'm not mistaken, health outcomes here and in the UK are about the same. What's different is that we spend about 3 times as much as they do to get that level of care, and if the current trend continues, by the year 2025 (or something like that) health care costs will be greater than our entire GDP. People can differ on solutions, but leaving things as they are is not an option.
Truth be told, healthcare in Canada and the UK is much better than here.
...unless you smoke
...or have some other disease that was brought on by your lifestyle (making you a drain on the system) ...or are old and no treatment will help (even if you can afford it)
...or want to try an experimental treatment that has yet to be proven because you have tried all other options and they have failed (again, even if you can afford it)
...or want to go to the dentist but the waiting list is too long and you have no idea if you can make it there in 6 months (UK only)
...or if you want to get immediate treatment on a non life threatening ailment but cant due to waiting lists (even if you can afford it)
... or if you want elective surgery (but cant afford it)
...or If you want surgery that you dont consider "elective" but the government does.
Are Americans willing to trust the government with all of their health care requirements? Should we rely on the government to make medical decisions and place our health entirely in the hands of politicians? Should we expect the government to place our needs ahead of powerful hospital groups or public employee unions? Surely we can rely on the government to insure that there are enough medical facilities in our own communities rather than in, say, the district of a powerful committee chairman? Can we expect the Federal Health Board to establish priorities based on the public interest and not their own agendas? Will some diseases become more politically correct than others?
I will only comment on the state of things here in Canada and I can say that Kuzi your sources are sadly mistaken. Yes we do have waiting lists for some NON LIFE THREATENING conditions. If you arrive at the hospital you are treated just like most places... by the seriousness of your condition. If you present with life threatening symptoms you are fast tracked into whatever appropriate department you require. I do wish you would quit using Canada as an example for your arguements. You make it sound like we are some kind of third world socialist state. It may play well to your beliefs but it is FAR from the truth. One other tid bit of info. you may find interesting. The life expectancy of people in Cuba, (a true socialist state) is quite a bit higher then it is in the U.S. as is the infant mortality rate lower.
One other tid bit of info. you may find interesting. The life expectancy of people in Cuba, (a true socialist state) is quite a bit higher then it is in the U.S. as is the infant mortality rate lower.
... and if the current trend continues, by the year 2025 (or something like that) health care costs will be greater than our entire GDP.
two things...
1) thats not possible. that will be then part of the GDP because health care is a good or service.
2) if the current trends continue by 2017 Medicare and Medicade will be completely bankrupt. why? because there are never enough taxes to cover free service for everyone. the same thing will happen to publicly funded health care in the long run.
i do agree that something has to be done but socialist systems are not the only answer.
One other tid bit of info. you may find interesting. The life expectancy of people in Cuba, (a true socialist state) is quite a bit higher then it is in the U.S. as is the infant mortality rate lower.
are you saying socialism is the way to go?
and could you please source that info?
kuzi, I think your taking it a tad bit far. So basically you would rather keep the US's system the same? So your okay with the amount of money people have to pay to get health-care? Well I have really good insurance, my work pays for about 85-90 percent of my medical but still it is really expensive when I have to go to the ER or even have surgery. But I pay pennies what other people pay, such as people working at burker king, home depot, lowes, basically any customer service job (which makes a good portion of jobs) don't even get health benefits most of the time 'cause the employer keeps most of the employees on a "part-time" employment. Even those who are full time don't get very good health care. My mom is a assistant mgr at GoodWill and her insurance sucks. Luckily my Dad works for a good company that gets good insurance but he's retiring and when he does, well it really is a big loss. I think the main problem is not the way we have "private" insurance companies, I think it comes from the greed of the companies. You mentioned about the govt deciding on what a person could have fixed, or be seen or even if they would qualify for a certain procedure, well insurance companies now can revoke your coverage at will, not pay for expenses if they deem so. Your coverage is in the hands of an organization thats sole purpose is to make money, they could care less. I feel much better in the hands of the GOVT then some suite making million's of dollars off my fellow neighbors. I think that private insurance should still be an option but this country needs a serious over-haul of it's medical practices. You throw out "socialism" all the time. well what we have doesn't work, and I'm very happy for you that you don't have to worry about financial strain when it comes to health insurance but most people do, especially older people. It's just not right for them to be out in the cold (so to speak) when it comes to coverage. Now that's not even talking about routine visits and such.
Truth be told, healthcare in Canada and the UK is much better than here.
...unless you smoke
...or have some other disease that was brought on by your lifestyle (making you a drain on the system) ...or are old and no treatment will help (even if you can afford it)
...or want to try an experimental treatment that has yet to be proven because you have tried all other options and they have failed (again, even if you can afford it)
...or want to go to the dentist but the waiting list is too long and you have no idea if you can make it there in 6 months (UK only)
...or if you want to get immediate treatment on a non life threatening ailment but cant due to waiting lists (even if you can afford it)
... or if you want elective surgery (but cant afford it)
...or If you want surgery that you dont consider "elective" but the government does.
Are Americans willing to trust the government with all of their health care requirements? Should we rely on the government to make medical decisions and place our health entirely in the hands of politicians? Should we expect the government to place our needs ahead of powerful hospital groups or public employee unions? Surely we can rely on the government to insure that there are enough medical facilities in our own communities rather than in, say, the district of a powerful committee chairman? Can we expect the Federal Health Board to establish priorities based on the public interest and not their own agendas? Will some diseases become more politically correct than others?
I will only comment on the state of things here in Canada and I can say that Kuzi your sources are sadly mistaken. Yes we do have waiting lists for some NON LIFE THREATENING conditions. If you arrive at the hospital you are treated just like most places... by the seriousness of your condition. If you present with life threatening symptoms you are fast tracked into whatever appropriate department you require. I do wish you would quit using Canada as an example for your arguements. You make it sound like we are some kind of third world socialist state. It may play well to your beliefs but it is FAR from the truth. One other tid bit of info. you may find interesting. The life expectancy of people in Cuba, (a true socialist state) is quite a bit higher then it is in the U.S. as is the infant mortality rate lower.
Canada a 3rd world? no. I like canada laker, in fact I've been thinking of migrating. Things here are just too f'd up.
... and if the current trend continues, by the year 2025 (or something like that) health care costs will be greater than our entire GDP.
two things...
1) thats not possible. that will be then part of the GDP because health care is a good or service.
2) if the current trends continue by 2017 Medicare and Medicade will be completely bankrupt. why? because there are never enough taxes to cover free service for everyone. the same thing will happen to publicly funded health care in the long run.
i do agree that something has to be done but socialist systems are not the only answer.
My curiosity got the better of me and i started reading this thread, oh well.
The whole socialism bit I think is like dropping a charged word into a grey argument in order to dig in the trenches and try and make it a black and white issue, but no issue is black and white. Right now people talk about the two extremes...one being total free market let the private insurance companies and hospitals and all the health-care pencil pushers in between do whatever they want....and the other extreme is fully funded 100% federal government run health care. Right now, our needle is awfully close to to the private insurer extreme, and it looks like over the next 5 years we're going to move that needle somewhere back into the middle of these extremes, where it needs to be.
I just think its pretty disingenuous when people start ringing the alarm bells and pulling out the guns when health care is addressed. The bottom line is that it has to be addressed, because the system as it works right now is going to crash the system when the boomers are in their 70's. I think urbino is pretty on point from what i've read.
In addition, i think its equally disingenuous when people use the idea that most of the burden comes from lazy people or drug users and that 'you' as a tax payer are one of the few decent joes in the system. My cousin was working part time with her husband, when she became pregnant. She didn't smoke, she didnt drink, they weren't mooching off the system; but, when her son was born, he had lungs the size of the tip of my pinky finger, also he was born 2 months premature, i dont think he left the hospital until 6 months later. She did nothing wrong at all, it was just one of those things. Hes 12 years old now (with developmental disabilities), and she just finished paying off her hospital debt. Theres not enough charity in this country combined to balance out the extortion that good and hardworking people are put through by the current system.
umm... they are calling it "socialized health care"
that particular system IS socialist.
i did say before that something should be done. ( five posts up) I just feel that the government taking over the system and politicizing, socializing, and otherwise making health care decisions for me, not giving me other options (by way of the other options are too expensive) and raising taxes to make it all happen is not the way i would like it to go.
it seems like every time there is an "issue" the only way a liberal can "fix" it is by taxing something and giving that money to someone else. In that situation, there is always a loser. and many times, both end up losers because the tax makes whatever they are taxing move slower in the economy. less movement of product will lead to lower revenue.
again, i want to say that i think the medical system will get overly politicized if put in the hands of the government.
to quote me before: Surely we can rely on the government to insure that there are enough medical facilities in our own communities rather than in, say, the district of a powerful committee chairman? Can we expect the Federal Health Board to establish priorities based on the public interest and not their own agendas? Will some diseases become more politically correct than others?
Im not saying do nothing. Im saying dont turn all of our power, that we as an individual (or private companies) have to make decisions, over to the government. they will not always make the decision that we want. Everyone is different, but the government cannot treat everyone as an individual. this is part of the problem of welfare, medicare, medicade, and social systems in general.
Socialism is, first and foremost, government ownership of the means of production. Nobody is proposing a plan in which the government takes ownership of the health care system.
It seems like you have some odd notions about politicization. The government didn't politicize the banking industry; the banking industry did. The gov't didn't politicize the auto industry; the auto industry did. If you think the Federal Reserve is politicized, you're one of very, very, very few people who think so.
As for welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid, I don't see how "politicized" has any meaning. Those aren't things that private industry was already providing, then the gov't took over and politicized. They're things private industry was not providing, so the gov't stepped in and created them. They're "politicized" in the same sense that the military is "politicized," which is to say in no meaningful sense at all. The same applies to immigration.
On the broader point about individual power vs. a Federal Health Board, it's a false choice. Unless you're worth many millions of dollars, you don't have power over your health care now. You take the health care your insurance company says you can have (if you can afford insurance). It's certainly possible that under an FHB some diseases might become more "politically correct" than others, but as things stand now, some diseases are more profitable than others. If you happen to have an unprofitable disease, God help you, because the people who currently control our health care system won't.
Don't get me wrong. I think your concerns about more gov't involvement are valid. Those are all real dangers that we'd be naive to ignore. But it's equally naive to say the alternative is individual power over one's care. Only the ultra-rich have that.
the govenrment forced many banks to take the TARP funds. now they are refusing to take payments to pay it off. Its because the government wants more and more control over PRIVATELY OWNED BANKS. that is a HUGE problem.
the government is now also ripping CEOs out of their positions and replacing them. ...even though they didnt do anything illegal. (stupid? maybe ... but illegal? no) these are PRIVATELY OWNED businesses being taken over by government. that is a very big problem. how does that make it politicized? because administration is replacing them with with people that will follow their rules. when the next guy comes along, should they be a different party, will they then put a conservative in? how is that not politicizing an industry that was not before? the government should have no place in private industry unless that industry is violating someone's individual rights.
how is the government having 100% control over your health care not government ownership of health care? the people in that system cant make the choices to practiec how they see fit, and you dont have the right as a patient to ask for other medicine. Individual power Vs. a health board is NOT a false choice. I have the right (right now) to chose many different forms of treatment. under a Federal Health board many of those options would be gone. your argument is false. money has nothing to do with it. i also have the choice of many different insurers, or, if i so chose, no insurance. all of those are choices that would be seriously limited if the system was government run.
you also keep assuming that i want to keep things the way they are now. I dont. I just do not want to see things handed over to the government. we keep handing more and more of our lives over to the government. i dont want to hand any more.
on one level yes, but not the level i was talking about. the level i was talking about is choice. pure choice.
i can ( and have) refused a treatment because i felt that it was to invasive. I opted to have a different treatment that has a smaller success rate. that one was more expensive. If it was government run, i wouldnt have that choice. it would be made for me because the more expensive less successful treatment is more likely to drain the system.
the government runs programs for people as a group. they are unable to (or refuse to, i cant tell) run a program for people as individuals. the problem with running a program for people as a group is that individuals are all different. every case needs to be looked at individually. The private sector does a much better job of treating people as individuals because there are more options out there. the private sector has a way of filling needs when they come up, if its in the medical field or otherwise.
so yes, money is the broad root cause of the debate, but my smaller more finite point was about choice. not money.
on one level yes, but not the level i was talking about. the level i was talking about is choice. pure choice.
i can ( and have) refused a treatment because i felt that it was to invasive. I opted to have a different treatment that has a smaller success rate. that one was more expensive. If it was government run, i wouldnt have that choice. it would be made for me because the more expensive less successful treatment is more likely to drain the system.
the government runs programs for people as a group. they are unable to (or refuse to, i cant tell) run a program for people as individuals. the problem with running a program for people as a group is that individuals are all different. every case needs to be looked at individually. The private sector does a much better job of treating people as individuals because there are more options out there. the private sector has a way of filling needs when they come up, if its in the medical field or otherwise.
so yes, money is the broad root cause of the debate, but my smaller more finite point was about choice. not money.
I don't think you can seperate them.....because in reality money ultimatly decides what those choices are.....so even though its purely choices money still determines what you are able to choose from...IMHO
I think your clean, total distinction between rights and the system in which they exist -- including economic -- is a mistake, kuzi. It's nice as theory, but it doesn't correspond to the factual world. Just because a piece of paper says you have a right doesn't mean you have that right. You have that right only if you can exercise it. (This is the fundamental insight at the core of John Locke's political philosophy.)
To the degree you have a right to choose whatever health care you want today, you'll have exactly that same right in the future. Just because the gov't won't pay for it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to. You'll still be able to buy all the health care you want (and can afford) above and beyond what the gov't is willing to pay for. If you want a more expensive treatment with a lower chance of success, you can still go out and buy it.
And if you think you aren't being treated as part of a group in today's private health care system, one of two things is true: you are, in fact, a multi-millionaire, or you're just unaware of an awful lot.
the govenrment forced many banks to take the TARP funds. now they are refusing to take payments to pay it off.
Link, please. Every case I've read about where a bank has said it wants to pay back its TARP money immediately, when it gets down to brass tacks it turns out that what they mean by "immediately" is 3 or 4 years from now. Why? Because they don't have the money right now. They're bitching about restrictions on money that they'd be in bankruptcy court without. In short, they want something for nothing. They want a free lunch.
kuzi16:
Its because the government wants more and more control over PRIVATELY OWNED BANKS. that is a HUGE problem.
You honestly think elected politicians want to be responsible for the banking industry?
You know, even assuming your statement is true, the converse is also true. Privately owned banks want more and more control over the nation's economy. If they didn't, and if they hadn't succeeded, we wouldn't be hearing about all this "too big to fail" business.
Let's not talk as if the gov't is the only entity interested in controlling things. Private companies want to control as much as they possibly can, too. One or the other is going to have the upper hand. As I've pointed out before, we've tried the system you favor, where private companies are free to do as they wish. It was called the Gilded Age, and it was one of the most unstable periods in American history, economically, socially, and politically. It worked great for a small group of individuals, but was a failure for the nation.
kuzi16:
the government is now also ripping CEOs out of their positions and replacing them. ...even though they didnt do anything illegal. (stupid? maybe ... but illegal? no) these are PRIVATELY OWNED businesses being taken over by government. that is a very big problem. how does that make it politicized?
Because the auto companies came to the gov't for a handout, that's how. So did the banks.
kuzi16:
because administration is replacing them with with people that will follow their rules. when the next guy comes along, should they be a different party, will they then put a conservative in?
As I suggested above, I think you're going to find that this won't last that long. The pols are going to want to get shed of responsibility for these industries as fast as they possibly can. They don't want to get blamed for their problems.
kuzi16:
how is the government having 100% control over your health care not government ownership of health care?
Let's say your chocolate business takes off like mad (and I hope it does), and it gets so big that you start to franchise stores all over the country. You don't own all those stores. The local franchisees do. You don't get their profits, you don't run their day-to-day operations. You just set up the system in which they operate. That's the difference you're not seeing. The gov't is not going to take ownership of the hospitals and the doctors' clinics and the pharmaceutical companies and the prosthetics manufacturers and the thousand other health-related industries. Those businesses are all going to continue to be privately owned and profit-driven. This is, therefore, by definition, not socialism.
kuzi16:
the people in that system cant make the choices to practiec how they see fit
They can't do that now.
kuzi16:
and you dont have the right as a patient to ask for other medicine.
Yes, you do. You can go buy as much other care as you can afford.
kuzi16:
Individual power Vs. a health board is NOT a false choice.
You're right. It is a choice. It's just not an available choice, nor has it been for a very long time.
kuzi16:
I have the right (right now) to chose many different forms of treatment. under a Federal Health board many of those options would be gone.
No, they won't. You can continue to buy as much private care as you can afford.
kuzi16:
you also keep assuming that i want to keep things the way they are now. I dont.
I wasn't so much assuming that as surmising it from the fact that you haven't proposed anything else.
And if you think you aren't being treated as part of a group in today's private health care system, one of two things is true: you are, in fact, a multi-millionaire, or you're just unaware of an awful lot.
i am being treated as a group. but i can chose what group is closer to me and my group.
so you are saying either im rich or stupid?
funny. Im neither. I am clearly a third option. I am aware that i am part of a group. I just recognize that there are many groups out there. if we all lump things under one group (the government) then there is only one group. hence, less options.
the govenrment forced many banks to take the TARP funds. now they are refusing to take payments to pay it off.
Link, please. Every case I've read about where a bank has said it wants to pay back its TARP money immediately, when it gets down to brass tacks it turns out that what they mean by "immediately" is 3 or 4 years from now. Why? Because they don't have the money right now. They're bitching about restrictions on money that they'd be in bankruptcy court without. In short, they want something for nothing. They want a free lunch.
not only that, but my wife comes in direct contact with very high level managers of Capitol One. they were forced to take TARP by the government. they have the money to pay it back and the government wont let them. at the same time they are trying to regulate the pay not just of the CEOs but everyone that works for CO that has the title "manager" attached to it.
urbino:
kuzi16:
Its because the government wants more and more control over PRIVATELY OWNED BANKS. that is a HUGE problem.
You honestly think elected politicians want to be responsible for the banking industry?
you dont? they have been trying for years.
urbino:
You know, even assuming your statement is true, the converse is also true. Privately owned banks want more and more control over the nation's economy. If they didn't, and if they hadn't succeeded, we wouldn't be hearing about all this "too big to fail" business.
the difference is, the private sector has competition. this means many options. when the government takes over you dont have competition.
urbino:
kuzi16:
the government is now also ripping CEOs out of their positions and replacing them. ...even though they didnt do anything illegal. (stupid? maybe ... but illegal? no) these are PRIVATELY OWNED businesses being taken over by government. that is a very big problem. how does that make it politicized?
Because the auto companies came to the gov't for a handout, that's how. So did the banks.
we have all established that the bailouts are bad. this is one of the reasons why. government run auto industry.
urbino:
kuzi16:
how is the government having 100% control over your health care not government ownership of health care?
Let's say your chocolate business takes off like mad (and I hope it does), and it gets so big that you start to franchise stores all over the country. You don't own all those stores. The local franchisees do. You don't get their profits, you don't run their day-to-day operations. You just set up the system in which they operate. That's the difference you're not seeing. The gov't is not going to take ownership of the hospitals and the doctors' clinics and the pharmaceutical companies and the prosthetics manufacturers and the thousand other health-related industries. Those businesses are all going to continue to be privately owned and profit-driven. This is, therefore, by definition, not socialism.
but social in nature as in publicly collected funds are gathered via Taxation to support a system that the general populous uses. that IS socialist to at least some degree.
urbino:
kuzi16:
the people in that system cant make the choices to practiec how they see fit
They can't do that now.
false. they can make some limited choices. government takeover would give you even less or zero choices.
urbino:
kuzi16:
Individual power Vs. a health board is NOT a false choice.
You're right. It is a choice. It's just not an available choice, nor has it been for a very long time.
it is available. I chose my health insurance company because it suited my needs and desires more than any other company out there that i know of. this includes my decision to smoke cigars, my income level, my location in the country, etc... i have choice. not every choice for every thing, but choice still exists. as stated before, if thrown in the singular one group of "government health care" there are even less choices, maybe none.
urbino:
kuzi16:
I have the right (right now) to chose many different forms of treatment. under a Federal Health board many of those options would be gone.
No, they won't. You can continue to buy as much private care as you can afford.
with "free" government health care all other options will be eventually driven out of business. why would anyone pay for something if you can get the "equivalent" service down the street for free ? you cannot compete with free.
about a year ago Papa John's pizza had a deal where for one day, you got a one topping pizza for 23 cents. I worked that night at applebees. we were very very dead. why? pizza on the cheap. it wasnt even free. if that promotion went on indefinitely, many many restaurants would be put out of business. (mostly pizza places admitedly but others would feel it as well) Yes there would be other options for a time, but they would fade away because at those places you have to pay a ton more. about 4000% more
urbino:
kuzi16:
you also keep assuming that i want to keep things the way they are now. I dont.
I wasn't so much assuming that as surmising it from the fact that you haven't proposed anything else.
yet completely overlooking the fact that this is now the 4th time that i have said something needs to change. I just dont think that the government taking it over is the way to go. maybe there are a host of things in the system that need to change to bring down cost. maybe some of what is good about the way we do things now is bringing up the cost.
one (although very small) thing that could happen would be if we could make at least some of the false lawsuits go away. how would we do that? well... if you bring a case against your doctor, and lose, you pay the cost of his half of the trial as well. this will eliminate some of the burden of malpractice insurance.
and as far as some of what makes the cost go up? research. we, as a country, are constantly demanding newer, better ways of practicing medicine. constantly needing the cutting edge equipment and constantly needing to go back to school to learn new ways of doing things and constantly developing new drugs isnt cheap. we demand it. they give it. for a price.
since i am not a doctor and i only know the patient point of view, i do not know all of what brings up costs. since you are not a doctor either im assuming that you dont either. I do have a tiny bit of insight on the insurance end of it. my father in law does health, life, and disability, and my wife worked in the insurance industry for several years. we have discussed this issue many times.
you may even be surprised to hear that she thinks that insurance is what makes health care affordable... not the other way around.
Reading this there are two major things that come to mind...
Why is everyones "fix" to a system that isn't perfect is to put the government in control of it? Seriously, they can't run the medicare or medicaid system and they are both failing horribly. So why would anyone want them to be put in control of ALL of our health care? The government is also making many many many poor choices in the now SOCIALIST auto industry. The administration is calling for more and more and more hybrid cars, but they are piling up on car lots across the country because since gas prices have come down some, noone wants them... These are the people we wanting running our medical care??
The second point is that the entitlement mentality is running rampant in this country. If someone can't afford something or they are having trouble paying for it, they automatically think it is the governments job to provide it for them. This is wrong and will be the down fall of our country if it continues. You can say medical treatment is a "right" all you want, but it isn't. Neither is digital TV, a new car, a new house, or anything else people are begging for from the government. They might as well just build a big over-pass in front of the Capitol building and hand out cups to every citizen so we can start forming a line to beg...
I figure this is as good a place to post this as any. Just went by my CPA's office and picked up the wife and I's 2008 tax extortion today. Mother@!%##$%@!#$&**# rat basturds sob %$##@!@!%#$#&##&%$# er's!!!
Though I am not as knowledgeable as say, Urbster I can say that the Oregon health plan is fantastic. I am not a part of it since I make too much (yeah like I make 100k..) but my best friends GF is since she has two kids and they aren't married for this reason as well as the money she gets for school right now but on to the health care. She gets all of her medical paid for along with her kids. She had both kids in one of the best hospitals here FREE, had terrific treatment and has a regular doctor and all of it is free. She's fininshing up dental school right now and if it wasn't for the help of the state she'd be F'd. My friend makes good money, we work at the same place so we aren't bad off but with the amount of money they would have had to pay for all of his GF's medical they'd be totally screwed. The state doesn't tell her what she has to have done, or where to go. She can go to any hospital or doctor's office that accepts the plan and most do. So i don't know where you get the idea that if there was a Govt run healthcare that it would dictate what you can and cannot have done Kuzi. I mean yeah, I agree that more power to Govt is not always a good idea but you would still have the option to have additional insurance like Urby said. Fact is that the Govt doesn't or isn't out to make a buck off of you, private companies are. Why is it that there hasn't been any cures for diseases in the last 60 or so years? I mean if half of the money went to cures rather than to pills or things to slow down diseases we'd have the cure for some cancers or even all of them, maybe AIDS... or the bird flue.. On the other note, my friends GF has a sister who is very sick. her sister and family lives in Cali and right now her sister has just gone threw two types of cancer treatment, and now is getting a bone marrow transplant. So basically right now she is being kept in a hospital in a "clean" room where she is basically quarantined due to the total breakdown of her immune system. I don't know the exact cost of this, but her family is declaring Bankruptcy over it and are in the process of selling their home to just pay some of the expenses. Now if we had a national health program they wouldn't be in this problem. It's just an example. I also have a few friends who have had family members denied coverage from their insurance company because they have had a history of their medical problem and now they can't get insurance because of the denial from one company. How is this a good thing? It's just as bad as the F'in credit system.
BTW it's along the same crap that these retards do about weapons, oh when was the last time you heard about a person that was a law abiding citizen purchase a automatic machine gun and go do a drive by, or traffic drugs, or go killing people? doesn't happen very often. yeah some Ahole shoots up a office or something but it's very minor in the grand scheme of things. take the guns from law abiding people to be defenseless against criminals or even the govt.. yeah.. Same with all this anti-smoking ***. Yeah I like not having to smell it while eating but bars, come on. Even cracking down on cigar bars for god sakes. Like kuzi said, knowing what's best for everyone.. yeah.
I want you to remember what you said in this other thread and think about that for a minute, do you REALLY want the same people who do things like this to be in charge of your health care? I damn sure don't!
So i don't know where you get the idea that if there was a Govt run healthcare that it would dictate what you can and cannot have done Kuzi.
because the national government has done it with just about every other program they have run. oh... and GM. and the banks...
phobicsquirrel:
Why is it that there hasn't been any cures for diseases in the last 60 or so years? I mean if half of the money went to cures rather than to pills or things to slow down diseases we'd have the cure for some cancers or even all of them, maybe AIDS... or the bird flue..
seriously? this is the worst argument in favor of national health care ever.
the US with its privately owned health care system is the most advanced in the world. why havent we cured AIDS? not because they dont want to but because it is actually hard to do. ever think that the person ho comes up with the cure might get rich beyond belief? Drug companies do want to make a profit. and they do try and take too much at times. However, if they had the patent for a cancer curing drug for the next ten years they have it made. it is in their benefit to make a better drug.
there has never been a such thing as an efficiantly run government program. do you really think this will be FASTER at curing illness?
phobicsquirrel:
On the other note, my friends GF has a sister who is very sick. her sister and family lives in Cali and right now her sister has just gone threw two types of cancer treatment, and now is getting a bone marrow transplant. So basically right now she is being kept in a hospital in a "clean" room where she is basically quarantined due to the total breakdown of her immune system. I don't know the exact cost of this, but her family is declaring Bankruptcy over it and are in the process of selling their home to just pay some of the expenses. Now if we had a national health program they wouldn't be in this problem.
the only difference is that they wouldnt have that debt. she would still be in a horrible situation. since duty has turned down my offer to hold a charity event for his health care stricken friend how about i make the same offer to you. if you PM me I will set that up.
phobicsquirrel:
It's just as bad as the F'in credit system.
ummm... if you dont buy what you cant afford then you wont have credit problems. simple as that. that system is not broken. people were just dumb within it. ... on both sides of the government and in the private sector.
this is another situation where the government should not take over. people need to learn from their failures. they need to learn to not live beyond their means. The government has no business in private lives. nor should it.
edit: BTW BOTH polio and smallpox have been eradicated in the last 60 years.
Sine those diseases nothing has really been cured (also they were cured before the big pharmaceuticals were formed and had billions in revenue). I guess there is no way of proving one way or another that cures for cancer and Aids or other diseases are purposely not being cured for "drugs" that prolong life or keep the disease at bay for a period of time but I do know if you cure it, well there is no more money to be made. Actually kuzi, I will agree with you on the credit, if people only bought what they afforded then yes, there wouldn't be such a hight amount of debt. The thing is that the credit system has changed drastically since its inception back in the 80's. Just as an example of how credit comapanies have ultimate power over a person, if you say have a 10,000 limit and say you have 1500 that has been racked up, the credit company can and has lowered the limit of the card so now that 1500 which was 12% or so of the 10,000 is now 50% of a new 3,000 dollar limit. That effects your credit score. Same thing is when you cancel a credit card, oh hey it will effect your score. Now employers are hiring based on credit scores. The biggest hit by the credit card industry are students and with the high amount of debt on loans, and factor in the amount of money that a lot of students use on credit cards with low paying jobs (if they have a job) then well your in debt for a long period of time. I still think that a national health system would be much better than what is currently in place.
Comments
Just PM if anyone is interested!
Just look at the healtcare our Vets get, VA is garbage. If this passes, mark my words, Healthcare cost will skyrocket and the Government will start rationing treatments...sorry...you're too old and your treatment too expensive...we need to spend the money on someone younger...have a nice trip to the hospice.
...or have some other disease that was brought on by your lifestyle (making you a drain on the system)
...or are old and no treatment will help (even if you can afford it)
...or want to try an experimental treatment that has yet to be proven because you have tried all other options and they have failed (again, even if you can afford it)
...or want to go to the dentist but the waiting list is too long and you have no idea if you can make it there in 6 months (UK only)
...or if you want to get immediate treatment on a non life threatening ailment but cant due to waiting lists (even if you can afford it)
... or if you want elective surgery (but cant afford it)
...or If you want surgery that you dont consider "elective" but the government does.
Are Americans willing to trust the government with all of their health care requirements? Should we rely on the government to make medical decisions and place our health entirely in the hands of politicians? Should we expect the government to place our needs ahead of powerful hospital groups or public employee unions? Surely we can rely on the government to insure that there are enough medical facilities in our own communities rather than in, say, the district of a powerful committee chairman? Can we expect the Federal Health Board to establish priorities based on the public interest and not their own agendas? Will some diseases become more politically correct than others?
Obamas plan was to make Vets pay for their own health care...
even if hurt in the line of duty....
I will only comment on the state of things here in Canada and I can say that Kuzi your sources are sadly mistaken.
Yes we do have waiting lists for some NON LIFE THREATENING conditions. If you arrive at the hospital you are treated just like most places... by the seriousness of your condition. If you present with life threatening symptoms you are fast tracked into whatever appropriate department you require.
I do wish you would quit using Canada as an example for your arguements. You make it sound like we are some kind of third world socialist state. It may play well to your beliefs but it is FAR from the truth.
One other tid bit of info. you may find interesting. The life expectancy of people in Cuba, (a true socialist state) is quite a bit higher then it is in the U.S. as is the infant mortality rate lower.
and could you please source that info?
1) thats not possible. that will be then part of the GDP because health care is a good or service.
2) if the current trends continue by 2017 Medicare and Medicade will be completely bankrupt. why? because there are never enough taxes to cover free service for everyone. the same thing will happen to publicly funded health care in the long run.
i do agree that something has to be done but socialist systems are not the only answer.
1) I got the details wrong, but here's the CBO study I was referring to.
2) Incorrect. As the above linked study found, if/when Medicare and Medicaid go bankrupt, it will be because of spiraling health care costs.
3) Again, the term "socialism" is getting thrown around much too loosely. Nobody is proposing socialism as an answer.
The whole socialism bit I think is like dropping a charged word into a grey argument in order to dig in the trenches and try and make it a black and white issue, but no issue is black and white. Right now people talk about the two extremes...one being total free market let the private insurance companies and hospitals and all the health-care pencil pushers in between do whatever they want....and the other extreme is fully funded 100% federal government run health care. Right now, our needle is awfully close to to the private insurer extreme, and it looks like over the next 5 years we're going to move that needle somewhere back into the middle of these extremes, where it needs to be.
I just think its pretty disingenuous when people start ringing the alarm bells and pulling out the guns when health care is addressed. The bottom line is that it has to be addressed, because the system as it works right now is going to crash the system when the boomers are in their 70's. I think urbino is pretty on point from what i've read.
In addition, i think its equally disingenuous when people use the idea that most of the burden comes from lazy people or drug users and that 'you' as a tax payer are one of the few decent joes in the system. My cousin was working part time with her husband, when she became pregnant. She didn't smoke, she didnt drink, they weren't mooching off the system; but, when her son was born, he had lungs the size of the tip of my pinky finger, also he was born 2 months premature, i dont think he left the hospital until 6 months later. She did nothing wrong at all, it was just one of those things. Hes 12 years old now (with developmental disabilities), and she just finished paying off her hospital debt. Theres not enough charity in this country combined to balance out the extortion that good and hardworking people are put through by the current system.
that particular system IS socialist.
i did say before that something should be done. ( five posts up) I just feel that the government taking over the system and politicizing, socializing, and otherwise making health care decisions for me, not giving me other options (by way of the other options are too expensive) and raising taxes to make it all happen is not the way i would like it to go.
it seems like every time there is an "issue" the only way a liberal can "fix" it is by taxing something and giving that money to someone else. In that situation, there is always a loser. and many times, both end up losers because the tax makes whatever they are taxing move slower in the economy. less movement of product will lead to lower revenue.
again, i want to say that i think the medical system will get overly politicized if put in the hands of the government.
to quote me before:
Surely we can rely on the government to insure that there are enough medical facilities in our own communities rather than in, say, the district of a powerful committee chairman? Can we expect the Federal Health Board to establish priorities based on the public interest and not their own agendas? Will some diseases become more politically correct than others?
i think these are all legitimate concerns. Look how politicized everything else is that the government has put their hands in: the federal reserve, welfare, medicare, medicade, immigration, ...and more recently the banking system, the housing system, the auto industry.
banking politicized
more banking politicized
Auto industry politicized
more auto industry politicized
Im not saying do nothing. Im saying dont turn all of our power, that we as an individual (or private companies) have to make decisions, over to the government. they will not always make the decision that we want. Everyone is different, but the government cannot treat everyone as an individual. this is part of the problem of welfare, medicare, medicade, and social systems in general.
Socialism is, first and foremost, government ownership of the means of production. Nobody is proposing a plan in which the government takes ownership of the health care system.
It seems like you have some odd notions about politicization. The government didn't politicize the banking industry; the banking industry did. The gov't didn't politicize the auto industry; the auto industry did. If you think the Federal Reserve is politicized, you're one of very, very, very few people who think so.
As for welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid, I don't see how "politicized" has any meaning. Those aren't things that private industry was already providing, then the gov't took over and politicized. They're things private industry was not providing, so the gov't stepped in and created them. They're "politicized" in the same sense that the military is "politicized," which is to say in no meaningful sense at all. The same applies to immigration.
On the broader point about individual power vs. a Federal Health Board, it's a false choice. Unless you're worth many millions of dollars, you don't have power over your health care now. You take the health care your insurance company says you can have (if you can afford insurance). It's certainly possible that under an FHB some diseases might become more "politically correct" than others, but as things stand now, some diseases are more profitable than others. If you happen to have an unprofitable disease, God help you, because the people who currently control our health care system won't.
Don't get me wrong. I think your concerns about more gov't involvement are valid. Those are all real dangers that we'd be naive to ignore. But it's equally naive to say the alternative is individual power over one's care. Only the ultra-rich have that.
the government is now also ripping CEOs out of their positions and replacing them. ...even though they didnt do anything illegal. (stupid? maybe ... but illegal? no) these are PRIVATELY OWNED businesses being taken over by government. that is a very big problem. how does that make it politicized? because administration is replacing them with with people that will follow their rules. when the next guy comes along, should they be a different party, will they then put a conservative in? how is that not politicizing an industry that was not before? the government should have no place in private industry unless that industry is violating someone's individual rights.
how is the government having 100% control over your health care not government ownership of health care? the people in that system cant make the choices to practiec how they see fit, and you dont have the right as a patient to ask for other medicine.
Individual power Vs. a health board is NOT a false choice. I have the right (right now) to chose many different forms of treatment. under a Federal Health board many of those options would be gone. your argument is false. money has nothing to do with it. i also have the choice of many different insurers, or, if i so chose, no insurance. all of those are choices that would be seriously limited if the system was government run.
you also keep assuming that i want to keep things the way they are now. I dont. I just do not want to see things handed over to the government. we keep handing more and more of our lives over to the government. i dont want to hand any more.
Money has everything to do with it. It always has, and it always will.
I'll let someone else debate the other points mentioned there, but that one line was like a strobe light in my eyeball.
i can ( and have) refused a treatment because i felt that it was to invasive. I opted to have a different treatment that has a smaller success rate. that one was more expensive. If it was government run, i wouldnt have that choice. it would be made for me because the more expensive less successful treatment is more likely to drain the system.
the government runs programs for people as a group. they are unable to (or refuse to, i cant tell) run a program for people as individuals. the problem with running a program for people as a group is that individuals are all different. every case needs to be looked at individually. The private sector does a much better job of treating people as individuals because there are more options out there. the private sector has a way of filling needs when they come up, if its in the medical field or otherwise.
so yes, money is the broad root cause of the debate, but my smaller more finite point was about choice. not money.
I don't think you can seperate them.....because in reality money ultimatly decides what those choices are.....so even though its purely choices money still determines what you are able to choose from...IMHO
To the degree you have a right to choose whatever health care you want today, you'll have exactly that same right in the future. Just because the gov't won't pay for it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to. You'll still be able to buy all the health care you want (and can afford) above and beyond what the gov't is willing to pay for. If you want a more expensive treatment with a lower chance of success, you can still go out and buy it.
And if you think you aren't being treated as part of a group in today's private health care system, one of two things is true: you are, in fact, a multi-millionaire, or you're just unaware of an awful lot.
You know, even assuming your statement is true, the converse is also true. Privately owned banks want more and more control over the nation's economy. If they didn't, and if they hadn't succeeded, we wouldn't be hearing about all this "too big to fail" business.
Let's not talk as if the gov't is the only entity interested in controlling things. Private companies want to control as much as they possibly can, too. One or the other is going to have the upper hand. As I've pointed out before, we've tried the system you favor, where private companies are free to do as they wish. It was called the Gilded Age, and it was one of the most unstable periods in American history, economically, socially, and politically. It worked great for a small group of individuals, but was a failure for the nation. Because the auto companies came to the gov't for a handout, that's how. So did the banks. As I suggested above, I think you're going to find that this won't last that long. The pols are going to want to get shed of responsibility for these industries as fast as they possibly can. They don't want to get blamed for their problems. Let's say your chocolate business takes off like mad (and I hope it does), and it gets so big that you start to franchise stores all over the country. You don't own all those stores. The local franchisees do. You don't get their profits, you don't run their day-to-day operations. You just set up the system in which they operate. That's the difference you're not seeing. The gov't is not going to take ownership of the hospitals and the doctors' clinics and the pharmaceutical companies and the prosthetics manufacturers and the thousand other health-related industries. Those businesses are all going to continue to be privately owned and profit-driven. This is, therefore, by definition, not socialism. They can't do that now. Yes, you do. You can go buy as much other care as you can afford. You're right. It is a choice. It's just not an available choice, nor has it been for a very long time. No, they won't. You can continue to buy as much private care as you can afford. I wasn't so much assuming that as surmising it from the fact that you haven't proposed anything else.
so you are saying either im rich or stupid?
funny. Im neither. I am clearly a third option. I am aware that i am part of a group. I just recognize that there are many groups out there. if we all lump things under one group (the government) then there is only one group. hence, less options.
not only that, but my wife comes in direct contact with very high level managers of Capitol One. they were forced to take TARP by the government. they have the money to pay it back and the government wont let them.
at the same time they are trying to regulate the pay not just of the CEOs but everyone that works for CO that has the title "manager" attached to it. you dont? they have been trying for years. the difference is, the private sector has competition. this means many options. when the government takes over you dont have competition. we have all established that the bailouts are bad. this is one of the reasons why. government run auto industry. but social in nature as in publicly collected funds are gathered via Taxation to support a system that the general populous uses. that IS socialist to at least some degree.
false. they can make some limited choices. government takeover would give you even less or zero choices. it is available. I chose my health insurance company because it suited my needs and desires more than any other company out there that i know of. this includes my decision to smoke cigars, my income level, my location in the country, etc...
i have choice. not every choice for every thing, but choice still exists. as stated before, if thrown in the singular one group of "government health care" there are even less choices, maybe none. with "free" government health care all other options will be eventually driven out of business. why would anyone pay for something if you can get the "equivalent" service down the street for free ? you cannot compete with free.
about a year ago Papa John's pizza had a deal where for one day, you got a one topping pizza for 23 cents. I worked that night at applebees. we were very very dead. why? pizza on the cheap. it wasnt even free. if that promotion went on indefinitely, many many restaurants would be put out of business. (mostly pizza places admitedly but others would feel it as well) Yes there would be other options for a time, but they would fade away because at those places you have to pay a ton more. about 4000% more yet completely overlooking the fact that this is now the 4th time that i have said something needs to change. I just dont think that the government taking it over is the way to go.
maybe there are a host of things in the system that need to change to bring down cost. maybe some of what is good about the way we do things now is bringing up the cost.
one (although very small) thing that could happen would be if we could make at least some of the false lawsuits go away. how would we do that? well...
if you bring a case against your doctor, and lose, you pay the cost of his half of the trial as well. this will eliminate some of the burden of malpractice insurance.
and as far as some of what makes the cost go up? research. we, as a country, are constantly demanding newer, better ways of practicing medicine. constantly needing the cutting edge equipment and constantly needing to go back to school to learn new ways of doing things and constantly developing new drugs isnt cheap. we demand it. they give it. for a price.
since i am not a doctor and i only know the patient point of view, i do not know all of what brings up costs. since you are not a doctor either im assuming that you dont either. I do have a tiny bit of insight on the insurance end of it. my father in law does health, life, and disability, and my wife worked in the insurance industry for several years. we have discussed this issue many times.
you may even be surprised to hear that she thinks that insurance is what makes health care affordable... not the other way around.
Why is everyones "fix" to a system that isn't perfect is to put the government in control of it? Seriously, they can't run the medicare or medicaid system and they are both failing horribly. So why would anyone want them to be put in control of ALL of our health care? The government is also making many many many poor choices in the now SOCIALIST auto industry. The administration is calling for more and more and more hybrid cars, but they are piling up on car lots across the country because since gas prices have come down some, noone wants them... These are the people we wanting running our medical care??
The second point is that the entitlement mentality is running rampant in this country. If someone can't afford something or they are having trouble paying for it, they automatically think it is the governments job to provide it for them. This is wrong and will be the down fall of our country if it continues. You can say medical treatment is a "right" all you want, but it isn't. Neither is digital TV, a new car, a new house, or anything else people are begging for from the government. They might as well just build a big over-pass in front of the Capitol building and hand out cups to every citizen so we can start forming a line to beg...
I want you to remember what you said in this other thread and think about that for a minute, do you REALLY want the same people who do things like this to be in charge of your health care? I damn sure don't!
and the banks...
seriously? this is the worst argument in favor of national health care ever.
the US with its privately owned health care system is the most advanced in the world. why havent we cured AIDS? not because they dont want to but because it is actually hard to do. ever think that the person ho comes up with the cure might get rich beyond belief? Drug companies do want to make a profit. and they do try and take too much at times. However, if they had the patent for a cancer curing drug for the next ten years they have it made. it is in their benefit to make a better drug.
there has never been a such thing as an efficiantly run government program. do you really think this will be FASTER at curing illness? the only difference is that they wouldnt have that debt. she would still be in a horrible situation. since duty has turned down my offer to hold a charity event for his health care stricken friend how about i make the same offer to you. if you PM me I will set that up. ummm...
if you dont buy what you cant afford then you wont have credit problems. simple as that. that system is not broken. people were just dumb within it. ... on both sides of the government and in the private sector.
this is another situation where the government should not take over. people need to learn from their failures. they need to learn to not live beyond their means. The government has no business in private lives. nor should it.
edit: BTW BOTH polio and smallpox have been eradicated in the last 60 years.
I still think that a national health system would be much better than what is currently in place.