Universal Healthcare

[hockeyD13 (Ozark)]

Imperial

[Feibelman]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Xenex

*We have one of the worst healtcare systems in the world.
- Cuba has a better *ucking health care system than us, and they're partially stuck in the 50's still.

*The highest infant mortality rate.
- Most latin american countries have a better one of these.
Highest Obeseity.
- Stupidity, and the media.... dont get me started.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ[/ame]

[The Corporal]

Originally Posted by Toraoji

Plus, it would be all that hard to fund without raising taxes or increasing the already way to f-ing huge deficit. There's seriously trillions of dollars spend on worthless "projects" that can be cut. Palin's bridge to nowhere comes to mind, as do jets that cost 25 billion a piece that have never been used in combat and are designed for use against an enemy that doesn't exist, the list goes on...

I don't want to overburden this topic with extraneous discussion, but name your Congressperson/Senator and look up the pork barrel projects they have rammed through Congress. With few exceptions, you'll find that they are no different. 2nd: the F-22 was supposed to be $135 million each before Congress decided we didn't need any of them. They've been in service less than 10 years and people are saying that they don't serve a purpose - this is only because we've been fighting wars against opponents with no air power whatsoever. If we find ourselves in a fight with someone who does, the F-22 will shine.

Back on topic, the problem I have with any government social program is that the government plan takes money from tax payers, filters it through bureaucracy, and gives it back to us. Take the CARS program - gooberment officials claim that it gives money to consumers, only the money they get is money they gave to Uncle Sam in back in April. Also, it costs roughly $6000 per car (instead of $3500 or $4500) because there is a lot of government overhead that gets paid for straight from the $3 billion allocated to the program. Universal health care will do the same - launder taxpayer money through endless government bureaucracy to basically give us our own money back. A more tangible example is gun buyback programs - the government pays people $100 of their own tax money to take a gun valued between $100 and $1000 and spend more money on destroying said gun. It isn't wealth creation or even wealth redistribution, it is wealth destruction through obscene government waste. And to suggest that we can just raise taxes to cover any funding gaps is to take more money from the people to give it back to the people. Don't take it in the first place and the waste disappears.

Originally Posted by Toraoji

the same bean counters who choose now Hockey. you think doctors have any control in today's system? Ask a doctor, the insurance companies decide. If anything this system will help because politicians care about getting re-elected (more than they care about doing a good job) an they'll make the rules to give doctors more control. If they don't people will flip and the losers wont get re-elected.

So you're admitting that the public plan has no advantage as far as availability of care goes, which is one of the primary benefits touted by the bill's proponents? And remember, only 15% of incumbents weren't reelected in 2008, including those who didn't run again; this was with a Congressional approval rating as low as 8% during the last two years (it mostly hovered between 15% and 30%). Reelection has a lot less to do with performance in office than you claim.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Xenex

Universal care would obviously be the key way to going about this... but its just so impractical I just cant ever see it happening. Things will have to be so radically changed, so many noses are gonna have to be put out of joint, and somewhere along the line, someone rich who enjoys the wine and cheese and his personal leer is going to have to eat the cost...

I'm not rich, not by a long shot. And guess what? I still don't want to eat the cost. Liberals automatically assume that all conservatives are rich, big business types. We aren't - I pay more in taxes than is reasonable now, I don't need to pay more...it cuts into the available cash I would otherwise pour into the economy.

It's just not gonna happen. We'll be paying for our insurance for a long long time... but all I have to say is that one way or the other, NOONE needs to be allowed to dictate who the hell dies, and who the hell lives any more, based on cost.

We pay for it either way - via private insurance or via public insurance. The difference is that when paid for through the great government money laundering machine, everyone gets screwed. We need to find a way to reduce health care costs but rationing of care is not the way to go. If public health care is so great, why do so many Canadians and Europeans come to America for health care services?

Originally Posted by tom the pit leader

Also, the universal care won't mean people can't pay for more care, it means that everyone get's a baseline level of care. Knock yourself out if you end up needing/wanting more and have the money to pay for it.

Everyone will get that baseline and nothing more, though. Read the bill that is supported by liberal Democrats in Congress and President Obama. It says that anyone with a private insurance policy will not be able to change services (more coverage, less coverage, new illness, or price changes will all be prohibited) or add dependents after the bill would be signed into law. Page 16, I think it is. One of the amendments to the bill (212 maybe? I was only half-listening when my roommate was reading the scary parts off to me last night, too busy killing terrorists on R6V2) stipulates that in cases of child maltreatment in a neighborhood, the government would send "competent" people to each home to "give advice on parenting", meaning that the government would have every right to tell parents how to raise their children (because the government knows best, of course). The scariest part of that - once in the program, parents would not be able to opt out - the government would be watching their every parenting move. And here I thought one of the basic rights as a member of the animal kingdom was the right to raise your young in the best way you see fit...anyways, everyone - please read the bill, at least in sections. Your government representatives probably haven't.

Originally Posted by bigdaddychacha

Yah, regular trash collection, the US Postal Service, the Interstate Highway System...those bureaucratic n00bs in Washington can't be trusted to do anything right!!!11!

C'mon, that knee-jerk anti-government stuff is sooo easy

-The current health care system is a complete failure for millions of Americans. Saying that "we can't trust the government," is that supposed to mean that we are supposed to just sit back and enjoy the status quo, or trust the health insurance companies who want to deny claims and maximize copays and say that anybody with a preexisting condition might as well blow their brains out all to help their BUSINESS's bottom line or drug companies who claim to want to help give life-saving drugs to people who need them but then spend billions of dollars in legal wars to keep generic versions of their drugs from hitting the market after their patents expire, thereby denying low-cost versions of those same life-saving drugs to people who need them? (okay, longest run on sentence ever!)

-Government health care has a proven better track record in other countries, but Americans think it'll presage the second coming of Stalin or something if it ever catches on in the USA.

-"Optimal Health Care for all Americans" and "Maximum Profits for Drug/Inurance Companies/Doctors/etc. as best achieved in the Free Market Competition Model" are not complimentary goals, and in fact they are to quite a degree mutually exclusive. The Free Market cannot solve every problem through it's own natural self-corrections, as we're rapidly learning in the financial sector, and the health care INDUSTRY is another one of those examples where it can't/won't.

I agree that we need some sort of health care reform. We need changes to the FDA approval process for drugs (specifically, they need to disappear completely, though there should be strict regulations on how drug companies can market new drugs), a general lowering of health care costs (hospitals and insurance companies engage in egregious profit-taking at the moment), and insurance companies need to be regulated in a different way such that they can't drop people or massively increase rates just because the policy holder developed an illness. Insurance companies can apply the revenues from healthy policy holders towards the unhealthy ones. We also need to get more serious about improving our lifestyles - more exercise, more physical fitness, better food (but I will never give up bacon ) - however, these changes should come from society, not the government. I would support true health care reform, not the health care overhaul/replacement that is being considered in Congress.

Originally Posted by Izubibbywutz

Sure its that but socialism never hurts if its done right

Therein lies the problem - it's never done right. Greed and corruption are bad enough in private businesses, where only the customers and stockholders of a particular business are hurt. Greed, corruption, and the substitution of ideological interests for true public service in government hurt everyone.

[Artho Drakontas]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

We have one of the best healthcare systems in the world and that's why France and Britain are moving away from universal healthcare. But of course the media won't let you hear that because they're Obama-worshipping commie whores. Cuba has a fucking awful healthcare system, any Cuban can attest to that. They ration healthcare and the waiting list is fucking huge. I doubt we have the highest infant mortality rate, that makes no sense considering we deliver in hospitals. Obesity is a problem, yes.

We have one the best healthcare infrastructures in the world not healthcare systems and that’s limited to certain areas as I’m sure we all know hospitals that no one in the right mind goes to if they can help it. The value of our healthcare per dollar spent is also among the lowest in the first world so yeah if you’re wealthy your fine and dandy or you’re not lucky enough to have quality insurance through work you’re going to get charged an arm and a leg for mediocre care. I’d also be willing to bet the farm and my left nut that Britain, Canada, and France are not going to be doing away with their NHS any time soon. As far as Cuba goes they excel at preventive care far more so than America in fact their problem is they simply don’t have the funding for high tech equipment which limits their ability to perform a lot of the more complex modern procedures if they had the level of money that gets thrown around in our system they'd likely put us to shame.

Originally Posted by Lord Fingolfin

The United States Postal Service is currently 7 billion dollars in debt and just had to go to Congress to get more money. UPS and FedEX (private) = Good Profit Making companies, USPS (government) = Inefficient wasteful company. And the highway system is going to shit now, half of it is falling apart, so much for the stimulus fixing all the infrastructure XD. Well certainly there are points on both sides, glad to see I stimulated such a good debate

The USPS problem is that its neither fish nor fowl meaning that while its subjected to congressional oversight yet it’s receive no funding from taxes it’s a half-assed system that works half assed and either needs to atleast be partially subsidized, made independent, or done away with. I agree about the highway system as well but that has nothing to do with being under the government control look at Germany and China both who tend to manage their transportation infrastructure better than we do.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

Stupidity? Yes, a lot of stupid Americans are blindly following the press and becoming dirty liberals.

Well on most issues I tend to be on the right occasionally toward the center but I truly believe anyone who’s had a loved one go through the hell that is America’s health care system at its worst knows that the system has to be fixed. It doesn’t even make sense from a purely economic standpoint to keep our system as it is because its constantly consuming an ever expanding portion of the GDP at a faster rate then in other first world countries because prices are so out of control which is a recipe for disaster. Then you have its negative impact on businesses both on global corporations trying to stay competitive in the marketplace and even on the small businesses faced with constantly increasing premiums that are outpacing their revenue growth. Not to mention the loss of productivity from people that avoid treatment because they won’t/can’t pay for doctors visits thus are out longer or are just working at a sub optimal rate while infecting their coworkers and even worse those with a serious condition that doesn’t get caught or treated early and thus are no longer able to work at all for an extended period of time while being treated who are largely a net drain on the economy especially those that end up in bankruptcy. Cold hard logic also states that we need to get the most out of every individual if we want to stay relevant when faced with China and India’s massive population advantage and we cant do that if people aren’t in the best possible health. Again I don’t think national healthcare is the only possible answer but the fact remains that private healthcare hasn’t shown much initiative in reforming itself over the years and it remains a simple fact that they are business which means they’re out to make a profit asking them to do anything else goes against their nature.

[Artho Drakontas]

Originally Posted by The Corporal

Back on topic, the problem I have with any government social program is that the government plan takes money from tax payers, filters it through bureaucracy, and gives it back to us. Take the CARS program - gooberment officials claim that it gives money to consumers, only the money they get is money they gave to Uncle Sam in back in April. Also, it costs roughly $6000 per car (instead of $3500 or $4500) because there is a lot of government overhead that gets paid for straight from the $3 billion allocated to the program. Universal health care will do the same - launder taxpayer money through endless government bureaucracy to basically give us our own money back. A more tangible example is gun buyback programs - the government pays people $100 of their own tax money to take a gun valued between $100 and $1000 and spend more money on destroying said gun. It isn't wealth creation or even wealth redistribution, it is wealth destruction through obscene government waste. And to suggest that we can just raise taxes to cover any funding gaps is to take more money from the people to give it back to the people. Don't take it in the first place and the waste disappears.

While I agree there is a hell of a lot of wasteful spending by the government out there I don’t think the argument is really relevant here. I say this because there is already overhead costs now from the insurance companies and while in typical fashion its likely that a government program will be less efficient that’s offset by the fact that it wont be trying to turn a profit.

Originally Posted by The Corporal

So you're admitting that the public plan has no advantage as far as availability of care goes, which is one of the primary benefits touted by the bill's proponents? And remember, only 15% of incumbents weren't reelected in 2008, including those who didn't run again; this was with a Congressional approval rating as low as 8% during the last two years (it mostly hovered between 15% and 30%). Reelection has a lot less to do with performance in office than you claim.

It does have the advantage again of not needing to turn a profit which likely will be an improvement. Sadly though your right about politicians most are still in office due to apathy on the part of voters or simply because voters don’t want to lose their influence on Capitol Hill by electing someone new who’ll be a lot lower on the totem poll.

Originally Posted by The Corporal

I'm not rich, not by a long shot. And guess what? I still don't want to eat the cost. Liberals automatically assume that all conservatives are rich, big business types. We aren't - I pay more in taxes than is reasonable now, I don't need to pay more...it cuts into the available cash I would otherwise pour into the economy.

You’re already eating the cost by way of higher medical bills the government paying for the uninsured hospital visits and the boondoggle called Medicare which cant really be fixed without general health care reform.

Originally Posted by The Corporal

We pay for it either way - via private insurance or via public insurance. The difference is that when paid for through the great government money laundering machine, everyone gets screwed. We need to find a way to reduce health care costs but rationing of care is not the way to go. If public health care is so great, why do so many Canadians and Europeans come to America for health care services?

Everyone is getting screwed already as the present system is well on the way to crippling America financially.

Originally Posted by The Corporal

Everyone will get that baseline and nothing more, though. Read the bill that is supported by liberal Democrats in Congress and President Obama. It says that anyone with a private insurance policy will not be able to change services (more coverage, less coverage, new illness, or price changes will all be prohibited) or add dependents after the bill would be signed into law. Page 16, I think it is. One of the amendments to the bill (212 maybe? I was only half-listening when my roommate was reading the scary parts off to me last night, too busy killing terrorists on R6V2) stipulates that in cases of child maltreatment in a neighborhood, the government would send "competent" people to each home to "give advice on parenting", meaning that the government would have every right to tell parents how to raise their children (because the government knows best, of course). The scariest part of that - once in the program, parents would not be able to opt out - the government would be watching their every parenting move. And here I thought one of the basic rights as a member of the animal kingdom was the right to raise your young in the best way you see fit...anyways, everyone - please read the bill, at least in sections. Your government representatives probably haven't.

I’m not really a fan of the Obama bill in and of its self but something needs to be done. As for the parenting thing is does seem slightly Orwellian when you first read it however how is that any different than what Social Service does now.

Originally Posted by The Corporal

I agree that we need some sort of health care reform. We need changes to the FDA approval process for drugs (specifically, they need to disappear completely, though there should be strict regulations on how drug companies can market new drugs), a general lowering of health care costs (hospitals and insurance companies engage in egregious profit-taking at the moment), and insurance companies need to be regulated in a different way such that they can't drop people or massively increase rates just because the policy holder developed an illness. Insurance companies can apply the revenues from healthy policy holders towards the unhealthy ones. We also need to get more serious about improving our lifestyles - more exercise, more physical fitness, better food (but I will never give up bacon ) - however, these changes should come from society, not the government. I would support true health care reform, not the health care overhaul/replacement that is being considered in Congress.

Err removing the FDA sounds likely a horrible horrible idea in my opinion. I've already said it before but I'll say it again personally I'm willing to look at any possible solutions to health care the problem is asking the health care industry to change is like asking a tiger to change its stripes its a business its there to make money so in order to make sure anything takes your going to need more regulation and more oversight so you've got your added bureaucracy anyway.

Originally Posted by The Corporal

Therein lies the problem - it's never done right. Greed and corruption are bad enough in private businesses, where only the customers and stockholders of a particular business are hurt. Greed, corruption, and the substitution of ideological interests for true public service in government hurt everyone.

How is the present system not hurting everyone small business feel the weight of insurance premiums GM is in bankruptcy partial because their health care costs killed their ability to be competitive? When a parent has to decide whether to blow their life savings and mortgage their home for chemo or to be able to send their kids to college yeah it hurts that family but when it happens a hundred or a thousand times don’t you think it has an impact on the economy as a whole?

[Imperial]

Having researched pro/con of universal health care, I think we really have to look at the ethical conduct of insurance companies. They are in a paradoxical situation where they are supposed to be concerned with your health, yet at the same time, they are required to generate as much profit as possible for the shareholders. Those two goals are at polar opposites. The less services they authorize for patients, the more money they retain.

[Justin The Terrible]

holy crap.. wall of text war...those that support universal health do not understand it fully..that is all i can say about that

[Sylar]

Originally Posted by Imperial

Having researched pro/con of universal health care, I think we really have to look at the ethical conduct of insurance companies. They are in a paradoxical situation where they are supposed to be concerned with your health, yet at the same time, they are required to generate as much profit as possible for the shareholders. Those two goals are at polar opposites. The less services they authorize for patients, the more money they retain.

wouldnt the gov controlling health care put those people out of jobs?

also before we fuck with health care we need to do some shit about outsourcing,unions, and border jumpers(i suggest landmines ).

[Izubibbywutz]

yeh but landmines are unfeasible due to geneva conventions

[Sylar]

Originally Posted by Izubibbywutz

yeh but landmines are unfeasible due to geneva conventions

we still use them in korea in the DMZ, so we could maybe e-lawyer our way to using them on unmanned parts of our border

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mine#Demining