Can America afford Universal Health Care? [Archive]

ROFF

10-01-2007, 03:21 PM

I suspect that the major problem with American health care is private insurers. The beaurocrats that run our health care do not get multi-million salaries, corporate jets, stock options, country club memberships, forgivable loans or other perks.
These beaurocrats, like others of their kind, tend to think that the money they are spending belongs to them. So it is in their interest to purchase items at the cheapest price possible and to have the patient cured as soon as possible. The more money that passes through the hands of private insurers means that these companies have more chances to make a profit. For example: How much profit can be made from a tablet of Aspirin if it costs $0.05 or $1.00. They upcharge a certain percentage, say 20%. so they would bill $0.06 or $1.20. It is easy to see which makes them more money. There is a built in preference to keep costs high=more money/profit for them.

These high costs are then passed on to their customers. If people complain, So what? get your health care from someone else! The shareholders of those 'other companies' are asking for the same (or better) returns on investment so the same pressure exists across the industry.

The profit motive has been removed from our system. Also advertising, political contributions, ego (My corporate headquarters are better than yours.)

I think that any legislator (of whatever jurisdiction) should look at what is done in other locations to see what can be adapted to their situation. I think that the US is fortunate that so many governments has instituted their own systems that the US can see what works and will not work.

SpamSandwich

10-01-2007, 04:40 PM

The idea that Government is not as efficient as Private Business is not always true.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

In Saskatchewan we have had free medical ( no premiums, co-pays or other charges) since 1962.
Removing the cost of health care from business would allow American Industry to become more competitive in world markets. Knowing that I would have free medical for the rest of my life allowed me to retire at the age of 53.

And how many illegal immigrants are flocking to Saskatchewan these days? It tends to put a little extra burden on the system when a good deal of the public is unable to pay for services rendered.

Jubelum

10-01-2007, 04:47 PM

free medical for the rest of my life

Free medical care, unicorns, leprechauns.

It's not free.. someone, somewhere, has to pay for it. That's what the proponents in this country refuse to talk about. Nothing, especially something like health care, is "free."

southside grabowski

10-01-2007, 04:54 PM

Free medical care, unicorns, leprechauns.

It's not free.. someone, somewhere, has to pay for it. That's what the proponents in this country refuse to talk about. Nothing, especially something like health care, is "free."

Tax the Rich! :lol:

Jubelum

10-01-2007, 04:57 PM

Tax the Rich! :lol:

Yea, fuck them for being successful! How dare they!

ROFF

10-01-2007, 05:02 PM

There are other benefits to the Canadian system that most people do not think about.

-No one goes bankrupt or is hounded by collection agencies.
-Doctors and hospitals get paid for services. There is no need to raise fees to cover those that can not pay.
-The government has a vested interest in your health. I am a diabetic. Two weeks ago my Doctor's office phoned. He wanted to check my micro-albumin levels to see if I had any kidney damage. This is part of a Government program about those with a chronic disease. It is cheaper to stop problems now than to wait for a kidney transplant.
-I retired early partly because i knew that I would not have to look for health care insurance.
-12 person years (in my case) were made available.
-Peace of mind. I cannot stress this enough. To know that my wife and I can receive care and treatment for the rest of our lives when we need it is something that I cannot put a price on.

No program/policy designed by humans is ever perfect*. Saying that, I am quite satisfied.

*Problems
-If I purchase an American manufactured vehicle, I am paying the health care for someone else.
-Our population density is about one tenth of the US. This means that some people are not near health services.
-Smaller community hospitals may not be as well equipped.

Splinemodel

10-01-2007, 05:10 PM

@_@ Artman

10-01-2007, 05:16 PM

Ah, splinemodel's here. Expect this to be a long and drawn out flame war. :rolleyes:

ROFF. Good points. Don some fireproof clothing though, it'll get hot in here. :smokey:

Fellowship

10-01-2007, 05:25 PM

I wonder what the US would need to trim so that we might invest in health care and not go broke in doing so.

I was looking at how health care costs almost did GM in save for the latest agreement with the UAW. If it was tough for GM to foot health care costs in a global economy how much worse or better would it be for the US government to try out Health Care?

Is there a way the US can have a Universal Health Care system without going broke and in debt in the process?

Fellows

ROFF

10-01-2007, 05:42 PM

I find this part of your story quite interesting. Basically you're touting the fact that you are able (and willing) to chose to be unproductive.

No doubt. If someone else was paying for my stuff (health care or otherwise) I suppose I might be quite satisfied too.

First, retirement does not equal unproductive. I have been called back to consult from time to time. I also work on special projects that require experience. I was in building maintenance for 11 locations.
Second, you have no idea how our plan is paid for. It is funded through a sales tax, the GST (Goods and Service Tax). So far this year, the Federal Government is running a 13 Billion Dollar surplus. Food and essentials are not taxed.

Splinemodel

10-01-2007, 06:38 PM

Ah, splinemodel's here. Expect this to be a long and drawn out flame war. :rolleyes:

Well, thanks for starting it. So far, there has been no flaming in this thread. . . I don't take pleasure in that you insist there should be.

@_@ Artman

10-01-2007, 06:44 PM

Well, thanks for starting it. So far, there has been no flaming in this thread. . . I don't take pleasure in that you insist there should be.

More often that not, the Canadian health care system is the butt of jokes rather than a model.

This.

and also sslarson:

I find this part of your story quite interesting. Basically you're touting the fact that you are able (and willing) to chose to be unproductive.

I'll let you two self-appointed experts continue. I'll find my own information elsewhere.

screener

10-01-2007, 07:03 PM

No doubt. If someone else was paying for my stuff (health care or otherwise) I suppose I might be quite satisfied too.

I can't understand this argument.

If you already pay insurance and don't use it, aren't your premiums being used to help pay for someone else's care?

And if you choose not to have insurance, you are still covered according to your president.
Go to the emergency room, and if you can't pay, it's free.:)

trumptman

10-01-2007, 07:06 PM

Something to consider is do we have a health care crisis or a health crisis?

The former would mean that we cannot get quality health care even with stop gap measures like Medicare/caid, emergency rooms, free clinics, etc.

The latter would mean that we as a people are making such bad choices with regard to lifestyle and diet that no number of pills or doctor visits will cure us.

I see the latter, not the former. More importantly while I desire the former for everyone, knowing that we currently have the latter means something needs to change before I can endorse the former for everyone.

This is most true when we consider that most changes in our national health level have occurred because we have the boomer generation getting ready to go into those needy retirement years in worse health than the previous generation.

Nick

screener

10-01-2007, 07:21 PM

More often that not, the Canadian health care system is the butt of jokes rather than a model.

Public health care is not a good idea. Everywhere it's applied, the average quality of care is reduced, and the average costs are increased. If would be a major tax burden for businesses and consumers. It's not like the tax cost to business is going to magically go away; it will be pushed onto consumers.

The US health system, however bizarre it may be, is the best in the world. I don't see why there's cry for change.

The US system is a cause for a lot of misery for those with serious health costs.
Denial of coverage leading to bankruptcy being prevalent.

Businesses are moving away from covering employees forcing, if they choose, to pay the costs which in turn, leaves them with less spending power.

It may be the best, but only for those that can afford it.

The idea that your okay, so why change it is totally selfish and underlines the perception that the right doesn't care and Libertarians are even worse when it comes to compassion.

screener

10-01-2007, 07:30 PM

I drew focus to what ROFF himself said...that he'd retired* (withdrawn from productive work) and was able to do so because his health care was "free" (someone else was paying for his health care).

I happen to find that to be an interesting consequence.

*He has since indicated that he is actually not retired (and, also, that the health care is not free...though perhaps it is to him). I'm not sure what to conclude from that.

He put in his time, now he does what he wants with one less burden he never had to worry about.
If you get laid off, fired, whatever, you don't lose your health care.
What happens in the US?

Everyone chips in through taxes and it's considerably less than what he, we, would have to pay on our own.

screener

10-01-2007, 07:38 PM

SpamSandwich

10-01-2007, 08:09 PM

I take it that a fair question to ask would be: What is the true cost (per capita) of the Canadian health care system?

Unless this question can be answered, discussion is pointless.

screener

10-01-2007, 08:37 PM

I take it that a fair question to ask would be: What is the true cost (per capita) of the Canadian health care system?

Unless this question can be answered, discussion is pointless.

From here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_canada

Per Capita Expenditure

Canada 2,669
US 5,711

Life Expectancy

Canada 80.5
US 77.5

Health Care Costs as a Percentage of GDP

Canada 9.9
US 15.2

And more

screener

10-01-2007, 08:48 PM

From here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Uninsured Americans are less likely to have regular health care and use preventive services. They are more likely to delay seeking needed care, resulting in more medical crises and emergency hospitalizations, which are more expensive than ongoing treatment for such conditions as diabetes and high blood pressure. Uninsured patients are twice as likely to visit hospital emergency rooms as those with insurance; burdening a system meant for true emergencies with less-urgent care needs.[27]

Which may explain lifestyle choices trumptman brought up.

Shared costs of the uninsured
The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as free care, passed on to the insured via cost shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.[28]

So you end up paying for someone else anyway.

Administrative costs
The health care system in the U.S. has a vast number of players — there are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies in the U.S.[29][30] This system has considerable administrative overhead, far greater than in nationalized, single-payer systems, such as Canada's. An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31 percent of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.[31]

Coverage gaps
Enrollment rules in private and governmental programs result in millions of Americans going without health care coverage, including children. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage during 2006.[3] Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals. As health insurance rates rise and the population ages, those seeking to purchase health insurance directly are finding it increasingly difficult to do so, because some insurers are managing their risk by denying directly purchased coverage to individuals who have pre-existing conditions, some of them minor.[32]

Denying coverage because you are sick.
That's sick.

trumptman

10-01-2007, 08:53 PM

What exactly would you change?
Deny health care to those that let themselves go?

What do you mean by characterizing retirement years as "needy"
You're anti old folks?

Actually this is exactly what is happening in many countries with socialized medicine. They are starting to deny certain procedures based off lifestyle, which in my view is about as terrifying as you can get.

Also as for being anti-old folks, do you deny the fact that certain extreme lifesaving measures would probably be chopped out of a socialized medicine program due to their extreme cost with regard to return?

Are we really going to give all the 80 year olds hip replacements for example?

Just so we are clear, I'm not making this (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410977-details/'NHS+should+not+treat+those+with+unhealthy+lifesty les'+say+Tories/article.do) up.

Old folks are needy with regard to health care. I've actually pondered universal health care simply because it likely will deny service for certain procedures as opposed to just green lighting everything and raising premiums next year.

A bit more...

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/04/nhealth04.xml)

Dailymail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=369464&in_page_id=1798&expand=true)

Nick

Splinemodel

10-01-2007, 09:18 PM

The US system is a cause for a lot of misery for those with serious health costs.
Denial of coverage leading to bankruptcy being prevalent.

Businesses are moving away from covering employees forcing, if they choose, to pay the costs which in turn, leaves them with less spending power.

It may be the best, but only for those that can afford it.

The idea that your okay, so why change it is totally selfish and underlines the perception that the right doesn't care and Libertarians are even worse when it comes to compassion.

Where do you get this information? Fiscally, the major problem du-jour with the US health care system is that illegal immigrants are breaking hospitals, which must guarantee service. Illegals can't get covered, yet work for US businesses. That problem isn't going to change without immigration reform policies, or pending the complete de-regulation of health care and disbanding of medicare. Those, however, are different topics. There's also the impeding crisis of the retiring boomer generation. Right now is a bad time to introduce public health care.

Even when taking a bleeding-heart philosophy, it's just hard to see the value of public health care, which promises the public health care to the poor with the price of making good health care too expensive for the middle class. You argue that it's "totally selfish" for the middle class to avoid the poor. I argue that it's "totally selfish" for poor people to expect coverage at the expense of the middle class. It's not that the right doesn't care, it's that they care about the middle-class -- typically their largest voter-base. Libertarians have an entirely different ethos, although you can't say it's not compassionate. Compassion is, and has always been, "teach a man to fish." Compassion doesn't enter into this discussion, except possibly on the side of health-care reform.

screener

10-01-2007, 09:26 PM

Actually this is exactly what is happening in many countries with socialized medicine. They are starting to deny certain procedures based off lifestyle, which in my view is about as terrifying as you can get.

Also as for being anti-old folks, do you deny the fact that certain extreme lifesaving measures would probably be chopped out of a socialized medicine program due to their extreme cost with regard to return?

Are we really going to give all the 80 year olds hip replacements for example?

Just so we are clear, I'm not making this (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410977-details/'NHS+should+not+treat+those+with+unhealthy+lifesty les'+say+Tories/article.do) up.

Old folks are needy with regard to health care. I've actually pondered universal health care simply because it likely will deny service for certain procedures as opposed to just green lighting everything and raising premiums next year.

A bit more...

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/04/nhealth04.xml)

Dailymail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=369464&in_page_id=1798&expand=true)

Nick

The politician in the first link really thought out his proposal huh?

Yet while the Health Miles Card would award points for giving up smoking and losing weight, it could penalise those who are already fit and well because they would receive no benefits under the scheme.
Also, the NHS already demands that obese patients lose weight before receiving hip replacements.

The other articles aren't about denying coverage per say, but telling them to, for eg. don't smoke for a month before heart surgery or, you gotta lose some weight before a hip or knee replacement.
That's been done for years here and in the States.

Certain live saving procedures are being denied all the time in your system because it's profit based.

If you can find an instance of this in Canada, let us know.

If the 80 year old wants it and is in good health, why not.

screener

10-01-2007, 09:53 PM

Where do you get this information? Fiscally, the major problem du-jour with the US health care system is that illegal immigrants are breaking hospitals, which must guarantee service. Illegals can't get covered, yet work for US businesses. That problem isn't going to change without immigration reform policies, or pending the complete de-regulation of health care and disbanding of medicare. Those, however, are different topics. There's also the impeding crisis of the retiring boomer generation. Right now is a bad time to introduce public health care.

Even when taking a bleeding-heart philosophy, it's just hard to see the value of public health care, which promises the public health care to the poor with the price of making good health care too expensive for the middle class. You argue that it's "totally selfish" for the middle class to avoid the poor. I argue that it's "totally selfish" for poor people to expect coverage at the expense of the middle class. It's not that the right doesn't care, it's that they care about the middle-class -- typically their largest voter-base. Libertarians have an entirely different ethos, although you can't say it's not compassionate. Compassion is, and has always been, "teach a man to fish." Compassion doesn't enter into this discussion, except possibly on the side of health-care reform.

Didn't you say this?
The US health system, however bizarre it may be, is the best in the world. I don't see why there's cry for change.

Now it's the illegal immigrants fault.

Bleeding heart huh?
Have you read anything I posted with regards to what it's costing you to insure a percentage of your population.
I would bet a large percentage of that percent have only basic coverage with a fee for use.

Where do I get this information?
C'mon, it's the internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1330405200&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Most Americans in the poll said they were satisfied with the quality of their health care, but there was widespread concern about costs. Nearly half of those with insurance said their employer had cut back on benefits or required them to pay more for their benefits in recent years. A quarter of those with insurance said someone in their household had gone without a medical test or treatment because insurance would not cover it. Six in 10 of those without insurance said someone in their household had gone without care because of the cost.

That level of concern helps explain the striking support for substantial change: Nearly two-thirds said the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. They were then asked, “What if that meant that the cost of your own health insurance would go up?” Forty-eight percent said they would still support it.

trumptman

10-01-2007, 10:30 PM

The politician in the first link really thought out his proposal huh?

Well that is sort of the point, do you want the idiots determining your health.

The other articles aren't about denying coverage per say, but telling them to, for eg. don't smoke for a month before heart surgery or, you gotta lose some weight before a hip or knee replacement.
That's been done for years here and in the States.

It goes deeper than that. If I feel motivated, I'll find more links.

Certain live saving procedures are being denied all the time in your system because it's profit based.

If you can find an instance of this in Canada, let us know.

I believe the Canadian Supreme Court found several when they ruled that outlawing private insurance amounted to a human rights violation.

If the 80 year old wants it and is in good health, why not.

Why not is often because it is a $25,000+ procedure per side and in a system of limited resources, that $50,000 could buy a lot more true health care for younger patients. In the instance of hip replacement, we are not talking about life or death health care, but quality of life health care for example.

Nick

Splinemodel

10-01-2007, 10:36 PM

Where do I get this information?
C'mon, it's the internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1330405200&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The Times, simply put, is not a viable source of news anymore. If the poll they used came from a respectable third-party, I might honor it, but it doesn't. Regardless, only 30% (48% of 60%) of the biased poll participants supported the measure, so it's likely that within the electorate very few people actually want public health care.

For the record, I have read you other content, I just don't have all the time in the world to respond to the bits I find tangential. For example, the amount my company and I pay for medicare and health benefit may be high, but it's admitted to be less than what universal public health would require. That's why Hillary suggests repealing tax cuts. If you expect me to be like trumptman and reference all of your points, both relevant and tangential, I'm afraid that's too much to ask of me.

screener

10-01-2007, 11:02 PM

The Times, simply put, is not a viable source of news anymore. If the poll they used came from a respectable third-party, I might honor it, but it doesn't. Regardless, only 30% (48% of 60%) of the biased poll participants supported the measure, so it's likely that within the electorate very few people actually want public health care.

For the record, I have read you other content, I just don't have all the time in the world to respond to the bits I find tangential. For example, the amount my company and I pay for medicare and health benefit may be high, but it's admitted to be less than what universal public health would require. That's why Hillary suggests repealing tax cuts. If you expect me to be like trumptman and reference all of your points, both relevant and tangential, I'm afraid that's too much to ask of me.

By dismissing it out of hand and claiming the participants are biased without any proof says what, it's just your opinion.

How do know that universal health care would cost more than what your company pays now?
Just an opinion again.
And biased at that.

SDW2001

10-01-2007, 11:04 PM

I think it is a fair to face reality and ask a very important question facing Americans. Can America afford Universal Health Care?

The following video is not a lot of fun to watch. I for one like the idea of Universal Health Care as my family feels the pain of out of control health care costs.

However...

What if America can't afford Universal Health Care..

Then we better have a plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8&mode=related&search=

Fellows

Please weigh in with your thoughts.

We can't afford it. We can't afford what we have NOW much less Universal Health Care. That doesn't even get into what it might do to the quality of care and the cost of care since unlimited free access will push demand up.

I think we need to find free market solutions to the problem. We need to get healthcare out of employers and insurance companies hands, and put it in patients hands by making it affordable through tax deductions. Couple that with more tort reform.

As for the video, it's scary stuff. Social Security MUST be overhauled. In fact, I would like to see it phased out over 30 years. Not going to happen, but still. the problem is we have a situation where everyone of age automatically depends on SS and MC. That is a recipe for disaster.

Gon

10-01-2007, 11:08 PM

Denying coverage because you are sick.
That's sick.When you sell health insurance, the reason people buy your service is that they'll rather handle a predictable periodic payment than bear the full impact of more unpredictable events such as illness.
From your angle, you run a gambling business of sorts. Your customers come in and bet they become sick. You have to structure the bets and payouts so that after you have paid off the people who did become sick, and you have covered your operating expenses, you are left with profit.

But suppose someone comes in already ill and wants a policy covering that illness. That makes no more sense than going to a casino and expecting to see all the cards, then bet. Realistically, what you're going to do is to offer a policy which excludes the illness the person already has.

To be sure, there is variance in how much it costs to treat a specific illness. You could sell insurance for it specifically - take the average costs, add your operating expenses and profit. If there is no big variance in the cost of the treatment then it makes no sense to buy this policy, since then it would just put insurance company overhead on top of the same treatment costs.

I personally have normally priced health insurance that excludes a previous injury.

I wonder what you expect from the insurance company? Charity?

Jubelum

10-01-2007, 11:10 PM

Quick, screener, show me one, just ONE, instance where prior cost projections for an entitlement have even come CLOSE to the real bill when it arrives. It's the billing bait and switch that we keep falling for again and again, delivered to us by the usual big-government suspects like HRC.

Jubelum

10-01-2007, 11:17 PM

I wonder what you expect from the insurance company? Charity?

Companies exist for profit, and profit is proof that the enemy- capitalism- is alive and well.
The proponents of the idiotic scheme for single-payer medicine the same people who think a windfall profits tax (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html) is sound economic policy.
The same people that think handing out $5000 to every newborn (that was not aborted) is a good investment.
The same people that promised us a War on Poverty (poverty rate the same ever since) and the panacea of Ponzi-Socialist Security.

Jubelum

10-01-2007, 11:22 PM

Well, regardless of what you guys think, we're getting universal health care at some point.

Let's recognize that.

Ooohhhhh awesome... <rubs hands together>

Why exactly do you think that, Shawn?

SpamSandwich

10-01-2007, 11:28 PM

From here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_canada

Per Capita Expenditure

Canada 2,669
US 5,711

Life Expectancy

Canada 80.5
US 77.5

Health Care Costs as a Percentage of GDP

Canada 9.9
US 15.2

And more

Thanks, and I did note the following from the cited link: It must be noted, however, that the WHO Health Care Ranking has been criticized for its choice of ranking criteria and statistical methods, and the WHO is currently revising its methodology and is withholding new rankings until the problems are addressed.

SpamSandwich

10-01-2007, 11:36 PM

The US system is a cause for a lot of misery for those with serious health costs. Denial of coverage leading to bankruptcy being prevalent.

I can personally vouch for this. People with or people who have relatives with cancer (for example) may be aware that their funds can quickly run into the tens of thousands, and much, much higher when serious illness strikes. Government-sponsored health care coverage only kicks in after the person/family has basically gone bankrupt.

Businesses are moving away from covering employees forcing, if they choose, to pay the costs which in turn, leaves them with less spending power.

Our current system is utterly ineffective for all parties involved.

It may be the best, but only for those that can afford it.

True. As it is today. The market needs to open up to serious competition to drive out waste and inefficiencies.

The idea that your okay, so why change it is totally selfish and underlines the perception that the right doesn't care and Libertarians are even worse when it comes to compassion.

I think I understand what you're saying here, but maybe you could clarify... are you saying that the "Right" and Libertarians don't care... or are you saying it could be perceived that those things are true?

screener

10-02-2007, 12:00 AM

I think I understand what you're saying here, but maybe you could clarify... are you saying that the "Right" and Libertarians don't care... or are you saying it could be perceived that those things are true?

Perceive that it's true, going way back.

trumptman

10-02-2007, 12:12 AM

How is the poll "biased?" It was a "nationwide telephone poll... conducted Friday through Tuesday with 1,281 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points." Are you saying telephone polls are necessarily biased these days? I'm not sure whether the polls include cell phone users who more often than not these days forgo a landline. Perhaps there's potential for bias there. Regardless, on what grounds did you consider the poll "biased?"

Actually polling across weekends has been shown to yield different results from weekday testing.

Nick

SpamSandwich

10-02-2007, 12:17 AM

Perceive that it's true, going way back.

Yes, unfortunately, America continues to operate under the assumption that everyone is too stupid to self-govern. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Jubelum

10-02-2007, 12:17 AM

You see Spam, it is far preferable to get people as dependent on the government as possible for their every need and keep them there for life. Once everyone depends on the government for everything, we'll all be working simply to pay the government in the Worker's Paradise.

This is the "Long March" that Gramsci talked about. Universal health care will be a major milestone in that march... and still some here will claim that all of this has nothing to do with institutionalizing socialism in our economy and national awareness.

SpamSandwich

10-02-2007, 12:22 AM

I'm glad you're here to say what I can only imagine I would say if I were more eloquent, Jube. ;)

Jubelum

10-02-2007, 12:25 AM

I'm glad you're here to say what I can only imagine I would say if I were more eloquent, Jube. ;)

:embarrass

It's just all that time as the lone dissenter in a sociology department. You'll either die or become a liberal if you don't learn to hold your own. :\ 8-)

Splinemodel

10-02-2007, 01:27 AM

By dismissing it out of hand and claiming the participants are biased without any proof says what, it's just your opinion.

How do know that universal health care would cost more than what your company pays now?
Just an opinion again.
And biased at that.

You're getting ahead of yourselves (you and ShawnJ). Just as I would expect a poll from the Washington times to be slanted, I expect one from the NY Times to be slanted. But the crux of the matter is that roughly 70% of the poll didn't want universal health care, slanted or not (This is why you're ahead of yourselves).

The proposed plans would cost more because the backers/architects of such plans admit that they will (edwards, clinton, arnie). I did mention that, but I can't blame you for missing it -- message board threads can be tough to scan. However, it wasn't an opinion, so you don't need to bring attitude. I don't think you're stupid, I just don't agree with you.

Splinemodel

10-02-2007, 01:46 AM

Well, regardless of what you guys think, we're getting universal health care at some point.

Let's recognize that.

Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of things that could happen between now and the time you are imagining. For one, our generation of "conservatives" are more ruthlessly fiscal-conservative than any group for a long time. I would actually predict that with every passing year, the chance of nationalized, universal health care in US goes down another notch.

screener

10-02-2007, 01:53 AM

You're getting ahead of yourselves (you and ShawnJ). Just as I would expect a poll from the Washington times to be slanted, I expect one from the NY Times to be slanted. But the crux of the matter is that roughly 70% of the poll didn't want universal health care, slanted or not (This is why you're ahead of yourselves).

Are you reading the same poll?

Where did you get 70% of those polled didn't want universal health care?

The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to insure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.

Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important.

tonton

10-02-2007, 04:25 AM

To answer the initial question, Yes.

Countries with lower per-capita GDP than the US can afford universal healthcare, without giving up other necessary social programs, security, and infrastructure. That means the US can afford it too.

Yes, it might require the rich helping to pay for healthcare costs for the poor. Boo fucking hoo.

tonton

10-02-2007, 04:28 AM

Actually this is exactly what is happening in many countries with socialized medicine. They are starting to deny certain procedures based off lifestyle, which in my view is about as terrifying as you can get.

It would be terrifying if you're obese (due to lifestyle) or smoke or drink excessively against doctor's orders. Are you in any of those categories, nick?

Gon

10-02-2007, 05:09 AM

I still want to hear what, in screener's opinion, an insurance company is doing wrong when it excludes an existing illness from an insurance policy, and what it should do instead.

trumptman

10-02-2007, 09:08 AM

It would be terrifying if you're obese (due to lifestyle) or smoke or drink excessively against doctor's orders. Are you in any of those categories, nick?

I do not smoke or drink excessively and I am not obese. I do however have a very brood and muscular frame. I am not the fittest I have ever been now however even when I had below average body fat, on the BMI scale I still showed up as heavy and nearly obese. BMI causes a lot of problems for people of certain builds because it just doesn't seem to consider that you can be a certain weight due to muscle.

Government often uses BMI and so yes I would hav a serious problem with that. I have my whole life.

Nick

screener

10-02-2007, 10:07 AM

I still want to hear what, in screener's opinion, an insurance company is doing wrong when it excludes an existing illness from an insurance policy, and what it should do instead.

The point was, being denied for an existing illness isn't an issue in Canada.

What if said person had insurance that covered this illness, lost his job and health care, and then was denied coverage that covered the previous illness when said person tried to get health insurance.

What happens if he did get coverage that excluded the previous illness but this previous illness caused other health problems, would they be covered?

trumptman

10-02-2007, 12:30 PM

You sexy beast (http://www.grsites.com/exec/public/soundview.cgi?dir=animals&fn=animals027.wav&desc=Tiger%20growl)!

Now you Shawn dear, youare the cause of the whole BMI problem. What do you weigh with your slight build? 150lbs wet?

The lightest I have ever weighed at my present height(5'10") and 10% body fat was 183 lbs. You pop that into any BMI calculator and it gives right around 27 which is in the middle of the overweight range.

I don't weigh 183 lbs now.;) But the point is that we need a new way of measuring obesity if the government could possibly deny care due to it.

Most of these questions though stem from quality of life versus actual health matters. I mean if I need a hip replacement from being overweight or from being elderly, neither instance is killing me or allowing me to die. It just imposes a lower quality of life. How do we determine what quality of life is correct and insure no one gets cheated out of true health care due to some some sort of government health care transfers due to lobbying. If all the elderly lobby and thus get their hip replacements, and children do not vote and thus they do not get nutrition counseling to insure proper eating and weight management, don't we as a society lose?

We certainly have had kids losing so far since the poverty rate for them is triple the rate for the elderly, which is half the rate of the general population. (30, 10, 20)

These questions, especially when left to bureaucracies, often have bad results.

Nick

Jubelum

10-02-2007, 12:38 PM

These questions, especially when left to bureaucracies, often have bad results.

True... government formulas by their very nature are woefully inadequate. Most of those formulas are written by a bunch of lawyers who are being paid by lobbyists- no wonder government is inefficient.

Gon

10-02-2007, 07:02 PM

The point was, being denied for an existing illness isn't an issue in Canada.

What if said person had insurance that covered this illness, lost his job and health care, and then was denied coverage that covered the previous illness when said person tried to get health insurance.

What happens if he did get coverage that excluded the previous illness but this previous illness caused other health problems, would they be covered?I'm wandering outside my area of knowledge here but it's my impression that when you're covered by insurance company 1, get sick, then switch to company 2 for whatever reason and get sick with something derivative of the first illness, insurance company 1 generally pays for both treatments. Insurance company 2 will have excluded both the original illness and derivatives in their policy.

It actually doesn't matter to you if the second illness can be proven to be related to the first one or not. That just changes which company pays.

Splinemodel

10-02-2007, 11:52 PM

Are you reading the same poll?

Where did you get 70% of those polled didn't want universal health care?

100% - (48% * 60%). Written up in the article.

screener

10-03-2007, 12:18 AM

100% - (48% * 60%). Written up in the article.

I still don't see how you came up with that.

The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to insure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.

Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important.

From ShawnJ's Wall Street Journal link with the headline,
GOP Is Losing Grip On Core Business Vote

But the number of Americans who share some classic Democratic concerns has risen. Three-quarters of the population is worried about growing income inequality, Pew found, while two-thirds favor government-funded health care for all. Support for a government safety net for the poor is at its highest level since 1987, Pew said.

Splinemodel

10-03-2007, 02:02 AM

I said it once before: get over yourselves. This isn't rocket science. If you can't figure out the "inexplicable" arithmetic, there's not really very much I can do to argue, is there? The arithmetic stems from "nearly two thirds" and "48% of which." Pardon the language, but if the math is the impedement here, you're fucking stupid.

So I'll leave you to continue, but I haven't been overwhelmed by your reasoning, nor do I think has anyone else aside from screener, who is an easy supporter. My opinion that most polls are biased is beside the point of my primary opinion, which is that universal health care (and welfare in general) is bad for the middle class. So far, no one has managed to challenge this, and I suppose the thread must be dead.

Jubelum

10-03-2007, 02:38 AM

Re: SCHIP

I wonder what percentage of low-income smokers think they should "get" to provide "free" healthcare to households that make $82,000 per year?

It's the same "for the children" shit that the left wing used so well during the Clinton years. Never mind that this is back-door socialized medicine, it's a "Childrens Healthcare Program." If it was so all-fired important, then why not reauthorize the existing program, which Bush would sign without incident. The Dem leadership is there for their usual trophy: government EXPANSION.

Jubelum

10-03-2007, 03:06 AM

MWA HA HA HA HA HA.

Now that you are done with whatever the hell all that was, can you tell me why you are so gleeful over socialized medicine? I've been through this whole thread and do not see your outlined position. I'm interested.

screener

10-03-2007, 09:20 AM