or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is there any form of Government HealthCare you could get behind?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there any form of Government HealthCare you could get behind? - Page 5

Poll Results: What would you Consider an acceptable reform of Health Care?

 
  • 60% (15)
    Full Gov't health care with public option
  • 0% (0)
    Full Gov't health care no public option
  • 4% (1)
    Gov't care only for low income who cannot afford their own plan
  • 0% (0)
    A gov't instituted health exchange or Co-op.
  • 4% (1)
    Gov't vouchers or tax breaks to constituents for purchase of health insurance.
  • 12% (3)
    One of the above with tort reform and follow through on medicare savings.
  • 4% (1)
    Legislation on Tort reform and follow through on medicare savings only.
  • 16% (4)
    Close it all down for Gov't involvment and let the free market work.
  • 0% (0)
    Leave it alone, things are fine as is.
  • 0% (0)
    My option is not up here! (Please explain.)
25 Total Votes  
post #161 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

And he pretended he read any of the links I posted regarding free health care diverted from the intended to the US.
Then wondered why he should be personally embarrassed, ashamed.

Reminds me of SDW saying to a poster here that it sucks his provider doesn't allow him to choose his doctor or hospital, because mine does.
Guess it depends on the employer, union.

The old I'm alright, sucks to be you, but I don't give a shit mantra.

Well...to a certain extent, yes. I don't have a responsibility to provide you healthcare. The fact is I chose a profession with certain trade-offs. I have more time off, but cannot choose when I take it. I have slightly shorter hours, but I am bound to them whether I have work to do or not. I have a great benefits package, but my salary is not as high as it would be in the private sector.

In other words, I made choices as we all do every day. One of the results of my choices is having a great healthcare plan. Now, if you'd like make it easier for people to get the kind of coverage I have (make it more affordable), I'm all for that. I just don't think government is the answer here. Why can't we have tax credits, tort reform, portability, etc?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #162 of 383
I've got mine, so screw you. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how some people think. I suppose we ought to be grateful for some degree of candor.

I myself chose to have cancer. A bad choice I know but there you go.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #163 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Will Business Week do for a start?



http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm

Apparently 60% of the country is satisfied with their healthcare compared to America's 40%

Face it, your problems aren't do with the standard of the care but with ideology. The French system has a whiff of the evil sharing-for-the-commonweal about it. Even though it serves more people better and cheaper and people are happier with it and France has a right wing government, it's just too much like Russia.

I'd encourage you to move to France to take full advantage of all they have to offer with their wonderful, forward-thinking semi-presidential representative democratic republic.

Incidentally, it seems even the French are changing in their typically liberal/socialist political views.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #164 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I've got mine, so screw you. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how some people think. I suppose we ought to be grateful for some degree of candor.

I myself chose to have cancer. A bad choice I know but there you go.


While I wouldn't put it like that, the concept of providing for one's self and family is one upon which this nation was founded. I am not responsible for your healthcare. However, I may choose, on my own, to help you. The government isn't supposed to steal the money I earned so you can have healthcare. What if you made crappy choices in life? What if you're lazy and don't feel like a getting a job that provides decent benefits?

If you truly gave a damn about more people getting insurance, you'd be focusing the solutions I mentioned. The fact is, though, that healthcare is but another vehicle for you to try and mold the country into progressive quaso-socialist state you think it should be. It has nothing to do with helping people.

The hysterical irony is that people like you, not national healthcare opponents, are the ones that are the callous manipulators of the poor, minorities, et al. You might as well just come out and admit that you've declared war on the middle class, capitalism and traditional American values. At least that would be honest.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #165 of 383
Prejudicial or not, that's called keeping it simple for the group think.
You didn't expect rational thought concerning ideology did you?

Just like the "we don't sell french fries" crap hysteria.

You're an American and in French eyes, bulls eye.

As an aside,
if you were captured, detained by a terror cell,
do you really think your assertion that you don't adhere to
your governments actions will save you, do you?
post #166 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Prejudicial or not, that's called keeping it simple for the group think.
You didn't expect rational thought concerning ideology did you?

Just like the "we don't sell french fries" crap hysteria.

You're an American and in French eyes, bulls eye.

As an aside,
if you were captured, detained by a terror cell,
do you really think your assertion that you don't adhere to
your governments actions will save you, do you?

And on that note...
post #167 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well...to a certain extent, yes. I don't have a responsibility to provide you healthcare. The fact is I chose a profession with certain trade-offs. I have more time off, but cannot choose when I take it. I have slightly shorter hours, but I am bound to them whether I have work to do or not. I have a great benefits package, but my salary is not as high as it would be in the private sector.

In other words, I made choices as we all do every day. One of the results of my choices is having a great healthcare plan. Now, if you'd like make it easier for people to get the kind of coverage I have (make it more affordable), I'm all for that. I just don't think government is the answer here. Why can't we have tax credits, tort reform, portability, etc?

You're already paying for others health care via your premiums.

How about adding more people to your plan to defray costs.
What about eliminating some of the middlemen to defray costs further.

Why worry about the jobs lost when you're better off money wise.
post #168 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

And on that note...

Yeah, you're an island.
post #169 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Yeah, you're an island.

Whatever.
post #170 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Whatever.

I can see you're having a hard time understanding how others think.
post #171 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I can see you're having a hard time understanding how others think.

Not at all. I fully understand that others think as you've described but I can't control someone else's thinking. I can do my best to explain to them when I think their thinking is faulty, but that's about it.
post #172 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Not at all. I fully understand that others think as you've described but I can't control someone else's thinking. I can do my best to explain to them when I think their thinking is faulty, but that's about it.

Well, You lost them when you said there thinking is faulty.

First impressions are what counts.

Try, you misunderstood me.

Then try and convert them.
post #173 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I've heard many stories of bad care and bureaucratic disaster, not too mention lower quality of care than in the US. That said, even if what I've heard and read is all wrong, let me ask: Can we have the same system here in the US?

I'll answer: No, we can't. For one thing, we've been spending trillions defending the Free World since WWII. We've been your Army and Navy, as well as Western Europe's. In other words, we don't have the money. We also have a much larger population. All this, not to mention that the current House bill is like Canada's system on steroids, mushrooms and cocaine.

We have consistently better outcomes, and lower mortality rates almost right across the board compared to the US. No one is ever refused, there is no such thing as a medical bankruptcy, we have total portability, total choice in care providers, and the phrase "pre-existing condition" has no meaning. The bureaucracy is not really involved at the healthcare consumer level. Doctors bill the govt insurance plan, the patient doesn't see any of it.

That we might underfund other things is a completely separate issue (the Military issue is a lot more political than financial). We also spend far less of our taxes on healthcare than you do, and that covers everyone.To do it right is LESS expensive than the way you guys are doing it now, and that's the case is pretty much every place where universal coverage exists. And more people makes it even more economical because your cost dispersal can be even more efficient. Volume is cheaper.

From what I've read, the bill before your house right now still looks very weak compared to what we've got. In what way does it go further than what we have?
post #174 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Well, You lost them when you said there thinking is faulty.

You're assuming I would actually say that. Sheesh. I very likely would try to both further clarify my own position, statements, etc. as well as better understand theirs and, if I felt their thinking was incorrect, then try to explain that (and why). All the while trying to remain civil.
post #175 of 383
Defending the indefensible is par for the right.

The status quote at all cost, defend the bottom line, even at the cost of your bottom line.
post #176 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

You're assuming I would actually say that. Sheesh. I very likely would try to both further clarify my own position, statements, etc. as well as better understand theirs and, if I felt their thinking was incorrect, then try to explain that (and why). All the while trying to remain civil.

Well, how does it feel having to defend the best health care system in the he world to a bunch of lowly Frenchman-women.

The defense is the problem.
post #177 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Well, how does it feel having to defend the best health care system in the he world to a bunch of lowly Frenchman-women.

Huh?
post #178 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Huh?

Lost the thread of the thread huh?
post #179 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Lost the thread huh?

Sorry. You lost me. I don't know if you mean to. I'm honestly trying to keep up and be reasonable here.
post #180 of 383
The French, shame, there system is better than yours, jeesh, 8 Canadian beer and I remember the thread.
post #181 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

The French, shame, there system is better than yours, jeesh, 8 Canadian beer and I remember the thread.

Oh right...now we're back to begging the question about French health care superiority.

(sigh)
post #182 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Oh right...now we're back to begging the question about French health care superiority.

(sigh)

And you forgot where I came in. \
post #183 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The hysterical irony is that people like you, not national healthcare opponents, are the ones that are the callous manipulators of the poor, minorities, et al. You might as well just come out and admit that you've declared war on the middle class, capitalism and traditional American values. At least that would be honest.

A real knee-slapper, that one. You always know when the point rhetorical desperation is reached when someone goes for the "people like you" argument. (This time, underlined so we won't miss it.)
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #184 of 383
How to Cure Health Care:

Quote:
Two simple observations are key to explaining both the high level of spending on medical care and the dissatisfaction with that spending. The first is that most payments to physicians or hospitals or other caregivers for medical care are made not by the patient but by a third partyan insurance company or employer or governmental body. The second is that nobody spends somebody elses money as wisely or as frugally as he spends his own.
post #185 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

How to Cure Health Care:

Well, to use an SDW saying, if true, what is the problem, the insurer, the employer or the government, well?
post #186 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Well, to use an SDW saying, if true, what is the problem, the insurer, the employer or the government, well?

I see the problem as multi-faceted. Certain government policies, mandates, regulations, laws, taxation arrangements, etc. have create "incentives" (distortions) that have, cumulatively, created where we are now.

As the link elaborates on, everyone responds to incentives. Employers want and need employees. In the face of certain government policies, mandates, regulations, laws, taxation arrangements, etc. they will make adjustments to achieve the goal of attracting employees (offering medical insurance was one of those things). As they created more generous medical insurance plans which paid for more (and the employee paid for less) employees respond by using more medical services more often (demand rises).

When demand rises in the face of either static supply (medical service providers) or supply that does not rise as fast as demand rises, prices rise. That's exactly what we see happening.

Insurance companies, since they are the ones paying, start doing things to reduce payments.

I could go on and on.

There are definitely systematic problems of various (sometimes perverse) incentives many of which have been created by trying to "fix" the problems using coercive government "solutions".

Unfortunately most people are merely looking at the symptoms and not any deeper to the real causes. Most people are reacting emotionally and superficially to the symptoms they see and stopping there.
post #187 of 383
And after the thrill is gone, what's the excuse then.
It costs to much?
post #188 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

And after the thrill is gone, what's the excuse then.
It costs to much?

What?
post #189 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Unfortunately most people are merely looking at the symptoms and not any deeper to the real causes. Most people are reacting emotionally and superficially to the symptoms they see and stopping there.

When you are sick, emotion can't really be ignored.
That's why I'm glad I live in Canada, been there, done the emotion bit, still here, solvent, father dead.
Sad, not broke.
post #190 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

When you are sick, emotion can't really be ignored.
That's why I'm glad I live in Canada, been there, done the emotion bit, still here, solvent, father dead.
Sad, not broke.

What I meant was that with regard to the larger issue of health care reform, people are looking at it and making judgements and taking sides based more on their immediate emotional reaction to what they see (e.g., 47 million people with no insurance) without stepping back and looking into the deeper causes of these issues. As a result we risk making more of the same kind of mistakes made in the past and risk making things worse, much worse simply because we haven't taken the time to truly understand the underlying issues, incentives, causes, distortions, etc.
post #191 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

What I meant was that with regard to the larger issue of health care reform, people are looking at it and making judgements and taking sides based more on their immediate emotional reaction to what they see (e.g., 47 million people with no insurance) without stepping back and looking into the deeper causes of these issues.

The health of a loved one is emotional, if you think or believe otherwise, well you ain't of this world.

If you have a loved one that can't afford care and stand by while they suffer, that's on you.

In Canada, it's a no brainer.
In the states, get out the calculator.
post #192 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

What I meant was that with regard to the larger issue of health care reform, people are looking at it and making judgements and taking sides based more on their immediate emotional reaction to what they see (e.g., 47 million people with no insurance) without stepping back and looking into the deeper causes of these issues.

Baloney. You may prefer to believe this because you think it makes your position more tenable, but the evidence for this view comes primarily from inside your own mind. I have asked you several times now to tell me how, under your approach (whatever that is), a person with a pre-existing condition could obtain medical insurance. You have utterly ignored this question each time -- which is hardly emotional issue, but a completely practical one. So if you have actual solutions to actual problems, then out with them -- or you need to stop accusing other people of "emotional reactions."
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #193 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

The health of a loved one is emotional, if you think or believe otherwise, well you ain't of this world.

If you have a loved one that can't afford care and stand by while they suffer, that's on you.

In Canada, it's a no brainer.
In the states, get out the calculator.

You still seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm talking about the approach and attitude at large of people toward the larger issue of health care reform.

Many people see something wrong. They see unfortunate situations and circumstances. They see statistics. They see what they think are injustices.

And their attitude doesn't really move much beyond there. It becomes simply "sumthin' gotta be done 'bout dat!" But often fail to understand the deeper issues and causes. They stop at blaming "greedy" insurance companies but look no further into why things have come to be the way they are. Then some eloquent politician comes along and offers a no-pain, no-cost solution. He sways them with fine sounding rhetoric. It all sounds so good! The estimates of what will happen without doing something are dire and catastrophic! The estimates of what will happen when we follow this plan are glorious and magical. Lower costs! More choices! No one is ever denied anything. Everyone is better off! Of course the failed predictions and promises of the past are forgotten or ignored.

I see this in blogs, comments on blog, internet discussion boards, all-out professional journalist articles and news reports, from politicians (who, in some cases probably do know better but are simply evil power-mongers who couldn't give a shit about actually solving the problem beyond the next election), etc. I see it everywhere.

Again, I think Camille Paglia put it very well:

Quote:
It's as if liberals are starry-eyed dreamers lacking the elementary ability to project or predict the chaotic and destabilizing practical consequences of their utopian fantasies.

The people who desire, support and promote the current reform proposals (or minor variations thereof) are silent when asked how they expect to overcome economic reality (which these plans require in order to come even close to achieving their promises).
post #194 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

How to Cure Health Care:

Most people don't have $100,000 or more lying around to pay for medical expenses though. I agree that if, under odd circumstances, generally, people had to pay directly out of their own pockets for health care that it's likely they'd spend more time looking after themselves and double checking that they actually required a certain treatment. However, that's just not a realistic proposition because under that scenario when people got ill they wouldn't get care because they wouldn't have the money to cover it. The more serious the care needed the less likely they could afford it, negating the purpose of health care.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #195 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Most people don't have $100,000 or more lying around to pay for medical expenses though.

Agreed, and that is what insurance is for. But what we call health "insurance" today has evolved into something else in which all medical expenses are expected to be paid by someone else.

Some analogies include:

Homeowner's insurance that pays for painting, mowing the lawn, replacing burned out light bulbs and old furnace filters, etc.

Car insurance that pays for changing the oil, replacing old or flat tires, filling up with gas, etc.

Insurance is designed to cover the possible but unlikely events that might cause damage your home, car, body, etc. You pool your risk of these events with others because they are unlikely (but possible) and if they were to happen you could be sunk.

But the problem is that health "insurance" in America has evolved beyond this into something else. This is part of the cause of the problems.
post #196 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Agreed, and that is what insurance is for. But what we call health "insurance" today has evolved into something else in which all medical expenses are expected to be paid by someone else.

Some analogies include:

Homeowner's insurance that pays for painting, mowing the lawn, replacing burned out light bulbs and old furnace filters, etc.

Car insurance that pays for changing the oil, replacing old or flat tires, filling up with gas, etc.

Insurance is designed to cover the possible but unlikely events that might cause damage your home, car, body, etc. You pool your risk of these events with others because they are unlikely (but possible) and if they were to happen you could be sunk.

But the problem is that health "insurance" in America has evolved beyond this into something else. This is part of the cause of the problems.

To some degree maybe, though the pertinent analogies here would be that the auto insurance company refused to offer insurance to you because of a prior accident. Or they refused because you bought a vehicle that was black.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #197 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

To some degree maybe, though the pertinent analogies here would be that the auto insurance company refused to offer insurance to you because of a prior accident. Or they refused because you bought a vehicle that was black.

There are actually comparable analogies in the other insurance sectors. Prior accidents can and do affect your premiums and (sometimes, in extreme cases) your insurability (some don't think there should be anything similar for health care). Certain (freely made) choices in automobile purchases (e.g., sports cars, etc.) can and do affect your premiums (some don't think there should be anything similar for health care).

A better analogy on the pre-existing condition scenario is this:

Trying to get homeowner's insurance for a home that has already burned to the ground, been flooded, vandalized, burglarized or suffered hail damage (or other normally insurable event) and to get insurance for that event.

Trying to get car insurance for a car that has already been in an accident, been stolen, vandalized, burglarized or suffered hail damage (or other normally insurable event) and to get insurance for that event.

Trying to get life insurance for a life that has a terminal illness or has already ended!

It is true that previous events can and do effect your premiums and insurability in these other insurance sectors. But usually the insurability (i.e., the ability to even get insurance) is affected by an obvious, regular and continuous pattern of some kind of abuse, fraud, etc. In most other cases you just pay higher premiums.

The problem is that no one really wants health insurance to behave like any other real kind of insurance. What they really want is for someone else to pay for their medical expenses. Period.
post #198 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

What they really want is for someone else to pay for their medical expenses. Period.

Spread the risk, just like it is now.
I'm so glad I live in Canada.

I'd put up some scenarios that but then you'd want links etc. that you'd read the headlines and then ignore and put forth, yeah it's a bitch yada yada but yada yada..

If you have insurance, you are already paying for someone else, that's the nature of it.
post #199 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

There are actually comparable analogies in the other insurance sectors. Prior accidents can and do affect your premiums and (sometimes, in extreme cases) your insurability (some don't think there should be anything similar for health care). Certain (freely made) choices in automobile purchases (e.g., sports cars, etc.) can and do affect your premiums (some don't think there should be anything similar for health care).

A better analogy on the pre-existing condition scenario is this:

Trying to get homeowner's insurance for a home that has already burned to the ground, been flooded, vandalized, burglarized or suffered hail damage (or other normally insurable event) and to get insurance for that event.

Trying to get car insurance for a car that has already been in an accident, been stolen, vandalized, burglarized or suffered hail damage (or other normally insurable event) and to get insurance for that event.

Trying to get life insurance for a life that has a terminal illness or has already ended!

It is true that previous events can and do effect your premiums and insurability in these other insurance sectors. But usually the insurability (i.e., the ability to even get insurance) is affected by an obvious, regular and continuous pattern of some kind of abuse, fraud, etc. In most other cases you just pay higher premiums.

The problem is that no one really wants health insurance to behave like any other real kind of insurance. What they really want is for someone else to pay for their medical expenses. Period.

I take your point about the benefits of personal responsibility and facing the consequences of your own life decisions and that should be encouraged. However, people get cancer who don't smoke, who eat well, exercise well and even who encourage others to do the same (and don't get paid for it). These people can have cost the insurance companies next to nothing over the years. Even so, if they have insurance and then lose it. By losing their job say. Another insurer won't sign them up because they won't make any money. The person can't afford the out of pocket costs which often leads to bankruptcy or losing their home and assets and that applies in large numbers to those who are actually insured too.

I should say that, despite some of the comments some have made here at PO, I am not against the continuation of private health insurance for those who choose it. I just believe that care should be accessible and affordable to all as well and that requires IMO a single payer system too.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #200 of 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Based on what criteria?




Do you have evidence to support these claims?

I haven't been to a dentist in years because I can't afford it. (I offset this but religiously brushing and flossing twice a day). I have old glasses. I haven't had a "checkup" in a decade. I have another problem or two I'd like to take care of but can't afford it. I feel like poor people and rich people get care. Poor people get all they want, they get to just walk into an ER, and the hospital writes it off. Not the middle class. Screwed by the rich and the poor. And the stupid that are middle class and vote against their own interest. People like you. (Unless you're a millionaire or you're on WIC or DSS?)

Quote:
I should say that, despite some of the comments some have made here at PO, I am not against the continuation of private health insurance for those who choose it. I just believe that care should be accessible and affordable to all as well and that requires IMO a single payer system too.

Agreed.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is there any form of Government HealthCare you could get behind?