DarinK wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 13:37 |
Short of overhauling the system |
Tidewater wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 20:02 |
All the profits from the top 10 last week couldn't pay for one person's cancer treatments. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 14:14 |
There is so much to say about the evils of the American Healthcare System. Limiting my comments, I will say I find it odd that when discussing a person's illness, it can be freely said we should donate money to find a cure, but it is discouraged as "irrelevant" and "political" that we can't encourage people to fight against the diseased system driving the sick person to bankruptcy. Barry |
Les Ismore wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 14:09 | ||
Exactly. Time to overhaul. Interesting that the people who profess to be angry (tea baggers) are actually trying to re-enforce the corporate agenda. I was watching a show on CBC last month (Canada's public national network that does excellent investigative reporting) that was showing that your old buddy Karl Rove was the man behind this "grass roots" organization. They go to great effort to make it appear "grass roots" when in fact it's actually corporate roots. They're not stupid..... they're evil. EDIT: My memory is not as good as it used to be. Perhaps it was another senior Republican power broker instead of Rove. But I believe it was Rove. The real people behind the tea baggers go to great lengths to stay hidden. |
Eric H. wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 17:24 | ||
Who is making the prices? |
Tidewater wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 16:31 | ||||
The elves that live in the magic place that cures come from? A shiny jewel that is polished by a unicorn princess crossing a golden rainbow of happiness? An evil guy who only invested money in a cure to make a profit? My mother belongs to the tea party. I take HUGE offense to anyone who calls my mother a tea bagger. Watch your mouths. Thanks. I don't call you all pillow biting commies. PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I just lost a great friend to colon cancer, and he was on $60k worth of meds a month. and one experimental drug to the next. Was a miracle. It was free. You know how he got that stuff? He searched for it. Helping hisself.. with help from others. 2 in a year, same circumstances. Over 1m dollars worth of meds between 2 people, not including the treatments, and visits. I have seen our system working. |
DarinK wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 16:37 |
Short of overhauling the system |
DarinK wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 20:00 |
Again, I doubt you mean it that way, but that's the way it can be interpreted. |
Tidewater wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 22:31 |
PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I just lost a great friend to colon cancer, and he was on $60k worth of meds a month. and one experimental drug to the next. Was a miracle. It was free. You know how he got that stuff? He searched for it. Helping hisself.. with help from others. 2 in a year, same circumstances. Over 1m dollars worth of meds between 2 people, not including the treatments, and visits. I have seen our system working. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 22:04 |
it is long past time to overhaul the system. |
Tidewater wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 00:31 | ||
The elves that live in the magic place that cures come from? A shiny jewel that is polished by a unicorn princess crossing a golden rainbow of happiness? An evil guy who only invested money in a cure to make a profit? ... I just lost a great friend to colon cancer, and he was on $60k worth of meds a month. ... 2 in a year, same circumstances. Over 1m dollars worth of meds between 2 people, not including the treatments, and visits. I have seen our system working. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 07:05 | ||
I'm sorry. Didn't this just happen? Or did I dream it? I thought the problem was solved. |
Tidewater wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 02:03 | ||
It's no longer safe to speak here then. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 14:15 |
1. i do think it's unconstitutional to *require* someone to buy insurance. i don't know what the solution is, and it's clearly a complicated issue, but i am not onboard with forcing someone to pay for a service. it should be my right to decline that coverage, spend my own money how i please, and suffer any consequences that emerge later on. |
Wireline wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 16:25 |
Make it equal access, make it a workable plan, then lets seriously look at it... |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 10:41 | ||
How about seriously looking at how to make it equal access and workable? If your car was as broken as your health system was, the only discussion and argument you'd have with your partner was over which car was best to buy to replace it, not whether or not it needed replacing. |
Wireline wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 16:47 |
Which is what repealing this current 'system' and starting over is all about...any program that the population was advised to pass it to find out what was in it is wrong in its very nature. |
Wireline wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 08:47 | ||||
Which is what repealing this current 'system' and starting over is all about...any program that the population was advised to pass it to find out what was in it is wrong in its very nature. How many waivers have been already granted? This in and of itself shows the new system to be as busted as the old system, just busted for a whole new class of people. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 12:04 | ||
Which if that was the attitude I'd heard from most of the naysayers when it was proposed, I would agree with you. But I didn't see "ok, the current system is broken, it's unfair and expensive, but this proposal had problems, this xxxx would be better" What I saw was people defending the system you had, making claims about other countries that were generally innacurate, saying they didn't want to pay for other people, spouting ideological stuff about small government, etc. You had the chance to start over, and you botched it, because what you chould probably have done was fight to take the changes FURTHER. |
Wireline wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 18:33 | ||||
I? This is not a political matter, nor is it a personal matter...(you seem to assume I am a republican - I most certainly am not) Here's the story: If this thing was so good, or even if it was close to acceptable, then why would over 50% of the states of this nation in the process of suing the US as to the legality of mandated health care? 26 states' have filed suit. This should tell you something about how good this program is. I didn't do anything...please don't make assumptions of which you know nothing about. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 10:52 |
I should have clarified that in that case I meant you as a nation, not an individual, nor even as a member of any political group, in case you didn't pick it up from my previous posts I'm not a US citizen. And I've never argued that the proposed system was a good one, I've never learned enough about it to make that judgement, my position is that what you had was so messed up (whether your position is that of the selfish or the selfless, the average American was losing out compared to citizens of other developed countries) that the discussion and argument should have been about how best to replace it, how to take all the lessons learned from the rest of the world's systems (and your own) and use them to produce a new system from a clean state, not the near paranoia about paying for someone else and phobic reaction to anything which even hinted at the word socialism that I seemed to be seeing. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 12:33 |
I'm sorry, but requiring health care coverage is NOT unconstitutional. And as I'm not a legal expert, here is the news from someone who is: http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/08/25/is-it-unconstitu tional-to-mandate-health-insurance/ Despite one ruling that is it unconstitutional, there have been many which have affirmed that it is. Barry |
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 15:27 |
I'm sorry but I don't understand the connection of that case to the one about health care. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be obtuse. Maybe you can make it clearer for me. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 15:27 |
A black guy got to be president and the racists went (even more) insane. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 21:50 | ||
Thank you for a perfect example of left-wing tactics to attempt to shut down issue based discussion by name calling and character assassination. Way to set a Christian example, my brother. Not. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 20:50 | ||
Thank you for a perfect example of left-wing tactics to attempt to shut down issue based discussion by name calling and character assassination. Way to set a Christian example, my brother. Not. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 00:50 | ||
Thank you for a perfect example of left-wing tactics to attempt to shut down issue based discussion by name calling and character assassination. Way to set a Christian example, my brother. Not. |
Les Ismore wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 11:36 |
All these things keep taking me back to the movie "Idiocracy". I won't get into the whole plot here but the guy wakes up several hundred years in the future and civilization has de-evolved into a huge mess (that looks a little too much like today) So at this point in the future they have substituted water everywhere in the world with Gatoraid. They are wondering why all the crops are dying and there's no food, so the hero (who is now the smartest guy in the world) says "Stop using Gatoraid instead of water!" But they don't want to because a whole lot of people make their living from Gatoraid, and they no longer even remember a time when people used water anymore and it's too dramatic an idea when they've all become so used to Gatoraid. |
Les Ismore wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 19:36 |
All these things keep taking me back to the movie "Idiocracy". |
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 09:46 |
It is "safe" to speak here. But it is not guaranteed everyone (or anyone) is going to agree with you. This process is called a "discussion". Adults have them all the time. It seems to me you received the most polite reply possible. Much more so than mine... Barry |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 11:31 |
If you go bankrupt due to illness it's your own damn fault and I don't care about you or your family's suffering, I don't care about all the Americans without healthcare, I don't care about the children who suffer & die in the current system, because it's all somebody else's fault, and if that somebody else would just try harder then all the problems would disappear. |
YZ wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 00:19 | ||||
Hmmm... like saying that Obama: - Is not an US Citizen; - Is a Terrorist; - Is Muslim (therefore not Christian? or the intention was to reinforce the 'terrorist' libel?); - Is a Communist; - All other stuff that was said about him by Republicans during the campaign and is still said today by republicans and tea-somethings? NOT name calling? NOT character assassination? 'Christian' examples? Did the party raised any opposition to those outlandish accusations? gimme a break. and now for a little humor: |
Quote: |
You have to remember that the Republicans' mission is one thing and one thing only. It is as Mitch McConnell is on record saying -- to keep Obama from being re-elected in 2012 and to undo all he has accomplished. A black guy got to be president and the racists went (even more) insane. So any form of health care that doesn't benefit big business is anathema to them. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 13:24 |
Removing the profit motive from health care seems to me to be the first step towards a maximally functional while still affordable system. |
Wireline wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 10:21 |
C'mon man...if you are not willing to at least consider they may be doing these things because they honesty and truly believe they are doing what is best as they see it based on Constitutional interpretation and the voices of their constituents, then there really is no hope for any of us, is there? This matter will be just one of the thousands of others that will eventually rip the nation into no more than warring factions... |
Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 13:58 |
I love your optimism. I am 57. I've seen enough of politics to know who has your interest at heart and who doesn't. If you don't think racism is part of the Right-Wing agenda then look at Arizona as evidence. Notice how there are no conservative voices in the thread anymore. They complain they have been "shutdown" here. Once confronted with facts they have no rebuttal... |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 11:35 |
I hope at some point we will grow as a nation and realize we are being taken advantage of by manipulative wealthy interests that are NOT the interests of the majority of citizens. They're just putting words in our mouths. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 11:35 |
This kind of politics is not new, but I hope at some point we will grow as a nation and realize we are being taken advantage of by manipulative wealthy interests that are NOT the interests of the majority of citizens. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 14:35 |
This kind of politics is not new, but I hope at some point we will grow as a nation and realize we are being taken advantage of by manipulative wealthy interests that are NOT the interests of the majority of citizens. |
mgod wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 14:49 | ||
I think its a little more complex than that. The Wall St. system of shareholding is partially to blame here, and that means more than just wealthy interests, although it always means self-interest. The vast majority of the profits go to Execs and the largest shareholders - but if any one of us is a shareholder in a mutual fund that invests in health-prevention company, then we are also to blame. This system allows us to profit when our fellow citizens do well, but it also allows us to profit when they don't. |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 09:11 |
That is my statement prepared by DK. Verbatim. When I say 'nobody owes me nothing', he sees the truth of my statement as I want children to suffer and die. It's really as crappy an argument as one can make. It's not even a logical fallacy. It's just crap, but Barry calls it discussion, and in the future the thoughts that DK bestowed upon me might be considered crimes against humanity. I can't tell where crazy idiots will take what's left of civilization, so I am just covering my ass... and personally losing friends to colon cancer. My experiences mean nothing. It's all about agendas, and if I can't help forward those, what good am I? |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 16:30 |
I do know the government isn't very good at anything. It's made of people who were elected because they look nice in a suit. They eat Kobe beef, regulate light bulbs, food as fuel, and print money. |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 16:30 |
The best way I can deal with all this is alone, the way we come in, and the way we go out. I am not going to cost you a dime. Do not provide for me, please. It saddens me that I cannot provide for you, but I can't. |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 16:30 |
I write poorly. The best way I can deal with all this is alone, the way we come in, and the way we go out. I am not going to cost you a dime. Do not provide for me, please. It saddens me that I cannot provide for you, but I can't. We have been taught to expect too much. It was bad teaching. I thought anything was possible at one time. It is not. |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 16:30 |
The best way I can deal with all this is alone, the way we come in, and the way we go out. I am not going to cost you a dime. Do not provide for me, please. It saddens me that I cannot provide for you, but I can't. |
Quote: |
Alan Grayson is one of the few true-talking politicians. |
Wireline wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 19:09 | ||
Was Grayson a true talker when (addressing health care) he spoke on the Congressional record that the only thing republicans wanted you to do when you got sick was to die quickly? |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 21:19 |
Even though you might not be able to provide for me, we should collectively be able to cover you if we have better fortune and you need it. |
mgod wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 20:08 |
Then our government must suck uniquely. Plenty of other people and their governments have figured this out. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 05:03 |
I must be able to choose, no matter what the choices are. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 00:30 |
The best way I can deal with all this is alone, the way we come in, and the way we go out. I am not going to cost you a dime. Do not provide for me, please. It saddens me that I cannot provide for you, but I can't. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 07:03 |
The moment that altruism becomes institutionalized will be the end of pure humanity. I believe this, and it may be the core of my disagreeance. |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 22 January 2011 23:03 |
The moment that altruism becomes institutionalized will be the end of pure humanity. |
mgod wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 15:31 | ||
Nonsense. Childish thinking. Sorry. Unless you live in The Little Prince on a planet by yourself, you live in a town, in a state, in a country, in a world with others. Therefore, your security requires others to not need what you have. To protect yourself, the well-being of others is the essence of your own security. Call it "enlightened" self-interest if you like - in this case the enlightening realization that you breathe in what plants breathe out, unless your neighbor makes it un-breatheable. Even the super-rich can't hire enough security to protect them from an ever-increasing number of poor and hungry forever. We are in this together. You are my burden, so start carrying. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 21:25 |
Hey, I have guns. Next robbers go home in a tisket, a tasket, robbers in a casket.. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 15:25 |
Huh? hahaha NO EFFIN WAY! You are saying it's a damned ransom payment UP FRONT! Hey, I have guns. I have been robbed, just 3 years ago.. in my own driveway. Took $3500 cash and prizes, at gun point. Next robbers go home in a tisket, a tasket, robbers in a casket.. I defend, I don't relenquish. New rules. Now you screwed the whole thing up, I won't be paying ransom for ANYTHING. rofl... HOW CHILDISH. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 15:25 |
Huh? hahaha NO EFFIN WAY! You are saying it's a damned ransom payment UP FRONT! Hey, I have guns. I have been robbed, just 3 years ago.. in my own driveway. Took $3500 cash and prizes, at gun point. Next robbers go home in a tisket, a tasket, robbers in a casket.. I defend, I don't relenquish. New rules. Now you screwed the whole thing up, I won't be paying ransom for ANYTHING. rofl... HOW CHILDISH. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 15:25 | ||||
Huh? hahaha NO EFFIN WAY! You are saying it's a damned ransom payment UP FRONT! Hey, I have guns. I have been robbed, just 3 years ago.. in my own driveway. Took $3500 cash and prizes, at gun point. Next robbers go home in a tisket, a tasket, robbers in a casket.. I defend, I don't relenquish. New rules. Now you screwed the whole thing up, I won't be paying ransom for ANYTHING. rofl... HOW CHILDISH. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 23 January 2011 22:02 |
Umm.. I have the guns for protection. I don't start a robbery. I end one. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 24 January 2011 04:02 |
Wrong God. |
mgod wrote on Mon, 24 January 2011 01:40 | ||
FAR more likely, you end. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 24 January 2011 06:25 | ||||
Ahh, you want me to disarm? No. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 24 January 2011 00:25 |
Ahh, you want me to disarm? No. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 24 January 2011 18:11 |
"The United States spends twice as much on health care per capita ($7,129) than any other country" So, roughly speaking, it would seem you're already paying almost as much in taxes for healthcare as countries with a socialized system... which since they're about as healthy as you are (looking at the statistics), should be almost enough. But then you're doubling it with private payments, and a load of you go bankrupt every year doing it. Seems to me you're getting shafted, and the "I don't want to pay for anyone else" argument is not only selfish, it's misguided, you're already paying, you're just not getting value for money. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 05:22 | ||
hi Jon- i want to say that i agree almost entirely with your opinion on this, and with the source that you quoted. i want though to reference our other discussion in the other thread where i mention not having any respect for the politician/CEO/billionaire-behind-the-scenes class. would you not say that the machinations of the super-rich/super-powerful are most directly responsible for the health care mess you quoted above, and all in the name of enriching themselves to an even greater extent? to me, at least, the two discussions are inextricably linked..... |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 11:26 |
So sure, there are people at the top who are a big part of the problem, but so are the people clinging to not wanting to pay for other people, or the people who will argue against it just because it's proposed by another party, or the insurance salesmen who'll sell you insurance that doesn't cover you properly because they make a better commission on that, or the doctors who prescribe medicins they get some sort of kickback from, etc etc.(snip) Most of the world's healthcare systems are based on an ethos of shared care and shared responsibility. Yours is based on one of every man for himself, and then has a social part grafted on top of it because as a society you'd feel guilty if your selfishness meant people actually did get left to die on the street if they couldn't afford the ambulance fare. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 24 January 2011 18:35 |
I still don't understand calling coverage of a pre-existing condition "insurance". That is impossible, and $1M worth should cost $1M, or I must be missing the trick that gets us there. |
Gio wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 12:16 |
I also disagree with the notion that the wealthy are by definition inherently evil. |
YZ wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 08:20 | ||
Semantics. Different interpretations. Nit-picking. Grasping at straws. The only 'pre-existing condition' that should matter for a state health care system is: "were you born human?" if yes, you're covered, if not, tough luck. |
Wireline wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 15:27 |
Going back to funding - where would you like the extra money to come from? Whether it is national or private, it still has to be paid for, and since we are already over $14 Trillion in debt, we can't just print more money, we can't borrow more, we can't issue IOUs, we can't ask people to work for free? What is your solution to the funding, keeping in mind the very real debt burden we carry, to paying for national health care? |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 05:26 |
I think people give the ultra rich too much (dis)credit. It seems to me to be a deligation of responsibility more than anything, you just put the blame for all your ills on a few "super rich" people who aren't really human, because somehow they're all genetically programmed to want to extract the last cent out of everyone (and often it seems in ways that most economists would view as actually damaging to them, the logic of conspiracy is quite convoluted, but that's another discussion). Your health system has thousands of people (if not millions) involved in it at one level or another who benefit from you being screwed, and you want to put all the blame on the guys at the very top of the income ladder? One thing I always bear in mind when it comes to the subject of greed and the very rich was an interesting statement by Stelios, the founder of Easy Jet, and worth several hundred million. He said that once you passed a hundred million, unless you took to accumulating things like houses and yaghts, extra money made no real difference to your lifestyle. You can already afford to do what you want, when you want, the best hotels, the best restaurants, the best of everything. So, if you're that rich, getting extra money isn't really the aim, for some it's how they "keep score" in the business game, because they still take pleasure from the game, others will take up new ganes... Richard Branson likes trying to get records, Bill Gates set up a foundation. Everyone is different, and everyone is the same, we're all people, with our own weaknesses and strengths. I've known a number of wealthy people, and they were different. For example two spring to mind, one seemed to achieve his success by being the ultimate shark, he could smell blood in the water from an ocean away, can't say I liked him much (but conversely having met his children I would say that not only was he a very good father, but they didn't share his predatory nature as far as I could see)... the other seemed to achieve his success by finding good people and rewarding them handsomely for what they did for him, so they stuck with him and he continued to profit (as did they). So sure, there are people at the top who are a big part of the problem, but so are the people clinging to not wanting to pay for other people, or the people who will argue against it just because it's proposed by another party, or the insurance salesmen who'll sell you insurance that doesn't cover you properly because they make a better commission on that, or the doctors who prescribe medicins they get some sort of kickback from, etc etc. It doesn't matter HOW rich or powerful you are, I challenge you to change British perception on whether healthcare should be available to all regardless of ability to pay. I think THAT is the important difference. Most of the world's healthcare systems are based on an ethos of shared care and shared responsibility. Yours is based on one of every man for himself, and then has a social part grafted on top of it because as a society you'd feel guilty if your selfishness meant people actually did get left to die on the street if they couldn't afford the ambulance fare. |
Wireline wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 07:27 |
And, most American citizens are pretty well against nationalized anything. If it works in other nations, cool...I just don't think a nationally mandated anything will work here. |
Tidewater wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 20:29 |
Yeah, both ends, right? Apple wants me to pay 30 cents more per track for 50 year old music than they asked just a few months ago. |
Wireline wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 13:27 |
Fair enough...but keep in mind we are a federated republic, not a democracy, contrary to popular belief. |
Quote: |
Prevention only goes so far, and cannot control genetics. |
Quote: |
And, most American citizens are pretty well against nationalized anything. If it works in other nations, cool...I just don't think a nationally mandated anything will work here. |
YZ wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 18:47 | ||
Well it's a free market, why are you complaining? |
Tidewater wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 17:14 |
And you want me to participate in a system I don't agree with as well. You'd write that same thing after my death. Very well. Do what you will. |
ScotcH wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 21:47 |
It's unfortunate, but it seems that discussing this topic with Americans is the same as trying to discuss gun rights and the constitution. The fundamental mentalities are so deeply ingrained, that any change monumental enough to be effective, is simple inconceivable. I have no idea what obamacare is about, but from what I've heard, it still deals with insurace, as a result is no change at all. That is the #1 flaw right there, and I'd venture that it's the root of all that is wrong with US health care. Insurance should be for additional coverage only, totally optional, and not for the basics of health care, and this change simply will never happen in the US. The insurance corps will NOT allow it to happen. Period. Yes, I'm from Canada, and I shake my head often at these discussions. |
Wireline wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 23:38 |
Regardless of known consequences, people are gonna do what they want to do, and expect "the system" to fix them later. |
YZ wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 01:24 | ||
1- What 'system'? 2- I doubt that drunkards/junkies/heavy smokers are expecting to be 'taken care of'. 3- If the guy paid a private health insurance plan, then he has every right to expect treatment as contracted; if the insurance company accepted him as a client and he proves to be non-profitable, tough luck for them... it is a business and it has risks. |
Wireline wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 13:00 | ||||
You really don't know how it works here, do you? For example, in Texas 1. Every community of any size has implemented into it's charter things like indigent care, emergency services for homeless/illegals, etc. These are state funded, often supplemented with matching federal funds, and are often better levels of care than those with basic insurance. 2. You can doubt all you like - there are waiting lists of to get into rehab hospitals all across the nation, usually at tax payer or religious/non profit group expense if the inbound patient doesn't have funding, or doesn't qualify for medicare 3. As it currently stands, because of politic, illegals, indigents, etc often get a higher level care than those with purchased insurance. No one except the special interests like this except the special interests - theirs in truly a free ride. Really, man...you might research what the facts of each state are before making blanket assumptions. Now you can continue to nit pick the minutia of what - if scenarios, or try and understand the our health care is not simply a matter of the national government waving its magic wand and providing for everyone overnight. We have 50 individual states that would like to (and have the Constitution authority) to have a say so in the matter as well - local governments also have a right to say how their mandated contributions are being spent. Then there is the Constitutional clause of federal mandate nullification - a whole different can of worms. |
Wireline wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 13:32 |
You are either not readying what I am saying, or I am not saying it clearly. I believe a change in the status quo is a must. I just don't think the European system is the answer to our situation, as we have certain circumstances that WILL not change, regardless of Europe's opinion. Texas is not New York, and no amount of wishing will ever change that. State's rights is very precious to the majority of us, and is not likely to go away without some violent changes (that was done once already) You can call us stubborn, stupid, whatever - that's your right and opinion. One of the reasons I am as resistant to the European model is the same I am resistant to the model enacted by the current President - you are essentially jamming it down my throat, insisting I am a dumbass if I don't go along with your way of thinking. Not a good way to make friends and influence people. Be critical all you want - matters not; but until the citizenry of the US decide what is best for us, have a clear understand of what it is and what it does in clear and open terms (which no one does), and the majority of our elected spokespersons agree to it, discussion is moot. Which has been my (and most conservatives regardless of party) position all along - instead of "you have to pass it to find out what's in it," lets look at it with our sleeves rolled up and see exactly what it is, what it isn't, and go from there. It is pretty hard to see this point of view when on the attack all time, wouldn't you agree? |
Wireline wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 09:05 |
It isn't good...and that's why we need some serious attention to the system. But, we are working on it. Once we get it figured out, its gonna be good, but its gonna require some give from everyone. |
Wireline wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 05:32 |
One of the reasons I am as resistant to the European model is the same I am resistant to the model enacted by the current President - you are essentially jamming it down my throat, insisting I am a dumbass if I don't go along with your way of thinking. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 05:59 |
There is no "European System", different countries use different systems. What there is, is a "Most of the rest of the world Attitude", which is that universal healthcare is a fundamental responsibility of civilized society. So the various systems are built on that basis. None of them is perfect, but ironically all of them are cheaper than yours. |
crazydoc wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 23:10 |
This pretty much nails it. We Americans are unable to see that we live in a plutocracy where our legislators are shills for a corporate class, bought by campaign funding and payoffs from lobbyists. There is no other reason that a single payer plan was not even discussed, and the public option was never seriously considered. Representative democracy in the US is a myth - our congress has been bought and paid for. |
Wireline wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 08:56 |
Not really. The one example that jumps out from memory is in Germany (when I lived there, anyway) was every male was required to spend 18 months in the military. We don't have a national conscription anymore. (Note that this may have and probably has changed) Way OT - but we have certain freedoms of movement, freedoms of language (do European schools bend over backward to teach classes in other languages? I took two courses at a local university, and had to bone up on German REAL quick)...the list goes on forever. Plus, as far as I know, there aren't a different set of laws in Hesse than there are in Bavaria - they are pretty well all national laws, and as you know, we do things a tad differently here. Again, round holes, square pegs. They are both right, but one size does not fit the other. |
DarinK wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 10:39 |
If the U.S. truly wanted the best system, we'd thoroughly study all the existing ones & come up with a hybrid system that would work best for us. The problem, as stated before, is that the goal of the U.S. government is a system that is best for big money interests, not a system that is best for the citizens. And by that measure we do have the best, most profitable system in the world, unfortunately. |
Samc wrote on Mon, 07 February 2011 20:12 |
I lived in the US for most of my life and have lived in France for the last 10 years. I have had the unfortunate experience of needing medical treatment of various levels of seriousness, from basic checkup to spinal surgery. I always had medical insurance when I lived in the States (paid through the nose for it), but after experiencing the medical system here I do not ever want to go back to the previous system...ever. I have the freedom to see any doctor or go to any medical facility in the country whenever I want to, and I can fill my prescription at any pharmacy in the country. Medical procedures do not require the approval of a third party and I have never been put on a waiting list for any procedure. This type of medical care is neither special or exclusive, it is available to every resident in the country. I don't really care if the laws that allow this type of care is regional or national, what matters to me is that I (and everyone else here) are are guaranteed first class medical care when we need it. I don't want to worry about bankrupting my family if I get sick. Oh yeah, kids here have the right to learn one or more foreign languages if they want to, in fact, quiet a few of them are fluent in several languages... |