Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Will the united states ever have universal healthcare? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=389870)

  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:00 AM
    Synnen
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    It beggars belief that a nation as powerful as America is, it doesnt have a mechanism in place that will assist the poor and misfortunate


    It DOES have SEVERAL systems in place that assist the poor and unfortunate.

    SSI
    SSDI
    Numerous Welfare programs at the local, state, and federal levels
    Medicare

    Just to name a few.

    Why SHOULD I have to pay for a family that has more children than it can afford? Why SHOULD I pay for the guy that took 2 cruises last year but didn't bother putting any money into medical insurance? Why SHOULD I pay for people to eat fast food and potato chips and then have gastric bypass surgery?

    I have no problem giving a hand up to people who really need it. THOUSANDS of charities do that every single day: Ronald McDonald House; The Salvation Army; United Way; Lutheran Social Services; Catholic Charities; Make-A-Wish Foundation; and hundreds of thousands of churches across the country---and that's just naming a FEW.

    What I object to is this: Each paying according to his ability and getting health care according to his need.

    WHO determines need? Some beaurocrat in an office who's never been through whatever disease is the problem? Some man behind a desk who's never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy or breast cancer? Some woman who'd never had any experience with erectile dysfunction?

    Or will it be the overworked doctors who don't have the time to give more than those in the MOST need--emergencies treated before preventative health care, that sort of thing?

    At least with the system now, if you've been a responsible adult, then most of the time you can afford at least SOME form of insurance to help you.

    The OTHER option is to just get rid of insurance companies, period, and let people pay out of pocket as they go for medical procedures.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:07 AM
    phlanx

    Afternoon Syn,

    That is really my point isn't?

    I totally agree, you should strive towards supporting yourself and your family in the best way possible to you

    But why does it have to stop there, why is a country that has the resources to offer care to all, can't or will not do so?

    I do not advocate "socialist" reform in anyway, what I do want to see a system where by human beings help other human beings

    Surely providing fundemental rights of care to all shows a country that cares, that at the moment promotes individuailty at all costs
  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:09 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    But why does it have to stop there, why is a country that has the resources to offer care to all, can't or will not do so?

    Where do those resources come from?
  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:16 AM
    Synnen

    Sure... let's just have the United States collect ALL of the outstanding loans that other countries owe us, who cares if it bankrupts them?

    And let's either pull out of Iraq and let the whole Middle East blow up the rest of the world, and let OTHER countries deal with it---or carpet bomb the place, take it over, and tell people in another country how to live their lives.

    At the same time, let's pull our charities and helping hands out of OTHER countries, and take care of people at home.

    Let's make it so that the rest of the world does as much for the rest of the world as the US does! I mean, without the spending that we have in OTHER countries, we can CERTAINLY help more people at home... and who CARES that other people worse off than those at home are getting desparately needed aid from the US more than other countries? We have to take care of our OWN people---let other people take care of the rest of the world!

    /sarcasm off.

    Seriously--it's MY taxes that would be increased to pay for UHC. Not the poor guy who would benefit from it. Not the rich guy that can get whatever health care he wants anyway. The Middle Class.

    And anyone that tells you that a UHC system wouldn't cause a raise in taxes is way more optimistic about the US than I am.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:31 AM
    phlanx

    Love your sarcasm Synnen! :)

    Look, The US is at the top right now and your argument about helping people at home first before aborad was echoed around the chambers of whitehall in London when we had the empire

    The concern was this, if you don't help your fellow man in all races and creeds then they in turn will not help you

    Don't be fooled as to why Iraq and Afghanstan are at the forefront right now - Iraq is our mess, afghan yours, and TOGETHER we are fighting our way through it.

    At the same time, trade routes will be set up that will help your people as well mine, and therefore increase the tax pot

    My question stands to you - If a fellow american collapsed on your doorstep and all you had to do was spend a dollar to save his life - would you spend it?

    Or would you judge whether the way the person was dressed to whether the dollar was spent?
  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:39 AM
    Synnen

    It has NOTHING to do with the way they are dressed.

    If someone collapsed on my doorstep, I'd call 911.

    If they were coherent enough to tell me what they needed, I would attempt to help.

    I am NOT, however, opening up a soup kitchen from my front porch.

    There's a line--and the line is usually drawn at "helping those who help themselves".

    Would I pay for chemo for a lung cancer patient that refuses to quit smoking? Nope.

    See... I GIVE to those charities. United Way comes out of my paycheck, the Salvation Army gets my time, the homeless shelters and women's abuse shelters in my area get my donations of food and clothing and soap and toothbrushes.

    I would like to think that MOST Americans give to those less fortunate.

    There's a line, though, between helping others and supporting others.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:40 AM
    tomder55

    Is compulsorary and mandatory benevolence a virtue ? I call it pocket picking. I'm sure Synn would gladly help someone on her own .
  • Oct 12, 2009, 10:46 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    is compulsorary and mandatory benevolence a virtue ?

    For a president who's for mandatory voluntary service it would be. Hey, didn't they used to call that slavery?
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:04 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Where do those resources come from?

    Hello again, Steve:

    If what you said earlier is true, about nobody going without health care today, then we ALREADY are spending the resources necessary, and it's just a matter of managing those resources better. No?

    excon
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:12 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    If what you said earlier is true, about nobody going without health care today, then we ALREADY are spending the resources necessary, and it's just a matter of managing those resources better. No?

    That depends on what "managing those resources" means to you.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:20 AM
    tomder55

    Managing resourses is like how the S.S. trust fund is managed.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:20 AM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Love your sarcasm Synnen!! :)


    My question stands to you - If a fellow american collapsed on your doorstep and all you had to do was spend a dollar to save his life - would you spend it?


    Of course I would, and do more - that is as an INDIVIDUAL acting, not the government.

    Those who believe in UHC may wait for the government to tax them $3, spend $2 on bureacratic costs , to have a government agent tell that individual that just collapsed that they can wait in line to see the government doctor, or have some US NICE equivalent tell them that they are too old to qualify for that $1. ;)


    G&P
  • Oct 12, 2009, 11:42 AM
    sGt HarDKorE
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox View Post

    Of course I would, and do more - that is as an INDIVIDUAL acting, not the government.

    Those who believe in UHC may wait for the government to tax them $3, spend $2 on bureacratic costs , to have a government agent tell that individual that just collapsed that they can wait in line to see the government doctor, or have some US NICE equivalent tell them that they are too old to qualify for that $1. ;)


    G&P

    I think it's interesting when people make things up. With UHC you can't be to old for healthcare.

    And congrats on bringing up waiting lists.

    However, did you know waiting lists in other industrialized countries are almost always for elective surgeries and procedures. No country has a waiting list for emergency procedures, and virtually no country has waiting lists for primary care visits.

    And we already have waiting lists in America, you haven't noticed?

    It often takes months to get an appointment with specialists and even primary care physicians, especially if you are a new patient to that physician. I'd like to see you try and go see a specialist within the hour. Oh wait you can't.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 01:04 PM
    phlanx

    Evening Inthbox,

    Regardless of who controls an organistation, there will be bureacratic costs.

    Waiting lists as sgt states are part and parcel of the systems we have available today in any industrial country.

    Hospitals will still compete with each, charitable donations will still occur to those that seek it.

    Doctors and specialists will still operate as they do today.

    The only single difference is those who are misfortunate enough not to be able to receive healthcare will do so

    And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.

    Just because you can't afford healthcare does not mean you are not deseving of it, I am sure there are numerous people who work and work hard on very low income, why shouldn't they receive the care just because they do the work nobody else wants to but still contributes towards the economy as a whole?
  • Oct 12, 2009, 01:31 PM
    Synnen

    Are those people who have a low income exercising their ability to get FREE birth control? Oh... we can't limit how many kids people have based on their income, you say? Yet we should still PAY for them to be able to have as many kids as they like?

    It comes down to this: Every single person out there makes choices. Sometimes the choices are pretty crappy, and it's choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea---but it's still a choice.

    Making the choice to raise your child when you can't feed yourself shouldn't qualify you for free health care.

    Making the choice to smoke after being diagnosed with cancer or emphasema shouldn't qualify you for free health care. (These people, by the way, could AFFORD health care if they gave up their addiction).

    Making the choice to not finish high school and therefore ending up with a lower paying job shouldn't qualify you for automatic state help.

    YES, there are people out there who truly have tried everything they could to better themselves--those people deserve to be the ones benefitting from Medicare and Welfare programs.

    Most of the people who rely on those programs, though, are people who made a CHOICE that put them there.

    I'm refusing to pay for other people's bad choices.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 03:16 PM
    NeedKarma
    Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post
    I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 03:30 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Evening Inthbox,

    Regardless of who controls an organistation, there will be bureacratic costs.

    Waiting lists as sgt states are part and parcel of the systems we have available today in any industrial country.

    Hospitals will still compete with each, charitable donations will still occur to those that seek it.

    Doctors and specialists will still operate as they do today.

    The only single difference is those who are misfortunate enough not to be able to receive healthcare will do so

    And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.

    Just because you can't afford healthcare does not mean you are not deseving of it, I am sure there are numerous people who work and work hard on very low income, why shouldn't they receive the care just because they do the work nobody else wants to but still contributes towards the economy as a whole?

    This is NOT ABOUT who deserves healthcare but how it is delivered. Is a government controlled healthcare system really better? Really more cost effective?
    We have government run healthcare here in the US :

    VA

    19 deaths at VA traced to poor care - Health care- msnbc.com

    VA Faces Questions Over Tainted Colonoscopies - US News and World Report

    The VA's Data Breach – Tips for Veterans

    Ask anybody on Medicaid or even Medicare what percent of doctors or specialists will see them.


    We have Medicare and Medicare part d - both of which have cost much more than predicted.


    Speaking of government health care - what is UK's cancer survival rate vs the US?
    The Lancet [ England's own ]

    Europe's Cancer Survival Is Up, But UK Lagging, New Study



    Quote:


    And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.




    See the results of "cash for clunkers" [cost more than advertised and lasted shorter than predicted ] - sad thing it cost the American taxpayor.



    G&P
  • Oct 12, 2009, 04:00 PM
    Synnen
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post
    I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

    I could PROBABLY find a case for the ridiculous for how stupid government run health care systems are, too.

    Saw that article today, rolled my eyes.
  • Oct 12, 2009, 07:49 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox View Post
    Ask anybody on Medicaid or even Medicare what percent of doctors or specialists will see them.


    G&P

    Now you see we don't have that problem here, any doctor will see you, but you may not be able to get him to bulk bill you, that is optional on his part, but you can claim back the benefit but not the gap in fee. The decision not to see a particular doctor is left to the patient. Most specialists don't bulk bill.

    I think you might understand that there is a difference in philosophy in operation, freedom of choice is maintained; choice of health coverage and choice of doctor, no one dictates what doctor you can see but how you pay is up to you. You can pay through the tax system, you can pay through insurance cover or you can run the gauntlet and pay in cash but gaming the system isn't allowed either way.
  • Oct 13, 2009, 05:37 AM
    phlanx

    The English Healthcare system has has one major flaw.

    A total lack of competition.

    Since its concenption, you have little choice available to, normally you see the GP in your local town, then he refers you to the local hospital

    Specialised units obviously exist but you don't go there until after the former

    This is starting to change where you can nominate where you choose to be seen, which leaves it open to people to make an informed judgment of what and where

    This will increase competition in the system providing better care in the future

    As regards Englands cancer rate, it is largely due to people in this country not going to to see a doctor until it is too late

    Speaking on my part, when a lump the size of a walnut appeared on top of my skin, it still took me 3 weeks of denial before I saw a Doctor

    Once I did, I had an appointment at the Hospital 4 days later, examined, with the lump removed above my skin there and then

    I was then booked into an appointmnet for surgery the following week

    Regular checks since then and all is clear with the squamous skin cancer

    Taking my example to yourselves in america.

    This is how it would have played out:

    I have been self empoyed for several years, the business was going great

    Until my exwife and I decided that we had enough of her ( :) ) and we divorced, which left me slightly broke to say the least but that's a different story

    I then has a serious of credit card fraud committed against my several internet sites, all of which amounted to over $60k which severerly effected my cashflow and as such I had to close all but one company down.

    This effected my ability to pay for the basics of rent and food for almost a year while I rectified the situation

    So in this circumstance if I was in america, I would probably not be able to afford medical insurance

    SO, after some 20 years of employment and four more of self employed, the one and only time I need serious medical care and I would not be able to get it

    Is that a fair system?
  • Oct 13, 2009, 06:05 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post
    I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

    Praise be to the martyr. :rolleyes:
  • Oct 13, 2009, 06:32 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    The demoralized victims of more than fifty years of central planning and empty promises came together last week in Michigan. In a scene reminiscent of Soviet style bread lines, more than 65000 people filled out applications, hoping for a share of 15.2 million dollars appropriated by the Obama stimulus package to help low income families pay bills, stave off eviction or find temporary housing. Only 3500 people will actually receive aid from the program.

    The Associated Press: Thousands mob Detroit center in hopes of free cash

    This latest incarnation of the Obama recovery act only adds to the evidence that the stimulus was never about job creation, Instead it was merely a tool for the expansion of political power through the welfare state.
    The long slow-moving lines and ill-prepared city welfare workers agitated the desperate citizens who began to trample and fight one another for a shot at the limited number of applications. This is the result of Obama's redistributionist economic policy. Sold under the guise of compassion, social justice, economic justice, egalitarianism, the individual is reduced to a budget item, who views his fellow man as a threat, competition for his slice of an ever shrinking communal pie.


    Redistributionist or socialist policy, call it what you will, can never produce the economic or social equality that those who champion it promise. In fact such a political and economic system only advances the creation of an inescapable class system they claim to oppose. It advocates the notion that the bureaucrat is more equal than equal. The bureaucrat in the welfare state is given the arbitrary authority over the validity of what he views as the needs of the citizen in relation to the immediate needs of the state. In the end redistributionist policy only advances the ultimate immorality, slavery, first by enslaving the producer to the non-producer, then though dependence the non-producer to the state.
    American Thinker Blog: Obama's Real Vision of Change

    http://www.angryeggplant.com/wp-cont.../jokerjack.jpg
    Who do you trust ? Hubba hubba!!
  • Oct 13, 2009, 06:36 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:
    Did you hear the audio on this? If I can find it I'll post it, but these people came to get them some "Obama money." When asked they had no idea where "Obama money" comes from.
  • Oct 13, 2009, 06:37 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Did you hear the audio on this? If I can find it I'll post it, but these people came to get them some "Obama money." When asked they had no idea where "Obama money" comes from.

    Idiots are not in shortage. LOL!
  • Oct 13, 2009, 06:39 AM
    speechlesstx
    Come get your "Obama money"

  • Oct 13, 2009, 07:11 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Who do you trust ? hubba hubba !!!

    Hello again, tom:

    Your post, yet again, confirms MY suspicion that your opposition to health care reform has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and EVERYTHING to do with defeating Obama at every turn. This due to your wacko belief that health care reform, or anything he does for that matter, is the first step in a communist takeover...

    You and the Wolverine are sharing the tin hat.

    excon
  • Oct 13, 2009, 07:19 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Your post, yet again, confirms MY suspicion that your opposition to health care reform has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and EVERYTHING to do with defeating Obama at every turn. This due to your wacko belief that health care reform, or anything he does for that matter, is the first step in a communist takeover...

    You and the Wolverine are sharing the tin hat.

    Your suspicion is correct.

    NK,
    Posting from Communist Canada
  • Oct 13, 2009, 07:43 AM
    tomder55
    Ex
    I would be opposed to socialist solutions to health care reform no matter who the President was.

    Why did you not comment on my charge that if you truly only wanted health care reform that you have ignored the most logical 1st step... removing anti-trust exemptions that the insurance companies have ?
    You have been very clear that your interest is not reform but a goal of single payer universal coverage as some convoluted " self evident right ".
    You have admitted that you consider "reform " as an incremental step in that goal.
    I also see the result to gradual fabianism and will never support it.
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:00 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I'm suprised the left hasn't proposed the most obvious reform ......ending the anti-trust exemptions the insurance companies have .

    One would think that would be an obvious 1st step if the goal was insurance reform.

    But let's not kid ourselves. Ex just argued that all they are looking for is reform when in fact they see these reforms as a stepping stone to a complete overhaul of the health care system with the end being universal single payer . Every Democrat legislator in secret or openly has admitted that .

    You've been listening to Mark Simone, haven't you...

    Good point.
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:11 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post
    I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.
    Bet your thrilled then you don't live in UK

    Daughter saves mother, 80, left by doctors to starve - Times Online
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:18 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Halfpennies worth from the otherside of the lake.

    It is something than most of us take for granted in England, a free health scheme.

    Everytime we broke a bone as a kid, or got sick, the hospital, doctors and nurses were all standing there waiting to help you

    Dont get me wrong, sure the system is flawed, it is run by humans after all, so mistakes will happen.

    But the basic right of a country that respects its people is to make sure they are cared for in some capacity

    Private medical insurance can still be taken out on top of it, if you so choose

    It beggars belief that a nation as powerful as America is, it doesnt have a mechanism in place that will assist the poor and misfortunate

    Would anyone here not come to the aid of another human being if they could be saved, hopefully not

    Would they dip their hands in there wallets and pay a few bucks, by the sounds of things yes

    I can't see what the difference is.

    Taxes are put into a big pot, so everyone can receive the benefits of a basic system

    I am sure nobody here has built a road so they can travel to work on it, of course not, it is expected that their taxes pay for an infrastructure so everyone can enjoy the benefits

    And I appreciate this may be a bit controversial, but surely the assitance of someone who has found themselves in difficulty through what ever means cannot be denied the help just because someone doesnt think the way they lead their lives is worthy of such

    phlanx,

    Here is your universal health care system.

    Daughter saves mother, 80, left by doctors to starve - Times Online

    Sentenced to death on the NHS - Telegraph

    Number of children going to hospital to have teeth pulled soars by 66% since 1997 | Mail Online

    Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE | Mail Online

    Culture of targets prevents nurses from tending to patients - Telegraph

    BBC NEWS | Health | NHS charges to rise in England

    Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors | Society | The Guardian

    If that's what we are to expect from government-run universal health care, no thanks.

    And by the way, your health care isn't FREE as you say in your first sentence. You are paying very high taxes to keep your broken system running. But because you don't pay at the point of service, you have gotten into the habbit of THINKING that health care is free in the UK. It isn't.

    Elliot
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:26 AM
    speechlesstx

    That's even worse than this guy's predicament...

    Plumber with shattered arm left horrifically bent out of shape has operation 'cancelled four times'
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:29 AM
    phlanx

    Wolverine - Death and Taxes mate!

    I don't pay the builder to make the roads I drive down either, but I still don't get charged for doing so

    Taxes are a certainty mate, or don't you appreciate that simple truth?

    The NHS is paid for through National Insurance Contributions, which has a fixed min and max. (Well the tax pot anyway)

    This is take directly out of our wages every time we get paid and clearly shows it on the payslip - so hard to forget

    Are you sure the American health System at the moment doesn't make mistakes either??

    As I said, the NHS has become idol due to a lack of competition, from what I understand this will not be the case being proposed

    It's a shame you didn't read my story of the NHS a little further on - For every bad case you here, how many great cases you don't?
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:30 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post
    I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

    You mean as opposed to the Canadian system?

    CTV News | Majority of Que. dentists quit health-care system

    Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients

    CBC News - Health - Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report

    The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

    CBC News - Health - Cancer patients question why PET scan not covered

    Yep... great system you've got there.

    >Snicker<

    Elliot
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:32 AM
    phlanx
    PS Wolverine, you point out where the NHS goes wrong with a handful of articles

    What about the few million of americans who aren't lucky enough to even have an appointment in the first place to have it cancelled!
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:34 AM
    phlanx
    In both countries there is private medical care available through insurance, so you still have the choice of public or private care

    Or has that point totally passed you by?
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:35 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    PS Wolverine, you point out where the NHS goes wrong with a handful of articles

    What about the few million of americans who arent lucky enough to even have an appointment in the first place to have it cancelled!

    I've asked and asked and asked and no one has yet to pinpoint who in this country goes without health care. We have some without insurance, but nobody has to go without health care.
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:36 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    Your post, yet again, confirms MY suspicion that your opposition to health care reform has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and EVERYTHING to do with defeating Obama at every turn. This due to your wacko belief that health care reform, or anything he does for that matter, is the first step in a communist takeover...

    Well, that would be because Obama's health care reform has nothing to do with health care reform, but rather a takeover of the economy.

    If it really was about health care reform, why would he not address tort reform? Why would he not address lowering costs by making them pre-tax? Why would he not talk about portability and interstate competition? Why would he push the one system that would insure that costs go UP instead of DOWN as he claims to want them to go?

    Obama's goal is clearly NOT to reform health care, but rather to TAKE OVER health care. Reform is just the excuse.

    And you better get your tin foil hat now... the cost of tin foil is going to go up too under Obama. You can't produce tin without producing carbon dioxide, and he's going to tax that too.

    Elliot
  • Oct 13, 2009, 08:41 AM
    phlanx

    There were 58000 brave americans who died in Vietnam, and there were protests and marches against the war

    45000 americans die EACH YEAR for nothing more than a lack of a health care system

    Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Health | Reuters
  • Oct 13, 2009, 09:03 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Wolverine - Death and Taxes mate!

    I don't pay the builder to make the roads I drive down either, but I still don't get charged for doing so

    Taxes are a certainty mate, or don't you appreciate that simple truth?

    By the way... how are the potholes on your street? Are you satisfied with how your government takes care of the roads? Arre you getting your money's worth from the taxes you have paid?

    I'm not. The roads that I PAY FOR via my taxes are full of potholes, poorly maintained and are fixed by the lowest bidder... meaning that it is done with the minimal competence that they can get away with.

    That's how your health care is handled too...

    How's it feel to be covered for your heart surgery by the same government takes care of your roads via the lowest bidder and the least possible amount of competence?

    Again, no thanks, buddy.


    Quote:

    What about the few million of americans who aren't lucky enough to even have an appointment in the first place to have it cancelled!
    As for those without health insurance in this country, I have laid out a plan to reform the system without resorting to nationalization/socialization/marxism to get the job done. Not that I can take credit for these ideas. They are all Conservative proposals that have been ignored by the Liberals in the government and the media. These include:

    1) Make all medical-related costs pre-tax. This is to include the costs of purchasing health insurance and any medical services or co-pays. This would immediately lower medical costs by 30% making them more affordable to everyone, including those who don't currently have insurance.

    2) Lower taxes so that more have the disposable income to afford health care.

    3) Modify Medicare and Medicaid to cover those that SHOULD be covered under these programs but are not.

    4) Tort reform, if properly enacted, could lower medical spending by as much as 60%, especially in "high risk" specialties. In Texas, such tort reform has had the effect of lower health care costs across the board by 30-35% in two years, and also has resulted in an influx of 7500 new doctors to practice in the state.

    5) DEREGULATE the medical industry. Useless regulation costs money that could be spent better actually HEALING people. Something like 25-35% of any hospital's overhead is related to regulatory compliance. There is a clear level of OVERKILL in medical regulation. Bring the level of regulation down to something reasonable.

    6) De-unionize the hospitals. Union benefits cost a fortune. Union contracts require minimum numbers of employees even if those employees are redundant or not needed. That costs money that could be better spent elsewhere. This is the same problem that caused the fall of the American auto makers, and it can be fixed by getting rid of the union contracts.

    7) As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.

    8) Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate.

    9) Create a "build-your-own-policy" service. It allows people to get the coverage they want and need without having to pay for the stuff they don't want or need. This can make policies WAY cheaper while still providing the coverage needed.

    10) Create "portability" and interstate competition. The way the regulations are currently written, a person can only purchase medical insurance from the state in which they reside. That means that they only have about 6-10 companies to choose from in large states, and as few as 2 or 3 in smaller states. If these regulations were changed to allow people to purchase insurance from ANY state and carry it to their own state, the number of choices we would have would increase to 1300, which would increase competition significantly, which would result in lower costs and better services.

    THAT is how to fix the problem... not nationalization. All of these options except #3 are free market solutions, and any ONE of them would make insurance more accessible to everyone, including those currently uninsured. All of these proposals actually ADDRESS THE ISSUES of cost and accessibility, as opposed to the proposals for nationalization which even the Libs proposing them admit won't fix these issues.

    Phlanx, you wanted to know what about those who are uninsured? THAT is my solution to helping the uninsured.

    Elliot

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 PM.