Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, you gave yourself up and lost me with your "redistribution". I live in a "commonwealth" in the "United states of America" which has a Constitution stating that Happiness and General Welfare of the People are the entire reason for our existence.
People who use the word "redistribution" obviously think that money, resources and property belongs to them - rather than that they are "borrowing" them and, through payment of taxes and other fees (plus regular expenditures) supporting our common principles.
The Declaration of Independence espouses the right to the "pursuit of happiness" and not happiness. My father made that point to me when aI was unhappy with my reception at a new school as a second grader. Read the words. But I am not against all social programs, only those that don't work well.
But let me entertain your premise just so you have an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
Every civilized country in the world has universal health care of sorts. It seems to be the way that the Western World prefers it - just like we prefer our roads built and plowed with "redistributed" money and our military supplied the same way.
The U.S. is a civilized country last I checked. Most other countries have their roots in some form of monarchical or otherwise paternalistic system where people look to the government for solutions to their problems. The U.S.'s system is different and unique. If it was so bad why have people since at least the 1840's come here rather than elsewhere when things hit the fan in their country. Think the Irish potato famine, warfare in Germany in the mid=1800's, the Russian pogroms. Some went to Canada if they literally couldn't get space in a steerage ship coming to the U.S. and many, including some of my ancestors, came here via Canada.
[quote=craigiri;48518751]The problem here is that the USA Medical (and most other systems) is 1/3 of the economy. Do you really think you can get the corporations - who control the pols and government - to give up 3+ TRILLION dollars a year to a reasonable system.[/qutoe]They do, through employer paid health insurance. And I'd like to see that largely demolished. My problem with any health insurance is that it takes the motivated payer out of the equation. When you buy gas do you head for the most expensive price sign on the block?
[quote=craigiri;48518751] There is one big country in the world that DOES do it your way - and that is China....Example of health care in China. You break a finger. You go to the hospital and for $1 you get a ticket (this entitles you to stand in line). After about 1/2 hour a GP will see you ($5) and refer you to a specialist in the same hospital. You will get your X-ray or MRI ($10-$50) and have the specialist fix and set the break for $20 (his take).
Total spent - about $60.
Chances are you would spend as much as 10 to 20X as much in the USA and it would take much longer, especially if you needed specialists.[/qutoe]And what is the total spent in each country including amounts paid by governments or third-party providers? Yoiu cannot just include copays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
We are falling so far behind in everything - well, to be personal, because you think your money is yours...and the corporations think all our money is theirs....and we watch ourselves going down and down the charts on EVERY metric compared to the rest of the world....
And what is our solution? "Please don't take any money from me...because I have a plan whereas I can control the multi-trillion dollar medical industry and create an entirely new system starting next week.
Not worthy of a Great Debate. We are a selfish country populated by selfish people who don't want to "redistribute" their money for the good of the whole and corporations whose total purpose is to charge as much as possible. In fact, if they don''t charge as much as possible, their shareholders could sue them since that is their reason for existence (shareholder return).
Under your system why should I work 1 1/2 jobs rather than play all day on City-Data? The latter is more fun.
INSTEAD OF GOVERNMENT FUNDED HEALTH CARE - - - -
Give a physician the option of serving in a free clinic proportionally equivalent to his tax bill.
If a physician is paying 44% in taxes, he's tax exempt if he volunteers 44% of his time.
Cuts out the middle men, eliminates paperwork, and would be far far cheaper in the long run.
Best of all, it profits the highest paid and taxed physicians to donate the most.
Repped you for this oddball idea. Unfortunately free services often lead to abuse. People will take advantage because it's free, not because they really need it. They will go to the free clinic for a sneeze, a cold, a sore throat, etc. Nothing should be free. It should be low cost, but not free.
The same AARP that told us Obamacare would reduce premiums? Health care in this country is broken because there is no incentive to reduce costs. The ACA simply guaranteed a flow of federal funds to bail out the health insurance industry as they watched their existing, flawed, model flail towards doom. The heavily-lobbied legislation was an echo of the Medicare scheme in 1965 where the insurance industry got the federal government to take those costly seniors off their backs. For a good laugh, look at their projections for the cost of Medicare versus the reality today. IIRC they underestimated the tab by a mere factor of ten.
Our only hope (and one the insurance industry will fight) is to dismantle the corrupt agreements between hospitals, doctors, pharma, and the insurance companies. We can use existing federal antitrust laws to do it, but someone has to enforce them.
Would making medical school free help us in any way? If our society wants to make medical care a priority I don't know why we don't start with the most basic part of the puzzle. Free of debt doctors could offer their services at a lower cost. I just feel that the government could fund healthcare in much more efficient ways, from doctors to drugs to medical equipment. The more of it we have the lower the prices should be, right?
Would making medical school free help us in any way? If our society wants to make medical care a priority I don't know why we don't start with the most basic part of the puzzle. Free of debt doctors could offer their services at a lower cost. I just feel that the government could fund healthcare in much more efficient ways, from doctors to drugs to medical equipment. The more of it we have the lower the prices should be, right?
My current PCP went to med school at no cost to himself -- then he served eight years in the USAF practicing his profession at dozens of deployments around the world. He left the military and started his own practice which has a unique (these days anyway) business model. Patients are enrolled for a flat fee ($50/mo, $100 if you're over 65) and they get "free" services for any procedure he can do right there in his offices. No paperwork, no insurance, no copay nonsense. Obviously he can't do the work of specialists, and for that he does referrals, often to like-minded doctors.
I find it intriguing that in the space of considerably less than 100 years we have gone from "Insurance? What is that?"
to
"Insurance? That might be a good idea!"
to
"Insurance? It is required by law that you have it on your car (the lender may require full coverage if the vehicle is collateral on a loan), and your lender requires that you have it on your house!"
to
"Insurance? You are required by law to have vehicle insurance (the lender may require full coverage if the vehicle is collateral on a loan) and health insurance, and homeowner's insurance is required by your lender. If you do not own your own home, renter's insurance is highly recommended (although not required, at the present time)."
What will be the next type of insurance that will be required by law? Life insurance, perhaps?
People should keep in mind that the insurance companies are interested in only one thing: PROFIT! Of course, that is as it should be. No business can keep going without profit, and insurance companies are definitely businesses. BIG businesses!
I find it intriguing that in the space of considerably less than 100 years we have gone from "Insurance? What is that?"
to
"Insurance? That might be a good idea!"
to
"Insurance? It is required by law that you have it on your car (the lender may require full coverage if the vehicle is collateral on a loan), and your lender requires that you have it on your house!"
to
"Insurance? You are required by law to have vehicle insurance (the lender may require full coverage if the vehicle is collateral on a loan) and health insurance, and homeowner's insurance is required by your lender. If you do not own your own home, renter's insurance is highly recommended (although not required, at the present time)."
What will be the next type of insurance that will be required by law? Life insurance, perhaps?
People should keep in mind that the insurance companies are interested in only one thing: PROFIT! Of course, that is as it should be. No business can keep going without profit, and insurance companies are definitely businesses. BIG businesses!
I generally agree with you. However, to be fair we wind up with the costs of a personal or natural disaster being socialized anyway. Look at the massive aid going to Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and even some non-U.S. Caribbean lands. As for health this was baked in the cake when hospitals could no longer turn away emergency room visits. Localities could not be asked to absorb the costs of a massive auto accident that happened to occur on a nearby interstate or an inner-city shootout occurring either in or somewhat near them. Once acceptance of all such "customers" became mandatory could some random hospital or municipality be forced to pick up the bill?
For example, near where I live Interstate 95 traverses the southern part of our county, from the Bronx line to the Connecticut border. In that distance to my knowledge only Port Chester and New Rochelle (and maybe Pelham, I'm not sure) have ever had hospitals. The one in Port Chester shut down around 2003. Multi-vehicle mashups, often including trucks are common. Who was going to pay for all this mayhem? At that point when the emergency room legislation passed in 1986 as part of COBRA the clock towards Obamacare was ticking.
I had a coworker from Nigeria who I asked about their health insurance. They said a broken arm would cost you $100 to fix so there's no point in insurance. Insurance is a chicken or the egg game. If your country offers insurance, health care is more expensive, if you don't the free market economy applies.
I really think the bottom line is that modern medicine has created many unaffordable treatments. It's sort of like saying that people have an equal right to fly to the moon or orbit the earth and then find the money to pay for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
