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.
"...A universal system once again proves to be the least expensive and most efficient..."
I don't doubt that in the slightest!
I wonder how much resistance there was from the local people in Taiwan to having their medical history and 'sensitive' medical data recorded on computer-based media which could be hacked by unauthorised people?
Can you imagine people in either the US or the UK accepting such 'a gross invasion of privacy'?
Can you imagine the outcry from the Civil Rights Industry if the government - either that of the UK or the US - announced that it was going to introduce 'Smart Cards' with all that information on them?
The lawsuits would tie the scheme in knots for the next 20 years.
The Swiss, too have an insurance system and their insurance costs are less than ours.
That is a lie.
Had you bothered read my post, you wouldn't have been so stupid as to a make a claim that I have already refuted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Expenditure of selected health care functions by providers of health care, per inhabitant [hlth_sha1h]
Last update 25.10.11 Extracted on 06.01.13 Source of Data Eurostat UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HC Health care expenditure ICHA_HP All providers of health care
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF General government
Romania....... 241.10
South Korea....... 473.18
Slovakia....... 690.87
Spain .......1,553.99
New Zealand....... 1,618.97
Japan .......1,747.71
Australia .......1,894.69
Finland .......2,064.81
Canada .......2,111.80
Iceland .......2,151.60
Sweden .......2,441.88
Germany .......2,537.44
Belgium .......2,565.80
Austria .......2,615.23
France .......2,646.43 United States....... 2,657.86 Switzerland .......3,114.60
Netherlands .......3,271.16
Denmark .......3,775.17
Luxembourg .......4,105.86
Norway .......4,195.13
That’s what each government spends per person. How about yet another perspective?
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure
Romania .......63.95
Netherlands .......237.68
France .......254.56
Slovakia .......268.80
New Zealand....... 269.41
South Korea .......271.69
Japan .......348.23
Germany....... 403.33
Iceland .......436.25
Spain .......438.35
Canada....... 471.79
Austria .......516.18
Sweden .......522.30
Australia....... 526.62
Finland .......558.77
Denmark....... 611.68
Luxembourg .......680.76
Belgium....... 681.71 United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54 Switzerland....... 1,590.18
No, I didn’t stutter…..those are out-of-pocket expenses.
Any particular reason why you withheld that information from people?
What does it say about your character that you would not want people to see the truth?
That data came from here and it is for year 2009 which was the last available date for those data series.
That's Eurostat of the European Commission, not the left-wing OECD.
Your debate skills are clearly lacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
They only spend 6.3% of GDP on health care expenditures, and the average family premium is just $650 per year for a family of four.
A universal system once again proves to be the least expensive and most efficient.
You have haven't proven anything.
You are still unable to grasp even the most rudimentary concepts.
The fact that a State spends less on health care, does not mean that health care costs less, or is cheaper.
It simply means they spend less and nothing more.
Again, I'll let the German Minister of Health rub it in....
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Get it?
If you budget less, then very, very obviously, you spend less. However, the fact that you spend less does not mean it costs less or that it is cheaper, it just means you spend less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Guess your able to dismiss HMS and FamiliesUSA...
They don't present any facts of any merit, so yes, I can easily dismiss them, just like I can easily dismiss you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
... as just liberal liars unlike the misguided, misinformed group you represent.
And what group do I represent?
More to the point, what have been the sources of my information?
The European Commission
The IEA Health and Welfare Unit
The NHS
The Center for Disease Control
The Dutch Ministry of Health
The European Parliament
The European Hospital and Healthcare Federation
The European Observatory
The German Ministry of Health
Please advise which of those groups are sinister and evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
And, if you read Poppysead's previous post by a conservative Republican living in Canada...
This is a debate.
I have no interest in anecdotal evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
A 2009 Harvard Medical School study found, for example, that “the uninsured are more likely to die than are the privately insured.” “Lack of health insurance,” that study found, “is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease.” While, you, as Mitt of 2012, claimed that the government will protect those without insurance, the same study found that “alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance.”
Another report, by the healthcare consumer advocacy group FamiliesUSA, found slightly lower numbers — 26,100 adults ages 25 to 64 died prematurely due to a lack of health insurance in 2010. The report, Dying For Coverage: The Deadly Consequences of Being Uninsured, also determined that more than 2,000 people die prematurely every month in the U.S. — 72 every day, three every hour. The report also found that from 2005 to 2010, “the number of people who died prematurely each year due to a lack of health coverage rose from 20,350 to 26,100.”
"One example which has received attention in the press and specialist journals is the denial of cancer care, so much so that the Prime Minister himself became involved. The most authoritative estimate has been made by Professor Sikora, head of the WHO cancer programme, who calculated that there could be as many as 25,000 unnecessary deaths in the UK every year because of under-provision."
Source: Delay, Denial and Dilution The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
So, FamiliesUSA claims 26,100 out of 314,000,000 or 0.0083% die, while in the UK, 25,000 out of 62,641,000 or 0.04% die because they government denies them treatment for budgetary reasons.
Which is greater.....0.04% or 0.0083%?
Prove to me that those 26,100 people would not have died anyway with universal health care.
And that goes back to this....
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
You still just don't get it.
Why don't you tell us how many people have a pre-paid medical service plan, but died anyway, because they didn't go to the doctor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Letting people die when it could be prevented IS about character, Mircea, and you have not responed to what I asked--which IS about a national health care system that could prevent needless deaths. Your do nothing attitude is what is allowing people to die.
I'll take that as an admission that you've lost the debate and you've nothing let but Fallacies like "Appeal to Emotion."
And character has nothing to do with it. People died long before I started walking the face of this Earth, and people will die long after I'm gone.
If you're so hung up on preventing needless deaths, then why don't you ban automobiles, and swimming pools and a few hundred other things?
What are you like a sophomore in high school or something? Best thing you can do is learn that you can't save everyone, and trying to do so does nothing but waste lots of money and cause harm to other people.
And contrary to what you claim, I don't have a "do nothing attitude."
I have spent two years on this forum explaining in elaborate detail what you can do to have affordable health care for everyone. It's not my fault people [like you] don't get it.
Neither a national health care system nor a single payer plan are the only alternatives.
And I have repeatedly responded directly to your question. As I recall, you presented The Fallacy of the False Dilemma.
80 years ago in the United States, you had Free Market health care that was affordable to everyone.
Interlopers and meddlers then initiated a series of events that would forever change that. If you want affordable health care for everyone, all you have to do is undo the damage they caused. Here....
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
...even though I explained it in excruciating detail, you just don't understand it.
They have pay-as-you-go programs. You pay taxes, the taxes are pooled in funds, and then those funds are used to pay health care benefits.
When the money runs out.....that's it. So, what you're going to set a payroll tax at 12.4%?
Okay, then you would have collected $706 Billion in 2012....
....and that is all the money you have to spend for the entire year.
That's how the Germans, French, Swedes and everyone else does it. They levy a tax, the collect revenues, whatever they collect is what they spend, and there is never a surplus. Not ever. They spend 100%, and even though they spend 100% of what they collect, it isn't enough and they have to ration health care by denying treatment.....by delaying treatment......by diluting treatment to the point that it is totally ineffective.
That is not my opinion, that's fact. I've give you the sources repeatedly.
You're the one who claims a national health care system would be cheaper, so prove it....that means show the numbers....for the US....not other countries.
Once again, for those who are so blind they refuse to see….
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Health expenditures are one of the main expenditures of every country. Figure 10 shows health expenditures as a percentage of the countries’ national income in 2006.
• In Romania, health expenditure amounts to 5% of GDP and in Poland 6,6%
• The Romanian expenditure levels are only half of those of Britain, Italy, Spain and Sweden
• In Austria and Switzerland almost 1 in every 10 Euros flows into the healthcare sector.
If you want, we can budget and spend less than Romania or Poland (or both), and then you can strut pompously about beating your chest proclaiming that the US spends less per capita than any country on Earth, but I don’t think you’d like the health care you’d be getting.
Debating...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
A national health system doesn't have to be government run program exclusively.
Yes, it does.
That is the definition of national heath system. A national health care system is one that is government owned and operated, and all employees are government employees. The United Kingdom has national health care, but other Euro-States do not. To my knowledge, Italy and Finland are the only other States that have national health care.
Explicitly.....
That could be the key then. I understand, though don't necessarily agree with, the sentiment that people should be responsible only for themselves and that I ain't my brother's keeper, but if they only realized that the next time they were in the vicinity of somebody sneezing, they could be setting themselves up for a major illness, they might be less resistant to universal healthcare.
I firmly believe that using a humanitarian argument is not going to work, and neither is a financial argument. While most intelligent people realize that universal healthcare is actually cheaper than the mess we have now, it is possible to get into unwinnable arguments about abstract deficits and "entitlement" spending.
But this is a really genuine appeal to everybody's self interest. If you don't give the other guy affordable healthcare, YOU are going to get sick! Just imagine the long term repercussions - rampant disease, epidemics, Americans not being allowed into other countries, zero productivity....
Think that couldn't happen?
Uh, the forum for Straw Man Fallacies is over there, somewhere.
Universal health care would not actually be cheaper than "the mess we have now."
Why don't you explain to everyone in great detail exactly how you got into the mess you have now?
Is there some legitimate reason you refuse to do that?
What are you trying to hide?
There are alternatives to universal health care. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?
Again, what are you trying to hide from people?
Burning straw...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
How do we pay for single payer medical care?
Gosh, at least one person has the common sense to ask a critical question.
Would you like a truthful answer?
There is no way to answer your question without first answering about 5,000 other questions, otherwise you're just putting the cart before the horse.
As an analogy, how do you pay for your holiday?
Well, first, wouldn't it help to plan out your holiday? Are you driving, flying, train-spotting, hitch-hiking, biking or taking the Greyhound?
Where will you stay? Hotels? Motels? Campgrounds? Roughing it?
What will you do? Spend all your time lazing on the beach or do you intend to tour and sight-see?
When you start asking questions like that, then you start to get an idea of costs, and once you have an idea of costs, then you can start thinking about how to fund or raise or save money for your holiday.
Health care is no different.
Before you decide on costs, you have to answer a wide variety of questions, many of which involve ethics or bio-ethics at the very least.
How much money should you spend or are you willing to spend on one person?
Are you paying for transplants? Under what conditions? How many transplants does one person get? --- that might seem like a bizarre question but one child got 5 liver transplants in hospital at Pittsburgh and he still died. What will you cover?
Do you understand the implications of the 14th Amendment ---- equal protection under the law; equality under the law?
How will that play out in your system (because Euro-States have nothing comparable)?
The reason I ask is because right now, your transplant scheme is entirely private, but once it comes under the auspices of the federal government, you open up a whole can of worms.
If you are or were a "smoker" then you don't get a transplant. If you are or were an alcoholic or substance abuser, then you don't get a transplant. In both instances, you go to, and stay at, the very bottom of the list and other people "bump" you and you get a transplant only if extra donated organs are falling out of the sky.
What about old skins?
In Europe they tell an old skin, "You're too old for an heart transplant" and the old skin accepts it, because rationing is accepted.
You think an old skin here would accept that? No way. They'd be filing lawsuits claiming violation of the 5th and 6th Amendment right to due process and 14th Amendment rights for equality under the law, and the age discrimination.
If anyone thinks I'm kidding then you had best log onto WestLaw or Lexis-Nexis and start shepardizing, because people on Medicare and Medicaid have filed such suits.
You'll see a term/phrase when investigating European systems that refers to complimentary insurance. What is that? It's money you pay out of your own pocket for private insurance that covers complimentary medical care.
Okay, so what is complimentary medical care? Typically it's dental and vision, but in some countries it also covers physiotherapy.
What is physiotherapy? In the US you call it "chiropractic" (for some Euro-States it also includes acupuncture).
How much money should you spend on one person for health care in a life-time?
$1 Million?
Sounds reasonable, no? That comes to $13,300 per year which is what Medicare costs you now.
Your population is 314 Million. That means you'd spend $314 TRILLION over 75 years, which comes out to $4,186,666,666,666 or $4.18 TRILLION per year.
Your government can barely collect $2.17 TRILLION in tax revenues for one year, how are they going to get $4.18 TRILLION?
Universal health care will be cheaper....
Will it?
I already debunked that myth.
The fact that European States spend less on health care does not prove health care is cheaper.
To show you how stupid that is, if I spend $200 on clothing annually, does that mean that clothing is cheaper? No, it just means I spend less, and the reason I spend less, is because I shop at second hand stores and thrift stores and I never buy name brand clothing. I've never worn Izod LaCoste or Tommy-gear, I have no desire to wear that crap, and I wouldn't buy it even if I won the lottery (which will never happen since I don't gamble).
I have a really nice slate-gray Oscar de la Rente shirt, but I only paid like $0.75 because I got it used at Valley Thrift Store.
What does Obamacare do? It totally bans any life-time limits on any person.
That means if you have to spend $1 Million per year on 1 person for 50 years, then that's what medical plan providers have to do.
Does it work that way in Europe? Nope. Sorry. They won't turn you away, rather they'll just give you diluted treatment, instead spending maybe $150,000 per year on you.
Anyway, thanks for asking a question many refuse to address.
Singly...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Just for a moment let us consider the alternate way of paying for healthcare. What would happen if everyone had to pay for their own care in cash without any insurance at all?
Why must people do that?
Why is it always Black & White with you people? Are there no in-betweens?
There are manyother alternatives, none of which require national health care and none of which require people going without medical treatment.
I think I can answer for him. He has strong libertarian beliefs. He'd first say that no matter what, under no circumstances does the federal government have any constitutional basis to be involved in the whole healthcare process. In his mind, it should be up to the states. If you point out that some states would simply drop the ball on those who can't afford healthcare and they ended up doing without, he'd probably say that its not his problem. He only needs to worry about himself. You only need to worry about yourself.
What people with this philosophy don't seem to understand is that this isn't something a majority of the country is willing to accept anymore. The reason we have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS is because a majority of the country decided years ago that we would not stand by while some people went without medical care. He got out voted. And he's lost his argument over the Constitution as well. In our country, he doesn't get to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court does. They've sided against his view of that document.
Once you get past his condescension, his sly little insults, and his constantly suggesting he's proven things he hasn't, what you really find is a lot of hot air. He actually has some things to say when he talks about the overall economic health of this country. When it comes to this debate, he seems more wrapped up in the notion that he might not get the system to pay for some kind of surgery or medical procedure he doesn't fully describe. The whole thing is pretty strange.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Well-reasoned, Mark, and I respect not only your thoughts but the succinct and clear description.
Well, reasoned? I think you mean arrogantly presumptuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
He has strong libertarian beliefs.
Strong libertarian beliefs?
I'm a freaking combat veteran.
Individualism is often contrary to the collective good. Humans are social animals; they have a pack mentality; and they require leadership and an hierarchical structure to function efficiently, but such structure does not necessitate bureaucracy.
I'm an ultra-conservative.....and, no, not the religious kind -- I'm an atheist; a Plutonian republican; a Constructivist -- similar to a Radical (accepting Marx's theory of history as true), but rejecting Marx's class theories (the Constructivist School correctly predicted the failures of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, the failures in Kosovo-Metohija and Libya, the future failure in Syria and Iran and the destruction of the US in pursuit of its global Geo-political strategy which has no chance of success); and since the federal system is the only workable structural system for the US, a die-hard federalist and constitutionalist. Economically, I'm partial to Friedman who dismisses Keynesian Theory (as well as the idiot Austrian School). We never actually discussed theory at university; it was more here's a problem fix it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
He'd first say that no matter what, under no circumstances does the federal government have any constitutional basis to be involved in the whole healthcare process.
You got that part right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
In his mind, it should be up to the states.
But, of course! Which part of "federal system" do you not understand?
I'll try to bring you up to speed in the discipline of political geography.
Structural systems are entirely dependent on geography and demographics. There are three such systems:
1] Federal
2] Confederal
3] Unitary
The geography alone of the United States precludes the possibility of using the Unitary system. For an area as large and as diverse as the United States, and factoring in demographics, the only viable systems are the Confederal and Federal. The Confederal system was tried and failed, but the failure was due largely to communication -- which includes roads, highways, rail-lines, air-travel, water-ways and media. It would work today.
Even so, the federal system is the best system. If it appears to be failing to some, then it is because people like you have strayed from the path and attempted to foist a powerful national government with a quasi-Unitary system on the people. In that regard, the Framers of the Constitution were much more intelligent than you, and displayed greater foresight.
Euro-States, which are incredibly small if not in land area, then in population can employ Unitary systems. The Unitary system is suitable for homogenous nation-States, but not for heterogeneous countries like the United States. Did I mention that 25+ European States have populations the size of large US cities -- or even smaller?
Is the cost-of-living uniform throughout the United States as it is in European States?
No, it most certainly is not.
You live in Bergen, NJ and earn $150,000/year. You're offered a job in Covington, Kentucky that pays $105,500/year. Should you take the job?
I'm just totally dumb-founded that so few of you get it.
And because you don't get it, you dole out $400 worth of Food Stamps to a family in NYC that actually only buys $210 worth of food, while you simultaneously give $400 in Food Stamps to a family in Ohio that because of the cost-of-living really buys $700 worth of food.
And then you all pat yourselves on the back and say how wonderful you are and how much you care about the little guy......really?
Where's the egalitarianism enriching one at the expense of another?
Even in the late 1700s the Framers of the Constitution understood a great deal more than you about things like geography, geology, transportation, demographics, sociology, psychology, economics and politics --- including the cost-of-living which varied in the Colonies way back when.
This is not Iceland population 397,000 with a uniform cost-of-living; or Denmark pop 5.5 Million with a uniform cost-of-living; or Sweden pop 9.4 Million with a uniform cost-of-living.
This is the United States with 314 Million people, more than 1,000 separate functioning economies and a cost-of-living that varies tremendously.
Thanks to your idiot government and people like you, a retiree is drawing $1,200/month in Social Security benefits and hating life, due to the fact that it has the buying power of a whopping $650/month, while another retiree is living large and having the time of his life in his Golden Years, since the $1,200/month he gets is in reality worth $1,750/month and buys $1,750 worth of goods and services.
I'm flabbergasted that people who scream "equality" are perfectly okay with such grotesque inequalities.
But then you are Liberals and you all believe that talking about your ideology is much more important than bringing it to life, and besides, such inequities are just banal, trivial and petty, right?
Given the geography, demographics and economics of the United States, allowing the States to set up and run their own social welfare and other programs would be extremely advantageous to all...except of course the control freaks who are hampered by Penis Envy and Breast-Implant Envy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
If you point out that some states would simply drop the ball on those who can't afford healthcare and they ended up doing without, he'd probably say that its not his problem. He only needs to worry about himself. You only need to worry about yourself.
Why would some States drop the ball?
Is there some kind of objective standard on which you base that, or is more of a Liberal subjective thing: "I don't like how that State runs their system, therefore it is flawed and defective and they dropped the ball"?
Okay, so two or more States end up having different systems....it's not the end of the world. Besides, I thought you control freaks were into things like "diversity."
Sounds like more of a Penis Envy/Breast-Implant Envy thing --- In that State they get one "free" eye exam a year we don't....wah...wah...wah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
What people with this philosophy don't seem to understand is that this isn't something a majority of the country is willing to accept anymore. The reason we have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS is because a majority of the country decided years ago that we would not stand by while some people went without medical care.
And the solutions they came up with were grotesquely flawed and unsustainable financially...bravo.
Instead of enacting Medicare, the correct solution was to decouple health care from the employer and put the ball back into the individual's court so that everyone could have access, whether they were employed or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
He got out voted. And he's lost his argument over the Constitution as well. In our country, he doesn't get to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court does. They've sided against his view of that document.
That just proves Plato was right. I won't even broach the issue of the Supreme Court's infallibility, unless you consider Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson to be "well-reasoned."
Oh, yeah, here's another one of my Supreme Court favorites, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928).
Telephone wire taps are legal under the 14th Amendment? The Supreme Court thought so.
The truth of the matter is that you have failed to persuade a majority of your fellow Americans to be of like mind, and so you attained by undemocratic procedures that which you could not attain by democratic proce*dures.
In a free society, it is hard for "evil" people to do "evil," especially since one man's good is another man's evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Once you get past his condescension, his sly little insults, and his constantly suggesting he's proven things he hasn't, what you really find is a lot of hot air.
So, how many more years do I have to wait for you to post one thing to contradict any thing I've said?
You're just mad because you got out-debated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
He actually has some things to say when he talks about the overall economic health of this country. When it comes to this debate, he seems more wrapped up in the notion that he might not get the system to pay for some kind of surgery or medical procedure he doesn't fully describe. The whole thing is pretty strange.
(Sigh) would you like to see the scars? I already had the surgeries. If it hadn't been for the fact that I had to go clean up the mess Bush (the Elder) made in Iraq, I wouldn't have needed the surgeries.
Apparently you were incapable of understanding that I was using myself as an example to demonstrate how the so-called "universal" health care systems in Europe work.
I gave you the laws and the sources.
Your response was "it's legal jargon."
I provided additional sourced evidence to rebut your lame claim and your response was:
"The whole thing is pretty strange."
Are the two of you ever going to provide any relevant facts or just continue to stroke each other?
Rather than ask "Should America give in to a national health care system?," maybe you should ask "Should the remaining 14% of Americans who don't get insurance through work, Medicare, or Medicaid be allowed to BUY IT without a hitch?" That's what Obamacare is about. It's NOT a free lunch ... for some, a cheap lunch, but for others, full fare.
Had you bothered read my post, you wouldn't have been so stupid as to a make a claim that I have already refuted.
Your debate skills are clearly lacking.
You have haven't proven anything.[quote=Mircea;27663428]
Well, no need to call you a liar, the facts speak for themselves. From FORBES, hardly a left-wing media source are the following snippets:
Swiss citizens buy insurance for themselves; there are no employer-sponsored or government-run insurance programs.
99.5% of Swiss citizens have health insurance. Because they can choose between plans from nearly 100 different private insurance companies, insurers must compete on price and service, helping to curb health care inflation.
Government spending on health care in Switzerland is only 2.7 percent of GDP, by far the lowest in the developed world. By contrast, in 2008, U.S. government spending on health care was 7.4 percent of GDP. If the U.S. could move its state health spending to Swiss levels, it would save more than $700 billion a year.
Indeed, the fact that both liberals and conservatives would find objectionable elements to Switzerland is a large part of its appeal. It achieves the policy priorities of liberals (universal coverage; regulated insurance market) and of conservatives (low government health spending; privately-managed health care). Both sides could declare victory, and yet also have plenty to complain about.
Further, the author of the article appears OPPOSED to a universal healthcare system in the U.S. and is being apologetic about how our system costs more.
So, Mircea, you are not well-informed. You are stuck with singularly outmoded sources of information, and you are unable or unwilling to learn. You cling so blindly to your political view that it clouds your ability to see the fact that healthcare in the U.S. is crumbling--as physicians state, as many politicians state, as your own MITT ROMNEY stated when instituting a relatively universal care system in Massachusetts, and which economists cite again and again as an ever increasing burden on our financial system.
Einstein once said, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." And none of the rest of us are even asking you to try to be a genius.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 01-07-2013 at 03:34 PM..
So, Mircea, you are not well-informed. You are stuck with singularly outmoded sources of information, and you are unable or unwilling to learn. You cling so blindly to your political view that it clouds your ability to see the fact that healthcare in the U.S. is crumbling--as physicians state, as many politicians state, as your own MITT ROMNEY stated when instituting a relatively universal care system in Massachusetts, and which economists cite again and again as an ever increasing burden on our financial system.
Einstein once said, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." And none of the rest of us are even asking you to try to be a genius.
Just curious: are you in the "I've got mine" crowd? Most people who oppose it usually are. The question then becomes how to make it feasible. Roll up the sleeves and sharpen your pencils, guys and gals with MPAs.
Just curious: are you in the "I've got mine" crowd? Most people who oppose it usually are. The question then becomes how to make it feasible. Roll up the sleeves and sharpen your pencils, guys and gals with MPAs.
My wife has worked in the health field for over twenty years. I worked for 30 years in the insurance field as an underwriter, ratemaker, and compliance officer, leaving the field after I could no longer stomach the cheating and bypassing of insurance regulations by the companies I worked for (who wanted me to tell them that ignoring state statues was okay--so my head could roll when they got caught).
I then worked for six years in the medical records department of a major metropolitan hospital at 15% of the salary I was making as an insurance professional. Unfortunately discovered that the hospital I worked for, part of a giant for-profit chain, was engaged in violating an agreement with the Federal Government that they had made after previously being caught in a serious violation that had cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.
So, for profit healthcare is about the money, not about healthcare.
My preference is for at least a single payer system, and extremely tight controls over what insurance companies can offer or reject.
ObamaCare won't do it, but it may be a start. Doing anything is better than seeing what we have right now that is killing many, many people.
My preference is for at least a single payer system, and extremely tight controls over what insurance companies can offer or reject.
ObamaCare won't do it, but it may be a start. Doing anything is better than seeing what we have right now that is killing many, many people.
Cool. Because I know of stories of people who can't get underwritten for minor, treatable, generic conditions and also people who have died because they could not afford treatment for their ailments, because of their meager earnings, like a musician and a realtor who succumbed to cancer at early ages.
My wife has worked in the health field for over twenty years. I worked for 30 years in the insurance field as an underwriter, ratemaker, and compliance officer, leaving the field after I could no longer stomach the cheating and bypassing of insurance regulations by the companies I worked for (who wanted me to tell them that ignoring state statues was okay--so my head could roll when they got caught).
I then worked for six years in the medical records department of a major metropolitan hospital at 15% of the salary I was making as an insurance professional. Unfortunately discovered that the hospital I worked for, part of a giant for-profit chain, was engaged in violating an agreement with the Federal Government that they had made after previously being caught in a serious violation that had cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.
So, for profit healthcare is about the money, not about healthcare.
My preference is for at least a single payer system, and extremely tight controls over what insurance companies can offer or reject.
ObamaCare won't do it, but it may be a start. Doing anything is better than seeing what we have right now that is killing many, many people.
Why would replacing one corrupt, inefficient healthcare system with another corrupt, inefficient healthcare system stop the killing of many, many people? Change is not always better, and in many cases can make things worse, IMO.
Further, do you really believe that government healthcare would not be about money, just like for profit healthcare is?
Last edited by Pawporri; 01-07-2013 at 06:13 PM..
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.
Healthcare for all
