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.
Here's a fact for you, Mircea. You're senseless worry about the dollars (although the Affordable Care Act would be revenue neutral), is leaving 50 million people without insurance coverage.
The numbers you quote and I quote are at odds with one another--and can be debated.
The fact that people are dying because of lack of healthcare in this country is not subject to debate.
The callousness you display toward those people is what I stated before---an issue of character.
The rich never see their selfishness as callous. They just smile and count their gold.
Here's a fact for you, Mircea. You're senseless worry about the dollars (although the Affordable Care Act would be revenue neutral), is leaving 50 million people without insurance coverage.
The numbers you quote and I quote are at odds with one another--and can be debated.
The fact that people are dying because of lack of healthcare in this country is not subject to debate.
The callousness you display toward those people is what I stated before---an issue of character.
The rich never see their selfishness as callous. They just smile and count their gold.
Excellent post! Those against universal care constantly complain about how it would burden the system to add all those extra people, as if these are just numbers and not people involved, and making the finances look good is more important than actually trying to get care for everyone. This is why the rest of the world looks at us as a cold, callous nation that cares about money and only money. People against it whine that they don't want to pay taxes to fund OTHER people's medical care since they happen to be lucky enough at this moment to have god insurance through their employer. They need to realize we are all in this together, funding this with taxes benefits us all, even those of us who currently have good coverage could always lose it due to a lay off, then what? We are also helping ourselves if we have a taxpayer system, that way none of us need to fear medical bills bankrupting us if we lose a job!
Of course, higher paid Germans opt OUT of the single payer system--it IS private---because Germany charges a premium based on income levels:
Second, these nations try to tailor the individual’s contribution to the financing of health care closely to the individual’s ability to pay — almost perfectly so in Germany, albeit less perfectly in the other two countries.
In Germany, statutory health insurance, which covers 90 percent of the population, is financed by a payroll tax. The individual’s premium is not a per-capita levy, as it is in the United States. It is purely income-based.
All three countries offer their citizens reliable, portable health insurance based on the principle of social solidarity, but without a government-run health insurance plan like Medicare. The $64,000 question is whether America’s private health insurers would be willing to countenance the tight regulation required for that approach. Health Reform Without a Public Plan: The German Model - NYTimes.com
And this is where you're "free market" approach breaks down. There is no free market approach when individuals cannot compare costs. The vast majority of Americans have no choice of the insurance they are provided through an employer system. That insurance company does all the negotiating with health care providers, so other than knowing how much your doctor visits are going to cost, or what you will pay for a generic or non-generic drug, you have no idea what costs are going to be levied on YOU if you go into a hospital. The hospital may make a guess, but do you get to shop around for a better deal--- no, because the system is rigged so that if you go outside your insurance plan, the costs become astronomical.
So, you, say, let all of it become "free market". No insurance, hospitals and physicians post what they charge on the internet and we can all compare.
That change will result in thousands of hospitals collapsing, and already scarce physician offices closing.
Why, because people will more and more begin choosing not to go to a doctor or facility in order to save themselves money. The chances of epidemics breaking out uncontrolled will rise when fewer people use preventive care. The money saved on "premiums" paid to employers will not protect those getting hit with catastrophic illnesses (the employers can pour their savings back into CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends). In fact, even WITH the pizz poor insurance people have, thousands are going bankrupt.
But a John Bircher like yourself isn't worried about society as a whole. Which is exactly the social and political problem we face as a nation.
Healthcare is not just about the money--it's about character.
Of course, higher paid Germans opt OUT of the single payer system--it IS private---because Germany charges a premium based on income levels:
Second, these nations try to tailor the individual’s contribution to the financing of health care closely to the individual’s ability to pay — almost perfectly so in Germany, albeit less perfectly in the other two countries.
In Germany, statutory health insurance, which covers 90 percent of the population, is financed by a payroll tax. The individual’s premium is not a per-capita levy, as it is in the United States. It is purely income-based.
All three countries offer their citizens reliable, portable health insurance based on the principle of social solidarity, but without a government-run health insurance plan like Medicare. The $64,000 question is whether America’s private health insurers would be willing to countenance the tight regulation required for that approach. Health Reform Without a Public Plan: The German Model - NYTimes.com
And this is where you're "free market" approach breaks down. There is no free market approach when individuals cannot compare costs. The vast majority of Americans have no choice of the insurance they are provided through an employer system. That insurance company does all the negotiating with health care providers, so other than knowing how much your doctor visits are going to cost, or what you will pay for a generic or non-generic drug, you have no idea what costs are going to be levied on YOU if you go into a hospital. The hospital may make a guess, but do you get to shop around for a better deal--- no, because the system is rigged so that if you go outside your insurance plan, the costs become astronomical.
So, you, say, let all of it become "free market". No insurance, hospitals and physicians post what they charge on the internet and we can all compare.
That change will result in thousands of hospitals collapsing, and already scarce physician offices closing.
Why, because people will more and more begin choosing not to go to a doctor or facility in order to save themselves money. The chances of epidemics breaking out uncontrolled will rise when fewer people use preventive care. The money saved on "premiums" paid to employers will not protect those getting hit with catastrophic illnesses (the employers can pour their savings back into CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends). In fact, even WITH the pizz poor insurance people have, thousands are going bankrupt.
But a John Bircher like yourself isn't worried about society as a whole. Which is exactly the social and political problem we face as a nation.
Healthcare is not just about the money--it's about character.
The NY Times is nothing more than a passe' left-wing rag. It seems to be all you got. I'll stick with Mircea's sources for factual reliable data. Obama-care is a convoluted pile of crap that won't help anyone in the long run and waste trillions.
The NY Times is nothing more than a passe' left-wing rag. It seems to be all you got. I'll stick with Mircea's sources for factual reliable data. Obama-care is a convoluted pile of crap that won't help anyone in the long run and waste trillions.
So, you have another "free" market solution. Or just another person of "character" that chooses to let people perish because they cannot afford care?
If you want to read about how medicare was destroyed, just read about how Part D, prescription drug coverage, was passed by Republicans. The chief actuary for medicare said the projections of cost by Republican was about 60% of what it would really be----he was fired.
So you and Mircea are welcome to smoke your cigars and laugh about the people going bankrupt from medical bills in the corrupt profit system in this country.
The "facts" are up to debate among which ones you will accept, but character, or lack thereof, is not.
So, you have another "free" market solution. Or just another person of "character" that chooses to let people perish because they cannot afford care?
If you want to read about how medicare was destroyed, just read about how Part D, prescription drug coverage, was passed by Republicans. The chief actuary for medicare said the projections of cost by Republican was about 60% of what it would really be----he was fired.
So you and Mircea are welcome to smoke your cigars and laugh about the people going bankrupt from medical bills in the corrupt profit system in this country.
The "facts" are up to debate among which ones you will accept, but character, or lack thereof, is not.
I don't think you've been on CDF that long, Warden. I've been on several years and I remember the debates we used to have over whether the "Affordable Care Act" should be passed. There were some excellent people who argued all sides of this issue. I had to admit there were plenty of good arguments on both sides.
There was one argument though that was made by people opposing the Affordable Care Act that still makes me angry to this day. A number of posters (who I would describe as the opposite of "thoughtful people") would jump into these debates frequently and announce that they were totally opposed to "Obama's socialized medicine agenda". The reason they gave for this is because they were happy with their health insurance at work and they didn't want anything that could interfere with that.
Apparently, there is a rather selfish group in this country that believes we ought to make public policy based on what has been good for them. We can ignore the fact that 46 million people were left without health insurance under the status quo. We can ignore the problems that existed with all the health plans that offered totally inadequate coverage at exorbitant prices. We can ignore the fact that insurance or no insurance may mean life and death to some people. No, what they believe is important is that the whole system should be structured around keeping things just the way they are which is the only thing that will make them happy.
I really had to listen to some of these folks for awhile to recognize how far down the path of utter selfishness and greed a segment of this country has wandered. Its important for those of us who care about America and want a decent future for our children to realize that these folks exist and they exist in larger numbers than you might realize at first. Are they entitled to their opinions? Of course they are. Should they be a serious factor for the rest of us when we make public policy? I hope not.
So, you have another "free" market solution. Or just another person of "character" that chooses to let people perish because they cannot afford care?
If you want to read about how medicare was destroyed, just read about how Part D, prescription drug coverage, was passed by Republicans. The chief actuary for medicare said the projections of cost by Republican was about 60% of what it would really be----he was fired.
So you and Mircea are welcome to smoke your cigars and laugh about the people going bankrupt from medical bills in the corrupt profit system in this country.
The "facts" are up to debate among which ones you will accept, but character, or lack thereof, is not.
The facts were presented and you lost due to your emotional personal attacks on the messenger because you failed to win the argument. All the above was rebutted but you keep talking over everyne in your desperate attempts to drown out logic and fact.
I laugh at no one. The American people are going to suffer tremendously due to this abomination called affordable care. No one can afford it. Your character is the one brought into question on this thread as evidenced by behavior towards people who disagree with you.
Your facts are up for debate, not his, because of the dubious sources that you use. And please spare us your phony compassion, its you ego talking and everyone but you sees thru it.
The facts were presented and you lost due to your emotional personal attacks on the messenger because you failed to win the argument. All the above was rebutted but you keep talking over everyne in your desperate attempts to drown out logic and fact.
I laugh at no one. The American people are going to suffer tremendously due to this abomination called affordable care. No one can afford it. Your character is the one brought into question on this thread as evidenced by behavior towards people who disagree with you.
Your facts are up for debate, not his, because of the dubious sources that you use. And please spare us your phony compassion, its you ego talking and everyone but you sees thru it.
Mircea didn't rebut a thing. He simply makes a point, ad nauseam, that if the cost of healthcare is "X" you have to pay "X". That's his point in a nutshell, once you cut through all the condescension which has become the trademark of virtually every post he writes on CDF.
There a host of problems with this. First, other countries have found ways to provide the same level of care that we do at a lesser cost. The fact that a budget or ceiling is imposed on the cost of care creates a huge incentive within those societies to make the system more efficient than it is. Second, he conveniently overlooks something more important than the "cost of healthcare". What he ought to be looking at are surveys of patient satisfaction with health care systems. The USA comes in way behind in these surveys when the public in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, or New Zealand are compared. If more people are satisfied with the healthcare system in their country than Americans are with their system, than it suggests that despite what is being spent, the greater value is being received in countries other than the USA. Third, one of the problems that exists in this country is that some insurance plans actually encourage the provision of healthcare services that are unnecessary. There are private insurance plans that pay for services such as purely cosmetic plastic surgery and liposuction. This is hardly "necessary" medical care. Yet, if you add it up as part of the overall budget its going to make it look bigger than it needs to be. Without even trying too, I find lots of waste in our healthcare system. Hospitals, ought to be hospitals, not luxury hotels. The standard used to be double rooms or even wards for patients. Now, the standard is private rooms equipped with any convenience possible. The local hospital here has a one acre pond complete with a time-controlled water geyser surrounded by pine trees and a covered lunch area. Yes, I guess healthcare is expensive when that becomes part of the cost.
You're also missing the whole "character argument". For example, Warden and I might not see entirely eye-to-eye on the issues of healthcare reform. However, its obvious from his many postings that his goal is to try to provide a good health care system that will cover everyone in the USA regardless of their wealth. This is the definition of universal care. I agree with his premise. You and Mircea apparently don't. That's where the whole "character issue" comes in. You are willing to permit people to suffer and die from the want of a universal healthcare system. That's an issue much greater than some of the details of that system that most of us here are discussing. Its that which explains the outright disdain for the arguments you're making.
I'm not sure what your values actually are. What it sounds like to me is that you both want a health care system that caters as much as possible to your own personal needs and the rest of us can be damned. If I'm wrong about that feel free to explain what you really believe in. People who believe in "me first" (and nothing else) shouldn't expect widespread support for their views.
Here's a fact for you, Mircea. You're senseless worry about the dollars (although the Affordable Care Act would be revenue neutral), is leaving 50 million people without insurance coverage.
The numbers you quote and I quote are at odds with one another--and can be debated.
The fact that people are dying because of lack of healthcare in this country is not subject to debate.
The callousness you display toward those people is what I stated before---an issue of character.
The rich never see their selfishness as callous. They just smile and count their gold.
Keep fighting the good fight, that's all I can say. I love the NHS in Britain, but I know America will never have or accept a full NHS. The German system would be a great model to follow, but that would involve more regulation and some of the "haves" swallowing it and accepting that to live in a democratic and developed society, you have to put measures in place to ensure that the less fortunate are taken care of, regardless of whether you think their problems are self-inflicted.
That mircea guy is hilarious. He seems like some attorney with too much time on his hands, spewing out endless facts and figures and trying to come up with witty signatures. Typical bourgeoisie 21st century "I've got mine Jack" mentality that would have resulted in a beheading during the French Revolution. While I don't advocate utilising the guillotine, I have no love or compassion for callous, cruel and selfish individuals who are borderline or complete sociopaths who would have been right at home as members of the German Nazi Party.
Here comes the liberal tag team tactics - Trite and unfounded, at best. The personal attacks are the
last resort . Anyone who disagrees is a bad person, right ?
Here's some real compassion, when this abomination fails, and it will, every American will suffer dire consequences. I have compassion for my fellow countrymen, even those opposed to my beliefs, because this is my country and you are all my neighbors. What you don't get is I can love you but it doesn't mean I like your beliefs nor does it mean you are calloused or bad people.
The best part of this country is that people can disagree and if they have any real character they don't find it necessary to attack or smear those of a different opinion.
I want to see all my countrymen have affordable health care but I believe there is a better way and we never got there because this law was rushed & jammed down our throats and passed behind closed doors in the dark of night via political manuvering and arm twisting of gargantuan proportion.
The burden should be shared by everyone at all income levels. IF you are so caring and have enough money to spare show your compassion and write a check to the treasury every year. Or better yet,take care of your own health by practicing a moderate diet, not smoking and not abusing alcohol and drugs so you won't have to use the system and it will be more available to those who really need it. Time to start walking like you talk, folks.
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.
How Germany's system really works
