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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And if the procedure you want/need is denied by the "national health insurancer".. you truly have national health care.. dont you!!!
For everyone who wants the government to step in and take control of our health care, has it ever occured to you that the government may (gasp!) deny expensive treatments especially during an economic downturn? Our government is not a limitless supply of money as evidenced by our current deficits. If the government were to deny expensive treatments for cancer, what other options would the cancer patient have, especially if that cancer patient had already shelled out tons of tax dollars for the UHC? I can really see UHC being MORE expensive for folks who have chronic conditions because our government would eventually have limits on what care they will fund.
What kind of a twisted delusion are you living in?! Do you believe that the magical money fairy (aka government) must do all things for you, and that human beings have no free will without it?!
In reality, the government gives you back a few cents for every dollar that it steals from you. It cares nothing if you live or die, only about perpetuating its power. Free market is what drives innovation in all fields, including medicine.
We spend more on health care than any other country, yet we don't have the best care. Isn't it obvious that SOMETHING needs to change?
That is because we have an extrodinary inefficent system. To be quite honest having lived in a country that had a national health care system it is not as bad as y'all make it out to be and it was far more efficent then what we have now.
It was also a well liked system as such no party would touch it. Additionally when I lived in said country I worked in a political office and our central duty was to answer constituent letters and of the thousands of letters I processed from conservatives and liberals alike not a one said that health care should be privatized. A few pushed for reforms, but those specifically warned not to privatize as to avoid what the letter writers refered to as "the American mess" or "the American problem" or "the attrocious American system of health care."
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman
What kind of a twisted delusion are you living in?! Do you believe that the magical money fairy (aka government) must do all things for you, and that human beings have no free will without it?!
In reality, the government gives you back a few cents for every dollar that it steals from you. It cares nothing if you live or die, only about perpetuating its power. Free market is what drives innovation in all fields, including medicine.
Exactly! I like to add this about medical innovation. Discovering cures for diseases and funding medical breakthroughs would likely come to a screeching halt if the government takes control of our health care system. It costs MONEY, time and efforts to research and develop cures for cancer, AIDS and other diseases. During economic downturns, such as what we are experiencing today, our government would likely cut back funding for these types of programs. You have to realize that much of the medical breakthroughs that we take for granted came about through scientific innovation driven by someone who was motivated (at least in part) by profits. Take out the profit factor and tell me who in their right minds would go through the expense, headaches and risks of lawsuits in order to gain Federal approval for new medicines and technologies?
Exactly! I like to add this about medical innovation. Discovering cures for diseases and funding medical breakthroughs would likely come to a screeching halt if the government takes control of our health care system. It costs MONEY, time and efforts to research and develop cures for cancer, AIDS and other diseases. During economic downturns, such as what we are experiencing today, our government would likely cut back funding for these types of programs. You have to realize that much of the medical breakthroughs that we take for granted came about through scientific innovation driven by someone who was motivated (at least in part) by profits. Take out the profit factor and tell me who in their right minds would go through the expense, headaches and risks of lawsuits in order to gain Federal approval for new medicines and technologies?
Not in all cases often comanies do not do the foundation research for new medical products because it is not cost effective and there is only a slim chance of profit. As such most of the basic research is done at Public Universities and government laboratories. These are not profit driven because it is rare that a profit can be made off of general research and it is only after the research has proved viable that companies will take the final steps to create and market a medical advance.
We spend more on health care than any other country, yet we don't have the best care. Isn't it obvious that SOMETHING needs to change?
Pretty obvious to most of us, health is one thing we should not be greedy about. If not National Health Care, then what?
Right now we have a very high % of people with no coverage and costs are killing us...literally.
This fight has been ongoing since 9/11, and the argument was no different when the republicans had power than it is now that the Democrats have it.
If you don't think the government can handle health care, then how in the heck do you think they are capable of keeping you safe from terrorists?
Are we talking about two different governments here, or what?
Maybe because there is a difference between the government being responsible for ME (health care), and being responsible for society (terrorists). Lets not even discuss the fact that one is a true obligation of the government while the other is not.
If the government were to deny expensive treatments for cancer, what other options would the cancer patient have,
Thats actually a very valid point. Right now an individual would have health insurance, followed by governmental insurance if the insurance company denies benefits, followed by hospital insurance (i.e. grants).
Under a national health insurance, its either the government, or nothing..
For all of you guys who don't want nationalized health care.
What is your solution to those who can't get insurance or have to pay some obscene % of their salary to maintain care?
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.
I can really see UHC being MORE expensive for folks who have chronic conditions because our government would eventually have limits on what care they will fund.
