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.
Why I can't seem to get any liberal to explain to me is why we should steal money from those who have earned it to give to those who haven't? I don't want people without health insurance to die, but I also care about my own well being. I enjoy going on vacation twice a year, having new clothes to wear, etc. I don't want to give that up so some welfare liberal can be healthy, sorry.
You must have missed my earlier posts. The cost of providing health care to everyone through an increase in taxes wouldn't be more than individuals, employers and the government (taxpayers) are paying now, it would just be paid differently. You are paying now though increased cost of goods & services need to for businesses to buy private insurance for their employees, tax support for current government based programs and your own premiums. Those premiums include the cost for insurance company profits, their marketing/sales departments (very expensive considering they are constantly trying to win clients from other insurance companies), their lobbying and political contribution efforts, the duplication of administrative costs, and finally, those people they employ to deny coverage to policy holders.
I don't know if people on welfare are liberal or not, my experience with them is that few really have any political philosophy. The liberals I know are working or middle class who take vacations and have health insurance, too. There are any number of famous liberals who are quite wealth. The liberals I know work hard but they also know they have been blessed with intelligence, talent and luck. While they enjoy the rewards they get from whatever combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck they might have experienced, they are unwilling to turn their backs on those less fortunate. Many of those people are the ones who provided goods and services to those with more and do so while working minimum wage jobs. The think it only right that everyone have access to health care even though their income level prevents them from paying for it.
We don't want insurance, we want health care when we need it and we want that for everyone, even those less fortunate than we.
After all, that good luck that was a part of how we got to where we are can go bad at any time and we, too, may end up sick or injured, poor and unemployed.
That's not the point, you guys keep bashing our system and puttng socialised medicine on a pedestal.
I have been taking medications for a chronic condition since I was 12, and I have never had a medicine declined by my insurance company unless it was extremely off lablel. Anytime something is not covered by my insurance plan my doctor fills out a simple appeals form, giving the reasons why I need such and such procedure or medication and they ALWAYS approve it.
Back in April I needed a DEXA scan of the bones. My insurance company would not cover it because I am only 23. My doctor explained that I was taking a medication that put me at a high risk of developing osteoporosis, put a little scientific evidence behind it and voila! It was covered.
That's not the point!!!
Okay.. let's look at someting here for a minute.
Is ANY system ABSOLUTELY PERFECT>. NO.
BUT.. we are the ONLY MODERN DEMOCRACY int he world.. that doesn't cover ALL of it's citizens..
It's the ONLY country where people are truly going bankrupt when they get ill.
THE POINT IS.. that while NO SYSTEM IS OR EVER WILL BE PERFECT.. they are FAR BETTER than our system PERIOD!!!!!!
THAT is the point!
So while in the socialized system (as is in the private system here too) someone may not be "approved" for a new drug or treatment.. BUT the difference is they WILL BE ABLE TO GET TREATMENT PERIOD.. whereas here in the U.S .. get something like cancer and you will not get treatment because you can't afford it!!
No, they are proof that the system you guys idolise is not without it's flaws as well. Earlier in this thread I posted the story of a Ms. Ann Marie Rogers, who back in 2006 had to fight the British NHS for her breast cancer medication "Herceptin", which they were not covering at the time. She had to take out thousands of British Pounds in loans, because the NHS was not covering the drug at the time.
It makes me think of the sob story about how when Chairman 0bama's mother was ill, he claims she was more worried about the bills than getting well. It seems though, that these things happen even in countries with socialised medicine. Socialised medicine in not the best thing since sliced bread.
Not to mention, how are we going to pay for it without stealing from people who do have it?
The drug extended her life a few weeks at the cost of 10s of thousands of pounds. Like it or not, our ability to pay has not kept up with the cost of the science and this is true regardless of the system of health care delivery -- insurance company run or government run. Decisions like this are being made every day by insurance companies in our current system.
I heard about a woman denied coverage for her cancer because she failed to disclose a pre-existing condition when she purchased her policy. The conditions? Acne and rapid heart beat. She apparently had those palpitations common to women of a certain age but never sought treatment -- if she had, it would have been on her medical records. It never occurred to her to report either. But the insurance company used it to deny expensive cancer coverage. They would have gladly continued to take her policy payments indefinitely without searching for pre-existing conditions if she hadn't developed cancer. But if we had socialized medicine, there would have been no issue -- acne, rapid heart beat, cancer would have all been treated.
That's not the point, you guys keep bashing our system and puttng socialised medicine on a pedestal.
Our current insurance-run system sucks and everyone should realize it. The only real issue is how to fix it. No one puts socialized medicine on a pedestal, but many are realizing that it is a better option than the profit seeking insurance-company run system we have now.
Location: where the moss is taking over the villages
2,184 posts, read 5,552,191 times
Reputation: 1270
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
I've noticed a trend from the righties to drag out and brush off leftie slogans from the Bush43 era and merely change the name, ignoring for the moment that they ahven't applied to Bamers yet.
AM.... are you saying i'm a... righty... or a leftie?
I like my health care. Anyone who tries to take it from me is going to have a fight on their hands. I have said it before and I will say it again, I would rather the for profit insurance companies make decisions about my life than some anti-LIFE commie pinko democrat in congress, or anyone they have chosen to do the job.
The point - Preventative care does not cut costs/save money like the dems and obama claim it does.
Of course it does. The costs loom extravagance when preventive care is not taken (much less expensive) than, for example,cancer, when one has to undergo astronomical costs for chemo, radiation, drugs, etc. - far, far more expensive than preventive care. Simple logic - no brain surgery needed (pun intended) necessary here.
The point - Preventative care does not cut costs/save money like the dems and obama claim it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylalou
Of course it does. The costs loom extravagance when preventive care is not taken (much less expensive) than, for example,cancer, when one has to undergo astronomical costs for chemo, radiation, drugs, etc. - far, far more expensive than preventive care. Simple logic - no brain surgery needed (pun intended) necessary here.
As with many issues, the truth lies somewhere in between. Preventive (not preventative) care does save lots of money for the patient. Find a breast lump before it metastasizes, and you've save the pt. a lot of money. The problem is, you might have to do a lot of mammograms to find that one lump. However, in the case of immunizations, they are a proven money saver. Go to Immunization Action Coalition and you can find cost/benefit analyses for the various vaccines.
yeah, preventive care is not always cheaper when you factor in people who are healthy being screened for things they don't have.
but i think it's worth it to catch cancers and other conditions early, and save people's lives. never mind the simple fact of going in for a check up and getting called out on unhealthy habits can spur a lifestyle change that prevents future problems. call me a commie if you want.
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.
