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 is obviously a big topic of debate these days. Some people believe it is a person's birth right to receive healthcare while others believe you need to pay for it. Sometimes I'm really unsure what to think. Most of the time, I do believe people are entitled to free healthcare. For example, if a poor person gets cancer and can't afford treatment, should he just die? It doesn't seem fair.
There are a lot of civilized Western European countries that have socialized healthcare and those countries seem to be doing just fine. I've heard from several sources that although doctors there might not be millionaires, they still make six figure salaries. What's wrong with that?
It just seems like a lot of people in America don't have much compassion for other people. They just don't seem to think it's fair when their tax dollars go to treat other sick people.
I know a lot of people hate Obama Care and I don't know if I'm too crazy about it either. I think it has some good points, but I don't think someone should be forced to buy healthcare. Some of the premiums under this new act don't seem so affordable. I'm sure a lot of people though that under the new act, they would only have to pay like $20 a month or something.
So do you think there is any kind of solution to the healthcare issue? Is it possible to fix it? Do you think other countries with national healthcare are doing the right thing?
Healthcare is obviously a big topic of debate these days. Some people believe it is a person's birth right to receive healthcare while others believe you need to pay for it. Sometimes I'm really unsure what to think. Most of the time, I do believe people are entitled to free healthcare. For example, if a poor person gets cancer and can't afford treatment, should he just die? It doesn't seem fair.
There are a lot of civilized Western European countries that have socialized healthcare and those countries seem to be doing just fine. I've heard from several sources that although doctors there might not be millionaires, they still make six figure salaries. What's wrong with that?
It just seems like a lot of people in America don't have much compassion for other people. They just don't seem to think it's fair when their tax dollars go to treat other sick people.
I know a lot of people hate Obama Care and I don't know if I'm too crazy about it either. I think it has some good points, but I don't think someone should be forced to buy healthcare. Some of the premiums under this new act don't seem so affordable. I'm sure a lot of people though that under the new act, they would only have to pay like $20 a month or something.
So do you think there is any kind of solution to the healthcare issue? Is it possible to fix it? Do you think other countries with national healthcare are doing the right thing?
I don't know what the American solution would be, other than perhaps allow the system to eventually implode, forcing a drastic change.
I was born in Britain which has national healthcare. It worked fine for me and it still works fine for people I know over there who use it.
I believe that healthcare should be considered a right, not a privilege. I realize that puts me at odds with a lot of people this side of the pond, but those are my beliefs and I have experienced both systems. No one should have to choose between a meal or going to the doctor.
A British ex-boyfriend of mine who moved back to the UK after living here for several years has been alternately amused and terrified by recent events here surrounding the O'care "debate". He had an interesting idea that could possibly help not only the healthcare situation but also other issues.
He suggested carving the country up into legislative regions and having each region have its own caucuses in the House and Senate. For healthcare, this would mean regional solutions paid for by the tax revenue, etc. from those blocs. If one region's solution (for anything) worked especially well, another could always choose to adopt it.
It's a fantasy that would require a great deal of organization and investment to set up, but he thinks it might be worth it for issues that cause polarization in government. He noted that it could reduce arguments that begin with "I don't want my tax dollars...". Might not be a bad idea.
In the time I've spent in the UK, Europe, and Canada, I've been fascinated by their approaches to healthcare and other big issues. I would be happy to see nationalized care or any of a number of hybrid systems, but I don't think we could ever agree on one of them here. I don't think we're too big to pull it off, but there isn't the political will or public faith.
A British ex-boyfriend of mine who moved back to the UK after living here for several years has been alternately amused and terrified by recent events here surrounding the O'care "debate". He had an interesting idea that could possibly help not only the healthcare situation but also other issues.
He suggested carving the country up into legislative regions and having each region have its own caucuses in the House and Senate. For healthcare, this would mean regional solutions paid for by the tax revenue, etc. from those blocs. If one region's solution (for anything) worked especially well, another could always choose to adopt it.
It's a fantasy that would require a great deal of organization and investment to set up, but he thinks it might be worth it for issues that cause polarization in government. He noted that it could reduce arguments that begin with "I don't want my tax dollars...". Might not be a bad idea.
In the time I've spent in the UK, Europe, and Canada, I've been fascinated by their approaches to healthcare and other big issues. I would be happy to see nationalized care or any of a number of hybrid systems, but I don't think we could ever agree on one of them here. I don't think we're too big to pull it off, but there isn't the political will or public faith.
Interesting. I like that idea . I suspect that regions such as the northeast and west coast would be the most likely to implement fully universal healthcare. It would also defragment the problem as I assume it would take certain responsibilities away from the many states?
The problem would be the sheer cost of implementing any kind of proper national healthcare system. It's a multi-billion dollar industry and there's so much opposition to any form of change from people who hate any type of socialist policies.
The NHS in British was implemented just after the country had been ravaged by WW2, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. It might happen here if enough people simply decided to stop paying insurance companies or expensive hospital bills to literally bring the existing system to its knees by starving it of the one thing it needs to sustain itself: MONEY. It would also help if the government would cut it's strings with lobbyists and chose to represent the best interests of the people, rather than corporations.
I may be following your ex boyfriend back there at some point and I'm hoping I'll be able to enjoy the sheer peace of mind of not having to worry about the financial implications of getting sick after I've served enough residency time. I like this country, but it needs to wake up to the fact that not everything is about profit.
Interesting. I like that idea . I suspect that regions such as the northeast and west coast would be the most likely to implement fully universal healthcare. It would also defragment the problem as I assume it would take certain responsibilities away from the many states?
The problem would be the sheer cost of implementing any kind of proper national healthcare system. It's a multi-billion dollar industry and there's so much opposition to any form of change from people who hate any type of socialist policies.
The NHS in British was implemented just after the country had been ravaged by WW2, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. It might happen here if enough people simply decided to stop paying insurance companies or expensive hospital bills to literally bring the existing system to its knees by starving it of the one thing it needs to sustain itself: MONEY. It would also help if the government would cut it's strings with lobbyists and chose to represent the best interests of the people, rather than corporations.
I may be following your ex boyfriend back there at some point and I'm hoping I'll be able to enjoy the sheer peace of mind of not having to worry about the financial implications of getting sick after I've served enough residency time. I like this country, but it needs to wake up to the fact that not everything is about profit.
His idea was that issues with especially big regional differences would activate the regional caucuses, but that matters now left to the states would all start out there. He hadn't worked out the process by which the "bump" would be made...we ran out of wine. But knowing him, he could come up with one.
Agreed with everything you said in this post. Until we can pry the money out of politics, no solution can be found that will truly benefit and work properly for the people. As it stands, we will always be a secondary consideration.
Healthcare is obviously a big topic of debate these days. Some people believe it is a person's birth right to receive healthcare while others believe you need to pay for it. Sometimes I'm really unsure what to think. Most of the time, I do believe people are entitled to free healthcare. For example, if a poor person gets cancer and can't afford treatment, should he just die? It doesn't seem fair.
There are a lot of civilized Western European countries that have socialized healthcare and those countries seem to be doing just fine. I've heard from several sources that although doctors there might not be millionaires, they still make six figure salaries. What's wrong with that?
It just seems like a lot of people in America don't have much compassion for other people. They just don't seem to think it's fair when their tax dollars go to treat other sick people.
I know a lot of people hate Obama Care and I don't know if I'm too crazy about it either. I think it has some good points, but I don't think someone should be forced to buy healthcare. Some of the premiums under this new act don't seem so affordable. I'm sure a lot of people though that under the new act, they would only have to pay like $20 a month or something.
So do you think there is any kind of solution to the healthcare issue? Is it possible to fix it? Do you think other countries with national healthcare are doing the right thing?
Here's the solution.
For as much of a "tea party conservative" as I am, I do believe that there needs to be some government intervention in health care... if in no other way than to return it to its former state and then get out of it.
Step 1: Abolish all medical malpractice laws, lawyers, lawsuits, etc.
Make it something simple. You go to the doctor, you are taking your chances. You're chancing that the doctor will do something that will heal you, and you have chosen to take this chance over the perceptibly greater chance that you will either remain sick or you will get sicker by not seeking medical care. If it means you sign a waiver, fine. But let's abolish medical malpractice... and lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. Nobody is forcing you to take drugs. If you take a drug, you are consenting to its potential side effects, known and unknown. You don't like that? Don't take the drug.
Step 2: Decide if we're going to remain a private healthcare system or a government-sponsored single-payer healthcare system.
Honestly, I'd prefer "private". "Private" is always better. By "private", I mean "keep the government completely OUT of healthcare".
The government never reduced the cost of anything without causing a problem that was much worse. The private sector, however, has a history of reducing costs. A while back, I read an article about a doctor in New York who wanted to open a sort of concierge practice for people of modest income. I don't remember the specifics but he believed it would reduce people's health care costs while not impacting his ability to make a living. The state prevented him from opening the practice, saying that it amounted to a type of medical insurance... and he wasn't licensed to provide insurance. What the heck?!
Step 3a: If we stay private, keep the government out of health insurance... and don't require that people get health insurance. Also, abolish all laws that bind any healthcare provider to provide care regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Make medical bills non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, also.
This may sound a bit harsh but think of the situation. If the government got out of healthcare, and malpractice lawsuits were abolished, the cost of basic healthcare would drop by one-half to two-thirds and the cost of more advanced healthcare would drop by a larger percentage. (Doctors have told me this.) This means that insurance would be much more affordable. If insurance companies weren't bound by government laws, they could offer policies that contained plain language, for specific situations that people wanted to pay for, and the policies would be far cheaper. If hospitals didn't have to worry about not being paid by people who show up, and didn't have to render care until they were paid, then the costs for hospital care would drop dramatically as well.
If you think this means that some people wouldn't get care, you don't know the American people. First of all, with cheaper insurance, more people would buy insurance of their own volition and they would thus be covered. Secondly, what do you think covered people's healthcare costs back in the day before Medicare, Medicaid, and the like? Answer: Churches and other charity groups. Don't kid yourself. Medical costs would be taken care of, if someone was truly that badly off... assuming that that person had forged some relationships within his/her community.
Step 3b: If we go single payer, or retain an Obamacare-esque mandate to buy health insurance, attach to it conditions and provisions for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
The biggest problem with Obamacare is that it does absolutely nothing to bring down the price of health care. It reduces the cost to certain people who can't afford the prices, by pushing off part of the price burden onto the government... but it still doesn't change the price. Getting subsidized health insurance is like getting subsidized gas. It costs $4 per gallon and the government will pay $3. That doesn't change the fact that the price is still $4 per gallon - it just changes who pays that entire price.
There are also no incentives in Obamacare to live a healthy lifestyle. We all know that people who drink, smoke, do drugs, live dangerously, etc. are going to incur higher health care costs than will healthy people. Yet, the only condition by which premiums can be increased is if someone uses tobacco. What about alcohol? What about other drugs? What about people who do daredevil stunts that land them in the hospital? Who pays for all of that?
If people knew that they would be held personally responsible for their stupid decisions regarding their lifestyles, you would see far less such decisions being made. Obamacare does absolutely nothing to reduce bad lifestyle choices... it just makes the rest of us pay for it.
- - - - - - - -
Ultimately, I don't really care all that much about what happens to healthcare reform... as long as the outcomes are: 1) I'm not paying for anyone else's stupid decisions, and 2) I'm not paying outrageous prices for healthcare and health insurance.
I really do not feel that healthcare is a right for everyone. It should only be a right for people whose conditions came about through absolutely no fault nor decision of their own.
The problem with your theory Gypsy is that many of the poorest people are the ones with the least choice when it comes to healthy lifestyles. While a wealthy or middle class person can afford to shop at Whole Foods and go to the gym, poor and working class people don't have that luxury. Bad food is too cheap, good food is too expensive. You don't want to pay for someone else's mistakes? Many people get sick through no fault of their own. Many people abuse substances or even eat poorly as a result of underlying mental illnesses that they cannot afford to get treatment for. Such people usually end up in the Emergency Room and can never pay the bill, so you're indirectly paying for their care anyway as the hospital has to write those costs off and will pass such costs onto those who can pay.
The problem is not government itself: the problem is the government here, which is influenced by corporate interests way too much. Other countries manage to provide universal healthcare for all at far less cost to both individual and state. Such countries also enjoy higher life expectancies, so go figure.
How can you possibly prove that someone is sick because it's all their own fault? What about areas outside of our control, such as the crap they put in our foods, growth hormones used in beef which do cause cancer? Instead of blaming people, why not look at taxing junk, processed and fast food more heavily to use the money to plough back into the system?
The problem is not government itself: the problem is the government here, which is influenced by corporate interests way too much. Other countries manage to provide universal healthcare for all at far less cost to both individual and state. Such countries also enjoy higher life expectancies, so go figure.
Oversimplification of the statistics with this statement. There are so many reasons why the American life expectancy is lower, despite amazing access to care and treatment and advancements in medicine (amazing health care, not amazing health insurance, that is). Reasons that have more to do with the breakdown of society (due in no small part to too much government interference, if you ask me): drugs, the breakdown of the family, gangs, reckless driving, and so on.
Philosophically speaking, I believe it's the responsibility of the individual to care for himself and that it's antithetical to the American tradition to rely so heavily on the government to run our lives.
Oversimplification of the statistics with this statement. There are so many reasons why the American life expectancy is lower, despite amazing access to care and treatment and advancements in medicine (amazing health care, not amazing health insurance, that is). Reasons that have more to do with the breakdown of society (due in no small part to too much government interference, if you ask me): drugs, the breakdown of the family, gangs, reckless driving, and so on.
Philosophically speaking, I believe it's the responsibility of the individual to care for himself and that it's antithetical to the American tradition to rely so heavily on the government to run our lives.
I didn't say that was the sole reason why life expectancy here is lower, but it's definitely a factor. The point is that it's not acceptable, considering how much money goes into healthcare.
Providing universal healthcare does not equate to having your life run by the government. At least with anything like that, you have the power of the vote. What power do you have when it comes to huge corporations? The answer is none, yet they have power over government.
The problem with your theory Gypsy is that many of the poorest people are the ones with the least choice when it comes to healthy lifestyles. While a wealthy or middle class person can afford to shop at Whole Foods and go to the gym, poor and working class people don't have that luxury. Bad food is too cheap, good food is too expensive.
This is categorically untrue.
I spend so much less money on food when I eat healthy food, compared to when I eat unhealthy food.
As someone who has gained and lost weight many a time, I can tell you that I don't have to go to the gym when I'm not overeating. When a person doesn't overeat, his food bills are lower. So by purchasing and consuming less food, one not only reduces his food bill but also removes the requirement that he pay for a gym membership so he can lose weight.
Or maybe that person should go into an old-school manual labor job! They're still out there and boy, can you burn some calories doing that stuff! I should know - I did it myself once!
Quote:
Originally Posted by non-creep
You don't want to pay for someone else's mistakes? Many people get sick through no fault of their own.
Not their mistake. I don't mind subsidizing someone who gets a cold and can't afford the doctor visit. But many a pharmacy has stepped up to reduce the price of drugs. At some places you can get certain common generic drugs for free or close to it. Hello, private sector changing what government never could. There are also free or low-cost medical clinics for people who can't afford doctor visits. Again, score one more for the private sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by non-creep
Many people abuse substances or even eat poorly as a result of underlying mental illnesses that they cannot afford to get treatment for.
Don't give me that. We all have "mental illnesses", as defined by the newest DSM. There ain't one of us who wouldn't be diagnosed with some sort of "disorder" were we given a full evaluation by a psychologist, because that's what the medical community wants. That'll keep us paying for their services.
Nobody is forced, or otherwise compelled, to abuse substances. When such compulsion exists, rational thought must take over. "This isn't good for me. I choose not to do it." I've been in plenty of high-stress situations. I have an autism-spectrum condition. I had friends who smoked, drank, chewed, did drugs, you name it. Still, the worst I ever did was drink occasionally... and even that is ancient history as the last time I drank a drop was almost eight years ago. Don't tell me that you need a cigarette because you're stressed - I wrote the book on stress and I've never taken a puff. Don't tell me that you need a drink to calm down - listen to some Mozart music instead. On and on and on.
Mental illnesses are created by our society. Since I disapprove of our society and I have not voted for any politician nor referendum that has worked toward the decay of our society, I choose not to pay for its effects. One example of a societally manufactured mental illness is anorexia. Okay, so an anorexic looks at himself or herself in the mirror and sees someone who is too fat, even though that person may in fact be quite skinny. That wouldn't be a problem if society didn't look down upon those who are fat. The person might be hallucinating or distorting reality, but the result would be "I'm fat. That's fine.". The distortion, assuming it is actually real, would not produce an eating disorder if the outcome was to believe that the perceived body image, however unreal, was still fine because we're all beautiful.
When I was a child, I used to write song lyrics wherein I killed off many a person who bullied me. I used to draw cartoons wherein I killed off many a person who bullied me. These days, a child who is revealed as doing such would be branded insane. Yet I never killed anyone, nor even got into any trouble worth speaking of. The worst run-in with the law that I've had in my almost 34 years of life is one (B.S.) speeding ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by non-creep
How can you possibly prove that someone is sick because it's all their own fault? What about areas outside of our control, such as the crap they put in our foods, growth hormones used in beef which do cause cancer? Instead of blaming people, why not look at taxing junk, processed and fast food more heavily to use the money to plough back into the system?
I'd be willing to do that. I'm with you on being nauseated by all of the garbage that is insidiously placed into our food products by glorified chemists.
The only issue is that fast food and junk food don't make a person unhealthy. If we factor out the monosodium glutamate, sodium nitrate, titanium dioxide, and all of the other ingredients that make the average food product look more like a chemistry experiment, junk food contains ingredients that we all need in our bodies. We all need some sugar, some fat, some carbohydrate, etc. Where food is concerned, this stuff must be "everything in moderation". I can tell you this much - I have had one of the worst eating profiles of anyone I know. I eat TONS of food because I have a high metabolism. I hate most healthy foods, so the large majority of the food I've eaten throughout my life has been essentially garbage.
Yet, I'm healthier than most people my age, everyone tells me I look younger than my age, my weight is good, I've never had blood pressure nor cholesterol problems, etc. I'm trying to eat healthier now that I'm getting older... I've been on a healthier food kick for years... but I can't even guarantee that that is working. The fruits and vegetables I eat might be genetically modified. I'm all for taxing that junk because it's not even natural food.
So how could we prove whether or not someone gets sick by his/her own choices? It'd be tough, but some simple tests would prove it. Every time you go to the doctor, you should get a simple blood test done. It would show the presence of nicotine, alcohol metabolic by-products, THC, and other drugs. It would also show the levels of basic things such as cholesterol, sugar, and sodium. I don't imagine this test would be that expensive, especially if it were mass-produced. The presence of any evidence of having consumed substances of abuse automatically means that you must pay for your own health care. (If you have insurance, your insurer had better know that you use these substances - otherwise it's insurance fraud and you don't get any health care paid for.) If any of the other numbers look bad, the doctor will tell you what to do to get them down to normal. On subsequent visits, if the numbers are still bad with no improvement at all, you'll have to show proof that you've been doing everything the doctor said you should do. Maybe take a video of yourself eating a salad for lunch every day. Who knows. In today's hyper-connected information age, it shouldn't be too hard to pull off.
There should also be whistleblower protection, such that anyone who is on any kind of public healthcare assistance can be investigated and perhaps kicked off of the program if it is revealed that that person is spending money on things such as cigarettes, entertainment, etc. Public assistance should be for people who truly lack the money to pay for basic necessities. It should not be for people who spend the money they do have on vices or entertainment. Public assistance is my money, and if it's my money, I have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with it.
Ultimately, many people would fall through the cracks. I get that. But the overall result would be that few people who get sick because of stupid lifestyle choices would fall upon the safety net that I pay for. I want the number of people whose stupid lifestyle choices I subsidize to be minimized as far as possible - preferably down to zero.
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 suspect that regions such as the northeast and west coast would be the most likely to implement fully universal healthcare. It would also defragment the problem as I assume it would take certain responsibilities away from the many states?
But knowing him, he could come up with one.
