Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2010, 02:38 PM
 
4,522 posts, read 4,066,067 times
Reputation: 2247

Advertisements

Last I checked, every country that is "socialized" spends far less of their GDP on health care than we do with our system. Doesn't some modification moke sense?

I see patients all the time that neglect problems due to 1) primary docs being unavailable or 2) primary docs being too expensive. By the time they get to the ER a simple fix has become a big problem. Not a lot of fiscal sense there.

At the very least, can we agree that children should be entirely paid for as well as those with genetic problems (Down's syndrome, spina bifida, other handicaps)? Last I checked, no kids asked to be born. Yet they're ones that are punished if mommy and daddy can't afford care for them and there isn't some form of care available. (call me a socialist but I don't think the kids should be punished on that one)

I can just see it now. 10 year old Timmy has cancer, mom and dad can't afford treatment: "sorry Timmy, you gotta suffer and die because your parents don't make enough money, and we don't want you to develop a sense of entitlement"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2010, 02:47 PM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,357,827 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1 View Post
At the very least, can we agree that children should be entirely paid for as well as those with genetic problems (Down's syndrome, spina bifida, other handicaps)? Last I checked, no kids asked to be born. Yet they're ones that are punished if mommy and daddy can't afford care for them and there isn't some form of care available. (call me a socialist but I don't think the kids should be punished on that one)

I can just see it now. 10 year old Timmy has cancer, mom and dad can't afford treatment: "sorry Timmy, you gotta suffer and die because your parents don't make enough money, and we don't want you to develop a sense of entitlement"
What children are you talking about? Is a child born within our borders more entitled to unlimited care at taxpayer expense than one born in Africa? They didn't "ask to be born" either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2010, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,300,450 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C View Post
You think the average health of the pool can be lowered without increasing costs??? I guess there is a free lunch after all!
Where did I say that? I am not of the opinion that UCH would result in a much lower cost of health care. There may be some savings, such as people getting more preventive and primary care (before a problem gets bad).

Perhaps you can tell me if my daughter should be forever banned from having insurance because she had cancer at age 14?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iwonderwhy2124 View Post
Medicare and Medicaid currently take up about 5% of our GDP. If allowed to remain as is, they would have eventually taken up about 15%-20% of our GDP. In other words, we would have gone (and possibly still could go) bankrupt. If we go bankrupt then nobody gets anything anyway. One of the ways to avert this is to potentially ration care (i.e., let people die).
I think the number progression is a stretch. I have seen such projections claiming that 50% or more of GDP will be taken up by health care if present tends continue. That, of course, is absurd. Projections beyond a couple of years (at most) are spurious.

The insurance companies ration care now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iwonderwhy2124 View Post
The socialist European countries have different setups I gathered. I thought they had full-blown governmental control over the health-care system, not government subsidizing of health insurance.

And, I can agree that rationing might be the only thing that can avert fiscal insolvency.
Please educate yourself on the European systems. They're all different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iwonderwhy2124 View Post
I always got the impression that the vast majority of costs coming from Medicaid were from poor people breeding (and the associated birthing and child health-care costs). I also got the impression that a lot of Medicare's costs come from trying to keep old people alive another 6-12 months when they should have been allowed to die.
"Breeding", how gauche! Poor people do not have significantly more kids than others. Regarding Medicare costs being higher at the end of life, all that says is that people are sicker at the end of their lives. It's a no-brainer. I don't think that people are being kept alive "too long".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2010, 03:11 PM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,357,827 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Where did I say that? I am not of the opinion that UCH would result in a much lower cost of health care. There may be some savings, such as people getting more preventive and primary care (before a problem gets bad).

Perhaps you can tell me if my daughter should be forever banned from having insurance because she had cancer at age 14?
I guess when you said in post #67 that my comment about premiums going up was drivel, I mistakenly took that to mean that you disagreed. I see that I still have a long way to go to master this English language of yours.

I also can't find where I said that covering pre-existing conditions was wrong. I was just pointing out that it's not free, as many seem to wish us to believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2010, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,300,450 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C View Post
I guess when you said in post #67 that my comment about premiums going up was drivel, I mistakenly took that to mean that you disagreed. I see that I still have a long way to go to master this English language of yours.

I also can't find where I said that covering pre-existing conditions was wrong. I was just pointing out that it's not free, as many seem to wish us to believe.
As for the drivel, I was referring to this:

It's kinda like letting you buy car insurance after the accident...

I see people saying that over and over here on CD when referring to pre-existing conditions, though usually they say "it's like insuring your house after it's on fire".

Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2010, 03:29 PM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,357,827 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding.
Thank you, that's very gracious of you.

FWIW I have no interest in listening to or reading conservative commentators such as those you mentioned. My views are my own, just as I assume yours are, even if they sometimes resemble those on MSNBC or DKos...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2010, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Inyokern, CA
1,609 posts, read 1,075,006 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C View Post
Thank you, that's very gracious of you.

FWIW I have no interest in listening to or reading conservative commentators such as those you mentioned. My views are my own, just as I assume yours are, even if they sometimes resemble those on MSNBC or DKos...
Hmmm, did you ever consider the fact that when you do not listen to, view, read, etc., ALL viewpoints you have a very small and limited amount of information upon which to derive any kind "of view?"

I listen across the board, and as much as some make me see red and cuss the output sprewed, I can honestly say that I have taken in all aspects possible and available and thus my "views" are based upon fact and not spin, in addition to being respectful of our Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2010, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,300,450 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda View Post
Hmmm, did you ever consider the fact that when you do not listen to, view, read, etc., ALL viewpoints you have a very small and limited amount of information upon which to derive any kind "of view?"

I listen across the board, and as much as some make me see red and cuss the output sprewed, I can honestly say that I have taken in all aspects possible and available and thus my "views" are based upon fact and not spin, in addition to being respectful of our Constitution.
You know, we all have only a certain amount of time each day to read, eat, sleep, watch TV, entertain ourselves and so forth, especially those of us who work. Forgive all of us who don't spend hours watching Beck, then Maddow, then Hannity, etc from not having a world view as broad as yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2010, 04:27 PM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,357,827 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda View Post
Hmmm, did you ever consider the fact that when you do not listen to, view, read, etc., ALL viewpoints you have a very small and limited amount of information upon which to derive any kind "of view?"

I listen across the board, and as much as some make me see red and cuss the output sprewed, I can honestly say that I have taken in all aspects possible and available and thus my "views" are based upon fact and not spin, in addition to being respectful of our Constitution.
And what exactly do you gain from listening to people whose views are exactly the same as your own? To me that's a complete waste of my time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2010, 04:31 PM
 
272 posts, read 294,791 times
Reputation: 159
If you hadn't heard. We have Blue Cross Blue Shield and much to our surprise we are in for 7.1% decrease starting Jan 1 (with state ok). I was thinking its Obamacare insurance providers have to pay 80% to medical expenses on individual policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top