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.
You are grasping for straws. Every other country that has a universal system has lower costs than the U.S. Your explanation for this is, "it must be something else," instead of the obvious common attribute that they all have a universal system.
This just means that you are not open to persuasion through facts and evidence. You have made up your mind and are closed to anything contrary to what you have already concluded. There is use discussing this with a closed-mind.
So you think a population that's over 65% overweight has no bearing on the cost of the health system? We're so unhealthy that they had to create a new type of diabetes for people who cause it unto themselves thanks to unhealthy habits.
Maybe I should make a graph showing that fat countries tend to have higher costs and then proclaim that I'm the victor of the argument like you did.
By allocating money spent abroad into the public health care here. Now quit trolling.
I would like to see what Ron Paul's plan is on providing such public health care plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
So you think a population that's over 65% overweight has no bearing on the cost of the health system? We're so unhealthy that they had to create a new type of diabetes for people who cause it unto themselves thanks to unhealthy habits.
Maybe I should make a graph showing that fat countries tend to have higher costs and then proclaim that I'm the victor of the argument like you did.
Good point. It would make for an even better argument if we consider why America is fattening up.
So you think a population that's over 65% overweight has no bearing on the cost of the health system? We're so unhealthy that they had to create a new type of diabetes for people who cause it unto themselves thanks to unhealthy habits.
Maybe I should make a graph showing that fat countries tend to have higher costs and then proclaim that I'm the victor of the argument like you did.
Don't worry Michele is fixing all that obesity stuff. Or they'll just ship em off to mandatory fat camps here soon. Probably in the bill somewhere nobody read.
How come liberals' justification for public health care revolves around emotional appeals like: "you would rather people die in the streets?"
With 80% or so of this country having some form of health coverage, I am not sure that people literally dying in the streets is a rampant problem.
If you'd like to come up with a better solution for why I should trust the Federal Government, the most inept organization in the US, to control my health care, then I'm all ears.
I'm a centrist right independent, I'm not a liberal. No, many don't die in the streets, they die at home or in a facility because many never had the proper treatment in the first place. Our system is so convoluted it needs serious fixing and streamlining.
To fix it, very large groups need to be created, states need to unite with the federal government to control and I mean call the shots with these insurance carriers what they will do and what they can not do. Prices for pharmaceuticals will be negotiated like they should have been years ago. There needs to be a basic one-payer plan for all Americans and supplemental private insurance regulated by the states under federal oversite. If these insurance companies don't like it they can set up shop in Brazil instead. Those who stay along with the others who take the place of those who split or are insuring cars instead will do just fine in profits. VA, Medicare and Madicaid will be eliminated. Our goods and services will be much more competitive in the global markets.
People will not die because of a lack of care. Small business can start making profits. Folks can now move on to better jobs because they are not hammered down with a dead-end job because of insurance which is ridiculous in the first place. Another words people will become healthier and believe it or not freer. And one other thing if a state screws it up people will vote with their feet if not the lever. If the fed really screws it up and because this would effect so many people at one time, not devied up like it is now, their ass will certainly hear about in a extremely fast manner. People will be voted out in very quick order from both parties. And they know it!
You didn't prove that public health care will lessen costs. That graph doesn't demonstrate a causal relationship between the two variables. Sorry. Costs won't be lessened in this country until people begin taking care of themselves.
So which is it? Is it because the government keeps meddling in the health care of the nation or is it all the peoples fault.
Sounds like a variation of the old complaint, "If it wasn't for all those pesky sick people, health care would be a great business."
SECOND POINT: Europe has government too and their government is much more involved in health care. The results are that their health care costs are 1/2 of the U.S. private system and their success rate is better.
The right-wing argument that government is the cause of everything bad is not evident here. Since 1970, Medicare costs have been rising at an 8.8% annual cost compared to private insurance's 9.9%. Had private insurance done as well as Medicare, overall costs would be 30% lower today. The lesson from real samples, and not Ayn Rand mythology, is that government involvement is a plus in health care.
...and Europe is in default, belly up, financially bankrupt, ect...
We are $15 trillion in debt, and Medicare is in danger of going bankrupt in ten years. I know it sounds good, free health care for all Americans, but do you seriously think now is the time to add a new multi-trillion dollar health care program to this nation's debt??
How about we seriously look into why health care costs are so high, and act to lower those costs, before we simply just let the taxpayers absorb them all?
blah, blah, balh, you never made the case for why the solution is that federal government should take over our nation's health care. you have not made the case for why a federal takeover would be better then a private health care system.
I beg to differ. Using the examples of many other nations, I made the case for why a single payer universal system is better (you just don't want to accept it.)
Better means:
* Better patient results
* Lower cost
* covers all
The universal systems I mentioned do all of those better than our current private system -- which precisely makes the case for why a federal universal system would be better then a private health care system.
Moreover, the current law, the Affordable Care Act, is not a government system or a "takeover." It is basically a private insurance company run system that has federal mandates and rules (e.g. can't drop someone for per-existing conditions.) The Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans (Nixon and the Republican counter-proposal during Clinton,) and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts. The fact that the GOP is staunchly against plans that originated from their own members says a great deal.
No, it doesn't. Your post is what's called a strawman argument -- assert something absurd that you say the other side believes in. The only problem is that the assertion is false.
Instead, liberal views on health care revolve around basic facts. Every other modern industrial country has a universal system that covers all, at half the cost of our system with better overall results.
While you say that "80% or so of this country having some form of health coverage," that also includes seniors that have Medicare (psst, a gov't program) and Medicaid for the poor and S-Chips for children, which are all under attack by the right-wing.
The Census Bureau just released its latest estimates on income, poverty and health insurance. The overall picture was terrible: the weak economy continues to wreak havoc on American lives. One relatively bright spot, however, was health care for children: the percentage of children without health coverage was lower in 2010 than before the recession, largely thanks to the 2009 expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip.
If one really, really wanted to improve health care, reduce costs and lower government expenses, you'd advocate a universal system based upon one of the better European models, instead of burying one's head in ideological dogma.
I read some of Pauls website. He pretty much said that only those with terminal illness should get federal help.
Little too late if you ask me.
That is kinda funny to come from a person like Paul who believes that government shouldn't be relied upon, much less asking the person to go to government when all else failed.
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.
