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: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,596,838 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog
Good question because there was nothing wrong with the old system we had many years ago.
I already pointed out what was wrong with the old system.
People with pre-existing conditions couldn't get covered, and working poor fell in the donut where they made too much for Medicaid, and not enough to buy an individual private plan
I already pointed out what was wrong with the old system.
People with pre-existing conditions couldn't get covered, and working poor fell in the donut where they made too much for Medicaid, and not enough to buy an individual private plan
And you want to make it worse with more intervention.
What's wrong with the old system is its gov/crony rigged system. Get the state out completely
So to you all covered by subpar coverage is better than what we have here?
The rich fly here to get health care because their country has subpar health care. The rest that cant afford suffer. So your answer is to make it subpar here too.
There is more outbound medical tourism than inbound in the US.
I suspect you may not know much about healthcare systems in the rest of the world. That wealthy royal Families members from the ME choose to be treated for certain diseases/ conditions in countries other than their own. Dependent of the condition/ disease the US may or may not be the best choice.
The health system to watch is Health City in Grand Cayman: They are relying on a combination of volume, technology and offshoring of monitoring to reduce costs associated with some surgeries. Many US healthcare Systems are taking interest.
If you hacked off all the govt tenticles entwined in the differing layers of health care, prices would fall and great advancements would be made, just as seen with TV's, computers, cell phones, appliances...
I don't know about that. Relative to wages it seems consumer goods are quite cheap here compared to the rest of the developed countries in the world. To simply dismiss the cost of a legal and social framework as a "hinderance" is a bit much. You hear the same arguments about proven beneficial things like Energy Star appliances etc.
Friends in Canada, Scotland, and Costa Rica are all quite satisfied with their health care. Several of them had insurance provided by IBM.
We have many friends who have lived all over the world their entire careers. Healthcare is always a popular topic. Surprisingly, Canada comes out on the top and is viewed as far superior to the US. Those who have lived in Spain, France, Israel and Sinapore give healthcare in those countries high marks.
Japan is viewed as the most different. Those who have lived in Saudi Arabia have the most interesting stories. Most healthcare workers are foreign contractors, not Saudi nationals. The stories are about the patient's, especially those from Bedouin desert cultures.
Those other countries aren't OECD countries with populations of 325+ million.
You are correct.
What happens in say Switzerland ( all private insurance and mostly public owned/ operated hospitals) with a population of 8 million does not translate well to the US.
There's also a huge difference in cultures. The US is fatter, substantially more violent and less risk adverse than the Swiss.
At the other end of the spectrum is China with 1 billion + more people than the US. Huge difference between urban and rural healthcare. Huge difference between ethnic majorities and minorities.
The Middle and Wealth Classes are willing to pay more to get more and could be trending towards a for profit system operating alongside a public system.
China, like many countries, has made weight control and nutrition a top healthcare priority. And then there's smoking...
People shouldn't relying on big government to get them want they want. They aren't very good at it. The government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take it away.
Not too many threads that go on quite as long as this one between my visits in the morning, and that usually means plenty of others have made comments I might have made instead. I won't repeat them, but I do note lots of comments about how certain people just don't get certain things which is probably little more than a euphemism for people who don't see the same facts quite the way someone else does...
I too have been accused of ignoring facts or not addressing them, and that gets harder and harder to fix as the comments mount, leaving me thinking that I too will simply point out what I don't think you and many others from the anti-government involvement league don't get (the GOP most certainly included) as follows:
"Health insurance is fundamentally different than most other types of insurance. Bracketing some complexity, home insurance works by charging you premiums that are equal to your expected future claims, plus some profit for the insurer. Of course, given accidents or good luck, it doesn't always work out like that, but averaged over a large insurance pool, the statistics shake out in the end. Each person is paying more or less for themselves.
We could have health insurance like that, but it would mean that access to lifesaving care would be rationed by price. Some people have medical conditions which cost far, far more to treat than they could ever possibly afford. In such a world, if you couldn't afford the premium increase from a diagnosis of diabetes or cancer, you'd simply die.
We as a society have correctly decided such a situation would be monstrous. That belief is what's behind the basic premise of ObamaCare: that the government should ensure that everyone has insurance — and despite the government's many flaws and failure to achieve this goal, a majority of people agree. But what this conviction means in practice is that there must be systematic transfers from the healthy to the sick. That is the foundation of all health insurance systems, from Medicare to private plans, which could not possibly exist without extensive government regulations and subsidies."
We can probably go back-and-forth about all we personally think is most important to consider, but what's the point if we can't start with an agreed upon premise? What is explained above and further addressed in this article basically explains the premise that I believe we have to recognize and accept or else all other facts, reason and logic simply don't compute.
Hard to believe that you can't understand a couple simple facts.
- The people paying the bill can't afford the premiums
- Obamacare if FAILING!,
- Everyone will lose their insurance if nothing is done.
Ignoring these facts is a big reason why Democrats lost over 1000 legislative seats and the presidency. And LOL, you still IGNORE the problem.... Is your issue stupidity, ignorance or brainwashing?
Hyperbole much?
Most insured people are insured via their employers subsidized healthcare plans.
In terms of percentage, those insured by Individual Plans, is small in comparison to all insured people.
Insurers have been exiting the Individual Plan markets for more than 25 years. When faced with the prospect of no or few insurers willing to underwrite Individual Plans in some state, manh states got creative. Some chose to subsidize insurers. Some made insurers ability to continue to write financially lucrative Large Group and Medicare Supplimental Plans dependent on continuing to offer Individual Plans, regardless of premiums.
All people are not at risk of loosing their insurance.
Because the government tried to fix a problem we didn't have. Government run healthcare will not work in this country. The amount of taxation required and the cost overruns would be laughable. We don't have nearly enough doctors, you'd be waiting for years to see a specialist. This is why individual states won't do it. We have small states like Vermont with socialists running the joint that can not pass it. You can't nationalize a 4 trillion dollar industry in this country it's completely impractical.
your argument is made up nonsense. We have more than enough doctors today there would be no shortage, that is just nonsense and you can't back it up with data.
furthermore there are no socialist running any US states, get your facts straight. rhetoric belongs on FOX.
as to cost overruns ? what are you talking about?????
Healthcare would not be a cost plus system, use your head man.
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.
