Will an America with free health care destroy our caplitalist society? (Iraq, ethic)
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.
there will be a giant sucking sound at the office, as the avalanche of 55 + folks , go running out the door laughing and shouting --- i am free. only reason they are there is for the medical benefits, no other reason. wait til you see what you got for a replacement, ha ha ha.
work ethic what is that?
there will be a giant sucking sound at the office, as the avalanche of 55 + folks , go running out the door laughing and shouting --- i am free. only reason they are there is for the medical benefits, no other reason. wait til you see what you got for a replacement, ha ha ha.
work ethic what is that?
LOL. That would be one way to reduce unemployment.
In analyses of cancer survival for all cancers, uninsured individuals and Medicaid-insured individuals were 1.6 times more likely to die in 5 years than those with private insurance. Specifically, 35% of uninsured patients died in five years compared with 23% of privately insured patients.
In analyses of cancer survival for all cancers, uninsured individuals and Medicaid-insured individuals were 1.6 times more likely to die in 5 years than those with private insurance. Specifically, 35% of uninsured patients died in five years compared with 23% of privately insured patients.
Okay. Why are the uninsured grouped with Medicaid? Those on Medicaid are indeed insured, so it seems disingenuous to group them together. What are the comparisons between Medicaid and privately insured? What are the comparisons between the uninsured and Medicaid/privately insured?
Nothing has yet been proposed. I heard on the news this morning that a "summit" is being called by Obama to discuss health care. They even said a single-payer system would probably be considered too radical for the US. That is the system in Canada (province by province), the UK, and a few other countries.
Which news organization said that? I really hope that's not true, because I expect the new guy to stick to his guns on this issue and not sell us short because of loudmouthed healthcare insurance industry lobbists and the Joe "I dont give a crap about anyone but my own healthy and well-fed butt" Plumbers out there sreaming that it's "not the 'Murikkin way"
The researchers saw a survival difference in breast and colorectal cancer, too. About 89% of privately insured white women with breast cancer survived at least 5 years, compared to 76% of white women with Medicaid or no insurance. Among African-American women, 81% of breast cancer patients with private insurance survived 5 years, compared to 65% of those on Medicaid and 63% of those without insurance. A similar pattern emerged in colorectal cancer. Among white patients with private insurance, 66% survived 5 years, compared to 50% of those with no insurance and 46% of those on Medicaid. Among African Americans, 60% with private insurance survived 5 years compared to 41% of the uninsured and Medicaid patients.
ACS :: Report Links Health Insurance Status With Cancer Care (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Report_Links_Health_Insurance_Status_With _Cancer_Care.asp - broken link)
You are wrong. If you cut national healthcare in any country currently using it, IMMEDIATLEY, the crowding in the existing medical facilities would fall dramatically.
I don't get that...
Quote:
Similiarly, the existing facilities in the US would fill up. I havent had a physical, or a check up, hell, havent been to the doctor except for when I had a 104 temperature in the past 5 years because I cant afford it. However, if it were free, well gee, maybe Id get that cat scan I should have gotten 5 years ago, or maybe Id get the torn tendons in my knee repaired. I wonder how many people out there are like me.......
I understand that, but that is from your personal point of view.
Quote:
Additionally, are you aware that the US spends more on health per person then any other country by FAR, and still has a pitiful showing for it?
That could be correct, but in a system like US it matters who pays for it and from what budget it is drawn. As far as it doesn't show in the "books" it's fine.
Quote:
Fact is, the US "private insurance" system is far more inefficient and bloated then any goverment run program on the globe. Cutting out the insurance middle man likely would reduce costs by 30% alone.
You assume things that are not going to happen. What will happen in reality, is that a huge "universal health care" item will show on the budget. The figures will be staggering, hundreds of billions. The first impulse (in the administration and congress) will be to cut these costs. Nobody will care that these figures replace other costs. And after a few rounds of cutting we will be left with a bad, underfunded system. This will mean closing clinics, hospitals and - the magic word - "consolidating" facilities to cut expenses. Guess who will suffer?
It simply does not make any sense. If Jim Bob is a welfare leech and chose to smoke his entire life, I will be paying for his lung cancer treatment with my tax dollars. I believe in personal responsibility above anything else.Why should I pay for people's stupidity?
What if Jim Bob comes home from a day of hard work and gets hit by a speeding driver, gets to the hospital and finds out that Jim Bob's insurance company won't pay for the bill because he never told them that he had the measles before?
Trusting a business to care about the well being of its customers is like expecting a burglar to get the dishes on his way out. Once you've signed the dotted line and they've got their money, there's no incentive for them to ensure that you get your money's worth. Health insurance companies are among the most lucrative around because they sell a commodity that they can find every technicality in the book to deny actually giving to customers when the time has come. And since everyone depends on some insurance provider and they all have the same corrupt ways, there really is no alternative to them and their existence is pretty much guaranteed.
Why do you think they lobby so extensively against UHC? Not because they're legitimately worried about how long you'll be waitlisted for that hip replacement...
Now I'm not saying that bureaucrats are any more ethical, but they have less than(if any) incentive to deny you coverage than a company does. With the company, the more they pay for people's health, the less profits they rake in. With the government, money from the program that doesn't get spent stays in the program. So in this case, I think one wolf is definately more trustworthy.
Which news organization said that? I really hope that's not true, because I expect the new guy to stick to his guns on this issue and not sell us short because of loudmouthed healthcare insurance industry lobbists and the Joe "I dont give a crap about anyone but my own healthy and well-fed butt" Plumbers out there sreaming that it's "not the 'Murikkin way"
The insurance industries were big contributors to Obama. Don't expect much. I was listening to C-SPAN this morning on the radio who's guest was someone from the Obama admin. and she didn't say much except that the "administration will work within the way the system is at the present and make changes over time"-----what ever that means, I have no idea.
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.