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 06-02-2009, 12:23 PM
 
48,507 posts, read 90,633,957 times
Reputation: 18204

Advertisements

No it si teh fact that we also want to be able to afford owning a house and not be in governamnt housing or projects. You obvious have never thought about just waht we pay for here that the world benefits fro, Like 70% of the new medcines and research inot cures.But tehn even in eurpope ther is still private medicne for thsoe whoc an affors iot andthe medical care isn't what most amerivans expect from healthcare. Lokig at conditions in many fo teh UK hospiatls and the priorites its dountful americans will settle for that any more than living in small carmped governamnt housing and having a 20% unemployeknt rate below the age of 30. Many be you just don't know as much about american heathcare as you think really from supposed living here for awhile. The US makes europe look fairly small in relation to waht it spends on research ;medicines and how and when a person gets treated.But i agree euope has been too use to tohers providing other things like their defesne and having them settle european problems like Bosnia because they bascially can't.That is where we need to get the money for wahtever type of healthcare changes we decide to do.Let euope and oher provide for their own defense and equal cost for the UN etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2009, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,765 posts, read 26,936,915 times
Reputation: 12295
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIS123 View Post
I agree with this. If Healthcare providers (not just Physicians, but hospitals, outpatient centers, etc) are squeezed, they are less likely to stay in business.
Explain why would they be "squeezed"? And whatever you're dreaming up, doesn't exist right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro View Post
Why do some idiots fight so hard against a uhc system that has been proven to work in every kind of culture...
Because they are, starting with the politicians who actually have "socialist coverage" for life and love it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2009, 02:49 PM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,921 posts, read 8,345,596 times
Reputation: 2053
Originally Posted by LIS123
I agree with this. If Healthcare providers (not just Physicians, but hospitals, outpatient centers, etc) are squeezed, they are less likely to stay in business.
If that is truly the case why hasn't that happened in any country that has a UHC? Private health companies in the UK still do well but cannot charge the rediculous premiums that they charge in America. They even have to give you certain perks. E.G. Most Private health companies pay you for every day that you recieve treatment in a NHS Hospital, this can be around $100 per day just because you didn't use their insurance to get treated. So you get your free operation or whatever treatment you require from the NHS and the Insurance pays you $100 a day.. not bad huh?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 05:20 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
15,782 posts, read 11,522,101 times
Reputation: 12659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Sniper View Post
I'm not taking an R or D stance on this. The system is broke, period. Only the rich and the welfare poor get good health care while the middle class covers the cost for others while we do not "qualify" for good care ourselves. What good is health insurance and why does it exist? I pay in thousands per year so they can exclude or deny anything that I might need them for in the first place. I'm having to back off of my "it's socialism" views on this one. Health care should be a right not a priveledge. The left wants to nationalize and the right only wants to prove the left is wrong. What is the solution?
Please do not use the word "right" and "health care" in the same sentence.
Because if you feel it's your right to treatment, your demand on the government really means: who is going to pay for your treatment? Obviously, you can't, if you feel it should be provided for you. And are you equally happy to contribute to the "right" of someone else to get their health care?

Would you be happy to volunteer your life's work so that those who are self abusive and suffer more medical complications can be treated at your expense?
I doubt it.

Most people want their cake and eat yours, too.

There is a very reasonable solution to the health care dilemma - get government out of the way... and outlaw "health insurance".

There is a solution to the skyrocketing costs - eliminate the monopoly - change the laws.

[] Universal health care - by everyone.
[] Eliminate criminal penalties for giving medical care.
[] Open medical education to all.
[] Allow anyone to take examinations to establish skills in the health care field.
[] Only allow the government to maintain a "Credentials bank" where practitioners' skills and test scores are listed and available to the public. ( You might get a bigger discount from a "2.0" GPA medical practitioner.)
[] End malpractice tort - if you don't like the treatment or the results, you get a refund. Nothing more.
[] Free choice, competition, and freedom will be superior to NO choice, no competition, and bureaucratic regulation of health care.


National Health Care is a mistake

Let's be clear - government imposed national health care is not universal health care. Universal Health care should only mean that EVERYONE can give treatment to the best of their ability, without fear of arrest, with any substance. Anything less is not true universal health care, and will create pain and suffering.

Under the current regulated scheme, there is a deliberate scarcity of care givers, and deliberate scarcity of training facilities. The "Status Quo" restricts the number of candidates for medical training, and inflates the cost of such training.

To compound the problem, 'medical insurance' skims a portion of monies that normally would go to pay for treatment, medicine, and caregivers. That means higher costs - not only for the profit to the insurance companies - but for the administrative overhead.

If national health care was ever imposed, as a 'right' to insurance, it will be doubly expensive. If paid from the public treasury, there shall be an unresolvable problem - misdiagnosis.

Due to the increased demand for medical treatment, no longer deterred by the price barrier, prospective patients who are deemed to not have a problem will face a dilemma. Will the system pay for a second opinion?

In such situations, there are many possibilities -
the patient is not ill, and is wasting the limited resources of the public health system;
the patient IS ill, but the diagnosis was incorrect; or was missed entirely.

Who is ultimately responsible in such a situation?
Should unlimited public funds be expended on ONE mystery illness?
Even if it denies others their 'fair share'?
What about terminally ill patients?
Should the system divert huge sums to cure them at all costs, or just make them comfortable until they die?

I think you're starting to see the problem - any national health care is a socialist health care system. And socialism imposes the burden on the healthy for the benefit of the ill.

What's wrong with that?
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.

Via government force, workers are burdened with the unlimited demands of the beneficiaries, as defined by the bureaucracy and politicians. (And you can be sure that the insiders will grant themselves superior benefits at your expense! That's well documented in the U.K. - and mocked in their Television programs.)

And to prevent chaos and inappropriate use of the system, triage, drug rationing, and limited access will have to be imposed. Worse, there may be criminal penalties levied against those deemed to be "medical care cheats". And the most nasty aspect is a maximum monetary value assigned to each patient's life, that once exhausted, ends further treatment.

What about those who are diagnosed, given medications, and refuse to comply with their doctor's instructions? Should they be banned from future access, since they're making their condition worse? Should the public be forced to pay for their repeated access to the medical care system when they won't comply? Should those who fail to comply with the instructions of their physician be charged with criminal negligence? You can't have it both ways - either you have to submit and surrender your free choice - or you have to forgo public health care.

Finally, if you or your loved one is not receiving enough medical care, and you can't afford more, because you're paying so much of your earnings for everyone else, you have no option.

If this is what you truly want, a bureaucrat bloated entitlement system, be forewarned that it won't be an improvement on the quality of life, but a burden, and a loss of freedom and liberty. It is mathematically impossible to resolve the indeterminate medical needs of a people with a top down authoritarian system. Once imposed, the chains of obedience and servitude will weigh down upon you and yours.

see: Conservatives for Patients' Rights
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Southern NH
2,536 posts, read 5,374,244 times
Reputation: 1733
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
Who pays the 12,000? You, or does the employer pay 80% of the 12,000?
The employer pays 80% of the insurance costs and I pay 20% as a payroll deduction. Family plan. There are other costs for me - co-pays, items not covered, etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 07:06 AM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,137,998 times
Reputation: 3154
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamusnh View Post
The employer pays 80% of the insurance costs and I pay 20% as a payroll deduction. Family plan. There are other costs for me - co-pays, items not covered, etc.
That means you only pay $200 a month for health insurance for a family. I can see why you are not complaining. I was paying $700 a month for health insurance, which did not pay for everything. I would rather pay $200 a month in additional taxes and have the govt. pay for everything. Economically it is the best choice.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Orlando
8,263 posts, read 12,047,675 times
Reputation: 4116
The government employees and military also get good health care.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,377 posts, read 111,738,661 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Please do not use the word "right" and "health care" in the same sentence.
Because if you feel it's your right to treatment, your demand on the government really means: who is going to pay for your treatment? Obviously, you can't, if you feel it should be provided for you. And are you equally happy to contribute to the "right" of someone else to get their health care?

Would you be happy to volunteer your life's work so that those who are self abusive and suffer more medical complications can be treated at your expense?
I doubt it.

Most people want their cake and eat yours, too.

<snip>


see: Conservatives for Patients' Rights
Edited due to copyright concerns.

Your rant, focused as it is on supposed abuse of the system by consumers, is off-base. It is not over-use by consumers that is causing costs to rise. Whenever one hears about insurance fraud being committed, it is not the lowly consumer who is asking for too many services. It's usually a scam within an office.

This diatribe, which I am certain is lifted from somewhere, shows a complete lack of knowledge of the health care professions.

Quote:
[] Eliminate criminal penalties for giving medical care.
[] Open medical education to all.
[] Allow anyone to take examinations to establish skills in the health care field.
[] Only allow the government to maintain a "Credentials bank" where practitioners' skills and test scores are listed and available to the public. ( You might get a bigger discount from a "2.0" GPA medical practitioner.)
[] End malpractice tort - if you don't like the treatment or the results, you get a refund. Nothing more
You want to go back to the days of snake-oil salesmen? Fine. Go to any third-world country. You'll get most of the above there. Of course, your life expectancy may drop, you may die in childbirth, your kids might die before adutlhood, by by gosh, there'd be no 'government interference'.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,765 posts, read 26,936,915 times
Reputation: 12295
I find it amusing to see that Americans fought a war for independence to have a government that the people can call its own and now we've come a long way to see a few claiming that government should stay out and let businesses rule. That government "interferes" even as it acts in the interest of the people and is to be held accountable by the people.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,106 posts, read 37,087,538 times
Reputation: 4924
If the actual goal is to make access to health insurance more affordable, there are actions that can (and will) be taken to accomplish this goal. Some of these changes include:

Allowing Health Insurance to be marketed across state lines. This is not allowed now. By doing so, there will be an immediate expansion of the risk pool.

Allow for the creation of new insurance risk pools by professional groups. There has been legislation in the Senate for several years to allow this but, the Democratic leadership (Harry Reid) will not allow it to come up for a floor vote.

There are a lot more changes that will come about - but the key is, premiums will get cheaper - and more people will be able to acquire quality health insurance
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2021, 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